1999-06-233913REPS714301999-06-23Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills7143r8467143Bill presented by Miss Jackie Kelly, and read a first time.714309:31:007143Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Australian Tourist Commission Amendment Bill 1999 amends the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1987 by removing the requirement that the commission ensure an outcome in relation to environmental and social impacts over which it has no power. This requirement is replaced with one that will ensure that the commission maintains its involvement in social and environmental issues, but at a level appropriate to its powers in these areas.The principal objectives of the Australian Tourist Commission are set out in section 6 of the act. They are: (a) to increase the number of visitors to Australia from overseas; (b) to maximise the benefits to Australia from overseas visitors; and (c) to ensure that Australia is protected from adverse environmental and social impacts of international tourism.The Australian Tourist Commission works effectively as an international marketer of Australian tourism to meet its first two objects. The commission does not have the power or capability to meet its third object, as has been pointed out by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and the Australian National Audit Office, to ensure that Australia is protected from adverse environmental and social impacts of international tourism. While the commission undertakes a number of activities aimed at protecting the environment and society from adverse impacts of international tourism, these measures could not be considered sufficient to `ensure' protection. This has presented the commission with a number of reporting and accountability problems.The Australian National Audit Office indicated in its 1997-98 review Aspects of Corporate Governance: The Australian Tourist Commission that the commission was unable to demonstrate that it was fully meeting all of its statutory objects, particularly the object relating to ensuring the protection of Australia from adverse environmental and social impacts. Additionally, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, in its Review of Auditor-General's Reports 1997-98, has recommended that the commission should propose to its minister that this statutory object should be amended to clarify the commission's role. The proposed amendment will allow the commission to meet its statutory objects without removing its social and environmental responsibilities.There will be no additional expenditure by the Commonwealth as a result of this bill. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills7143r8557143Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.714309:34:007143Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Ministers of State Act 1952 prescribes the maximum annual sum for the payment of salaries to ministers. Amendments to this act are therefore required from time to time to cover changes in the level of ministerial salaries or the number of ministers.The sum was increased to $1.64 million for the 1995-96 financial year to meet increases in salaries for ministers under the previous government and was reduced by this government to $1.6 million for future years. At the time it was noted that, had the previous government remained in office, it would have been necessary to increase the annual sum appropriated to $1.78 million.The size of the ministry has been increased from 28 to 30 since 1996, but the salaries of ministers not in cabinet have remained significantly lower than the salaries of cabinet ministers. The present modest increase in the annual sum has been necessitated by the increase in the number of cabinet ministers from 16 to 17 in October 1998. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Committees7144714471447144Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—For the information of honourable members, I present the government response to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs report entitled To have and to hold: Strategies to strengthen marriage and relationships. I move:That the House take note of the report.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Miscellaneous7144714409:37:007144McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I move:That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as prevent the member for Fraser moving forthwith that orders of the day Nos 1 and 2 government business be postponed until Monday, 28 June 1999. What we are facing here is a procedural nightmare for the opposition and a procedural catastrophe by the government. We have a set of circumstances in which yesterday the government advised us that they were going to proceed with very important legislation to change the way in which diesel fuel operates that is different from the tax package which they proposed—Motion (by Mr Vaile) put:That the member be not further heard.The House divided. [9.42 a.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?09:46:007144Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I second the motion. While Bob Jelly dangles, this government corrupts the legislative—Motion (by Mr Vaile) put: That the member be not further heard. The House divided. [9.48 a.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put: That the motion (Mr McMullan's) be agreed to. The House divided. [9.51 a.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the negative.Bills7145r861Billsr862Bills7145Debate resumed from 22 June, on motion by Mr Anderson:That the bill be now read a second time.09:56:007145Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—The exercise that proceeded the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 cognate debate being called on was a demonstration by Labor that this government will stop at nothing—I repeat, nothing—to corrupt the process. Not only will they defend a person who is in clear breach of the conflict of interest code, the Bob Jelly of the Far North of Queensland—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that that is ranging wider than the debate allows.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—They have gone to the stage of introducing this legislation at 9.30 last night and we are expected to respond at 9.30 a.m. the following day. This is an absolute disgrace. Labor is entitled to have the opportunity to dissect this bill and understand what it stands for, because there is so much confusion surrounding this bill that even last night the government could not give us details on it. They want us to pass this legislation but then have it sit on the books for six months until they work out how it is to be applied through administrative arrangements.What sort of a system is this? It is a requirement for an opposition to respond within 12 hours to a bill that the government itself cannot understand. Apart from the fact that the process has been corrupted, it is a govern ment that does not know what it is doing. What it is trying to do is to give effect to an unholy deal with the Democrats—a dirty deal done cheap, a deal that the Prime Minister has insisted upon because he will do anything to get through this unsaleable GST, this unacceptable GST, and this is part of that package.It has taken more than three weeks for this government to work out with the Democrats the broad details of the deal that they claim was made last month, and yet members of the House get only 12 hours to study it before having to debate it. It is simply inappropriate. We warn the government that we will be using tactical devices to make them pay for this, because this is not appropriate to the way in which we treat the House and the passage of legislation through it. So be prepared for more of the same. You cannot have it both ways: you cannot espouse higher accountability and making the parliament the place in which the detail of legislation is fully and openly debated and then try to close up around it.We know how you have tried to cover up over the member for Leichhardt, but we are not going to let you continue to get away with it without penalty. It is a disgrace and it is a lowering of parliamentary standards to new depths. It shows a complete contempt for transparent government and for public involvement in decision making. Indeed, it was brought on at such short notice that the National Party whip could not even organise his troops to come in to watch their leader in waiting deliver the second reading speech, although I suspect some of those came in because they expected him to deliver his resignation speech.He pretended in his speech last night that he had delivered in full on the promise the National Party had made to the bush when in fact he knows, as everyone else knows, that what they have done is to sell the bush short because they have been stood over by the government to get this deal through. The National Party sold the bush out again, and what we should have had last night was not just the resignation of the Deputy Leader of the National Party but the Leader of the National Party as well.Labor has been very cooperative in this chamber and especially in the Senate. Yet our cooperation has been met with dishonourable behaviour from the government. I have previously warned that the government will pay the consequences of the practice of ramming legislation through the House after an inadequate time between introduction and debate. They have not listened, but they will pay a price for this behaviour.The Leader of the National Party, Tim Fischer, solemnly promised at the launch of the election campaign that he would resign if he did not deliver $3½ billion per year in reduced fuel costs. On 18 September 1998, Mr Fischer pledged in Wagga Wagga: `I guarantee that I will resign as party leader and walk out of the government if we do not deliver that $3.5 billion in reduced fuel taxes.' You cannot get it any more explicit than that. Despite the dissembling of the Deputy Prime Minister that we see so often, that is actually a very specific statement—no room for contradiction, no room for misrepresentation. He would resign, he would walk out on the government, if the package did not deliver the $3½ billion in reduced fuel costs. Well, the Leader of the National Party has betrayed his constituency in agreeing to the Howard-Lees deal, and this legislation consummates that betrayal. Mr Fischer has fallen short by around $2 billion over just the first three years of this package, but he continues to falsely claim that he has fully delivered on that pledge. But it is not just the Leader of the National Party. The Deputy Leader also made a similar pledge to resign when he was on the Laurie Oakes Sunday program a couple of weeks back. When asked if he would resign if the full deal was not delivered, he said he would. So here we have the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Leader both promising publicly to resign if they did not deliver the full amount.Last night, despite falling billions of dollars short on his promises to the bush, Minister Anderson had the gall to quote that this legislation `represents the fulfilment of commitments that the government made to Australia's rural and regional heartland in the lead-up to the 1998 election'. What rubbish! What deception! What dishonesty! But here we have it from the two senior officers in their elected representation in this parliament.If he has delivered on the commitments, where is the detail in the bill, in his second reading speech, in his explanatory memorandum? We hear the Deputy Prime Minister often railing forth about how everything will be revealed in explanatory memorandums and when the legislation comes before the parliament, but it has not been. This is a clearly quantified amount—$3.5 billion of benefit to the bush—but where is it delivered? The truth is: the National Party has been dudded in this deal, not by the Democrats because the Nats actually have succeeded in dudding them—and I will come to that in a minute—but by their coalition partner. This is not the first time this has happened.This is a Liberal government that takes its coalition partner for granted and treats it with contempt when it suits them. If there is a priority in terms of the John Howard agenda or doing the right thing to enable delivery for his National coalition partner, he will always go for his self-interest. This is but another example. The Liberals, in particular John Howard, in a desperate attempt to save his GST at any cost, are making the National Party pay that cost. In the process they are making rural and regional Australia pay that cost.The so-called promise is meaningless. It is as relevant as the `never ever' promise in relation to the GST. This is a Prime Minister who not only cannot be trusted by the Australian public but also cannot even be trusted by his coalition partner, even in relation to agreements and deals signed in blood. Let there be no mistake about the extent to which Tim Fischer and John Anderson and all of the National Party were campaigning around this country in the last election saying, `We will deliver $3½ billion in fuel savings to the bush in full.' And here we have meek compliance scurried into the House at 9.30 at night. They couldn't even scrape up in time their whole party to come and witness the sell-out. They couldn't find many Liberal members of the coalition in the parliament to witness the sell-out and the capitulation, and yet we have it before our eyes—a National Party not true to its constituency, not true to itself, not deserving of holding the seats in this parliament—and it will pay accordingly.Let me turn to the negotiations with the Democrats. We have seen the example today of how much of a farce they can be reduced to. We now have the situation with food where a hot chook is taxed but a cold chook is not. Where is the thermometer, Minister, so that the retailer can determine the precise temperature at which the chook loses its tax? Isn't it a farce? Yet it is just one of the reflections of this deal that has been cut with the Democrats—the dirty deal done cheap.The government managed to con the Democrats into believing that they had achieved something concerning vehicle emissions and standards and fuel content regulation when it signed off this unholy deal some weeks ago. But Labor has revealed through the National Road Transport Commission documents that the changes were going to happen anyway. Indeed, they were due to be considered by transport ministers this month. Quite literally, they would have been agreed now, and could have been agreed now, without a GST. First the government denied this. Then, when it found out that it was caught out, it pretended that the Democrats had tightened up the standards and that that wouldn't have happened anyway.In the brief time available to us to examine this bill, even at this stage it appears as though the bill does not deliver on what it was claimed it would only a few weeks ago. I refer specifically to the issue of the light vehicles. We would like to have pointed out to us where that is honoured in the legislation. The truth of it is that this is a tax package conducted by duds and counterduds. When you look at the personalities involved, it is little wonder. We have seen here the grab—the stampede, if you like—to get anything through to save face for the Prime Minister, but at what cost? At what cost to the environment? At what cost to jobs? At what cost to the economy? At what cost to small business compliance? At what cost to the additional red tape that the millions of small businesses around the country will have to undertake?The dudding in relation to the diesel fuel issue really occurred on the Democrats. The proper course could have been, and should have been, for the Democrats to have sought to amend the environment bills currently in the Senate to mandate the new emission standards, a position that Labor would support—and we advised them accordingly. It would have delivered better outcomes, and it would have done so without the imposition of the unfair GST on Australian families.On the question of urban pollution, the Democrats have not achieved their stated aims at all with this legislation. They went to the Australian people with a non-negotiable set of changes to the government's proposals. Non-negotiable, they said, yet they achieved none of them. First, they said that the rebate would be payable only to trucks over 20 tonnes, except for those carrying farm produce. In the end, they gave it to all trucks over 4½ tonnes. Second, they said they would not allow trips within cities to qualify for the grant. Senator Allison, who apparently negotiated this deal, still does not seem to understand what she has agreed to. She told ABC radio recently that no grant would be payable for journeys within cities. I repeat that: no grant would be payable for journeys within cities. Senator Lyn Allison, architect of this hotchpotch.But the bill does not achieve that at all. If you go to page 7 of the explanatory memorandum of the grants bill, there is no apportionment at all for diesel used in the city. As long as the journey crosses a city boundary, wherever it is, all of the journey qualifies for a grant, even if the overwhelming proportion of the journey is within a capital city. I would ask the minister to deny that, if he claims it not to be the case. It is not what Lyn Allison thinks she agreed to, Minister, but it is what is contained in your explanatory memorandum. That explanatory memorandum confirms that journeys commencing outside a metropolitan area but ending up in a metropolitan area, and journeys commencing in a metropolitan area but ending up outside a metropolitan area, will qualify for a grant for the complete journey. We will now see the redesign of intracity transport routes to ensure that they briefly leave the metropolitan area in order for people to qualify for the rebate. Worse still, since there will be no way to ensure the integrity of the scheme, there will be claims based on fictitious routes which involve a brief time outside the city.This mess is ripe for tax avoidance. The Democrats ought to hang their heads in shame for allowing this through. They have not delivered at all for the constituency that they said that they were representing in this regard. The Democrats are both naive and incompetent. They have demonstrated that in spades in their negotiations with the government. We have this ridiculous example today where sparkling mineral water is going to attract the GST but still mineral water will not. I suspect that the Democrats have got a bit confused, thinking they were getting a carbon tax instead of a carbonated tax. It highlights the stupidity with which they have entered these negotiations.They have achieved a system where much diesel used in cities will qualify for the grant system. In addition, all business use of petrol or diesel in the cities will qualify for the GST credit, even though the Democrats promised that they would not subsidise this behaviour. This is the stated position of the Democrats in September 1998:The Democrats propose exempting petrol and diesel products from GST and retaining current excises. This will keep the city-country petrol gap the same while ensuring that business and domestic users of petrol pay the same prices now as a result of tax reform.That is a direct quote from their policy and yet they have reneged on that in this package. The Democrats have failed on their own criteria. No wonder the leaders of the environment movement have condemned the Lees-Howard agreement as a dirty deal done cheap. We still do not know what their final reaction will be to these bills because they, like us, have not had the opportunity in the short time available to understand the full ramifications of the proposal. But as we and they go through it and unravel the deceit, the deception, the sell-out, I think we can assume that they will be far more critical than they have been to this point in time. Bureaucratic nightmare is another aspect that this legislation will impose. The Treasurer coined the term `nightmare on main street' when he talked about food exemptions. The bill will create the nightmare on highway 1. It will see tax inspectors, armed with dip sticks, checking trucks as they cross boundaries. What sort of tax reform is this? The explanatory memorandum tells us that the compliance cost impact will be `medium', but this means that the transport operators will face new costs and new paperwork in addition to the GST. That flies in the face of the Prime Minister's promise to cut red tape for small business by 50 per cent. Where is that promise now, Minister? This worsens the situation. This is not a lifting of red tape; it is an imposition of it. This is an imposition of additional huge new compliance costs on our transport industry.You, Minister, have sat there and allowed it to happen, despite the fact that the Prime Minister made a pledge that he would reduce the red tape and the administrative compliance. I suppose you have come to the view that his word cannot be trusted either, but you should have tried. You should at least have had a go. You should have stuck up for your constituency. You have not just sold them out on the saving of diesel costs; you have sold them out on the administrative compliance that will be imposed upon them. You are simply practising duplicity on small businesses and trucking operators through this further layer of cost and inconvenience.But it is not only the paperwork that will be a nightmare; the administrative rules are so complex that they have not yet been worked out, and it is expected that it will take six months to work them out. If the government of the day, the champion of this new package, could not work them out by now and needs another six months to do so, why are we introducing the legislation now, Minister? If you do not know what it involves, how do you expect people who operate in the road transport industry to understand it? If you cannot give them a straight answer, why should they have any faith that this system will work? Of course they should not have that faith.The government has not yet made public the penalties that are planned which face grant claimants if they make a mistake. What happens to them if there is an inadvertent mistake? We have seen an example of the extent to which this government will go to clear a deputy minister of an inadvertent mistake. The deputy minister for concrete owns a concrete company and got a government concrete contract, but there is no conflict of interest. There is a resolution of the parliament to tell us that. The minister failed to fill out his form and yet the Prime Minister cleared him. Will the Prime Minister sanction motions in this parliament clearing from penalty breach the millions of small businesses around the country who inadvertently fill out the wrong line, the wrong route, the wrong composition of the deal? No, because, as the member for McMillan says, we have got two sets of standards.If you want to get off a blatant breach, then get preselection for the Liberal party and join John Howard's government. He will cover up for you every day. But if you are out there battling to make a living, trying to get the productive side of your work done, and you have imposed upon you mountains of paperwork and you make an inadvertent slip, you will have the ACCC GST police at your front door imposing fines. Will you get support in this House to have those fines lifted? No, because this government does not govern for all Australians; it only governs for its mates, and it covers up to the hilt for them, as has been demonstrated in the last couple of days.That same minister is now using his office as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources to insist upon the early release of a CSIRO report which he claims justifies the development of a building block to create a new suburb of Cairns. The CSIRO report does not, of course, justify that. But if that development goes ahead, according to the real estate agent in Cairns, the member for Leichhardt, the deputy minister for science, stands to have his property values increased a thousandfold. Sounds like a conflict of interest to me, Minister, and yet the Prime Minister is prepared to cover up for him.But he will not defend his promise and his commitment to the small businesses of this country. What will happen to an unsuspecting transport operator? He or she will face the full brunt of the law. They will face the penalties, they will face an audit of their affairs and they will face the costs of dealing with this type of process. In a nightmare, at least people wake up. But in this nightmare on highway 1 transport operators will be caught forever. If it takes the government six months to develop the system, how long will it take for the public to understand it and try and work it out? We have this crazy notion of conurbations. Does the punter understand what a conurbation is? We do know from this definition of regions that if you live in Goulburn you can get the excise rebate but if you live in Gosford you cannot. Are they not both regional, Minister? What is the difference? What is the arbitrary line you have drawn? In the case of Melbourne, for example, you cannot get access to it if you drive the route between Melbourne and Geelong. Are you saying that Werribee is a suburb of Melbourne in terms of the capital city? What about the situation of Tweed Heads versus Coolangatta? This is the nightmare on highway 1 you have perpetrated on the road transport industry around the country. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House(1) condemns the Government for proposing arrangements which will:(a) impose a compliance nightmare on Australian transport operators;(b) breach Australia's international greenhouse gas reduction obligations;(c) worsen air quality in Australian cities;(d) be wide open to abuse;(e) increase the cost of using public transport;(f) retard the development of Australian solar industries and energy efficient technology; and(2) recommends that the Government introduce clean diesel fuel programs, and tighter vehicle emission standards, such as those operating in the United States and the European Community to improve the air quality and hence living conditions of Australians living in urban areas".This government is prepared to entwine with a GST the environmental attention and repair of this nation and to insist that it will do things for the environment only if it gets its GST through. We say that these things are mutually exclusive. We say that tax reform should stand alone and environmental repair should stand alone. We say that the government should have a commitment to environmental repair and not make it conditional on foisting its unpopular tax on the nation. And we say that the government should be looking to address the issues contained in our amendment. The great pity is that the Democrats could have achieved this outcome and improved the environment, and they could have done it in partnership with Labor. We could have supported amendments such as this and we could have done it without the GST. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the amendment seconded?XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.10:26:007150Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—I wonder what the member for Hotham would have delivered to us if he had had more time to consider the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 . He managed to spend 30 minutes providing us, from his perspective, with a whole lot of information, if I could term it that, in which he damned the government's approach on this whole issue. If he had had another few weeks, I wonder what he really would have been able to do to demolish the exercise.DT4CREANMr Crean—He would find all the flaws in it.HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—I am sure you will be trying. Let us have a look at Labor's record on this issue. The Senate inquiry, post the election 1998, is the real reason behind the delay to this new tax system. The Labor Party went around Australia on a witch-hunt—a political exercise to demolish the new tax system. And they did not lay a glove on it. Now they complain that they have had something like 12 hours to view the legislation.UU5HORNEMr Horne—As you have.HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—Yes, and I am more than happy with it. We have had three weeks of negotiation with the Democrats.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Do I assume you can comprehend it?HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—Absolutely, yes, and I have great confidence in the minister and those who are negotiating these arrangements. As for the six months needed to work out the administrative detail, we should really look at previous arrangements in this place to see how well Labor subjected this country to tax administrative arrangements over the 15 or 16 years when it was last in government.Coming back to the issue of fuel, Labor's record stands alone in the way that it has attacked the pricing of fuel in regional Australia. If we go back to 1983-84, who can forget the Keating abolition of freight equalisation? There was a time in this country when the ethic was that if you lived in regional Australia you could expect to have fuel prices no more than a couple of cents a litre dearer than your urban cousins. Paul Keating and the Hawke Labor government of that era very quickly put paid to that.Who can forget the 1993-94 Dawkins budget when fuel excise was raised 6c a litre, just like that? Who will forget the l-a-w tax cuts, and who will forget the promise before the election in 1993 that there would be no tax increases? L-a-w tax cuts, no tax increases and immediately they scrambled back into office they raised the excise by 6c a litre. The argument around this whole excise debate is about lowering the price of diesel, and here we have the opposition defending over the last 10 or 15 years the most remarkable increases in diesel prices that this country has ever seen. As the price per barrel of oil fell back in the mid-eighties who could forget the immediate transfer of the import parity pricing mechanism across to excise?Labor have been there waiting to dive into the pockets of people in the country at every opportunity, particularly on the issue of fuel. And they talk about regional development. They put a few bob into regional development and then grabbed hundreds of millions of dollars out of the same regional constituency from the increases in fuel excise. Can I also touch on the variations between the leaded and the unleaded rates of excise. We had a 2c a litre variation on excise on petrol.UU5HORNEMr Horne—This legislation is about diesel fuel.HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—I know you are a bit touchy about it. I know you would prefer me not to talk about it, but we need to have this on the public record. The member for Hotham made a whole lot of nonsensical claims. We need to just have it on record. In terms of unleaded and leaded petrol, we had a 2c variation on leaded petrol back in 1993, for those who have a touch of amnesia this morning. Do you know who that affected the most and where the lowest incomes were in Australia? The lowest incomes were in regional Australia. So the Labor Party then taxed disproportionately those on the lowest incomes by a higher excise rate on leaded fuel. What a lot of nonsense. Yes, there may have been some basis in the city where we have a greater pollution issue, but in the country it is not an issue. It made no difference to Labor—the lowest incomes, taxed at a higher rate. Coming to the legislation itself—UU5HORNEMr Horne—Finally.HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—I thought you would appreciate me taking some interest in the legislation. The Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 and the Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999 were introduced into the House last night, and we are speaking on them this morning. The effect of the legislation is to provide for the implementation of those reforms to regional transport costs outlined in the new tax system without the environmental costs associated with urban diesel pollution, while also paving the way for a new and more environmentally considerate energy grants credit scheme to be introduced on 1 July 2002.The original a new tax system proposal was designed to drastically reduce the cost of diesel fuel use in Australia in recognition of diesel's crucial role in our transport system, especially transport and flow-on costs to the economy in regional and rural Australia. With the refusal by the ALP to play a constructive role in the tax reform discussion after last year's election, the government turned to negotiate with the Australian Democrats—XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—We don't want a GST; that is constructive.HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—in order to secure the great bulk of the ANTS reforms in areas as diverse as personal income taxation, indirect taxation and social security payments. I welcome the member for Dickson's interjection, because I well remember the Democrats' support for the higher fuel costs for regional Australia in the 1993 to 1996 period. Of particular interest to the Australian Democrats was the question of diesel fuel use, especially in built-up urban areas. This legislation before the House today is a result of those negotiations. It provides for the wide-ranging benefits which will arise from lower transport costs outside our capital cities while putting in place environmental safeguards that will not only stop the further erosion of environmental standards in our capital cities but, in the long term, actually improve the urban environment.I did hear the member for Hotham talking about Labor being very cooperative and that cooperation is at risk. I want to stay with the bill, but I must keep reminding the House of this last six months of humbug where the Senate inquiry has just gone on a political witch-hunt. Now they complain that they have only had 12 hours to look at this legislation. The Labor Party have no-one but themselves to blame. They have had every opportunity to bring this legislation on and to put it before the parliament and the Senate. They went out on a six-month Senate committee witch-hunt inquiry—if you could call it that—which ended up in exactly the same position as where we started. That is the nonsense of the Labor Party's attack this morning.Back to the legislation, GST and fuel prices. Under both the original ANTS proposal and the revised version now available, Australian businesses will gain cheaper petrol and diesel. That is the bottom line. It is very interesting, isn't it, to listen to the member for Hotham and the member for Dickson. They will say how terrible it is, and isn't it horrible, and they have not had time, and they cannot understand it, and it is all too tough, but the bottom line is that they put the price of fuel up. We take the price of fuel down, and we give cheaper transport costs to regional Australia as we do it.This fall in fuel costs is derived from the rebateable nature of the GST paid on fuel used for business purposes. As the excise payable on fuel will be reduced in line with the amount of GST applied so as to ensure a similar price for fuel for consumers, the end result will be a fall in the price of petrol and diesel for business use of around 6c to 7c per litre. The actual reduction will not be determined until next year, after the final pre-GST half-yearly CPI adjustment to excise rates.The original ANTS proposal also provided for the reduction in the effective excise payable on diesel fuel used in heavy transport—rail and vehicles over 3.5 tonnes gross—from 43c per litre to 18c per litre. I very much welcome the abolition of excise on rail transport in the later proposal, which is a very important measure. However, it has now been recognised that the most appropriate way to deliver these benefits is not through the tax system, but through a new grants system that will target regional transport costs.A very important part of the legislation is the new Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme. It will provide grants of around 16c to 17c per litre on all diesel used by Australian businesses—and this is where it is very specific—for interstate and city-country road transport; transport of goods from rural export regions and processing centres to markets overseas and in the cities; essential inputs being transferred from ports or factories in the city to the bush; and goods consumed by country residents.Taking into consideration the rebate on GST for business operators, this grants scheme means a cumulative reduction in diesel costs by around 23c per litre. I stress that this is a reduction in diesel costs, not an increase in diesel costs—which we know only Labor would inflict upon us. The grants will apply to all vehicles with a gross tonnage of over 20 tonnes used in commercial road transport, provided the business in question is registered for the purposes of the scheme with the Australian Taxation Office. Grants will also be available to vehicles between 4.5 and 20 tonnes gross, where the vehicle in question is transporting goods or passengers within regional areas; between a metropolitan area and a regional point; and between metropolitan areas on an interstate journey.This legislation not only provides grants under the scheme for diesel use but also for alternative fuels such as LPG, canola, ethanol and recycled oils. Grants rates for these fuels will be established under regulation to maintain relative prices between them and diesel. It should be noted that, unlike diesel, these fuels are not subject to excise.In addition to this scheme, the government is extending a number of Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme concessions including: the extension of the fuel rebate on excise to the rail industry, which I mentioned earlier, in recognition of rail's important role as an off-road diesel user; extension of the full rebate for diesel and related fuels to marine users and other existing qualifying users such as farmers, fishermen and miners, as well as private residences, bush and other nursing homes, hospitals and aged care facilities; and forestry will continue to have access to the rebate in proportion to that which it currently receives.Regarding diesel fuel emissions, a very important part of this package is that, in order to safeguard and in fact improve the urban environment, the government is moving to introduce new standards for low sulfur diesel in 2002; incentives for the introduction of ultra-low sulfur diesel from 2003; and mandatory ultra-low sulfur diesel standards from 2006. While I am on this point, I want to say that the member for Hotham's claims that the agreement on motor vehicle emission standards was going to be delivered irrespective of the agreement with the Democrats is incorrect.Mr Hawker interjecting—HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—As the member for Wannon reminds me, I should not be surprised in the slightest. He knows the agreement on emission standards goes beyond what was being developed through the National Road Transport Commission. I come back to the Senate committees. Why didn't they get onto it then? Why didn't the Labor Party get onto it then? All they wanted to do was to play politics.Mr Hawker interjecting—HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—Absolutely. As the member for Wannon says, it is just knock, knock—just be negative and don't do anything productive for the country. The commission itself has confirmed it in writing, and I seem to remember the minister tabling the letter in parliament not that long ago. So the member for Hotham really should be brought to book for these misleading comments; but, as we say, we have come to expect that from the member for Hotham.It is expected that particulate matter emissions across Australia will be no greater in 2015 than they were two years ago. In the cities, where this problem is most acute, it is expected that there will be—and this is a very important statistic—a 26 per cent reduction on pollutant levels. That is from a government which cares about the environment, which is doing something practical about the environment, and which is implementing policy consistent with what the community expects it to do.Improved emission standards for vehicles using both petrol and diesel are an important part of these reforms and the government's commitment to these new standards is incorporated into this legislation, as the commencement of the act relies on their implementation in the Australian Design Rules outlined under the Motor Vehicle Standards Act. In combination with new initiatives in areas like improved engine efficiency, intelligent transport systems, better intermodal transfer efficiency, higher public transport efficiency and better land use planning, these reforms promise a brighter future for our environment and our transport costs.The Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme will commence on 1 July 2002 with benefits equivalent to those made available under the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme grandfathered into the new scheme. I was pleased to learn of the minister's commitment last night that those off-road businesses presently receiving rebates under the rebate scheme can be assured that the government will ensure those benefits do not diminish under the Energy Grants Scheme. The new scheme will actively encourage the move to cleaner, less polluting fuels by other measures. Details of the scheme are being developed jointly between the government and the Democrats and will be introduced in a jointly sponsored bill in the future.In conclusion, I remind the House of this government's performance in turning this economy around, in managing the debt, getting the interest rates down and getting employment heading in the right direction. To hear the rhetoric from those sitting on their hands over there—the dead hand of Labor—when they talk about a dirty deal done cheap really sends my blood cold; to think about the hypocrisy of these people in the way they talk about jobs, the economy, red tape—when they are the people who destroyed the jobs. Remember who had the highest unemployment in Australia since the Great Depression? The Labor Party. Who built up nearly $100 billion of Commonwealth debt in the last 13 years of Labor? Who doubled it in their last three years, under the Keating prime ministership? These are the realities that the Australian community recognised in the 1996 and 1998 elections. I ask Labor: please, come to this place with a much more positive, productive and appropriate attitude which can lead this country to where it deserves to be and not to take it back to the dim, dark ages between 1983 and 1996—there was life after Hawke, there was life after Keating. I welcome this legislation.10:45:007153Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—I remind the member for Grey that it was in this place in question time just two days ago that I asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to confirm that the diesel fuel rebate administrative arrangements will not be finalised for six months. As usual, he totally evaded answering that question, but last night when the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 and the related bill were introduced, the answer was there for everyone to see.HV5WAKELINMr Wakelin—Big deal.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—I remember you so clearly in opposition ranting and raving all the time about compliance and accountability. But standards are conveniently put aside in government, and that is what you accuse Labor of all the time, so you cannot be hypocrites in government without having it pointed out to you.The administrative arrangements and the compliance details—which were so keenly espoused by this coalition when in opposition—are not in these bills. They will be introduced, we are told, in the spring session. It is like the stevedoring levy: `Give us $100 million extra and we'll tell you the details afterwards, because we don't really know how much interest is going to be paid. But we can tell you for sure we need $100 million extra—trust us.' Again, this parliament is being asked to sign off on this scheme without knowing some important administrative arrangements. They are important because they are about the practical workings of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 . We do not know how the compliance scheme will be monitored and enforced; we do not know about the penalties for breaching and abusing this scheme.It is not just about accountability—but that is important. There is a lot of public money involved in this scheme, and a lot of evidence from the Auditor-General shows that the existing diesel fuel rebate scheme has been extraordinarily open to abuse. And here we are perpetuating it. It is also about more than accountability in that the practical application of this bill is of concern to those who have remained hopeful that it would significantly reduce air pollution in our cities.It is hard to believe the government is serious about this. This scheme will not start until 1 July 2000, or the date of the commencement of the compliance legislation if that date is later than 1 July 2000. That raises the obvious question: why couldn't we wait and look at the compliance requirements alongside the detail of the bill? That would be proper process, and you would be the first to be railing about this if Labor were trying to slip this one past you. It is obvious to Labor that the government is struggling to find a sensible and workable way to enforce compliance with this scheme. That is why the explanatory memorandum gives this highly unsatisfactory explanation of what records will be required to comply with this scheme:The grant for vehicles with a gross vehicle mass of 20 tonnes or more will require little record keeping additional to mileage, litres used and receipts. Eligible fuel use in vehicles between 4.5 tonnes and 20 tonnes outside the metropolitan areas will have the same requirements.8H4HAWKERMr Hawker—What's wrong with that?XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—I continue:Where there is some use of vehicles between 4.5 tonnes and 20 tonnes inside and outside the metropolitan areas, more extensive records will be required to substantiate the grant claim.What's wrong with that, I am asked. Well, it is really reassuring, isn't it? `Little additional record keeping'—aside from logging your miles, the amount of fuel you have used and supplying all your receipts—and `more extensive records' for those moving in and out of metropolitan areas. How does it work? That is the extent of the detail on offer and we are being asked to vote for that today.Once you start looking at this, once you hear from people who own and drive these trucks, you start to realise that extensive record keeping is likely to be something of a major understatement. Going beyond that, what is a `journey' in this legislation? Where does a journey begin and end? Does it start when you set out first thing in the day? Does it end when you get back home that evening? Is a journey each separate leg of a day-long round of deliveries?We are reassured; we are told, `Here's an explanatory memorandum example which should serve to put your concerns at rest.' One example, mind you—and one conveniently easy example—of Vicki's furniture removal business. Vicki is based in Forbes. She drives from Forbes to Sydney to pick up some furniture. That consists of a journey to a metropolitan area from a point outside it. Clearly, for that part she is entitled to the grant. Then she delivers the furniture to Dubbo. That is a journey from a metropolitan area to a point outside it, so she is eligible for the grant for that journey. Then she drives home to Forbes—that is a journey entirely outside a metropolitan area, so she gets the grant for that as well. On one reading, this seems to suggest that each separate leg of the journey is going to count as a separate journey.I would like the minister, when he comes in to sum up, to give us some clarification on this. Does this confirm that a regionally based business that makes a delivery round in the city or regularly conducts business in the city is going to be entitled to the grant only for the first leg of the day into the city and the last leg home? Is it the case that each delivery is going to be a separate journey within the metropolitan area and, as such, therefore will not attract the grant? Are these businesses going to have to supply records of each separate delivery, each separate journey, within the metropolitan area? How on earth are you going to enforce that? What is going to stop such a business from simply saying they did only one or two deliveries in the city and then went home, claiming the grant for the entire exercise but still driving around in the city contributing to air pollution in the city—which is, after all, precisely the behaviour the scheme is supposed to address.In other words, what this legislation seems to reveal is that, contrary to the Democrats' stated intentions, as long as a journey crosses a city boundary, it is going to attract a grant—no matter how little of the journey is in a regional area and how much of the journey is in a metropolitan area. That in itself seems to make a mockery of the aim of targeting the grant away from metropolitan areas to reduce air pollution. What is more, it is going to be a major record keeping nightmare if that business is based just outside the metropolitan area and it pops in and out of the city throughout the day.YT4SCOTTMr Bruce Scott—Read the EM.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—I have read the EM, which is probably more than you have done, Minister. I have seen the way you all sit there and bleat out support without knowing the details at all.Mr Bruce Scott interjecting—XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—I have read the explanatory memorandum, Minister; it is not particularly old.Mr Hawker interjecting—XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—I read out what Vicki doesn't pay. This is not Vicki; this is those who have a different business from Vicki. The example of Vicki is a very conveniently simple example. Businesses are not necessarily so. The system is wide open to abuse—that's the point. A number of businesses have already told us it is likely to be well worth their while to relocate outside the metropolitan area to get maximum advantage from the scheme. I guess that is one way of doing it; but what if the relocation is just two centimetres across the border?Mr Hawker interjecting—XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—Don't draw an inappropriate conclusion, because the issue is that if you are in Tweed Heads, you are treated one way; if you are on the other side of the arbitrary line on the map, in Coolangatta, you are treated differently. That is one of the problems with the definitions in this bill. Of course, that assumes that the government actually knows where metropolitan boundaries are. We are told in here that the exact boundaries are going to come later by way of regulation. So I guess we can assume there is a problem there as well. I suppose somebody over in the department is sitting there with lots of maps and a red marking pen trying to figure out where to draw the line or where to beam the satellite, to use the eye in the sky for compliance reasons.While the intention is obviously to target the grants to regional areas—we are not disagreeing with that—the problem is that some centres which are clearly not metropolitan will be caught up in these definitions, by the simple act of making the distinction in the definitions. As I said, trucks based in Tweed Heads get the grant, but trucks on the Gold Coast miss out. Trucks in Goulburn get the grant, but trucks in Gosford do not. Why should that apply? Trucks in Seymour get the grant, but trucks in Werribee do not. Where is the logic in this? You talk about it being regional development and you stick areas like the Central Coast, which is a region, into a conurbation which is discriminated against. As the shadow treasurer pointed out, this is going to change—and change quite dramatically—the competitive balance between businesses, depending upon which side of the city they are based. This is a really silly outcome.Turning to the environmental aspects, which the previous speaker from the coalition absolutely failed to address, the word `environment' was used in an abusive way in that he said that it was a terrible thing to make a differential between leaded and unleaded petrol in the 1993 budget. Of course, he does not have to take any responsibility for the environmental outcomes of his public policy. All he cares about is lower fuel prices, and that is the beginning and the end of it. Life is not quite that simple. Public policy decisions on petrol and on diesel have environmental outcomes which we all have to take some responsibility for.Mr Bruce Scott interjecting—XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—You can say what you like, Minister; we all share responsibility for the quality of air and the quality of the environment in this country. You cannot quarantine yourself or any interest group from that responsibility. We all share that responsibility, as a result of our own public policy decisions. You would know, if you had bothered to look at what has happened with the use of leaded and unleaded petrol, that it has had positive environmental outcomes.In this bill, you can point to some improvements but, as Labor has been saying and has been able to demonstrate for weeks, the emission controls in this legislation were well and truly on the books and were essentially going to happen anyway. The member for Grey said that this was not so. I will read from the letter from the National Road Transport Commission, tabled by the minister, dated 25 May, which states in relation to new diesel emission standards:Exhaustive consultation has been undertaken with vehicle manufacturers, with engine makers, fuel suppliers, state agencies and other interested parties. The proposed amendments are considered justified, practical and achievable. Vehicle manufacturers and the road transport and bus industries support the adoption of the proposed standards. And these are the standards, with one slight modification, that have ended up in this bill. It is no big advance. This government was going to sign off on it anyway, and I think that is the most disappointing realisation about the detail of this bill.The initiatives on alternative energy, which are part of the wider environmental package, are positive. But at what price have they been obtained? In effect, as environment groups have so capably demonstrated, the overall environment package, not just this bill in isolation, delivers a $7.8 billion pollution boost—that is extra pollution, not reduced pollution—over the next three years in exchange for $1 billion in environmental benefits. I do not think that is much of a bargain, especially when you consider that this legislation appears to jeopardise the goal—the one up-front goal—of a significant reduction in city based diesel use. How can the zealous pursuit of the alternative energy package, which trades off $7.8 billion in extra pollution in the cities, be portrayed as a win for the environment? It cannot be portrayed that way, regrettably, because it is not a win for the environment.I think what has happened with this deal is that the government has bought itself a bucket load of trouble. Why is that? Because a GST at any cost was the government's overriding consideration. I do not think the government realised how much trouble it had bought until, after the euphoria and the photos, it went back to the poor old department and said, `Okay, turn these stated intentions into some workable arrangement.' Presumably it was then that the government was told it could not deliver this deal through the first stated mechanism. That is probably when the government was told that this was going to be a very, very difficult scheme to enforce.I can remember asking questions about satellite tracking, and the minister confirmed that that was one proposal in consideration. Perhaps it was then that the government also was told that it would not be possible to provide the grant on a proportional basis depending upon what part of the trip was in a regional area and what part was in a metropolitan area. I can remember our asking questions about the constitutionality of this, but everything was just brushed aside. We got the usual mantra of `You won't be constructive'—and in any debate in this parliament `constructive' from the government means, `You must agree with everything we say, otherwise you are not being constructive.'The government has ended up with a scheme where it seems that just about everyone with a truck between 4.5 tonnes and 20 tonnes will get the grant, unless they are solidly city based, doing every single trip within the boundaries of one metropolitan area and never going outside that area. This legislation reflects what this scheme is: a hastily cobbled together compromise between the goals of the government and the goals of the Democrats. The government's goals were a GST at any cost and some assistance to regional Australians in the cost of fuel. There was never a word about the environment, never any responsibility, although the Deputy Prime Minister now seeks to claim in a fudgy sort of way that he was personally responsible for extending to rail the reduction in excise. We applaud that move, but I do not believe it was the Deputy Prime Minister who made it happen.As I have said, this is a hastily cobbled together compromise between the goals of the government and the goals of the Democrats. The goals of the government: the GST at any cost and lower fuel prices and for somebody else to worry about the environmental responsibility. The goals of the Democrats: some concern for regional fuel costs—a concern shared by Labor—and a fundamental enthusiasm for alternative energy. Those are difficult aims to reconcile. Labor believes that what has happened—and this has been pointed out by so many commentators—is that, in the unnecessary rush to put a deal on the table, both sides have let down their constituencies badly.So what do we have? We have $7.8 billion in extra pollution; we have a paperwork nightmare that has been delivered by the government; and the Democrats unfortunately cannot claim to have delivered significant environmental outcomes—not when you consider the $7.8 billion to the $1 billion. That is not a good outcome. The starting points in this exercise were not unreasonable and, as I have said, there have been some positive outcomes, particularly the removal of the excise for rail. But the end result of this hybrid which we were presented with in haste last night is an unworkable and chaotic nightmare.There will continue to be strong opposition from green groups and from other groups who feel let down by the failure of this deal to deliver the stated outcomes—particularly those outcomes promised by the Democrats. Despite the comfort it might give some to think so and continually hide behind, this is not some Labor led conspiracy of opposition; this is genuine bewilderment about a deal done too hastily, without proper consultation, without proper consideration of the detail. We all agree—let me say it again—that improving air quality in cities is a laudable aim, and we all share responsibility for that outcome. But the question is what you trade off for that outcome. The question is what you give away and the process by which you get to your goals.Labor has already convened a working group with key environmental organisations to look at how we may achieve these goals more sensibly. We know that they are important goals that must be met. But I have to say most emphatically that this legislation and this deal do not deliver.11:05:007157Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I am delighted to be able to rise and speak on the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 and the Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999 . This legislation is one of the most positive steps for regional development that this government has taken. As a consequence, I am absolutely bewildered at how the Labor spokesman on regional development could sit there and knock everything that the government is trying to do which will be so positive for regional development. The whole tenor of her speech was full of confusion; it was full of contradictions. I have never seen such supercilious cynicism from a person who supposedly claims to have some interest in regional Australia. It would be a great disappointment to people who in regional areas think they really do not matter that much.I want to remind the member for Dickson of something the Treasury has known for many years—and it is not really a trade secret—and has tried to exploit, particularly when Labor was in government, and that is that fuel pricing is what is known as an `inelastic' price. In other words, if the price of fuel goes up, the usage does not automatically fall; likewise, if the price of fuel goes down, it does not mean that the usage of fuel automatically goes up. I thought that an interesting little point that ought to get through to the member for Dickson. It is a simple little fact that Treasury has known about. That is why Treasury has been so keen to use fuel tax on many occasions to try to balance the budget—and Labor always fell for that little line.I would like to make another point on what the member for Dickson had to say, and that is that it was Labor that brought in the logbooks for cars. She scuttles out the door because she does not want to hear about this. She talked about compliance costs, but it was Labor that brought in the logbooks for cars. The other thing to remember is that Labor always put the excise up. I suppose it is rather difficult for the opposition to support an effort by this government that will effectively bring the price down for some sections of the Australian community. It will mean that people in regional areas will get some real benefits and some real relief from the costs that were imposed under the Labor government, costs which fell disproportionately on people in the country and costs which meant that regional areas have suffered greatly in recent years. I want to bring up another couple of points in response to the member for Dickson before I move on to say positive things about the bill. Both she and the member for Hotham made some claims about the agreement on motor vehicle emissions and standards, but they seemed to overlook that this was going to happen anyway. It was nothing to do with the Democrats or anything else; it was something the government was proud to be doing itself. To say that we are not caring about the environment is quite false, and both of them ought to be reminded about that. The agreement on emission standards goes well beyond what was being developed through the National Road Transport Commission. The commission itself has confirmed this point. Again, it is very misleading for spokespeople from the Labor Party to come into this chamber and try to misrepresent the facts in such a way.The other point I would make is that the agreement brings in new diesel fuel standards, which will mean major reductions in particulate matter emissions. It was the absence of these fuel standards that was holding back the pursuit of tighter emission standards, and we are delivering on that also. So, when we talk about the environment, it is this government that is delivering on these matters. It is rather sad to listen to the pitiful complaints from over there when they did not do any of this during 13 years in government. Labor find it very hard to look at a coalition government doing all the things that they professed to be concerned about but were never able to deliver.The proof that the member for Dickson knows she is wrong is when she says the new standards are effectively the same and she glosses over the significant additional benefits that have been negotiated under this package. I do not know whether the member for Dickson has difficulties because it is the Democrats, her former party, that are now going to support the government's making of the price of fuel lower in country areas and making the price of fuel for road transport lower for everyone. Maybe she has some difficulty because it was an agreement that was done between the coalition and the Democrats. Labor have dealt themselves out completely on this, as they are dealing themselves out on just about everything that this government does. They are now finding it rather difficult to live with the fact that people no longer feel that Labor are relevant to what is happening to the government at a national level in this country. An important point to make is that the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services shows very clearly that the environmental benefits of the package are real and that we will see particulate matter emissions by diesel vehicles reduced over what they were in 1997. The opposition are not representing the true picture. It is rather sad that we have a shadow minister who claims to be interested in regional development spending the whole of her speech knocking what will be the single most significant move for regional development that we have seen at least in the last two decades. There were a couple of things that were overlooked when the opposition talked about concerns for the environment. All you have to do is look at page 4 of the bill and see the amounts to be appropriated to assist with such things as gas conversions, oil recycling and household voltaic system grants. The second reading amendment that the Labor Party have put up is a nonsense amendment. It is absolute nonsense. Our bill goes on to talk about a greenpower invest program and how there will be a remote power renewable energy program of $66 million a year starting from the middle of the year 2000. There will also be money appropriated for diesel national environment protection measure emissions testing. All of that is money being used to improve our environment.When you look at some of these nonsense things in this amendment, the only conclusion one can reach is that it has been put together by the Labor Party in such haste that they did not bother to read the bill. The amendment condemns the government for breaching Australia's international greenhouse gas reduction obligations when it is quite clear that this bill goes all the way to improving our environment. The amendment says that the bill will worsen air quality—same thing. We are looking at ways of improving the quality of diesel fuel in this bill. Can't they read? The amendment then says that the arrangements will `increase the cost of using public transport'. I do not know how that can happen, particularly given that we will be making the price of diesel for rail considerably cheaper.Another point in the amendment is that the arrangement will `retard the development of Australian solar industries and energy efficient technology'. I have already pointed out that the bill specifically allocates significant sums of money to address that very issue. The second point in the amendment then `recommends that the government introduce clean diesel fuel programs'. Clearly the opposition has not read the bill. That is the only conclusion you can come to. Frankly, this debate is showing that the opposition is a disgrace and that it ought to lift its game if it wants to be taken credibly anywhere in Australia. I want to outline a number of benefits for Australia. Clearly, the price of diesel fuel for rail and shipping will be considerably cheaper because of this scheme. The Rail Association has calculated that in Victoria alone—Victoria is one state that has a significant rail network; it is certainly not the biggest state—the savings will be of the order of $21 million per year. That is a significant amount of money for Victoria alone. I am sure other states would be able to produce similar, if not greater, figures. Of course, that will mean cheaper transport for both goods and passengers—again, completely countermanding the nonsense in the opposition's amendment.We will also find that road transport will be significantly cheaper. I am proud to say, as someone who represents a regional area—as indeed you do, Mr Deputy Speaker—that this will be a very significant gain for people, businesses and jobs in our region. In fact, the Road Transport Federation has estimated we will have savings of $1,700 to $1,800 per week per heavy truck with the tax reform, which includes the reduction in the diesel price.This Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill is part of our tax reform package and it will have a major positive impact on the regions, and I just find it staggering that we have an opposition that either does not understand or does not want to understand. The opposition is being totally negative about what is a great new development for regional Australia. Clearly, this bill will help small business and it will help keep jobs in the regions. I would think the member for the Hunter ought to prick his ears up when we talk about helping small business in the regions, as he comes from a region too. I would have thought he would have been keen to see that development.It is worth remembering that 80 per cent of our exports come from regional Australia and the decreased costs in transport will significantly benefit that export market. According to the National Farmers Federation—and this is another significant point that reminds us of what a large country Australia is—Australia uses between 50 and 70 per cent more fuel in transport per export dollar than other OECD countries. So, because we have had so many additional transport costs in generating these exports, we have, if you like, been working at a disadvantage, and it is to the credit of this government that we are taking such positive steps to assist our farming community, particularly at a time when many are finding it particularly difficult.Increasing our international competitiveness can only help produce jobs in Australia. As I said, this is part of the tax package, and this reform to the indirect tax system, particularly having exports GST free, will go a significant way towards correcting the balance of payment problems that Australia has been facing. Another little statistic worth reminding everyone of is that transport costs account for about 10 per cent of the operating cost of the agricultural sector. So, all in all, it is a very significant development.When people read the bill they will find there are a number of benefits not only for the users of diesel fuel but also for the users of public transport. Alternative fuels to diesel that will be included are compressed natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, recycled waste oil, ethanol, canola oil and other fuels as prescribed, and including them is a very significant development. I mentioned the savings for Victoria in relation to rail and, nationally, the savings will be something like $160 million a year. When people ask, `What is this going to do for public transport?' I would have thought that is pretty significant.I would like to quickly turn to some of the benefits I can identify directly in my electorate. Wannon, in south-west Victoria, is very proud of its dairy industry. It is an industry that has been growing significantly in recent years, and it is a major exporter. It is an industry that has brought many benefits to the region, and the savings under this bill for the dairy industry in the south-west of Victoria will be in the order of $1 million.As one example, the Warrnambool Cheese and Butter Factory currently uses one million litres of fuel each year in transport costs. That is a lot of fuel. Under the coalition plan, the savings would return almost a quarter of a million dollars a year to that factory. That is a lot of money. That will mean a boost for export opportunities and for job opportunities. We have four major dairy companies in the south-west. When we add it together, that is a saving of around $1 million to the community just in this reduction in the cost of diesel fuel. They are very significant savings, and there is no doubt that those savings not only will allow businesses to prosper but will mean savings to the consumers. I would have thought members of the Labor Party ought to prick their ears up on that one, too. I have not factored in the changes to the other aspects of the tax package, such as cheaper trucks, truck parts, tyres and so on.When you look at this individual bill and then you look at the whole tax reform package that this government has brought in, you will see that it is a significant benefit to people in the country, and particularly in my electorate of Wannon. When we look at what it means for exports, as I said earlier, again it is very, very positive.We have to also look at the wider impacts of these changes and the whole question of decentralisation, and that is why it made me rather sad to listen to the opposition spokesperson for regional development completely overlooking these benefits. Obviously, if we can make the cost of transport to people in rural areas cheaper, it will mean we have done a lot to benefit decentralisation.Anyone who lives in the country knows that it has not been easy in recent years, and one of the reasons it has been so difficult is that the fuel excise, which Labor kept pushing up and up and up, falls disproportionately on people in the country because we rely so heavily on transport to get our goods in and out of the regions and we rely so heavily on transport just to travel. If you keep pushing up excise, you will disproportionately disadvantage people in the regional areas. I just feel that is something Labor clearly could not understand, but it is to the credit of the coalition that we recognised the problem and we are doing something about it. That is the other important thing: this government is getting on with it and doing it. So, again, this bill is very important. I just wanted to make that point, and I also want to emphasise that, when we talk about the benefits for rural industries, we are not just talking about primary industries; we are also talking about the fishing industry. Again, that is an industry that basically is a decentralised industry.I come back to the question of environmental concerns. I think we really have addressed this in a number of ways. One of the important things we have done is to develop a motor vehicles emissions strategy which will mean not only will we have better environmental standards for diesel fuel and cleaner diesel fuel but also developing better engines for better environmental standards. All of this is very positive. I am mystified as to why the Labor Party are so opposed in principle to what we are trying to do and have sat there and knocked it. Really, it is a big disappointment. It must be a big disappointment to their supporters, because many Labor voters also live in the country. When they hear the people they choose to vote for being so negative about what is such a positive push for the bush, I am sure they too will be left quite mystified.I can only endorse what the government is doing and support the work that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services has done in this area. I pay tribute to the fantastic work he is doing in this area and in other areas to help regional Australia. His enthusiasm for regional Australia is reflected in bills like this one which will see transport costs reduced so dramatically. I wholeheartedly support it. I can only say that whoever wrote this amendment for the Labor Party clearly had not read the bill properly or, if they had, they did not understand it, because, really, this amendment is a load of nonsense.11:24:007161Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I rise to support the amendment moved by the member for Hotham—an amendment that the member for Wannon, obviously struggling for something positive to say on this bill, spent a fair bit of time reflecting on. Indeed, reflecting on the amendment, he accused us of not having read the bill. One would not be all that surprised about that, given that this bill was thrust upon us some time just after 9.30 last night, and of course the government expects us to respond.The member for Wannon also enjoyed saying a fair bit about regional development. What a joke! This is the government that does not believe the Commonwealth has any role to play in the area of regional development. This is the government that removed the term from the ministerial portfolio. It is not `regional development' now; it is `regional services'. There is a difference. Hitherto unexposed, it might not seem like much of a change, but regional services is about providing and maintaining services. Regional development is about the future—that is, putting in place the public policy plans which ensure that the regions grow and prosper and, in turn, because of the wealth created, ensure that the private sector provides regional services. So what might seem a very subtle change is a very significant change.On its election to government in 1996, what did the Howard government do? It abolished the Division of Regional Development—abolished it. When then Minister Sharp was asked, `Why is this so?' he simply said, as I said earlier, `The Commonwealth has no real constitutional role to play in the area of regional development.' What sort of an extraordinary thing is that to say? What sort of an extraordinary thing was it for the then Minister for Transport and Regional Development to say that the Commonwealth has no role to play? No wonder that, out of embarrassment after the 1998 election, they changed the words to `regional services'. How else could they pretend with great hypocrisy to continue to resolve the conflict between having a portfolio called Transport and Regional Development and a minister who has clearly stated that the Commonwealth has no role to play?This really is a farce. This bill and the way in which it has been introduced must be the messiest piece of public policy and public policy administration I have seen since my arrival in this place. As the member for Wannon quite rightly pointed out, as the member for Hunter—a very significant rural electorate—and as the shadow minister for small business, I have an intense interest in this bill. And yet I am expected to come in here and articulate, on behalf of my electors and on behalf of my small business constituency, their views, aspirations and concerns. I am expected to do that after receiving this bill some time after 9.30 last night.If the government was serious about doing something for regional Australia, if it was serious about reducing fuel costs to transport operators, it would have supported the opposition's attempt this morning to suspend standing orders to allow this bill to be deferred until next week so that we could be given the opportunity to study the detail—that is, what detail is available. Having read all of the explanatory memorandum, I have to laugh at one part of it. This is supposed to put the industry's mind at ease. It says:The grant for vehicles with a gross vehicle mass of 20 tonnes or more will require little record keeping additional to mileage, litres used and receipts . Eligible fuel use in vehicles between 4.5 tonnnes and 20 tonnes outside the metropolitan areas will have the same requirements. Where there is some use of vehicles between 4.5 tonnes and 20 tonnes inside and outside the metropolitan areas, more extensive records will be required to substantiate the grant claim.I am sure that is reassuring for the industry. I am sure that is very reassuring.Let us look at what the transport industry magazine has to say about some of these things. The magazine states:This is how crazy the decision is:A 16 tonne GMV 4x2 with a payload of eight to ten tonnes will pay 43 cents per litre diesel tax;A 22.5 tonne GMV 6x2 or 6x4 with exactly the same engine and probably putting more emissions into the air because it is working harder hauling a 13 to 15 tonne payload will pay just 20 cents per litre diesel tax.That is how crazy this is and, having given us such scant detail after 9.30 last night, we are supposed to respond.On 18 September 1998, during the federal election campaign, the Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister said he would resign if he did not deliver on his party's commitment to reduce fuel taxes by $3.5 billion. Of course it is recorded history now that he has failed to deliver. That has caused the sort of nightmare for the trucking industry that I have just pointed out in their own industry magazine. Yet, despite being comprehensively rolled once again, the Deputy Prime Minister is still here with us.This is a significant point because throughout the last federal election campaign his $3.5 billion commitment underpinned, absolutely underpinned, the National Party's marketing of the ANTS package. But we should not be surprised that he is still here because this is nothing new. What has struck me more than anything else since arriving in this place is the regularity with which the National Party in this place have been comprehensively rolled by their senior coalition partner. I have already mentioned the abolition of the Division of Regional Development. Where were the National Party? What about petroleum deregulation, the repeal of the franchising and sites act and the impact that is going to have on fuel costs and the availability of fuel in country towns? What about the impact that is going to have on rural and regional Australia? Where were the National Party?I have said before that what is always notable is the absence of National Party speakers on the speakers list for these bills. Where were they when the government were cutting child-care funding? Why weren't they talking about the disproportionate way the impact of that would fall upon rural and regional Australia? If we want to talk transport, where were they when, in the Howard government's first budget, $622 million was cut out of the national highway budget? That is not an insignificant cut when you consider that the Keating government spent only $840 million each year on a national highway that traverses the whole of this large continent—$620 million out of $840 million over four years is not an insignificant cut. I saw an immediate impact of that decision in my own electorate—and I am still seeing it.The first victim was the Belford Bends deviation—a $33 million national highway project, the contracts for which had already been let. But what happened following that cut? The minister of the day, Mr Sharp, declared that that project would not proceed. The Kurri Kurri Corridor, a $220 million project and a most significant one for both the lower and upper Hunter, is still on the backburner. Prior to the 1996 budget cuts, public consultations had been undertaken—a corridor and a route within that corridor had been selected, and that project was all ready to go. Where are we with it now? It is not one step further advanced than it was at the time of the election of the Howard government in 1996.That project would do much more for the rural transport operators in my electorate than any cut like the one we are talking about today. If you have a look at the oncosts for transport operators, maintenance costs and labour costs are much higher than fuel transport costs. That is just another example of the way in which the National Party have deserted rural and regional Australia and deserted what they like to call their natural constituency.The other big question here, forgetting about confusion for a moment and forgetting about the way the government continues to desert rural Australia, is about the way in which the National Party sold this package during the 1998 election campaign and the extent to which these fuel transport savings—that is, for those who achieve them—will be passed on to the consumers in rural and regional Australia who, by the way, will now have a GST lobbed on top of the transport costs.MG4LEEMr Lee—They told the truckies they could keep the money and they told the consumers they could too.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I thank the member for Dobell for his intervention because one thing was very clear throughout the election campaign: the road transport industry was very happy indeed. I remember going to Maitland to a road transport forum. The road transport forum organisation had invited local transport operators along—to do what? To sell the GST package to them. Why were they selling the GST package to their members? Because they were delighted that their members were going to be so much better off as a result of the package. In other words, the savings from the reduction in diesel fuel prices were not going to be passed on to the consumer; they were going straight into the pockets of their industry members; straight into the pockets of the road transport operators. So let us forget about the claim that this package is somehow good for consumers in rural and regional Australia. It may have been good for some transport operators but that was prior to the Democrat deal. Now confusion reigns and, given his commitment on 18 September 1998, the Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister should resign.Let us hear what one trucking operator has to say about the backdown by the government. This is an article from the trucking industry's magazine and it quotes an owner-driver who says:Prime Minister Howard dropped his duds on diesel tax for the Democrats touchy feely green karma. It's fine for the National Party to say they looked after their mates in the bush, but just about every truck operator is going to be burdened by lots of extra paperwork and heaps more enforcement. Maybe every truck should have a sign `Politicians shaft me. I'm a truck'.NV5FORRESTMr Forrest—Rubbish!8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—The member says, `Rubbish.' This is an owner-operator and a person who understands what the compliance cost impact in particular will be on him as an operator. That takes me to the Prime Minister's famous pre-election commitment to cut paperwork for small business by 50 per cent. What does he think most trucking operators are? They are small business people, of course. This will not be nightmare on main street for them, as the member for Hotham said; this is nightmare on highway 1, and that is generally recognised in the industry. Let us have a look at what the industry says:More paperwork, extra logbooks or satellite tracking, heftier fines on smokey exhausts, more enforcement officers—and that's just the start of the Democrats' GST deal for truck operators.And the government wants them all to cheer. The article goes on to say:Prime Minister Howard may have been overjoyed by the `exotic' delight at getting 85 percent of his GST up, and the Democrats were happy to get their `green and socially responsible GST' up.But the 85 percent of Australian trucks which operate in and through the five major capital cities were the loser—and the 85 percent of Australians who live in those capitals.The decision to force every truck up to 20 tonne GVM in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth (and all the nearby cities and towns, such as Newcastle, Gold Coast etc)—And, of course, we do not know what is happening in Maitland or Cessnock. We do not have any of that detail and we do not even know what the definition of a journey. It continues:- to pay higher diesel tax than the rest of the country is a mess.It means that operators who are based outside the high diesel tax zones will be able to operate into the cities at much lower cost than those based inside the zones.Diesel tax rorting is predicted to become from July 2000 a bigger game than the Naracoorte trucking shelf companies of the 1970s.One side of the federal government says a blind eye will be turned to diesel tax rorting.That is what the industry thinks about the deal and the members on the other side think it should be cheering. It certainly is not. The small business constituency is not cheering; it is absolutely bleeding as a result of this deal.The Productivity Commission has found that since the federal government's election in 1996 it has introduced 1,500 new regulations on business. This is the government that was going to cut paperwork compliance by 50 per cent. With respect to their new GST deal with the Democrats, it is nightmare on main street. All the complexity that will flow from that GST deal will fall disproportionately on small business, which always wears the burden of every complex tax change.I want to return to what I was saying about this government's lack of commitment to regional Australia and regional development. It is interesting to look at history. It was Labor's Ben Chifley who first engaged the Commonwealth in regional development and did it very well. Then Menzies came along, showed no interest at all and withdrew any involvement of the Commonwealth from that very important area of public policy.Then eventually the Whitlam government was elected and Gough Whitlam very quickly and enthusiastically re-engaged the Commonwealth in regional development. Fraser came along and, of course, showed very little interest at all. It was not until the election of the Hawke government that regional development returned to the Commonwealth government agenda.Then, very sadly, as I pointed out earlier in my contribution, along came the Howard government in 1996 and abolished the Division of Regional Development. Then disappointingly in 1998 it had the audacity to change the title of the portfolio from regional development to regional services—a subtle, but very significant, change.The members of the National Party particularly, and members of the government generally, need not come in here and try to represent this hastily put together move which was thrown upon us last night as a winner for rural and regional Australia. The only hope they had of selling the GST package prior to the election was on the basis that they were also promising as compensation a $3.5 billion cut in diesel excise. They have not delivered on that and the Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister should do what he committed himself to do, and resign.11:43:007164Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—I am very pleased to support these two fuel bills which are before the House. I remind the member for Hunter of an old saying from my late father which leads me to not be surprised at the member's memory lapse in the middle of his contribution. My late father said, `Son, if you are ever going to deal loosely with truth, and I recommend you do not, you must have a good memory.' It does not surprise me that the member for Hunter lost his train of thought in the middle of his contribution.I represent a regional, rural and isolated part of Australia, and I can say to the member for Hunter that my constituents are enthusiastically embracing the principles underpinning these two bills, the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 and the Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999.Rural Australia has waited a long time to have its most major cost impost relieved and for this cost impost to be recognised by this parliament. Prior to my time in parliament I spent most of my life in various aspects of the transport industry in our great continent which is so geographically spread, and of which transport is a major part of the economic sector. On no issue do I receive more representations than on this one regarding the cost of fuel.These bills finally deliver the recognition so deserved by this issue after years of neglect by an unsympathetic Labor government that refused to recognise Australia's dependence on transport due to the sheer size of our continent. Instead, the Labor government saw it as a milking cow for the generation of government revenue. The greatest example of the lack of recognition of the importance of transport to our economy was the August 1993 budget of the former Labor government in my first year of parliament. The member for Hunter was not here then but I remember it, and so too do the people of my electorate. They remember that budget, and ever since they have been urging relief from the indirect taxation burden contained in the taxation of fuel.It is interesting to reflect on the inexorable increase in government revenue from petroleum products since as far back as mid-1983. A little bit of research shows that back in July 1983 both petrol and diesel attracted excise of 7.1c. There was no excise at all on fuel oil, heating oil or kerosene. Those excises, those greedy sources of government revenue, crept up from August 1993 to 29.5c for petrol and for diesel and 8.5c for fuel oil, heating oil and kerosene. Then we had the horror budget of August 1993. However, we now have a government that is ready to address this issue; a government that ought to be congratulated for delivering on its commitment to remove the cost impost imposed by fuel taxation, especially on diesel. It was the Clayton's GST of August 1993. The member for New England was not here then, but I know that as a constituent involved in small business he still remembers that.After campaigning against the comprehensive policy of the coalition in 1993, the Labor government was elected with no policy and went for its own form of indirect taxation: massive increases in wholesale sales tax and fuel excise. But the tragedy was that this consumption tax was not broad based but sectorally based, and the sector that was taxed so heavily out of those initiatives, in a desperate move for government revenue, was the productive sector of our economy. This is the sector that produces the jobs. It was penalised by the then government, now opposition, which, like then, is still devoid of proper policy to get our productive sector into a framework to help it to be world competitive. This is the big challenge for a nation like Australia that produces five times more than we need. We rely on being competitive into some of those aggressive export market opportunities, and yet we send our commodities and products into those markets with the monkey of Commonwealth taxation on their backs. Fuel has a cumulative, cascading effect through the economic sector and the productive sector where the jobs are.The Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 fulfils the commitment given by the Prime Minister to Australia's rural and regional heartland in the 1998 election. I was very pleased to offer to my constituency an opportunity to reform the transport sector. It has taken a while because of the intransigence of members opposite and others, but my constituents have been very patient. I can assure the member for Hunter that they support these bills, and their patience will be rewarded. The Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 is being introduced in conjunction with the Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999 to deliver some badly needed relief on the cost of diesel. Rural Australia stands to gain massively from these two pieces of legislation. To give you some idea, Mr Deputy Speaker, of how much transport costs are to be reduced, I simply refer you to two statistics under the initiative described in the legislation. Road transport costs have been slashed by $1 billion a year.84BST CLAIRMr St Clair—How much?NV5Forrest, John, MPMr FORREST—$1 billion, for the member for New England. Whilst it might not be as much as some of us who represent rural Australia were hoping for, it will certainly be the fillip required to get the monkey off the back of our economic sector. Then there is rail transport. Its costs are slashed by $160 million per year because of the treatment of rail as `off-road use', something that the rail sector has been waiting on for a long time. These costs have been having a significant negative impact on the cost of goods and services in rural areas.Sadly, the people in rural areas have to suffer a double whammy on this aspect of cascading taxation. Firstly, those commodities produced in rural Australia are transported somewhere else for processing, incurring costs through the burden of government taxation. They incur the costs again when they are transported back to rural consumers as processed goods for consumption—a double whammy, cascading impost. It affects not only the goods but also the services that are provided in rural areas. These bills reduce these costs and provide a badly needed fillip to a sector of our economy that does its job in delivering to the GDP.The government's initiative in reducing costs overall in the area of taxation reform will result in $4.8 billion being saved by our exporters. Of course, a significant proportion of these exporters are from rural Australia—the kind of Australia represented by the member for New England and me. The federal division of Mallee covers 25 per cent of the geographic area of Victoria. The member for Hunter needs to recognise that the reality is that the cost of diesel fuel is to be reduced by as much as 28c per litre for all heavy vehicles of 20 tonnes or more loaded. Another initiative will apply to vehicles between 4.5 and 20 tonnes loaded which service regional Australia.These are the kinds of transport, single tray trucks, on which my vegetable producers send their precious commodities down to the Adelaide, Sydney or Melbourne markets—those precious commodities that cannot wait. The producers do not sit there saying, because the cost of fuel is too high, `Will we send these to market?' They have to be sent. They are perishable commodities and greatly in demand from the population sector that live in our metropolises.In addition, the diesel rebate scheme is to be expanded to include alternative fuels—bunker oil and light fuel oil. I am very pleased to see this initiative. All diesel used off-road by primary producers remains excise free. Miners will get full credit for all diesel fuel used off-road—which currently only attracts a partial rebate. Marine users, such as ferries and charter boats, get the full credit, as will regional nursing homes, hospitals and aged care persons homes, of which I have in excess of 60-odd in my electorate. I am very pleased to see that this initiative in respect of marine users will also benefit the Murray River paddleboats powered by diesel engines along the Murray River sector of my electorate. If you are ever visiting, you must not complete your visit without a trip on the Murray in a paddleboat. It is very attractive to the tourist industry. They will also receive a fillip from this legislation. Even private residents currently receiving a rebate will get access to the full rebate.The initiative that transists the previous arrangements in respect of excise into an energy credit scheme is something that this nation has been seeking for a long time. I intend to speak about an initiative in my electorate that has tried to initiate some research into alternative fuel use, providing incentives for alternative fuels including natural gas. These are two pieces of legislation the nation has waited a long time for—special recognition of our dependence on transport. In 1998 I was pleased to offer an election promise of and to receive the support of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister—whom the member for Hunter spoke so disparagingly about—for dramatic reductions in the costs of diesel fuel that impact on businesses and consumers across my electorate. Living in rural and isolated locations, transport costs have a dramatic impact on their way of doing business. There are other costs associated with getting their children to school in buses which are powered by diesel engines.As someone who has spent most of his professional life in this sector, I have always been confused by the message from the previous Labor government through those horror years that somehow, if you keep increasing the price of fuel, you will reduce the demand and therefore make a contribution to the environment. It is a nonsense to suggest that one of my cherry growers, table grape growers or stone fruit growers, with a fresh commodity ready for the markets, would debate whether to send this product to the market and that the cost of fuel might impact on this decision. It does not operate that way. Consider a fuel distributor who has just had a phone call because it has rained in the Mallee and thousands of primary producers are wanting to get their crop in the ground. They need their diesel fuel. It is just a nonsense to think that they would sit there and say, `The cost of this causes me to reconsider. I wonder if I will put my crop in.' They have to use the fuel, and they use it regardless of the cost. When you are dealing in commodities that go to a market and are subjected to the vagaries of that market, the tragedy is to think that somehow or other this cost can be just added in and included in the cost of that commodity. It does not happen, because of consumer demand. Over the horror years of the previous Labor government, these costs were being absorbed by my producers. Not good enough.Businesses across Australia will now pay less for their fuel than they did in those horror years. In addition to that, when these two bills are complemented by the suite of legislation the government has submitted to the House, GST cost inputs on fuel and other inputs to their business will be refunded as well, if they are operating as a business. The cumulative effect of these initiatives gives our export sector located in rural regions of Australia an enormous fillip. Whether they use diesel or petrol, those GST cost inputs will be refunded to business as a credit.The member for Hunter made reference to what he sees as the lack of definition of what complies and what does not. He should read the explanatory memorandum to the bill. He should not need a long time to see that a lot of thought has been given to qualifying journeys and a definition of metropolis and rural Australia. Some of these include interstate and city-country road transport. So the rebate will apply to V-Line, who run a regular bus service from Melbourne to my electorate, to Swan Hill via Bendigo. They will have huge amounts of savings on their diesel, of at least 16c or 17c a litre. A lot of my constituents travel backwards and forwards to Bendigo. It surprises me that the member for Bendigo is not supporting this legislation. We know the Australian Labor Party is locked into its obdurate opposition to the positive initiatives coming from this side of the chamber, and so has condemned itself to irrelevancy. The people of rural Australia know jolly well that the coalition government is delivering on their aspirations—the very bread and butter of all the goods consumed by people living in rural locations like Mallee, New England and Parkes who recognise the merits of this legislation.I refer to some examples out of the explanatory memorandum of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill. In an example provided in point 2.10:Bob is the operator owner of a road train. It has a GVM—gross vehicle mass—of more than 20 tonnes and is registered in the Northern Territory for use on a public road. He only ever uses it on public roads in the Northern Territory and Queensland for his road haulage business. Bob has registered for the fuel grant in respect of his road train. It runs on diesel fuel. Bob is entitled to a grant for the fuel he has used.He has never had access to this before, so I have to ask why the member for the Northern Territory is not supporting this legislation. Let me go to another example, provided under point 2.14 of the explanatory memorandum:Vicki operates a removal business. She has registered for the grant. She is based in Forbes, NSW.The member for Parkes will be interested in this example. It continues:Angie and Anthony decide to move from Sydney to Dubbo, New South Wales. They hire Vicki to be their removalist. Vicki's 10 tonne truck is driven from Forbes to Sydney, picks up Angie and Anthony's furniture, delivers it in Dubbo and returns to Forbes. The truck uses diesel fuel. Vicki is entitled to the grant in relation to all the diesel used in the round trip . . . Everybody benefits. Vicki benefits; her business gets a stimulus. Angie and Anthony benefit because of the reduced costs in moving their goods to Dubbo. That is why the member for Parkes is enthusiastically supporting the legislation. There is a huge number of benefits. There is recognition finally of the rail industry as an off-road user of diesel and the consequent extension to rail operators of the full rebate—timely and a long time coming.Only a few weeks ago I received a delegation of employees of National Rail who are based in Dimboola in my electorate. It is a major exchange centre for National Rail. I would hazard a guess that all of the members of that delegation have some sympathies with the opposition rather than supporting me, but even they have subsequently said to me how much and how enthusiastically they embrace these initiatives in respect of rail in order to ensure that their employer, National Rail, has the basis to compete with road transport and, therefore, ensure the longevity of their employment, which has a direct benefit for Dimboola, a struggling rural isolated township. They are not going to be fooled by the contributions made by the member for Hotham here today and by the member for Hunter and the member for Dickson.Australia's challenge in respect of its future applies to how it will address the issue of transport across our vast continent. I was very pleased to see in the initial budget allocation $20 million made to address the issue of bridge inadequacy across our nation. Under the new arrangements to which these two bills relate, that has been extended to $30 million in order to get the transport industry onto a higher mass limit footing to make fuel more efficiently used. If you take a 450 horsepower diesel unit from Brisbane to Melbourne, it does not use any more fuel if you take twice the weight. To encourage that, we need to make the initial investments to ensure the road system can cope with additional mass limits. That will apply to Murray River bridges, because of all those commodities that come from Brisbane and out of South Australia, one way or another, whether it is steel plate from Whyalla across to Melbourne or whatever the commodity. (Time expired)12:03:007168O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The bills we are debating here today, the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 and the Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999 , represent the most cynical and comprehensive betrayal of farmers in this parliament we have seen from the National Party over the past four years. We know that record of betrayal, because it is evidenced in the promises that were made to the rural sector when the coalition came to power and in its subsequent record in government. We know that that record of betrayal is deeply embedded in the minds of farmers and those who live in rural and regional communities.Here in this debate today I remind the National Party members in this parliament of some of those broken promises. You broke the promise to retain the regional development program that assisted job creation and infrastructure development in rural and regional Australia. You cut to pieces the delivery of services to farm families and to other dwellers in rural and regional Australia, and you made the daddy of all promises, that you would not go along with any further sell down of Telstra, and you betrayed the rural sector again. You broke that sacred promise to people in rural and regional Australia.Then, of course, you suffered the political consequences. We saw the rise of One Nation. I have to say that the Prime Minister lacked the real political intestinal fortitude to confront the rise of One Nation in the face of the disillusionment that rural and regional dwellers felt with the coalition. But, of course, that rise of One Nation had extraordinary policy consequences. The National Party, for exam ple, panicked over the sale of wool from the stockpile. National Party ministers rolled over to rural Liberals and city based Liberals, and what we saw come out of that situation was bad policy.The consequence of that bad policy has been that, as we debate this particular Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme today, wool growers have lost tens of millions of dollar in increased debt—because the National Party caved in to the city Liberals. They caved in to the stockbrokers, the lawyers and the Collins Street farmers, and of course the wool growers of this nation paid the price. We know how loyal the National Party is to its constituency, and we know that once the real truth of the matter is—NV5FORRESTMr Forrest—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not frightened of defending the National Party, but these two bills deal specifically with fuel and fuel initiatives. I am wondering if the member could get to the point as to how wool and all those other issues relate to this bill. While I am on my feet, I would remind the member of the years of the Labor Party with respect to the wool industry—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Order! You have made your point of order and I will rule on it. This has been a fairly wide-ranging debate so far. As I understand it, other speakers have referred to modes of transport and what people are transporting. I am sure the honourable member for Corio is going to draw into the debate how wool is transported with diesel and so forth.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—I certainly am, Mr Deputy Speaker, and this is what the National Party does not like. There will be more of you jumping the fence when the truth about the diesel fuel rebate and what the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Democrats have structured in this deal gets out into the bush. The member for Fisher here was in the National Party once. He jumped the fence over to the Liberal Party. There will be more of you trying to escape from the National Party and the consequences of the wrath that will come upon you when rural and regional Australians, especially farmers, find out the extent of your betrayal of their interests in this bill.These bills are an administrative nightmare. That administrative nightmare has been explained very succinctly by the member for Hotham and the member for Dickson in this debate. They have eloquently canvassed the complexities of the government's current proposal. When the Treasurer structured the total tax package—and we have to remember that the current diesel fuel proposals are part of the overall tax package—he said that the exempting of food from that package would be `a dog's breakfast' and would be `a nightmare on Main Street'.Let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, what we have here in this diesel fuel compromise with the Democrats, this new Liberal-National Party-Democrat deal. We have a nightmare down on the farm; we have a nightmare on highway 1. When the consequences of this bill are understood by rural and regional dwellers, those opposite will pay a very heavy political price, as they already have in the last election. I know how popular the member for Page is up in his electorate, because I was up there last week. In New South Wales, the National Party lost four to five seats in rural and regional New South Wales. Out here in Monaro, you came within a hair's-breadth—63 votes—of losing one of your jewels in the crown. So I know exactly what the people in the electorate of the honourable member for Page think of how the National Party has caved in to the Liberals on these sorts of issues.If you had to sit down and deliberately design a more complex, unwieldy, stupid and dopey system you could not have bettered this deal. We do not know the administrative detail because the government is going to work it out over the next six months with the Democrats. We have a bill here that is very important to the future of rural and regional Australia, yet we have a bare outline in this bill and we do not know the detail. You shoehorned it in—in the cool of the evening, let me say. It is a very important bill to the rural sector and you brought it in last night and want the whole thing debated today.The government has turned farmers and small business in rural and regional Australia into tax collectors for Peter Costello. It has burdened farms and small businesses in rural and regional Australia with a GST tax that is very complex and will involve huge compliance costs. Now the government wants to add to this administrative and compliance misery by another complex round of bookkeeping associated with these diesel fuel rebate arrangements. This is a scheme on which farmers and rural businesses depend, but it has a very chequered history. My concern is that, with none of the detail on the deck and knowing that it involves a huge administrative nightmare for farmers, rural transport operators and businesses, the problems that have plagued the scheme up to this point will be compounded with this new administrative complexity, this new nightmare.This concern is well documented in Audit Report No. 20 1995-96, the performance audit entitled Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. If honourable members opposite read that, they would have some degree of concern about how difficult this scheme, in its old form, was to administer. When you take a difficult administrative scheme and compound its complexity and difficulty, you have a recipe for rorting and you have a potential compromise to the integrity of the scheme. Let me run through some of the comments that were made by the Auditor-General. They were made in good faith for the benefit of the government of the day. The Auditor-General had this to say:The audit revealed that there is scope for significant improvements in the efficiency, administrative effectiveness, accountability and equitable delivery of the scheme.Those words are code for: `This is an extremely difficult scheme to administer. There is great potential for rorting.' As I read through this report, it is very clear that the people involved with this scheme—those who administer it and those who seek assistance from it—do not know how it operates. Let me refer to some of the elements of the report. As far as self-assessment is concerned, it had this to say:There has been little substantiation of claims conducted by Customs. As well, inadequate guid ance has been provided to staff and claimants on how to substantiate claims, what records and apportionment methods are acceptable and the benchmarks to be applied in each industry for such matters as fuel consumption for various types of machinery or vehicles.The report has this to say about `sanctions':Customs has virtually discontinued the imposition of administrative penalties and prosecutions for detected abuses of the scheme. This has reduced potential Commonwealth revenue from such sanctions but, more importantly, may have significantly increased scheme outlays by undermining the general compliance effect on claimants who are taking advantage of the scheme.The report goes on to risk management and says:Risks have not been identified and consequently there is no risk management framework in place . . . Insufficient information has been obtained by Customs to assess eligibility of client operations, estimated fuel consumption and risks of overpayment.It then goes on to staffing and benchmarking and makes some very telling comments there.The point that I am making here is that we have a scheme whose integrity has been questioned by the Auditor-General. From this government we now have another scheme which we do not really know the fine details of and that will be, as the Treasurer says as far as the GST and the exemption of food is concerned, nightmare on main street. Well this will be an administrative nightmare for transport operators. It will be an administrative nightmare for farmers. It will lead to enormous compliance costs for all those who seek assistance from this scheme. At the end of the day, we will have the great National Party legacy to farmers and transport operators in the bush of more red tape, greater complexity and really dubious economic benefits flowing from what the government is proposing.I do not really think National Party members and ministers understand the implications of what they are doing. This is a personal view, but it comes from the generalised statements that have been made by the Deputy Prime Minister and senior National Party ministers in this parliament. We know the Deputy Prime Minister throws his hands about and says, `I will resign if $3.5 billion worth of benefits are not delivered to rural and regional Australia.' They go throughout the bush stating that this particular scheme will be of massive benefit to primary producers. I would refer National Party members to a simple page which I think is worthy of analysis. It was published in the 11 June edition of Inside Canberra . The author of this particular page said:The Coalition is facing decimation in the bush at the next election following the introduction of the GST next year. The winner will be One Nation . . . The author goes on to analyse the impact of the proposals that the government has put on the deck as far as the diesel fuel rebate is concerned for transport operators in the bush. The author concludes that the new deal will have only a small effect on transport costs and overall freight costs. The author refers to the Bureau of Industry Economics research report No. 46 of 1992, which says that, in the overall operating costs of long haul vehicles, fuel and oil account for 21 per cent. Under the government's proposals, trucks over 4.5 tonnes and all trucks over 20 tonnes are entitled to a rebate of 23c a litre. The author estimates that prices will fall by 32 per cent. When you look at the total operating costs, they will fall by 32 per cent of the 21 per cent—which he estimates to be 6.5 per cent. He then goes on to analyse the road transport inputs required to produce $100 of output in the food products and services area. Of course, he identifies that and gives it a monetary value of around $5. When the analysis is completed on this, the author concludes:The bottom line is the diesel fuel credit of 23 cents a litre will mean a reduction of 0.33 cents in the dollar in the cost of producing "food and services sector" outputs in rural and regional Australia.The author goes on to quantify that, and it is a very interesting analysis. I suggest that the ministers who are going around parading the virtues of this really examine it and come back to this parliament to indicate whether in fact the benefits will flow on to rural and regional Australia.My comments now go to the overall tax reform that is being proposed and the comments of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on this matter. In the Hans ard in a response to a question that I asked him on 24 November, the minister said:. . . we are not going to undertake any measures that are going to be detrimental to the farm community.That was his first point. He went on later to say:We are not going to implement any measures that will be detrimental to the farming community. What we are going to do is implement changes to the taxation system that will be beneficial to the rural sector, absolutely beneficial to the rural sector . . . That is what his commitment was before the National Party got into bed with the Liberal Party and the Democrats. Here we know that that is not the case because the package that has been negotiated leaves in place the various stamp duties and the other state taxes that the National Party promised that they would abolish.Government member interjecting—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—You were supposed to abolish them next year, but you are going to delay the financial institutions duty to 1 July 2001. The bank accounts debit tax will be abolished from 1 July 2005. But, when we go to the overall effect of these on a farm of $500,000, if a farmer buys a property for $500,000, they will be up for an extra $16,000 to $18,000, courtesy of the National Party. Another betrayal—another betrayal.4K6CAUSLEYMr Causley—I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member is misleading the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—There is no point of order.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—You sit there and you sulk and you sook. You are a great sook, because you cannot take it. The honourable member for Page cannot be that stupid. As I just outlined, his commitment to this House was simply this: `We will abolish these taxes in the package.' He has gone back on that. We will remind your constituents that you have gone back on it. But if a farmer in Page buys a property and pays $500,000, courtesy of the honourable member for Page he will pay an extra $18,000 in tax that the honourable member for Page said he would abolish; indeed, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry said that he would do the same.We know that the GST and diesel fuel initiatives are only 50 per cent of the tax package. What is coming up the straight is the real tax package, the Ralph review reforms that will wipe out accelerated depreciation to farmers. Any gain that has been accrued to farmers by virtue of the diesel fuel rebate and the GST will be wiped out in one fell swoop if that concession is abolished. That is not coming from me; the National Farmers Federation is saying that. It is another betrayal.I will wait with interest to see whether the National Party ministers—the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—roll over again to the city based Liberals to the disadvantage of farmers and people in rural and regional Australia. (Time expired).12:23:007172Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—I hope not to have to spend too much of my time correcting some of the highly erroneous statements made by the member for Corio. To suggest that farmers will be worse off under the GST package is absolute rubbish. To suggest that they will pay extra tax on the sale or purchase of properties is absolute rubbish, and he knows it. He is as loose with the truth as another one of the previous speakers, the member for Hunter.I suggest that what they really need to do is go away and look very carefully at what this package represents. When he starts quoting the NFF, let us have him quote the NFF in full. Let us have him quote what the NFF said about our budget; let us have him quote what the NFF said about the removal of wholesale sales tax on exporters; let us have him quote the NFF on savings to farmers as a result of these measures that we are here to discuss today.The Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme and the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme will deliver real savings to farmers. There are no ifs, buts or maybes about that. This is a scheme which will put millions of dollars into the pockets of farmers. Better still, this scheme puts savings not only into the pockets of farmers, but into the pockets of regional people—people who live in towns like Toowoomba, where my seat is, people who live in the regional centres that are struggling to overcome the cost of transport.It goes further than that. It delivers savings into the pockets of every Australian. I know the Labor Party has trouble understanding what the hell business is all about, but let me just explain that everything you buy in a shop gets carted there by a truck at some stage. This rebate scheme is going to save every Australian money. It is part of this federal government's commitment to ensure not only that the people of Australia have a fair tax system, but that wherever we can save costs, we do.Wherever industry and business is burdened by taxes like the wholesale sales tax—the tax imposed and loved by the Labor Party—we remove them, and then we assist them some more. We assist them in the transport costs of their inputs into their factory. We assist them in the transport costs of their goods out of that factory. Not only does that create more jobs and greater efficiencies in business, it makes our business more competitive so that we can export overseas and compete against other countries. Better still, it delivers savings to the consumers.I notice a great list of Labor Party members who are just dying to get up and speak against saving money for people in their seats. They want to stand up and say to them, `We do not want to save the small businesses in our seats money. We want them to continue with the unfair burden of taxes that they have got now. We do not want the people in regional seats—represented by the members for Hunter, Corio, Paterson, Northern Territory, Kingston, Capricornia and Burke—to benefit from this.'I notice that no-one from Tasmania is speaking in this debate. I wonder why that is, because in this bill we are seeing a reduction in the price of maritime fuel as well. I notice that they came into the House the other night and quite happily called for a $1.2 million government subsidy on the cost of moving wheat to Tasmania, but are they supporting a real reduction in the cost of moving all freight to Tasmania? Are they supporting a reduction in the cost of moving freight around Tasmania? Are they supporting savings to the businesses in Tasmania? The answer is, of course, no. Because they do not understand that if you put savings into diesel, you put savings into transport.If you reduce the price of diesel by 30 per cent, if you reduce the cost of buying a prime mover by removing the wholesale sales tax—which adds $60,000 to the cost of buying and setting up a rig—and if you remove the sales tax from tyres and spare parts, you reduce the cost of transport by 18 per cent. Those are not my figures, those are not the figures of some obscure economist tucked away somewhere; those are the figures of one of the biggest transport operators in Australia. Those are the figures of the Finemores group, who are saying that they can deliver real savings not only to industry but in the cost of putting food on the supermarket shelves.It concerns me that we have a party on the other side of the chamber that does not understand those basic principles of business, that does not understand that the people of regional Australia are screaming out for lower transport costs. But, worse still, those opposite do not understand that they are denying people in every seat they represent a saving through this scheme. I believe in saving the people in my seat money. That is why I am happy to stand up here today and argue with anyone who wants to take me on that this bill and the new tax package which the federal government wants to introduce will deliver real savings. I am always happy to support good legislation, and good legislation comes in bucketfuls from this side of the House. I am always happy to stand up for the people I represent and fight for lower costs, fewer government taxes, fewer government charges and a lower take by government of the earnings of men and women running small businesses.I am saddened that I do not have the sort of support I would like to see from the other side of the House. It worries me that the Labor Party does not seem to appreciate that, just in the lowering of fuel prices alone, there will be $1 billion worth of savings to the transport industry—$1,000 million. I know— because they have explained it to me—that those opposite do not understand how a business works, but out there one of the most competitive industries in Australia is the transport industry. It is a tough industry. I have to say that I would rather be farming than be in that industry. Farming is a tough life, but the transport industry is even tougher. When those in the transport industry get the savings from the fuel savings grants—WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—And the log books.WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—The logbook system is already in place. I could not understand certain remarks made by the member for Corio; he seemed to be getting confused. He suggested that we do not understand the implications of this legislation. I would suggest that he did not understand which piece of legislation he was talking about. He seemed to me to be talking about an existing scheme that is in place, but I will come back to that a bit later.In terms of the savings that will flow through to industry, let me assure people—and perhaps I have to explain this in detail to the members opposite—that the transport industry is so competitive that the savings in costs not only from this scheme but from the removal of wholesale sales tax, from the removal of the cost imposts on the transport industry, will bring transport costs down. Those savings will go to the consumer. Where else? We will see the price of transport come down, as I say—and to quote the transport industry figures—15 to 18 per cent.I heard the member for Corio quoting the NFF, so let me quote the NFF again. The NFF agree with those figures. The NFF have come out and said that, as a result of the new tax system, as a result of the savings that we will put in place with fuel, as a result of the removal of the wholesale sales tax, as a result of the removal of taxes on business inputs, we will see cheaper transport costs. Those figures of around 15 per cent are highly credible and highly achievable.Fuel is a very basic commodity in Australia and I suspect that the Labor Party, if it is going to oppose this tax, still has not come to terms with the enormity of this country. Any party that opposes a saving to the fuel cost, that opposes a reduction in the cost of operating transport in Australia, does not understand the enormity of this country. It does not understand the reliance on fuel of small business, large business, industry, farmers, miners and transport operators. Our party does. The coalition of the National Party and the Liberal Party does understand the imposts that fuel puts on businesses operating out there.Let me outline what the Labor Party is opposing when it opposes this legislation. The Labor Party is opposing cheaper fuel for businesses—businesses in National Party seats, businesses in Liberal Party seats, businesses in Labor seats; even businesses in Independent seats. This will deliver cheaper fuel for businesses in all seats in Australia for all businesses in Australia. The Labor Party is opposing lowering the cost of inputs to businesses in Australia. It is opposing businesses being more efficient and more competitive. It is opposing the ability of exporters to compete in the international marketplace.The Labor Party is opposing cheaper food. It is opposing lowering the cost of moving produce, as spoken about by the member for Mallee, from the fruit and vegie farms to the markets. It is opposing lowering the transport costs of moving cattle or sheep or even fish, whatever, to the processing areas. It is opposing the lowering of the cost of that processed food then being moved into the supermarket. In some cases, it is even opposing the costs of taking it from the supermarket to the home where that delivery is done by a commercial operator.The Labor Party is even opposing cheaper household goods. Can you believe that here we have a party that claims to represent the people—although recently I have read, and I see here quite frequently with all these books that are coming out, that people have suggested the Labor Party needs to get back to its roots and start representing the real people again—that is opposing cheaper household goods for everyone? Household goods, white goods, television sets, fridges, washing machines are all moved by transport, and what this bill does is lower transport costs. So the Labor Party is saying, `We are opposed to cheaper fuel for business, we are opposed to cheaper inputs for business, we are opposed to cheaper food for business, we are opposed to cheaper household goods; for individuals, for the people of Australia, we are opposed to anything getting cheaper.It was suggested by one of the previous speakers that perhaps some of the National Party were going to face a backlash when they went out in the bush. Let me just say that, firstly, that is not true of course; but, secondly, those opposite are the people who will face the backlash. These are the people who will be called to account by their electorate and asked, `Why did you oppose something that would have put more money in our pocket? Why did you oppose something that was going to give every household in Australia a saving? It was to give us more money to spend on the necessities of life. Why did you do that?' I will be interested to see the answers to that. I will be interested to see exactly what the people of Australia say when we have delivered these savings to the transport industry and to the businesses of Australia and when every individual in Australia benefits from our having done so.The Labor Party always likes to talk about rorting, but I had a bit of difficulty working out exactly what the member for Corio's line of thinking was in terms of rorting. If there is one scheme that is complicated and always open to rorting, it is the wholesale sales tax scheme. It is so complicated that, in my time as a farmer, I could never understand it. Under the previous Labor government I could not work out why I could get a wholesale sales tax rebate on a spanner that I had bought to fix a header but if I bought exactly the same spanner to fix a tractor I could not get the rebate. I could not understand that system; I still cannot understand that scheme.When I move around and talk to the businesses in Toowoomba and in my electorate of Groom, they tell me that every day they are plagued with trying to bring to account the wholesale sales tax system by people who come in claiming exemptions for which the business is not sure whether or not they are due. In a lot of those cases they are genuine. They are genuine because the wholesale sales tax system, the system supported by the Labor Party, is so complicated that even the best informed and the most well meaning people cannot understand it. We are going to do away with that scheme, which is unfair and complicated and an impost on businesses being effective and efficient.I have no fears about compliance. If the Labor Party want to make this scheme easier, if the Labor Party want to do away with some of the complications and some of the compliance difficulties, why don't they vote for the ANTS package in the Senate? Why don't they just say, `We will let this go through in its original form?' There is a challenge for the Labor Party. If they want to lower the compliance costs, if they want to lower the complications, all they have to do is to support the legislation as it was. Of course, we know they will not, even though we can demonstrate to them quite clearly that this scheme will be cheaper for everybody in Australia. Let me recap a few points on this legislation. This legislation fulfils yet another promise of the coalition government; it fulfils an election promise that we went to the people with and that we have kept. It is just another of the great string of promises that we made at the last federal election and that we as a government have kept. The people of Australia can rest assured that we will continue to keep our 1998 election promises. If only the Labor Party would get behind us and support us, then we could fulfil all of our election promises, including the new tax system.This legislation increases the eligible classes which will benefit from lower fuel tax and lower fuel costs. It recognises Australia's dependence on transport and our dependence on diesel in that transport system. It does not matter whether you are talking about road, rail or sea transport—all those areas are going to save as a result of this legislation. The savings will be up to 23c a litre. As I say, in my state that will represent a saving of around 30-odd per cent. It is a saving which is real.The grants scheme will also cover compressed natural gas, LPG, ethanol, canola and recycled oil. It will apply to trucks over 4.5 tonnes in all regional areas and trucks over 20 tonnes gross in metropolitan areas. As well as those cost savings, there will be significant environmental gains, and that is as a result of the Democrats' responsible involvement in this legislation. There is really not a lot more I can say about this legislation. I commend it to the House. I can only say to the Labor Party: I am amazed that so many of you who represent regional areas and who have put your names down on the speakers list are opposed to cheaper fuel in regional Australia, are opposed to cheaper fuel in all Australia and are opposed to saving the money of the people whom you represent. I commend this legislation to the House and I suggest that the Labor Party go away and think long and hard about whether they are going to play an active part in legislative reform in Australia or whether they are going to continue to involve themselves in half-truths. Am I being too generous? I probably am, considering some of the statements that have been made today. They should think about whether they are going to continue to involve themselves in attacks on legislation that is aimed at improving the lot of all Australians and which particularly in this case will improve the competitiveness of business, improve the competitiveness of our exporters, improve the competitiveness of our farmers and improve the standard of living for all Australians.12:43:007175Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The member for Groom asks why it is that we are not going to support the ANTS package in its original form. The reason is that we are going to keep to the promises that we made to the Australian electorate in October of last year when we said to the Australian people, `We are not going to support a goods and services tax.' That is an undertaking that we made to the Australian people and which was supported by them. Over 50 per cent of the Australian people on a two-party preferred basis indicated a preference for the Labor Party with its opposition to the GST.We are going to keep our promises, unlike the Leader of the National Party. Let me quote what the Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister pledged in Wagga Wagga on 18 September 1998:I guarantee you that I will resign as Party Leader and walk out of Government if we do not deliver that $3.5 billion in reduced fuel taxes.The Leader of the National Party has fallen short of that pledge by around $2 billion over just the first three years of this package. He has betrayed his constituency in agreeing to the Howard-Lees deal, and the legislation before the House consummates that betrayal. The Labor Party intends to keep its promises, unlike the Leader of the National Party.We intend to keep our promises to the Australian electorate, unlike the Australian Democrats. The Democrats told the Australian people they had a `non-negotiable set of changes to the government's proposals' and let me outline them to the House. Firstly, they said that the rebate would be payable only to trucks over 20 tonnes except for those carrying farm produce. In the end, they gave it to all trucks over 4½ tonnes. So that is one non-negotiable promise to the Australian people which the Australian Democrats have failed to keep.Secondly, they said they would not allow trips within cities to qualify for the grant. But what do we actually find when we have a look at this legislation? As the explanatory memorandum of the grants bill shows on page 7, there is no apportionment at all for diesel used in the city. As long as the journey crosses a city boundary, wherever it might be, then all of the journey qualifies for a grant, even if the overwhelming proportion of the journey is within a capital city. That same explanatory memorandum confirms that journeys commencing outside a metropolitan area but ending up within the metropolitan area, and indeed journeys commencing inside a metropolitan area but ending up outside the metropolitan area, will also qualify for a grant for the complete journey.So what we will now see is the redesign of intra-city transport routes to ensure that they briefly leave the metropolitan area—no matter how briefly they leave it—in order to qualify for that rebate. Worse still, since there will be no way to ensure the integrity of the scheme, we will no doubt get abuse; we will get claims based on fictitious routes which involve a brief time outside the city. I point out to the House that this does not have the effect of discouraging fossil fuel use; it has the effect of encouraging fossil fuel use, with people going out of their way to get outside the metropolitan area in order to be eligible for a rebate for the full journey. No wonder the Democrats expert environmental consultant, Dr Clive Hamilton, resigned in despair when he understood where that deal was going.I assure the member for Groom and other members opposite that the Labor Party intends to keep its promises. We will be opposing the ANTS package in its original form. He asks, `Why do we oppose it?' First, because we made the commitment to the Australian people and we intend to keep it and, second, because it is not supported by a majority of Australian people. It was not supported by a majority at the last election, and support for the GST is declining as people become increasingly aware of its impact on them—retired people become aware of its impact on them, with prices going up and inadequate compensation, and small business becomes aware of its impact on them, with greater compliance costs and burdens, and all small businesses becoming tax collectors for the government without appropriate compensation or ways of taking those things into account. So the more people come to understand the detail of the GST the less they like it, the less they support it and the more convinced and assured they can be that the Labor Party will oppose the GST package.This bill is a part of that GST package. We have indicated, however, that, while not declining to give the bill a second reading, we wish to express a number of concerns about this piece of legislation. They are arrangements which will:(a) impose a compliance nightmare on Australian transport operators;(b) breach Australia's international greenhouse gas reduction obligations;(c) worsen air quality in Australian cities;(d) be wide open to abuse;(e) increase the cost of using public transport;(f) retard the development of Australian solar industries and energy efficient technology . . . In our amendment, we have recommended:. . . that the Government introduce clean diesel fuel programs, and tighter vehicle emission standards, such as those operating in the United States and the European Community to improve the air quality and hence living conditions of Australians living in urban areas.In pointing out to the House the virtues of Labor's amendment, I want to express concern about the way this legislation has come before the House and concern about the process leading to this particular debate. This is quite a detailed piece of legislation—and I will come to some of its complexities shortly—yet members of the House have had only around 12 hours to study it before being required to debate it. This is a disgrace. It represents a lowering of parliamentary standards to new depths, and it shows the contempt for transparent government and public involvement in decision making. In its haste to rip through the GST and the accompanying legislation before the parliament, we are getting inadequate parliamentary scrutiny of the detail of this legislation, and I think that is very much to be regretted.As I said earlier, we have a situation where the Leader of the National Party solemnly promised at the launch of the election campaign that he would resign if he did not deliver $3½ billion per year in reduced fuel costs. In fact, although he has fallen short by around $2 billion, he is now falsely claiming that this promise has been delivered. But, if the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the National Party, is being dudded, this is nothing compared to what has happened to the Democrats.The government has managed to con the Democrats into believing that they have achieved something concerning vehicle emission standards and fuel content regulation. In fact, Labor revealed through the National Road Transport Commission document that these changes were going to happen anyway. Indeed, they were due to be considered by transport ministers this month, so these are things which would have been agreed to by now in any event. So the Democrats have been dudded.The proper course would have been to amend the environment bills currently in the Senate to mandate these new emission stand ards, a course which Labor would have supported. This would have delivered better outcomes without the need to impose an unfair, regressive GST on Australian families. Fair dinkum, the Democrats would buy the Brooklyn Bridge on the basis of their performance on this legislation. They have not achieved their stated aims at all with this bill. They went to the Australian people with a non-negotiable set of changes. They said the rebate was going to be payable only to trucks over 20 tonnes except for those carrying farm produce but, in the end, they gave it to all trucks over 4½ tonnes. They said they would not allow trips within cities to qualify for the grant. As I was indicating to the House previously, that is not the case at all. We can now have trips which are mostly within the metropolitan area—adding to urban pollution in the metropolitan area—but if they manage to get outside that metropolitan area, however briefly that might be, then they qualify for the grant.The Democrats have achieved a system where a lot of the diesel used in cities will qualify for the grants system. In so doing, they have been absolutely naive and have been played on a break by this government. And it gets worse. All business use of petrol or diesel in the cities will qualify for the GST credit even though the Democrats had promised that they would not subsidise this sort of behaviour. It is little wonder that leaders of the environment movement have condemned this agreement as a dirty deal done dirt cheap.I indicated earlier the compliance nightmare which this might impose on Australian transport operators. I want to spend a little time talking about that. The explanatory memorandum tells us that the compliance cost impact will be `medium'. What that means is that transport operators are going to face new costs and new paperwork in addition to the GST. It flies absolutely in the face of the Prime Minister's undertaking to reduce compliance costs and red tape for small business by 50 per cent. We are simply going to get a further layer of cost and inconvenience on small businesses.We have a situation where the administrative rules have not yet been worked out and have not yet been brought before the parliament—and we are being told it will take of the order of six months to develop those administrative rules—yet if you make a mistake you are going to face the full brunt of the law—facing penalties, facing an audit of your affairs, facing the cost of dealing with this type of process. That is a very different situation from the way in which the member for Leichhardt gets treated when he makes a deliberate omission in his declaration of pecuniary interests.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The honourable member will withdraw the word `deliberate'.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the word `deliberate'. The other really big issue here is that of the boundaries for the metropolitan areas. We do not have any indication of what the boundaries for the metropolitan areas are. This is a critical area because wherever these boundaries are going to be drawn there are a plethora of anomalies and unfair outcomes which will arise from this. From a Melbourne perspective, is the metropolitan area going to include Whittlesea? Is it going to include Werribee? Is it going to include Craigieburn and Kilmore? There are many of these areas which have very substantial trucking industries and trucking interests.Quite literally, almost identical journeys undertaken by different transport operators commencing from different sides of the city boundary line will face different rules. One will qualify for the full grant on a journey into the city yet the competitor commencing from just within the city will obtain no grant. So you have a scheme that is going to dramatically alter the competitive position of transport operators. One likely outcome of that is that some small businesses will decide to move in order to remain competitive. That of course will have a major upheaval on families and communities if that occurs.We have new arrangements which are going to impose further business compliance costs, distort economic activity and also be subject to the risk of rorting. I want to express concern about the fact that this parliament is being asked to sign off on this scheme with out knowing what those arrangements will be, without knowing significant details of the practical workings of the scheme, without knowing how compliance of the scheme is going to be monitored and enforced, and without knowing what the penalties for breaching or misusing the scheme will be. I can recall that at one stage we heard about satellite tracking being proposed to follow where the trucks were going. This is not just an issue of accountability; it is also an issue about how we might endeavour to significantly reduce air pollution in our cities. It is obvious that the government has failed to address this issue.I turn again to the explanatory memorandum and the issue of compliance. The explanatory memorandum says:The grant for vehicles with a gross vehicle mass of 20 tonnes or more will require little record keeping additional to mileage, litres used and receipts . Eligible fuel use in vehicles between 4.5 tonnes and 20 tonnes outside the metropolitan areas will have the same requirements. Where there is some use of vehicles between 4.5 tonnes and 20 tonnes inside and outside the metropolitan areas, more extensive records will be required to substantiate the grant claim.Aside from logging your miles, the amount of fuel you have used and supplying all your receipts, you are supposed to have little additional record keeping in the one case, but for those involved in moving in and out of metropolitan areas more extensive records will be required. Furthermore, we have no actual definition of a journey showing up in this legislation. Where is a journey going to begin and end? If you make a number of deliveries in the course of a journey, does that suggest that each of those deliveries should be regarded as a separate journey or is the entire journey, even if you make a series of stops, to be regarded as one complete journey?Clearly, whichever decision the government decides to come down with in relation to this, we are going to have people trying to manipulate either their driving patterns or the record they keep in order to take advantage of the diesel fuel grants scheme. What we will see as a result of this is quite a lot of driving around in the cities that will add to air pollution: precisely the behaviour it is suggested the scheme, in its Democrat amended form, will address. What the legislation reveals is that, contrary to the Democrats' stated intention, as long as the journey crosses a city boundary it is going to attract a grant, no matter how little of the journey is in a regional area and how much of the journey is in a metropolitan area. That makes a mockery of the aim of targeting the grant away from metropolitan areas in order to reduce air pollution.I said earlier that I believe the system is wide open to abuse and that we could in addition have the phenomenon of businesses relocating outside the metropolitan area in order to get maximum advantage from the scheme, with the personal and family dislocation that that involves. I also expressed concern about the fact that the metropolitan boundaries have not presently been outlined. We are told that this is coming later by way of regulation, but there are clearly problems of definition. As the shadow minister for transport pointed out, trucks based in Tweed Heads may get the grant but trucks on the Gold Coast miss out, trucks in Goulburn get the grant but trucks in Gosford do not and trucks in Seymour get the grant but trucks in Werribee do not. So this is something which could potentially change quite dramatically the competitive basis on which those businesses operate, and we think that is a ridiculous outcome.In effect, we have here a deal which provides for a $7.8 billion pollution boost over the next three years in exchange for $1 billion in environmental benefits. That is not much of a bargain. The Democrats have completely failed in their responsibility to safeguard environmental and other interests in their treatment of this legislation. They have indeed forfeited their claims to be custodians of the environment, and their performance in relation to this legislation is sadly of a piece with their performance in relation to the Commonwealth's environmental legislation also announced this morning, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] , where the Democrats are party to a devolution of the responsibility to protect the environment back to the states, with all the adverse consequences that that has for environment protection. As a result, the Democrats have forfeited whatever claim they may have had to be genuine custodians of the environment.I have indicated to the House that Labor thinks the government ought to be focusing on clean diesel fuel programs and tighter vehicle emission standards—looking at what has been done in the United States and in the European Community—to improve the air quality and, as a result, the living conditions of Australians living in urban areas. That is where the government's efforts ought to have been put rather than in this area, which is a desperate attempt to secure from rural people support for the GST which would clearly not be forthcoming in any other circumstances. People in country areas understand just as well as people in city areas what a regressive tax the GST is, how much damage it is likely to do to them and their families in terms of living standards and that it comes as part of a package where the government had promised that some 50 per cent of the tax cuts were going to go to the highest 20 per cent of income earners. The government had put forward a grossly regressive tax package which was very much to the disadvantage of country people and, as a result, country people have quite rightly expressed their concerns about the GST. (Time expired)13:03:007179Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—I am continually amazed at the intellectual bankruptcy coming from the opposition in this debate. It is fairly obvious they have no understanding of country or regional Australia. I listened with some interest to the speeches by the member for Wills and the member for Corio, who have really dealt themselves out of this debate because they are no longer even negotiating on these particular issues. They have given up, and all they can do now is carp, criticise and come up with nothing that is constructive. Even worse than that, if we analyse some of the speeches, they were totally dishonest. They obviously have not read the new tax package and they obviously have not read the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 and the related bill or, for that matter, the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services.Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you would know that I have attended National Party meetings for the last two decades, and one of the things that always comes up at those particular meetings is the cost of freight. The cost of freight to rural Australia is crippling, and this cost has always been one of the disadvantages of regional development and decentralisation. We heard in the previous speeches about the fact that everything that is transported into the country, and then everything that is transported back to be exported, has to pay this exorbitant cost. This morning, out of interest, I looked up on the Internet the cost of fuel in America, because we usually have to compete with the American agricultural products that are on the world market. On 21 June 1999, the average price of on-road diesel fuel in the United States of America was $1.08 per gallon—that is including some state taxes in America. That equates to about US27c per litre, if we assume that an American gallon is somewhere around four litres. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, you can see that, in the past, Australian industry—and particularly agriculture—has been operating with its hands tied right behind its back, because most of our contractors are paying at least 70c to 74c a litre for fuel.The National Party are pleased to say that their minister, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, has won a huge victory here. This package takes those exorbitant costs off and puts us in a competitive position. The American price is US27c a litre plus probably a third for the exchange rate, so it is A36c a litre. We are coming back to 20c a litre, so we are going to be on a pretty competitive base. I believe that has been continually overlooked in this debate, and particularly by the Labor Party who do not want to hear about it, for very good reasons. I have been trying to get the Minister for State and Regional Development in New South Wales to comment on whether he agrees with the federal Labor Party about the fact that they refuse to remove the excise on diesel fuel, which is, as I said previously, the greatest disincentive to regional development there can be. The silence has been absolutely golden.The member for Corio said that he visited my electorate last week. That is true. He was almost laughed out of town because he was trying to tell people up there what the costs of the tax package were going to be to rural people. They know better. At the state election, the electorate told the much vaunted member for Clarence very clearly what they thought of him, because he finished up being elected by 143 votes. If you analyse the voting figures, he was actually elected on 38 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. So 62 per cent of the people said, `We do not want him because he cannot relate to the problems in rural Australia.'We heard a diatribe, is all I could call it, from the member for Wills. He was repeating things that had been said in this House by the Leader of the Opposition about the confusion regarding how you are going to assess whether you are entitled to the grant that is going to be part of this system. Obviously they did not read the minister's second reading speech because there are some very clear points made in there. Was the member for Wills trying to say that interstate transport should stop at the outskirts of the city? I wonder what that would add to the cost of transport. There is no doubt in my mind what is meant by this. The minister's second reading speech states:Fuel used in vehicles of 20 tonnes or more Gross Vehicle Mass will qualify if used by a business for road transport, and if the business is registered for the purpose of the scheme with the Australian Tax Office.There will be a definition that is easily applied. It will not matter whether you are just outside the boundaries of Queanbeyan, Melbourne or Sydney or within the boundaries. Obviously it will be a business that qualifies for the grant. I am amazed that we do not see Labor members debating and opposing this bill where it counts. I have not seen the member for Lyons anywhere around, or the member for Paterson. But let us talk about the member for Capricornia. That might be an interesting discussion.I will give a few thumbnail figures which might clarify some of the issues involved. Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, with my knowledge of agriculture and the cost of freight across Australia, I will give you an analysis of a truckload of freight coming across Australia from the Ord River irrigation system, which at the present time is providing fruit and vegetables into Melbourne and Sydney, a trip of around 4,500 kilometres—it might be a bit more. Usually those business rigs of 300 horsepower get about 1.6 kilometres per litre. So you can see that that trip across of 4,500 kilometres is quite an expensive exercise. The saving on one load across Australia will be around $628 in fuel. I have calculated roughly from my knowledge of the product that that will save the consumers of Australia 26c a kilo on the cost of watermelons, rockmelons and honeydew melons that are delivered to Sydney and Melbourne. That saving will be delivered to the consumers of Australia. Obviously, if you understand the marketplace, that is not put into the pockets of the producers, even though they might like to think some of it will be. That saving will go to the consumers of Australia.Let me make another little calculation. I have some knowledge of the sugar industry. Two million tonnes of sugar cane from the Northern Rivers of New South Wales is hauled to the mills each year. If you take similar figures and assume one round trip is about six kilometres, there will be a saving to those mills, and to the growers who own them, of $200,000 in freight. The honourable member for Dawson has just come into the House. She would well know that the Queensland industry grows 15 times the amount of sugar that the New South Wales industry grows, so that is $3 million in freight.These are the types of figures that the Labor Party refuses to accept. I wonder how the member for Capricornia is going to explain to her mining industry that she is going to vote against the savings in this bill that will accrue to the mining industry. Queensland produces something like 50 million tonnes of coal a year that is exported. A lot of that is in the seat of Capricornia. How is she going to explain that she will not agree to the savings that will accrue from this issue to the freight on coal in that area?What about the road trains? What about the cattle industry? Rockhampton is considered to be the cattle capital of Australia, although I think Casino in my electorate sometimes disputes it. Rockhampton is a big cattle producing area. What about the road trains, the transport? How is she going to explain to her constituency that she is going to vote against the removal of the tariff from diesel fuel in those areas?The member for Wills also went on at some length about the increase in pollution, or emissions at least, in the city. I have heard this debate before. I think it emanates from the Greens. At one time I think the AMA even got involved. Goodness knows what knowledge they have about road transport. I just hope they are better doctors than the assessment they make of the use of diesel fuel. How can you honestly come to a conclusion that just because diesel fuel might be cheaper you are going to use more? I just do not understand where they are coming from. This package not only makes it cheaper on road; it makes it cheaper on rail as well. So the competition is still going to be there. How you can make the assessment that suddenly there is going to be an increase in the use of diesel fuel, I cannot understand.But again, obviously the member for Wills has not read the second reading speech. He complains vehemently that he has not had enough time to assess this legislation. I have been around politics long enough to see worse instances of this type of legislation. I was in the New South Wales House one morning and the Wran government introduced some legislation into the House, incorporated the second reading speech in Hansard and then proceeded to debate it. So don't talk to me about what Labor Party does in government. I have seen it all before. This debate has been around for quite some time. It is nothing new. There has been adequate time. I have heard nothing new from the opposition, might I say.I quote again from the minister's speech:The bill not only provides grants for diesel fuel use, but also covers alternative fuels, including CNG and LPG, canola, ethanol and recycled oil. Grant rates for each of these fuels will be established by regulation so as to maintain the current price relativities between them and diesel, given that, unlike diesel, they are not subject to excise. Additional fuels may be added by regulation.Surely that clearly spells out that in the present situation in the city, where I know that a number of vehicles do run on gas—buses and taxis, et cetera—the relativities are maintained. I do not understand this nonsense that is being put forward by the member for Wills and others that there is going to be some distortion in the marketplace because of this bill.Rural Australia has been crying out for years for some help in this area. We have been trying to compete on this so-called level playing field with all of these costs embedded. Another thing that the Labor Party opposite fail to understand is that not only is the diesel fuel excise a benefit, but the tax on vehicles is going to come down from 20 per cent to 10 per cent, and that is also going to be a huge advantage. The trucks that I was talking about that are hauling freight across Australia sometimes cost $500,000 by the time you buy the prime mover and two trailers, et cetera; and 10 per cent on $500,000 is $50,000. That is all going to come off the cost of freight.So there are a lot of things that the Labor Party do not want to see. They do not want to hear about this. The member for Paterson does not want to hear about it because it is good news for the rural areas of Paterson. If he votes against it, I will be the first one to go up there and proudly proclaim that it was the National Party that brought these things into existence. I am pretty sure we will get support in these areas. Again, in the definitions as far as businesses are concerned the minister's second reading speech states:. . . if the vehicle is engaged in transporting goods or passengers within regional Australia.That is one of the criteria. Again, for regional Australia—and for state governments as well—the cost of transport, particularly school transport, is a very big cost. No wonder the New South Wales government has not been too outspoken in these areas. What are you going to say to Treasurer Egan, who is apparently on a binge for austerity in New South Wales? `I don't want to give you $45 million off the cost of diesel on rail in New South Wales'? In New South Wales it is at least $45 million and it could be higher. What are you going to say to him about the fact that you are not prepared to give that reduction in the cost of the transport of school children, or the wholesale sales tax off the vehicles of private contractors?The usual retort we get from the member for Paterson and the member for Hunter is: `It won't be passed on.' Well, they know very little about this world, I can tell you. There is no doubt that the transport industry is a very competitive industry. One of the previous speakers said he was a farmer and that he would rather be a farmer than operate in the transport industry.The member for Corio was quoting from some report, author unknown—the author was probably the member for Corio because he did not mention who the author was—about the impact of this tax on the community, particularly on the regional community. I would like to dwell on that. He said there would be no great savings. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would know the Mills Transport company in northern New South Wales. It is a very big transport company, probably challenged only by Finemores, down in the south. One of the principals of Mills Transport company made a very bold statement recently when one of our ministers was up in Lismore. He said that he believed that the changes that were being effected in this package, particularly to the diesel fuel excise, could reduce the cost of groceries on the shelf by 10 per cent in regional Australia. I know that is a fairly bold statement, but he is a very experienced operator. I think he has a fairly good idea of what goes on in the transport area.I have seen figures recently that across Australia it could probably save 3.3 per cent on the cost of groceries on the shelf. I do not know exactly where the Labor Party are coming from because we do not have any alternatives. They go on and on about the fact that they are going to oppose this tax package and the removal of the diesel excise. But all they want to go back to is what they have at present. What we have at present is just costs, costs, costs on rural Australia. The member for Paterson, who is here by only a few votes, will have to look very carefully at this issue. We have a boundary change coming up. That will change that.Let us go back to the member for Wills and the fuel emissions and his concern about the city. He overlooks another thing in the minister's second reading speech, which I know was negotiated quite actively. I quote again:Standards for low sulphur diesel in 2002, incentives for the introduction of ultra low sulphur diesel from 2003, the introduction of mandatory ultra low sulphur diesel standards by 2006, plus vehicle emission standards to be determined and gazetted before this deal takes effect.I think it has been very carefully researched. If we are going to talk about the reduction of emissions I would like to mention an invention which has been invented in Lismore, in my electorate, the electorate of Page, and which I think is more realistic than some of the garbage coming from the opposition at present time. This engineer has developed a system that in tests so far is saving 14 per cent to 16 per cent in the use of diesel fuel on trucks. This can be extended to trains and even, eventually, to cars. These are the areas that the government gets involved with and supports because we realise the practicalities inherent in them.We do not live in the dim dark ages like the Labor Party. We are looking very carefully at these types of innovations. When this invention is refined—and we have world companies at the present time who are getting involved in this—and reduces the weight of this particular unit, it will eliminate the exhaust brake system, which is a bane on our regional towns. This accumulator will probably give us savings in fuel across Australia of around 20 per cent.That is real, as far as the emissions and the greenhouse gases are concerned, and something that we can get involved with rather than talk about this esoteric argument that is coming across from the other side which is not researched and, in many instances, is not telling the truth. The member for Corio even tried to suggest that there was going to be a GST on the sale of farms. That is not correct. (Time expired)13:23:007183Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I hope that I am allowed as much time to debate the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 and cognate bill as the member for Page, but I guess I will not be. It is interesting to follow the member for Page. Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, both you and I had a very bipartisan attitude to one of the greatest infrastructure projects that this country has ever seen—that is, the reconstruction of the Pacific Highway. I thought we worked well on that together between 1993 and 1996, and at the end of that period of time both sides of politics supported it.The amazing thing about that project is that it shows a bit of lateral thinking. It shows that there is more to improving the efficiency of transport than simply cutting fuel prices. Essentially that is what the member for Page is talking about—that is, the only thing that the government sees that will deliver efficiency in road transport and rail transport is the removal of some of the excise. We do not hear about the transport industry being hooked onto imported crude oil. We do not hear about how the Howard government in its first 12 months cut the ethanol bounty and removed the opportunity for a renewable energy resource to be developed.The member for Page talks about a new development by an engineer in his electorate. Dr Russell Reeves resides in my electorate and he is the head of APACE Research. Russell Reeves is continually going around the world because his company has the worldwide patent on diesohol. You talk about saving 15 per cent. A 10 per cent diesel-ethanol mix—4K6CAUSLEYMr Causley—We're not going to stop that.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—You have stopped it because you removed the bounty in 1996. So new ethanol no longer attracts a bounty, and that industry will not be developed. It can be used in Brazil, it can be used in Sweden, it can be used in other countries around the world, but it will not be used in Australia because of the actions of the Howard government. I always find it interesting when the minister comes in here and talks about the massive savings—Mrs De-Anne Kelly interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The member for Dawson will be silent!UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—It is appalling. It is interesting for the minister to come in here and talk about savings in hundreds of millions of dollars, about the expenditure on the bridge building program and about the expenditure on the Black Spot program. It really does advise me of the tunnel visioned project, the constricted view of the transport industry by this government, and I am sure that the Black Spot program refers to the black spots in their imagination.Our transport industry requires a bit of lateral thinking to be able to expand its horizons. Greater efficiencies would be achieved by a major infrastructure project such as we are seeing going on on the Pacific Highway now. I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that already in Coffs Harbour and in your electorate you are appreciating the efficiencies of the road building program that is taking place. I know in my own town of Raymond Terrace that the bypass has yielded enormous benefits to not only the transport industry but also the people who live in that town. They are the sorts of projects that we should be looking at. It is not simply a matter of removing excise.I also heard the member for Page talk about how a truck such as a B-double is going to save something like $625 on a trans-Australian trip. I invite the member for Page to stay and listen. I happen to be a primary producer and I can assure him that I rarely ship cattle from the east coast to the west. But I can also assure the member for Page that the cattle I produce for slaughter now are not slaughtered in the Hunter Valley. They are taken on a B-double that carries 60 head to Dinmore in Queensland to be slaughtered.If all the excise is passed on by the transport company, the saving will be $1.60 a head for a slaughtered Jap ox that will yield about 400 kilograms. If you pass that on in cents per kilogram, you finish up with an amount that cannot be passed on to the consumer. The statistics are these. A tabletop with a 20-tonne payload does about 1.6 kilometres per litre. If you pass on the whole of the excise saved, you are saving about 0.7c per tonne per kilometre. If you take it to a B-double with a payload of 38 tonnes, you have a saving of 17c a kilometre, or about 0.5c per tonne per kilometre.We keep hearing how this is going to advantage the consumers. I do not know too many consumers out there in rural and regional Australia who buy by the tonne. They generally buy their butter and their margarine by the kilogram. They buy their meat that way, I am sure. 0.5c per tonne per kilometre works out at 0.0005c per kilogram per kilometre. Do not talk about the savings that it is going to yield the consumer in rural and regional Australia because corresponding with this legislation is a GST.I recently took the opportunity to phone a supermarket in Bourke and a supermarket in Burwood to get the price of three items—a four pack of Palmolive Gold, a 375 ml pack of Palmolive shampoo and a 20-pack of disposable nappies. They are fairly generic items, something that most households would use. The price differential Burwood to Bourke was $2.57 on a price in the city of just under $10—about a 25 per cent price differential. Of course, members opposite will say, `Yes, but we're going to take off the wholesale sales tax.' Mr Deputy Speaker, you and I know that, whether the consumer is in Bourke or Burwood, the wholesale sales tax is the same.So, if you remove the wholesale sales tax, the effect for both groups of consumers is the same. If you add a 10 per cent GST to the selling price, however, the consumer at Bourke will pay not only 10 per cent on the cost price of the item but also the added 10 per cent on the differential—25 per cent plus another 2.5 per cent for the consumer in Bourke, thank you very much. You tell me that there is going to be a saving because of the diesel fuel rebate. Would you like to work it out? How much does a 375 ml pack of shampoo weigh and how many of those can you get in a 20-tonne payload at 0.7c per tonne per kilometre? The saving will not be passed on because it cannot.Everyone knows when they go to a supermarket today that the smallest part of change is 5c. We do not deal in 1c and 2c coins anymore. How can you pass on a fraction of a cent? How can a butcher realistically take a fraction of a cent off a kilogram of steak or half a kilogram of sausages? He cannot do it even if he wants to. The best intention will not make it happen.The point is that this government, through a promise that they are not keeping, a promise by the Deputy Prime Minister about cutting billions of dollars off the fuel bill, are now in a situation due to the deal they did with the Democrats that they have on their side people who really do not know what they are going to vote to support today because they, like us, have not been given the time to digest it. If you look at these statistics—and I am attempting to be bipartisan, I am a resident of a rural and regional area, I am a primary producer—they show that the savings will not be passed on.It would have been far better for this government to consider major infrastructure projects. Let us consider how many millions of dollars major road accidents cost us every year. If you measure deaths in terms of millions of dollars, the construction of roads and so on, when it is passed on to the community the cost is enormous. Is the cut in diesel excise going to improve that? The answer is no. The answer is most definitely no, because the road infrastructure will stay the same and the traffic will build up. So you will find that that factor alone will increase and the cost to the Australian community will get worse.They are the sorts of issues that really should have been discussed in a fairly lengthy debate. After all, the position of the Labor Party is we are not going to object to a cut in excise. We are not going to object to an opportunity for the transport industry to show that it can pass on this efficiency. But, yes, I am very cynical. I do know how competitive that industry is and how difficult it will be for that industry to pass on the efficiency.I did mention in my introductory notes that this increases our dependency on crude oil. Australian crude oil, because it is generally light crude, does not lend itself to the manufacture of diesel. Anyone who spares a thought for oil reserves knows that we are talking about a diminishing resource worldwide. More particularly, we are talking about a resource that Australia does not have. But we do have natural gas, and we export that at a ridiculously low price.My own farm truck has a petrol motor—unfortunately I will not be able to benefit from this excise cut—but I have had it fitted with LPG at a cost of a couple of thousand dollars. It works wonderfully well. I love to go in and fill up at 32c or 33c a litre. It gives me a great feeling that I am not only supporting something that I consider to be environmentally friendly but also supporting an Australian industry, an Australian product. I am supporting something that is not increasing our foreign debt. I see the member for New England laugh, but after this comes to pass I will be quite happy to visit his electorate.Every time a coal train trundles down the Hunter Valley with a load of export coal, it is burning something in excess of $100,000 worth of diesel. The ministers say, `Think of the saving on an export commodity. Maybe some of that saving can be used to pay back some of those miners who lost out on some of their benefits.' But every drop of that diesel is from imported crude. That is a fact that will not change.Every drop of diesel used in Australia is from imported crude. Instead of looking laterally, we are looking at hooking our industry onto diesel—not the alternatives, not the gas, not the ethanol. Let us just use diesel. That is the answer. We will make it cheaper. Do not build better roads, do not build all those infrastructure projects that will create jobs and make greater efficiency in our transport industry, just let us make diesel cheaper, and that will deliver to regional Australia.It will not deliver to regional Australia, and this government really is to be condemned for sacking the ethanol bounty and for not look ing to generate new and sustainable industries, new and sustainable fuels. Other countries can do it, but Australia cannot, despite the fact that the originators of those technologies are here. It is not happening and it should be. That is to the disgrace of this country.I am agreeably surprised at the amount of time that has been offered to me by the government. I was looking forward to a headline tomorrow saying `Horne cut off for the ninth time'. It looks like it is not going to happen, so I will have to expand what I was on about. The cut in diesel excise will be accompanied by a certain demise of our gas industry. Australia is one of the foremost countries in the world in the use of gas technology in vehicles. It is all right for the member for Page to come in here and talk about the taxis in Sydney and the small buses in Sydney that use LP gas—and he thinks that people out there in rural and regional Australia do not use it? Wrong. A large number of people use it. In my own electorate, I have been approached by three or four installers of LP gas conversion kits who are petrified at what this is going to mean to their industry. And it is not only cars. As the member for New England would know, there are many farm vehicles that are fitted with LP gas. It is a wholly owned Australian industry using Australian technology and an Australian product—and that is going to see a certain resistance. The $2,000-odd to convert your vehicle certainly is a hefty blow but, with the cut in diesel, it is about the same cost as going to a diesel vehicle up-front. Obviously the decision will be to go to diesel. Multinationals who control our oil industry are of course rubbing their hands in glee.Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, I thank you for your indulgence today, and I certainly look forward to being here when the Pacific Highway is completed through to your electorate from mine. I certainly know that will be a day of celebration. I look forward to being with you when we can look back on the past and say, `Thank goodness we did it.' You probably will not agree with me when I say: is it not a shame there are not more projects of this nature being carried out around Australia to make sure that the transport of goods is efficient, safe and environmentally friendly? But this legislation today is not going to lead to that point. That is the opportunity that has been lost by this government. Okay, you can gloat, but I look forward to being back here in 18 months time when maybe you have worked out how you are going to implement it. Of course, we have not talked about the cost of this to the trucking industry.84BST CLAIRMr St Clair—You might not be back here.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—We will see about that. I am quite happy to talk about that at any time. But I do know that I will get more votes out of this legislation than you will.Motion (by Mr Anderson) put:That the question be now put.The House divided. [1.46 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Crean's amendment) stand part of the question.The House divided. [1.51 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before I put the next question, for the information of the House I advise all members that, whether the doors are locked or unlocked, it is improper and out of order for members to move from one place to another in that situation.Original question agreed to:That the bill be read a second time.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.7187Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Anderson) read a third time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I would like to acquaint all members, following the intervention from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that if he looks at standing order 203B he will see that it states:Members who wish to vote in the same way as they did in the immediately proceeding division shall remain in their seats until the result of the division is announced.Bills7187r8627187Consideration resumed from 22 June, on motion by Mr Anderson:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.7187Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr McGauran) read a third time.Bills7187r8337187Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.7187Bill (on motion by Mr Entsch)—by leave—read a third time.Bills7187r8317187Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; appropriation message having been reported; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.7187Bill (on motion by Mr Entsch)—by leave—read a third time.Bills7187r8427187Debate resumed from 22 June, on motion by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop:That the bill be now read a second time.13:59:007187Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—In the time available I will indicate only the sorts of points that I intend to raise in the debate on the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 . I can only endorse the words of the member for Bradfield last night in this debate about the former government's aged care policy or the lack of policy in many respects. Despite my instinctive distaste for pure marketplace economics, I commend the government's courage in this policy area, knowing as I do that a more courageous income tax policy from both sides of this House could deliver the sorts of aged care facilities that this country requires. The figures that Professor Bob Gregory was talking about several years ago, $145 million per year, could quite adequately be covered if we were serious about income tax reform in this country. They are points that I intend to raise later in this debate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Condolences7188718810000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I inform the House of the death on Wednesday, 21 April 1999 of Reginald Charles O'Brien, a member of this House for the division of Petrie from 1961 to 1963. As a mark of respect for the memory of Mr O'Brien, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.Honourable members having stood in their places—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the House.Miscellaneous71887188Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I want to take this opportunity to indicate to the House that I am told that today marks the 20th anniversary of the election of the member for Watson, then as the member for Grayndler, as a member of the House of Representatives. It is not likely to be the habit of the chair to rise and recognise every member who celebrates an anniversary, but the member for Watson has had a distinguished career in this House and, as a former occupant of this chair, deserves to be recognised in this way. It should also be acknowledged that the member for Watson has had a rather unique parliamentary career in that he has, I am told, occupied the offices of Deputy Speaker, Speaker, Chief Government Whip and Chief Opposition Whip. So he has occupied all of the offices that face onto the Speaker's courtyard—an achievement unlikely to be replicated by many others. On behalf of all members of the parliament, I extend to him our congratulations.Questions Without Notice718871887188Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, do you recall a proposal earlier this year to tax hot cooked chicken but not tax cold cooked chicken? Do you recall responding to that proposal by saying:What the Democrats want the Government to do . . . would be to hire tax inspectors to go around putting thermometers into chickens. You really want a tax system where we're employing people sticking thermometers into chickens to try and run a tax system—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.DT4Mr CREAN—I have to quote this eloquence:. . . it's a nightmare on Main Street. It is not real life . . . It won't work . . . And we ought to get on with real tax reform which is taking complexity out of the system rather than putting it in.Treasurer, under your new agreed chooks amendment, precisely where on the Celsius scale will a cooked chook lose its tax? Will you be issuing thermometers to concerned retailers as you advise them how to avoid this ridiculous tax?7188Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I am certainly very glad that the member for Hotham quotes my eloquence. I can assure him that he stands in no danger of anybody ever quoting his eloquence, on this or on anything. He stands in no danger whatsoever of ever actually standing for a policy in this place. Has the Labor Party a policy on indirect tax?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—No!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Has it a policy on income tax?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—No!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Has it a policy on Commonwealth-state relations?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—No!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Has it a policy on anything?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—No!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Members on my right!Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members on my left!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Here is the would-be heir to Curtin and Chifley who walks into question time brandishing thermometers. It's a wonder you didn't bring any chooks in, or maybe you did—maybe you were the chook that came to the dispatch box.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat. The question that was asked had an air of frivolity about it and the chair allowed it to stand. The Treasurer will now be heard in silence as he is entitled to be heard under standing order 55.CT4Mr COSTELLO—By agreement with the Australian Democrats, the government will be introducing a new broad based goods and services tax and abolishing Labor's wholesale sales tax—the wholesale sales tax that the Labor Party loves, Mr Speaker, you will recall, which has one rate for chocolate Quik and another for strawberry Quik. This agreement was reached with the Australian Democrats because the Australian Democrats had a policy of excluding food from a GST. We have come to an agreement with them that food in restaurants will be taxable, takeaway food will be taxable, meals which are prepared will be taxable and fresh—DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: my question consisted of a lengthy quote from him but it was a very specific one. When does the chook lose its tax?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Treasurer is being entirely relevant to the question and has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I am actually explaining an agreement which was reached between the government and the Australian Democrats, the Australian Democrats being the second most responsible economic party in this parliament—with the Labor Party long after. The agreement with the Australian Democrats is as follows: food which is served in restaurants will be taxable, takeaway food will be taxable, pre-prepared meals will be taxable and fresh food will not be taxable. What that means, Mr Speaker, is that fresh food, which is GST free, should become cheaper than it now is under Labor's tax system. The Labor Party never had a system for making food WST free. Food always had the embedded costs of WST in it under the Labor Party's regime and so, with the new tax system, food actually becomes cheaper. And not only does food become cheaper, but pensions are increased, income taxes are cut, family allowan ces are increased and Commonwealth-state relations are improved.This side of the House believes in doing things; reforming and building a stronger Australian economy. Nothing could more illustrate the irrelevance of the once great Australian Labor Party than a second generation politician, without any policy, wandering into the parliament and, as his big gag for the day, waving around a thermometer.83UCOXMr Cox—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. All the shadow Treasurer asked for was the temperature at which the chook becomes GST free.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Kingston will resume his seat. I understand the Treasurer has concluded his answer.71897189Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister outline to the House the government's plans to further support families and family life in Australia?7189Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—While our opponents opposite play games and throw mud, the government has got on with the business of governing Australia. The government has got on with the business of delivering not only a stronger and better taxation system, not only stronger and better environmental policies, but also today in the government's response to the parliamentary committee report, To have and to hold —a bipartisan committee chaired by the member for Menzies, who has played a major role in constructing family policy in the time that he has been in the national parliament—we have underlined the ongoing commitment of this government to practical policy designed to help the generality of Australian families.In addition to a number of specific measures that I announced today, we made it clear that the foundation of stable family life in this country is stable economic and social conditions throughout the nation. This government has delivered like none other in the last generation in providing a stable Australian economy, and that is demonstrated through the dramatic fall in the level of housing interest rates. Nothing goes more directly to the value of the weekly pay packet of the average Australian family than the cost of a housing mortgage. The average Australian family is $330 a month better off as a result of the policies of this government.The average Australian family is more interested in a group of political parties in a government, in a coalition, that will deliver real benefits to them than they are in a group of politicians who play games and throw mud. What we have seen over the past few weeks is a classic demonstration of the great divide in Australian politics. We are for policies; we are for taking the Australian people forward to an even better millennium. The Labor Party is for looking backwards, for throwing mud and for playing games. I say to the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that games are no substitute for policy. Mud slinging is no substitute for offering a policy alternative and the longer you continue down that path, the more you will condemn yourself in the eyes of the Australian community.Our policy in relation to families is soundly based in the belief that we need to provide strong and stable economic and social conditions. We need to recognise the right of families to choose according to their own assessments of what is right for them and the caring arrangements for their young children. I am very proud of the fact that our tax package provides not only personal tax cuts of about $12 billion a year but also an additional family package of over $2 billion, which will significantly redress the imbalance that has developed over last 15 years in the taxation system, where a bias has crept in against those people in the Australian community who have the responsibility of raising children.It is very significant in the independent analysis that has been done of the taxation package that a number of bodies have highlighted the fact that it is middle income families who get the most benefits out of our taxation package. And that is no mistake, because our policies are directed fairly and squarely at the mainstream of the Australian community. We recognise that our responsi bility is to govern for the mainstream of the Australian community.In the national family strategy that I announced today we announced the establishment of a Marriage and Family Council to take forward the work of the Family Services Council. We announced the trialling of a voucher scheme for pre-marriage education through a network of accredited providers. We reaffirmed our commitment to providing policies in the workplace that will encourage the optimum blend of work and family responsibilities. One of the greatest benefits of the industrial relations reforms of this government is that they have maximised the opportunities for effective choice for Australian families, for working men and women, in relation to the blending of their family and work responsibilities.Let me say once again that this side of politics—the Liberal and National parties—are about developing forward looking policies for the future of the Australian community and the future of the Australian family. The Labor Party is not only locked in backward looking, regressive policies, but its response to our policy is simply to play games and throw mud.71907190Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question again is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, do you recall a recent proposal to tax sandwiches, but not tax sandwich ingredients? Do you recall responding to that proposal? Again I quote:The proposal by Australian Democrats yesterday to introduce enormous compliance costs for all supermarkets, all bakeries, all milk bars is a proposal for a nightmare on main street. You would be in a milk bar and, if you sold bread and butter, it would be tax free, but if you put butter on the bread it would be taxable. You would have sandwich counters where they would say, `Here's the bread, here's the butter—you go and make your own sandwich because, if we put the butter on the bread, it suddenly becomes taxable.'Isn't this the proposal that you have just agreed to, and why have you agreed to impose such enormous compliance costs on Australian food retailers?Government members interjecting—DT4Mr CREAN—It is not our policy; it is yours. We want to defeat it.BV5ADAMSMr Adams—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: it was very difficult, sitting up here at the back of the House, to hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's question because of the noise from the government benches. Could the Deputy Leader of the Opposition repeat the question?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When it comes to a measure of noise, I would not think the member for Lyons was in any position to be critical.7191Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The government has come to an agreement with the Australian Democrats—which is the responsible economic party in Australia, apart from the government—in relation to tax reform. If the Australian Labor Party was really interested in cleaning up definitions, the Australian Labor Party could have voted; it could have actually dealt itself into this debate. The Australian Labor Party took a decision to deal itself out of the debate and, because the Australian Labor Party took a decision to deal itself out of the debate, the real, responsible opposition economic party, the Australian Democrats, got the box seat in relation to tax reform. When the history of tax reform in Australia is written, people will say, `Why is it that Meg Lees was more important than Simon Crean?' The answer is that Meg Lees is more economically responsible than Simon Crean. The answer is that Meg Lees is somebody who is able to take responsibility for decisions and step up to the plate and negotiate with government.You have to ask yourself: why would a party like Labor have no policy? I will tell you the answer. A party like Labor has no policy because a party like Labor has no leadership. To have a policy requires leadership. Here we have a party which votes against everything because it cannot stand for anything.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It goes to the question of relevance, because the issue—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I was about to rule.DT4CREANMr Crean—Are you going to rule on it or do you want to hear it from me?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that that is no way to address the chair. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has raised a point of relevance.DT4CREANMr Crean—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The chair was listening to the answer and feels that the chair is in an adequate position to rule on the relevance of the Treasurer's answer to the question asked about sandwiches. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am about to rule on the point of relevance. The Treasurer was asked a question about the GST as it applies to sandwiches and fillings—sandwich ingredients—and I invite him to come back to the question of the GST on food.CT4Mr COSTELLO—As I said, the reason why the government has come to an agreement with the Australian Democrats is that the Australian Democrats have sought to be relevant to the tax debate. The Australian Democrats have sought to be part of tax reform in Australia. When the Australian Democrats put to us the way in which they would like the GST to apply to food, we agreed with the Australian Democrats and their definitions. That was necessary to reform the Australian taxation system, and it was well worth it.83YHOAREMs Hoare—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Charlton have a point of order?83YHOAREMs Hoare—I have a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—On the grounds of?83YHOAREMs Hoare—The Treasurer deliberately refused to accept your previous ruling on the point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Charlton will resume her seat. That is a nonsense point of order. The Treasurer came instantly to the point that had been made by the chair.71927192Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the further opportunity Australians will have to share in our great national company Telstra. Prime Minister, what have opponents of the sale of a further 16 per cent of Telstra actually voted against?7192Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The member for McEwen is right to refer to the fact that the decision of the Senate to support the privatisation of a further slice of Telstra means that more and more Australians can join the direct ownership of this great national asset; more Australians can join the hundreds of thousands of Australians who already own shares in this great company. This great company will be even greater as a result of the decision that the Australian parliament has taken.It is worth pausing for a moment and analysing just exactly what the opponents of the privatisation of Telstra have voted against. First and foremost, they have voted against getting rid of Labor's debt. That is the first thing they have done. The greatest benefit for the entire nation through the privatisation of Telstra is the capacity it gives to the people of this country to rid themselves of Commonwealth debt at the commencement of the new millennium. But it becomes worse than that when you analyse the benefits that have flowed from the privatisation of Telstra. We are aware that in 1996 the coalition secured a mandate to privatise one-third of Telstra and that in voting against that Labor was not only voting against the decision of the Australian people; Labor was also voting against the largest environmental investment in our nation's history—that is, the Natural Heritage Trust. Labor also voted against improved communications for rural and regional Australia. Labor wanted to deny 1.8 million Australians the opportunity to take a stake in Telstra, and 559,000 of the 1.8 million shareholders in Telstra as a result of the first tranche of Telstra being sold were shareholders for the first time.Almost 600,000 men and women in the mainstream of the Australian community took up this opportunity to buy a direct stake in this great national asset. But worse still, the party of Chifley and Curtin voted to deny Telstra employees from owning their own company. No fewer than 92 per cent of the employees of Telstra took up the offer to buy shares in the company. Well may the member for Melbourne nod his head, because the member for Melbourne supports the privatisation—YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Rubbish. You're a liar.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Melbourne.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—You're a blatant liar.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne knows that that sort of behaviour is quite unacceptable and he will withdraw that comment.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—I will withdraw, but so should the Prime Minister.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne will withdraw without conditions.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—I will withdraw without conditions.ZD4Mr HOWARD—At the last election, we frankly and openly told the Australian people that, if re-elected, we would present legislation for the further privatisation of Telstra. Thankfully, that legislation has now passed through the parliament—to the extent that we now have parliamentary authority to sell a further 16.6 per cent of Telstra. But once again, the Australian Labor Party—the party of Chifley and Curtin—has voted against a measure that will give to ordinary Australian workers enormous additional benefits. Apart from anything else, in the sale of the further tranche of Telstra we are once again going to provide additional incentives for the workers in Telstra to take up shares in the new issue.But those who sit opposite, who claim to represent those workers, voted against it. They voted against extending SBS to another $1 million Australians. They voted against putting banking services back into the bush in 500 small towns. They voted to deny rural and regional Australians access to the Internet at the price of a local call. They voted against continuous mobile phone coverage on Australian highways. They voted against an extra $250 million to further protect our environ ment. They voted to oppose a boost to Australia's information technology and electronics sector.The privatisation of a further tranche of Telstra brings enormous benefits for rural Australia. It will bring enormous benefits for the workers in Telstra. It will help to reduce the debt that we inherited from the economic mismanagement by the Leader of the Opposition. In every sense, it gives the people of Australia an opportunity to directly own a share in a great Australian asset.71937193Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Again I direct my question to the Treasurer. I ask whether the Treasurer has seen the comments of the Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, today that:It's not Howard's package but the Democrats package and I tragically fear we are going to pay a very high price [and that] the benefits are going . . . to be questionable. . . . because this is going to be such a complicated piece of legislation . . . governments now . . . will alter the taxation system in part every year.Treasurer, do you agree with Mr Kennett, or don't you care whether it is known as John Howard's GST or Meg Lees's GST, just so long as it is not known as Peter Costello's GST?7193Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I was asked the question: do I agree with Mr Kennett? I think I can say to the House that it would be an unusual day if I did, and today is not an unusual day: I do not agree with Mr Kennett. I think the Prime Minister described those comments as `negative and backward looking'. I agree with the Prime Minister's assessment. I am always interested when the Labor Party wheels into the federal parliament quoting and relying on Mr Kennett. It shows that they admire him. There is a lot to admire in Mr Kennett. I am sure that he will take the admiration of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition with all the humility that befits it.71937193Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House of recent international recognition of Australia's contribution to international financial reform? Could the Treasurer advise the House of the role Australia has played and will play in this area?7193Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for her question. I think all Australians will be pleased to know that Australia has been invited to join the Financial Stability Forum, a forum which has been set up by the G7 to look at the international financial architecture. The announcement by the G7 that Australia, along with Hong Kong, Singapore and the Netherlands, had been invited to join the Financial Stability Forum noted that those four countries were considered significant financial centres. This is, firstly, international recognition that, outside of the G7, Australia is one of the four significant international financial centres and, secondly, international recognition that on the matter of the international financial architecture Australia in many respects has played a leading role.At the end of last year the Prime Minister asked me to report to him with a task force on measures that could and should be taken to reform the international financial system. We reported, and the Prime Minister took those issues up at the APEC leaders forum meeting, we have taken them up in the International Monetary Fund and, most recently, I took them up at the APEC finance ministers meeting in Langkawi, Malaysia. Australia has been urging in the international role that there should be more work done on highly leveraged institutions, or hedge funds, and that they should be forced to make greater disclosure. We have been urging that developing countries need to have systems to deal with volatile capital flows. We have been urging that the impact of offshore financial centres should be examined. We took a series of initiatives to the APEC finance ministers meeting which, by and large, were adopted at that meeting. The G7 has set up a Financial Stability Forum to look at those issues. Along with the G7, four countries, one of which is Australia, will be involved in looking at these issues.This is a recognition of the hard yards that have been done. It is a recognition of our own economic success in the face of the Asian financial crisis. It is a recognition of the work that we have done in strengthening our own domestic institutions. It is a recognition of the Prime Minister's diplomatic efforts. For all Australians, being part of that international forum, of which there are only 11 countries in the world, indicates that Australia will be able to play a key role in a major body on a major issue which will affect the world financial system.Distinguished Visitors719410000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Just before I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I recognise in the gallery the Hon. Bruce Reid, the former member for Bendigo, and extend to him a welcome.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice719471947194Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Again my question is to the Treasurer. Can he confirm that if you buy a coleslaw at Kentucky Fried Chicken it will be GST free unless you eat it on the premises? Treasurer, how is the retailer expected to know where the coleslaw will be eaten? Who is liable to be fined when the tax man catches someone buying food to take away but then eating it on the premises? Or is this another GST avoidance opportunity that you will be advising on?7194Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I think Kentucky Fried Chicken has today put out a press release welcoming the government's changes. So, good timing on the question. We appreciate it very much, thank you. We would like a few more of them. In relation to the application of goods and services tax, the liability lies on a registered business.Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—I am looking for it. I will table it as soon as I find it. It is somewhere in here. The liability falls on a registered business, and a business reaching certain turnover limits has to register. The liability falls on a business, just as a liability in relation to wholesale sales tax falls on business. Liability in relation to financial institutions duty, which the Labor Party loves, liability in relation to bank account debits tax, which the Labor Party loves, and liability in relation to stamp duty on shares is on those who are doing the transaction. The liability does not fall on consumers; it falls on registered businesses. Registered businesses, as we know, will be given assistance by the government in setting up their schemes. I think the fact that most businesses in Australia support tax reform stands as a testament to how out of touch the Labor Party is on this issue.71947194Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the Australian government's response to the announcement of a short delay in the East Timor ballot? What discussions has the Australian government had with the United Nations on this matter, and what action is the Australian government taking to help ensure that the ballot takes place?7194Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the member for Hindmarsh for her question and, indeed, for her interest in this issue. The Australian government supports the decision made by the United Nations Secretary-General to implement a short delay in the timing of the ballot in East Timor for security and logistical reasons. The Secretary-General is to report shortly—I think during today, New York time—in greater detail to the Security Council. The government has been in close contact over the last few weeks with the United Nations on this matter. On Monday of last week I met with the Secretary-General in New York, and Kofi Annan and I discussed the question of whether the ballot should or should not be delayed. Certainly we have taken the view that we would ideally like to see the ballot take place on time, but that if there were significant security problems still in place and logistical issues to be resolved then a short delay would be appropriate.I also discussed these matters with Ambassador Marker, the Secretary-General's special representative and other officials from the United Nations. Our Ambassador in Jakarta, John McCarthy, met with Mr Marker and also with the UNAMET head, Ian Martin, on 21 and 22 June to follow up the discussions I had in New York. We do share the Secretary-General's concerns about the security situation in East Timor. A secure and peaceful environment is clearly fundamental to the success of the ballot. We have been urging over a long period now the Indonesian government and, more specifically, the Indonesian military to take further action to improve the security situation, and we will continue to do that.We remain committed to doing all we can to support the consultation process. We have provided substantial logistical support, and I have told the Secretary-General that we will provide additional support if additional support is necessary. It is the Australian government's view, and I think it is the Secretary-General's view as well, that the more the United Nations presence is deployed—that is, the civilian police presence, the military liaison presence as well as the civilian presence—the better the chance of improving the security environment in East Timor. We are hopeful that the deployments that are now taking place will have a significant impact on that environment.As I said at the beginning, the government supports the Secretary-General's decision on a short delay. We would not want to see a substantial delay, because if the delay were to be for, say, six or nine months—over a significant period—then it would play into a completely new political environment within Indonesia itself, and the opportunity for holding the ballot at all may be lost. This government has played a key role in bringing about the possibility of a United Nations ballot in East Timor for the first time in a generation. It is an enormous contribution that we have been able to make to seeing the great problem of East Timor resolved, and we will continue to work for a satisfactory resolution of this matter.71957195Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Treasurer. Does he recall discussing with John Laws on 20 April this year the Democrat GST food proposal and the compliance problems it had caused in Canada? Does he recall John Laws's question:But we have a brighter Treasurer than the Canadians, don't we? And does he recall his answer? His answer was:Yes. And a brighter Treasurer says . . . the better thing is just to apply the tax regime across the board. You don't have armies of inspectors, you don't have these stupid demarcation and classification disputes . . . Treasurer, what does this once-bright Treasurer say now?7195Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I know the opposition has to go through the motions, and I know you have been given all the questions that you have to ask and we will go through them over and over again, but the answers are always the same. I table the media release, `KFC welcomes decision on hot food,' which states:KFC today welcomed the decision by the federal government and the Australian Democrats to treat all hot food the same.71957195Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise this House how families will benefit from the reform of Australia's personal income tax system? How does this compare to other proposals?7195Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question, and I acknowledge the longstanding interest that he has shown in families and the submissions he has made on reducing income tax burdens on families. As far as the Liberal and National parties are concerned, we think that families should have lower income tax rates. We think that under Labor income tax rates were too high, that families were being punished and that they need tax relief. From 1 July 2000—this is the great news—families in Australia are going to get income tax cuts. The Labor Party has been defeated in its bid to keep income taxes up and the Labor Party has been defeated in its bid to prevent the cutting of income taxes.This government introduced, after the 1996 election, a tax cut for all families. From 1 July 2000 we will be introducing tax cuts across the board. The tax-free threshold will be lifted to $6,000. The 20 per cent rate will be cut to 17c. The 34c and 43c rates will be cut as low as 30 cents in the dollar and the threshold for the 47 per cent rate will be pushed out. From 1 July, a single person with no dependents on average wages of about $37,000 will take home around $22 a week extra as a result of income tax cuts. From 1 July 2000, a one-income family earning $29,000 with one child under five will receive an additional $58 a week in income tax cuts and additional family assistance. This side of politics believes that single income families on moderate earnings are entitled to income tax justice, and the great thing is that Labor has been defeated in its campaign to keep their income taxes high.I was asked whether there were any alternative policies on offer, and the answer, I fear, is no. There are no alternative policies that are being offered by the formal opposition in this country. They know what they are against; what they don't know is what they are for. They are against indirect tax reform, they are against income tax reform, they are against family assistance reform and they are against the new Commonwealth-state financial deal. They are a group of people who can only say no because they cannot say yes. Why would a political party have no policy? A political party has no policy when it has no leadership, because to have a policy requires leadership—to stand for something is much harder than to stand against something.We saw in the paper that the Leader of the Opposition has cancelled his overseas trip in July. When Leaders of the Opposition start cancelling overseas trips to stay in the country, it is a sure bet that their leadership is in trouble. When he says he is going to be running around the country listening, he is going to be listening to his backbench, he is going to be listening to who they want as their leader and he is going to be listening as to how to shore up his leadership position. We don't blame him either. There are many more caucus votes to be found here than at No. 10 Downing Street, and from this side of the parliament we wish him all the best in his leadership.71967196O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, have you seen the response of the National Farmers Federation President, Ian Donges, to the Howard-Democrat GST package and its impact on farmers, particularly horticultural and egg producers? I quote:The effect of the deal . . . will be to force affected farmers to make a permanent loan to the government . . . . . . the deal . . . will also mean unnecessarily complicated compliance problems . . .We estimate that the compliance costs will increase three-fold for those farmers [affected].Treasurer, why have you agreed to a deal that will impose further and unnecessary GST compliance costs on hard-pressed Australian farmers?7196Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I have seen the news release and the news release in fact says, as I recall, that the NFF has supported the introduction of a broad based consumption tax for the past 10 years. I think the point that Mr Donges is making is that those farmers who are in the GST-free area will not get the benefits of cash flow that those farmers who are in the GST-applicable area do. If you are in the GST-applicable area, as you know, you collect GST and you hold it for a quarter before remitting it. What Mr Donges is saying is that those farmers, such as horticulturalists, who are in the GST-free area will not get the benefit of that cash flow. They will not be holding GST. I think that is the point that he is making.Let me turn that around the other way. If the Labor Party had its way, there would be no farmer getting the benefit of GST cash flow. Mr Speaker, do you see how the argument runs? The Labor Party stands up and says, `We are upset that there are some farmers that won't get the benefit of the GST.' That is its position. It is like the member up here who says, `What about the transporters? Only some of them are getting 20c a litre.' The Leader of the Opposition says, `They are only getting a growth tax without food; that's terrible.' The shadow minister for whatever he is the shadow minister for says, `Horticulturalists won't get the benefit of the GST cash flow advantage that the pastoralists, wheat farmers, all of the other broadacre farmers and everybody else will.' If you really wanted people to get the benefit of the cash flow advantage, you would be supporting the government's position. It is absolutely illegitimate for the Australian Labor Party to say that it is against any cash flow for any farmer because it is against GST and then get up and complain about an exemption. It is like diesel. The Labor Party says, `We are against any cash back for any transporter,' and then wants to claim that there are some people missing out. It is like the growth tax: it is an absolutely illegitimate argument. I am sure that those farmers who are on the opposition frontbench will explain that to the shadow minister.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There has been an exchange across the parliament that is quite unnecessary. The member for Parkes is waiting for the call. He is waiting only because he is not being assisted by parliamentarians on either side.71977197Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister outline to the House what the government is doing to improve services and telecommunications infrastructure for those who live and work in regional, rural and remote communities? Are there any alternative policies in the public arena?7197Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. He represents a vast area of New South Wales. He is very keen to see that people in that far-flung region have every possible opportunity to advance their interests in what are unquestionably challenging times. The reality is that we are now in a position to offer $1 billion worth of social bonus, which will greatly enhance both the quality of life and economic opportunities for people in rural and regional areas through what amounts to a coordinated and well-directed set of policies. This is in stark contrast to the total absence of policies being put up by the other side.Interestingly, I am told that those glum faces out there on the other side reflect the fact that they have been told to go out and sell their policies. In caucus they have been told to go out and sell the good message of what they have to offer. It must be a pretty demoralising experience because I thought really that, in answering the question, it would be most useful to have a look at what members on this side of the House are able to say about the policy position that they are currently in and that they are able to put to their people.The member who asked the question was able to say yesterday that securing a second partial sale of Telstra is a best of both worlds victory for the people of western New South Wales and that better recreational and commercial telecommunications services will eliminate the tyranny of distance in western New South Wales while the nation will pay billions of dollars less in interest. The federal member for Murray has been able to say that the $1 billion social bonus from the 16 per cent sale of Telstra will deliver improved telecommunications services throughout regional and rural Victoria, boosting business, information technology and job opportunities. She said that the funding intentions announced today would help rural and regional communities to access the future. Can they offer those things to their people? What can they offer by contrast? Where can they go out with their rural communities and make these sorts of claims? They cannot.The member for Hinkler has been able to point to the fact that between 200 and 250 rural and regional communities will now get access to SBS television—200 to 250 communities across rural Australia that do not have SBS will now get SBS. The member for Riverina has been able to talk about extended mobile phone coverage. That is one policy that they did have. They had one. It was to deny a whole lot of Australians access to mobile phone coverage. We are not only keeping it alive but extending it for a whole lot of people right across regional Australia. The member for Riverina says:Extended mobile phone coverage and federally funded SBS are two issues that I have been working hard to achieve . . . In securing funding for these initiatives, we narrow the service gap between city and country areas.The NFF, quoted here just a moment ago, said that the most valuable element of the extra allocation would be improved telecommunications infrastructure in the bush. It said:Country people will also benefit from the significant reduction in call costs for extended zone users in rural Australia . . .The federal member for New England has been able to say that this would be of great benefit for New England and other areas of regional Australia. It was beautifully summed up by the member for McEwen, who is able to say to this House that farmers from her area of Mansfield have not only thanked her but also asked that those thanks be passed on to the federal government. What a contrast with the policy vacuum that the others are supposed to go out and sell—I do not know what with—in the areas that, presumably, the Leader of the Opposition wants them to go to.71987198McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—My question is to the Leader of the Opposition. Could the Leader of the Opposition advise the House why notice No. 10 standing in his name should be brought on for urgent debate forthwith?7198Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I thank the whip for his question. The time has come to take a very careful look at notice of motion No. 10 on the Notice Paper . The simple fact of the matter is that this government's so-called tax reform legislation stands in tatters. There is not a single economic journalist in this country who supports them. DG4FISCHERMr Tim Fischer—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Standing orders are very strict about the particularity of this type of question. They do rule them in but in very tight circumstances. I ask you to rule on the answer and the point he is now reaching.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will, of course, monitor the Leader of the Opposition's answer, as I monitor the answers of all ministers. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—I go to why it is relevant to discuss point (1) of the motion now, since the Deputy Prime Minister wants to do it by the book. The first point is:that the national taxation debate is no longer about `tax reform' but merely about `tax change'—and not change for the better We have got no better authority on that than Professor Peter Dixon of the Centre for Policy Studies at Monash University, who says that all those things that were claimed for it—that it would improve the adequacy of the tax system, that it would improve its simplicity—are nonsense. He revealed that. His final conclusion on it was, `Why would you bother?'HK5ANDREWSMr Andrews—Mr Speaker, on a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition is already straying beyond the bounds which relate to questions and answers of this sort. He is not arguing about why the motion should be brought on for discussion; he is arguing the substantive point of the motion standing in his name.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has had a great deal of experience in this place. He knows that he must deal with the urgency of the matter, since that is what his motion is about. I will monitor what he is saying. He also recognises, I am sure, that if he anticipates debate there will be the same sorts of difficulties as those which apply to other people answering questions. I call the Leader of the Opposition.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—I would have thought the report from the Centre for Policy Studies, produced yesterday, gives ample urgency to a consideration of this matter. That particular report—this is why we must discuss it—pointed out that we gain nothing from the tax system in simplicity as far as this is concerned. We are introducing a massively complex new tax that is going to be borne by all Australian families. It delivers nothing in terms of simplicity to the size and the complexity of the act—nothing whatsoever. The conclusion, like that of every economic journalist, is `Why would you bother?'It is urgent that point (2) of the motion be considered as it points out that, on the official estimate of the Treasurer, this tax package costs at least $20 billion over the first three years of its operation. That is $20 billion which could be spent effectively on a genuine, decent tax cut for families, like the Labor Party's proposition on working family tax credits. That is the only genuinely new piece of policy introduced since the last election campaign.3E4SULLIVANMrs Sullivan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The procedures of this House on questions of this nature are very clear and unambiguous. The question to the Leader of the Opposition can deal only with technical matters.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Oh!3E4SULLIVANMrs Sullivan—That is the procedure of the House. The Leader of the Opposition in his response can deal only with technical matters and not with substance. He is constantly referring to the substance of the issue, not any technical point.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—On that point of order, the rule on questions to other members is this:Questions may be put to a Member, not being a Minister or an Assistant Minister, relating to any bill, motion or other public matter connected with the business of the House, of which the Member has charge.Then the rules which apply are the rules for questions in standing order 144. The rules that apply in that case, of course, are all the rules that apply to you lot. When there is a bill being questioned—any bill that may be before the House—there are, of course, constraints. I would remind you that this is a motion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition is straying on his point of order. The Leader of the Opposition understands that he must not anticipate debate; that is the area in which he is most vulnerable in his answer. I require him to continue his answer. I have not as yet ruled him out of order.Mr Adams interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Lyons.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—So the reason why point (2) has urgency now is that all the flexibility to do a decent business tax cut has been constrained now by so-called revenue neutrality. Business has already given it the office in this package with what it has done on the business numbering system, which we support, and what is being done with taxing trusts of companies, which we support, but we are not sure about the Nationals. They have given it the office, but now they have to give more. So what might have created a few jobs in this country is in fact not going to create the jobs that it could have done because they have been constrained by the fiscal parameters of this particular proposition, costing $20 billion, and they will have to work out ways in which they can get families to carry the entire tax burden.We ought to consider point (3) now as there will be, as a result of the changes on food, some 375,000 small businesses—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The House will come to order.Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter is warned.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question from the member for Watson was that the Leader of the Opposition establish the urgency. The fact that some academic organisation has published a report is not of itself proof of urgency. He has simply said, `I think that the report—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members on my left! The member for Parramatta has the call and will be extended the courtesy to which everyone in the House is entitled.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—The Leader of the Opposition said in response to the first point of order, `I would have thought the publication of the report established urgency.' I suggest that thousands of reports are published every day. He has gone straight to the substance of the motion. Everything he has said anticipates debate on a possible further consideration of the motion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta needs to know that the chair has obviously been listening to what the Leader of the Opposition has had to say. He has frequently referred to the matter of urgency and obviously recognises the obligation he has to continue to do so. I call the Leader of the Opposition.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—The other reason why point (3) is important is that we have had the Premier of Victoria come out and say that the problems of compliance these 375,000 small businesses confront are just diabolical. They are going to be entitled to about $300 worth of compensation for putting in a $15,000 cash register with bar codes. He knows darn well that they are not going to thank you for that. The families who run small business in this country are not going to thank you for the fact that they sit up an extra two hours every night trying to rationalise their books. The Victorian Premier has added urgency to this—CU4GALLUSMrs Gallus—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. References to cash registers are clearly a substantive part of the argument, not part of the urgency motion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hindmarsh makes a valid point of order. In fact, I was about to remind the Leader of the Opposition of the need to stress the urgency of the matter to which he is referring.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—I think it is very urgent. This is why point (3) is so important, the Premier of Victoria having come out this week—before the parliament has had the opportunity to consider these matters—and described these proposed changes, specifically because of their impact on small business, as `diabolical'. These proposed changes are diabolical because of the massive compliance costs that will be imposed on small business and the fact that small business will not have the resources to be able to confront them. Finally we get to point (4), which says this:as a result of the GST food fiasco, the States will be required to keep indefinitely a range of state taxes and duties amounting to $2.5 billion which the Government promised prior to the last election would be abolished.The Treasurer still persists in this place arguing that they have indeed been abolished when he knows darn well that they are on the never-never. There has been no simplification of this tax system, just a rendering of it as massively complex.Everybody in the country knows this: that the tax cuts they get are the tax cuts they are entitled to, and no more; and that what they are getting from the goods and services tax is a massive tax on Australian families. That is why your voters do not want it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will come back to the matter of urgency.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—That is why our voters do not want it. That is why the bush does not want it. That is why we need to discuss this motion now—so that we can expose the farce that this tax change has become.72007200Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer.Mr Albanese interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler is warned.ZT4Mr SOMLYAY—Can the Treasurer advise the House what arrangements will be put in place to ensure that small winemakers maintain their important role in the Australian wine industry?7200Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. As part of the agreement between the Australian Democrats and the government last night, the government undertakes to ensure that the states will keep arrangements providing for rebates on cellar door and mail order sales for wineries of up to $300,000. This will be of enormous benefit for wineries, particularly small wineries who at the moment use cellar door sales or mail order arrangements to give a rebate and encourage tourism. The government believes that this will be a great thing for small wineries. In partnership with the Australian Democrats, who have been part of the tax debate, we have come to that agreement.The origin of the rebates was that the states had imposed, in relation to wine, business franchise fees which were struck down by the High Court. The business franchise fees did not apply to cellar door sales and mail order sales, whereas the Commonwealth wholesale sales tax did apply. Because the High Court struck down the business franchise fees at the request of the states, the Commonwealth applied the equivalent of the franchise fees by topping up the wholesale sales tax. Because that was a state revenue base and because that state revenue base had not previously includ ed cellar door sales, the states undertook to, and did, run rebate schemes.Now that the Commonwealth is abolishing financial assistance grants, abolishing the safety net arrangements and introducing a goods and services tax which will ensure that the states have all of the revenue which they previously had and more, the states should be in a position to continue those rebate schemes. Indeed, I understand that South Australia has already indicated that it will, and I understand that the matter is under consideration in Western Australia and quite possibly in Victoria as well.Mr Cox interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingston!CT4Mr COSTELLO—I know that the member for Kingston, as the Labor Party's vigneron, is interested in this point. I also know that the Labor Party's vigneron has been ringing up radio stations, making submissions in relation to tax—as the member for Kingston, interestingly enough, not as a vigneron. But we do acknowledge and welcome his interest as a winegrower. As I said yesterday, he is really a source manufacturer for the chardonnay drinkers of the Australian Labor Party. In fact, we could call him the `sauce manufacturer', keeping the left-wing chardonnay set in the Labor Party fuelled for branch discussions in relation to those certainly important left-wing issues that old Martin, the member for Batman, is not so concerned about. I suppose Martin would prefer a red to a chardonnay.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will come to the question.DG4FISCHERMr Tim Fischer—No, pink.CT4Mr COSTELLO—He would prefer a pink. Simon is the red. These old ACTU presidents—one red, one pink, Batman and Hotham—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will come to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Second generation politicians—all in dad's family business, aren't we, Labor members of parliament?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will come to the question of wine.CT4Mr COSTELLO—In relation to cellar door sales, the Australian Democrats and the government have agreed that those cellar door rebates will continue. They should be funded by the states, which will have plenty of revenue under the GST and the guarantee system. We will be negotiating that with the states in the near future.72017201Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Do you stand by your spokesman's defence of Mr Entsch that, even if he did stand to gain from the East Trinity development, such gains `would be shared in common with numerous other landowners in the locality'? Prime Minister, is it now okay under your shrinking code of conduct for a minister or parliamentary secretary to use public office to achieve substantial private gain so long as there is a few other people around who make the gain as well?7201Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am glad the Leader of the Opposition asked me that question. When a number of questions were asked on this yesterday, I said that I would analyse them. I have certainly analysed the questions and I have also analysed some of the public comments that have been made about the questions. One of the public comments—I will come to it in a moment—was made by the Mayor of the City of Cairns, Councillor Tom Pyne, who I understand has been a member of the Australian Labor Party all his life. In a statement under the heading `Mayor slates city being dragged through the mud' he had a few comments to make about the remarks that have been made by those who sit opposite.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order with regard to relevance. The question was not—Mr Lindsay interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Herbert! The Manager of Opposition Business is entitled to be heard in silence, as is every other member.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—The point is this: the question was about Mr Entsch's behaviour; it was about the Prime Minister's standards and whether he has established a new low standard.10000Mr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business knows that that cannot be a point of order under relevance. The Prime Minister is being relevant to the question that was asked and has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—As a result of the questions that were asked yesterday by the member for Hotham, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I discussed the matter with—MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order: if the Prime Minister wishes to add to an answer he gave yesterday, in accordance with your direction yesterday he should do it at the end of question time.10000Mr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell is quite right, but the Prime Minister has not indicated that is his intent.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—He said he was answering yesterday's question.10000Mr SPEAKER—I do not believe that others may interject when the Speaker has the floor. I thought the Prime Minister was indicating that some of what he answered yesterday was relevant to the question asked today and, until I have evidence to the contrary, I will hear him.ZD4Mr HOWARD—A series of questions were asked and, as a result of that, I had a lengthy discussion with the member for Leichhardt during which I sought an explanation and a comment upon the allegations that had been made against him. As a result of that, the member for Leichhardt has written a lengthy letter to me, together with a large number of attachments. I table that letter. I sent a copy of that letter before question time to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.It is relevant to the questions asked both yesterday and today for me to make a number of observations and points. The first of those is that the land that was purchased by the member—the ownership of which was fully disclosed both on the House of Representatives register and on the return given to me—was bought at public auction for $26,000. Its value if it were freehold is $195,000 but that is not its value in the hands of the member for Leichhardt. It is also true that all of the actions by the member for Leichhardt were taken in the bona fide discharge of his obligations and duties as a member of parliament.I mentioned a moment ago the statement that had been made by the Mayor of the City of Cairns, Councillor Tom Pyne, which is dated today. I will read this out because I think it is directly relevant to the quite scurrilous charge that has been made against the member for Leichhardt.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—What about the standards of the parliament here?10000Mr SPEAKER—The member for Corio is doing nothing about the standards of the parliament.Mr O'Keefe interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKER—The member for Burke is warned.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Under the heading `Mayor slates city dragged through the mud', the release states:Cairns mayor Cr Tom Pynehas slated some Federal politicians who have attempted to drag the city's name through the contaminated mud of the NatWest project at East Trinity.And at the same time they have tried to link Federal Member for Leichhardt Warren Entsch to the site as part of a sustained attack on the local politician."The fact that Mr Entsch works very closely with this council on a wide range of community issues is well known."This positive partnership has done so much good for the Cairns community."As a life member of the Labor Party, I find it refreshing that a man from the other side of the political fence is prepared to put everything else aside and work in the best interests of the people he serves."Anyone who knows the East Trinity area also knows that the NatWest site has been the subject of many failed proposals over the last 20 years."It remains a degraded, contaminated site behind a bund wall which the giant CSR company found was unviable for the purposes of growing cane."In fact, it was Mr Entsch who joined with East Trinity ratepayers to highlight that the soil on the site was heavily contaminated with acid sulphate, and successfully lobbied for a report from the CSIRO to be made public." Cr Pyne said any suggestions of a bridge being pushed across the inlet to that site was "pie in the sky stuff.""Successive State governments ruled this out under the FNQ2010 regional transport strategy, and this council has taken the same position," he said.Cr Pyne also said that more than 80 per cent of all land identified under a draft development control plan . . . for potential urban development across Trinity Inlet involved the NatWest site."But for those in far away Canberra who are unfamiliar with Cairns's geography, this site is only one parcel of a large area of land across the inlet which is known as East Trinity," he said."Mr Entsch's property is more than 10 km away from NatWest's site and is a restrained parcel bounded by national parks and with no identified urban potential under that DCP," he said."We will continue to work with Mr Entsch in the best interests of all residents across the Inlet," said Cr Pyne.Mr Lindsay interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Herbert is warned.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Attached to the letter that was sent to me by the member for Leichhardt is a note from the Chancellor of James Cook University, Lieutenant General Grey, the former head of the Army, who comments inter alia in relation to the workshop that was organised at the request of the member for Leichhardt in furtherance of the interests of his constituents:The Workshop was as close as you could get to an apolitical meeting of experts and interested parties trying to solve a major problem in the Leichhardt electorate. It has been evident for some time that the solution is likely to take time and significant funding, the source of which is yet to be identified.It was also the subject of critical comment yesterday including, on the information available to me, a quite erroneous report appearing as the lead story in today's Sydney Morning Herald regarding some comments I think of a Dr Fitzpatrick in relation to the alleged misconstruction of the CSIRO report. The thrust of that report in the Sydney Morning Herald was in some way that improper pressure had been applied by Mr Entsch, the member for Leichhardt, to CSIRO in relation to the publication of this report.The information that I have in the form of the letter that was provided to me by Mr Entsch includes a letter dated today's date from Malcolm McIntosh, the respected Chief Executive of CSIRO, which details the sequence of events in relation to this report. He says inter alia:The letter was dealt with in the normal way by sending it to CSIRO for a draft response. At no time did Mr Entsch or his office contact us about the content of the reply. The draft letter from Mr Entsch to Mr Whitney was delivered to Mr Entsch's office on 31 March 1999. We also provided an executive summary of CSIRO's work to be sent to Mr Whitney with the letter which noted that CSIRO was writing up the research as a formal report but that it had not yet been peer reviewed, part of our internal quality control.He goes on to say:Neither Mr Zagar nor Mr Entsch made an attempt at any stage to influence the final report or its findings.I repeat:Neither Mr Zagar nor Mr Entsch made an attempt at any stage to influence the final report or its findings.Of course ratepayers were keen for this report to be made available. It had been commissioned as far back as 1995, and the people of that district had a legitimate interest.At all stages, the member for Leichhardt has disclosed his personal financial interest in this land. The member for Leichhardt was making a valid bona fide representation on behalf of interested constituents regarding a longstanding environmental challenge in his electorate. To assert that in the circumstances of this case there is a conflict of interest involved is to assert the ridiculous proposition that it is beyond the capacity of any person, particularly one representing a rural or regional electorate in this parliament, to make representations that might in some way improve the amenity of that district.For example, it would be improper for a member of this House who owns a rural property to seek funds from the government for flood mitigation that might improve the value of that rural property. It would be beyond the warrant of a representative of a rural community in this parliament owning a property within that electorate to make representations regarding the building of a road that might enhance the amenity of the proper ty. It would be beyond the warrant of people to argue for regional development funds. It would be beyond the capacity and the right of a member who owned a property in an area to seek resources under the Natural Heritage Trust that might improve the amenity of the property.In other words, what the Labor Party members have done on this occasion—in their desperate search for dirt as a substitute for decent politics—is to stretch the meaning of conflict of interest beyond all reason. I am satisfied on the information made available to me that the member for Leichhardt has behaved properly, he has behaved energetically and he has behaved enthusiasticly in pursuit of the interests and the rights of his constituents, and I am satisfied with the explanation that he has thus far provided to me.72047204Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is to the Minister for Community Services. What action is the government taking to assist working families, particularly in the area of more affordable after school hours care?7204Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for Parramatta for his question, which draws attention to the very important speech on family policy that the Prime Minister made this morning. The Prime Minister clearly demonstrated again that it is this side of the House that is doing all the work on policy development and it is this side of the House that cares about families and is providing real benefits for families. My word, that contrasts with the member for Lilley, who yesterday put out a media release to try to pre-empt the Prime Minister's speech, but all he did was draw attention to the absolute emptiness of Labor's policy development. In fact, if they stuffed a thermometer into their policy pot, the mercury would drop below zero; but if it came to rhetoric, then it would go to fever pitch. That is about the only use they can make of thermometers.The member for Lilley actually suggested yesterday that this government had cut $1 billion out of child care. The truth of the matter is that this government in 1999-2000 will spend $1.1 billion on child care, and that is nine per cent more than Labor spent in their last year in office. So there have been no cuts. There have actually been increases in child-care expenditure, and that flows right through. Some 93,000 families are now registered with Centrelink for school aged child-care assistance. We have provided 30,000 extra new long day care places. When it comes to outside school hours care, the matter referred to by the honourable member for Parramatta in his question, we have funded 87,000 extra places. That is what this government does when it comes to child care—we boost expenditure, we provide more places.And we have done a lot more. In fact, the legislation already passed by this House which will simplify the child-care benefits by combining two payments into one will mean an increase again in child-care assistance for Australian families—that is, $7.50 a week for a low income family with one child in full-time care. This is the government that cares about families, that cares about the care of their children, that provides real increases in resources to ensure that Australian families can enjoy the services that are available in this country.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, as it is getting on for 25 past 3, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous720415:23:007204Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—On indulgence, the House may be interested to know that I have been informed that the High Court has ruled the election of One Nation Senator-Elect Heather Hill invalid. I am advised that four of the court's seven justices found that she was ineligible to be elected because she had dual citizenship with Britain at the time of the poll. The news report suggests that a count back will now be held to determine which candidate will take her place.Documents72047204Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Matters of Public Importance7205720510000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hotham proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The continuing failure of the government to present a fair and coherent tax policy for the nation.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:25:007205Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—What was circulated to the press gallery at 10 o'clock last night was this dog's breakfast of a GST negotiated with this unholy alliance with the Democrats—the Democrats who have sold out on just about every policy position that mattered in the last election to their constituency and a government so proud of this new tax package that it had to skulk it out in the dying hours of last night. This tax is not just a dog's breakfast; it is now being held up to ridicule. This is being made the butt of jokes all around the country. We had the position before when there was confusion about the chooks. Now there is even more confusion because if the chook is cooked and hot it attracts the tax but if it goes cold and is still cooked there is no tax.Hence we asked the Treasurer today at what point in this magical cycle does this great new tax of his disappear. We even offered him the assistance of the thermometer to tell us on the Celsius scale when the chook loses its tax. And he would not answer it. The reason he will not answer it is the reason he would not answer it when we held up the salad pack a few weeks ago. He could not answer that either, because what he has produced is a nightmare of a tax. He has produced it because he has been ordered to produce it. He does not want this tax. This is the person who, when he was first asked to defend the GST deal with the Democrats, joked about it and said, `Go and ask Meg Lees.' It is a great revolving door, this, because we now have Meg Lees saying, `Go and ask the Treasurer,' because neither of them understand. But not only did he joke about it; he ridiculed it—and ridicule it he might, because it is a ridiculous outcome.We now have a situation where not only does the chook lose its tax as it cools down but also carbonated mineral water is taxed but still mineral water is not taxed. I for the life of me think that the Democrats must have got confused in these negotiations and thought what they were getting was a carbon tax, not a carbonated tax. But the truth of the matter is that if you go through the legislation they put down last night it is riddled with anomaly.In relation to the flavoured milk that the Treasurer wants to talk about and how pink we might be on this side, flavoured milk is taxed but Milo is not. Where is the consistency in that? Then there was the coleslaw question which I asked him. I might say that he produced in his defence a press release from Kentucky Fried Chicken to say that they welcomed this announcement. They did not. All Kentucky Fried Chicken did was to welcome what the government had done in relation to hot food. But he has still not answered the question of the ridiculous circumstance that applies with the coleslaw.Here we have the government and the Democrats out there saying, presumably because we exposed the salad argument in this House, that all salads are now GST free, unless you eat them in a takeaway store. But what happens if the person goes to the counter, orders the tub of coleslaw and says he is taking it away but then decides to eat it inside? He is a criminal. We have the GST police on to him. But the Treasurer says, `That's fine. He won't be liable. The retailer will.' The retailer is going to be liable for a tax penalty simply because the consumer changed his mind! Smart tax this one, a real smart tax this one!What we have is a government that has lost direction in this tax debate, and the reason it has lost direction is that it has never had a view of genuine tax reform.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—We haven't lost direction; you've lost direction.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Yes, you have.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The minister will remain silent.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—All you have had is an obsession with the GST and to introduce it at any cost to save the Prime Minister's hide, to save his prime ministership. There they were floundering around, when Senator Harradine had the courage to get up in the parliament and say, `I cannot.' There was relief around the whole nation when Senator Harradine made that statement because people had been relieved of this dreadful, unfair and complicated tax. We know of the relief because of the thousands of letters that came in. But let me make this point: Senator Harradine's vote only mattered because Labor built the coalition to make his vote matter, to ensure that we would not support these crazy amendments that the Senate was being presented with by the Democrats.We would not support this ludicrous position in trying to define what food is in and what food is out, so we voted against that amendment and that had the effect of ensuring that the Democrats voted against the whole GST package. So the 28 votes that we had, together with the two Greens, became 37 with the Democrats, and Senator Harradine's vote mattered because we had built that coalition. But where we were consistent and said that we would not cop the distinction between food in and food out, the government did a total backflip—a backflip that the Treasurer has been so embarrassed about today and we will remind him of it time and time again. Let me remind the House what the Treasurer said in relation to the proposal to tax a hot cooked chicken but not tax a cold cooked chicken. He said:What the Democrats want the Government to do . . . would be to hire tax inspectors to go around putting thermometers into chickens. You really want a tax system where we're employing people sticking thermometers into chickens—he asks rhetorically—to try and run a tax system—it's a nightmare on Main Street. It is not real life . . . It won't work . . . we ought to get on with real tax reform which is taking complexity out of the system rather than putting it in.That was the Treasurer of this nation speaking about the Democrats' proposal not very long ago, and he has the gall to come into this chamber today and now claim that the Democrats are the paragons of economic virtue. Where does this crowd get their logic? Here he was debasing, ridiculing, this mob—stating that it is a system they are putting up that cannot work—and here in the House today he was saying that they are responsible economic thinkers. The Treasurer is a fraud, a real fraud. If he thinks these statements are not going to be thrown back at him, he has another think coming.He used to like going around talking about the nightmare on main street. I do not think an interview went by in which the `nightmare on main street' was not the conclusion to every graphic description that he tried to run—the sandwiches and the sandwich contents, the circumstances in which you have one lot of food in and one lot out, the salads, all of these things. The Treasurer not so long ago ridiculed and held in contempt the very people who had the audacity to present this proposal to him, and today he fully embraced it. He has seen the light. This is the dumbing down of the Treasurer, if we take John Laws's view that he was a brighter Treasurer, too bright to impose upon this country the `stupidity and complexity' of the Canadian system, yet that is precisely what he has done here today.The Labor Party is dead opposed to the GST and we will fight it to the wire. It is true that the task is against us at the moment because of this unholy deal that the Democrats have done, but we will be working until the final vote to unravel this mess and have it defeated. But if we do not succeed, then the Democrats will own this tax as much as Howard owns it. It will be conveyed to the electorate at large that the reason you have this nightmare on main street, the reason you have the nightmare on highway 1 with the tax inspectors out with the dipsticks, is that Meg Lees and John Howard have given it to you, and they did not have to give it to you.Isn't it going to be a great system where the only employment growth we can sensibly look forward to is an army of GST police, armed with the thermometer in one hand and the dipstick in the other, trying to reduce the confusion amongst retailers, trucking companies and transport industries around the country? What a joke! And this for a government that says that we have a clapped out tax system, that we need to take ourselves into the new millennium with this new efficient, updated tax.I will tell you how updated it is: the Treasurer the other day was caught out sending a letter to constituents advising them on how they could avoid the tax! By ordering a book through amazon.com they avoid the GST, but if you buy that same book here, a book produced here, it attracts the GST. What do you think that is going to do for the publishing industry and for the member for Bendigo in this House, who we campaigned with to save the book publishing industry in Maryborough? What is it going to do to the book publishers of this country when they know that they can set up operations in Singapore and come to some arrangement through amazon.com to have books purchased in smaller bundles? Some smart tax this! Worse, you have the Treasurer of the country advising people how to avoid the tax. So proud of his tax is he that he writes letters telling people how to avoid it.The Treasurer really ought to be in this House today tendering his resignation, quite frankly. I will tell you why. John Howard has no compunction about breaking his promise; he has no compunction defending the indefensible. He has only one value in life, and that is how many more breakfasts he has got on the verandah at Kirribilli. That is the only thing that the Prime Minister worries about—he is comfortable in getting Foxtel attached to the Lodge and to Kirribilli, reclining in the chesterfields and counting down the breakfasts on the verandah at Kirribilli. But at least you have to give the Treasurer the fact that he is prepared to pursue strongly a case that he believes in, and he has pursued the case for tax reform and support for the GST in the purer form. He has pursued that so strongly that for him to be able to come into this parliament and defend what he has put up today makes him a total hypocrite. He has debased everything he has stood for in this debate.So far as Labor is concerned, we say that it is not too late to walk away from this dog's breakfast and put this source of division and ridicule behind us. Get the GST off the table. We do not have to go back to square one, because much work has been done—by the Labor Party and by the government—from which we could reach agreement on the basis for tax reform. We have put proposals into the public domain to try to encourage this debate. We have committed to the circumstances of giving back at least John Howard's bracket creep to form the basis for tax cuts. We have suggested that that could be approached in one of two ways: either extending the tax credit proposal which we took to the last election to families earning up to $90,000 or, as an alternative, getting rid of the 43 per cent marginal tax rate. We could do that because we would not be dipping into the surplus to the extent that the government is to buy this unfair tax.We have also offered bipartisan approaches to business tax reform, but that bipartisanship dissipates once this package goes through. It dissipates because the government has put the business tax reform package in the straitjacket of revenue neutrality. Why should that be the parameter defining what we do to make this country more competitive? We should be recasting the tax system as a nation to get more jobs, more profitability and more exports, not handing out thermometers to determine when the temperature of chooks dissipates. We should be having this sort of tax reform. Labor is saying that we are prepared to participate around the table in delivering that tax reform, but get this GST behind us. Vote it out. Reconsider your position, because not only is it an unfair tax but also it is not tax reform. It ought to be defeated. (Time expired)15:40:007207Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I could be a good guy and give the member for Hotham a rap, because I know an endorsement from this side of the House at the moment might be very timely for the member for Hotham's leadership ambitions, and I think that is totally appropriate. But after the offer of bipartisan support for tax reform, which for the first time came from the opposition today, I cannot help but think that the federal Labor Party has got itself into a policy mess. Some members of the opposition take umbrage at that comment—do not take it with me; take it with the member for Werriwa. They are his words. In the Australian Economic Review of December 1998, the member for Werriwa says:The Federal Labor Party has got itself into a policy mess.By observing in a fairly casual way the tactics employed by the Labor Party during question time today, I see that they have not only got themselves into a policy mess; they have got themselves into a strategic mess. They are not sure from which angle to attack the government. On the one hand they are saying that the government should not be pursuing tax reform; on the other hand they are saying that they want to be there at the table with us discussing tax reform. On the one hand they are saying, `We don't want a complicated taxation system,' but on the other hand they are saying, `We support the current wholesale sales tax system.' On the one hand they are saying that they want income tax cuts; on the other hand they are saying that they do not want income tax cuts. (Quorum formed)I thank the member for Greenway for providing me with an audience. The member for Hotham hardly had any more people in here and he was meant to be leading the charge for the Labor Party. He walked in with a thermometer, and walked out looking like a chook. He came in talking about coleslaw; he walked out looking like a cold sore. The Labor Party is bereft of policy at the moment, and that is reflected in their tactics.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The minister might return to the subject under discussion.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I am attempting to, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is the interjections behind me that cause me concern. What was reflected during question time today—and I think my colleagues would agree with me here—was that the Labor Party have no tactics and no strategy. They were bouncing around. They have to date said no to all our major policy initiatives. Have they presented an alternative? They have: here, at the last election—the ALP tax reform policy. It is not worth anything. It is finished. They tore it up immediately after the election. But there is something I did keep from it—something that I kept handy and will continue to keep. It is the ALP's capital gains tax reform proposal from the last election.Mr Georgiou interjecting—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—We on this side of the House have not forgotten it. The Australian people have not forgotten it. We are not about to forget it, as the member for Kooyong reminds me. I am going to keep page 4 of the Labor Party's tax policy statement.Government members interjecting—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I will read it out:A new proposal by the Labor Party, not proposed by the Coalition—we on this side of the House can all be thankful for that—is to abandon the "grandfathering" of assets acquired by taxpayers prior to the introduction of capital gains tax in 1985.And then it goes on:This is similar to the situation in Canada when their capital gains tax was introduced. It led to an enormous amount of tax litigation in that country as tax officials disputed taxpayers valuations taken out at the time.This policy proposal will impact most on those who have frugally provided for their own retirement and small & medium businesses. They now have to incur the cost of preparing a balance sheet . . . This is a veiled criticism of our policy, but their policy was about revaluing all the assets. We remember that only too well. By the way, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is probably worth thanking Senator Heffernan for drawing to the attention of the Australian people immediately before the last election just how serious were the ramifications of the Labor Party's capital gains tax proposals for the family farm and the family home. The Labor Party tore those up, allegedly, immediately after the last election, so now we can only ask the question: what does the Labor Party believe in? What does the Labor Party stand for? If it does not have any policies dealing with one half of the total initiatives of the federal government in relation to revenue, and if it has a myriad policies in relation to expenditure that were chucked out immediately after the election, then what does the Labor Party believe in?The Labor Party has gone through a certain number of phases as a political party over the last 40 years. When Curtin was there, when Chifley was there, the Labor Party believed in something. When Evatt was there, the Labor Party believed in something. We know what it was, we did not always agree with it, but they believed in something. As Ben Chifley said, there was a light at the top of the hill. And then, in 1972, the Labor Party came back into government. Everyone could identify with the philosophy of the Labor Party under Whitlam and its implementation. There were a hell of a lot of Australians who did not like that either, but we knew what the Labor Party stood for and the Australian people knew what the Labor Party stood for.And then Bob Hawke came into government with consensus politics. The Australian people thought they understood Bob Hawke, but it was consensus politics—the politics of pragmatism. The Labor Party became managers. For 13 years they managed Australia. Even by our own admission, we on this side of the House helped them in the process by our own division. But we can say with certainty that at all times the Liberal Party and the National Party believed in something—a philosophy, a direction.The Labor Party have gone into opposition and the only glue that holds them together is that they want to get back into management. They do not know what they want to do when they get back into management. They do not know what sort of Australia they want. Some of them are wheeling out the old class warfare rhetoric of the fifties and the sixties. Even if they are, they believe in something. But Kim Beazley has become a pragmatist. He does not believe in anything. He does not stand for anything. Simon Crean, the member for Hotham, comes into this House and lectures us about tax policy and about the state of the economy and, when we ask him what he believes in, there is just a deathly silence.And now for the first time—and most obviously in the last week—we have seen the full impact of the policy vacuum in the Labor Party in their day-to-day tactics and strategy. If you do not believe in something, you have no direction. And if you do not have a direction, you do not know what strategy to employ. And if you do not know what strategy to employ, how do you go into the day-to-day combat with some tactics? You do not.So the Labor Party comes in to defend a wholesale sales tax system that is out of date. How do they defend it? By attacking our proposal. What is their alternative? They have none. They come in to defend the current high personal income tax rates. What is their alternative? They have none. They come in to defend the current unfair family payment system. What is their alternative? They have none. They come in to defend surplus budgets—this is the intriguing part, and it is a great example of the great irony of all this—they come in to defend surplus budgets and when did they last deliver a surplus budget? They criticised us for having too big a surplus on budget night—believe it!—and today the Leader of the Opposition is saying that we, the coalition, are fiscally irresponsible with our tax proposals. This is the finance minister in the Keating government who delivered in two years budget deficits that would take us 10 years to pay for in government—10 years of $3 billion surpluses to pay for the two years of the Leader of the Opposition's government when he was finance minister. It would take that long to repair the Labor Party's proposals arising out of their options in their proposed tax package before the last election.They have never had to consider accountability. They have never had to consider accountability to their own people because, as so many of my colleagues have pointed out, the Labor Party has turned into a family business. They have never had to consider accountability to their constituents because those people on the other side might consider that they have safe seats. They do not have to consider accountability to any political phi losophy because they do not believe in anything.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—How about yours? How safe is yours? What is your margin?DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I am interrupted, I—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Ignore the member at the table.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I cannot ignore him. He has published a book.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—You must ignore him.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I cannot ignore him. On our side of the House, we believe in promoting Australian literature and we are very grateful that members of the Labor Party are forming a new caucus and they are going to set up a new library in Parliament House and create a competition. (Time expired)15:55:007210Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—We have already had a National Sorry Day for indigenous Australians and the Prime Minister refused to apologise to the stolen generation. We are about to get a sorry day for all Australians. The sorry day for all Australians will be 1 July next year and every year thereafter, because on 1 July next year the government and the Prime Minister of Australia will inflict on ordinary Australian families an insidious, unfair, goods and services tax. Will the Prime Minister apologise to Australian families for the damage his GST does to them? Will he apologise on 1 July each year for the damage done to Australian families for the goods and services tax he said he would never, ever introduce? Like indigenous Australians who are still waiting for an apology from the Prime Minister, I say to all Australians who are waiting for him to apologise for the GST, `Don't hold your breath.'The Leader of the Democrats will say sorry. The Leader of the Democrats will say sorry to her colleagues who are wiped out at the next election. The Leader of the Democrats will say, `Oops; sorry,' as Democrat members of the Senate such as Natasha Stott Despoja and Andrew Bartlett, although they have taken the principled position of crossing the floor, face the prospect of being wiped out by the tidal wave of electoral opposition and anger against the unseemly deal that the Democrats have done—that their leader has done—with the Prime Minister, in bringing in this tax.The Prime Minister said in question time that middle income earners are the big winners from the tax package. Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to an analysis done by Professors Warren and Harding and reported in the weekend media. Recall that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have frequently cited Warren and Harding as great authorities on the impact of the tax package on different families. When they released their first analysis, the Treasurer of Australia said, `Look; they could not find one category of losers—no households losing.'If you go through this table you will see there are numerous categories of losers, representing hundreds of thousands of Australian families. But here are some of the benefits for middle income earners—the great winners, according to the Prime Minister. A two-income couple with one child, earning $45,000—I suppose that would be a middle income earning couple—will be the big winners, receiving the grand prize from the Howard-Democrat deal of 39c a week. But if that same family was on $125,000 a year, they would get $75. You get 39c if you are on $45,000 and $75 if you are on $125,000. Of course, we know from this that the Prime Minister considers someone on $125,000 to be a middle income earner.I will give another example. A two-income couple without kids, on $45,000, gets 13c a week out of the Howard-Lees tax package. That is as good as it gets. But if they are on $125,000 they get $79 a week. Yet another example is a two-income couple with no kids where the income is split two-thirds/one-third. If that couple were earning $35,000 they would receive the grand prize of 18c a week, but if they were on $150,000—the sort of people that the Prime Minister finds it much more comfortable to associate with—they would get $61 a week. That is the Prime Minister's perspective of middle Australia—people on $125,000 or $150,000 a year.We saw in the same publication on the weekend that the Prime Minister is going to be a compassionate Prime Minister from now on, and he is going to appeal to people who are under 30 years of age. Here is some news. This is the sort of appeal that the Prime Minister offers from the tax package for a single person under 30 just starting out on, say, $25,000 a year. For you, we offer $1.13 a week. That is the inducement that the Prime Minister is offering for young people. And so it goes on.There is another group that the Prime Minister talks about very often as the sort of people he thinks are really doing the right thing by Australia, and they are self-funded retirees. The newspaper article on the weekend said that there were no losers under this tax package. That is not quite right. Even if they get 13c a week they are regarded as winners, but single self-funded retirees earning private income of $10,000 a year lose $1.37 a week. They go backwards. The Prime Minister is championing self-funded retirees, and he hits them with a cut in their living standards. Similarly, a self-funded retiree couple on $20,000 a year will lose 84c a week. These are very much underestimates of the impact of the tax package on these families, but it just goes to show what distorted values the Prime Minister of Australia has. I cannot see how he is going to appeal to young Australians.But I want to talk about the longer term impact of this package on young people, their educational opportunities and their lifetime chances. On 1 July of next year the untied grants—called the Financial Assistance Grants—to the states will be abolished. So they are gone. But, more sinister than that, the Commonwealth Treasury have made it absolutely clear to their state counterparts that there are no guarantees on specific purpose payments after the so-called transitional period. That is, after about three to five years—probably three—it is the complete prerogative of the government of the day in Canberra to start cutting or even abolishing those specific purpose payments. What sorts of things are these specific purpose payments spent on? Public housing, public hospitals and, very significantly, literacy and numeracy programs. So after this so-called transition period, those specific purpose payments—funding for literacy and numeracy for our kids—will be in the gun. They will be the first item on the agenda in the expenditure review committees. Why? Because the Prime Minister of Australia will say, `The states have the big GST growth tax. Here is a good area for budget saving.' And, in making those budget savings, what are we trying to finance? Further cuts in the top marginal tax rate, so that these people on $125,000 to $150,000 a year get further cuts. The Treasurer was on record on television just a couple of weeks ago saying, `It is my ambition to continue to reduce the top marginal rate of tax.' That is what this is all about.The first cuts to payments to the states come on 1 July of next year when about $18 billion is just wiped. After this transition period, literacy, numeracy, public hospitals and public housing are all going to be cut. If that is not bad enough, we hear from the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Leader of the Democrats that education will be GST free. This is not true. The GST will apply to school uniforms, to school shoes, to public transport and, shamefully, to books. Because in their pathetic capitulation—the Democrats had the card that they could have played there to make sure the GST did not apply to books—they broke their promise, they breached the faith of the Australian electorate and they gave up. So we have a situation now where the GST package will make it much, much harder for parents to obtain for their children a decent education. But the Prime Minister will not be saying he is sorry. He will further reduce the chances of young Australians getting a job.We are supposed to be about the clever country. Bob Hawke in 1990 announced that there were government policies to be put in place to make us the clever country. I just draw your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to a letter to the Treasurer from the federal President of the Liberal Party, Tony Staley, in which as Chairman of the CRC Association he says to the Treasurer that he is very worried about the impact of the GST on Cooperative Research Centres—the centrepiece of the clever country. So we have the GST assault on the clever country through the impact on kids, through the impact on our cooperative research centres and through the impact on education in general. What are we left with? We are left with, finally, Professor Dixon's analysis from yesterday, showing that the GST will reduce the living standards of ordinary Australians over time and will cost up to 68,000 jobs. So it is time for the Prime Minister to say sorry. I call on him now, before he goes ahead, to say he is sorry to the Australian people. (Time expired)16:05:007212Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—What an amazing presentation we have had from the two speakers from the opposition. First of all, the subject of the MPI suggests that the government does not have a fair or coherent tax policy. Yet if you listen to—I cannot say the arguments—the words of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the member for Rankin, there is no possibility that they can establish the case that they have put forward as the basis of this discussion.The important thing that people must realise is that the new tax system that is coming forward is fair and coherent, and provides benefits for virtually every Australian. There are significant tax cuts for families, and one of the important things we are going to do is restore incentive. If you go back to the 1950s, it took 19 times the average weekly earnings before you reached the top tax bracket. That meant that people could work overtime, they could get a second job and they could keep most of what they earned. Of course the reality today is that people say, `What is the use of working overtime? The tax man takes it all. What is the use of getting a second job? The tax man takes it all.'In fact, unless we have the changes that are coming in on 1 July next year, by the year 2002 every worker and every employee in Australia on average weekly earnings will be in the top tax bracket. That is absolutely absurd. It is a crazy and regressive tax system. The coalition has to introduce tax cuts. We should realise that at the present time something like 70 per cent of all taxpayers in Australia—all earners, all employees—are paying more than 30 per cent as a tax rate. The significant thing that comes out of the new tax system is that 81 per cent of all employees, of all taxpayers, will not be paying more than 30 per cent. That is a very significant change. It will restore incentive and make it possible for people to get ahead, to be able to work overtime or get a second job. This is what we need.In spite of what Labor has been saying, people should be aware that the reduction in freight costs is going to have a major impact, not only in regional Australia but in the cities as well. The bigger impact will certainly be in regional and rural Australia. I live in Coffs Harbour. As well as small, well-operated shops, we have got Woolworths, Coles, Big W, Target and Franklins. Everything on every shelf in all of those shops has a freight component, and it is a very significant one. At the moment, transport includes massive amounts of sales tax which is levied on trucks, tyres, oil and spare parts. As well as that, of course, there is the cost of diesel. I do not have time to go into the full details, but the reality is that the freight component on every item on those shelves—whether it is Weetbix, All Bran, apples or bread—is enormous. The new tax system will reduce that very significantly. The abolition of sales tax applying in other areas will also have a major impact.It should be pointed out that the tax cuts are real; they are not the l-a-w law tax cuts which disappeared after the election in 1993. We should appreciate that under the new tax system a single person with an average income of about $37,000 will be $22 a week better off. A family with a single income of, say, $29,000 will be $58 a week better off. If they earn more, they will be better off. Just as an example, a single income family on $29,000 will have $58 a week in their purses and their pockets to spend on their kids. That is incredibly good.Unfortunately, the ALP do not have any policies at all. No policies means no leadership. Our tax system is fair to everybody. But Labor are against tax cuts. They do not want that single income family to get a tax cut. They say, `No, no tax cuts.' They do not want the single person to get a tax cut. They say, `No, no tax cuts.' Unlike the wholesale sales tax, which is a hidden tax, at least with the GST everybody knows exactly what we are talking about; they know exactly what GST they are paying. But the thing is that Labor are against tax cuts. I cannot believe that members opposite can behave in this way.We are very delighted that provisional tax will go. Provisional tax is not paid by your average employee. It is paid by small businesses and by farmers. For those who do not pay it and may not know what it is about, very simply, it is not a fair tax, it is an absolutely immoral tax, because you have to pay the tax one year in advance before you have earned even a single dollar. So at one part of the year you pay your tax based on the previous year. The Taxation Office says, `Okay, you are going to earn this much,' so you pay the tax a year in advance. I cannot believe that Labor wants to keep that. It is one of the great banes of small business. Apart from the unfair dismissal issue which stops small business employing, provisional tax is a major disincentive and Labor wants to keep it. I cannot believe it.I would like to make particular reference to the first speaker in this debate, the honourable member for Hotham—the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I am always interested to hear what he has to say, but it is sometimes very difficult because he shouts and yells and rants and raves and roars.DT4CREANMr Crean—Only when you are in the chair.AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made a comment about why he does that. I have to say in my own defence—which I would not say if I were in the chair—that he is treated with great fairness. But I still believe he does not achieve a great deal by his ranting and raving and roaring. In many ways, he reacts rather like a spoilt child. Although he has not yet thrown himself down on the floor and kicked his heels, I will not be surprised when he eventually does that. But that is irrelevant.I want to get back to reality. The two speakers on the Labor side did not deal with facts or realities or the things that are important to people. They spoke about trivia. For instance, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was carrying on about salads and coleslaw. This is not a joke. We are talking about tax cuts which will reform the whole of Australian society. We are talking about removing tax from our exports. We are talking about making our primary industries competitive on the international market. We are talking about removing taxes from business so that they can be more profitable and employ more people. I am concerned that their major effort is about salads and coleslaw and chickens. The honourable member said: `We would not cop the distinction between food in and food out.' Has he forgotten the wholesale sales tax that is there right now? There is no sales tax on ordinary milk. We took that out, but under their system they had wholesale sales tax on flavoured milk. It is just amazing. The deputy leader said:The Labor Party is dead opposed to the GST.They are attacking it and attacking us, not on some rational basis but on the basis, as the deputy leader said, of having:. . . an army of GST police armed in one hand with a thermometer and the other hand with a dip stick.I do not really know what he means, but the reality is that what we will achieve with the fair and cohesive tax policy being put forward by the coalition is Australia becoming a better country, becoming more profitable and more competitive on the export market. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Bills7213r8427213Debate resumed.16:16:007213Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—It is interesting that I resume this debate on the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 just after the matter of public importance debating the tax changes. Prior to question time today I was making the point that the former Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Trevor Boucher, pointed out recently that something like $21 billion is available in tax avoidance mechanisms in this country at the moment by way of offshore tax havens, minimisation pro grams and things such as negative gearing, which neither this government nor the one before seems to have been very interested in addressing during progressive tax reform rather than the regressive system that is about to be imposed upon us.The point I make is that that sort of money could adequately fund our hospital and nursing home system without resorting to the user-pays principle in regard to nursing homes. I said also that it was in many respects a courageous act by the government—irrespective of the points about taxation—to take on board the challenge that Professor Bob Gregory's findings showed of a dramatic shortfall in aged care funding on the horizon in this country. And we do not have to repeat the statistics on the ageing profile and the need to address what is a crisis in this country.We had the first round of aged care changes in 1997. I said at the time, and it was shown quite clearly, how poorly that process was implemented and the stop-start changes that had to be made. Firstly, we had accommodation bonds, then the family home under threat and we had a terrorised older population out in the community who were totally confused. It was such a pity that both the accommodation charge and the additional daily fees were implemented at the same time. I believe it could have been done in a staged process over several years. Notwithstanding that, we have had some very necessary changes, and I was and am prepared to support the user-who-can-pay principle.This bill tidies up a lot of the remnants of that hastily introduced process and, according to the Minister for Aged Care, it ensures a range of resident protection measures for accommodation charges. The bill includes amendments that ensure that the rental now does not affect the pension and also the value of the family home does not affect the pension. It amends the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act to reflect those changes. It enables the rollover of bonds from hostels to homes. The explanatory memorandum refers to schedule 1, item 2 and to the Aged Care Act 1997 and states:This Item repeals Subsection 10-3(2) which requires revocation of approved provider status not to take effect until alternative care has been arranged for all the care recipients.One wonders what care would be provided in circumstances where the provider knows of the revoking of the provider status. We should ensure a close and ongoing supervision of those residents in such circumstances. There is nothing that I can see in the legislation in item 4, subsection 10-3(7) that convinces me that the interests of clients will be satisfactorily supervised during what would be obviously a period of incredible trauma.I welcome the widening of the concessional definitions and the refund of accommodation charges for those in nursing homes at the point at which the original act came into being and who have subsequently moved on to another home. I welcome also that change from five years back to two years when the carer has had occupation of the family home. I welcome also the fact that no fees will be payable before a client actually accepts a place in a particular institution.Looking more at the situation with regional nursing homes, particularly those in my electorate, I welcome the government's commitment to more multipurpose centre facilities, but I urge them to speed up this process. If there is one thing I have noticed in the state and federal health care area, it is that we have so many small country hospitals which are barely viable. They are clinging onto their state funded beds. They see the bed in itself as a symbol of the viability of the hospital and, therefore, their whole community. There is a real problem because of the rationalisation program that has occurred now over almost 20 years at a state level. People see any change in the status of their hospital as a threat to their very being. Of course, they have seen banks go and other changes occur in their communities, and they are not prepared to give up on the public hospital in that particular community. They are not prepared to give anything.So we have a major problem in addressing this, particularly if we go down the multipurpose route, because we have to convince people that there is a demographic, socioeco nomic and age profile in these smaller communities which requires us as a federal parliament and administration to act in concert with the states and explain to people that hospital care, aged care and nursing home care are the responsibilities of both governments and that hospitals and medical facilities in towns have to change to reflect the needs of those communities.I look again at the instance of the Yeoval Community Multipurpose Centre that was set up nearly 10 years ago after the former Greiner government threatened to close it down. Those residents and that community demonstrated. They lay down in front of the ambulances who were carting those elderly people off to nearby hospitals and said: `We are not going to let this facility close. We want our older people, particularly, to age and to die in their own community. We want access to those people.'So grew out of a cooperative local effort the Yeoval Community Multipurpose Centre. That model has been picked up, but it is slow in its uptake around the country. It requires an urgent speeding up by this government and the state governments. There is not only Yeoval but Oberon is coming on stream as is Grenfell, outside my electorate. There are other country hospitals like Canowindra and Cudal where we have nursing home type patients ensconced in Nightingale type wards that were built earlier this century and that are certainly not fit for aged care accommodation.The federal government has to accept responsibility for those aged people and quarantine, hive off and rebuild the nursing home component. It then has to convince the community before that process takes place that it is the older people who largely require the medical attention in these small communities. Country hospitals are de facto nursing homes in many cases. We need to tackle this issue particularly quickly.The community care packages are also an area where we remember that 90 per cent of people choose to stay in their own homes. They choose to remain in their homes on country farms, in rural communities. They need these community care packages in far greater numbers than have been provided to date. I applaud the initiative of all of the ministers in this government who have been involved in these portfolios for the initiatives they have taken in this area, but we need far more.I can remember my own mother choosing to stay in her own home and refusing community care because she didn't know enough about it; she hadn't been educated about it. Many people in that period 10 or 15 years ago could not understand why these people were coming into their homes, whether her purse of change would be safe and so on and so forth. She fought not only to stay in her own home but to die in her own home. There was no extended family, as is the case throughout this continent because kids are scattered to the four winds. We all sit at a distance, in guilt about our elderly parents deteriorating in their own homes when we know and they know that is where they want to be. With 90 per cent of people wanting to do that, that is where our focus should be in aged care. So much of the passion and so much of the rhetoric and so much of the scare campaign—so much of this whole process—has been directed in the last few years at institutional care. So little has been directed at the need to lift the quality of care of old people in their homes because that is where, in the main, they want to be.It is interesting that after all of the drama and the angst and the concern and the fears that I waded my way through in the early stages of this reform process I am now getting few complaints from the aged care sector, except some doubts about the level playing field between hostels and nursing homes, who are competing for patients. Some of them feel they are being outmanoeuvred by the processes that are in place for the scrutiny of patients for placement in nursing homes. They do not feel that it is transparent enough and some feel they are missing out perhaps at the expense of others. That is one unfortunate consequence of competition in this area, I would suggest. The department needs to be vigilant in its scrutiny of the allocation of nursing home patients and the processes by which that is achieved. I do not want to be specific because I could draw attention to circumstances that could compromise particu lar organisations and individuals, but I have spoken to the minister's office about that and they are very well aware of the points I am making.I am also concerned about the long term. The problems have not been identified long term by the nursing homes. I wonder whether the capital base, from the accommodation charges, that we are creating from this user-pays process is sufficient. There are conflicting estimates of the degree to which current user-pays and subsidy arrangements will meet the needs of the aged care sector down the track. But the opposition should not take comfort in this for one moment because Professor Bob Gregory in 1994 reported that it would take $125 million a year to bring the nursing home sector up to scratch. My argument is that we are not interested in the three- or five-star system that the Morans of this world may be talking about. I am interested in at least a one- or two-star system right across the board, because we patently have not had that. One has only to look at some of the reports on a couple of Tasmanian nursing homes a year or so ago to see that some of our older people have been living in appalling conditions.The government believes that the $125 million a year will be raised by the fourth year of this reform process. However, the report of HESTA—the Health Employment Superannuation Trust of Australia—into the strategic capital needs of residential aged care between 1997 and 2003 suggests a $1.3 billion to $2 billion capital shortfall in capital requirements for nursing home funding. Why is there such a discrepancy between the figures? Even if they are exaggerating by 50 per cent, there is still a crisis looming, according to the HESTA report, irrespective of these reforms.The Productivity Commission report into all of these begins to target some of these long-term problems. It does suggest that the `user who can pay' philosophy on its own will not be enough. The marketplace is not going to work because the clients of that marketplace will not be able to sustain the prices that the marketplace will demand. They will not be able to afford it for that 10 per cent going into institutional care.I know the minister has read the Productivity Commission report, but she has not at this stage indicated when she will respond to it. I particularly refer the minister to the part relating to nursing homes in country areas or aged care funding. Recommendation 12 says:Additional funding support for higher cost homes in special circumstances, such as smaller higher cost nursing homes in rural and remote areas, should come from a special needs funding pool.That is a key recommendation of that report. It goes on:The Government should add to current outlays to meet this purpose, separate from, and additional to, the funding of the basic subsidy.There are many well-intentioned and well-targeted recommendations in that report, and I certainly will be listening with interest to the minister's response. This whole process of aged care reform has, I believe, underlined the need for more community care packages as the least expensive and most socially desirable aged care solution, along with that expansion in the regional and rural sense of the multipurpose health delivery models. So, with the reservations I have detailed, I commend this bill to the House.16:33:007216Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I rise today to also add my concerns about the legislation before us, the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 . This government's record on aged care leaves a lot to be desired, and this latest piece of legislation is another attempt to fix up the mess this government has made of this crucial piece of public policy.Leading up to the 1998 election, one of the biggest issues raised by the voters in Chisholm was the debacle of aged care. The option of nursing home care for a near and dear relative is not an easy choice to make and it is generally something that is not actually based on choice but on necessity. You do not generally make a lifestyle choice to be put in a nursing home or to have your relatives make this choice for you. It is based on a medical need—a need many more Australians are facing each year.Going around Chisholm leading up to the election, I was continually met by people concerned over the prospect of selling their home to support themselves or family members in need of nursing home care. The other major concern was the move away from qualified staff and the decline in staff ratios in nursing homes. So the government's great reform to aged care was to leave already distraught families with the prospect of selling their home to put their loved one into a facility which could get away with providing reduced care through a lack of accredited staff to look after patients in nursing homes.This great reform agenda was just another cover-up for an enormous budget cut by this government. These changes were to hide the fact that $500 million was being cut from the aged care budget. So a brave new world for nursing homes was just to hide the fact that a massive amount was being taken out of the sector because of budget cuts. I will not labour the history of this bill, but the obscene haste in introducing the original bill, which resulted in that great piece of TV journalism where the Prime Minister used A Current Affair to make a ministerial announcement, is again being repeated with the changes in this bill.As speakers before me have indicated, we will be opposing this bill primarily because we have had no chance to deal with the bill in the normal fashion of this House. We had a day's notice before the bill was actually tabled. It is a very important bill with many measures that we actually support—and one of those amendments I will be speaking about today—because they address several of the concerns that had arisen from the government's Aged Care Act. But the bill fails to address all issues of concern, and there just has been no time for consultation with all the parties.Chisholm has an ageing population, with 15 per cent of the population being over the age of 65. A significant proportion of this group are age pensioners, and a higher than average group are self-funded retirees. These are the people who are facing issues of ageing for themselves, their parents and their spouses. These people continue to be worried about the quality and affordability of nursing home care, and this bill is not going far enough to alleviate their concerns.One of the other issues facing the people of Chisholm is the enormous ethnic mix within my electorate, and there is a huge concern about ethno-specific nursing home facilities. The choice of putting a family member into a nursing home is generally a greater issue amongst many of our people from non-English speaking backgrounds as it does not sit well with many of their cultural beliefs.I wish to concentrate on one issue in this bill that relates to an area where I know a constituent of mine can feel proud of himself for having had the courage to stand up and question the system. As many in this House will know, it is not an easy thing to take on the establishment or question a wrong. For people with loved ones in nursing homes it is even more courageous, for they often feel any action on their part will be taken out on their wife, husband, mother or father who resides in the nursing home. Be this a real fear or not, it is a fear that many constituents have when they approach my office over issues concerning nursing homes.Often we will have questions and complaints about the treatment at a particular nursing home or the way fees have been charged, but it is always on the basis of, `Please don't use any names. We don't want Dad to be upset. We worry that, if we kick up a stink, Mum will be out of the home.' People know from experience the difficulty of getting decent nursing home accommodation, particularly accommodation close to their homes, and they fear they will have their loved ones at home and not be able to cope.The case, which I believe has in some part led to the change in this legislation, was brought to me by a constituent whose wife, who was in a nursing home, was presented with a bill for $1,464 for four months accumulated charges. This gentleman's wife has been in a nursing home for some time, and well prior to the introduction of the original bill in October 1997. The bill that they received was like a slap in the face and left my constituent very perplexed and concerned for his wife, a woman who was already frail and was most distraught by this expense that her husband was going to incur on her behalf.Not only was this bill something that left a great deal to be desired but so also was the way in which the nursing home and its collection agency acted in pursuit of its moneys. The man's wife had been in a nursing home in Surrey Hills, which closed down, and the facility and all residents were moved to Oakleigh. The nursing home issued the bill when the resident was moved from one facility to the other. This move was through no action of my constituent or his wife but at the instigation of the nursing home. This, the nursing home then determined, meant that she was now a new resident and could be charged the accommodation fee.This flies in the face of a promise by this government leading up to the 1998 election. In the House last night the minister said that it was fantastic that they were resolving this. Yes, they are—some 18 months after the date. I would like to quote from a letter from the previous Minister for Family Services, Warwick Smith. I think the tone of the letter indicates the electoral issue that this was leading up to the last election. It reads:Over the past two and a half years, the Coalition Government has addressed in a fundamental way the structure and administration of aged care services in Australia.It was not done in a very good way, but they were trying to deal with it. It continues:The problems residential aged care services confronted just two and a half years ago were extensive and systematic. While accepting that mistakes were made in the policy prescription adopted over our first term in Government, the Coalition is nevertheless proud of the many achievements that it has been able to record. In particular, as a result of our policy changes we have established a more responsible and financially sound aged care industry which will, I believe, have long lasting benefit for older Australians—provided they are given time to settle and become part of the aged care matrix.As we approach a vital election on 3 October the choice for the aged care industry becomes even more stark.The most important part of this letter reads:Furthermore the Coalition will amend the Aged Care Act 1997 to provide concessional resident status for any resident of a nursing home who was resident prior to 1 October 1997 and who by moving home would otherwise have been classified as a new resident. This protection will be backdated to 1 October 1997. Providing this protection will secure the access for pre 1 October residents to all aged care facilities.That letter was dated September 1998. We are now in this House trying to deal with an issue that was guaranteed before the last election. This commitment was given in September 1998; it is now 23 June 1999. Still my constituent is paying the accommodation charge. Only last week he received a bill from the nursing home and a follow-up letter from the collection agency. When he pointed out that they would only have to pay him back the money, they told him that he was being ridiculous and that they had every right to collect the fee.At Senate estimates hearings, this matter was brought up, and I think it was through the actions of Senator Chris Evans that this change has now come about, regardless of the government's claim that it would do something about it. In the Senate on 22 April 1999, Senator Chris Evans asked Senator Herron the following question:My question is directed to Senator Herron as the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care. Can the Minister explain why, despite the Prime Minister's assurances, nursing home residents who were in a nursing home before 1 October 1997 are being required to pay the government's accommodation charge when they are forced to transfer into a new nursing home? I have a letter from an aged care provider to a nursing home resident that includes a bill of $1,464 for `accrued accommodation charges' after the resident was transferred to a new home following the closure of the facility they had occupied prior to October 1997. Why are pensioners being forced to pay accommodation charges when the Prime Minister made it very clear that it would apply only to new residents?The fantastic response is:Nursing home charges are a responsibility of the people who run the nursing homes and are not a Commonwealth responsibility. So it is the responsibility of the individuals who are occupying that accommodation to pay the charges.It is a pity that the minister did not actually understand the question. But it did get resolved, finally, and I would now like to read the Senator Herron's later response in the Senate on 28 April:As I said previously, Senator Evans has asked this question before. The government will be honouring—and the answer was given to Senator Evans on that—I do not think so, from what I have read—its commitment in full as part of the budget. Where providers have been charging pre 1 October 1997 residents the accommodation charge, these residents will be fully compensated. Senator Evans was told that. Senator Evans was informed of the material that was provided to him. Furthermore, the government will pay providers additional supplements—That was 28 April 1999 and still, as I say, my constituent is being charged this very fee that the government now say does not have to be paid. Finally, in the budget, almost 12 months later, an election promise will be delivered on. So in this regard I support the amendment in this bill to allow for the refunding of accommodation charges to residents in care prior to October 1997. I thank my constituent for his bravery in bringing this matter forward, to the benefit of countless people in a similar situation. We all owe him a debt of thanks. However, the matter has still not been resolved, as my constituent is still being charged, and the nursing home where his wife is a resident has not been advised of any change.We need detail on this matter, not more shallow promises. So I ask: will the government ensure that all nursing home proprietors are informed of the budget measure immediately? Will the government also ensure that the moneys collected inappropriately by nursing homes are refunded to residents, their families or their estates? Further, how will these moneys be refunded to residents and, most importantly, when? Without these further steps, the budget measures and this bill are worthless. Not all people have the gumption of my constituent who is now keeping the nursing home informed of these changes. It is the government's responsibility to wind back the mess it created in the first place.At the last election this government was prepared to sacrifice the interests of aged care residents in Australia for short-term political gain. It must now be called to account and resolve these problems. After all, it sought re-election by promising the industry that it would fix the mess it had already created. Good government should be about well thought through policy, not the rushed, slash and burn measures that this government has tried time and time again.This bill should be opposed because all these measures have not been well thought through and it has not resolved all the problems. The haste with which it has been introduced again indicates that we will be back here shortly, plugging the holes created by the haste to mend an already faulty process. We will be opposing this bill.16:46:007219Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—Before beginning I might mention a question I asked the Minister for Aged Care, and I know that I raised this yesterday after question time. But I see that it is taking quite a long time to get responses to questions from ministers. Back on 15 February I asked a question which was particularly relevant to this bill introduced by the Minister for Aged Care. Although I think we have 60 days in which we could normally expect to receive a response, after 128 days I am still waiting for a response from the minister. As I have said, the answer to that question would have been particularly relevant to this bill we are discussing today. Hopefully I will get a response to that particular question before I need to go into a nursing home myself.It needs to be said at the outset that the government has tried to play the double-headed penny with this piece of legislation, the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 . Members of the public should be in no doubt that the government suffered a resounding defeat when it tried to introduce its previous Aged Care Bill. It was a defeat based certainly on the community's views about what should be appropriate for those in our community who have contributed to the nation. It was perceived as manifestly unfair—and, of course, it was. I will not have to remind members of this House that it also contributed to the demise of at least one minister and perhaps to the defeat of another at the polls.The Labor Party will not have to suffer that same fate because of a simple premise: we believe in equity measures in aged care. This means equity for the 3,500 private and 2,500 non-profit provider beds in Western Australia, for example, as well as all the public nursing agencies. This is of added importance in my seat of Swan. In my electorate there are over 15,000 members of the community who would be classified as aged. Swan has one of the highest proportions of this demographic in Australia. We have a number of notable institutions that cater for and assist the aged in nursing homes and carer facilities.Life for these institutions and their residents has been particularly difficult since this government tried to enact the Aged Care Bill 1997. The government must have twigged to the fact that there was insufficient support for its plans because this current legislation makes a number of amendments that have arisen as a result of the previous legislation—and it is for that reason that Labor supports some of the strategies undertaken by this bill. These measures address problems that have arisen under the Aged Care Act. Indeed, we have been raising these matters with the government for a considerable period of time.I can say, however, that Labor will be voting against the bill in the House. This is necessary because the opposition has not had time to examine the bill and its ramifications. In the event of there being any degree of bipartisanship, I would not think of this as the way to introduce legislation that affects so many. It would not be responsible for us to do otherwise than vote against this legislation. The aged community, carers and providers need to be given a firm undertaking that all the impacts of this legislation are thought through by decision makers. It is natural, given the time frame, that we shall be responding to the bill in detail in the Senate, armed with all the necessary information.We believe, for example, that residents in nursing homes prior to October 1997 should be refunded any accommodation charges they have been required to pay. In fact, over the last six months my electoral office has received a number of complaints over this issue. Justifiably, these people are angry at compliance with a piece of unfair legislation. I am also happy to report that matters will finally conclude, at least in regard to this matter.I have also indicated to the members of the Swan cottage homes, Collier village and the TPI village that the government only gave a commitment to stop this practice after pressure being applied from Labor. Well and good. But it is an outrage that these residents have been paying these tariffs for the better part of 18 months.What is disturbing is that for a year and a half residents have been forking out this money, and in one day the government has sought to thump this legislation through the House without any care for ethics or cursory examination. Many would say that the government is not very keen on any review of the act in this House, lest some painful memories return. Heaven knows, the government must be eager to avoid scrutiny of the bill as it demonstrates this government's bungle of the aged care sector since coming into office in 1996.As an amendment bill to the 1997 act, this legislation serves to remind many in this chamber of the failings of the Aged Care Act. It should serve as a lesson in the public policy problems that will always occur when policy is carelessly implemented—all, of course, under the guise of `reform'. Nor would many in the community be blamed for scratching their heads in disbelief about evaluation mechanisms that have taken over a year and a half to change.The government announced its aged care reforms in the 1996-97 budget without having had adequate discussion with the aged care sector, and proceeded to implement many of those measures in October 1997 through the Aged Care Act. I can indicate to members of this House that I have received correspondence from and had meetings with a number of management groups in the industry about problems they have encountered.I can inform the House of one critical element of the act that has had, and will continue to have, an impact particularly in Western Australia: the wage differential for nurses. As members will understand, the rate of salary is different for each state. Notably, in Western Australia that rate is so low as to create an inequity between the wage paid in public hospitals and the wage paid to nursing home workers.The government is always highlighting its supposed superiority in the field of economics. I wonder then why it does not have a grasp of labour economics 101 which is taught to first-year undergraduates as follows: if a wage is paid at a lower rate in one sector there will be a commensurate flight of staff if a higher wage is paid in another sector, given that all is held equal. Here is the reality of that lesson. Staff cannot be kept in the aged care sector in Western Australia because they are unsatisfactorily remunerated. The government has been aware of the problem for two years and has not acted to rectify the problem by increasing funding to compensate the nursing homes or by increasing the wages of nursing staff. Yesterday my office spoke with George Van Lawick of the Western Australian branch of the Nurses Federation. George illustrated the point by noting, `We are looking at $100 per week minimum, it can be averaged out to almost $7,000 per year.' George went on to illustrate that point further when he explained how the problem was compounded:The trouble is our nurses are increasingly being taken off patient duty and being asked to fill in doing clerical duties to process clients for the business. In this way the agency gets paid. The problem is that maybe 8-10% of time is now dedicated to other tasks without an increase in staff to compensate for the work not done.In other words, the level of care suffers. Experienced staff must be offered an incentive to stay in the sector and new staff must be given the opportunity of career development, including training and suitable terms and conditions of employment. As they say about the current government, `Don't hold your breath.' Is it any wonder that the place is in crisis. We should not forget, because members of the aged care community have not forgotten, that $500 million was ripped out of the sector in 1996. I guess this is what reform is to this government. One of my colleagues has already mentioned that, within a month of the Aged Care Act coming into force, we had the Prime Minister appearing on A Current Affair to announce a change in policy, abandoning the proposed accommodation bonds in the face of widespread concern.In March 1998 the government tabled the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998. The Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 currently before the House closely resembles many sections of the earlier bill. Both list a number of problems that have arisen in the aged care sector because of the Aged Care Act. Within four months of the Aged Care Act coming into effect the government had already discovered a large number of problems in the system, problems that were a direct result of the government's rush to make changes in the aged care sector. I am led to believe that the minister has received representations from the Western Australian health care industry on a range of issues, including the funding models used for the calculations regarding nursing homes and the breakdown of these models. In discussions I have had with the industry, a few very salient points have been made that highlight the problems faced on a daily basis by these carers. Mr Deputy Speaker, did you know that simple but elementary things such as incontinence pads are not included in funding formulas, nor are dressings, bandaids, sanitary pads or even Dettol?It gets worse. I am also led to believe that many deficiencies have been illustrated by the industry due to reimbursement no longer being available for infrastructure costs. Put simply, the system is starting to crack. It needs money but, according to the funding formula, non-salary costs are not relative to the funding structure, which means that the industry has to trim around the edges. The result is that the aged and their carers are getting it in the neck. These issues affect the majority of all private institutions in the state and also impact heavily on my electorate of Swan. One thing that was particularly evident was that this minister had done nothing to address these issues. I put it to members of this House that the reason for this is one of two scenarios: first, that the minister was not aware of the perilous state of the finances in Western Australia and that when informed of the situation she did nothing—in which case, the minister has blatantly ignored the warnings of the industry; or, second, the minister was aware of the problems in the nursing home industry and has simply chosen to ignore the problem. I find it strange in the extreme for there to be differences in the models used to assist nursing homes due to different funding models in different states. When these can be highlighted as problematic and when alternatives can be discussed, costed and explained and yet still ignored, is it any wonder that the industry is in a total state of disarray and disillusionment with the minister? It will take more than this legislation to fix these problems. It will require a listening minister who can help the industry, not bludgeon it to death. In discussing these and other issues with other members of the opposition, I am led to believe there are other problems. Firstly, our understanding is that a ridiculous situation can actually occur that makes it possible for providers to charge people fees before the person has formally agreed to take up a place. This is lunacy. It is an act of insanity. Secondly, even if an aged care provider has committed serious breaches of the act in that fraudulent practices are evident, the department is unable to remove the provider's status. Because the government repealed the previous legislation, the department now cannot impose a penalty where a provider transgressed the act before October 1997. In effect, the government has let offenders off the hook, offenders who have behaved like parasites on those who can least defend themselves.My colleagues who have examined the act have also found that where the department would normally have shut down an entire facility which had offended, which would require the immediate relocation of all residents, where there are not sufficient alternative places available the department has no choice under the act but to allow the provider to continue to operate. The act also does not recognise residents in aged care that were financially responsible for children who were not actually living with them, nor does it recognise grandchildren who lived in the same house as `close relatives' of the resident. We also have a number of concerns about the accommodation charge and its effectiveness in funding the capital requirements of the aged care sector. This has already been highlighted in Western Australia by the industry and needs immediate attention. In the end, many older Australians might have to sell their homes in order to pay any charge. Given the circumstances in which a person enters a nursing home, how reasonable is it of us in a mature society to expect this?Furthermore, in highlighting the plight of the industry, I understand from conversations this morning with aged care representatives in Western Australia that providers are now having to do battle because they must meet certification standards by the first months of 2001. Whilst certification sounds wonderful, the accommodation charge does not deliver the principal capital requirements they need to meet the deadline. The government has offered no funding to assist in this process. In conclusion, we are happy to discuss these and other aged care issues with the government but we need to sit down and structure long-term planning with the industry. This will ensure the health and viability of the aged care sector. In the end, the government has to realise that funding is a necessary component of aged care. Standards have to be maintained and the quality of care has to be made the highest priority. Likewise, staff working in the industry must receive proper wages, and the providers themselves who have had to bear the brunt of the reductions in the sector must be properly funded. The saga of those awaiting refunds after the first wave of aged care reductions must also be resolved. Once these issues have been addressed, then and only then can we begin to solve the growing dilemma facing aged care.17:00:007222Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise to speak on the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 , which is intended to introduce measures to address particular administration and procedural issues arising from the introduction of the aged care structural reforms in 1997. In November 1997 when the government backed down on its accommodation charges, it formally sought to include accommodation charges in the Aged Care Act through the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998. The bill also included a number of technical amendments to address minor problems that had arisen under the Aged Care Act. Many of these problems are currently being dealt with through subordinate legislation and discretionary powers under the act. The technical amendments included: making it easy to revoke approved provider status, protecting residents from being charged fees before they entered a facility, providing for more generous assets tests and clarifying the situation where a person entering care has a mental impairment.Labor moved numerous amendments to the 1998 bill when it was debated in the House on 25 March 1998. All of these amendments went to abolishing the accommodation bonds and charges. Labor will be voting against this bill in this House as we simply have had insufficient time to consider all aspects of this bill to ensure that it does deal with every possible problem under the government's Aged Care Act, but we will respond in detail when it gets to the Senate.This tidying-up legislation attempts to address the urgent and ongoing issue of aged care in Australia. Australia is among the group of countries which has a rapidly increasing aged population. In 1981, 9.8 per cent of the Australian population was over 65. By 1994, this had increased to 11.8 per cent. By the year 2001, 13.8 per cent of the population will be over 65, increasing to 20.3 per cent by the year 2031. From 2021, the age group over 65 will be a greater proportion of the total population than the 0 to 14 age group.Declining birth rates, changes in migration patterns and increased life expectancy, especially for those over 80, are key factors in the ageing population. The decline in numbers of those participating in the work force means fewer taxpayers will be expected to support greater numbers of dependent older people.I am advised by Aged Care Australia that there will continue to be a shortfall in hostel beds up to the year 2001. An extra 11,761 beds are required to meet the government's target planning ratio of 50 beds per 1,000 of population aged 70 and over. There is a similar shortfall in community aged care packages, where an extra 10,000 packages are required to meet the target planning ratio. While nursing home beds are closer to the government's target, there is still a need for an extra 2,287 beds to meet the government's target planning ratio.I will relate this shortage in aged care facilities on a national basis to the shortage in my own area of Greenway, particularly in the Blacktown local government area. I put a question on notice to the Minister for Aged Care on 23 March, in which I asked:(1) How many assessments has the Aged Care Assessment Team completed in the local government area of Blacktown, NSW.(2) How many of those assessed are awaiting placement in nursing homes, hostels or community care packages.Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—MK6Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELD—Yes, I did get an answer to the question. The answer was:(1) The total number of assessments completed by an Aged Care Assessment Team in the local government area of Blacktown, NSW, in the period January to December 1998 was 807. This number includes reassessments.(2) In that period the numbers recommended for specific placement were as follows: Hostel-115; Nursing Home-257; Community Options/Community Aged Care Packages-66.This was a shortfall of 369. So of those who were assessed as needing aged care facilities of various types, there were still 369 who did not have any aged care facilities provided for them. This is quite a serious problem that we have in my electorate. So we put a further question on notice on 8 June, which as yet has not been answered. It asked the Minister for Aged Care:Further to the answer to question No. 521 . . . about aged care assessments, in relation to the balance of 369 persons assessed or re-assessed by the Aged Care assessment Team, what steps are being taken to ensure that this large number of persons outstanding are able to be placed in hostels, nursing homes or Community Options/Community Aged Care Packages.I will be very interested to get an answer to that question because, as far as I am con cerned, that is far too large a number to be outstanding and still waiting for aged care assistance.What we do have then is a triple whammy effect. We have an increasing age population, we have a declining taxpaying base and still, at this point in June 1999, there are insufficient care facilities for our current aged population. I would like to reinforce a number of points that have already been made by previous Labor speakers in this debate. Labor does support a number of measures in the bill that address problems that have arisen under the Aged Care Act. These problems have been previously raised with the government but they have fallen on deaf ears.We must be relieved to see the provisions that will ensure that residents in nursing homes prior to October 1997 will be refunded any accommodation charges they have been required to pay. Let us all remember that these charges were levied, despite the passionate assurances of the Prime Minister that they would not be subject to the charges—perhaps just another non-core assurance. I also remind members that the government gave a commitment to stop this practice only after heavy pressure from the ALP and only after those residents had been paying these charges for almost 18 months.84GWILKIEMr Wilkie—Disgrace!MK6Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELD—Disgrace, as the member says. For those alert enough to read it, the bill provides a list of the failings of the Aged Care Act. It highlights the problems that inevitably followed the hasty implementation of the government's so-called aged care reforms in 1997. Our concerns were raised during very many question times and we were always fobbed off or there were attempts to ridicule our questions. A minister lost her position as a consequence of this stupid and heartless attack on our elderly people. We all recall, not with pleasure but relief, that within a month of the Aged Care Act coming into force the Prime Minister appeared on A Current Affair to announce a change in policy where he abandoned the proposed accommodation bonds in the face of widespread community concern.Like many defining days and moments of history, I remember quite clearly the day after the Prime Minister made that momentous decision. I remember it because I had arranged a meeting of senior citizens in my electorate to consider the impact of the government's aged care policy. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, when you arrange such meetings there is always a little bit of concern as to how many people will actually turn up. But thanks to the local senior citizens' anger over the government's aged care policy, a large crowd of senior citizens turned up. Over 300 people attended the meeting in the Blacktown Civic Centre. So I was at least thankful to the Prime Minister for giving me that little bit of publicity relating to the meeting.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—You deserve it. You're a good local member.MK6Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELD—Thank you very much. On that point, I then reported the results of that meeting to the House in a 90-second statement on 17 November. I will read what I said on that particular occasion. I said:I recently attended a meeting in my electorate of Greenway called to protest against the coalition government's nursing home policies. The meeting was held the day after the Prime Minister . . . announced the government's backdown on the nursing home accommodation bond. I pledged that I would bring back to this parliament the concerns older Australians have over the confused stop-start policies this government has on nursing home charges.It is clear that this out of touch government has listened to the wrong people when drawing up its aged care policies. It has listened to wealthy nursing home owners like Doug Moran, but it did not seek advice from leaders of the aged community in electorates like Greenway, such as Ellen Long, President of the National Seniors; Golda Zikan, Secretary of the Combined Pensioner and Superannuants Association; and Levy Lopez, President of the Filipino Senior Citizens Association of Sydney. If the government had listened to these leaders, it would have been told that its policies were wrong.Only seven per cent of the Australian population enter nursing homes. When they do they are usually very sick and do not want to worry about selling their own home or raising annual fees. As part of Australia's health system there should be a high standard of nursing home care for older people who cannot afford to go into private nursing homes. I believe this government has finally hit the brick wall with its economic rationalist policies, and older people in Greenway have had enough.That was my report back to this House following that meeting of senior citizens in my electorate in November 1997. I also referred to the problems that this bill created. It is worth reminding the House again that, having identified significant problems and having drafted legislation to address them, the government then made a blatant political decision to minimise its exposure on aged care. It in fact dropped the bill, which never got beyond the government's second reading speech in the Senate on 26 March 1998. Some 135,000 aged care residents have simply had to wait while the government has tried to find a way to extricate itself from this particular political minefield.We were all very interested to observe the government's tactics when it set up an inquiry into the coalescence of nursing home subsidies. The inquiry was not to report until after the 1998 election. How cruel and heartless can you get? Having created all these problems in the aged care sector, the government then sent an extraordinary letter to the industry and promised to fix the problems if re-elected. This is a unique system of government operation—it creates several problems and then promises to fix the problems it created if re-elected. And then we got the honourable member for McKellar as the new Minister for Aged Care. Her success here so far is as successful as her attempts to become leader of the Liberal Party.Let us remember that one year ago the government was due to commence its coalition policies on 1 July 1998. It set up a Productivity Commission inquiry which reported to the government on 13 January 1999. In March 1999 we finally saw the report, some 11 weeks after the minister had seen it, and what a surprise we found—that is, the key plank, the core policy, was deficient in several important aspects. July 1999 is looming and that is the next date when these subsidies are all meant to coalesce. There are still no announcements. What a joke! I think the minister should start campaigning for leader again. She might be more successful in that than she is in looking after the aged.Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—She's listening now.MK6Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELD—I thought that might have attracted her attention. Good. Finally, this wide range of tidying-up measures also enables me to raise a number of concerns conveyed to me by my constituents. I will just relate one to the House. I am advised of a case of one elderly citizen who was required to sell his home to obtain the cash to pay for his move into a hostel. As I understand the current legislation, this family home is exempt from the social security income test.However, the cost of this elderly citizen entering the hostel is $90,500. He has been advised that this amount is subject to the social security means test. This could affect his pension. It seems to me that this is grossly unfair—that is, that the standard entry contribution into a hostel is subject to a social security income test and could therefore affect this person's pension entitlements. This example indicates, Mr Deputy Speaker and Minister, that there is still a lot of tidying up to do before this government regains the confidence of the Australian people that it lost leading up to the backdown on nursing home accommodation bonds at the end of 1997.17:14:007225Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The Howard government has been forced to introduce the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 to address the inadequacies of the Aged Care Act 1997. The original legislation was rushed through parliament with indecent haste. As a consequence, this government has been forced to revisit its inadequate 1997 legislation—SE4BISHOPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—You've got the same script as the others. Have you got anything new?83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—Legislation that put fear in the heart of the elderly people in Australia—SE4BISHOPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—Which you lot did.83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—Legislation that has caused so much angst in the community. I hear the Minister for Aged Care making excuses for that legislation but, fair enough, she was not responsible for that 1997 legislation, and I understand how she must feel about it. The member for Greenway talked about a seniors meeting that he had in his electorate. I, too, had a meeting similar to the one that he had. There were over 200 pensioners crammed into a small hall in Belmont—there was not a seat free—and they were there because they were terrified by what this government had done to them, the threat that it posed to their security.For this government, aged care reform means ripping dollars out of the system, taking away funds—$500 million has been snatched from the aged care sector—and this has caused terror for the seniors in our country. At this meeting I was talking about just a moment ago one of the pensioners—in fact, it was the president of that group—stood up and said, `Why don't they just give us a pill and tell us to end it all? They don't want us. They don't want to do anything for us. They don't want to care about us. We've contributed to this country for many, many years and now they just want us to go away, crawl into a hole and die.' He finished with his very emotive call, sadly stating that the government wished that he would go away and die.This portfolio now has its third minister. The first minister that failed older Australians and performed so inadequately was replaced by Warwick Smith, who is no longer a member of this parliament. I think that is probably testimony to his performance. What I have noticed about this minister's performance is how slow she is to act, how slow she has been to bring in this legislation, and how slow she is to answer questions too, I must add. I have had a question to the minister on the Notice Paper since 7 December. For the benefit of the House, the question states:Is there a mismatch between the local availability of, and demand for, nursing home and hostel beds; if so, what step is the Government taking to make beds available where they are needed.That is the first part of the question—a pretty simple question, a pretty straightforward question, from 7 December and I still have no answer. The second part of the question states:Is it a fact that proportionally the aged population of the electoral division of Shortland—the division I represent—is among the highest in Australia but that its per capita nursing home/hostel bed rate is half the national average; if so, why.I am so disappointed that the minister has so little respect for the people of Shortland that she has failed to answer my questions. I hope that my bringing it up in this debate today may jog her memory a little and she may be happy to answer it for me.The minister's inaction has now been followed by this indecent haste to rush through this legislation to try to tidy up their mistakes of 1997. They did put together some amendments back in 1998, but they sat on the table—nothing happened. The legislation just sat there. You have to ask the question: why weren't these amendments put through back in 1998? I suspect the answer is that there was an election due in 1998 and that the government at the time were very much aware of the sensitive nature of the issue of aged care. It was quite obvious that they felt that way when the Prime Minister announced a policy change on the 7.30 Report, abandoning proposed accommodation bonds. This happened because the government's initial legislation was rushed through without considering what the community wanted, without proper consultation, without listening to the community, without working with the providers and the user groups.This is what happens when you rush legislation through, this is what happens when you do not consult and this is what happens when you get out there and seek to rush things through. As I have already mentioned, it took only three to four months before the 1997 legislation was shown to be inadequate and very, very unpopular. It was probably one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation this country has seen. Maybe it cannot contend with the government's current GST legislation, which is going to be another present to the seniors of this country, but still it was extremely unpopular. At that time I was a member of the New South Wales parliament and I had numerous phone calls from constituents saying, `What will I do? Will I have to sell my home? I am so worried. I am old. I need to be secure. I need to know what is going to happen in the future.'The government is doing the same thing here. Unfortunately, this government is doing what it did back in 1997. This piece of legislation was released only on 6 June, and here on 23 June we are being forced to consider it in the parliament. It just really is not good enough. All the groups should be consulted. People should be given an opportunity to detail their concerns and our community should be given an opportunity to say, `Yes, this is good. No, that's not so good. We would like to see this addressed in the legislation.' Unfortunately, that is not the way this government works. The sad part about delaying that amendment legislation in 1998 is that people who were residents prior to 1997 have had to wait 18 months before their accommodation charges could be refunded. It is very sad that this government is slow to act when it means putting money into the pockets of those people in our community who are most vulnerable.The problems with the current legislation—if I could just touch on a couple of them—are that residents could possibly be charged for places by providers before they can even accept those places and, by doing this, it makes it very difficult for them. They are mostly in a situation where they do not have a lot of money and they are being forced to spend their scarce financial resources on a place before they have even accepted it. This is one of the possible ramifications of the current legislation. Also, the department is unable to revoke the provider's status where the provider has committed a serious breach, and that includes fraud. That is very serious. The department has to either completely shut down an establishment or else let it continue to operate. There is no ground in the middle. It is a very difficult decision for the department to make to actually go in there and say, `We are going to close your establishment,' because that puts it in the situation of having to find new beds for this very vulnerable group of people, and there is a shortage of beds.I think the government could have thought a little bit more about this. I understand that they feel that their previous legislation just was not good enough and that it was very inadequate and needed to be fixed, but I really feel that if you do a job it is worth doing properly. Also, this legislation does not recognise that residents sometimes have financial responsibility for adult children who are not living with them. One of the cases that comes to my mind most immediately—and this is a problem that a lot of elderly people have put to me—is where they have a child who has some sort of disability. They may be living in a group home, or they may be in some sort of accommodation outside the home, but the support that the family is providing is actually keeping that young adult functioning in the community.This legislation does not recognise that, nor does it recognise the fact that the person who is looking to go into a nursing home may have grandchildren living with them. It is a discretionary power as to whether or not that situation will be recognised—I do not think it should be a discretionary matter. There should be something in the legislation that accounts for that situation. Similarly, it is impossible for somebody who has some sort of a mental illness to sign up under a seven-day period. That puts them in a very precarious situation where they could actually be refused entry. They are a group that really need to have some certainty. As with all people who are looking at going into nursing homes, they are a very vulnerable group, as I have already said, and a group that need to know where they are going.I have already mentioned how important it is that providers who actually breach the legislation be sanctioned. Those who actually breached the legislation or the guidelines before 1997 in effect cannot be sanctioned and they have in effect been given an amnesty. This is important legislation that goes to the very heart and security of elderly people. In addition, the concerns that I have noted already are very serious, but I have further concerns. They are about the accommodation charges and whether or not they will actually achieve what they are supposed to achieve and go to addressing the problem of funding the capital requirements. These charges do not deliver the money up-front for the capital needed to meet the certification standards by 2001. There is absolutely no guarantee that the money will be spent on capital improvements. My understanding is that accommodation charges are designed to make sure that nursing homes are of a certain standard and that those older Australians who are forced to live in nursing homes can be guaranteed quality accommodation.There is also the problem with uniform nursing home subsidies. With nursing homes, the requirements of different areas are not uniform and I do not think that you can actually impose uniform subsidies. But, once again, when you have legislation that is rushed through in indecent haste, you are going to come up with these sorts of problems.Other members touched upon the problem of the Productivity Commission inquiry into coalescence of nursing home subsidies. We all know that that report actually met its deadline of 31 January. There was supposed to be six months to respond to it but, once again, this government is rushing through legislation in indecent haste, not allowing proper consultation or proper discussion. We will end up with some significant problems that have not been looked at by the community and by the user groups.Reforms should be about quality care and security for both the residents and the providers. Residents are, in many cases, still forced to sell their homes in order to access nursing home accommodation, and that is just not good enough. They should not be forced into that situation. People in their golden years should know that they will be provided for in comfort and in quality surroundings. They should not be forced to make decisions about selling their homes at a time when they are least able to make those decisions. Similarly, providers should know what funds they will be getting so that they have some security, and they should be forced to provide quality accommodation. I receive a lot of complaints in my electorate office about problems with nursing homes. One constituent has had a major problem with a nursing home—a nursing home owned by one of the large chains. She feels that there is inadequate staffing and cleaning, the airconditioning fails and the quality of food is abominable, and these things are allowed to continue. This legislation is not going to solve this problem. It is just another quick fix.There are a number of other important aged care issues that have not even been touched. One of the things that concerns me enormously is, as I mentioned earlier, that in the Hunter we have one of the largest aged care populations and yet the nursing home-hostel bed ratio does not meet the needs. The electorate of Shortland extends into the Central Coast, and there is a similar situation there. Respite care is another area that needs to be addressed. There is absolutely no emergency respite care for people in the Hunter. If a person needs emergency respite care it is provided in the home. Sometimes a carer becomes extremely upset when a confused person is living with them—somebody that is quite often disruptive, somebody that they have loved and cared for all their life, somebody that is in a state of anxiety—and they feel like getting away from the situation. They want to be able to arrange for the person to go somewhere for a period of time so that they can get themselves back together again and so that the person can be stabilised and then, hopefully, they can get on with their lives. There is no consideration for these carers by this government. There is no consideration given to providing emergency respite care. We have a couple of day care centres, quality centres like the Ocean Centre, that provide respite care for people during the day but, overall, it is a disgusting situation and one that the government continues to ignore.This is the year of the older person, and it breaks my heart to think that this government does not care about our older Australians. Its answer to solving the problem for elderly people in our country is to slash dollars, to take money away from aged care and to rush through amendments with indecent haste instead of taking more time to consult with people, to look at important issues like respite care—issues that affect the security and the daily lives of older Australians. We have this reactive legislation being pushed through the House in this way and, Minister, it is just not good enough.Mr Stephen Smith interjecting—17:34:007229Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I see the brighter of the glimmer twins has arrived. I was, I might say, disappointed right at the outset that we did not have the dimmer of the glimmers, and now the brighter of the glimmers has come to join us at the table.Mr Stephen Smith interjecting—SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—The member for Lilley has, I am afraid to say, sent a boy on an older man's errand. The point is that I would normally begin by saying thank you to the people who had taken part in the debate on the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 for the contributions they had made. I would certainly do that in the case of the two people who spoke for the government side: the member for Bradfield, who spoke exceedingly well, and also the member for Petrie. I was interested in the comments that were made by the member for Calare, who gave a very thoughtful address. We could, I think, collectivise the contribution from the opposition as being a single speech because they all worked off the same script. I did not hear an original thought from any of them.Mr Stephen Smith interjecting—SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Indeed, they did follow your line—and rather poor it was too. I might say that the comments can apply to all the speakers from the opposition.I begin with the last speaker, the member for Shortland, who made the point that she was concerned about the quality of homes. Well, so am I. When I became the Minister for Aged Care and started to look at the statistics and at the legacy that Labor left, I was appalled. I found that aged care homes which ought not to have been allowed to operate were still in operation, and when I looked at the record of the Labor party I found that in the last 10 years of their rule they had closed down only four in 10 years. In other words, they were prepared to accept a standard which this government is not prepared to accept.I then looked at the statistics to find just how many people we were dealing with and what sort of money was being allocated to those people who are in need of care. I found that in 1996 the Labor Party's total expenditure on recurrent expenditure for residential aged care was $2.5 billion. I found that in 1986 they had established a benchmark and a formula against which places for residential care should be allocated. I found that in 1986 the Labor Party met its own benchmark to the tune of 98 per cent. But I found that by the time we got to 1996 they were only 93 per cent compliant with their own benchmark and had therefore left us 10,000 places short. They had withdrawn $1.5 billion from aged care over the period of 10 years.Mr Deputy Speaker, perhaps, as my voice is failing a little, I have that nice chart and we might table that again. It shows 10,000 places short and $1.5 billion withdrawn from the system, and this government is fixing it up. By the year 2000 we will indeed have met that benchmark set in 1986 by the Labor Party—which they never met—and by the year 2001 we will have surpassed it. In other words, what the member for Shortland complained about at the end of her speech—that in her view there was a problem about the benchmark not having been met—was part of the legacy that the Labor Party left. This is the legacy that we are having to fix up.The other thing I found is that we have 2.3 million Australians over the age of 65 years and at any one time we only ever have 135,000 people in residential care. That is in both what used to be called hostel and nursing home care—now known as low-level and high-level residential care. About one-half is high-level, or old nursing home level, and one-half is hostel, or low-level, care. I was interested to hear the member for Greenway make reference to the bonds that are paid with regard to hostel type care. He was being critical of the way in which that policy had worked over the years. I reminded him by way of interjection that that was the Labor Party's policy, introduced by them, which has in fact been in place for many years. Our policy with regard to people in high-level care is that we have an accommodation charge, which is a fee that is payable only by those people who can afford it. For those people who cannot, the government makes up the payment by way of an assisted fee.So, in doing my research I have found that, in the stream of money that we have now put in place to provide for capital expenditure, over the 10 years 1996 to 2006 we are providing 10 times as much capital funding as the Labor Party provided between the years 1986 and 1996. In addition, we have a special provision of capital funding to target rural and remote areas, because we are greatly concerned with rural and remote areas.I was interested to hear the Labor Party saying that they are going to oppose the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 , because I have looked at what was said on the record by the shadow minister responsible for the bill in estimates, and the rather pathetic claim made by the Labor Party that somehow we are not honouring our pre-election commitment to refund fees to people who were resident prior to October 1997 and who have paid a charge since then. That was a promise that was made prior to the election. It obviously had to be part of the budget. Therefore, it was part of the ERC processes and was all approved long before the April hearings of estimates when the question was asked of Senator Herron, representing me in those hearings. I specifically authorised Senator Herron to inform that hearing that provision would be in the budget—and I did so with the permission of Treasury, so that people's fears would be allayed.I have had both ends of the spectrum. In the same speeches, I have had Labor Party people say that the bill has been slow in coming. In the very next breath, it is `being introduced with undue haste'. In fact, a large part of this bill was actually before this House and debated in this House prior to the last election and its passage was stopped with the calling of the election. So, much of the bill has been reintroduced. But with regard to that part of the bill where we are honouring an election commitment—the election was in October, the budget was in May, and I had the bill in the House in June. I think that is a fairly speedy way of getting it in.Indeed, if the Labor Party were honest, it would simply give this bill non-controversial status in the Senate and it could have been dealt with either tomorrow or next Wednesday. I would like now to quote from the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Hansard of 1 June 1999, when Dr Graham from my department was answering questions to Senator Evans and there was discussion about how this refund was to be made. Dr Graham told Senator Evans and that committee that we needed legislation in order to make those retrospective payments. Dr Graham said:We expect the introduction of the legislation next week.That was, the second week of June. He continued:But, of course, there are no guarantees about the passage of the legislation.That, of course, is up to the Labor Party. Senator Evans then said:Perhaps you might ask if the minister might like to give me a briefing on that rather than delay the time of the estimates now.That thorough briefing was given. Senator West then piped in, and she said:If the minister wants it non-controversial, you had better talk to the shadow.The shadow, of course, was Senator Chris Evans, and he said:I am sure that we can assist the passage of that measure.Having said that they were perfectly happy to assist with the passage of that measure, we now hear from the members of the opposition that they are opposing the bill and they are not giving it non-controversial listing. Despite the fact that they would like to assist with the passage of the bill, specifically after Senator West saying, `If the minister wants it non-controversial, you had better talk to the shadow,' and the shadow saying, `I am sure that we can assist the passage of that measure,' we now have the turnaround. Much to the angst of the industry, of consumers, of the people who want this legislation through, we are seeing this hypocritical stance. Perhaps we should have had the member for Lilley leading the debate in this place after all.I think it is important that we put on the record precisely what the bill does. It does some quite important things. It formally introduces a range of resident protection measures relating to accommodation charges for care recipients requiring high level residential care. However, the nature and the level of the charge introduced on 6 November under subordinate legislation will not change under the proposed amendments. The reason we need to put the charge into the primary legislation is so that the additional protections can then be introduced. We cannot introduce the additional safeguards without having the charge itself in the primary legislation.The bill implements the 1999 budget announcement but exempts the accommodation charge for those people residing in nursing homes or high level care when the Aged Care Act was introduced who would otherwise be liable to pay an accommodation charge on moving to another place. That is the question that we have just been addressing, where we hear the sheer hypocrisy from the Labor Party that they think it has been slow coming in. They could assist in its passage—because it had to go through the budget measures—but, no, they want to play politics instead.The amendments ensure that the intending residents are not charged extra amounts for pre-entry leave after being notified of a vacancy but before formally agreeing to accept a place. We need the legislation to do that. The bill implements resident protection measures for residents who pay the accommodation charge that are similar to those that are in place for residents who pay the accommodation bond, which of course was put in place by the Labor Party.The bill formalises the period for a carer co-resident for two years in order to protect the home for bond charges purposes. This enables a larger group of people to qualify as concessional residents, and providers will receive increased payment of concessional resident supplements.The other thing, of course, that is most important at this stage—if I might put it in place—about the budget is that I said when we came into office in 1996 the Labor Party was spending $2.5 billion on residential care. In this budget we are spending $3.5 billion on residential care. We have added into that budget $1 billion to fix up the legacy that was left behind by the Labor Party. I remind you again: 10,000 places short, and nothing in place to make sure that there was a requirement for high care.We have put in place the Standards and Accreditation Board, which will give accountability and ensure that high quality care is given to individuals. The Labor Party has never been one to care much for individuals, being good collectivists. It cares about groups and will always sacrifice an individual to the group. Here my whole attention, the way I administer policy, is to the individual people who need that care—the 135,000 people who need that care and for whom that care must be good.I have said before in this place that before taking on this responsibility I had some personal experience with members of my family and the need to examine the sorts of care that were available. In the case of one member of my family I made sure that he did not have the sort of care that the Labor Party left behind, which still exists. But members of other people's families in fact did have to have it. Under our accreditation board, it will no longer be acceptable to have that standard of care.I heard one of the speakers from the Labor Party mix up entirely the questions of certification and accreditation. Certification is about the buildings, making them safe—something else we put in place. You cannot be accredited unless the buildings are certified. The accreditation will look at the whole range. It will look at the management and the care that is given. It will ensure that a standard is reached which not only is adequate but will indeed give comfort to the individual who goes into that facility and calls it home. Whenever any of us visit a residential care facility, what we do is in fact enter their home. It is their private home, and we are visitors in it, and they are entitled to have a home that meets a standard and which they are proud to call home. Never under the Labor Party was there any attempt to have standards, any means of measuring standards or punitive measures. All I heard from the opposition on this occasion were complaints about what this bill is in fact remedying.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—What about the capital funding?SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—I have already spoken to you about capital funding: there is 10 times as much. Indeed, I am pleased for the interjection, because the Labor Party itself commissioned the Gregory report and it never even responded to the report. The sum of $1.3 billion is what?R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—No.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—The answer is yes. You see—the boy on the older man's errand. This was the government, when it was in power up until 1996, which commissioned the Gregory report. It was never responded to by that government. We are the people who have responded to that report and the 10-year period that was identified by Professor Gregory will in fact be available, plus the additional restructuring money we have put in place, plus the money that we have put in for targeting rural and remote areas and those that care for particularly concessional residents.In every aspect, this whole policy is designed to protect individuals, to ensure that individuals receive the care that they want. That is the purpose of the appropriation. The Labor Party never looked at individuals or their needs. They simply had a policy that allowed providers to conduct facilities that ought never to have been allowed.There are many other things that this omnibus bill does. Hence it is called an omnibus bill. It amends two other pieces of legislation in the social security area and in veterans' affairs. It extends the definition of concessional resident, recognising their responsibility for non-custodial care recipients who have financial responsibilities for children and dependent children who are residing in the care recipient's home. We thought it was important to extend it to grandchildren.The reason this important bill needs urgent passage, and why it was brought into the chamber as early as it could be, is that there was an election in October 1998, the budget process was in the first part of 1999, the budget was in May 1999 and the bill was introduced in June 1999 with the aim of achieving passage before the end of the financial year to enable these very important provisions to be put in place. I can only hope that perhaps Senator Evans has a better nature and that we can appeal to his better nature to adhere to the commitment that he gave on 1 June 1999 when he said in the estimates hearings, `We'—meaning the Labor Party—`could assist with the passage of that measure,' that is, of allowing the bill to become non-controversial and passed through that chamber to become effective by 1 July of this year. I commend the bill to the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Minister, House of Representatives Practice requires that you seek leave to table a document during the debate. Do you seek leave?SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—I am the minister; I do not need leave.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—It is only in question time that you do not need leave; during a debate you do.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—In that case, I will seek leave. If they deny it, I will be delighted to hold up the chart again.Leave not granted.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Good, we will all have another look as I hold it up again.Question put: That the bill be now read a second time. The House divided. [5.59 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr I.R. Causley) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.7233Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop) read a third time.Bills7233r815Billsr814Billsr818BillsBills7233Debate resumed from 13 May, on motion by Mr Moore:That the bill be now read a second time.18:05:007233McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—This package of bills, the ACIS Administration Bill 1999 , the ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS Implementation) Bill 1999 , is about a very important matter that is, unlike the matter which we have just dealt with and many others, not a controversial matter. This is legislation dealing with the legislative framework for one of the nation's most important industries today and into the future. This is legislation which implements the package of measures the government announced in June 1997 and April 1998 in response to the Industry Commission's report into the automotive industry.As with all the other matters that have come before the House relating to the industry policy area in the last eight months, this is not an initiative of the current Minister for Industry, Science and Resources who, to the best of everybody's knowledge, has not taken an initiative in eight months. It is an overhang from an initiative announced by the former minister in response to a very long and active campaign by the industry with the active support of the opposition, led in particular by the then shadow minister for industry, the member for Hotham. The policy response reflects both the basis of that campaign and, in broad measure, the minority report of that Industry Commission document. It is not a full implementation of the minority report by Mr Webber but, in broad measure, it goes to the thrust of his arguments rather than to the majority position.In summary, it is a package which includes a freeze on tariffs at their 1 July 2000 level until 1 January 2005 and a transitional assistance scheme, to be known as the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme, to encourage investment and the modernisation of the industry to assist it to become globally integrated. Those are objectives that I think are shared across the chamber. Therefore, we will not be opposing this legislation, although we will be proposing some amendments. We think that while the objective is appropriate, and in this second iteration of the legislation the industry and those who work in it are broadly sympathetic to and satisfied with the outcome, there are one or two flaws in the process that need to be pursued—and there are some aspects of the legislation which show a lack of imagination which I will refer to. Although they will not lead to amendments, they do not lead us to oppose the proposal, because this is the only assistance this industry is likely to get from the government, and therefore it is important that it is facilitated.The Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme, or ACIS for short, will provide incentives in the form of duty credit which may be used to pay customs duty on eligible imports or may be transferred. One part of the scheme will provide benefits to motor vehicle producers and the second part will assist automotive component producers, automotive machine tool and tooling producers and automotive service providers. Within the governmental framework, AusIndustry, the very worthwhile initiative by the former minister for industry, Senator Cook, will be the government agency responsible for the administration of ACIS. The government has, as it did with the textile, clothing and footwear package, committed itself to conducting a review of these policy arrangements in 2005 to take account of Australia's APEC commitments and progress on market access.No-one can say that we should not have a review, but the timing is bizarre. What is being proposed is that the cuts to the tariffs will take place, the scheme will finish and then we will have a review: we will leap off the cliff and then we will inquire whether we need a parachute. That, I have to say, is not rational policy making. The only redeeming feature of this stupid proposal is that nobody believes that it will happen. Nobody believes that anyone would be stupid enough to wind up an assistance scheme and then have a hiatus while you contemplate and have an inquiry into what will subsequently take place. It is just so unimaginably stupid that nobody believes it will happen, and that is why people are relaxed about this bizarre proposal. But I am a little averse to the idea that we should pass legislation that everybody knows is stupid just because no-one believes it will happen and therefore we can relax because at the end of the day good sense will prevail.It seems to me to be better public policy to try to pass legislation that makes sense and then implement it, instead of passing stupid legislation and then seeking to amend it later or proceeding, in spite of its provisions, to do something more sensible. I will be dealing with that again in the course of this speech. I will be moving a second reading amendment that relates to that matter and I will be dealing with it in particular in the consideration in detail stage.The package of legislation we have before us has a number of measures which were read out by the Deputy Speaker. The Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS Implementation) Bill 1999 implements the tariff pause; the ACIS Administration Bill 1999 and the ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999 implement the transitional assistance scheme. The circumstance in which the industry finds itself at the moment is that the rate of customs duty imposed on passenger motor vehicles and original equipment components is presently 17.5 per cent and will, under the existing legislation, be reduced to 15 per cent on 1 January 2000. The customs tariff amendment bill provides for a further reduction to 10 per cent from 1 January 2005. As I have said, there is no provision for any review before this reduction takes effect.We are not opposed to the direction in which the government is proposing to take the customs tariff on this industry. It is consistent with the broad policy position that the Labor Party outlined in government and it is consistent with the position we outlined during the last term in opposition and, again, in the Leader of the Opposition's recent speech about trade. But we are opposed to making decisions about where we are going before we have conducted an analysis of where we are. These two industries, which are having the most difficult transition to a freer trade environment—TCF and autos—are being treated very poorly through the way in which the government is approaching the review proposal. And not one person has put forward a logical explanation as to why the government's proposal to have the review after the scheme concludes and after the tariff cut takes effect is more rational than having one before.You could just mount an argument on the tariff point that the government is committed to going to 10 per cent and the review will be about what happens afterwards. I still think the 10 per cent is a major move—a move which must eventually take place unless the whole world trade scene so unravels that we are in some sort of unforeseen crisis. Nevertheless, you would expect the nature and timing of such a change would follow the review, not precede it. But what is the rational basis for saying that the transitional arrangements will expire, we will have a hiatus in which we conduct a review, and then we might do something to fill the void? Not one person has explained why that is a sensible thing to do. The government has just announced it and defended it in its stoic enthusiasm to defend the indefensible.The ACIS Administration Bill 1999 and the ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999 establish ACIS, which is to commence from 1 January 2001 and operate for five years. A new scheme of this type was necessary to replace the Export Facilitation Scheme, which must expire on 31 December 2000 to conform with Australia's World Trade Organisation commitments. ACIS participants will earn benefits in the form of duty credits from the production of motor vehicles and engines, from investment in approved plant and equipment and, in some circumstances, from research and development.It is those different emphases that I think are some of the somewhat short-sighted elements of this package, even though broadly it is a direction with which we concur. The motor vehicle producers will be able to claim duty credit equal to 15 per cent uncapped and 10 per cent capped of the value of production of passenger motor vehicles sold in Australia and New Zealand multiplied by the tariff rate, and 25 per cent of the value of production similarly multiplied for other vehicles, and 10 per cent of the value of their new investment in plant and equipment averaged over the preceding three years.If we are to give this form of assistance, then I think that incentive for new investment is entirely well focused, but I am not so enthusiastic about the production bounty approach. It would be better, if we are going to spend large amounts of taxpayers' dollars assisting an industry in transition, for us to look to something a little closer to what my predecessor in this shadow portfolio used to talk about as being the `reciprocal or mutual obligation' on companies receiving government assistance by the way at least of incentives, if not more than that, with regard to research and development and design so that the high skill jobs in the automotive industry would come to Australia.The logic behind this strategy—if the government is pursuing this for any logical reason other than simply responding to a crisis—is that we want a high skill, high wage future for this country. We want jobs in this country that are based on high skill and high wage outcomes. That means we need to be looking at where the automobile industry and component part design centres are and at where the R&D is being conducted. The production bounty approach does not provide that incentive.Some of the manufacturers will still go in that direction because of Australia's natural strengths in that part of the industry—our educational strengths, our traditional strengths in some of those research and development and engineering sectors. But there is no incentive in either the way the government is approaching the issue of education or the way it is providing assistance to this industry for more of that to happen. In large measure the scheme is better handled in its application to automotive component producers, machine tool and tooling producers and service providers, because their credit claims will be based upon the value of their new investment in plant and equipment and their investment in R&D.I support both those aspects. If we are giving assistance of this magnitude, those are the sorts of incentives we should be providing. I am disappointed that it does not have an element that relates to design, unless we are very liberal in our definition of research and development and allow some of the design aspects to be included. I think that is unlikely to be a prevailing interpretation, and for it to be done through the backdoor as implied R&D is probably not the right way to go about providing that sort of incentive. But perhaps in this industry, where design is such an important part of development, it can fit in. However, I would very much like to see incentives for more and more of Australia's design skills to provide assistance to component producers. It is important to note and I support the fact that, where motor vehicle producers themselves produce automotive components, tooling or services for a third party—which many of them now do—they too can access these elements of the scheme: the 25 per cent investment allowance and, in particular, the 45 per cent R&D allowance.In terms of the fiscal impact of these measures, the most important point to note—and it is consistent with the approach the government took in the TCF package—is that a fiscal cap of $2 billion will apply to all benefits paid over the five years of the scheme, except for that uncapped production credit relating to Australia and New Zealand. And, necessarily, a five per cent subsidy-to-sales cap for each company registered under ACIS will also apply to ensure that assistance provided under the scheme does not exceed WTO limitations.The five per cent subsidy-to-sales cap is a quite straightforward point. It is necessary to do, and I support it. The idea of a fiscal cap always has pluses and minuses. I understand why a minister for finance would want it. I am sure that strong submissions were made to that effect in the cabinet, and that is what led to this capping. In terms of good fiscal planning, it has some logic.But the problem is that, when you have a demand driven scheme with a cap, you do find management difficulties about fitting the demand driven scheme into the cap. It is not as though we say, `We will give a certain amount each year and distribute it in proportion to people's performance against these criteria'—then of course you would have a comfortable cap. This is a demand driven scheme based on how much investment you do, how much R&D you do, how much production you do, and then there is a cap for which you will be retrofitted.I think towards the latter years of the scheme there is the potential for this to cause some administrative difficulties both for the industry and for the government of the day. But the government has determined to have that cap and it is, for fiscal reasons, a not irrational thing to do. I just point out the fact that I can see how it may cause some problems down the track.I said in opening that this is a very important industry and that, therefore, questions about support to it need to be seen in that context. Australians know the public face of the automotive industry, which is the four-passenger motor vehicle manufacturers. But what is not so well recognised, but is a very important feature of the industrial base of the nation and particularly of the economies of Victoria and South Australia—it is also important to New South Wales—are the 200 component tooling and design and engineering firms associated with the automotive industry.The latest figures to hand, which were 1995-96 ABS figures, reveal that at that stage the industry employed approximately 55,000 people at a gross turnover of $14.5 billion. That is more than seven per cent of total manufacturing turnover. The industry is also important as a source of demand for other industries, being the second largest consumer of basic iron and steel products and the third largest consumer of paints.The transformation that has taken place since the Button plan has been, of course, the rationalisation of the industry in Australia but most particularly the change towards an export focus. In 1997, $2.7 billion worth of cars and components were exported, with fully built cars being exported to North America, Asia, the Middle East, South Africa and Oceania. I was very pleased to be associated with major pushes to introduce the export of Australian motor vehicles into the Middle East and South Africa and to be a part of the process of seeking to assist their access into North America and Asia. It is not easy for Australian companies to break into those markets, but they are doing well. Our components and other support industries in the sector are exporting to almost every major world automotive market.The whole trade focus of the industry, both imports and exports, has changed significantly. The rate of growth is much faster for exports, which is very important, but we started from such a position of imbalance that the value of import growth is still higher than the value of export growth, so the trade deficit continues to mount. Between 1988 and 1997 exports recorded accumulative growth of 302 per cent or $2 billion—but you can see from the aggregate number I used earlier that it was from a very low base—whereas the value of imports has grown by only 149 per cent over that time, which is about half the rate. However, the base from which it started was so much higher that it has led to a growth in imports of more than $6 billion, resulting in an automotive trade deficit of $7.8 billion in 1997—a very significant aspect for this country and something to which we need to give continuing attention. When you think about the significance of this industry in itself and its place at the heart of our broader manufacturing sector, particularly in some of our states and regions—in the case of South Australia, it is central to one of our regional economies which is in most need of growth and strength—it makes the way we treat this industry very important. I say quite clearly to the industry this evening that, if there is a change of government at the next election, this scheme will continue. I am sure that is implicit in the discussions we have had with the industry previously because we campaigned for a scheme just like this, but I repeat that the scheme will continue.I also make it clear that, if there is a change of government at the next election, the review will be brought forward from 2005 to 2003 at the latest, so that we can have the review concluded before the scheme finishes and before the tariff reduction takes effect. It is important for the industry and its planning to know that these things will continue beyond the term of any one government. The lack of any legislative review within this scheme is a very serious flaw in the legislation. I have come back to it again and again because I am very worried by this aspect.From the outset we have argued for the need to have a review before the tariff levels come into effect—not after—and before the scheme ends. We should not decide where we are going until we have established where we are. This seems to me to be a fairly fundamental principle of public policy; it does not relate just to this scheme because exactly the same problem occurred to the TCF industry. I think it is also just what a rational person would do. The implication of the government's failure to have a review before the scheme finishes is quite serious. It says that this scheme, which is described as a transitional scheme, is all there is and that nothing will succeed it because it winds up before there is any review. The question of how transitional this assistance is likely to be and whether it will be required beyond the end of 2005 is an important issue.If Australia continues to pursue its APEC objectives to which the Leader of the Opposition reiterated in his speech last week that we remain committed, it means difficult decisions for both this industry and the TCF industry and, in my view, it means a continuing need for governments to assist in that process of transition particularly because of the regional significance of some of the industries involved. The idea that it is all going to finish and we are going straight over the precipice with no continuing transitional assistance is a serious point. It is not just a drafting point; it is not just a matter of interesting public policy analysis; it sends a very clear message to the industry about which I am concerned. There are some other issues concerning how the scheme will be capped at $2 billion. I know the industry has had some discussion with the government about this and that it is not impossible because similar things have been done in other sectors. The government—in my view foolishly—did something similar with the Export Market Development Grant Scheme when it capped the scheme and reduced spending on it. The assessment so far is that that cut to the EMDG scheme has cost thousands of jobs. That is a matter about which we should be concerned. The automotive industry has serious concerns about the nature of the transitional arrangements for the tax package which the parliament is now legislating.There are concerns emerging now that there will be a feared buyers strike as a consequence of the change in new car prices for fleet buyers. People have been concerned that that will happen, and the evidence is starting to emerge that it is happening. The significance of that is that it has a particular effect on Australian producers, because the cars that are purchased as part of fleet purchases in Australia are disproportionately Australian-produced cars. They have a very significant share of that market and that is the market that may be most affected.So I urge the government, in the context of seeking to provide some certainty for this industry, to move on the question of transitional arrangements for the GST. If they are going to get that tax muddle through the Senate and bring it back here, then I urge them, in the process of implementation, to look at the transitional arrangements for this industry. They must also look at other industries but, in terms of this legislation, I particularly refer to the transitional problems for the Australian automobile industry.The opposition supports this measure. It will assist the industry in going a significant way towards meeting the APEC targets. It is pleasant to have the opportunity to find something happening in the industry area with which I agree. It is a pity that since the new minister has been appointed not one positive initiative, new policy or change has happened at all. Everybody knows that Senator Minchin never wanted to be the industry minister, and his lack of interest in it is apparent every day.Mr Cox interjecting—Mr Hockey interjecting—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—It is not very nice for the industry, but it is sadly true. I regret that the minister provoked me to say that, but there is nothing—Mr Tuckey interjecting—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—I am suggesting that he should take some slight interest in the portfolio and, if he did, we might be getting a better job.We need more commitment towards achieving high wage, high skill, in this country. This package can be a part of that, because the automobile industry can be an industry of the future. When people talk about industries of the future, they tend to think only about new industries we do not have now. There is some very great and exciting potential in that area, and I hope we can get a tax and assistance regime that enables those industries to flourish.The automotive industry is an Australian industry of the future because, whatever artificial date we have—and 2010 is the criterion by which I usually measure these things just as a convenient benchmark—it is impossible to imagine Australia in 2010 without an automotive industry. It will be a different sort of industry. It will be manufacturing things differently, on different designs, probably for different markets and using different materials, but it will still be producing automobiles and I hope it will be exporting them.The industry is forecasting $4 billion in new investment, 5,000 new jobs and annual exports of $6 billion by 2005. We need to be developing a scheme that provides incentives for research, design, development and innovation to ensure that the automotive industry is a viable and important part of the Australian economy of the next century.This scheme does not address all of these measures. It is a bit old-fashioned but it is going in the right direction, so the opposition will support it. As I have said, if we are successful at the next election, the scheme will continue, but the review will be brought forward. Therefore, I move the Labor Party second reading amendment:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House expresses its concern about the failure of the Government to provide for a review of the future of the automotive industry before tariffs are reduced in 2005".83UCOXMr Cox—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.18:35:007238Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—These three bills put in place the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme, a five-year program designed to encourage production, investment, and research and development by Australia's automotive industry. This legislation was put before the House last year but lapsed because of the election. I am happy to be back here representing the people of Dunkley to support this package.The Australian automotive industry is positioning itself as a niche player in an increasingly global industry. It is characterised by structural depth and considerable infrastructure—not only in car manufacturing but also in original equipment manufacturers and aftermarket component suppliers. A number of these component manufacturers are based in or close to my electorate of Dunkley, and many Dunkley residents are employed in the automotive components industry.The Australian auto industry achieved record vehicle sales in 1997—the latest year when figures were available to us—with an 11 per cent increase to 722,642 units, with growing exports. Most of the growth in the industry has been in the small car segment, up 24 per cent, and all terrain vehicles, up 42 per cent. The medium sized vehicle segment, dominated by local suppliers, has remained relatively static.There are a number of key market characteristics that I think set the context for this discussion: we have seen a six per cent fall in average prices and a 10 per cent increase in affordability of new vehicles in a low inflation and falling tariff environment; export growth has continued—up 22 per cent from 1996 to 1997; there has been a 43 per cent growth in investment by local manufacturers in the four years to 1997 over the preceding four years; a further 27 per cent growth is expected in the current four-year period; and productivity has steadily increased over the past decade—in 1993 the industry was producing 12.8 vehicles per employee, and in 1997 that figure was 15.8 vehicles per employee.The Australian automotive industry has a long and proud history and represents a significant part of our nation's manufacturing sector. It is international in its outlook and faces world-class competitive pressures. The aim of the automotive competitiveness and investment scheme and the bills before this House is to assist the industry to better position itself for the future, to help ensure export markets and to encourage investment in our local industry. The coalition recognises the importance of the car industry to this nation and that the Commonwealth can play an albeit measured role in facilitating further improvement in productivity, product innovation, quality and competitiveness—the trinity of the long-term viability and success of the Australian automotive industry.Active encouragement of the development of an automotive manufacturing industry in Australia commenced in the 1940s and led to the launch of the first Holden in 1948. By the late 1970s the industry was extensively protected from import competition by policy provisions which have accumulated over decades. The need to sustain the pace of improvement in productivity, quality and innovation has grown more compelling as Australia approaches the APEC deadline of 2010 free trade. It would be foolish and irresponsible for the industry to see the proposed tariff regime as a comfortable wall of protection. It is not. The breathing space afforded by this package between now and the year 2004 gives the industry an opportunity to knuckle down and ensure that its produc tivity levels, competitiveness and global market dynamic are all in place to ensure a solid future.The industry has a mutual obligation to keep up the pace of reform and to maintain its commitment to improvements in productivity, product quality and innovation and overall competitiveness. The bills before the House today seek to implement the government's end of the bargain. The package of legislation is made up of three bills which, amongst other things, give effect to government decisions to provide tariff stability to the automotive industry announced in June 1997. At present, the rate of customs duty imposed on passenger motor vehicles and certain parts for PMVs is a tariff of 17.5 per cent. Under current provisions, the tariff has been phasing down from a level of 57.5 per cent in 1987 to 15 per cent on 1 January 2000.The bills reduce the rate of customs duty on passenger motor vehicles and certain related componentry from 15 per cent to 10 per cent on 1 January 2005 and make several other technical amendments. The government announced on 5 June 1997 that these changes would occur. I would like to convey my appreciation to the Prime Minister and the government for their willingness to embrace the concerns I have raised on behalf of the local automotive industry and many local employees. Eligible producers will be able to earn duty credit through the production investment and R&D package which is part of the bills we are debating tonight. Duty credit can be earned up to a cap of five per cent of a firm's sales in the preceding year. The duty credit will be fully transferable so that credit value can either be used to offset customs duty on imports by the producer or sold to another company.Motor vehicle producers will be able to claim the duty credit in a number of ways. They can claim duty equal to 15 per cent uncapped plus 10 per cent capped of the value of production of passenger motor vehicles sold in Australia and New Zealand multiplied by the relevant tariff rate. They can claim it through a duty credit equal to 25 per cent of the value of production of motor vehicles other than passenger motor vehicles sold in Australia and New Zealand, engine and engine components multiplied by the relevant tariff rate, and also by a duty credit equal to 10 per cent of the value of their investment in plant and equipment averaged over the preceding three years.Automotive component producers, automotive machine tool and tooling producers and automotive service providers will also be able to claim benefits under this package. Duty credits equal to 25 per cent of their value of investment in plant and equipment averaged over the preceding three years is available, along with duty credits equal to 45 per cent of the value of their investment in R&D leverage over the preceding three years. When PMVs produce automotive components, tooling or services for a third party, they too can claim access to the 25 per cent investment allowance and the 45 per cent R&D allowance.A $2 billion cap will apply to all benefits paid over the five years of the ACIS, except the 15 per cent uncapped production credit for passenger motor vehicles sold in Australia and New Zealand. The 15 per cent uncapped reduction credit represents a continuation of the benefits equivalent to the existing duty-free allowance. Importantly, and in keeping with our international obligations, the ACIS is consistent with World Trade Organisation rules. The government will continue with reductions in automotive tariffs until it reaches 15 per cent in the year 2000, where the level will rest until 2004 before dropping to 10 per cent in 2005. A review of the automotive tariff in the year 2005 will take account of our APEC commitments and progress on market access before any decisions are made for further tariff reductions. A World Trade Organisation consistent program will be introduced to replace the export facilitation scheme which expires in the year 2000, and this new program will run to the year 2005.The government's pro-active industry initiatives include a market access strategy including the establishment of a new Automotive Trade Council, the appointment of a specialist trade access negotiator and a market development package worth $20 million over four years. The government's initiatives also feature a review of industry policy post-2000 based on the advice of the specially convened Automotive Manufacturing Council and a productivity inquiry. There is also an automotive market access and development strategy which will operate from the fiscal years 1998-99 to 2001-02 to open and develop key export and investment markets for the industry.The government's package also includes policy and industry initiatives with added drive as a result of a decision to establish the Automotive Trade Council. The Prime Minister's special automotive envoy, Mr Ian Grigg AM, will be making representations on the industry's behalf to foreign governments. There will also be a fleet of pro-export measures available which include automotive market facilitator, Christopher Langman, operating through the DFAT market access programs.An automotive market access and development fund administered by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources will provide $20 million over four years to support these elements of the scheme and special projects. I am particularly pleased that a local Dunkley employer is represented on the Automotive Trade Council with the appointment of Mr Graeme Bulmer, chief executive of BTR Automotive Asia Pacific. There will also be an environmental strategy which will include measures to phase out the use of leaded fuel by 2010 and the development of an industry code of environmental performance.There are a range of consumer and business benefits that will be derived as a result of the government's approach. Consumers will benefit from lower priced, higher quality vehicles, both imported and locally produced. We also can look towards possible benefits from a greater choice of products even though Australia is already relatively open to imports. We can also look to benefits in terms of the lessening of the cost of vehicles and maintenance and what that will do for the broader economy. As we all know from the taxation debate, a considerable proportion of all the costs in Australia is related to transport. So reducing vehicle costs will be a big benefit to those industries that pay high transport costs. We also can look to lower costs of business inputs which will help the Australian vehicle assemblers as they go about sourcing supplies for their vehicle manufacturing operations.The five-year tariff pause from 2001 to 2005 will ensure that the industry has an opportunity to adjust to the greater competitive pressures in the marketplace. The automotive industry will benefit from the increased stability and certainty created by the tariff pause and the subsequent known tariff reduction. In fact it already has: the industry anticipates new investment in the order of $4 billion by 2005 under the ACIS package and the post-2000 policies of this government. This package will help to stabilise and build jobs in the industry well into the future. This will be of particular benefit to South Australia and Victoria where many of the automotive and component manufacturing jobs are based.Data from the Automotive Products Manufacturers survey of members suggests that employment in the component sector increased slightly in 1997 to 29,169 people. In the lead-up to the government's original response to the Productivity Commission's recommendations in relation to the car industry back in 1997, I met with 16 component manufacturers and service providers who employ hundreds of Dunkley people. We had a wide-ranging discussion on the pressures facing the industry. I am pleased that this legislation goes a good way to meeting the concerns that were raised with me and also that this package will ensure that those companies that operate in and around my electorate will continue to grow and adapt to the changing landscape of Australia's automotive industry.As I mentioned earlier, this package implements the government's commitments to our partnership with the industry. Optimising the successes it will generate relies on the industry playing its part. In the future the automotive industry will need to continue to improve its productive performance in the light of increased competitive pressures under a lower tariff regime. Already, as I have mentioned, tariffs have dropped from 57 per cent to 17 per cent, and this has seen a fundamental shift towards an export oriented, highly productive and high quality industry. Cumulative growth in the value of exports between 1988 and 1997 was 302 per cent compared with 149 per cent in the value of imports over the same period. However, the much lower starting point for exports has seen imports increase by $6.2 billion compared to $2 billion for exports.The value of Australian automotive exports in 1997 was $2.6 billion—more than six times the value in 1994, mostly accounted for by increased volumes. That already gives you a sign of the changing nature of the marketplace. Present indicators are that the industry is embarking on a new round of investment and is anticipating continued strong growth in exports. Passenger motor vehicle manufacturers have indicated growth in tooling and model related expenses, which is investment in new product, and that is expected to continue with strong growth into 2000-01, driven by bullish export prospects. The foundations and policy settings established by the Howard government are delivering benefits to the automotive industry, and the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme will drive further benefits for all Australians.The automotive industry has long and complex supply chains and the eligibility rules are designed to identify companies that have a long-term commitment to the industry. These bills will ensure that ACIS benefits are delivered where there are minimum levels of production and sales. So these benefits will go right to those who encourage long-term strategic investments of a significant scale.When the government announced its car plan in April 1998, I highlighted how local Dunkley firms such as Australian Arrow, BTR Automotive and Colin Guest and Co. now have the security of a five-year car plan announced almost three years in advance. Australian Arrow, BTR Automotive and Skytec Plastics have showcased their products and the skills and talents of their employees by contributing to the `aXcess Australia' concept car wholly designed and built in Australia and it has toured the world. Australian Arrow featured with its electronics, instrumentation and security products. The interior panelling and finishing products were a sample of what BTR can do. And the futuristic window and tinted roof sections in the vehicle were installed by Skytec using the same technology this Seaford based company applies to repairing scratched window panels on F18 jet fighter aircraft.Colin Guest and Co., a world-class automotive rubber, oil seals and metal stamping manufacturer, has also proven itself to be internationally competitive on price, quality and product development. I pay tribute to and pledge my continuing support for all of these local companies—they are all world class, all international in their outlook, all committed to price, quality and product competitiveness, all engaged in exporting or import replacement. These component manufacturers and the broader membership of the Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers have been a key driving force behind many of the gains in the Australian auto industry that I have spoken of earlier.We need to remind ourselves that 70 per cent of a new local car's cost structure comes from outside the fences of the assembler's plant. This explains the necessity of collaborative, comprehensive total cost management examination of the total value chain—another initiative supported by the Howard government and very successfully being implemented by Ford Australia. Local design innovation and product development by vehicle assemblers in conjunction with component manufacturers has also played an important role in the evolution and development of the domestic automotive industry.Contracts between assemblers and component manufacturers often involve `cost down' obligations and product development requirements often as part of longer term supply agreements. These are not the more simple challenges of keeping prices below CPI movements or modest savings on familiar and longstanding production processes but the big ask of substantial reductions in cost, product evolution and improvements in quality—all in a dynamic environment with a horizon that rarely extends beyond the next model run.My meeting with local manufacturers in 1998 confirmed that the vehicle assemblers at times are not always as helpful as they could be to the component industry. Prior to the government's announcement, threats by the assemblers to leave the country or not to continue their investment and production beyond the next model unsettled many component manufacturers. Component manufacturers were looking to both the government and the assemblers for support, encouragement and a longer term view. The government has delivered by providing policy and financial support to encourage improved automotive industry competitiveness and investment.The component industry and its work force have shown their world-class credentials. The major vehicle assemblers in Australia must demonstrate their commitment to this country by pledging to invest and produce as part of a longer, wholehearted and multimodel strategy to back domestic vehicle production in return for our nation's support for these multinational vehicle assemblers over decades.This reciprocal commitment has been evident in recent domestic production benefits produced by the export drives for Holden's VT Commodore/WH Statesman platform and the Ford AU range. I encourage the assemblers to further demonstrate their goodwill and genuine commitment to Australian manufacturing by announcing that, beyond their current tooling, they will fully dedicate themselves to at least two more model runs. In addition, the assemblers should embrace the example of supporting local component manufacturers by taking their products and ingenuity to the world as Ford has done with Bosch's `smart lock' technology in the new AU Falcon.Ford Australia's work with Bosch Australia to showcase this local technology to the world has resulted in Australian know-how being recognised by Bosch's German parent company as a key design and production centre for worldwide operations. This example shows what a partnership can deliver for our industry. I have learned of examples where local assemblers continued to import componentry from overseas that could be readily replaced with local product. Despite these obvious import replacement opportunities, some local assemblers talk about using alternative product but hide behind claims that the product quality testing laboratories operat ed by the parent company have not verified the known and uncontested product performance characteristics of the local offering.Local assemblers serious about local partnerships and carrying out their end of the bargain would work to actively overcome the bureaucratic barriers of their parent companies that sometimes stand in the way of using local components in locally assembled vehicles. I call on local assemblers to actively support the use of local components that match or outperform currently imported components on price, quality and supply wherever possible in Australian made vehicles. Beyond helping to remove their own barriers to import replacement for vehicle components, local assemblers should commit to promoting Australian components to their parent companies for use in their multinational operations where competitive. This request is not about favours; it is about a fair go for our motor vehicle industry. I commend the bills to the House.18:55:007243Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—I rise to second Labor's amendment to provide for no further reduction in car tariffs beyond the year 2000 without a full review of the automotive industry. It was one of the most irresponsible acts of the Howard Liberal government to take a decision more than seven years in advance that there would then be a five per cent reduction in one step to 10 per cent. That reduction would come after a long period of gradual reductions in the car tariff to 15 per cent by the year 2000 and a tariff pause to 2004. When the Howard government made that decision, it had no idea what conditions would prevail in Australia's automotive industry at the time of the reduction, nor any idea what the condition of the world car market would be in 2005.The Industry Commission submitted its report on the automotive industry to the Treasurer on 26 May 1997. It contained two sets of recommendations. The majority report by Presiding Commissioner Scales and Commissioner Rae said:The Commission recommends that from 1 January 2001 tariffs on passenger motor vehicles and components (including aftermarket components) be reduced at the rate of 2.5 percentage points per annum until 2004, when the tariff will be at 5 per cent, the rate currently applying to most Australian manufacturing industries. A 2.5 percentage points per annum reduction for components should apply even if a slower rate of reductions is set for passenger motor vehicles.In this recommendation, the Industry Commission recognised that, when tariff reductions are applied, a reasonable rate of phasing is required to avoid dislocation of the affected industry. This is consistent with the industry practice of requiring continuous improvement, and it gives some benefit to consumers. It also explicitly recognised that 2.5 per cent was probably a faster rate of phasing than would likely be achieved for passenger motor vehicles. The minority report by Associate Commissioner Webber recommended:Tariffs on passenger motor vehicles, original equipment and replacement components be maintained at 15 per cent until 2005, with a review to be held in say, 2003 to consider post-2005 assistance arrangements for the industry.And:The export facilitation scheme be maintained unless and until it is ruled to violate Australia's obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. If untenable, the scheme should be replaced by arrangements with similar assistance effects.The Howard government, under considerable pressure from the Labor Party, accepted the minority report recommendation for a tariff pause at 15 per cent from 2000 to 2004, but it did not provide for any review of the industry before a further reduction to 10 per cent on 1 January 1995.Labor's amendment is intended to ensure that there is a full review of the car industry before any further reduction in tariffs after 1 January 2000. From my discussions with the industry, this review will be welcomed, and the need for it would, I expect, have been raised again by them as 2005 drew nearer. The other decision announced by the Howard government in mid-1997 was the replacement of the Export Facilitation Scheme with a new assistance arrangement. As the Howe leather case has demonstrated, the Export Facilitation Scheme was vulnerable to challenge under World Trade Organisation rules. Australia has its sovereignty but, if we do not abide by the relevant multilateral trade agreements, we will increasingly find that other countries have their sovereignty as well and some Australian exporters will find themselves excluded from valuable markets.On 22 April 1998, the government announced that the new assistance arrangement would be the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme. Bills for the scheme were introduced into the parliament in 1998, but they had been prepared with far too little consultation with the industry and needed at least extensive amendment and probably complete redrafting. The election intervened and they were not proceeded with. That consultation which was so necessary has now been completed, and the industry believes that the bills we are debating today are workable.While the industry may not be satisfied with all aspects of the new arrangements, it is recognised that the Export Facilitation Scheme is due to finish on 31 December 2000 and without ACIS they would get no assistance at all. The Labor Party is supporting the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme and hopes that it will provide the basis for a stronger automotive industry post 2000. Labor recognises the challenges that lie ahead with massive overcapacity by many car makers around the world and intense competition, including from emerging countries. The fact that Australia will be embarking on a new set of automotive industry assistance arrangements makes it imperative to conduct a review of the car industry to ensure that the arrangements are working.ACIS has four key objectives: first, encouraging the development of a sustainable, prosperous and internationally competitive automotive manufacturing industry in Australia; second, improving the overall economic performance of the Australian automotive industry; third, providing good quality, competitively priced vehicles to the Australian consumer; and, fourth, meeting Australia's international obligations and commitments. Many people will see the last of these objectives as a constraint, and I think that the explanatory memorandum referred to it in those terms. But, given the global nature of the car industry and that Australian manufacturers need to compete for export markets, meeting those international obligations is a prerequisite for success.The big car markets for Australian made cars have lower tariff barriers on passenger motor vehicles than Australia does: the USA, 2.5 per cent; the European Union, 10 per cent; and Japan, zero per cent. It is difficult to sell foreign cars in Japan because of their unique dealer arrangements which are designed to maintain a high degree of brand loyalty. However, this is a problem which Mitsubishi does not have. We sell far fewer cars to emerging economies. There are two reasons for this. The first is that, with low average incomes, they have lower effective demand for cars. The second is that they have much higher trade barriers against vehicle imports than Australia has—Brunei, 40 to 200 per cent; China, 100 to 120 per cent; Saudi Arabia, 25 per cent; South Africa, 61 per cent; India, 110 per cent; Thailand, 80 per cent; Taiwan, 30 to 42 per cent and a quota of 2,000; Malaysia, 140 to 300 per cent; Indonesia, 200 per cent; and Korea, eight per cent—but informal barriers reducing import penetration to marginal levels.It is infuriating for local car workers to face competition from imports from countries that put up prohibitive tariff and non-tariff barriers to Australian exports. This protection by our competitors has to be a priority for trade negotiations. How much progress other APEC countries will make towards reducing protection is a question Australia's car workers want answered. Progress in reducing those barriers is an issue which needs to be considered in a post-2000 review of the car industry to determine what the real effect of those barriers is on the Australian car industry.Large volume exports of passenger motor vehicles from Australia are a relatively recent phenomenon. In 1985 the amount of assistance the industry received peaked with tariffs, quotas, duty concessions and export facilitation. Local component manufacturers were assisted by an 85 per cent local content scheme. The Button car plan was introduced in 1985. It followed reports by both the Industry Assistance Commission and the Car Industry Council. The Labor government wanted to move away from the short-term crisis containment that had characterised car industry policy since the 1960s. The Button plan had four objectives: (1) to give the industry more time to restructure and modernise; (2) to make it more efficient; (3) to hold down the price of cars; and (4) to reduce job losses in the short term and provide job stability. It implemented a number of changes. The 20 per cent quota on vehicle imports was replaced by tariff quotas set to phase out in 1992, the local content scheme was retained with amendments, access to the Export Facilitation Scheme was increased, labour adjustment training arrangements were put in place and an automotive industry authority was established to oversee the new arrangements. In 1986 penalties for low volume production were introduced and in 1987 export facilitation provisions were introduced for importers.A mid-term review of the Button car plan was precipitated in 1988 by a substantial reduction in the Australian dollar that reduced the adjustment pressure on the industry. Possible exchange rate changes are another good reason for a post-2000 review of the car industry. As a result of that review, and consistent with a general policy introduced at the same time of phasing down tariffs for other manufactured goods, tariffs on passenger motor vehicles were reduced from 57.5 per cent to 45 per cent, phasing down to 35 per cent by 1992. What did the Button car plan hope to achieve? The answer to that, according to the Industry Commission report, was the view that the industry should be gradually exposed to international competition and treated more like other Australian industries and the greater realisation that economies of scale would improve industry efficiency.The government expressed a desire to see an industry structure by 1992 of no more than three manufacturing entities producing six models at most. Fortunately, Australia still has four car makers. Governments' grand designs for industries do not always come to pass, nor do industries develop the way they predict. That applies in countries other than Australia. Believers in the need for central guidance and a high level of intervention in industry policy cite the Japanese Ministry for International Trade and Industry, MITI, as the most desirable model. They should remember that MITI can get it spectacularly wrong. They once told Honda not to manufacture cars.Rather than achieving success by increasing economies of scale, the Button car plan and exposure to international competition forced Australian manufacturers to become much more efficient and for the first time exports became a large part of their business. That is something that Australian car makers had never seriously contemplated. It was a considerable achievement that the industry and car workers can be proud of.Japanese lean production techniques have, I hope, rendered the Button plan objective of consolidating to three car makers an obsolete concept. Smaller production runs, more flexible response to changes in what the market wants, an emphasis on efficiency and quality in production produce superior results. Lean production techniques challenge all the old assumptions about what is necessary for efficient mass production.In May 1990 the Industry Commission was again asked to report on the car industry. The result was that both scheduled tariff reductions and access to the 15 per cent duty-free entitlement were continued. Penalties for low volume production were continued but set to expire in December 1996 and a new labour market adjustment package was implemented. Export facilitation arrangements were extended and made more flexible and market oriented. Export value base-year hurdles, upper limits on earning export credits and restrictions on the sale and transfer of export credits were all abolished. Export credits were to be earned on value added in local content instead of full local content value, and the definitions of eligible imports and exports were broadened. The Button car plan, even with these modifications, has provided the certainty and stability that the industry has needed to restructure and invest.The new ACIS arrangements are not specifically focused on exports. They are focused on sales, investment, and research and development. ACIS provides duty credits which may be used to pay customs duty on eligible imports or transferred. The scheme has two parts—one for car manufacturers and one for producers of components. Motor vehicle producers will be able to claim three types of duty credits. The first is a duty credit equal to 15 per cent, uncapped, plus 10 per cent, capped, of the value of production of cars sold in Australia and New Zealand, multiplied by the relevant tariff rate. The second is a duty credit equal to 25 per cent of the value of production of motor vehicles other than those sold in Australia and New Zealand, engines and engine components, multiplied by the relevant tariff rate. The third is a duty credit equal to 10 per cent of the value of their investment in plant and equipment averaged over the preceding three years.Automotive component producers, automotive machine tool and tooling producers, and automotive service providers can claim two types of export credits. The first is a duty credit equal to 25 per cent of the value of their investment in plant and equipment, averaged over the preceding three years. The second is a duty credit equal to 45 per cent of the value of their investment in research and development, averaged over the preceding three years. Where motor vehicle producers provide components, tooling or services for a third party—as Mitsubishi does—they can access credits from the component, tooling and services section of the scheme. A fiscal cap of $2 billion will apply to all benefits paid over the five years of the ACIS arrangement. The fact that ACIS expires after five years—at the same time as the government's proposed tariff reduction—and is described in the explanatory memorandum by the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin, as a `transitional assistance package' makes a further review of the industry a necessity.The 15 per cent credit for cars sold in Australia and New Zealand will be uncapped. This assistance has an equivalent value to the existing duty-free allowance. Under World Trade Organisation rules, there is a five per cent cap on subsidy to sales for each company registered under ACIS. Eligibility tests will apply for registration under ACIS, requiring minimum levels of production and sales. These eligibility requirements are intended to encourage long-term strategic investments.The modern automotive industry has long and complex supply chains, requiring a long-term commitment to the industry. The real question is how these new arrangements are going to affect car and component manufacturers. As I understand it from one of the companies involved in the negotiations, the number of firms eligible will expand, from about 60 under the Export Facilitation Scheme to about 200 under ACIS. That suggests there are likely to be significant changes in the level of benefit which individual companies receive. Mitsubishi have assured me they are not being disadvantaged relative to the assistance they were receiving under the Export Facilitation Scheme. They had to lobby hard on that point. As Mitsubishi move toward the critical decision point this year for commitment to a new model Magna, with the Adelaide operation as the upper-medium vehicle producer for Mitsubishi worldwide, I wish they had been able to tell me they had done better.Britax Rainsfords, which has a world-class factory making mirrors at Lonsdale in Adelaide's south, have faired worse under the new arrangements. Britax makes all the mirrors for Australia's vehicle manufacturers. That is only 30 per cent of its production. The other 70 per cent of its production is exports of truck mirrors to the United States and components such as mirror actuators to other manufacturers, including other members of the Britax group. Because of the high proportion of their production which is exported, Britax are an example of a company that was better off under the Export Facilitation Scheme. They support ACIS but they know they will only get 40 to 50 per cent of the benefit they received from export facilitation. They are an example of a company that is doing everything Australia needs its manufacturers to be doing, and they are doing it well: supplying the domestic market at a steadily declining cost, achieving an exceptional level of exports into the most competitive car markets in the world, investing continuously in additional, more efficient and more flexible manufacturing capacity, and running a substantial research and development operation to ensure they develop new products and maintain their position of market leadership. It seems unjust that they will be worse off under ACIS.On the other hand, the component manufacturers who have been supplying parts to the local manufacturers but not themselves exporting stand to gain substantially from ACIS. The World Trade Organisation rule capping subsidies at five per cent of sales is not expected to be a constraint on the level of assistance Britax will receive at their current level of operation. However, it could have implications either if they make a big R&D effort or if there is a drop in sales. The $2 billion cap on benefits under ACIS, apart from the 15 per cent uncapped customs duty credit for vehicles sold in Australia and New Zealand, means that the more successful the industry is, if the cap is exceeded, the less assistance will be available to individual firms. The World Trade Organisation rules limit that assistance to five per cent of the value of sales, so any reduction in assistance will by definition be in the nought to five per cent range. If the cap becomes a factor, the problem for the manufacturers will be predicting how much their customs duty credits will be reduced by. For the component manufacturers, this will be important because the vehicle assemblers, knowing that some of their existing suppliers are going to be getting a new benefit, will be seeking to obtain at least part of it in price negotiations.In summary, there are several reasons for this amendment to require a review of the car industry before the 2005 tariff cut. They are to determine whether, in the prevailing circumstances, it is appropriate to cut the tariff by five per cent in one year, given conditions prevailing in both the Australian and world car markets at that time; to evaluate the effectiveness of the ACIS arrangements; and to consider the amount of progress which is being made by our trading partners in reducing their tariff barriers to the levels agreed by APEC and to consider what policy response is appropriate on that issue. My personal preference would be for that review to be undertaken slightly earlier than 2003, which was the date recommended by Ian Webber in his minority Industry Commission report in 1997. That would allow an early assessment of the ACIS arrangements and more time to adjust the current car policy if the report reveals that that is desirable. I commend the amendment to the House.19:14:007247Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—The Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS Implementation) Bill 1999 has two main functions. Firstly, it amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to reduce the rates of customs duty on passenger motor vehicles and certain related componentry from 15 per cent to 10 per cent on 1 January 2005. Secondly, this bill, along with the ACIS Administration Bill 1999 and the ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999 , establishes the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme scheduled to commence on 1 January 2001. The rate of customs duty imposed on passenger motor vehicles and certain parts for passenger motor vehicles by the tariff is presently 17.5 per cent. Under the current provisions of the tariff, the rate declines to 15 per cent on 1 January 2000, after which there are no further reductions. This bill provides for a further tariff reduction to 10 per cent from 1 January 2005.Dismantling the barriers to trade and investment has become the centrepiece of modern dynamic economies and is the correct response to the challenge of globalisation. Although reducing tariffs is often a tough political decision, it is the right decision economically for Australia. Consumers will be the great beneficiaries of the scheduled reduction in tariffs to 10 per cent in 2005, through lower prices for both imported and locally produced motor vehicles. But the benefits will not just end there. Motor vehicles are a major capital cost for most Australian businesses, and delivering lower cost vehicles through a reduction in tariffs will reduce business costs and enhance profitability. Coupled with the measures contained in the government's tax package, the cost of motor vehicles will fall even further.For families, the purchase of a family car is a major capital expense. The government's tax reform package effectively cuts the tax on family cars by up to 40 per cent by abolishing Labor's 22 per cent sales tax and the introduction of a 10 per cent GST. This will reduce the cost of the average family car by some $2,500. Cars, like most purchases, are bought with after-tax dollars and, by giving taxpayers some $12 billion worth of tax cuts contained in the tax package, the affordability of the family car will be greatly improved.For business, cars will be even cheaper. Business will benefit from lower costs through the scheduled reduction in tariffs from 2005, the abolition of the wholesale sales tax and the introduction of the GST. And, because the GST will be fully rebatable to business through the input tax credits, the 10 per cent GST will have no net effect. This is important because businesses are all about return on capital invested. If you can reduce the cost of capital—and automobiles contribute significantly to capital costs—you can improve the rate of return on that capital invested.The measures contained in this bill will also provide a greater level of certainty and stability to the automotive industry as a whole by enabling the industry to adjust to tariff reductions gradually. The gradual phasing out of tariffs provides a level of certainty that the automotive industry needs, giving it long lead times for investment and planning. It is important to remember that the automotive industry is a significant industry in Australia, employing over 55,000 Australians and generating $2.5 billion in exports last year alone. So when we are talking about the gradual phasing out of tariffs or providing industry assistance we must remember that many Australians will receive the benefits of the measures contained in this bill.The pause in tariff reduction between 2000 and 2005 will create benefits that will flow on to the other areas of the automotive industry, such as the plastics and injection moulding manufacturers that initially developed to manufacture components for automotive production. Many of these industries now produce components for other industries, such as the whitegoods industry. The automotive industry has over 200 component and service providers, and allowing a more gradual phasing out of tariffs will benefit a substantial number of Australian manufacturers. For example, in South Australia alone, automotive manufacturing accounts for roughly one-quarter of all manufacturing activity.This bill is consistent with Australia's APEC commitment to global free trade by the year 2010 for developed countries, by laying the foundation for passenger motor vehicle tariffs to be reduced to 10 per cent on 1 January 2005. By allowing a pause in tariff reductions until 2005, this bill will also give the Australian automotive industry time to adjust to the government's trade liberalisation agenda.The Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme introduced by this bill is a five-year program aimed at encouraging investment, production and R&D in the automotive industry. The scheme has three broad goals: to encourage investment and innovation in the Australian automotive industry to bring about sustainable growth in both the domestic market and international markets, to encourage the development of internationally competitive firms in the automotive industry and to assist the industry in responding to the challenges of a more liberalised domestic automotive market.The assistance offered by way of the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme will make $2 billion available to the industry between 2001 and 2005, making it one of the largest industry development schemes supported by the government. Australia's automotive industry has enormous opportunities to be a niche global player. Through the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme, the government will assist the industry to invest in its global future while maintaining the pressure for further improvements in productivity, quality and innovation through further downward pressure on tariffs.Over the last decade, Australia's automotive industry has made a significant effort to integrate into global markets. The labour productivity of Australia's car manufacturers has improved 40 per cent in the last eight years and Australian cars now compare in quality to cars built in Japan. But, unlike the automotive industries of Japan and America, Australia's automotive industry is unique. Australia does not have the large populations of Japan or America to achieve some economies of scale in automotive production. Instead, the Australian automotive industry has established itself as a low cost, high quality source of design and engineering with expertise in flexible, small volume manufacturing.The government has responded to this reality by balancing trade liberalisation with industry assistance to manage this transition smoothly. This will enable the Australian automotive industry to position itself as a high-technology, globally focused, sustainable manufacturing industry. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills7249r8077249Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.7249Bill (on motion by Mr Tuckey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills7249r8097249Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.7249Bill (on motion by Mr Tuckey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills7249r8107249Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.7249Bill (on motion by Mr Tuckey)—by leave—read a third time.Adjournment7249Motion (by Mr Tuckey) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.724919:26:007249Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—This week is National Treatment Works Week, which coincides with the United Nations International Day Against Drug Abuse this Saturday. Treatment Works Week is an awareness campaign mounted by the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia. It is a peak organisation with credibility. Treatment Works Week aims to draw attention to the value of prevention, education and treatment in reducing the numbers of drug dependent people. Treatment does work.The electorate of Fowler where I live has a drugs problem. A lot of users visit Cabramatta by train to get cheaper heroin than can be obtained in the Sydney CBD. It is inevitable that local people try and buy, use and abuse and ultimately become addicted. I would like to encourage those families and those people with a heroin problem to talk to the South-Western Sydney Area Health Service. It is a service of the Carr Labor government, the government which was concerned enough to put the drugs issue to a summit meeting.It should not go unnoticed that the federal government's hardline posturing on drugs is being challenged by Jeff Kennett's endorsement of constructively tackling the problem there. Already, Minister Vanstone has signalled a possible federal government veto to any constructive measures by the Carr government in implementing a trial of a supervised injection room. This government is doing to the drugs issue what Mr Howard tried to do with the immigration issue—dividing people, hurting people. This is what reinforces prejudice and promotes misinformation. It makes the work of health professionals harder. They and the community counsellors and those who are working to reduce the harm caused by drugs are what Treatment Works Week is all about.I was recently a guest of the South-Western Sydney Area Health Service's drug and alcohol unit. Its Area Director, Dr Gilbert Whitton and his team, took me through the services they provide. They are based at Liverpool Hospital where they occupy a discrete building but they have various facilities in the area. People with problems, families with problems, should take the step and give Dr Whitton's team a call. They are not judgmental. They combine a wide range of disciplines. They are professionals who can give you back your life or save you from losing it. Talk to them.One of the unit's facilities is the Drug Intervention Service at Cabramatta, DISC, as it is known. This is a centre at the heart of the problem—the so-called drug capital of Australia. DISC is on the ground tending to those enslaved by drug abuse and attending to the public health issues the drug problem brings with it, like AIDS and hepatitis. The Cabramatta intervention facility is close to Cabramatta station. It is also close to the young people—particularly those of Vietnamese background—who have been caught up in heroin addiction.Unless more funding is made available to the community in addressing the problem, the work being carried out by such services in south-west Sydney will be overwhelming. Superficial effort will be wasted effort. The community agencies desperately need resources. There are people out there committed to halting the use of illicit drugs. They need support. The Commonwealth's Tough on Drugs funding has had a lot of difficulty finding its way to those community organisations in Cabramatta. It is not hard to find; it is along the Cumberland line. Because there is a shortage of jobs, there is not much to do except trainspotting or heroin. In this National Treatment Works Week we should look to what the federal government is not doing about the drug problem. I can tell you the federal government is doing next to nothing in Fowler to support those at the front line in stopping people doing harm to themselves and spreading that harm to the ones that we love.725019:30:007250Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—We need less of that in the drug debate, for a start. I rise this evening as an expatriate Tasmanian, having spent 22 years of my life in Tasmania, to make some remarks at the passing of the late Mr Aubrey William George Luck. It is with some sadness that I do so. Mr Luck passed away in Devonport, Tasmania on 9 June. He was an outstanding citizen of the north-west coast of Tasmania whose long life—indeed, he was 98 when he died—contributed greatly to the wellbeing of his fellow Tasmanians. He was a member of the House of Representatives from 1951 to 1958—the year in which I was born—representing the north-west Tasmanian seat of Darwin, and he was the member when the electorate changed its name to Braddon in 1955 during the process of redistribution.Aubrey Luck was elected as the Liberal member for Darwin following an eight-year term of that great lady and icon of the Liberal Party, Dame Enid Lyons. In 1955, it was Mr Luck who suggested to the parliament that the name of the electorate should be changed from Darwin to Braddon to avoid the obvious confusion. One of the most important things he did was the improvement of the Bass Strait shipping service by the introduction of the first Bass Strait vehicular ferry, the Princess of Tasmania. Anyone who has lived in Tasmania, or anyone who has wanted to visit the state, particularly to take their family and their car, would appreciate just how important this innovation was to Tasmania and to the north-west of the state in particular. It saw the beginning of a steady growth of Tasmania's tourism industry, an industry which has grown into one of the state's main economic contributors.Aubrey Luck was also to the fore in having the new ferry based at his home town of Devonport, beginning the long history of Devonport benefiting from its links with tourism and, of course, shipping. He was one of the first pioneers to create tree plantations to provide for the future needs of the building industry and to enable us to rely much less on old-growth forests. He was a prime mover during his term in parliament as a member of the Menzies government in not only getting the then Prime Minister to visit Queenstown but also successfully pushing the Copper Bounty Act that was passed during his term in parliament and which literally saved the Queenstown mine. During his period as a member, Aubrey Luck conscientiously travelled around the electorate in his Chevrolet, and he clocked up more than a quarter of a million miles in the days before sealed roads and travel allowances. He was also a main instigator of the Devonport airport and promoted the establishment of the Tootals textile factory, which provided jobs for many of the people and their families in Devonport.Aubrey Luck lived a long and productive life. He died at the age of 98 at the Karingal Home for the Aged in Devonport. He also served a term as a deputy warden on the Devonport Council. He was a patron and one of four life members of the Devonport Racing Club. I noted that one of his interesting contributions was on 5 September 1956 in this parliament, when he said:I find it most interesting to follow the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr. Curtin). After all, his whole attitude denotes opposition to private enterprise, or anything associated with it. He does not believe that the basic foundation of the prosperity and growth of this country, for a number of years, has been private enterprise. He attacked this Government for selling its shares in Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited. He attacked it for its association with the Trans-Australian Airlines-Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited organizational hook-up. He attacked the Government for its sale of the whaling station in Western Australia. He attacked it for its policy of building houses for private ownership.He was a true Liberal. He was an advocate for his electorate and a dedicated and committed member of his community.I would also like to draw the House's attention to another matter of the utmost concern. An area of bushland adjacent to the heritage listed Manley Dam War Memorial Park known as Ardel is currently proposed for development. The Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage has shown an interest in this matter, as has the member for Warringah, as it has been of concern that the heritage, flora and fauna may be threatened. At some stage, this House ought to be informed about what negotiations have been occurring and the good work that will have been done by the member for Warringah and by others who represent this particular area.725119:35:007251Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise tonight to address the stench that is around the member for Leichhardt. Firstly, we had the failure to properly fill in his pecuniary interests form. Secondly, we had his failure to declare that he was secretary of a company that had a Commonwealth contract. Thirdly, this week we have discovered that he was involved in promoting the East Trinity development, including the building of a bridge, even though he stood to gain substantial pecuniary benefit from this development.This afternoon, just before question time at three minutes to two, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was handed a document which consists of the Entsch defence. It is significant that this document was given to the opposition only three minutes before question time—once again, an attempt to avoid proper parliamentary scrutiny of the involvement of Mr Entsch as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. The opposition has not had much time to look at these documents, but we have had time enough to expose the contradictions that are there. I want to raise some of those tonight.For example, Mr Entsch in his letter to the Prime Minister stated that the NatWest site was `environmentally degraded and unfit for development of any kind'. He claimed that there was no such thing as an `East Trinity development proposal', and he also said:. . . my position has been that the various alternatives need to be weighed.How did those comments in the member for Leichhardt's letter to the Prime Minister sit with the previous facts? For a start, in the Courier-Mail of 3 April this year, it was reported:Mr Entsch said the only economically viable option might be to allow NatWest to go ahead with its controversial development plans.If that quote was not right, members of parliament have the right to come into this House and say that they have been misrepresented. The member for Leichhardt did not do so; therefore, we must assume some months later that he stands by those claims. The only problem with that is if you have a look at what the CSIRO report that Mr Entsch launched actually said:It is likely that viable management strategies are available for rehabilitation, including reflooding. However, these would require further research.The contradiction is plain and the conflict of interest from this member is plain as well. But that is not all. The member for Leichhardt also relied upon a press release from the Cairns Mayor, Councillor Tom Pyne, which says:. . . more than 80 per cent of all land identified under a draft development control plan . . . for potential urban development across Trinity Inlet involved the Natwest site.So much for no conflict of interest. The letter to the Prime Minister further states:I made no representations to the CSIRO for them to release the report.There were no representations, except the documents went out about the CSIRO report, and I have previously read out the quote in the Courier-Mail where the parliamentary secretary said that the only economically viable option would be to proceed with the development plans. The contradictions are there. The more you look at this document, the more it comes out. It says in this letter:. . . there is nothing unusual or improper in a local member working with a community group on an environmental issue such as this particularly when it is done by publicly releasing the material as part of the community debate.Except that he is a parliamentary secretary, and it was a report done by the CSIRO, which is within the department for which he is the parliamentary secretary. The contradictions are there more and more. The Prime Minister says that there is no conflict, but it is a bit like the Black Knight in Monty Py thon and the Holy Grail . The arms are gone, the legs are gone, and he is saying, `Come on, hit me, give me some information,' while the Prime Minister plays Tammy Wynette singing Stand By Your Man . The contradictions are there, the conflict of interest is there, and the member for Leichhardt should just go. The stench that is around this parliamentary secretary not on one issue, not on two issues but now on three separate issues in the last three weeks means that the Prime Minister's ministerial guidelines are in tatters.725219:40:007252Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—I rise tonight to bring to the attention of this honourable House and to the people of Australia the launch of a very important proposal for tax reform which will be of significant benefit to accident victims and their families, to the federal government and to all taxpaying Australians. This is the story about a little boy called Jackson, who is driving a special group of people called the Structural Settlement Group, a national body whose members have come to an historic agreement, rare as a confluence of mutual interest in the disparate organisations which form the group, but reflective of the need for and relevance of such an important tax initiative for all Australians.I first met Jackson about two years ago when he was four at his preschool called Heathdene in my electorate at Heathcote. This is Jackson's story and through his grandmother, my friend Judie Stephens, he would like to tell this House:Hello Australia. My name is Jackson. I was three months old and my brothers Matthew, David and I were on holidays when our parents were killed. Matthew and David are OK, but in the accident I was brain injured. I am a quadriplegic, blind and just learning to talk. On my next birthday I will be six.I live with my grandmother, Judie Stephens. She looks after me and she also spends lots of time making things better for me and people like me. My grandmother wrote this for me because she understands so well.My friend Judie Stephens, Jackson's incredible grandmother, is a woman of tremendous personal strength and great purpose. She has written to me and I think her words should be recorded in the Hansard because it is a story of great human tragedy and inspired human effort. This is Judie's story:Five years ago my daughter and son-in-law were killed in a car accident. The accident left Jackson with catastrophic injuries. Jackson is entitled to compensation for his injuries. His legal case is not yet resolved, but in the meantime I have become an expert in Australian compensation law because of the long litigation trail.Jackson is entitled to lump sum compensation. His compensation payment will need to support him for the rest of his life.Jackson must never be a financial liability to the Australian taxpayers and his compensation must pay for his medical, rehab and care to ensure he has optimum opportunity to recover and quality of life.I am gravely concerned about Jackson's future. I am 55 this year and Jackson is only 5.Several years ago, I researched the concept of structured settlements. I realised their importance and value immediately—not just for Jackson but for all people who receive compensation. Structured settlements are a way of paying common law compensation for personal injury. They are an optional arrangement whereby a claimant can choose to receive their compensation in the form of a lump sum combined with periodic payments for life. In cases involving serious injuries, where the injured person will have lifelong care needs, then periodic payments may be more appropriate than a single lump sum and should be available as a matter of choice.Every year, many people are seriously injured in motor vehicle accidents, at the workplace, by medical negligence and in other circumstances. Making sure that their compensation payments provide an adequate income for life is an enormous challenge. The current tax law in Australia encourages accident victims to take their compensation in the form of a lump sum. It encourages them to spend it quickly, rather than invest it and earn interest that would be taxable. There is no tax incentive to make lifelong financial plans. Overseas, governments in the United Kingdom, United States and Canada have realised that it is in their best interests to encourage structured settlements. They have made the interest component of structured settlements tax free. Their tax acts have been amended to ensure that claimants do not double dip into social security and Medicare. This saves them million of dollars.Structured settlements are win-win-win. They are good for the accident victims, good for government and good for defendant insurers. They are also seen as a valuable tool to help settle cases at reduced costs. They make excellent social and economic sense. I hope our federal government will embrace this concept and make the minor change necessary to the Australian tax act so that Jackson and people like him will never have to be supported by the Australian taxpayer.There is enormous support in Australia for structured settlements. I have been working closely with the New South Wales Motor Accidents Authority and the Structured Settlement Group, led by Jane Ferguson. The Structured Settlement Group is a national body. Members of the group are the most important national organisations involved in compensation: the Insurance Council of Australia, the Law Council of Australia, Injuries Australia, the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association and United Medical Protection.On Friday, 25 June 1999, in Parliament House committee room 1R6 at 10 a.m., we will proudly launch the Structured Settlements Proposal—A Tax Reform Proposal to Benefit Accident Victims and All Tax Paying Australians. I wish to add my gratitude for the availability of senior staff in the Prime Minister's office, the office of the Minister for Family and Community Services and the office of the Assistant Treasurer, and I look forward with considerable hope to the government being suitably convinced as to the merits and value of this important tax reform initiative.725319:45:007253Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Tonight I would like to pay tribute to a couple of colleagues who recently joined me in representing Australia as an observer of the Indonesian elections. Not wanting to put too fine a point on it, I think it was a tremendous experience and opportunity for us members of parliament who take for granted democracy in this country and the fact that Australians get an opportunity regularly to express a free and fair vote for whom they want to govern them. Yet, in the case of Indonesia, the opportunity for 102 million voters to go to the polls and not feel intimidated while freely expressing their will for one of the 48 political parties that stood in those elections I think cannot be understated.I was stationed at Mataram at west Nusa Tenggara and was accompanied by Senator O'Chee, Senator Woodley and two officials from the Australian bureaucracy, Richard Mathews from Foreign Affairs and John Willmot from the Department of Defence. In the course of our stay there, we took the opportunity of meeting with officials from the major political parties, with what I guess we would call the Electoral Commission, with people who were going to oversight any disputes sitting as a court of disputed returns. We met with villagers, party workers and some of the 220,000-odd domestic observers who were there.We participated in the elections themselves by being at a number of polling stations on 7 June to witness for ourselves the excitement and pent up desire of the Indonesians in wanting to express their will freely and fairly as to the sort of government they wanted for the future. It really was an exciting opportunity because, on polling day here in Australia, I—like you, Mr Speaker, I am sure—travel around my electorate and observe in schools and community halls party workers handing out how-to-vote cards and so on. In the case of Indonesia, that is banned. That is not a bad idea actually. But, nevertheless, it is banned.However, we observed people there from very early in the morning at the polling stations. The polling stations often were under palm trees, with pieces of bamboo holding up some plastic sheeting to cover the polling officials and, at the same time, very importantly, the pot of indelible ink that the voters had to dip their fingers in after having voted so that they could not come back and vote again. We witnessed polling booths themselves often having been made out of banana leaves with some other material—probably, in many cases, somebody's curtain from their front window—draped across to give privacy when people voted.The method of voting in Indonesia was such that they would take the ballot paper, which had the 48 symbols of the political parties on it, they would go into the privacy of the polling booth, often raising their hands in triumph to the many of their well-wishers and villagers who surrounded them, and when they were inside, using a nail and a hammer, they put a hole in the ballot paper through the party symbol that they wanted to support. When the count occurred later that afternoon, the ballot paper was held up to the light to check for the light shining through the hole and a vote was then recorded for that political party. Interestingly, when the vote took place in the afternoon, literally hundreds of villages and observers were there to see that nothing went awry.I can say that, from our observations with our group, it was free, it was fair and it was an expression of opportunity for Indonesians. I think as time unfolds and the count is finalised—not being delayed because of any malpractice but simply because of their trying to get it right in that this is the first time and their electoral officials are inexperienced—we will see democracy well and truly emerge in that country. In the past, if you wanted to know the result of the Indonesian elections, you went to the police station on the night of the vote. These days, and rightly so, we are finding polling officials ensuring that a free and fair result will emerge. What that means down the track in terms of the President of Indonesia, of course, will rely on a further ballot in November. I look forward to the results of that election to come and the results of the general election in Indonesia. It was a great pleasure to be there. I would like to thank Senator Alan Ferguson as leader of our delegation and the government for sending us there. (Time expired)725419:50:007254Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—Since he arrived in Melbourne in October of 1997, the American Consul General F. Allen Harris, or simply `Tex' to all those who meet him, through his enormous enthusiasm and generosity has strengthened and deepened the US-Australian relationship. His posting shortly concludes, and I rise tonight to pay tribute to his service and to wish him and his family well with the new adventures ahead. I found Tex to be a forthright advocate for the United States, sincerely interested in and receptive to Australian views and concerns, generous with his time, genuine with his friendship and prolific in his communications.How did this man survive before email? Tex sent me two in the time either side of midnight last night while I was working on this speech. He is the type of disarmingly frank, gregarious, egalitarian and open individual Australians warm and relate to. Tex is the sort of robust character with whom you can strongly exchange views, even agree to disagree with, and know that the overriding strength of the relationship will endure. He might not have always agreed with Australian views, but Tex made sure that the people who needed to hear such perspectives in the State Department and the US Administration heard these views.Tex and his way with people mirrors the broader Australia-US relationship. It is hard to imagine a person better suited to the role. Whether it was addressing a group of 600 sceptical college students, discussing farm issues with the head of the Wheat Board, entertaining the leaders of business and politics on board the flagship of the US Navy's 7th Fleet, coordinating a flyover of US aircraft to signal the beginning of our Remembrance Day celebrations or negotiating the fine points of US policy on climate change, Tex has always embraced the relationship with honesty, accessibility and Texas style humour. He remembers as one of his many magical moments marching with the American delegation at the Anzac Day celebrations in Adelaide and that the cheering from the crowd demonstrated the length and breadth of the US-Australian relationship.His outreach to the community in four Australian states embodies the close relationship our two countries share and should be a model for the future course of that diplomacy. I am not sure if he seeks the action or if the action seeks him, but I once called Tex the `Forrest Gump of US diplomacy' because it did not matter what was on, he was there amongst the action—always charming and good natured.Given his love of adventure, Tex applied for the US State Department as he went through law school. Soon a lawyer, he was sent to Latin America and decided to marry Jeanie before she got away. Within the first month he was invited to `the fanciest social event of the season' where he and Jeanie arrived in jeans and borrowed boots to represent the `young Texan look' while other guests simply settled for tuxedos and evening gowns.During his career, Tex handled legal issues in the State Department where his first international decision on a law of the sea issue was roundly denounced by the UN Secretary General. He also worked on international environmental issues, trade issues, refugee issues including in Africa and the Middle East, and tricky human rights issues in Latin America and apartheid-era South Africa. He worked tirelessly to create progress in South Africa in the nine-year period before Mandela left prison.Tex has had funny assignments such as an anti-dumping study on dog food and more dangerous assignments that included unplanned midnight `dialogue' with four carloads of armed men who wanted to send the signal that his human rights reporting was not appreciated in Argentina. For a near single-handed effort over two years to list 10,000 cases of disappearances in Argentina, Tex was almost drummed out of the State Department but years later was given the department's highest award for this achievement.Over the course of his career, while he never picked fights, he certainly never avoided complex issues needing patience and negotiation to reach agreement. Throughout all this, Tex has been lucky enough to have love and support from a wonderful immediate and extended family including his wife, Jeanie, and his children, Scott, Julie and Clark. He has been blessed with extremely hardworking and supportive colleagues at each leg of his international travels and a multitude of special friends in the more than 125 countries where he has visited and worked.On a lighter side, this two-metre tall Texan said he regrets that he has had but one waistline to give for his country. We say as he now moves to new challenges: good on you, mate, and thanks for being here to share you and your family with us here in Australia.725619:55:007256Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—I want to read a passage from a book that I have here for the benefit of the House:For the dispossession of your land.For the confinement on reserves.For your treatment as wards of the state.For the exclusion from Commonwealth citizenship.For the destruction of your families.For the mistreatment by officials.For the exploitation of your labour.For the refusal to accept your ownership of the land.For exposing you uncaringly to foreign diseases.For the intolerance and discrimination.For the Stolen Generation.For actions which have destroyed many lives and which we can never undo.SorryI acknowledge the grave wrongs which have been done to your people. I hope that there can be a way that we can go forward as a nation together.One other brief quote:Although I was never alive when it happened, I feel very sorry for what's been happening to you throughout the years. Sorry.The first quote I gave was a poem called Sorry Day Message by a student in my electorate, Bronwen McNeil. The second quote I gave was a message in the Trinity Christian Secondary School Sorry Book from a student by the name of Kirsten McGhie.Given the time, I could quote many other wonderful examples of contributions made to a project within my community and published in a book called Reconciliation: One Real Nation. This book was promoted and put together by young people of the Tuggeranong Valley through the auspices of the Tuggeranong Community Arts Association, a project that they especially got up towards the end of last year. The book was published by the Community Arts Association with the assistance of the ACT government through its Cultural Council and with the Canberra Southern Cross Club community grants. Lorne Parker Doyle, community writing project officer and editor of the project, explains very clearly in the book the work that went behind putting up such a project. Julie Rickwood, the community cultural development officer, says in her introduction:We have been blessed this year to have among our staff members, Daniel Williams, a young Ngunnawal man. Daniel has not only performed at the Tuggeranong Arts Centre and elsewhere in Canberra, but has developed skills and experience as an arts administrator. He has been instrumental to this project, visiting schools and encouraging students to participate.The book was put out `in honour and respect for the Ngunnawal Elders and Ngunnawal People'. As all members in this place will know, because I have reminded them constantly, I have the privilege of having this House in my electorate. Can I also say that we all have the privilege of this House, sitting on the land of the Ngunnawal people.We have talked in most recent times about the need for reconciliation. When the first draft of the reconciliation statement came out recently, I took this book off my bookshelf and read it for the second or third time. I remain totally impressed by the sentiments that have been shared with the community through this publication. It was open to students and others, but it is particularly the words of our younger people that I think all members of this House should read from either this book or from other publications.We should listen to the views of our young people on the question of reconciliation. I do not know quite how to explain it, but young people have an insight that many of us with years behind us tend to lose. They have an honesty and an openness to this whole question. If Kirsten McGhie, a student at Trinity Christian Secondary School, can say sorry while acknowledging that she was nowhere near the actions that occurred, I have no problem in saying sorry for the terrible things that happened under the Holocaust. I understand the simplicity of it—I try to. I get a lot of strength in the question of reconciliation from reading examples like this. I truly commend the Tuggeranong Community Arts Association and everyone concerned with this marvellous project.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—Mr Speaker, I require that the debate be extended.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The debate may continue until 8.10 p.m.725720:00:007257Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I would like to thank the member for Bradfield for raising the question of the Ardel land and therefore giving me the opportunity to clear up the government's position on this matter. Ever since becoming a member of parliament, I have been working with the Save Manly Dam Catchment Committee to try to protect this land. It is not just me; I know that many other local leaders have been doing likewise—such as my colleague the member for Mackellar, the local state Liberal member, Brad Hazzard, and the Mayor of Warringah, Mr John Caputo.What happened was that in 1993 what has come to be known as the Ardel land was sold by the Spastic Centre to the developer, Ardel. It seemed like a good idea at the time because the Spastic Centre needed the money to develop facilities in Sydney's west and Warringah Council needed to extend its medium density housing policy.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order. I am loath to take a point of order on the minister, but the convention is that, if a minister wants to extend the debate, it is to respond to things that were raised in the debate, not for the minister to raise a matter himself.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I understand that. The Chief Opposition Whip may not be aware but, very early in the adjournment debate, the member for Bradfield raised the issue now being addressed by the Minister for Employment Services.EZ5Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTT—Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I appreciate the concern of the member for Watson, as a former Speaker, to ensure that these matters are dealt with properly. Believe me, I have no intention of abusing the forms of the House. I simply wish to make the government's position clear on this Ardel land.The land turned out to be a prime piece of urban remnant bush. It turned out to contain the headwaters of one of the most important creeks leading to the Manly Dam catchment. It turned out to be the home of some locally rare and endangered species. Ardel have acted in good faith at all times. They bought the land in good faith. They have done their best to adhere to all the various planning requirements, so the only way to sort this out now is to buy the land back, and the National Reserve System Program, administered by my friend and colleague the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, provides the opportunity to do that. As members should know, the requirements for the purchase of private land for addition to the reserve system are that, first, the relevant state National Parks and Wildlife Service acknowledges that the particular land is a high environmental priority and, second, the relevant state government should put up half of the money required for the purchase on a dollar for dollar basis.Last Friday, Senator Hill wrote to his opposite number in the New South Wales government, Dr Andrew Refshauge, saying:Given the immediacy of this matter, I seek your urgent advice on your government's assessment of the site's values for addition to the National Reserve System and your government's willingness to commit funds to the acquisition of this land.That was a very serious invitation. Governments do not lightly write in those terms to fellow governments. I very, very much hope that the New South Wales government will give this serious invitation from the Commonwealth government the most urgent consideration because, as we speak, the bulldozers are ready to move on this land. Just as this government has sought to end broadacre land clearing in urban areas in cooperation with the states, this government is concerned to ensure that in our cities bushland and bulldozers should not mix in the future.I probably should also declare an interest in this. Last week, on letterhead which noted the fact that I am a minister in the government, I wrote to my brother minister, the minister for the environment, asking him to intervene in this matter. I should point out that I do own a valuable property within five kilometres of this site—namely, the home that I live in—which brings me to the question of the member for Leichhardt.This issue was raised by the members opposite today. We all know that out there in the electorate, out there in the country, people are only too ready to believe the worst of politicians. People who do not know what this life is like are only too ready to believe that we are ripping off the system, that we are a bunch of self-interested egomaniacs, yet everyone in this House, regardless of their political allegiance, knows that that is not the case. It certainly is not the case with the vast majority of members of this House. (Extension of time granted) One of the worst failings of our age is this near-universal cynicism at least amongst the opinion formers, and I am disappointed that one of the members opposite tonight chose to continue to pander to this.Let us just recapitulate. The member for Leichhardt did, inadvertently, technically fail to comply with the disclosure guidelines. He admits that. He regrets that. Yes, he has embarrassed the government. Yes, he has embarrassed himself. But, as we found out in this House 10 days ago, he was not the only one who had been guilty of the same failing. At least three members opposite had done much the same thing. Had they done anything wrong? Only in a technical sense. Had they been guilty of any moral or ethical crime? Of course not. They were guilty simply of an inadvertent, technical mistake.Mr Leo McLeay interjecting—EZ5Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTT—On the question of the involvement of the member for Leichhardt in the company Cape York Concrete, he exercised no pressure. He exercised no influence.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House. If he wants to sit down, I will call it off.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Employment Services will resume his seat. I am just wondering if the member for Watson wants to reflect on whether or not it would be appropriate to take that action at this stage.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—My point, Mr Speaker, is that if the minister has finished I do not wish to call for a quorum.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Watson understands that I need to recognise him in order for him to be heard, but I think it would be ill-advised to interrupt the House in this way at this stage. I am going to invite the Minister for Employment Services to continue his remarks in a non-provocative way.EZ5Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTT—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sorry if I did provoke the member for Watson because I am, I suppose, pleading with members opposite to extend to all members of this House the kind of courtesy, the kind of forbearance and the kind of intelligent understanding that we would expect to be extended to ourselves.Mr Leo McLeay interjecting—EZ5Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTT—I simply want to say in conclusion, and I will conclude on this point—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Employment Services will resume his seat. The member for Watson has the call.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—I have had enough of this hypocrisy. I will call for a quorum if the minister rises to his feet again.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Watson knows, as the member for Cunningham and I know better than anyone else in the House, that the chair cannot be blackmailed into making particular decisions. The minister has indicated that he is winding up his remarks, and I will invite him to do so.EZ5Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTT—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am happy to defend the member for Leichhardt. I will testify to his honesty, to his diligence, to his commitment. The only thing I will not defend about the member for Leichhardt is his taste in neckties, which is abominable.20:09:007259House adjourned at 8.09 p.m.Notices7259The following notices were given:Mr Williams to present a bill for an act relating to federal magistrates, and for other purposes.Mr Williams to present a bill for an act to make consequential amendments relating to the federal magistrates Act 1999, and for other purposes.Mr Entsch to present a bill for an act to amend petroleum (submerged lands) legislation, and for related purposes.Mr Reith to move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:(1) orders of the day Nos. 8 to 11, government business, relating to consideration of Senate amendments to the Telstra and telecommunications bills, being called on forthwith and being considered together; and(2) a Minister moving one motion—That all the amendments of the Senate be agreed to—in respect of all Senate amendments therein.Mr Reith to present a bill for an act to amend legislation relating to workplace relations.1999-06-23Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.58 a.m.Statements by Members726072607260Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—I am pleased to inform the Main Committee today that, following several years of community activism, the residents of Carrum Downs in Isaacs have finally secured for themselves a much needed post office. These 14,000 residents have previously had to travel four kilometres to the nearest post office. Following numerous meetings throughout 1996 with Australia Post management, notably Stuart Wardrop and Peter Gustavson, a post office has finally been secured.I first drew this matter to the attention of the House in a speech on 27 February 1997. At that time I spoke of the quality and calibre of Carrum Downs residents and their determination to secure a post office for their community. I also acknowledge the support and initiative of the local Carrum Downs shopping centre general manager, Christine Grayland, whose input throughout has been crucial. She first wrote to Australia Post in December 1994, one month after the centre opened, only to be advised that a post office was unlikely. At that time the community mobilised and organised petitions, in addition to those organised by me, which were tabled in the House. A range of highly committed residents, notably David Derrick, Cor Kramer, Albert Molenaar, Mary Tyack, Walter Holland and John Rihilly, also ensured that my attention did not deviate from pursuing this most important goal for the local community. I have since been engaged with Australia Post in ongoing discussions with its regional retail manager—UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! It being 10.00 a.m., in accordance with standing order 275A the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills7260r8337260Debate resumed from 2 June, on motion by Dr Wooldridge:That the bill be now read a second time.10:00:007260Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 1999 makes a number of amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973 to tighten up the professional supervision of doctors in relation to inappropriate Medicare claims or prescribing patterns. It is intended to make the existing scheme for peer review of medical practitioners a more effective one. The opposition supports this intention and supports the bill as a further step towards the goal of an efficient and accountable medical profession. These amendments follow the failure of the first case taken to the Federal Court known as Anthony Adams v. Steven Yung. It generally follows the recommendations of the review committee of the Professional Services Review Scheme, but—and I will come to this in a minute—it does fall short of what had been recommended in a number of important ways.The current arrangements within the Health Insurance Commission for review of overservicing and inappropriate prescribing are based on a branch headed by the Director of Professional Services Review. There have been operational problems with this approach and problems with ensuring natural fairness for doctors with a case to answer. This bill will increase the investigation, case preparation and negotiation powers of the director. It also provides for the peer review committees and the person under review to be provided with upgraded legal support.The bill establishes a determining panel to replace the current single person determining authority. The professional services review tribunals are abolished, while retaining the right of review on points of law. The new amendments include various procedural requirements that preserve natural justice while removing the lack of clarity in the level of activity that exceeds reasonable standards. This standard will be detailed in regulations through a deeming provision. This will state that a practitioner who provides more than 80 services a day on more than 20 days a year will be deemed to be practising unprofessionally. The onus will then be on the doctor under review to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify why their level of claiming is not unprofessional. I will return to this issue in a bit more detail shortly.These amendments may remedy some of the problems in the current scheme, which has proved to be unenforceable. However, they do not appear to go far enough to really ensure quality care for patients, and may only partly defend the public purse against those who would seek to drain it by subterfuge. The opposition does support the principle of professional review based on peer review. It is the most appropriate way to ensure that the decisions and actions of doctors are assessed by other trained medical practitioners and that the determination of what is appropriate or excessive is based on clear clinical knowledge.Our concerns about the bill, however, are threefold. Firstly, the issue of quality care should underpin the notion of professional service review, and this has not been given adequate status. Secondly, the deemed level of 80 services a day for up to 20 days a year is very high. Relying on regulations to set the level that is deemed to be excessive also carries with it an obligation to ensure that any subsequent change to the regulations is widely notified. Thirdly, the provisions in relation to the requirement to maintain adequate and contemporaneous records fall short of what the Professional Services Review recommended.The most significant issue is about professional accountability. This, of course, goes to the heart of why doctors enjoy such a special status in our community. The public rely on doctors very much for care and advice. They—the public—want to trust doctors; they want to know that they will always be receiving care in accordance with best practice and based on the best knowledge available. To achieve this the medical profession needs to have its own mechanisms to ensure the right training and peer review. It also needs to have the right accountability mechanisms in place when things go wrong and ways to pick up behaviour which is inappropriate—and that, of course, is part of being in a profession.Unfortunately, as we all know—and doctors would be the first to say this—medicine is an inexact science, and with the best skills and resources it is not always possible to get the hoped-for care outcome. For this reason, quality has become a central pillar of modern medicine. To reduce the chance of an adverse event, it is vital to have protocols in place and feedback to pick up the cause of errors when they occur. We have, of course, known the extent of adverse events in the Australian health system since the landmark 1995 report on compensation and professional indemnity in health care. It is the case that the new Australian health care agreements between the Commonwealth and the states provide for quality improvement programs, but I would have to say that we are still waiting for national leadership from this government to make sure that these programs are implemented and the frequency of adverse events reduced.The way ahead is well known to this government and depends on the following: making safety and quality a national priority from the minister down; giving consumers more information so that they can make more informed choices to create a direct incentive for hospitals, doctors and other health professionals to improve their performance; going beyond quality committees to ensure that everyone in the health system is involved in identifying why adverse events occur and how they can be prevented from occurring; using information technology much more than we do to provide access to detailed information to enable people in the care process to check whether they are doing the right thing and whether they are doing what they are meant to do and making sure that standards are met; and overcoming—and I think this is very important—the fear that admitting mistakes will lead to litigation. If the cause of errors is discussed and the errors are removed, it is likely that there will be fewer mistakes in the long term and far less cause for litigation.To achieve a professional service, we need to embed this principle of quality care in how we manage the health system. This bill goes a little way by giving some substance to the peer review process but we need to encourage doctors to take the issue further as part of the development of the profession.In terms of the specifics of this bill, the most significant measure contained within it is the provision that establishes a legislative definition of what is deemed to be an inappropriate level of service. The only example of a deemed limit is that proposed for general practitioners, which will be 80 services a day on more than 20 days a year. This has been arrived at by negotiation with the AMA and, from our point of view, is too high. The limit captures only the 100 most active doctors who each average around 16,000 consultations a year. To put this into perspective, this number of level B consultations would generate an income of over $400,000 per annum for a single doctor practice. To see 80 patients a day and spend 10 minutes with each one would require the doctor to work for 13 hours continuously without breaks for lunch or dinner. This is not simply a one-off situation. To break the limit it would be necessary to work in this way for over 20 days a year.In my view, the government could have negotiated a more responsible level. To allow doctors to work extreme workloads on a consistent basis seems to me to be unreasonable from the viewpoint of the patients, the cost to the government and, of course, the doctor's own health. Clearly, those who are managing to put in 16,000 claims a year are not doing it by giving their patients the same attention that the vast bulk of general practitioners are doing.It is interesting to look at other professions where a strict limit is applied to the amount of work that can safely be carried out, particularly where other people's lives depend on that person in question. A reasonable parallel is with airline pilots who, like doctors, undergo years of training and make life and death decisions which affect those who depend on them. Under Civil Aviation Authority regulations, there are strict rules about how much time a commercial airline pilot may fly. Currently the limit is seven hours in any day and 90 hours in any 30-day period with various additional rules about rest times between flights. There are many other professions where limits such as these apply.It is the case—and we understand this—that the working conditions of doctors are different and on some occasions, for practical reasons, doctors must put in long hours to see their patients, maybe during a flu epidemic or when a partner is away and a locum cannot be found. However, these circumstances should be the exception rather than the rule. It is not credible that a doctor can regularly see 80 patients a day and dispense sound and effective medicine. I sincerely doubt that most doctors would endorse a regular pattern of work at anything like that level.From my point of view, it would be more realistic if a peak workload for doctors were defined to be more of the order of 60 consultations per doctor per day, equating to 10 hours of continuous work. This is a level that some doctors do reach on a peak day. It is a more realistic benchmark of what a `busy doctor' might be expected to accomplish and there should be serious questions asked about those doctors who are operating consistently above this level.The bill accommodates the variability of a doctor's workload by two mechanisms. Firstly, a high level of servicing is only deemed to be excessive if the standard is exceeded on more than 20 days. Secondly, the doctor does have the opportunity to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances which resulted in the standard being exceeded over a longer period of time. These two safeguards, from my point of view, do make sure that this level of 80 services a day is regarded as excessive. However, I note that the deemed level could be progressively tightened over time, as will be set out in the regulations.I understand it is the government's intention to start with the 100 doctors who currently exceed the standard set by this legislation. The weakness of this approach is that the few people who are abusing the system and those who are overservicing in an unsafe fashion could easily amend their behaviour to stay within what I think is a fairly lenient standard. If the Health Insurance Commission is serious about curbing overservicing and poor quality care, it should at least aim its counselling and education programs at the larger group of `very active' doctors who fall short of the proposed target.In looking at this bill, I was alerted to a concern that there was a possibility that setting the deemed level of overservicing by regulation might be ineffective at law. The minister has subsequently provided advice to me from the Australian Government Solicitor that, provided the regulations were carefully drafted, a determination would not be vulnerable to legal challenge. I accept that advice and hope these arrangements work effectively to achieve their goal. It would be a great waste of effort if this bill were to be knocked out in the courts by those who profit from the abuse of Medicare through overservicing.While the higher limit of 80 consultations on more than 20 days may provide a basis for a prosecution of the worst offenders, it is unlikely to catch the really bad apples who are manipulating the system. They will continue, unfortunately, with a slight modification of their current activities. So I am concerned that the Health Insurance Commission continues to pursue both Medicare fraud and overservicing with equal vigour. At present, I understand it adopts separate strategies in relation to these two problems. The consequence of being found to overservice is still relatively benign. Peer review may lead to counselling and, in very few cases, to prosecution.It should not be the case that those who set out to deliberately defraud Medicare should be able to disguise their behaviour as overservicing. It also should not be the case that the procedures used in overservicing cases can be exploited to defer effective action or to avoid serious penalty from those who are exploiting Medicare to maximise their income without regard to patient care. The bottom line, of course, must always be maintaining the quality of care for patients.Doctors with abnormally high throughputs should not be able to take short cuts. They should not fail, for example, to keep correct records, and haste in processing records should be no excuse for practices that amount to fraud of Medicare. The rules need to remove any incentives to increase turnover at the expense of quality medicine. This bill provides for a definition of what constitutes adequate and contemporaneous records and allows the panel considering a case to determine whether proper medical records have been kept. This will certainly help to distinguish a genuine hardworking doctor from someone taking advantage of the Medicare system. Nevertheless, from my point of view, it is a half-baked measure which does not go far enough.The consistent absence of records should be sufficient to draw a conclusion that the practice in question is not being carried out to a professional standard of quality. The explanatory memorandum says that items 8 and 27, which contain this amendment, give effect to recommendation 45 of the professional services review. In fact, it falls far short. The review recommendations say that maintenance of adequate and contemporaneous records should be a legislative requirement. In fact, all it has done in this bill is to allow the committee to have regard to whether adequate records had been kept in determining whether the practitioner's conduct is inadequate. This falls a long way short of saying that a doctor is required by legislation to keep adequate records.As we all know, the structure of Medicare is founded on the view that medical practitioners are professionals who act responsibly and ethically both as individuals and as a group. The royal colleges, the state medical boards and the health complaints commissioners all provide a framework of accountability and training which continues to work well.The privilege that comes with the professional status accorded medical practitioners is something that the sector should protect with great care. It is the basis of the doctor-patient relationship and it is the basis of the financial arrangements between governments and the profession. Anything that dents the reputation of the sector or damages public trust is directly against the interests of doctors. It is, therefore, very much in the profession's interest to ensure that the professional services review process works and that abuse of Medicare is stamped out as actively as they stamp out abuse of patients.The medical profession should be in the front line of the campaign to deter overservicing and stamp out fraud of Medicare. The profession should be arguing as strongly as anyone in the community for improved quality of health care and disincentives to assembly line medicine. Doctors themselves should recognise the importance of getting these things right. If a few doctors abuse the system by overcharging or making an excessive number of claims it is other doctors who will pay the penalty. It is time the message got through that the responsibility being shown at a profession-wide level needs to be demonstrated individually.It is in the doctors' interest that there is a system in place to discourage a minority of doctors taking an overly large slice of the pie. Ultimately, there need to be teeth in the Health Insurance Commission's professional services review process if this message is to stick.The opposition welcomes this step forward that we are debating today, but I have indicated that we have some concerns about how effective it will be and a concern that the limiting on overservicing will not deliver quality care. In summary I would say that the bill is a step forward but still a fairly timid one. I call on the Minister for Health and Aged Care today to agree to review in 12 months time the progress made as a result of this measure. The professional services review recommended a review of this legislation after three years, but that, too, is not included in the bill today.In any event, from my point of view, three years is too long, given the risk to Medicare, to the budget and to patients. Well before three years, we should be examining whether the bill has been effective in meeting its objectives, whether the Health Insurance Commission has been given the teeth that it currently lacks and whether the promotion of a quality culture within the profession has driven out those few who seek to exploit the system. The review should also look at how effective the deemed limit of 80 services a day has been. If, as I have argued here today, this limit turns out to be ineffective against any but the most outrageous overservicing, then I hope the minister will agree to tighten it and to establish some stronger standards to underpin patient care. I do hope the minister will agree to this proposal for a review in 12 months time, as it would give a signal that he is committed to ensuring that the professional services review process will be both effective and fair. If there is not a clear signal, then those who manipulate the system will feel free to continue their current practices with perhaps just a small adjustment to stay within the current rules.10:20:007265Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—in reply—This piece of legislation, the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 1999, is creating a new scheme to replace one we inherited. We supported the scheme we inherited when we were in opposition, and I guess the government of the day and the opposition of the day could not foresee that that scheme would one day not be effective. Time and what would seem to me the somewhat arbitrary determinations of the courts have meant that the scheme that we have is one that is not working. This is an awkward area and one that fills me with great frustration, but it strikes me that, if we are going to have this work, we are going to have to have the cooperation of the medical profession. The medical profession have given their cooperation, and I thank them for that. I suspect the bill is not perfect, but it is a lot better than what we have at the moment. Time and experience will tell us how the scheme may need modification. The overwhelming bulk of the medical profession are completely decent, honourable and hardworking people. They do not want to see a small number of people bringing the whole of the profession into disrepute.The shadow minister just raised a couple of points. The first is the adequacy of the number of 80 services per day. We are very mindful here that some of the doctors who work hardest are actually doctors in rural areas—as you would understand, Mr Deputy Speaker. They do so because they do not have the option of working a 10-hour day; they do not have the option of getting someone to replace them. I do not in any way wish to disadvantage rural people through anything we do. It would be great to get some more doctors into country areas; we are working very hard, and we are having some success. But we are going to have a problem for some years yet and, if we were to lower the limit, I would only do it in a way that would ensure that country people are not disadvantaged.The second point the shadow minister raised was with respect to a review. I think three years is probably too long and I will review it before then. I will not commit myself to 12 months, and I will not rule out 12 months, but I will certainly do it in this parliamentary cycle. I will certainly do it over the next 12 to 18 months. I think that is a sensible idea. I thank honourable members for their contributions and commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills7266r8317266Debate resumed from 10 June, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.10:23:007266Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—The opposition does not oppose this legislation, the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Amendment Bill 1999, especially as it follows on from the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986. This will bring the National Cultural Heritage Fund under the financial management regime established under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. In short, the bill will remove the current regime and replace the fund with a National Heritage Account.It is important that Australia protects its national cultural heritage. Such a fund will facilitate the acquisition of Australian protected objects and enable public cultural institutions such as museums and archives to purchase cultural items so that they cannot be exported, because their export would be a great cultural loss to Australia.The Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation in his second reading speech, despite the fact that the opposition supports this legislation, could not stop himself from having a swipe at the opposition when he said that the previous Labor government never provided an appropriation to allow the fund to come into operation and that more than 10 years after commencement of the act there was no fund established to help collecting institutions to purchase these prohibited-for-export items. What he failed to mention was that it was a Labor government under then Minister Cohen that brought the original act in, thus bringing Australia in line with UNESCO treaties and conventions concerning movable cultural objects and, in doing so, protected many of the cultural objects that so often are of such importance to the cultural history of Australia.We are in this parliament not only to make laws for the good government of the country but also to protect the heritage of the country. While we may disagree in many areas, I think when we talk about the heritage of Australia and what that means to each of us, there is no dispute in this parliament.An issue that the minister touched on in his second reading speech was the right of individuals to maximise their return from an object that they own or that has come into their possession. Some will argue that, when an object comes into our possession, we should have the right to dispose of this as we wish, even if this means exporting it. But I firmly believe that any such items, which are part of our heritage and have meant so much to the development of Australia, should not disappear overseas and be lost to this country forever. People who wish to obtain the monetary value for these goods can do so through the establishment of this fund. The establishment of the fund is an important part in the working of this legislation.I doubt there will be many objections to this legislation. The fund is important because many buildings used by government departments are being sold off because of changed circumstances. I think particularly of post offices and lighthouses, which may contain maps, drawings, and often furnishings, which are important to the cultural heritage of Australia. Before these buildings are sold, it is important that an inventory is made of what they hold and that acquisition of the objects within the buildings is considered.Another example is railways. It is a great pity that as they have changed—or perhaps it is not so much that railways have changed but rather the modes of transport have changed—many objects have been sold and lost to the public. But some local communities have preserved their railways. In this regard, I would like to congratulate all those associated with the Tenterfield Railway Station. Trains no longer run in Tenterfield—they ceased in 1989—but this railway station, through a federally funded training scheme of six months duration, was restored in 1995 at a cost of $100,000. The museum is run by the Tenterfield Railway Station Preservation Society, under the leadership of Mr Tom Pepper, and operates five days per week. It is used as a rail model by the State Rail Heritage Unit. Tenterfield Railway Station is a magnificent example of what can be achieved by the restoration of our railway heritage. It is interesting that everyone knows about the Federation Hall in Tenterfield where Parkes made his famous speech but very few people know about the railway station. I saw it last year. It is a credit to all associated with it who are protecting our cultural heritage in that part of the world.Cultural heritage does not mean only objects of fine art. Cultural heritage embraces the social, political, economic and technical development of Australian society, as well as the recreational aspects of the culture. Given the nature of Australia's historical development, rural aspects of our heritage have a unique importance in the history of exploration, mining, pastoral and general agricultural development. Australian pioneers led the way in the application of mechanisation for farming and the development of the means of coping with the unique problems of the Australian environment. Objects such as the McKay stripper harvester, the stump-jump plough, the John Ridley header-harvester and plough, the Furphy water cart and the Dethridge water wheel form part of the Australian heritage. Fine examples of such farm machinery have already disappeared overseas or remain rusting away in a back paddock somewhere. This part of our cultural heritage must be preserved. The finest examples of such objects, which illustrate the development of Australian society from the humble hand-held shears to the latest turbine-principle windmill, are part of Australia's history and cultural heritage.I have mentioned various mechanical objects but other objects such as coins and stamps will also be protected. Never again will a stamp such as a rare Western Australian Blue be taken from Australia and sold for £30,000 in London and lost to Australia forever. And perhaps no longer will one have to visit a museum such as the Dublin museum to see one of the famous inverted swan stamps from Western Australia. That stamp is now in the Dublin museum but rightly, of course, should be here in Australia.The Vatican, to its shame, holds a collection of rare and significant Aboriginal artefacts. As long ago as 1986 I publicly called on the Vatican to return these to Australia, and I repeat that call today. The Vatican must return to Australia the Aboriginal artefacts it holds, especially those of a cultural or religious significance. Since the passage of the original legislation such artefacts are no longer permitted to be exported, but we must have these particular artefacts returned.It is almost beyond belief that the Vatican should refuse to return these objects. I understand that one of the reasons why the Vatican will not return them is that they have got such a storehouse of other artefacts from many parts of the world that if they established a precedent they would have to return others. Well, perhaps they should establish a precedent and start returning some of the artefacts that they have taken from throughout the world.I welcome this legislation for many reasons but a particular one is my interest in industrial archaeology. Because of Australia's early isolation and, indeed, the inventiveness of Australians in our early mining, farming, transport and timber industries, many unique Australian inventions were created. Often history has passed these inventions by. Perhaps modern technology has overtaken or replaced them but they are, and always will be, a part of the Australian heritage.I personally believe that public interest in Australia has moved slowly from an awareness solely of the beauty and significance of the fine houses and gardens listed by the National Trust in its early days to an equal awareness of the importance of industrial buildings, machinery and the transport system. I am also pleased that this awareness is being fostered not only in adults but through societies such as the Industrial Archaeology Society.At this stage I want to pay particular tribute to a group in my electorate running the Illawarra Light Railway Museum at Albion Park. Here, over the years, a group of dedicated enthusiasts have voluntarily spent hundreds of hours restoring locomotives and other aspects of our rail heritage. It is not only the main items but also other aspects of our heritage which have been often ignored in the past such as restoring coal skips, cableways from coal mines, locomotives and trucks used in the early timber-getting industry. They are also dealing with aspects of the brick industry and aspects of early quarrying.Many of us in the Illawarra hope to see an industrial museum in Port Kembla in the not too distant future so that even more of our early industrial heritage can be preserved. One aspect which would have preserved much of the railways heritage was an application for a federation grant by a group in my electorate, but as we are not a Liberal held seat we were not one of those given the tick three days prior to the last election.Our cultural heritage is important and as such it should be protected. A country that does not respect or protect its cultural heritage is the poorer for that. This bill continues and expands measures put in place by the Labor government and we support the legislation.10:34:007268Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—As the shadow minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, I endorse the calls by the honourable member for Throsby for the Vatican to return those Aboriginal items. Recently His Holiness the Pope made a very moving speech about reconciliation with our indigenous Australians. I think that this would be a great act of reconciliation by the Vatican and would show the way if they did return those very important items. If it creates a precedent for other countries then so be it. They should be returned to their rightful place and their rightful place is Australia.The opposition welcomes the government's financial commitment to the protection of our movable cultural heritage regime as set by the Labor government in 1986. It is an important mechanism to protect those items of our heritage that are of value to the way we ourselves and others form a view of Australian culture and have helped define who we are as a nation.As shadow minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs it is of particular concern to me that items of indigenous significance are protected and valued. Indigenous heritage items are an essential part of Australian cultural heritage. Both domestic and international critics have become increasingly aware of the value to the art world of indigenous artistic items. Demand for indigenous products has soared due to higher awareness of their value and wider exposure to their existence through tourism and modern forms of advertisement. Many indigenous artists rely on their works to make a living for themselves and their families. These people have commercial rights which must be respected, but indigenous art has also become a large part of our valued culture. It is not only an expression of the rich and vibrant history of Aboriginal dreaming and the nature of an indigenous culture that is very much alive today but also an example of the diversity of culture within Australia itself. Selected items that have gained particular significance must be protected from unscrupulous export and their possible loss to future Australian generations. It is therefore necessary to maintain a balance between the needs of preserving our culture and the need not to impinge on the commercial rights of indigenous artists to sell their work. The Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Amendment Bill 1999 goes some way to achieving this objective as the original act intended.11:37:007269Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—I would like to acknowledge in the chamber the presence of Inaburra Christian school from my electorate in Sutherland Shire, particularly years 11 and 12 from the legal studies course. The Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Amendment Bill 1999 is an amendment to the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 and it makes provision for an actual cultural heritage account to be established to replace the National Cultural Heritage Fund which has remained unfunded since the operation of the original act in 1986.A natural cultural heritage account under this legislation will enable the purchase of items of cultural heritage significance to Australia and to Australians through an appropriation of funds to the account by parliament for the purpose. In addition, the account will also be available to receive moneys from other and various sources. What constitutes movable cultural heritage is defined in section 7 of the act as `objects that are of importance to Australia or to a particular part of Australia for ethnological, archaeological, historical, literary, artistic, scientific or technological reasons'. Movable cultural heritage relates to portable objects of significance to the whole Australian community, including our indigenous communities. The cultural heritage of a nation finds intangible expression through traditional social customs, language and song. However, it is also represented by material objects that have been created as an expression of art or technology or which may even be natural in origin. Importantly, Mr Deputy Speaker, such objects, whatever their initial purpose, are protected by this legislation and are deemed to hold the significance and meaning for the society from which they are derived.The original legislation was enacted in response to Australia's obligations under the UNESCO convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property 1970 to which Australia acceded on 20 January 1990. This act also comes into being because of the loss at various times in our history of items of significance to our indigenous citizens as well as to other Australians. I understand that the first recorded instance of movable property of cultural heritage being removed from our shores occurred in 1623 when a Dutch explorer by the name of Jan Carstensz took ethnographic items from a beach near Cape York.Since the time of the discovery of the eastern coast of Terra Australis by Captain James Cook, the number and amount of movable, cultural objects belonging to the Aboriginal community that have been removed from Australia have caused great concern and often distress amongst the Aboriginal people. This removal is especially due to the high value and popularity that overseas markets and collectors have placed on items of indigenous heritage and native culture.However, it is not just objects of cultural significance to our traditional peoples that are protected under this legislation. It is also those material objects that have been used and collected by those who settled this country upon the return of the English under the command of Governor Arthur Phillip. Since that time, migrant communities of convicts, soldiers, pioneers, farmers, miners and settlers have all added their own contribution to the cultural development of our nation, and those items representative of their time and contribution to our natural psyche are valued and protected by this legislation.The act of 1986 provided for control over the export of such objects through the issue of permits by the National Cultural Heritage Committee. Section 8 of the act provides for regulations to establish a natural cultural heritage control list, which defines the categories of objects protected under the act. This section also provides for class A objects, for which an export permit cannot be granted, and class B objects, which may receive an export permit.Those objects listed under class B are seen to have special cultural heritage significance to Australia. They can include the Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage, archaeology, natural science, applied science or technology, fine or decorative arts, documentary heritage which can include photographs, coins, stamps and items of historical significance. The material controlled by class A objects, which cannot be exported at all, includes Victoria Cross medals awarded to Australian servicemen, as listed in Part VIIA of the national cultural heritage control list, and Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander bark and log coffins, human remains, rock art, carved trees and sacred and secret ritual objects. The only exception to material which could come under this class is where a class A object already has been held overseas. Applicants may then apply for a certificate of exemption to bring back such an object into Australia temporarily and later export it again from Australia.I should also point out that this legislation has provided for the objects of cultural heritage illegally imported from other countries to be returned to their countries of origin. The annual report of the operation of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 and the administration of the Natural Cultural Heritage Fund showed that there were a total of 93 applications for export in this past year. The test to determine the significance of an object is stated in section 10(6)(b), which says that for an export permit to be refused, the export of an item must:significantly diminish the cultural heritage of Australia.Expert examiners assess the significance of objects against a number of criteria and provide the National Cultural Heritage Committee with recommendations on whether or not such permits should be granted. However, since the act was enacted in 1986, no appropriation has been made in respect of the fund.The coalition government's arts policy for the 1998 federal election campaign entitled `Arts for Australia's sake' included a commitment to establish a working fund to implement the financial support mechanism in the act to allow the legislation to have proper effect and to be able to purchase such objects from owners. The policy committed an initial $500,000 to assist collecting institutions to acquire items of cultural heritage significance from the owners, with annual increments as necessary, and this bill fulfils our election commitment.It is interesting to note the types of objects that were granted permits for export during the year 1997. I refer to the annual report. Those objects include an order of the council of Queen Victoria separating New South Wales from Norfolk Island; a draft order of the council for the transportation of offenders; the order of the council of William IV approving the draft designs of new seals for the government of New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land, and a printed order of Queen Victoria that is her approval of the text of a draft proclamation of Federation. Another document is the printed order of the council of Queen Victoria issuing a royal warrant for the Governor-General of Australia. They are some very important historical documents for which permit grants have been allowed. Further, one which I thought rather curious was a gilt dragon coin, approximately 300 years old, that weighed 26 grams. That was secured from a wreck off Western Australia in 1987 and may be of particular interest to the member for Curtin.There is also a 1900 Bellis and Morcom steam engine and a complete set of horse works. I am not quite sure what a complete set of horse works would entail; I am sure some of our pioneers could probably elucidate. There is also a Pelton water wheel and a 1913 Talbot, which I understand to be an early model motor vehicle. There is also a Foden traction steam engine of 1903. More recently, there has been news of the return of a nugget to Western Australia. There was also the gold nugget `Evening Star', which weighed 520 ounces. A further interesting item is a 1932 Comper Swift aircraft.Last year there were three objects which were actually refused under this legislation. I think it is very important to list those because they do have very special significance to Australia. The first one is a Victoria Cross medal which was awarded to E.T. Towner MC. The Victoria Cross is the supreme award for gallantry within the Commonwealth and E.T. Towner was the most highly decorated soldier from Queensland.Another item which was refused a permit last year was the Victor Trumper cricket memorabilia—a signed 1907 cricket bat and a signed 1910 test match cricket ball. A further item which was refused, or a collection of items, was Victor Trumper cricket memorabilia—the 1902 Ashes Diary signed programs and team sheets, cuff links and a presentation tray. In each case the application was considered by three expert examiners and by the national cultural heritage committee. After consideration, the minister made a decision to refuse the permit on the basis that the objects were of such significance that their export would significantly diminish Australia's cultural heritage. The reasons for the refusal are actually recorded in the report.Earlier this month, a report in the Illawarra Mercury on 4 June 1999 told of a huge gold nugget of some 25 kilograms, believed to be one of the world's largest gold nuggets—called the `King of the West'—which had been returned to Australia under this particular legislation because it did not have an export permit.The `King of the West' gold nugget was expected to fetch up to $750,000 at an auction at Sotheby's in New York. It was found in a dry stream bed in Kanowna by an unnamed prospector who kept it hidden under his bed for several years before trying to sell it in the United States. However, the federal arts minister, Mr Peter McGauran, said that the prospector had `inadvertently' failed to comply with the export regulations, forcing the government to intervene. The article continued:`The nugget was not issued with the appropriate permit under the terms of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act,' Mr McGauran said. `Under these circumstances the nugget was automatically forfeited to the Commonwealth and the Government arranged to take possession of it in New York and to transport it back to Australia.'The article went on:The so-called `King of the West' nugget, which became government property, has been given back to the prospector.In the article, the minister said:The Western Australian nugget is now back in the possession of the prospector after I decided to use my discretion as Minister and gift it back to the original owner.The minister also took time to thank the owner and Sotheby's in New York for their cooperation with the Australian authorities.The act also has to balance the rights of the owners of the objects with the public interest in items which are of significance to Australia's heritage. In consideration of this, when the act of 1996 was originally introduced, it did include provision for a fund by which money could be forthcoming to assist public collecting institutions, including national, state and regional institutions, to purchase the object from the owner in question.Yet in the 10 years since it was introduced, the Labor government had never allocated any money to the fund to allow this important mechanism to operate as intended. Under this important amendment, the account will be allocated $500,000 in the 1999-2000 budget which will be replenished when necessary in subsequent years as a continual commitment by this government to the protection of the movable cultural heritage of Australia for all Australians. I commend this legislation to the House.10:49:007272Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Amendment Bill 1999 for a number of reasons, but first I will outline the essence of the amendment. The bill establishes the National Cultural Heritage Account. This account will provide a funding opportunity for public collecting institutions to acquire items of cultural heritage value, using money appropriated by parliament for that purpose.Secondly, the bill not only credits to this account any money appropriated by the parliament but also ensures that amounts equal to all money received from a state or territory or an authority of a state or territory, as well as money received by way of gifts and bequests, and interest on investments made using account money, are credited to the account. This amendment is necessary to address the uncertainty under the current provisions of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Age 1986 regarding the status of funds provided to the National Cultural Heritage Fund from sources other than the Commonwealth government. I will come back to the status of that fund in a moment. Thirdly, the sum of $500,000 has been allocated to kick-start the account. Clearly, corporate, public, state and territory contributions will be sought for any significant acquisition beyond that allocation on a year-to-year basis.With the government's commitment to tax cuts, effective from 1 July, for acts of corporate philanthropy and with the Prime Minister's support for corporate philanthropy in the arts, enunciated again recently when the Prime Minister opened the Monet to Moore exhibition at the National Gallery, this fund has the potential to be an important investment base for our national cultural heritage—an example of what the Prime Minister has termed the `social coalition' with the government, the business sector, charities, the arts and individuals all working together for the public good, where the government takes the lead and remains, in the case of the arts, a strong and consistent supporter of the arts.Not surprisingly, this bill is not being opposed. I say, not surprisingly, only in the sense that the bill represents a solid commitment to the preservation in public collecting institutions within Australia of items of cultural heritage, defined in the existing act as `objects that are of importance to Australia or to a particular part of Australia, for ethnological, archaeological, historical, literary, artistic, scientific or technological reasons'. This preservation is to enable access to such items by all Australians for the benefit of all Australians, and it is appropriate that the bill not be opposed. But what this bill does is highlight yet again a fundamental difference between the coalition and Labor.The coalition is fulfilling a serious election promise with this bill. Labor was all promise and no substance as far as the protection of movable cultural heritage was concerned, for there has been on the statute books a National Cultural Heritage Fund since 1986, upon the passage of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act in 1986. There it is in section 25: a provision for a National Cultural Heritage Fund to facilitate the acquisition of Australian protected objects. The act was designed to regulate the export from Australia of cultural heritage objects.The fund was intended to assist in the transfer of objects which had been refused an export permit, from private ownership to public institutions, so that all Australians could have access to and benefit from the existence of these objects in public institutions. Yet in the 10 years from 1986 to the fall of the Keating government in 1996 not one dollar was provided to the fund and no appropriation was made in respect of the fund by Labor at any time. They sought the kudos for introducing the legislation, but did not follow through—the point made by the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation in the second reading speech. In fact, the public collecting institutions in Australia—the museums, the national cultural institutions—were neglected during Labor's 13 years in government and the Labor government virtually ignored cultural heritage issues.I have supported actively the work of the Western Australian Museum, an institution of immense significance in my state, together with its six regional museums and the Maritime Museum in Fremantle. The coalition's commitment to our cultural heritage has been enthusiastically welcomed and I know what this commitment will mean to a number of institutions around Australia which are often unable to act immediately to purchase an object of cultural significance.As part of our 1996 campaign, the coalition committed to supporting the preservation of our cultural heritage so that Australians could have access to and enjoy our rich cultural life. Specifically, the coalition promised, as part of our cultural development program, to establish a fund which national, state, territory or regional collecting institutions could use to acquire significant objects of Australia's irreplaceable cultural and natural heritage that would otherwise be exported. Labor did not allocate the necessary funding—did not even bother to make an election promise to do so. In recognition of the fact that Labor did not ever allocate one dollar for this purpose, we promised to establish a fund, an account, with half a million dollars as a starter, to be maintained through annual top-ups as necessary. We are honouring that election promise. This is a significant commitment, it is a symbolic one, for we are prepared to commit funds not only to the preservation of Australia's cultural heritage within Australia but to enable access to such heritage. This will make the operation of the act far more equitable.In circumstances where an export permit for an item of significant cultural heritage is refused, the account will provide an opportunity for the owner of the object to sell it at its market value to an Australian public collecting institution. Currently our museums and institutions are not even in the game if a key object comes onto the market and such acquisition would be outside its budget allocation.The potential for unfairness or inequity in the operation of the existing act, in circumstances where Labor had made no effort to put a fund in place, should have been brought to the attention of the then Labor government with the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in 1993 in the case of Waterhouse v. the Minister for the Arts and Territories. I refer to this case as an illustration of how inequitably the act could operate without the establishment of a fund. In this case the applicant acquired in Australia in 1985 the painting The Bath of Diana: Van Diemen's Land 1837 by John Glover for more than $500,000.The Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act came into operation two years later, on 1 July 1987. In April 1989, Sotheby's conducted an auction in Australia and the applicant sold the painting to an art dealer from Los Angeles for $1.76 million. In July 1991 the US art dealer applied for a permit under the act so as to enable the painting to be exported to the purchaser. In refusing the application in 1992, the then minister stated that the painting was of such importance to Australia that its loss to Australia by export would significantly diminish the cultural heritage of Australia. I have no quarrel with the decision to refuse the licence for the guidelines by which the National Cultural Heritage Committee determines its advice to the minister on such items include an examination of the following criteria: the contribution of the object in the understanding of Australian prehistory, history and culture; the contribution of the object to Australian cultural development; the association of that object with a notable person, business, enterprise or event; the importance of the object in technological development in Australian history or prehistory; the existence, relevance and quantity of similar objects held in Australia or represented in Australian public collections; and similar relevant considerations.In the Waterhouse case, the applicant was presumably left in breach of the contract of sale, although the terms of the sale contract were not disclosed by the stated case. But it appears that the US dealer refused to pay for the painting; the applicant, Waterhouse, refused to pay Sotheby's its premium, and Sotheby's refused to release the painting. It should be noted that if the applicant were to export the painting without an export permit, the painting would have been forfeited to the Commonwealth and all title and interest in the painting would be vested in the Commonwealth without further proceeding.A review of the minister's decision was sought, and the questions of law were referred to the Full Court in its original jurisdiction, it being argued that the minister's refusal to grant the export permit was not a mere extinguishment of the applicant's right to export the painting. It also conferred on the Commonwealth and the Australian people an identifiable and measurable benefit, namely, the right to ensure that the painting remained in Australia, together with a contingent right to all title and interest in the painting should the applicant export or attempt to export it, with the result that it would be forfeited to the Commonwealth. So it essentially came down to whether the decision of the minister to refuse to grant the export permit constituted an acquisition of property for the purposes of section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution. It was held that it did not so constitute an acquisition of property—and I certainly have no quarrel with that decision.But I refer to one particular passage in the judgment of Mr Justice Lockhart, where he notes that the act provided for the establishment of a fund to be known as the National Cultural Heritage Fund for the purposes of including the provision of financial assistance to facilitate the acquisition of Australian protected objects. His Honour notes:Curiously, it appears that the fund is for all practical purposes non-existent.Curious indeed. In an article in the Media and Arts Law Review in 1998, it was observed:Unfortunately, the Fund has never been `funded' and the mechanisms for public acquisition of objects have never been activated. Not only are the public deprived of access to heritage objects, the credibility of the scheme is undermined by injustice to owners who face difficulties in achieving private sales for `unexportable' objects. There has only been one request for Fund assistance by an owner of an item denied an export permit and this was refused.That was Labor's legacy to the preservation of cultural heritage in our nation. Some may argue that the applicant in the Waterhouse case merely lost the commercial advantage of selling the painting to an overseas buyer. The applicant was free to do whatever he liked with the painting within Australia—keep it, sell it, lease it, give it away or otherwise divest himself of it, but within Australia. Certainly, the effect of the act is to restrict, in a practical way, the class of purchaser and the potential market price for such objects.Had Labor put in place a fund, there could have been a mechanism triggered whereby the fund could have immediately been drawn upon to acquire the painting for a public collecting institution. We do know that ultimately the painting, The Bath of Diana, was sold to the National Gallery of Australia for $780,000, purchased with funds from the gallery and from its foundation—approximately a million dollars less than the painting's 1989 auction price. But the outcome could have been that the painting remained in private ownership somewhere—in a lounge room, in storage. The consequence of the act, without the fund, would have been that the painting merely remained here, possibly in a private collection, possibly never to see the light of day, never to be inspected by the public, never to be seen by those for whose benefit it was barred from export.In a broad sense, one could say the Australian heritage is enriched in any event because the nation has within its boundaries a painting of great value to the national heritage. To say that the Australian people benefit by the continued presence of a painting that enhances the cultural heritage is rather hollow if a mechanism is not put in place to enable the acquisition of that painting for one of our great collecting institutions. After all, in the Waterhouse case, the decision to refuse the export permit was based on the fact that the painting was unique and of the greatest importance to Australia's cultural heritage from an ethnological, historical and artistic viewpoint. That case had a happy ending, but I refer to its facts by way of an example as to why it is appropriate for the government to create a specific account to fund or to assist in funding, with other donations, the acquisition of significant Australian objects.Our public collecting institutions exist for the benefit of our society. Our cultural heritage is especially important in our rapidly maturing democracy, with the promise of equal participation to hundreds of cultural traditions that share our landscape. For Australian art and cultural heritage is not just one thing, and our democracy will not let us claim the kind of vertical, national artistic establishment that is the boast of some European nations. Although we do not claim a single national culture, we draw from and have access to the very best of many cultures—most importantly, our indigenous culture and those of many nations on earth with many traditions. As a passionate supporter of the arts, I believe that all levels of government should invest in advancing our living cultural heritage as well as nurturing our national creativity.The important role for the federal government, in this instance, is to carry forward our cultural legacy. Supporting the Australian cultural heritage is a federal responsibility, as this government recognises. And there is no more important investment that can be made by our nation than an investment in ourselves, as a creative people, and in our cultural heritage. It is central to how we see ourselves, what we believe about ourselves and how we present ourselves to each other and to the world. To me, federal support of our cultural heritage is an act of deep patriotism.As we approach the end of this century, it is appropriate that our thoughts turn towards heritage and legacy. If we are ever to take stock of our past and gather a legacy for the future, this is the time to do it. We are economically strong. It is time for the government to lead the way by committing funds, together with community support, so that when we ask ourselves the tough questions—what our cultural legacy will say about who we are and what we value, and whether we have done enough to ensure that the legacy which future generations inherit is true to the marvellous myriad cultures that make up our heritage—this government can answer those questions, knowing that we have committed ourselves to the process of responsible acquisition of our national cultural heritage.This government recognises our maturity as a nation with the economic wherewithal, as a consequence of the Howard government's policies, to fund the creative genius that is Australia. I believe our government's commitment to preserving our nation's cultural heritage, together with a commitment to investing in our living cultural heritage and the national creativity of our people, is one of the best and most lasting legacies a government can offer future generations. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.11:05:007276Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate on the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Amendment Bill 1999 . In 1970, UNESCO adopted a convention which regulated international trade in cultural property. It provides that property, particularly indigenous cultural property, be retained in the country of origin, and that where material is kept in other countries as a result of being illegally imported that it be returned to the country of origin.In 1986, the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act was implemented by the previous government—certainly a very sound measure. Our present minister has built on that initial measure and now has a Natural Cultural Heritage Fund which is actually funded. There is to be $500,000 allocated to establish this fund and the minister expects that the account will be maintained at that level over time, which is very encouraging.That fund will enable groups and organisations to purchase items which they would otherwise be unable to purchase and then be able to view them in a museum or an archive or perhaps a local library. It is going to help a great deal, particularly in rural and regional areas, where, quite honestly, the wealth of cultural heritage items has been overlooked.I would like to mention very briefly the different classes of items that are included in what is known as the control list. There are class A items which cannot be exported except where a certificate of exemption has been obtained. These include indigenous sacred and secret ritual objects, carved trees, bark or log coffins used as burial objects, and rock art or human remains. It also includes Victoria Cross medals awarded to Australians.Class B objects may be exported provided prior permission is obtained. These cover a range of Australian and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage items. They include archaeological objects; natural science objects; applied science and technology artefacts; fine and decorative arts; documentary heritage, including books, letters, films, maps and photographs; numismatic objects including coins, badges and medals; philatelic objects including postage stamps, revenue stamps and envelopes; and other objects of historical significance.I will mention some of those that have been refused permission to leave Australia, and quite appropriately so. In 1994-95 there was a Victoria Cross medal awarded to E.T. Towner. I think it is most appropriate that our Victoria Cross medals do not leave Australia. They have great significance for every Australian. It used to distress me to see that they were auctioned and sold and left the country.Also in 1994-95 there was a steam hoisting machine; an Avro Anson twin engine aircraft, Australian registration VH-BAF; an oil painting, View of the Town of Sydney; and a Brown and May portable steam engine. That is an interesting cross-section of the items that we consider in Australia to be important and which we believe should remain here as part of our cultural heritage.I will talk very generally about the time when cultural heritage items were leaving Australia. It started in 1623 when Jan Carstenz collected ethnographic items on a Cape York beach and promptly took them away from Australia. Aboriginal artefacts left the colonies permanently during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Many of them are now in private collections and in museums in Britain, France and Germany. These include material collected by Pitt Rivers and now in the Pitt Rivers Museum at Oxford, and a collection of Aboriginal artefacts held by the Vatican which were collected by missionaries. I note that those in the opposition have asked for these last mentioned artefacts to be returned. I have no doubt that it is a matter that the minister will address as time goes by.Many skeletal remains were also collected. I note that in the Natural History Museum in London there are over 161 items of human remains from Australia. They were donated to the museum over 100 years ago by the Royal College of Surgeons and the Oxford University Museum. I can well understand the feelings of the Aboriginal community and I understand their efforts to see that these are returned to Australia, and I am sure many of us endorse those efforts.I would like to now talk about some of the other items that have left Australia. Objects such as the McKay stripper harvester—I am sure named in part after our great city of Mackay—the stump-jump plough, the John Ridley header-harvester and plough, the Furphy water cart and the Dethridge water wheel.By 1982, there was export of vintage aircraft and this was finally embargoed in that year, but it was estimated that 69 aircraft had flown the country. In July 1985, there was a major auction at Sotheby's in England of 76 Aboriginal artefacts including Yirwala bark paintings which went into private collections. There are some other examples, such as the metal spearhead that was plunged into the shoulder of Governor Arthur Phillip in 1790, along with a report of the attack.There have been Aboriginal bark paintings and contemporary work, such as 1970s acrylic paintings by Papunya artists. The value of such work was recognised early by overseas collectors who continue to successfully bid at Sotheby's auctions such work. I am very pleased that the minister has recently brought in amendments to the statutory rules which will mean that indigenous artwork 20 years or older and worth $10,000 or more will now require an export licence. I think that is a very sound move. I note though that he has some detractors within the indigenous art export industry, but I am sure the minister will stand firm.Can I say, having travelled around Australia collecting just a little indigenous art myself—a very modest amount—that I think that this has been greatly overlooked. Many of our artists in the indigenous community now—unfortunately, the better ones—are quite a considerable age. To ensure that their work, or at least a sample of their work, remains in Australia I think is most important—not only for Australia as a whole, but for their own communities and younger indigenous artists.I would like to talk very briefly, Mr Deputy Speaker, about one particular item—although it may be perhaps part of urban myth in Mackay—which has supposedly left the country and has not come back. You may not know that the largest crocodile in the world, in fact, was not found in the Amazon. It was found in the Pioneer River in Mackay, all 33 feet of it and it was shot in the 1870s, as I said, as urban myth goes. The skin was kept for many years in a local pub there. As you can imagine, it would have been quite a crocodile skin to have had displayed. It was seen over a number of years by older residents who left—3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—There are a few crocodiles up there, the human variety as well.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Not worth collecting though. It was apparently rolled up and taken back to a museum in the UK. We are not sure; we have not been able to track it down. It is simply one example of a cultural heritage item that could have left the country and has obviously not been returned.I would like to pay tribute to two Mackay people who in the last fortnight have done a very fine deed. Warren and Barbara Hill had in their possession a host of old documents, some as early as 1877, relating to the employment of indigenous indentured labourers on the cane fields. Most of these were South Sea Islanders who were, it is said, either indentured or taken as slaves. These documents relate to their work conditions, to the ships they were brought out on, their family and the islands that they came from. Warren and Barbara Hill had them in safekeeping in a vault in one of the banks for many years. They came by accident into their possession. I am sure that these items would have been worth a great deal of money had the Hills decided to profit personally from it. They decided not to do that and they have instead, in the last fortnight, donated them to the Mackay library. It is a wonderful gesture from two very public-spirited people.As you can imagine, the documents are very fragile and some of them are, in fact, disintegrating. It is going to be quite a challenging task for the Mackay library to restore these and be able to display them.I want to pay tribute, particularly, to Warren and Barbara Hill. They are public spirited, they are very fine Mackay citizens and they have, in fact, given us the beginnings of a great collection of local, cultural indigenous items that I am sure will be greatly appreciated by the people of our city in the future.I want to talk very briefly again about indigenous art, because there are so many fine artists around Australia who are not really recognised on the international scene. Some of those who spring to mind are Spider, in the Fitzroy River Crossing area, and Peanut Holden, and there are many others who really do not yet have international renown but who are obviously very skilled and fine indigenous artists. As I said, though, many of them are perhaps more advanced in years, and it may be that their work will leave the country inside the 20-year rule, which would be a great pity.I do want to commend the minister. I think he has acted very swiftly to ensure the fund is available to assist small communities like ours to purchase items that may leave the area and certainly leave the country. Also, the 20-year rule on indigenous art, particularly, is a very sound measure. It really is. As I said, many of those artists are ageing, their work may leave the country and we will not have the opportunity for other young indigenous artists coming on and for the communities that support these artists to enjoy and treasure these great works. I commend the bill to the House and congratulate the minister on what I think is a very sound and thoughtful bill and a very much appreciated fund.11:16:007279McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—in reply—It has been a genuine pleasure to participate in this debate, adjourned as it was from 10 June in the House of Representatives, and to hear the very detailed examination of the legislation as well as an exposition of the policy that underpins it from the members for Hughes, Curtin and Dawson. Each is to be congratulated for their interest in this area of cultural heritage and art but also for their careful examination of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Amendment Bill 1999 and its implications for our nation's cultural history as well as for so much of the protection of any export sales.I should say that, sadly, the contributions by the members for Curtin, Hughes and Dawson stand in stark contrast to those of most of the speakers from the other side. Only the member for Banks redeemed himself with his generous support of the bill before the chamber. Otherwise, the member for Denison gave a disgraceful performance in the House of Representatives on 10 June. To this day, I remain uncertain as to whether the member for Denison had even read the legislation beyond anything more than a cursory glance, for he ranted and raved about every arts issue under the sun, none of which touched on the bill's most important aspect, which is that we are funding, for the first time after 10 years of neglect by the then Labor government, the purchase of significant objects which we deem are unable to be exported pursuant to the protection of movable cultural heritage legislation.In other words, we are attempting to strike a balance between the rights of an individual to private property and the wider community interest in the preservation and protection of our cultural heritage, and therefore this fund can be used by collecting institutions to top up their bids when that object has to remain within Australia for sale. I think that is very fair, and indeed just, to the owner of the cultural object that we, as a community, want to remain within Australia but for which he or she naturally wants to reap the largest possible price. Sadly, Labor did nothing to fund the operation of the legislation.In addressing the member for Denison's criticisms, so much as I could understand them, firstly, this money will not provide for the purchase of large numbers of cultural objects, but this is not the point. The account is going to provide top-up funding for museums to buy the most significant movable cultural heritage objects where they cannot afford the full price. It is not intended as a compensation fund for owners of objects that cannot be exported, although they will benefit if a museum is able to buy the object; it will increase the chances of the Australian public having access to our most significant heritage objects.It is worth making the point that we do not expect that more than a few items will fall into this category each year. Indeed, if my memory serves me correctly, over the 12 or 13 years of operation of the legislation, there have been only about 10 refusals of export permits. The honourable member for Denison also suggested that the private sector would not be prepared to contribute to the account. Indeed, I have to say that the new provisions allowing for contributions to the account substantially reflect the current provisions in the regulations that deal with the fund. We do not propose to actively seek contributions from the states, territories or individuals. We are simply making sure that the act is flexible in case circumstances should change in the future. If such circumstances do arise, we would look at mechanisms for tax deductibility of such donations.The member for Throsby raised a couple of issues which were quite unrelated to the bill that is before the chamber. I understand that he spoke, as I made my way here, about the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program funding, and complained that his electorate was not a recipient. That is a matter that has been fully, totally and exhaustively explored through Senate estimates. The process has been shown to be one of complete integrity, and due process by independent assessors was followed at all stages, despite the accusations persistently made by some senators in estimates committees.He also spoke about the Vatican holding indigenous artefacts. He called for them to be returned and said that he believed it was beyond comprehension that the Vatican would refuse to do so. The member for Banks also endorsed the return of Aboriginal items from the Vatican as an act of reconciliation, as their rightful place is in Australia. In actual fact, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs portfolio is working on the return of indigenous cultural property from overseas institutions. They need to work with those overseas institutions, principally for legal reasons. They seek cooperation. I understand that in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom there is active work under way.At the same time, the government made provision in the last budget for funding a program to deal with Aboriginal secret and sacred objects in Australian museums, including human remains, so that they can be returned to the community of origin. We seek to do this in time for the Centenary of Federation. Naturally, we look at choices for dealing with these objects in a culturally sensitive way.The member for Banks welcomed the financial commitment we make under this bill to fund the protection of movable cultural heritage. He did stress that protection for indigenous items was essential, especially as demand has soared. He made the point, which we endorse wholeheartedly and unreservedly, that they are a valuable—in fact, an inestimable—part of our culture, but at the same time we must preserve commercial rights.In summing up, the government is glad that a surprisingly large number of people contributed to the debate. So often, these issues that are before the House are regarded as purely machinery issues, whereas in actual fact they are very, very important to issues of cultural heritage. I am delighted that so many people took part in the debate, although I make the point—and I hope I do not embarrass anyone on the other side—that the really significant, thoughtful and carefully examined contributions were those made by government members. I urge those from the opposition who did contribute in a superficial, shallow way to heed the lessons handed to them.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills7281r8077281Consideration resumed from 22 June.Department of the Prime Minister and CabinetProposed expenditure $1,230,895,000.Department of the TreasuryProposed expenditure $2,069,141,000.Department of Finance and AdministrationProposed expenditure $794,458,000.11:26:007281Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—In this part of the appropriation bills, I am particularly concerned again with the amounts you have read out for running the Prime Minister's office. I have to raise what I continue to raise every year; that is my disgust—and I think that of half the population of Australia, or almost 70 per cent if they did a poll—at the fact that the man does not live in the area designated for the Prime Minister. I have questioned and questioned again whether, if a Prime Minister were to come from Tasmania, the Northern Territory or Western Australia, we would allow the same licence we have allowed since this Prime Minister was elected in March of 1996.The history of Kirribilli House is that it was certainly not built as the permanent residence of the Prime Minister but to entertain or provide accommodation for visiting dignitaries. The Prime Minister of this country has chosen to take the residence of the Prime Minister permanently from Canberra, which is the designated capital of Australia. If the minister in the chair wants to correct me, I would certainly go along with him, coming from New South Wales. I have never believed Sydney or Kirribilli was the capital of Australia. I have always believed the ACT was designated as the centre of government.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—How trivial.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—Nevertheless, when you look at the amounts that have been spent by the Prime Minister on alterations and additions, not only during his term but also since he has been there, as trivial as it may be, the minister will acknowledge that the Prime Minister has spent 526 days at Kirribilli House since he has been Prime Minister and 378 days at the Lodge. In the very last lot of questions I have had put on the Notice Paper and had answered, we have had $685,309.92 spent in the last 12 months on alterations to the Lodge and Kirribilli House. When I questioned that in the Notice Paper , I get a trivial answer back saying, `It is nowhere near yet what the previous Prime Minister spent in his three years, which was seven hundred-odd thousand.'Anybody would then question: if you have already acknowledged that $700,000 was spent in alterations on two houses in the previous three to four years, why would you need in the next three years following that to spend another $685,000? Of course, questions are only answered in the way they are given. I acknowledge that. What was not given to me was the fact that the shower alterations in Kirribilli House cost $41,420 because the work was not completed. It was only an estimate and still not tacked on. Nor was it given with the replacement of the table because that comes out of another fund. We all remember what happened to a previous Prime Minister over a table and yet we do not want to acknowledge that this Prime Minister has had the Australiana Fund spend up to, and more than, what was even indicated previously, to have a table replaced. In the figures we do not see the full architect fees for a particular architect who was brought in, and I will not mention that.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Oh!7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—The minister may think it is trivial, but I happen to represent a Western Sydney region where a miserable $6 million was taken out of an education disadvantage fund, where kids are now going to be deprived of an opportunity to go to the University of Western Sydney. Yet we see time and time again millions of dollars being spent by this Prime Minister for his own self-gratification because he will not acknowledge that the ACT is the capital of government in this country. He will not acknowledge that the Lodge was constructed as the house for the Prime Ministers of this country. He, and only he, has chosen to permanently move his family into Kirribilli. I believe it has got to be questioned, and questioned on a yearly basis or a weekly basis, and even a daily basis, because if it is not being questioned it will be able to be shoved under the carpet.You have just heard the amount that has been indicated is necessary to run the Prime Minister's office. This $1 million that the minister wants to laugh away as if it is nothing is only to accommodate the Prime Minister's determination to stay in Sydney. As I said, as much as I am proud of Sydney and New South Wales, I also believe that the elected Prime Minister of the country should reside where it has been indicated the head of this nation should reside. We should not divide the states. We should have the representative of our nation living in the nation's capital. We should not allow the Prime Minister of this nation to go on continually changing bathrooms, altering stairwells, putting in fireplaces.It is bad enough that he wants to rearrange Parliament House. If he wants to do that, then that is up to him. But why does he continue to order, rearrange and change part of what is owned by the people of Australia for his own self-satisfaction or because his family does not like the two-way bathroom or because the shower is not in the second bathroom? He knew that before he took over the position; he knew that before he chose to live in Kirribilli House. At least he could have had the decency to move where the capital is. These questions will continue to go on the Notice Paper. (Time expired)11:31:007282Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I was proposing not to respond, but the amount of guff coming from the member for Prospect on this issue can only be treated with contempt. The guff coming from the member for Prospect should embarrass the people that live in Western Sydney, because the most important issue that she thinks is on the agenda for the people of Western Sydney is whether the Prime Minister lives in Canberra or in Sydney. From my point of view, it is quite clear that the people of Western Sydney would rather have the Prime Minister in touch with the people of Sydney and in touch with the real battlers out there than in some glorified existence in the Lodge. If the member for Prospect thinks the opposition is scoring a great political hit by criticising a Prime Minister for spending more time out of Canberra than any other Prime Minister, they are most certainly incorrect.On this basis, I urge the member for Prospect to think about the welfare of the people of Western Sydney, instead of just making a cheap political stunt in the Main Committee by focusing on where the Prime Minister chooses to live. The most important part of the Prime Minister's motivation is an opportunity to be near his family and his electors. The fact that the Prime Minister is spending more time outside Canberra than inside Canberra is a clear indication that the Prime Minister is someone who is very committed to on the ground communications with the Australian people rather than being holed up in the white castle of Canberra.11:34:007283Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—What we have just heard in reply is what we would expect from the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Whether or not he believes that the Prime Minister of this country, regardless of political persuasion, should reside in the nation's capital, I ask him to go to the electorates of Australia—not just to his own electorate—and do a survey of what the people of Australia think.The people of Australia believe that, when they elect a government, they elect a government to operate out of Canberra. Are we now going to move Parliament House because it may not suit the Prime Minister? Are we now going to move the cabinet meetings—which happens time and time again—because it does not suit the Prime Minister. I was not going to go page by page on the cost that it now takes to fly the cabinet ministers to meet with the Prime Minister rather than to fly the Prime Minister to meet with the cabinet. I will not go into those details. I will touch on them, if the minister wants to keep on jumping up.However, I will touch on one particular minor bill, seeing that we want to talk about what is happening in Western Sydney, and I will come back to that in a moment. For example, the Prime Minister, like every other person around this country, has decided to put Foxtel into Kirribilli House, which is great. So what do we have? Foxtel into Kirribilli House: $1,595. Well, I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that to have a house in Kirribilli connected to Foxtel is $79.95. To get Foxtel connected to Kirribilli House is $1,595. To have it connected at a house down the road it is $79.95 or, if you want to take the bargain price, 12 months subscription, it is $29.95.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Like hell!7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—The minister may say, `Like hell.' I have inquired, I have investigated and I can tell you this is fact: $79.95 or $29.95 with 12 months subscription. But what do we have at Kirribilli House? $1,595. I do not mind if the Prime Minister wants to have a TV with Foxtel in every bedroom and in every lounge room. And is this why we are changing the second bathroom? Are we not putting in a shower recess? We are making in a provision for another TV in the bathroom. Well, I know people want to go to the throne, but the taxpayers have not got to pay for a TV with Foxtel in the throne. For goodness sake! We are really going over the top.When you talk about Western Sydney and how people are going to work or to where they choose to work, constituents in my electorate are people who are brought out here as immigrants and are now enrolled in English classes. They are paying $60 or $70 a week out of their limited income because they have got to get to those English classes. We happen to have private buses in Western Sydney. We do not have to have cars and drivers or public bus services. If my constituents are travelling like that to learn the language so that they can make a proper contribution to this country as its citizens, surely the Prime Minister can be a little bit more cooperative and at least acknowledge that he is the head of Australia, not the head of New South Wales.It is about time, too, that we acknowledge in these debates and in these costings exactly what it is costing for an individual person, a group or a family to change their lifestyle at the taxpayers' expense. I do not believe that anyone should live in second-class accommodation. The Prime Minister may think Kirribilli House is, but I give him the alternative: if you do not like it there, why did you choose to live there? It was your choice. Yet here you are, every year—DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—It's a security issue.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—bill after bill after bill. Is the minister who is interjecting informing me that the Lodge has no security? If that is the case, why has the Prime Minister spent 378 days there in the last 3½ years of government? Didn't he have any security at the Lodge?DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—It's a security issue.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—So obviously he has no security at the Lodge when he is in there. Let us inform everybody, right across this country: there was no security at the Lodge for the 378 days which the Prime Minister has spent there since he has been elected to office, but there is obviously enough security at Kirribilli House for the 526 days that he has spent at Kirribilli House. Mr Deputy Speaker, that will not wash.If we want to talk about other costings, let us also go into staff, because that is one of the excuses the Prime Minister has used: `Oh, I do not have this staff and I do not have that staff.' Well, I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that for convenience, the Prime Minister is spending more than any other Prime Minister in history has spent, and he is doing that because he has chosen Kirribilli as his permanent residence. The people of Australia chose the ACT as the nation's capital. And here is the man that wants to be the father of Federation so he can stand up and crow when we reach 100 years. How can he stand there and not bow his head in shame that he has chosen to live at Kirribilli House, yet he wants to acknowledge 100 years of Federation in this country.When Federation started in this country it designated no division between the states. Therefore, we designate Canberra as the capital and we designate that the Prime Minister should live in Canberra. Let us not divide our states. Let us make sure that the national leader lives in the national capital. And it is a disgrace that this Prime Minister continues to spend the budget he does for his own self-gratification. (Time expired)11:39:007284Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I want to talk about the other great tragedy that this government have wrought on the Australian community: what they have done to the Office of the Status of Women. This office was once a world leader in setting the agenda for reform for women here in Australia and it also took many initiatives that have been replicated in other parts of the world.As has been discussed here in previous years, the Office of the Status of Women has suffered a disproportionate share of funding cuts; a savage 40 per cent in the Howard government's first budget in 1996. Many of us now cannot find out any detail about what goes on in the Office of the Status of Women because none is given. If we were to look at this year's budget papers—which we on this side of the House have tried to do—the Office of the Status of Women is not mentioned by name in any one of the budget papers or in any part of the portfolio budget statement. You have actually got to go into the detail of administered expenses. On page 20 we found under administered expenses, on the third line, a line titled `Women's Programs'. Some other initiatives are found separately. For example, money for domestic violence—money which I acknowledge is very important—is found on a different line. Somewhere else on a different page we find outlined a separate amount of money being allocated for women's programs—and so it goes on.In questioning in Senate estimates committees we found out that the Office of the Status of Women is now subsumed under the general heading of `Social Policy Advice and Coordination'. There are not any targets or any indicators of how the Office of the Status of Women's programs are to be measured. There is no way in which the women of Australia can find out whether, for example, this very important social policy area of domestic violence and the money that has been allocated is having any effect. Is it reducing domestic violence? Can we say that the way in which the government has gone about addressing this huge social problem in our community has achieved anything? We find from the answers to these questions in Senate estimates committees that, no, there are no specific targets or specific indicators listed for the Office of the Status of Women. There are no specific targets or indicators for the very important program on domestic violence and there are no specific indicators or targets listed for any of the programs delivered by the Office of the Status of Women. Even more important than there not being anything specifically monitoring whether we are improving in this critical area of domestic violence, the Office of the Status of Women no longer plays the role that it used to play right across government in monitoring whether or not all of the programs delivered by any particular government—this government or previous governments—were effective in improving the status of women in this community, and that is very distressing. It used to be the case that a full women's budget statement was produced by the Office of the Status of Women. This government got rid of that in 1996. It would not be any surprise that they got rid of that budget statement as there is no way that this government would want anybody reporting on the impact of the enormous cuts to services and their implications for women, the ones who, in the end, end up carrying the burden of care that results from the cuts to services by this government.If we still had a proper women's budget statement, these are the things that would be clear to Australian women and we would have an advocate within the Prime Minister's department pressuring other portfolios to make sure that the impact on women of massive cuts to services and of dramatic changes to industrial relations could be clearly set out and challenges could be made to these very important services for women. (Time expired)11:44:007285Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—Recently my office received a call from a Western Australian woman frustrated by the Howard government's approach to reconciliation. She has been following the development of the reconciliation process in this parliament, as well as outside it, and was increasingly angered by the foot dragging and ill will in the Prime Minister's approach.A member of the stolen generation herself, she was taken from her mother before she was even two years old. Her journey to find her mother and reunite her family was recently chronicled in a front-page story by Tony Stephens in the Sydney Morning Herald on Friday, 18 June. It is only in the past couple of weeks that she has managed to regain contact with her mother.She does not want John Howard to apologise. A personal apology from him is, in her opinion, meaningless and, quite frankly, she would find it scarcely credible. In her opinion, an apology can only come from the Prime Minister of Australia as the representative of the federal government and on behalf of the nation.This is one of the fundamental distinctions which the Howard government insists on blurring to justify its weasel words and lack of decency. The liability of the institution of government rather than of individual personalities involved was recognised in this year's budget in which the Commonwealth recognised its potential liability to the stolen generations to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. This is the potential cost of the way in which indigenous Australians have been ill treated by government.This failure of government to do the right thing by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians continues to this day, as does the cost to our nation. This cost can be measured in strict financial terms, but it also deeply affects Australian society. Let us, though, keep to the government's preferred terrain of dollars and cents and the bottom line. The bottom line is that by 1 June the government had spent $6 million fighting the Gunner and Cubillo case in Darwin. The bottom line is that before this case is over the already exorbitant costs will have skyrocketed. The bottom line is that this is money that could and should be spent to the benefit of the victims of the government's policy rather than dragging stolen children through the courts. The bottom line is that aggressively pursuing victims of the government's separation policies by litigation will not resolve the situation. It will create a set of losers—be they taxpayers or stolen children—and it will be a further wedge driven into Australian society by the Howard government. The bottom line is that the Prime Minister's promise on election night to `commit myself very genuinely to the cause of true reconciliation with the Aboriginal people of Australia by the Centenary of Federation' was and is worthless.The recent intransigence of the Howard government on reconciliation is a position that is, at its foundations, built on fear and blind ignorance. The Prime Minister refuses to understand or simply cannot grasp the issues. The question has never been of an apology stemming from any personal responsibility or involvement. It is the actions of the institutions of government and their abrogation of responsibilities to the community that are in question. Pages 113 and 114 of the 1998 Social justice report, produced by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, put the case in the following terms:The claim of a current government's lack of any direct responsibility for the actions of past governments is to overlook a fundamental and enduring feature of Australian democracy—namely continuing responsible government.The issue is about acknowledging the hurt caused by past government policies and about expressing sorrow at the consequences of these actions. The inclusive policies which would flow from that, avoiding divisive argument and approaching the issues constructively, would benefit not only the budget's bottom line but also, more importantly, Australia as a nation.The government will no doubt respond by saying that reconciliation is about allowing indigenous Australians to fully participate in Australian society and that it is more important to address indigenous social and economic disadvantage. I can offer the wholehearted support of the Australian Labor Party for any policies which seek to genuinely address the disadvantage indigenous Australians suffer in our community. But I also believe that it needs to be remembered that the achievement of social justice for indigenous Australians will not in itself bring about reconciliation. (Extension of time granted)These policies are only giving indigenous Australians the same rights as should apply to all Australians in our community. Reconciliation goes further than that. It is about building an inclusive society with the courage to look honestly and openly at the entirety of its history without the hallmark of fear that characterises the Prime Minister's approach.I want to put on record my appreciation of the sensitivity which a volunteer in my office, Simon Webb, displayed in handling the call from the Western Australian woman. Simon is a volunteer who has been working in my office for just over six months and finishes next week. He is finishing because later this year he is going to England to commence a degree at Oxford. The six months that he has been working voluntarily in my office have demonstrated to me that the future of this nation is in good hands if he represents the youth of our nation. He has displayed a professionalism and a commitment that I have rarely seen—and I supervised 28 solicitors over the years when I was with the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales, and plenty of other staff. But Simon's professionalism and dedication are without peer. I have enjoyed his six months in the office. I think it has been a learning experience not only for him but for me as well.I asked him to write me a five-minute speech before he left. The speech I delivered expresses my thoughts to the letter. I did not have to change the speech. Simon wrote it, and that is the speech I delivered. He certainly has a future as a speech writer, but I think he has a bigger future than that. I thank him for the contribution he has made and I wish him well in the future.I do commend the thoughts I have just expressed to the Prime Minister. I think that is the way forward. I think it will help the bottom line of the budget. We cannot have the stolen generation being forced to go through the trauma of knock-down, drag-out court cases. That is not the way to resolve this issue. We do not want to have to apologise to future generations for our actions.11:51:007287Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I want to endorse the comments of my friend the member for Banks in relation to the stolen generation. There are a couple of issues I want to talk about this morning in the context of the government's attitude to indigenous Australians. Its attitude to the stolen generation people is, of course, paramount amongst them. I know the two people who are involved in this case before the court—which has cost us, as the member for Banks pointed out, $6 million as of 1 June. I know Mrs Cubillo and Mr Gunner; they are people like you and me. They are people who have suffered immeasurably as a result of being stolen from their parents as children, yet they are now being forced through a process in the courts where every moment of their lives is under cross-examination by the government's legal counsel.My friend the member for Banks talked about the attitude of the government towards reconciliation. It seems to me that we have got a pathetic figure for a Prime Minister if he is a person who cannot bring himself to (1) apologise to the stolen generation for the reasons that my friend the member for Banks outlined and (2) pull off the dogs. There is absolutely no need for the malicious and vindictive way in which the government has instructed its counsel to act in this particular case. It is my view that, as we enter the Centenary of our Federation, if we are to be recognised as a mature nation, we must come to terms with the unsavoury aspects of our past, and this is one of the most unsavoury aspects of our past. It is not difficult to come to terms with. We do not have to say that we are individually or even collectively responsible for it, but we do have to understand that this nation has been responsible for it and it was governments that were formed in the House of Representatives and got their mandate from the Australian people that were responsible for oversighting the laws which allowed those people of the stolen generation to suffer.In that respect, the Prime Minister needs to accept, as a statesman, his role as the Prime Minister of this country; the person whose job it is to safeguard and oversight the integrity of this establishment as the representative body of the people of Australia—the primary policy making body. He needs to accept that his predecessors, Labor and Liberal, were in part responsible for this process and say it on behalf of this nation, the institution of this parliament and the Australian people. Apologising to the stolen generation should not be too much to ask, but apparently it is.One point I will make is that, if we are to have reconciliation, the beads and mirrors approach of the Prime Minister and his government in the context of reconciliation will not work. If he is not prepared to assess and contemplate the draft statement which was issued by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation on its recent arrangements, then I suggest to him that, instead of going through the masquerade, the charade, of having a committee to go about developing and formulating a set of words which might suit the community—if he in that office downstairs is unable to accept what they produce—he should dispense with the committee. He should say, `I, the Prime Minister, as I have done with the preamble to the Constitution, will be the person who will dictate what goes in this particular document. Never mind the process which we have set up. Never mind having input from the various individuals and organisations who have currently supplied input, I will be the final arbiter. I, the Prime Minister of Australia, will be the final arbiter of what is acceptable.' If that is his approach, then let us just fess up and dispense with all the rubbish and the cost and say to the people of Australia that the reconciliation process is doomed. It is doomed because, while ever he pursues this vendetta against the stolen generation in the way in which it is being done through the Federal Court, and while ever he treats the process of reconciliation with such contempt, that will be the only outcome that is possible. I say to the Prime Minister: it is now time for you to act like a statesman as we enter the Centenary of our Federation. (Time expired)11:56:007288Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The particular issue that I wish to raise concerns the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the need for it to examine, for a possible breach of the appropriate competition arrangements, certain arrangements that have been recently entered into. I refer particularly to the recent announcement of the franchising of half of the Melbourne metropolitan tram network. It was announced on 18 June that the Victorian government has awarded a 12-year franchise to a company called Metrolink, which is a joint venture comprised of Transdev, Transfield, and the Egis Projects. I am very concerned about the impact on competition between transport modes that this may have. Yarra Trams will be given control of a number of the tram routes in Melbourne; for example, the Wattle Park-Princess Bridge No. 70 tram route, which services the same area or market of Melbourne as the Monash Tollway. It seems to me likely that the Monash Tollway and the No. 70 trams are competing for the patronage of commuters that live in that vicinity.One of the Metrolink joint venturers, Transfield, has ownership interests in Transurban CityLink Ltd, which has the lease from the state government for the operation of the City Link tollway. It also has ownership interests in Transfield-Obayashi which is designing and constructing City Link, and in Translink Operations Pty Ltd which is responsible for operation and maintenance of the tollway. Transfield, therefore, has a major financial interest in the City Link project. It cannot afford to see that project fail, and it certainly would not want to see commuters using public transport in preference to using City Link and paying those tolls.Section 50 of the Trade Practices Act points out that a corporation must not directly or indirectly acquire shares in the capital of a body corporate, or acquire any assets of a person if the acquisition would have the effect or be likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition in a market. I am concerned that the decision making of the Metrolink consortium could be influenced by the fact that a significant proportion of Yarra Trams ownership stands to benefit from people choosing not to use the tram service that they run.I have therefore requested the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—and I repeat that request—to investigate the relationship between Transfield, Transurban CityLink and Metrolink and ascertain whether those relationships place competition between different modes of transport in danger and, if so, whether those arrangements breach section 50 of the Trade Practices Act. I also invite the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to ask what concerns they might have for the competitive impact of such an arrangement.The Premier has been quoted as saying in relation to City Link, `So if you don't like it, don't use it, and there's no compulsion to do so.' But if you have a situation where the public transport infrastructure is being sold off to a consortium in which one of the companies has a major interest in the design, construction and operation of the City Link tollway, then if you use the road you are going to be paying Transfield; if you use the tram you will still be paying Transfield. It seems to run the whole show. If the one company is to own significant proportions of both transport operations, how effectively is it going to run in competition? How interested will Transfield be in ensuring that we have a top-flight tram network when, in fact, it has a major financial interest in City Link, cannot afford to see it fail and will not want to see commuters using public transport in preference to paying City Link tolls?My concern is that selling both trams and roads to the same companies surely represents the worst form of privatisation—the replacement of government monopoly by private monopoly. The risk is that we will get the extra costs that come from supporting the profit making venture but we will not get any of the gain of competition. That is going to harm the commuter, who will not be able to benefit from either a free road or a decent public transport system. Given that the Kennett government has abrogated its responsibility to protect commuters, it is now up to the ACCC, which I urge to investigate this matter.12:01:007289Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in relation to the tax package which is about to find its way through the parliament. In particular, I will address my remarks to aspects of the tax package which have been raised in recent commentary by Professor Peter Dixon, of the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University.In particular, I would like first to address the government's failure when it advanced this package in the first place to argue coherently the logical case. How the government could advance a proposition so radical as this without trying to establish what increment to economic growth will occur in this nation as a consequence of such a fundamental change to the taxation system, simply saying to the community at large, `Let's take it on trust; let's take it on faith,' defies imagination. How anyone could proceed with such a fundamental exercise in social engineering as is contained within this tax package without testing the simple proposition of what addition to employment growth will occur as a result of its introduction also defies imagination. How could anyone embark upon an experiment such as this without testing the most simple of propositions, such as whether the revenue system of the country is now broken, before advancing to a solution so radical as this?The bottom line on the question of the collapse of revenues, both now and in the future, is that no evidence has ever been presented by the government, the Treasurer or the minister at the table, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. As with every other key element of this entire package which is before us—growth, employment and the future of Commonwealth revenues—we are asked simply to take this entire package on faith, on trust.Professor Dixon's analysis is reported to some extent in today's financial press and by a number of economic commentators in the mainstream press. It contains some very interesting revelations indeed. I would much appreciate it if the minister at the table, in summing up, would give us as well his reflections on Professor Peter Dixon's observations—once he has completed his signing task. Certificates of appreciation are worthy documents to sign. Professor Dixon's analysis would leave the government with very little cause for comfort at all. His paper, which is dated 22 June 1999, observes starkly:The Government's tax package . . . was based on inadequate economic analysis. The only modelling done by the Government was a Treasury calculation of the effects of the package on commodity prices and on the real incomes of different types of families.The Treasury's modelling ignored 60 years of progress in economics and used a theoretical framework first applied by Wassily Leontief in 1936. It appears that the Treasury gave the Government no worthwhile qualitative advice on the likely effects of the package on employment, industry structure, the trade accounts, overall economic efficiency or any other vital macro-economic variable. Nevertheless, the Government became committed to the package, making strong but unsupported claims about its beneficial effects.The Senate inquiry into the package listed detailed analysis from Australia's top economic modellers. Among their conclusions are that the package will:. generate a significant risk of reduced employment in the short run;. not increase employment in the long term;. harm Australia's exports of tourism and educational services;. reduce the terms of trade (the prices of Australia's exports relative to imports; and. have a negligible long-run effect on Australia's overall economic welfare (our average standard of living).I would not describe this as a positive report card. I would regard this as a piece of evidence which the government would prefer not to have on the public record.When you aggregate that with the body of commentary from professional economic analysts across the country, as well as from academic economists, it is quite plain that the theoretical underpinnings of the package, which the nation is about to have rammed down its throat, simply do not exist. They have not been advanced by the government, the case has not been proven, and yet we are about to engage in the great taxation and social experiment of the century.Professor Dixon continues in relation to the impact which this package will have on overall economic growth. He observes that the most benign analysis which is available in the public debate on the impact on growth of this whole package is that provided by the government's economic modeller of choice, Chris Murphy, who says that the annual gift to the Australian economy would be 0.12 per cent of GDP. As Professor Dixon observes, that is not even enough to run a single additional university in this country, let alone provide any broader benefits to the nation at large. (Time expired)12:06:007290Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—I rise in this debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 to draw attention to the $1.67 billion hole that is in the government's budget for the year 2000-01, the year that the ANTS package will come into effect, if it passes the Senate. That gap is the revenue that was set out in the ANTS document that was released before the federal election and which is attributable to a proposal which the government calls common treatment of entities.Most of that revenue relates to the treatment of trusts. The government has been very slow in progressing tax reform in the area of tax avoidance and evasion using trusts. It is an issue that was brought to light by the previous Labor government so this government has had more than three years to come to grips with it.They have clearly come up with a solution. They felt confident enough of that solution to put it in the ANTS package and say that it would provide revenue. The Treasurer has confirmed in the parliament that that revenue has been written into this year's budget—all of that revenue. Yet, with the ANTS bills going through the parliament we have not seen a piece of legislation that covers the common treatment of entities. Instead, we are being told that it has been referred off to the Ralph review for consideration. It is a total mystery to everybody in the opposition why the Ralph review needs to consider something that the government had three years to consider and had come to a clear view about and had put $1.67 billion worth of revenue into the forward estimates for 2000-01.I have previously made a speech in the House in which I pointed to a long series of comments by National Party members, starting with the Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister, even before the last election, starting to cast aspersions on the appropriateness of the government's proposals on the taxation of trusts. He has continued that since the election. Last Sunday he appeared on Face to Face with Glenn Milne and the last question he was asked was, `How is the National Party going to deal with this issue?' He said that the National Party would be entering into a robust debate on the issue.83TRUDDMr Rudd—I don't think they like it.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—I am sure that they do not like it.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—They love it.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—They love it, do they?DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—They love tax reform.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—The minister says that they love tax reform. I think this is one bit of tax reform that they do not love at all. This is one bit of tax reform that is supposed to be settled. It is supposed to be government policy. It is supposed to be included in the budget estimates for next year. It is $1.67 billion. It is tax evasion, it is tax avoidance, and it is fraud by a large number of people who are evading their responsibilities to the Australian community, and the National Party does not want to do anything about it. It will be very interesting to see whether or not in the context of the Ralph review we get a solution and we get a piece of legislation introduced into the House that the parliament can deal with.It is my deepest suspicion that the matter is not going to just be referred to the Ralph review; it is going to be referred to the state conference of the Queensland branch of the National Party for consideration. There will be some very robust debate about it. I think we are all going to be disappointed about the outcome. By the time of the next election, three, four or five years will have gone by and the matter simply will not have been dealt with.I am quite sure that the Treasurer is shooting for the record that Peter Durack holds, which was leaving the bottom-of-the-harbour prosecution file for tax evasion in the bottom drawer for seven years. I am sure he is shooting to break that record.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—That's rubbish! It's just a load of rubbish.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Order! The minister will have his right of reply. The member for Kingston has the floor.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—I take the minister's interjection because I would like it recorded. I hope that it is rubbish. But I am yet to be convinced. (Time expired)12:11:007292Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—Far be it from me to intervene in such a provocative exchange. I will return to the ANTS package and the broader question of taxation reform and the National Party's enthusiasm for elements of that reform package, excluding some of those elements which were just touched upon by the member for Kingston.Professor Dixon's critique of the ANTS package continues. It does not simply touch on the capacity of this package to generate economic growth. It goes on also to the question of compliance costs. Professor Dixon refers to a paper recently released by Dr Binh Tran-Nam of the Australian Taxation Studies Program of the University of New South Wales which, drawing on GST experience from Canada and New Zealand, says that the government's GST will result in an extra $1 billion a year compliance requirement across the Australian economy. This is a significant number indeed. Of course, we are aware of the fact that this arises from the basic point that at present, under the WST system, we have some 75,000 businesses acting as taxation collection points. Under the GST, we have some 1.6 million Australian businesses acting as taxation collection points.We then go on to the question of revenue growth. Again, Professor Dixon makes the telling point that no quantitative evidence was used by the government to support its claim that the present indirect tax system is not sufficient to produce adequate revenue for Australia's future needs. In fact, contrary to the government's claim, separate forecasts by the Centre for Policy Studies and Access Economics suggest that, for the next 10 years, the present system of indirect taxes will produce a revenue growth within a percentage point of that for GDP. We turn also in Professor Dixon's critique to the simple and most basic question of fairness. He says—and I think this is a most telling observation:The government's original ANTS package involved a significant shift in income distribution in favour of wealthy Australians. Perhaps this was the government's main motivation for the package. A more charitable view is that the government was badly advised and irrevocably committed itself to a silly position.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—No, they're just silly.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—As the member for Grayndler has just observed, perhaps they are just silly. But the bottom line in this overall question of fairness is that if you go to the essence of what this package is about, it is about a redistribution of the taxation burden to the disadvantage of poor and middle income Australians—Mr Hockey interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—I again call the minister to order. The minister will have a right of reply.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—The essence of this package is a redistribution of wealth to the overall advantage of wealthy Australians. And what we have as a consequence is a new taxation system which will penalise poor and middle income Australians more in the medium to long term as opposed to wealthier Australians. That is the overall rationale for the package which you are introducing because it fails every other test of macro-economic analysis. It generates no extra growth. It does nothing on the employment front. You have not advanced the case of why the revenue system of this country requires such a radical piece of surgery as you are about to suggest. So why do it, as Professor Dixon argued before the Senate inquiry? Why embark upon this massive new exercise in social Darwinism?DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Social Darwinism!83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—It is. The answer is that you are on about a fundamental redistribution of wealth. The penalty will be delivered to low and middle income Australians. The minister at the table is aware of that as much as anyone else, given his familiarity with these issues.In the final part of his analysis of this question, Professor Dixon touches on the most recent cocktail which has been arrived at between the Democrats and the government in the final passage of this legislation through the Senate. Professor Dixon's analysis—and I think it is worthy of quotation—says:Preliminary work at the Centre of Policy Studies using the MONASH model suggests that these changes will not generate jobs in the long-run and will leave a significant risk of employment reduction in the short run. Nor will they help Australia's service exports or improve the terms of trade. They are likely to increase compliance costs substantially. Even ignoring these compliance costs, the MONASH results indicate that the Democrats' changes will reduce Australia's overall economic welfare by about 0.3 per cent . . . The bottom line is that Professor Dixon is not a front for the Australian Labor Party. Access Economics is not a front for the Australian Labor Party. Expert economic analysis across this country is not a front for the Australian Labor Party.The bottom line is that the package is a dog. It is a dog as viewed by academic economists. It is a dog as viewed by the commentators. It is a dog as viewed by the peak bodies and by international experience. The only person who does not recognise it as a dog is the Treasurer of the Commonwealth, who has been christened one by the Premier of Victoria. (Time expired)12:16:007293Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—What I want to address my remarks to at this moment is the government's attitude to the funding of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, ATSIC. I want to pay particular attention to a draft discussion paper, which was produced by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, entitled `Draft discussion paper: establishment of regional authorities'.This document came into my hands a while ago. It indicates a new direction for the way in which the government intends to fund and administer indigenous Australia. I might just say, by way of background, that the issue of regional agreements and regional authorities is something in which I have had a historical interest. Some time ago, I published a paper entitled `Towards regional agreements: A social justice response to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Poverty'. So I am aware of the issues that surround the debate about regional agreements and regional authorities.I was, therefore, quite astounded to read this discussion paper which came out of PM&C. Through this discussion paper it is clear that the coalition is contemplating the introduction of a national network of regional authorities through the upgrading of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission's regional councils into a smaller number of regional authorities with parallel reforms to its national board. The aim of these reforms is to involve indigenous peoples more in decisions made at both the national and local levels, and to secure more effective outcomes of service delivery. At least that is the expressed purpose.These reforms proposed for ATSIC anticipate that the national board and the regional authorities will be provided with the functional authority and capacity to build beneficial relationships and partnerships with other levels of government. I am not going to go through the detailed objectives that the government has set out in this document, but I do want to address some of the shortcomings. On their face value, taken as a whole, the objectives would appear to some to be laudable. However, the approach being advocated by the government has a number of very significant shortcomings. The first of these shortcomings is that it is driven from above. It is yet another top-down approach. It reflects the government's desire to reform ATSIC, in the guise of addressing calls for increased regionalisation, while promoting the need for improved outcomes in service delivery.However, in advocating this approach, the government proposes to sublimate indigenous demands for self-determination and self-management to its focus on outcomes. In doing so, the government asserts that its priorities should have precedence, naming those policy priorities that it deems as having paramount importance—housing, health, education and employment. It also intends to shift the emphasis in thinking, in its terms, from programs that promote dependency to those that facilitate economic empowerment and self-reliance.This highlights the second shortcoming, the failure to accept that indigenous priorities may be different and will inevitably vary from region to region across Australia. Significantly also, it fails to acknowledge that, for many indigenous Australians, the most fundamental priority will be access to their land. These people could be expected to argue that this access is basic to any concept of self-determination or even to achieving the government's own demands for economic empowerment and self-reliance.The third shortcoming is the precedence given to government's overriding policy objective of restructuring and reforming ATSIC. There is a presupposition in the government's approach that reform of ATSIC and the establishment of regional authorities within the structure of ATSIC would satisfactorily address demands for regional agreements. There may well be a legitimate need to refocus ATSIC and restructure the organisation so that:. . . ATSIC's primary focus should not be its own programs but the effective co-ordination and provision of mainstream services (especially health, education, employment and housing) at the regional and community level. This is how and where ATSIC, properly structured and organised, could make a difference.There is a real argument as to why ATSIC should be made responsible for the adequacy of governments whether federal, state, territory or local. There is also a need to question why ATSIC should in effect become responsible for the coordination and delivery of programs which have been determined as meeting the priorities that government has set and not ATSIC itself.There is little doubt that the federal government views ATSIC as a vehicle of the Commonwealth rather than as a vehicle for indigenous Australians, responding to their needs and aspirations. (Extension of time granted) The central element of the ATSIC reforms proposed by the government is to present it as the primary focus for coordination of service delivery of programs and policies determined by the government. The government argues:It is critical therefore that ATSIC's primary focus should not be its own programs but the effective co-ordination and provision of mainstream services . . . That is a repeat of the quote I gave previously. There is clearly a case for increasing the oversighting and monitoring for ATSIC in terms of the coordination and delivery of services but its primary mission should be as a vehicle for expressing indigenous priorities for the delivery of services, monitoring, assessing and reporting on outcomes of mainstream services and negotiating with all levels of government over indigenous priorities and arrangements for service delivery. It should not be seen as an instrument of the government.Significantly, the priorities and demands will vary from region to region, as I am sure anyone who is aware of this subject would know, and even community to community. Herein lies a further shortcoming in the approach being adopted by the government. On the one hand, the government recognises that there will be regional difference but on the other hand it does not acknowledge that in the construct it has created in its proposal for regional authorities.The other significant aspect of this is that, in the context of the creation of these regional authorities, it is anticipating a debate that is yet to happen—that is, whilst the government purports to be representing the interests of indigenous Australians, there has been no discussion region by region, community by community about these proposals. These are, in fact, coming, as an initiative, from the federal government and not from indigenous Australians.I note, by way of an example of the direction in which the government intends to head with indigenous affairs in this country, a diagrammatical representation which emanated again from PM&C which has a proposal for the Office of Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure. I appreciate that this may well have changed since it was first discussed, but what this clearly demonstrates is a proposal to take out the decision making functions, the policy making functions, which evolved and which are currently in ATSIC—to remove them—and give the responsibility to the Minister for Family and Community Services, the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. That is just not good enough. This is a repeat of the sorts of policy prescriptions we had in the late 1970s and early 1980s prior to the election of the first Hawke government. This is a reversion to past bad practice and something which we should make sure does not happen.I am an advocate of regional agreements. I am very concerned to ensure that Aboriginal people—through ATSIC or through their own organisations—are able to come to terms with their own priorities, and indeed should be funded accordingly. It raises some significant issues. This week in the parliament there has been the debate about the changes to the Grants Commission's functions, to give it the power to look at the needs based funding of indigenous Australians.It says to me that if the government is really sincere about adopting a different approach to the way in which indigenous affairs are dealt with in this country, what it needs to do is to ensure that the rights of indigenous Australians are properly protected. It ought to make sure, in the context of developing a regional and community based approach, that it develops it from the ground up not from the top down, that it ensures that any regional constructs which are developed emanate from that basis, that it ensures that it funds them directly and bypasses state and territory governments and that it allows them to negotiate the sorts of service delivery arrangements that they require to meet their communities' needs. The approach which is clearly anticipated by this discussion paper of the government is not the way to proceed.There are a range of other issues which I want to talk about in the context of these particular portfolio arrangements. I was struck by the contribution in this debate from my friend the shadow minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs because it raised these significant issues. If you take what the government is proposing to do in the area of reconciliation—or not proposing to do, as the case may be, in this proposed response—and what it is doing in the issue of the stolen generation and what it is now proposing to do in the way in which it deals with ATSIC, you can clearly see the break-up of any authority emanating from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to the authority of the government. It seems to me that that is not what is required, as I mentioned earlier. What we need to do is come to terms with our direct responsibilities to ensure that indigenous Australians' priorities are the ones that are met—and they may not necessarily be the same priorities that government sets itself. This is an area which needs a lot more work. (Extension of time granted)I want to raise another couple of issues in the context of the role of government and particularly the role of Prime Minister and Cabinet as a coordinating department. In particular, I want to raise the issue of the sale of a block of land in the Cocos Islands. This block of land is one which in the past has been used by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service.You need to understand the geographical situation of the Cocos Islands and the fact that we, the Australian people, have a special responsibility as we received the islands as a United Nations trust territory in the early eighties. That responsibility requires us to ensure that we advance the interests of the Cocos Malay people, who are, primarily, the people who live there. There is a land trust arrangement which exists in that community. This area of land which AQIS had is the most significant piece of real estate on one of the two islands which are occupied in the Cocos Islands. Yet when determining how it would proceed with the sale of this particular block of land, there was no discussion with the local community and no intention by the government to transfer the responsibility of the administration of this block of land to the local community to allow it to be used for their own development purposes.Indeed, in a Senate estimates committee, Senator Macdonald made it very clear that the government had no intention at all of properly consulting with the community of the Cocos Islands and that it intended to ensure that the way it sold this particular block of land would be by way of the highest tender. This is not the way to approach what is an important community development problem for the people of the Cocos Islands. It does not surprise me, however, that the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government took this approach because when discussing issues to do with housing, water, electricity and other matters relevant to the Cocos Island community, such as the sale of the Clunies Ross house on the Cocos Islands, the minister had no comprehension at all of what was happening in his own portfolio. Indeed, when he was asked about the water supply on the Cocos Islands, he said to the Senate committee that he did not think any work was being done. Well, that very day engineers sponsored by the government were on the island to look at the problem.There is a real issue here about the way in which services are coordinated to these communities. I say to those in the government responsible for coordination that it is very important to understand that, particularly for the people of the Cocos Islands, we have a special responsibility. They should not be treated as they are being treated by this minister. I say to the minister: you should reform your ways and understand that you have a special responsibility to deal with these people in a different manner.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Which minister?IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—The minister responsible, and you should know who that is.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Which minister is that?IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Another issue that I want to talk about—DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—What is his name?IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—I mentioned his name earlier. Another issue which I want to raise while on the subject of these estimates is the question of the funding of the Darwin to Alice Springs railway. I note that in the budget papers the government has committed itself to $100 million. I also note that the Northern Territory minister responsible, Barry Coulter, who has been sometimes a comic character in the context of Northern Territory politics but who is, however, inevitably someone who has been committed to the process of building this railway, and who has sought an assurance from the Commonwealth that they would provide sufficient resources to enable it to proceed, was able to secure out of this government a commitment of $100 million.I remind the chamber that prior to the last election the Labor Party said that if it achieved government it would be prepared to provide up to $300 million. It should come as no surprise to the government that the amount of money which it has got on the table is insufficient and it is clearly a problem which the government needs to address. If this railway is to proceed, this government—that is, the federal government—needs to put its hand more deeply into its pocket. I know that the Treasurer may have short arms and deep pockets, but the point is he needs to get someone else. If he is not prepared to put his hand in his pocket, perhaps the minister opposite is prepared to do it on his behalf—but mind what you get.I say to the government that if this railway is to proceed we need more resources from the federal government. They need to live up to their responsibilities and their commitments to the people of northern Australia and ensure that those resources are forthcoming and that the railway is built.12:31:007297Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am pleased to make a contribution to this debate in the section of the Department of the Treasury as it concerns the budget as a whole. I had intended giving this contribution last night in debate on the immigration portfolio but unfortunately I was speaking in the House at that time. While many aspects of the government's immigration policy concern me, I am particularly concerned about the recent announcement of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs that he would slash the parent visa intake to just 500 places for the 1999-2000 program year. This is an extreme reaction to the Senate's disallowance of the government's proposed changes to the preferential family category. The Labor Party moved to disallow the proposal that would have created a two-tiered parent visa application system.For those Australian families who are able to pay the extra thousands of dollars in application charges, the proposed new visa subclass was the way to go. The department sent out letters to all applicants who were eligible for this new visa, inviting them to transfer across on the promise that the application would be processed faster—that is, if they had a spare $5,000. Basically, families were given the option to either scrape together the extra thousands of dollars or keep their parents in a queue indefinitely. In the electorates of the members opposite, finding an extra $5,000 may not be a problem, but for people living in electorates such as Grayndler it is an impossibility.In an article by Jon Marsh in the Sydney Morning Herald in March this year, the dilemma facing families in this impossible situation was highlighted. One of the people he interviewed was Ms Halina Hussein, one of my constituents. A university lecturer in mathematical statistics and computer science in Poland before she migrated to Australia, Halina had applied to sponsor her parents. Like many migrants, Halina and her husband work hard to support her young family in Australia. The letter from the department asking for the extra thousands of dollars to fast-track the visa process came as a great blow to Halina. As she told the Sydney Morning Herald:I found a job three weeks after arriving in Australia so have not cost the taxpayer anything. My husband and I are both Australian citizens. This country was built on immigrants, let's make it fair for everyone.Mr Deputy Speaker, making it fair for everyone is what the Labor Party stands for and it was on equity grounds that Labor opposed this new, more expensive parent visa. Under Labor, parents who had at least half their children settled in Australia could apply for a parent visa, with the reasonable expectation that their applications would be finalised. Labor respects the cultural importance that many migrant communities place on caring for their elders. We also acknowledge that a united family is an economically productive family. But the Howard government has no understanding of the importance of family reunion to migrant families. In order to punish Labor for its actions in the Senate, the government decided to take it out on the applicants and their families.Recently I placed on notice questions for the immigration minister regarding the parent visa. As of March this year there were more than 17,000 people around the world waiting for their parent visas to be finalised. With an intake of only 500 a year, the waiting time will blow out to well over 30 years. Either applicants will die of old age before reaching the front of the queue or they will be too frail and aged to pass the medical.While the government is happy to receive millions of dollars in application fees from these families, it is not prepared to finalise the applications. This is an act of deceit on a grand scale. I call upon the government to refund the application fees for these parent visas. The government has happily taken over $9 million in application fees from the families of these people, whilst making it impossible for the vast majority of applicants ever to migrate to Australia.If you are told that your parents are eligible to apply for a parent visa and the department of immigration happily takes your $1,060 application fee, it is reasonable to expect that the department will actually follow through and process the application. However, given the miserly allocation of 500 parent visas, the reality is that the applications will never be finalised. This $9 million theft has hurt the families who can least afford to pay and it must be remedied without delay.The Howard government should either increase the number of parent visas or offer to refund the application fees. I call upon the government to take immediate steps on one of these options to remedy this inequitable situation.12:36:007298Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I will come back to the tax and Treasury side of this expenditure. Before doing so, I would like to say that I agree with the honourable member for Grayndler. I too missed out on the debate on the Immigration portfolio yesterday. I can give case history after case history in similar vein to what he is saying. There is a travesty of justice, and the government must look at this more realistically. It is a matter not only of the fees that are going in but also of the health charges. People are taking their health certificate, they are paying the money for it, they are ready to get their visa but it is capped and the visa is not issued. Therefore, they have to go through that process time and time again.Concerns are being expressed, in the electorate at large, particularly in my electorate, at what the Howard-Democrat GST tax package is going to mean to Australia. When first we were being sold this tax package, one of the things showing how great it was going to be, as part of the whole economic reform and change, was that the money was going to be given in total to the states and then, basically, all those dreadful charges that the states put on the community were going to be abolished. Now we have mark 2, 3 or 4—I have not been able to catch up with all the changes we have had—and one thing we are concerned about and one thing that the community should be concerned about is that the state taxes which were supposed to be abolished are now going to be retained. We have now been informed, in mark 3 or 4, that the FID tax is going to remain for another six months, that BAD taxes will continue at least to 2005 and that most of the other taxes that the states now have carriage of may remain indefinitely.Whatever else this tax system is going to mean for small businesses, it is certainly going to increase dramatically the compliance cost. A solicitors group came to me just recently and said, `We are a law firm. Even though we employ a number of lawyers in your electorate, do you realise that I am now going to have to go to the cost of employing an accountant just to strictly monitor and put into place what is happening with the GST package?' If a person at that level in that type of law firm is going to have to employ a person to help them I say to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, who does not want to acknowledge what small business is going on about, that he should get out there and talk to some of the small businesses who are the mums and dads in this area.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Small business is cheering about the tax package.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—Order!7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—I do not mind the ignorance and the intolerance of the minister in the Main Committee.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Can we have some order here.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—If the minister continues to interject, I will out-shout him time and time again. I will stay here and do it. If the minister continues to act in this way, I will stand here and take it, and I will stand here and give it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Could the member for Prospect get back to the debate. Let us tone the debate down a bit.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If you are going to call me back to the debate, you should call the minister at the table back to what his position is supposed to be in this Main Committee—representing the government in these areas of debate when we go through appropriations. I understand that I have the right to bring up in this appropriations debate the concerns expressed both in my electorate and in the community at large.I believe I should have that right in the five minutes given to me to bring my constituents' concerns before this parliament. If I am going to be denied that right I will continue to jump up and down. I know the minister is bored out of his mind. Well, he may have to sit there. He wanted to get up and move about before and get away from signing things. If he does not choose to sit here then perhaps he had better call on another junior minister to come up and take his place because I will continue to raise what I believe are the concerns of my electorate.Mr Hockey interjecting—7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—When I was talking about the GST and I was making a reference to that particular law firm, I was using that as an example of the businesses that I represent in my area that are not of the calibre of that particular company. I am talking about the mother and father who have set up business and now employ a son. I am talking about the father who has set up a business and has now got three or four people employed. I am talking about the ramifications for those small business people who do not have a spare $10,000 to put into a computer system. And even if they did have that money, they have not been brought up in the new technology age. Despite that, they are capable of running a business and employing people and contributing to this economy.Mr Deputy Speaker, they are the people who are being robbed. They are the people who are not getting the truth from this government as to what the ramifications of a GST are going to mean to them. I believe they are the people who we have to stand up and fight for, time and time again, until we are going to have some honesty from this government about what this GST is going to mean to them. (Extension of time granted) There are a few other points I would like to tackle as far as the Treasurer is concerned. We have heard—Mr Hockey interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Could the minister not keep provoking the member?7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—If the member for North Sydney, the minister at the table, does not want to hear about what I am going to talk about in this area of the appropriations and he wants to take on a debate on Badgerys Creek and my colleagues, I am only too willing to do it.If he had been in this House yesterday he would have found that I have already got up in the Transport estimates and spoken on that. But I want to bring to the attention of this parliament at this moment, when we have the GST bill about to come into the debate, how the GST will affect my constituents. The Democrats and the government are putting up the package together. The agreement is going to be about cold chickens and hot chickens. We have heard the leader of the Democrats say today how great it is going to be for the community.We have heard nothing from this government about the current account deficit, foreign debt or anything about the international trade deficit. We have heard very little in the media about what the total balance of payments is showing with Australia's seasonally adjusted current account deficit in the March quarter. We have heard very little about that. Maybe the minister would like to get up in his reply and talk about how in the March quarter the figure blew out by 11 per cent to a record $8.850 billion.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. We have given a lot of latitude to the member for Prospect in this debate. Now she is talking about something totally unrelated to the appropriations before the House. I ask you to somehow, using the wisdom of Solomon, bring her back to the topic before the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the minister for that advice. Has the member for Prospect a point of order?7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—On the point of order, I believe the appropriations debate before us covers the Prime Minister's office and the Treasury, if I am not mistaken. The current account deficit figure and some of the figures I would like to bring forward in this Main Committee are relevant. The minister is incorrect, I have that right to bring that forward.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Prospect is in order. Please proceed.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will proceed. The Treasurer of this country is Mr Costello, unless we have had a change in the couple of hours since I left the main chamber to come to this committee. He is still the Treasurer of this nation, unless the minister now at the table wants to roll him and is trying to count the numbers. I believe the appropriations deal with his area of responsibility and his portfolio. I believe that the Prime Minister, as the leader of this nation, and the Treasurer have got to be responsible for the fact that we have now got a record blow-out of our debt. The current account deficit in the March quarter blew out by 11 per cent to a record $8.850 billion.Perhaps the minister does not want to acknowledge that. Maybe he does not want to acknowledge either that foreign debt is now standing at $241.563 billion. Maybe he would like to get up and talk in his reply about how he and his government see the future direction of this country when we have foreign debt like that. Maybe he would also like to get up and, in his limited way, try to tell the small business people in the community that I represent how they are going to manage the costs involved with a GST.And it is not only the costs. People are coming to me now and saying, `I have been in business for six or seven years. Please explain to me how the GST is going to affect me. How am I going to operate?' Then you try to explain or to give them the information supplied by this government—which is not too much, believe me—on how it is going to operate: how they are going to have to set up their tax package and why and the timing; how it will affect the mums who used to do the wages once a week for the employees, record the wages in a book and buy their little tax stamps; how now they are going to have to run their businesses with the added cost; and, more importantly, how we are going to have all these tax inspectors out there making sure that these small business people now become the tax collectors of the government and do it right.I think before we start accusing small business of doing things wrongly we should, first and foremost as a government—particularly this government under the Howard coalition—at least get out there and have a little more honesty and representation and explain these things to some of those smaller businesses. I am not talking about the BHPs of this world, I am not talking about the Coles Myers or the David Joneses; I am talking about the 80 per cent of small businesses that employ the majority of people. (Time expired)12:47:007301Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I am happy at long last to summarise the debate held in the Main Committee on the appropriations of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance and Administration. In the main, I understood the very genuine sentiment coming from the other side of the chamber in relation to these appropriations but not the guff coming from the member for Prospect over a range of issues from her top of the mountain dictums in relation to tax and moving on to the current account deficit, which somehow is associated with the appropriations in PM&C.If we want to talk current account deficit, let us talk about Keating as Treasurer and the Hawke government, when the current account deficit blew well over six per cent and we had those famous words `banana republic'. We remember those words. They are indelibly marked on the minds of Australian financial markets, but more importantly they are indelibly marked on the minds of every Australian who lived through the 1980s: banana republic, current account deficit, Paul Keating—synonymous.How can the member for Prospect stand up here and lecture us, berate us, about the current account deficit? The best way to do something about the current account deficit is to reduce the amount of money we are sending offshore every year repaying debt. The best way to do that is to support the sale of Telstra and reduce to zero the Commonwealth's net public sector debt. That is the best way to do it.Why is it that the Labor Party prides itself on defending the government owning an organisation that supplies mobile phones but it opposes the public sector providing food? Why is it that the Labor Party supports the government owning a business that supplies Internet access but it opposes the government setting up a company to supply clothing? Why is it that the private sector can supply water in South Australia, electricity in Victoria, clothing and footwear right around Australia, motor vehicles right around Australia but it cannot supply Internet access, it cannot supply telephone access and it cannot supply mobile phones?That is a great example of the hypocrisy that pervades the current philosophy of the Labor Party. I am disappointed—as, I think, many Australians are—that the abject hypocrisy of the Labor Party is coming to the fore in the Telstra debate. The member for Prospect has lectured us about the current account deficit. I say to the member for Prospect: if she really cares about the people of Western Sydney—and I believe that somewhere there is a flickering, albeit small, flame of hope for the people of Western Sydney that comes through the member for Prospect's words—she will support our tax package, she will support the sale of Telstra and, by the way, she will support Badgerys Creek.There were a number of other contributions to the debate that I think were more thoughtful. The member for Jagajaga made some pertinent comments about the Office of the Status of Women. The first few comments by the member for the Northern Territory and those of the member for Banks about reconciliation were also very interesting. Whilst I obviously do not agree with a number of the comments made by the member for Banks, I do understand that they were made in a very heartfelt and genuine way. Just as he has provided work experience for a number of people in his office, I, too, along with a number of other members, provide opportunities for young people to get work experience in our offices. I commend him for that. (Extension of time granted)The member for Griffith talked about modelling in relation to the ANTS package. It has become apparent during what has been a very extensive taxation debate that there have been more modellers involved in the ANTS package than there are walking up and down the catwalk in Monte Carlo. The modelling is coming from left field and right field. What we have been consistently saying throughout the entire debate is that we have a mandate to implement—not to model, but to implement. The mandate to implement is about delivering what we were elected to do.I say to members of the opposition, in case it has not quite hit them in the numerous divisions since the election last year, that they have not got the numbers on the floor of the House, which means that we must have won the election. That is going to come as a hard punch to some of you, but we won; you lost. Therefore, we have a mandate; you have no mandate. As you have no policy and as the Labor Party has no philosophy, so, too, you have no role in the current taxation debate.The member for Kingston talked about trusts. I was intrigued by the member for Kingston's words, which were—and I would need to have the opportunity to check Hansard—to the effect—and I am paraphrasing them—that those with trusts were involved in fraud. That is what the member for Kingston said.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—That is not true.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I found that quite extraordinary. What about all the mums and dads that the member for Prospect feigns to represent? What about all those small businesses where the mums and dads are working their hearts out, along with the skin off their hands? They have set up trusts, and the member for Kingston comes in here and calls them frauds. That is the contempt that the opposition—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—On a point of order: that is not what the member for Kingston said in this debate. The minister at the table is labelling him and misrepresenting him. I suggest if the minister wants to continue that debate he should read the Hansard . It is absolutely incorrect what he is purporting the member for Kingston said.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—The chair has some difficulty, not having heard what the member for Kingston said. I call the minister. You might respond to that point of order.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—It is not worth responding to. What does concern me is that we are entering a new phase of philosophical debate in Australian politics where the Labor Party is searching for a home base—whether it be the tentacles of socialism that have pervaded its thinking in the past, the pragmatism of the 1980s and the early 1990s or the class warfare that the Labor Party seems to relish in the late 1990s. The Labor Party has no light on the top of the hill. I urge it to go and find itself and then to come back and talk seriously about challenging policies. When you have the member for Kingston standing in this place talking about trust and how anyone who runs a trust is a fraud and when you have the member for Prospect trying to defend the interests of small business people then you have got a contradiction in the words used within the Labor Party. It is no surprise that they are all writing books: in order to enunciate a political philosophy the Labor Party has to write a book. Most people could do it in a paragraph, but the Labor Party has to do it in a book. The challenge is for the Labor Party to adopt some progressive thinking.I was interested in the comments of the member for Grayndler on charges and visas. The Labor Party consistently changed the charges for visas and various other immigration facilities over 13 years. I urge the member for Grayndler to come back to the original appropriations debate. I suggest he have some dialogue with the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. In short, I have been disappointed with the tenor of the debate coming from the opposition probably because they are ill-informed but more appropriately because they do not know where they are going.Proposed expenditures agreed to.Department of Family and Community ServicesProposed expenditure, $3,275,796,000.12:58:007303Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am pleased to make a contribution to this debate, and in my first contribution concentrate on the impact of the GST on the Commonwealth-state housing agreement and, in particular, the impact of the revised deal between the government and the Democrats which has sold out public housing in this country. All state and territory housing ministers wrote to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman, and pointed out that the Commonwealth-state housing agreement as proposed would leave a shortfall of some $730 million, which consists of $390 million for the cost and effect of the GST; $100 million for the efficiency dividend which was demanded by the federal government; and $240 million due to the failure of the government to provide indexation of this funding—in total a $730 million shortfall in the proposed Commonwealth-state housing agreement for 1999 through to the year 2003.After a meeting between the state and territory housing ministers and the Commonwealth government, the Commonwealth government did compromise a bit. It said that it would provide an extra $269 million for the Commonwealth-state housing agreement as compensation for the GST. But, as I have already pointed out, that means a shortfall in and of itself of some $121 million for the GST alone, but a total effective cut to the Commonwealth-state housing agreement of some $461 million. This is at a time when there are some 235,000 people in Australia on the waiting lists of state and territory housing authorities, waiting to be admitted into public housing.The Democrats, in their pathetic, weak, lily-livered negotiation with the government, came out and said, `Oh, we have achieved a breakthrough on housing.' As the opposition, we had pointed out that, with the four per cent compensation being offered to pensioners because public housing rents are linked to between 20 and 25 per cent of income, a four per cent increase in pensions would automatically mean that one per cent would be swallowed up in increased rents. So what did we have? The Democrats went into these negotiations and said, `We have agreement with the state and territory housing authorities in their bilateral negotiations with the Commonwealth on the Commonwealth-state housing agreement that the rents of social housing tenants will not be increased as a part of that GST compensation.'We pointed out at the time that this means one of two things: either the government is taking out a further $70 million from the budget surplus to provide funding for that or there is a $70 million cut to public housing throughout Australia, on top of the $461 million which has already been cut. The minister, Jocelyn Newman, wrote to state and territory housing ministers on 16 June. She said:As you are aware, the agreement between the Government and the Democrats on a new tax system includes a provision that tax reform compensation be excluded from the calculation of state housing authority rents. Additional funding in respect of the impact this will have on state housing authority revenue has been agreed between the Commonwealth and the states and territories.But, when the shadow minister, Simon Crean, in parliament asked the Treasurer, Peter Costello, he replied, `We are not engaging in additional claims in relation to housing.' One of them is wrong; one of them is lying. Either the minister is wrong in her letter to the state and territory housing ministers or Peter Costello has just got it wrong. They both cannot be right.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—Neither of them is wrong.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—This hopeless minister over here says neither of them is wrong. Well, it is one or the other. One says there is compensation and one says there is not. What we want to know, and what public housing tenants throughout Australia want to know, is what is going on with the funding on this issue. (Time expired)13:03:007304Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—There are a number of issues that I would like to raise, but I am most concerned about what this area of budget responsibility is going to do with Centrelink, particularly when I believe the budget figures say we could expect another 872 cuts. That was one of the areas of concern, Minister. If you feel I am incorrect in that, I will be happy to hear your reply.I would like to raise also the concerns of people in my community who seem to be being subjected at times to very harsh dealings by Community Services. I acknowledge that just recently the Minister for Community Services did acknowledge that the department was incorrect in a particular case, and I will not bring that up. But I have to say to him that that particular woman was harassed because, firstly, she was accused of going overseas and, secondly, she happened to have the same name and the same birth date as another person. That was, I suppose, quite ironic, but I would have thought they could have at least checked the passport numbers before they reduced a woman with very limited English to tears when her pension was stopped. Her treatment was worse than that of a second-class citizen. Her son came to me in desperation and we took the case up and got that reply from the minister. But I would like to point out that, before doubt was questioned, they stopped her pension and she was left in a very desperate state. It was only her family that rallied around and supported her.I have other cases that I would like to bring to your attention. I have an excellent working relationship with my local office. I find the staff are only too willing to help, but unfortunately they are limited. There is only so much one individual can do in one day. In an area like mine where 52 per cent of the population is born overseas, it is very difficult when changes occur with pensions, income or people's earning capacity, because of the delay between the time they appear at Centrelink and the time they are able to put their case. And we seem to have this now on a regular basis.Once you would only have about three or four a day. It is now double that and multiplying, so one can only expect that there is something dramatically wrong. One of the biggest problems in the last couple of budgets has been the excessive cuts to the staffing of Centrelink and we are now seeing the problems that the overstressed staff are trying to handle.I have another issue to raise—I believe I have also raised this with the minister—the overpayment of a parenting allowance. The people did all the right things; they filled in all the forms. These people have never robbed anyone in their lives. They were sent the money. Having received the money, they were told by the office, `Sorry; you should not have got it after all. Maybe we made a mistake. But bad luck; make sure you pay this money or else.' You would think that, if a mistake was made, at least an apology would be forthcoming, saying, `We regret to advise you that we have made a mistake in our office and it is not your fault.' But my constituents are being treated like criminals. They are being told, `Pay up or else.' These people have always been very honest and straightforward in all of their dealings. We need to take further action because of the way in which they have been treated. I reiterate that it is a stressful job and that the staff are working with limited numbers; they are trying to do a job in very trying circumstances.Mr Deputy Speaker, I would also like to raise other mistakes that have been made regarding parenting allowance and parenting payment. I even have one example of where a person, before he came into my office, wrote direct to my office and said, `Could you please explain to me where I have gone wrong? What have I done that is incorrect? Why are you telling me that I must now pay all of this money back?' They actually sent the letter back to him and said, `Excuse me, make sure you get it clear. Call it the right thing: it is a `parenting allowance' not a `family allowance'. I find that very offensive and I believe our office is also endeavouring to forward that to the minister for information.I pay the minister at the table a compliment: at least the investigations that he carries out are always straight and the letters I receive from him do not hide the facts. They actually come out as one would expect and I commend and congratulate him for that. But I believe we have to reassess some of the staff in our Centrelink offices on how they are treating constituents. I know not everyone is correct; I know there are two sides to the story. I have been in politics long enough and have been dealing with people long enough to realise that I do not take everyone at their word. We do sit them down and try to go through their complaints very carefully. I think that is why we have the working relationship that we have with our local office.But I believe that we have to be alarmed by the increase in the number of cases. This is not in the last three years—I am not saying this politically—but it has certainly been happening in the last six to eight months. There is something radically wrong and the only reason I can put it down to is that Centrelink are short staffed; they are trying to do a job without enough staff.13:08:007306Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I wish to raise the issue of funding for the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program, and in particular the issue of homelessness and the failure of this government to take real action to address this issue. The government, in its negotiations with the Democrats, reannounced an extra $15 million per year for youth homelessness. This really is trying to solve a major national crisis with crumbs from the table. The government failed in its budget to increase SAAP funding at all. The much publicised $45 million over six years amounts to a meagre $7.5 million a year and has been instituted merely to ensure that staff employed in SAAP agencies have award conditions. Not one dollar of this amount will actually go to expanding SAAP services to the needy.Last year the government sponsored a review by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute which recommended, at a minimum, a 25 per cent funding increase to SAAP in order just to service current unmet demands. The National Evaluation of SAAP 3, released by the Department of Family and Community Services just three weeks ago, concurred with this analysis and requested that recurrent funding for the first year of the new SAAP agreement reach a total of $285 million.The recent federal budget allocated only $230 million for this financial year to SAAP. The extra $15 million which was reannounced by the government as part of its sleazy deal with the Democrats for the financial year 2000-01 is nowhere near the 25 per cent increase recommended by the government's own review and by the government's own Department of Family and Community Services. The reason the department recommended such an increase is that the demand for services for the homeless is ever growing.Figures released in budget week showed that the number of people accessing SAAP services had risen from 101,000 in 1996-97 to a frightening 166,000 for the financial year 1997-98. The minister's response to this was to put out a press release saying how successful the government was because it was providing more services for the homeless. What sort of logic is it where the government applauds its success and announces proudly that there are more and more homeless people in society? The GST and this miserly budget will do nothing to help the level of homelessness in this country.The GST will have a negative impact on new housing construction. It will increase the pressure on public housing due to the effective cut of $461 million as a result of the effective decrease in the Commonwealth-state housing agreement for this term. There remains the question hanging out there of who will foot the bill for the $70 million that it will cost for public housing rents to not increase as a consequence of the compensation for the GST. The Treasurer says that it is up to the states; that there is no increase in funding. The Minister for Family and Community Services says that that funding is being provided. We do not know what the answer is. The minister here clearly does not know because he says both are right. They cannot both be right.An assistant secretary of the department, Dr Keith Ogborn, was asked by Senator Chris Evans, `What about the flow-on to the cost of rents? Has the department done any work on that?' He said, `We have not done any modelling on the impact of the GST.' Senator Evans went on to ask him, `What about the flow-on to public housing? Has there been any work done on the impact on public housing?' Dr Ogborn replied, `We have not done any work.' This government just does not know; it is flying blind. What is very clear is that all housing, whether it be home ownership, whether it be private rentals, whether it be public housing tenants, is going to be impacted. That will lead to a trickle-down effect, to more and more pressure on housing and an increase in homelessness. A pathetic increase of $15 million does nothing to address the dollar impact that this GST will have on Australian families. The government should at least have increased the funding for SAAP to the level which its own department had recommended.13:13:007307Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I would also like to raise concerns that my community have, particularly an organisation called the Fairfield Community Aid and Information Service. This is a community group put together in 1972. They have been operating very effectively, assisting in helping people, and they have now reached the stage where they have had to advise Centrelink and the Salvation Army that they have to close down their office for most of April. They have said—and these are their words, not mine:Emergency relief being for emergency relief and not an extension of the Social Security Department seems to have somehow become a confused concept. We are having more and more clients present here at this agency who have problems with their Social Security Benefits that the Centrelink Office don't seem to be able to sort out and this is taxing the ability of not just this agency but of all agencies delivering Emergency Relief to function in their correct capacity.People in real emergency situations are now finding that the best we can do to help them is to issue a modest food voucher. Where we once could of helped out towards the cost of say a funeral for example now the best we can do is to refer the problem to Dr. Refshauge the N.S.W. Minister for Health.This was sent to me in April, and things have changed since then. This is only one example. Fairfield Community Aid are having a problem operating not only because of the workload they are experiencing but also because of the number of people being referred to them. The Fairfield community, which is a part of my electorate of Prospect, seem to be knocking on their door. Fairfield Community Aid state:More and more people are now being referred to us by Centrelink under the impression that we can fill in the gaps when Centrelink can't pay them. People believe we are able to help on a regular basis or that we can give out hard cash or pay their rent until things get better and of course this is not what Emergency Relief is for. We do try to give out food vouchers to all of those people and it means we then have to spread our entire (and we might say very substantial) grant over an enormous number of modest food vouchers, undermining our ability to really help in a substantial way where true emergency exists.The staff in this agency are all volunteers.they reiterate that—We have no paid workers and the writer is the only Welfare trained person here. I cannot afford to be here full-time and, therefore the staff have to manage on the whole by just relying on their own life experiences to get them by when trying to help others. I might add that they do a tremendous job in keeping this place going the way they do but it is unfair on them when they have no formal training and are not even paid that they be expected to handle things like irate young people between the ages of eighteen and twenty one who have suddenly found out they are not the adults they thought they were and have been told to go home and to get their parents signature before they can collect a benefit! Most of the time there is some breakdown in the family situation and these young people are not even talking to their parents let alone living at home. When we say all we can do is give you say a $30 food voucher every three or four months what are they supposed to do? Who can blame them for getting angry but also who can force volunteers to have to put up with their anger?! What options are left open to these people? Do they go and live on the streets and steal food and money to survive? This is Australia not a third world Country or so we thought. If the current trend continues we will soon be counting ourselves among the third world and frightened to walk the streets for fear of being robbed by those who have been forced to such a life by the ridiculous system that has now been put into place. With all of these problems bearing down on the people staffing this agency we feel we have no alternative other than to close down for a short period to give the remaining staff a chance to clear their minds and recuperate from the onslaught. This saddens us in many ways as we know better probably than most others the terrible situations people find themselves in and we deeply regret that we will be unavailable to help them over the period we will be closed. We feel we must take this action and that we have no choice if we are to continue on in the future.Fairfield Community Aid also say that they hope that we feel confident in the work that they are doing. I am very confident in the work that they are doing, and I have forwarded that letter on to the Minister for Family and Community Services. One of the biggest concerns we have in a community like ours is that these volunteer organisations are being overtaxed and are without paid workers. More and more, we are seeing professional agencies, like Centrelink, forwarding grey areas, which they cannot handle, on to these volunteer organisations.I believe it is unfair. This organisation, which was set up as an information service to assist and help, has not been able to do its job. I believe that we must investigate why it cannot do its job and what is causing it. I would also like to say that I have set up in my community a volunteer church group which provides meals to the homeless. It started off by providing 13 meals one day a week, and now it is providing in the vicinity of 500 meals a week. Something is happening in our society—and this is happening on a daily basis. This is not something that I am dredging up and saying that there is no truth in it. This is fact.13:18:007308Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—In the context of the consideration of the appropriations for the Department of Family and Community Services, I wish to raise the case of an organisation operating in my electorate which, based on the evidence presented to me, has been denied procedural fairness in the way in which its funding, under the Disability Services Act 1986, has been handled by the department. The organisation involved is the National Employment and Psychological Services Centre and it runs several sites. The program that I wish to highlight today is entitled `The Mop Squad'. It provides a disability employment service to 25 clients in the suburb of Bundoora.Regrettably, this organisation was informed on 11 June, I believe, that this program was to be defunded from 30 June. This organisation commenced in 1992 and has been very successful in providing services to disabled clients, especially those with psychiatric disabilities. At a time when, in Victoria and other states, we are in an era of deinstitutionalisation, it has been very important that services like this have evolved. In the case in question, what the organisation are complaining about most is the way in which their defunding has been handled by the department. They informed me that they have not been given written advice of the decision but were informed verbally and, in discussion about what avenues were open to them, they claim that this was a decision that was signed off by the Minister for Community Services. I assure the minister that I am not trying to ambush him on this but am using this opportunity given to me to highlight the urgency of the situation and the importance and value that I place on the services provided by NEPS.I believe these people have been operating disability services programs for seven to eight years, that they are well respected in that field and that what they put to me would have a great degree of veracity. They say that they have been given indications by the department that it was happy with the way the organisation was operating and that it had made suggestions that in the refunding there would be certain conditions that it might be putting to the organisation. So it was with great surprise that, less than a couple of weeks ago, they had this notification that they were going to have their funding revoked from 30 June. In the letter to Minister Truss, the organisation says:We are committed to providing an excellent service to people who have disabilities, and have a very strong background in doing so. We have faced our problems at this Outlet squarely and—as any business would do—have revised and reviewed and reworked our service to better meet our targets and our obligations to our clients. We have been looking forward to a new year focussed on helping 25 severely disabled people to find and maintain work, and are already in the process of doing just that.The organisation admit that, with this particular program, because of difficulties in starting up, they have not met the targets. They indicate that in other programs they have consistently achieved between 100 and 200 per cent of the annual target set by the department. I wish to stress my belief that this is an organisation that have shown by their track record that they are able to produce the types of results that we would expect a government to want from an organisation like this. The letter continues:. . . Two employers have won the Prime Minister's Employer of the Year award as a result of our submissions, one of which was an innovative program for people whose jobs are in jeopardy as a result of their mental illness.They go on to say that, despite the difficulties in setting up this program called The Mop Squad, they have obtained 29 jobs for 18 clients over the last years and are now receiving referrals to the service at the rate of around eight per month. They believe that, with a revised business plan and other things that they have been denied the opportunity to put to the department, they are able to continue to have a successful service.I wrote to the minister earlier in the week—I am not complaining that I have not received a reply yet—but I just wish to stress again that this is an important organisation that is deserving of government support. I hope that the minister will take this matter seriously, have a look at it personally and be able to get back to the organisation with some favourable news.13:24:007309Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the members who have raised issues during this debate, and I will try to respond briefly to those matters in the short time that is available. The member for Grayndler raised two issues, one in relation to SAAP funding and the other concerning the new Commonwealth-state housing agreement. Let me assure the member for Grayndler that the $45 million, which was announced in the budget, is indeed real money. It is true that it is specifically going to states that have requirements to meet new salary needs under the recently negotiated awards. However, had that money not been provided, those states would have had to reduce their SAAP services. So it is certainly very real money which the government has committed to assist those states. The announcement of the $45 million following the discussions with the Democrats is not a reannouncement of the same $45 million; it is an extra $45 million. So there are in fact real increases available to the SAAP program from the Commonwealth.In relation to the comments from the member for Grayndler on the alleged disagreements between the Treasurer and the Minister for Family and Community Services on the Commonwealth-state housing agreement, let me explain the situation. The states estimated that the gross impact of the goods and services tax would be approximately $392 million over the life of the next Commonwealth-state housing agreement. As part of the 9 April intergovernmental agreement on tax reform, the states were offered $269 million in recognition of the net costs that public housing authorities would face. The net costs were calculated based on the states receiving additional rental income from public housing tenants as a result of the automatic link between income and rent. Increases in pensions and allowances associated with the GST compensation packages would have resulted in increased rental receipts for the states.The Democrats subsequently requested that those increases be quarantined, and it was agreed at the April 1999 Premiers Conference that this would in fact have an effect on the states of approximately $33 million per annum. Against this background—the understatement in compensation to the states and territories as a result of these arrangements—the Commonwealth has agreed to changes in the intergovernmental agreement on the reform of Commonwealth-state financial relations which benefit the states. Specifically, the Commonwealth has agreed that states and territories can retain stamp duties on non-quotable market securities. While this measure will protect the tax base for stamp duties of non-residential conveyances, the abolition—which is being deferred—will benefit the states by some $74 million per annum. The Commonwealth has agreed that it will not offset this increased revenue by reducing its guaranteed payments to the states and territories. The benefit to the states of these changes substantially exceeds any shortfall in the compensation of public housing costs. The correspondence which the minister for family services provided to state housing ministers reflected the matters that I have just raised with the Main Committee.There have been a number of specific cases raised. The member for Prospect referred to a particularly unusual case where a person was denied benefits because Centrelink came to the conclusion that she had gone overseas. It was a very unusual case in that somebody with the same name and the same date of birth did go overseas, but it was a different person to the one whose benefits were cancelled by Centrelink. I acknowledge the comments of the member for Prospect that Centrelink should have checked the passport number. That was an error. The error has now been rectified, and I apologise unreservedly for that error. I have communicated that by way of correspondence to the member for Prospect.The member for Prospect also raised particular concerns about the language of some of the letters that Centrelink sent. Again, I concur with her views. I think some of the language that is used in Centrelink letters has been unnecessarily provocative. A new system and a new style of letters will now be coming from Centrelink; in fact, they have begun this week. Hopefully, it will be in a more friendly style that will help people better understand what is actually intended through the letters. Some of the words which people have found unnecessarily offensive and provocative will no longer appear in the future. (Extension of time granted)The member for Prospect also raised problems about overpayments—particularly parenting payments. The estimate system does indeed cause a number of difficulties in that regard. I think I receive more letters about that issue than any single other Centrelink issue. The new family payment system, which went through the House of Representatives yesterday, will resolve that issue by allowing top-ups as well as repayments, and provide greater flexibility for families.Finally, to comment briefly on the issue raised by the member for Scullin: I am aware of that case and I want to assure him that funding is never withdrawn lightly from these sorts of services. The department has very serious concerns about the performance of that organisation. I look forward to reading the letter that has been sent to me and the representations from the member for Scullin. I certainly undertake to look at that case thoroughly, but I want to assure him that the decision was not taken lightly.Proposed expenditure agreed to.Sitting suspended from 1.31 p.m. to 4.33 p.m.Department of Health and Aged CareProposed expenditure, $1,976,274,000.16:32:007311Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I want to direct my remarks initially to the claims by the Minister for Health and Aged Care following this year's budget that, if things go as he has them, he will have capped two-thirds of health expenditure. What is becoming clear is that this is very much wishful thinking on the part of this minister. I imagine the minister saw an article which I read in this morning's Melbourne Age , which I think was also in the Sydney Morning Herald , by Ross Gittins. It was headed, `Viagra? It's bad medicine for taxpayers'. The article contained some information drawing on a piece which was written by Don Harding, from the Melbourne Institute, which I read yesterday. One of the things that is clear from the article, where Ross Gittins quotes Don Harding, is that we have had in this country significant cost control over the public part of Australia's health system for some time. Over the 20 years to 1995—and I am now referring to the work of Don Harding—the price of health services in Britain rose at an average rate 1.1 percentage points a year faster than the general inflation rate. In Canada, the excess was 1.3 percentage points a year. In the United States—the health system there is the one that this government would like to emulate—the figure was 1.8 per cent higher than the general inflation rate. But in Australia, the price of health services rose by just 0.2 percentage points a year faster than inflation.For the past 20 years, the government has effectively controlled the price of services that doctors provide in their surgeries because of the medical benefits schedule, bulk billing and the ban on gap insurance. This has meant that what people actually pay for medicine has risen no faster than prices generally.Even more interesting, given this year's budget, is the fact that over the same period, over the 20 years to 1995, the price pharmacists receive for their services in dispensing prescriptions, which is largely controlled by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—and my colleague will talk about this in more detail—has fallen by about 15 per cent relative to consumer prices generally.Let us look then at the area that this government likes to see as an increasing part of Australia's health system. This government wants to encourage private health insurance and private activity in our health system. If we look at what has happened to the price of private health insurance over the period to 1995, the cost since the introduction of Medicare, we see that it has actually risen 2.8 percentage points a year faster than consumer prices generally. If we look more broadly at the price of dental services, which are not controlled by the government but covered by private health insurance, they have risen by about 40 per cent more than other consumer prices.If we look more specifically to the article that Don Harding published, he went into the question of what the impact on the cost of health care in Australia would be as a result of the latest decision by this government to pour $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money into private health insurance. He said that, in the short run, subsidies do reduce the price to consumers by about the amount of the subsidy, but over time suppliers raise prices so as to capture a substantial part of the benefit. This is a widely observed phenomena and there is no reason to assume it will not occur in the case of private health insurance. Therefore, he says, it can be expected that much of the 30 per cent subsidy is likely to go to higher health insurance premiums and that therefore the subsidies will prove to be an expensive way to stem the rise in private health care costs. He goes on to say that, as a result of the recent announcements where the minister approved rises in premiums of between four and six per cent, a rate considerably above the annual rate of inflation, this is the initial evidence that his premonition is already coming true. The increased premiums, as he said, provide empirical support for the analysis above and suggest that the government's policy of providing a 30 per cent subsidy to private health insurance will only serve to fuel excess inflation in private health care and private health insurance.The minister's efforts to therefore claim that he will have capped two-thirds of the health budget when he is massively trying to expand the private side of health care at the expense of the public system will certainly never come to pass. In fact, what will happen is the reverse, that we will see, as Don Harding said, significant problems emerge in the private health system as a result of the increase in subsidies that have gone from this government to private health insurance.One of the areas that the minister likes to claim that he is about to put a cap on is that very large area of medical expenditure, the area of general practitioners. It is very timely that we are here debating this today because we are going to get the results of the consultations that the AMA has done with general practitioners tonight. I am going on material that was in the Australian yesterday which indicated that general practitioners are saying to the government and to the AMA, `Go back to the drawing board.'You would have to look very carefully to find any mention of this very big area of government expenditure in this year's budget. Even though the minister claims that he is about to cap expenditure in this area, it does not get a mention. There is no mention whatsoever in the budget of what is going to happen to general practice rebates. There is no mention of the so-called agreement that the minister hopes to sign. Of course, it is probably lucky that there was not any mention of it because now it seems as if the agreement is not going to come to pass. That is going to be pretty disastrous for this year's health budget because this minister had in mind using the savings that he hoped to get as a result of putting a cap on general practice expenditure to pay for many of the things that are new initiatives in the budget.The cuts to pathology and pharmacy budgets, which are detailed in the budget papers, will not come to pass because general practitioners are not going to sign up to the agreement that the government has put before them. There is no detail in the budget about how either the pathology or the pharmacy cuts are going to be implemented, nor any detail on how any of the benefits are going to be passed back to doctors and no agreement with the doctors about how these new schemes for pathology and pharmacy will be implemented.It is interesting to see another part of the way in which the minister has tried to get general practitioners to sign up to this new agreement that looks like it is going to get the knock tonight. He has offered $3,000 to general practitioners via what are called computer grants to get people to register in what is known as the Practice Improvement Program. I certainly would be the first to say that it is a good thing to encourage general practice to be computerised and to make sure that we get increased use of information technology in our general practices. But when we had a look at the detail, which we did in the Senate estimates process, of how this $3,000 was going to be used we find that this minister has just basically handed out the cheques. There is no requirement whatsoever for general practitioners to spend. It is not a small amount of money—$3,000—to be handed out to general practitioners just to register with the Practice Improvement Program, with no requirement whatsoever that they actually buy a computer. There is no requirement by this government or this minister that they be accountable in any way whatsoever for this hand-out of $3,000. If this Practice Improvement Program is any good we should be seeing doctors being willing and keen to join the program, not finding that we have to spend $3,000 a pop to general practitioners to try to get them into the scheme. It is another example of the minister spraying around money trying to get doctors to join a program and having no accountability whatsoever for taxpayers' money.The other area that I want to touch on is another example of the minister claiming great success at getting the cost of health care under control although, as the article from Ross Gittins and the work by Don Harding shows, it is well and truly under control when you look at the costs above inflation and look at Australia relative to other countries. But look at what this minister has done in radiology. We have heard quite a bit about his claims that he has completely controlled the radiology budget and that he has an agreement with the Royal College of Radiologists. But now we once again hear the detail of what has happened. The radiology budget has blown out by $35 million this year and I understand is projected to exceed $130 million over budget over the next three years. The minister has assured us all in the parliament that the cap would be effective but the radiologists seem to have a very different interpretation of the agreement.In the radiologists' terms, if rebates are reduced by this minister in accordance with the agreement to keep within the budget then the problem will be transferred to patients because radiologists have made it very clear that they will not be reducing any of their incomes. If the minister decides to reduce the rebate then, of course, the bunnies in the process will be the patients, who the radiologists are saying will be up to $150 per procedure out of pocket. This is not budget control. This is just handing over responsibility to the radiologists for setting fees and transferring the cost to the public.Let us get a few of the facts on the table about what has happened over the last 20 years. In fact, it was as a result of Labor implementing a national health insurance scheme, Medicare, that the cost of health care in Australia has been kept under control. It is this government with its determined effort to pour money into private health insurance which will see the private health sector, where costs are growing way out of control, grow. That seems to be the thing that this minister will be known for and all of the areas in which he claims to have capped expenditure look set to fail. Certainly I would welcome this minister responding to some of these questions today to see where he intends in fact to rein in the costs that are out of control both in private health insurance and in general practice and radiology.16:45:007313Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I would like to make a few comments this afternoon about a couple of budget items that I think do raise some real questions as to what the government is seeking to achieve in the health budget. In particular, I would like to look at these two items which have produced a situation where budget cuts have been obscured by more than $95 million.Budget papers show a saving over four years of $187.4 million on projected costs for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme through the implementation of the Quality Incentives for the General Practice Program, which was mentioned by the member for Jagajaga in her earlier contribution. The savings are presented as a net figure, with payments to GPs intended to be at 50 per cent of savings generated, paid in the following financial year. After questions were raised regarding this matter, the department provided a more detailed breakdown of estimates.The actual projected figure for PBS savings over four years is $259.2 million—more than a quarter of a billion dollars. The principal item missing from the budget papers relates to the estimated payments to GPs as part of the as yet undefined undeveloped incentive scheme—some $78 million over three years, with an accrued liability in the fourth year of more than $51 million. That is more than $129 million in a four-year period to be paid out to GPs.A similar approach was taken with pathology services, where instead of $110.4 million over four years, the real figure is $133.9 million. An incentive pool, including financial incentives, is to be developed at a cost of $27.6 million over four years. Across these two areas, additional cuts of more than $95 million have been approved. At the same time, massive financial incentives for practitioners have been authorised—in the case of GPs, at a projected cost of more than $129 million in a four-year period.Although the Labor Party is prepared to support initiatives designed to try to address some of these points around the question of increased expenditure in the PBS, there are some real concerns about the detail of what is proposed. As the Minister for Health and Aged Care is in the chamber, I hope he will take the opportunity of responding to address some of those concerns. Certainly, when we have tried to get some answers from the department about the detail of these issues, initially, when we requested detail of what sorts of assumptions were being made to arrive at these sorts of figures, we were led to believe in a briefing from the department that those figures would be provided. Several days later it was put back to us that, in fact, these matters were cabinet-in-confidence. So we still do not know the detail as to how these matters have been assumed with respect to the sorts of figures involved.They are major figures. We are talking about the major saving that is outlined in the budget. There is a general point there about the question of how you actually design the budget papers and put the figures out. To a query from the opposition, the response from the government has been that this is fairly much the way it goes. You quite often have net figures in a budget when you look at the question of administrative costs and other matters of that nature. But you do not have a situation where you have these sorts of figures hidden away. The fact is that the incentive payments to doctors that are proposed are effectively large budget items themselves. There are a lot larger than a hell of a lot of other items that are in the budget, and ought to have been justified as a line item in their own right in order to make sure that was obvious. Instead, it took a fair bit of trawling to establish the detail on what was being proposed by the government in these circumstances.When we look at these sorts of figures, we get a lot of questions which need to be answered about the operation of this scheme. I hope the minister will take the opportunity, in responding to the appropriations, to address some of those issues. I do not think it is fair to go down the track of saying this is merely cabinet-in-confidence. The fact is that these sorts of issues and figures are significant. They are issues that have been raised by the AMA. The issue of negotiation on these points is something that has to go on, I have no doubt, but we would at least like some indication of what the government's thinking is in this area. It certainly ought to be something that can be done by the minister at the table. I hope he takes the opportunity. I certainly promise to hang around to hear his answer. I look forward to being enlightened by him in the circumstances, and certainly hope he will not disappoint me. I have a worrying feeling that he may in fact do so.16:50:007314Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—The member for Jagajaga made mention of Don Harding's presentation to the Melbourne Institute yesterday. I want to draw the parliament's attention to Dick Scotton's paper on managed competition. Scotton has provided an effective third approach in health policy that gets us out of this narrow debate about private sector and public sector shares. The international experience shows there is no public versus private equilibrium in health policy. The best thing to do is to integrate funding, to integrate service delivery, and ensure that the problems plaguing the Australian health system are overcome. Scotton does this by developing a managed competition model.We have a very narrow debate in this parliament. One side says, `Well, it is a matter of more public money for private insurance.' The other side says, `Well, no, it is a matter of more public money for public hospitals.' In the terms of that debate, the Labor opposition is absolutely correct. Harding's research shows that this one-off 30 per cent tax rebate will dissipate over time, that as the health premiums go back up for the private insurers, the membership numbers will move back to their previous level. So there is no benefit in putting a huge amount of public money into private insurance, and the ALP is certainly correct in making that criticism. But my point is that the debate itself is rather limited. Each of the major challenges in health policy is not going to be tackled and resolved by an ongoing private versus public struggle.The private versus public debate will not address the new medical technologies. It will not address the cost shifting problem between federal and state governments. It will not address the ageing population. It will not address the increased pressure on private health costs. None of these new issues will be addressed by the sort of debate that we have in this parliament. That is why Scotton's work is so important, because what he is talking about is the integration of public and private sectors into one national health plan. That is the only way you will ever do something about cost shifting. That is the only way you will ever do something about choice and efficiency in the system. You can do all those things, in Scotton's work, while maintaining the traditional left wing benefits of universal public health insurance and equitable access to services. So Scotton's material really does provide the way forward. On this side of the parliament it has always been the guiding light. His main point now is that you need to renovate Medicare, not replace it; you need to renovate Medicare to save it because all the pressures and trends are working against the public system. That is why a new approach is required.What Scotton is talking about is for every Australian resident to receive a risk rated capitation payment—that is, an amount of money to cover their basic public insurance needs, weighted according to their exposure to health risk. They can then use that money in one of two ways. They can either leave that money in the current Medicare arrangements, giving them access to free public hospitals, bulk billing GPs and affordable pharmaceuticals, or they can take that capitation payment and join a non-government insurance fund, topping up with their own resources to widen their insurance coverage. This has the great benefit of pooling funding around the federal government, establishing the federal government as the risk rater and the distributor of these capitation amounts, and it leaves the states to run the budget holding or the health insurance plans and all the public sector services in health.You get a clean division of responsibility between the Commonwealth and the states. That fixes up the cost shifting problem. And because the money follows the patients, for a region like mine in Western Sydney where we are hopelessly underresourced by both public and private sectors, you start to get a bit of funding equity on a locational basis. So all of your equity concerns are addressed in the Scotton plan. And because you are starting to get, in this integrated national system, some competition between the insurance providers, you also get the benefits of choice and efficiency which the other side of the parliament often talk about but have got absolutely no idea of achieving in their current policy structure.This is guiding stuff. This is the best way to approach health policy. I know that yesterday's proceedings at the Hyatt Hotel have received some publicity today, but the real focus should be on Dick Scotton's material. This plan has so many advantages that it needs to be further developed. It ends the barren struggle, the impossible dream of some equilibrium between private and public health shares. I think it gives the best guide as to how we can now modernise Medicare and spread its success throughout the Australian health sector.16:55:007316Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank honourable members for their contribution and I thank the member for Werriwa for his contribution. I agree with him entirely. There is an extraordinarily narrow debate about health. For the opposition, I think that it is an area in the most part which seems to be locked in the creation of a national health service 50 years ago.I know Dick Scotton very well. Dick Scotton worked in the department where I did my MBA from 1987 to 1991, and I am very familiar with his ideas. He is one of the few thinkers putting forward a coherent plan. The member for Werriwa has been quite courageous in advocating this. I do not expect to see anyone else in his party advocating it in the foreseeable future.K26LATHAMMr Latham—What about yours?8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—I am not advocating it because I think we have a pretty good system. I am not aware of a risk rated capitation system like he proposes working anywhere in the world. I have no intention of risking chewing up what is a pretty good system for something that is unproven. There are some things in it which are attractive and some elements of it that are being progressed through coordinated care.In my view that meeting yesterday was indicative of what absolutely plagues health. A whole lot of people might be able to talk about things that are good in theory but they lack simple practical commonsense when trying to apply those things on the ground. I have some experience of how that operated 20 years ago and I am not going to be health minister while it happens in Australia. But it is a useful contribution to the debate.The member for Bruce asks about the changes in pharmacy. They are not actually a cut because nothing would be cut, as such, not even a cut on forward projections. It would be a different utilisation. The best I can give him off the top of my head is that, as I recollect, we took a number of areas, two of which were what would be best practice in prescribing for high blood pressure. Another one would be what would be known as best practice in prescribing antibiotics. We had a look at whether best practice was commonplace across those two areas—I think there are one or two others but they are the ones I remember—and what would be the direct savings to the system.So it is not as if we are actually cutting anything. We are just saying that with the current knowledge and current practice, with what doctors who were at best practice were doing, if we could bring the other doctors up to best practice what savings would flow through to the system. You clearly cannot do that without the cooperation of the medical profession. We felt it fair that if the medical profession were to actively and aggressively cooperate with us in trying to have best practice in these two areas the savings should be shared with them.VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—How do you get the figure for that?8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—The figure is a best estimate that you can get between where you are now and the cost of what you do now and the cost of what you would do if you had best practice. In many cases, as any GP will tell you, you should not actually be providing antibiotics for upper respiratory infections but far too many people in Australia get them unnecessarily. That is where your cost is. We have no intention of saying that doctors cannot do it. We are just saying that if the medical profession itself were to promulgate and promote best practice, what would be the cost changes that would flow from that.The member for Jagajaga made a number of contributions, many of which were incorrect. In terms of capping, I am happy to check what I have said as I recollect I have only ever talked about the general practice of the MBS budget, not the health budget. The MBS budget is about $6 billion. If indeed we do get an agreement with general practice we will probably have around two-thirds of that budget under some sort of a cap. Caps go over and caps go under. You have a target and you seek to meet that. In the last three years we have been stunningly successful with pathology and we have signed another agreement with them. Again, there is talk about cuts to pathology: there are no cuts to pathology whatsoever. In fact pathology believe that they can drive further efficiencies through another agreement. That is not a cut.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—That is semantics.8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—No, it is not semantics. A cut implies that you are taking something away. We are not taking something away. In fact, we are doing things that you could never have dreamt of far more efficiently.The member for Jagajaga also mentioned that it would be disastrous for the budget if the agreement did not come off. That is also wrong, but I can understand how it is a bit complicated to work out the figures on these things. The fact is that the GP agreement, if it is signed, will provide very great additional resources to the budget. These resources will not flow through in the absence of an agreement, so if the agreement is not signed money will be returned to the budget bottom line. If the savings are not made through best practice in pharmacy then the amount of money we would save by not having to pay the extra money under the agreement is much greater. The net effect will be a saving to the budget, not an expense to the budget.The shadow minister talked about the practice incentive payments. Again, I would have thought that getting 75 per cent of GPs to sign up for anything was an example of how popular it was. Seventy-five per cent are signed up prior to the new structured payment for information technology. The practice incentive payments are a pool of money funded out of the savings from having only half indexation in general practitioner rebates for the last five years. In a sense it is money that would have gone to general practice anyway. The intention was always that it would be part of a payment to general practice that would be a practice payment rather than a fee-for-service payment. As such, it is right and legitimate that it should be given out. It has no connection in any way at all with the GP agreement we seek to sign. It is completely independent of that, it predates that and it will go ahead. The only thing that has changed since the Labor Party was in government is that—off the top of my head—when we came into government, about a quarter of the doctors had signed up. Today we have three-quarters signed up, and there is clearly much more confidence.Finally, the shadow minister raises the issue of radiologists. At the moment the cost of diagnostic imaging is increasing at its historical trend. It is increasing at the level that it did under the Labor Party, and I agree that this is far too much. But in terms of a budget blow out, the only blow out is that we had hoped to make some sensible savings with radiology and we have not. It is still on its long-term growth rate, but it is no greater than it has been for any year in the last decade.It is over by about $36 million this year on what we had hoped it to be, but it is a three-year agreement. If you have a look at the last agreement we had with pathologists, which was over three years, at some stage it was over and at some stage it was under. We are having discussions with radiologists, and I am confident that over a three-year period, which is the only way you can judge these things, it will come in on budget. The Commonwealth has many ways that it can seek to do this, and I think as soon as the Royal Australasian College of Radiologists actually decides to take its obligations seriously we might be able to do something.Proposed expenditure agreed to.Department of Foreign Affairs and TradeProposed expenditure, $2,242,405,000.17:04:007318Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—Australian trade and foreign policy is naturally enough focused on the Asia-Pacific region. During April and early May, however, I had the opportunity to visit south-eastern Europe. During the course of that visit, I visited a number of countries—Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria and Macedonia.This is an area that Australia has traditionally not focused a great deal of attention on and it presents an opportunity that we now need to address. It is certainly welcome that the government has announced the opening of a diplomatic mission in Zagreb in Croatia. I understand that a trade mission has been or is about to be established in Bucharest in Romania. These are welcome initiatives, but there is a range of significant opportunities that the government continues not to address adequately.During the visit to the Balkans, I had the opportunity to visit the Kosovo border and was on that border on a day when some 11,000 refugees came across. The circumstances and the terrible conditions in that region came home very starkly to me. We are now looking at a situation where not only a massive construction task will be required as a direct consequence of the war but also all the indications seem to be that North America and Western Europe are at long last prepared—through some sort of arrangement which probably needs to be on the scale of the Marshall Plan post Second World War—to address the fundamental social and economic development needs of that region. That is obviously a very sensible approach because, fundamentally, there will be no solution to the problems of the Balkans, which have been a significant source of instability during the 20th century, without that sort of serious effort being put into economic and social construction. I have been speaking in this House in the last few weeks about the trip I made to Macedonia and have drawn the attention of the House to the extraordinarily difficult economic and social circumstances in which Macedonia finds itself as a consequence of the war, given its dependence on Yugoslavia—not so much as a direct export market but certainly as a major route to Western and Central Europe. Over the last couple of weeks in the House, I have also made reference to observations made by Bulgarian officials to me about their disappointment at the insufficient attention given by Australian officials to a number of propositions they have been making to Australia for some time with respect to creating a more adequate framework for closer economic relations between Australia and Bulgaria. There is very little trade and economic interaction between Australia and Bulgaria, but it is not good enough to use that as a reason for not creating the frameworks that would in fact enable closer interactions to occur. That country is important not only because of its location in the Balkans but also because it is a linchpin in the Black Sea economic cooperation arrangements that are developing in that part of Europe and the parts of the former Soviet Union that impinge on the Black Sea.There are considerable opportunities arising for Australian business, given the renewed focus of the world—particularly the West, broadly defined—on the development needs of that region. I am not talking here about Australian aid; I am talking about real Australian business opportunities which will arise from the significant investment I think we can anticipate will occur in the region. DFAT ought to be encouraged to establish some sort of structure or task force to press ahead with identifying the opportunities that are there. Australia has significant advantages in positioning itself within that process. Firstly, Australian business has significant skills with respect to the sorts of infrastructure development requirements that the region has very much on its agenda. These are needs such as roads, electricity, ports and telecommunications development.Very importantly, Australia does not carry the political or strategic baggage of dealing in the region and with governments in the region that many other places do, like North America and Western Europe. So we are in a significantly strong position to be seen to be dealing on a straight-out commercial basis. Australia is also now the home of a significant community of people whose former homelands are in that part of the world, so the language and cultural connections are significant and ought to be developed. Whilst not suggesting for a moment that the primary focus of our approach to trade, investment and foreign affairs should be anything other than on our region of principal strategic interests, I do nonetheless believe that there are now significant opportunities there for Australia to pursue, with appropriate leadership from the government.These are matters that I have discussed in a bipartisan way with several backbenchers on the government side. The member for Deakin visited Albania at much the same time as I was in the region and concurs with the broad views I have outlined. The member for Forde, who is Chair of the Australia-Bulgaria Parliamentary Friendship Group, certainly concurs. These are areas where Australian opportunities are significant and we ought to be pursuing them vigorously.17:10:007319Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in this debate on the appropriation for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, not to engage in some sort of polemic in relation to the deficiencies of the department but rather to make some observations about useful aspects of the department's activities which could perhaps be enhanced.When we talk about foreign policy, we are often directed to consider in detail the fabric of Australia's political relationships across the region and across the world: economic engagement, the advancement of trade interests, attraction of international investment and immigration interests—the whole pattern and fabric of our regional and broader international engagements. In a way, all these things fall within the schema of the formal diplomacy of the nation.But I would like to address my remarks to something a little different. It relates to what is described in the literature these days as the `soft diplomacy' of the nation and it goes to the heart of the question of how in fact Australia is perceived in the region—how we are seen in Jakarta; how we are seen in Beijing; how we are seen in Tokyo; how we are seen in Singapore; how we are seen in Bangkok—and what concretely can be done to affect those perceptions in a manner which is compatible with Australian interests.Looking at the way in which soft diplomacy operates around the world, we see that there are two instruments which are classically available to nation states to advance their interests: one is the use of radio and the other is the use of television. Radio Australia is a very important instrument through which this country can articulate an image of itself to the region. Beyond simply a projection of a benign and constructive image of the nation at large, it actually can perform considerable value adding in delivering education services to students of English in the region as well. Over the many years I have been in and out of the region, I have had many positive reports from elites, from students and from others about the particular advantages they have derived from Radio Australia's services. It is, therefore, a problem when we start to roll these services back.Australia, being essentially a European country in a region populated by peoples of diverse races and diverse languages, is confronted by one of the more complex challenges of soft diplomacy of any nation state. That is why the use of mechanisms such as Radio Australia are so important. We should not, therefore, be walking away from those mechanisms; rather, we should be enhancing them. They are most important in reinforcing the sort of image of ourselves we wish to plant in the region over time.Related to that, of course, is Australia Television International. This began as a great idea some years ago; but, unfortunately, it has gone through something of an eclipse. In the period of the current government, it was sold in large measure to Channel 7 and it currently operates essentially as an extension of Channel 7. I make no particular criticism of Channel 7; however, the reality is that, as you travel through the region, the image which Australia Television International projects of Australia is one which I do not think any side of politics in this place would be happy with.Of all the international television services which operate across the region, it would have to be, I would argue, the least professional. It is, I think, projecting to the region an image of the country which does not sit at all comfortably with the reality of what we wish to project. When I was recently in Indonesia with a parliamentary monitoring team which travelled there for the Indonesian national elections in early June, I could not help but be struck by the stark contrast between what you found on Australian television, as broadcast to Surabaya in eastern Java where we were, as opposed to what you would find on the BBC or the French or German equivalent. Of course, the tragedy of all this is that this is our region. It is the region where we in fact face a much more direct challenge—the prosecution of our interests—than does the BBC on behalf of Britain or do the French and German equivalents on behalf of their governments.Rather than walk away from the importance of this as an instrument of what I have described as the soft diplomacy of the nation, it should instead be enhanced. It would be enormously useful if portfolios such as that represented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade here with us today could lend their support to the further resourcing of these instruments because unless we do so, and do so effectively, what we will find is that we will simply be left behind.At the end of the day, actions by governments and actions by corporations and actions by individuals are shaped by a whole range of factors. If you engage in a business transaction— and the parliamentary secretary at the table has a lot of experience of this—then obviously on an export matter or on an investment matter the outcome of the transaction is shaped in large measure by questions of price—that is, it is shaped by whether you will receive an appropriate return on the investment that you are about to make, or whether you will achieve an acceptably profitable return in terms of the export that you are seeking to negotiate. All that is true.Another part of the fabric of that exchange is: what is my perception of the politics of the country with which I am dealing? What is my perception of the politics of engaging, for example, in an export transaction with North Korea? I think at this point you would start to ask yourself whether it was a profitable thing to do because of all sorts of associations of country risk in dealing with a country like North Korea.But there is a third element in the equation as well which goes beyond the intrinsics of the business transaction and which goes beyond broad political perceptions of the governments of the countries concerned. It goes to the heart of what, at a broad and public level, is a country's perception of another; what is a society's perception of another. These perceptions are enormously influenced by the mass media—through radio and through television and to a lesser extent, I have to say, through print. These are the media through which we need to be shaping a future vision of this country in Asia. Yet these are the media from which we are currently withdrawing in terms of the resources allocated to Radio Australia and the resources allocated to Australia Television International. This is a problem for the effective prosecution of our long-term interest in the region.The comments that I make are not intended to be some harsh point by point polemic or an exercise in finger pointing and finger shaking. They are, by contrast, an expression of deep and personal concern about how we need radically to lift our game in the region, how we need radically to lift our game in terms of this nation's soft diplomacy, and how we need radically to inject additional funds into Radio Australia and into services like Australia Television International to make them not just the best in the region but the best in the world.Why can't we have for ourselves a vision for, for example, the future of Australia Television International which says, `Why can't we have a BBC-type service in terms of its quality?' Why can't we, for example, become reputed within this region as being a source of objective international news to the various societies and countries within East Asia which rely often on external broadcasting through which to access their news? Why can't we set the standards that high for the sort of service which we would wish to have represent this country in terms of media broadcasting in the region? That is the direction where I would like to see the country go.Given the resources of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and given the purchase which the minister and the parliamentary secretaries within that portfolio have on this overall area of public policy, my strong encouragement to them is this: as we enter into future negotiations about resource allocations in these areas we should not be walking backwards; we should be walking forwards. We should be using these opportunities to enhance our soft diplomacy, to enhance our public diplomacy, to enhance the professionalism and standing of these media operations, particularly within East Asia, because at the end of the day they shape a vision of the country in the minds of people with whom we will deal, be it in business, be it in commerce, be it in migration or be it across the whole raft and texture of our engagements across the region.17:19:007322Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—I just wish to make a few comments about the trade aspects of this portfolio. For some time I have been a little concerned that we have concentrated so much on the slogan and catchcry of free trade, when in fact I think it is in Australia's best interests if we approach it from a viewpoint of fair trade. I was interested to note in Monday's Age an article by Tim Colebatch who quoted a recent OECD Economic Outlook which looked at trade barriers of various overseas countries. The conclusions of the OECD study were that, of course, Australia's trade barriers have always been low and are much lower than those of our trading competitors.If we look at the average tariff in the period from 1988 to 1996 we see that Australia's average tariff has dropped from 11.2 per cent to 4.2 per cent. That compares to the situation in Japan where in the same period it dropped from 4.2 to 3.4, Switzerland 4.8 to 3.2, the EU 8.2 to only 7.7, New Zealand 10.6 to 5.1 and interestingly enough in the same eight-year period in the United States average tariffs have increased from 4.4 per cent to 5.2 per cent and even more alarmingly in Canada from 8.7 per cent to 12.1 per cent.But, of course, the tariffs are only part of the question and this OECD study went to non-tariff barriers. Those non-tariff barriers can be things like import quotas, voluntary export restraints, industry subsidies, technical barriers to trade, closed service sectors and anti-dumping duties, as Colebatch indicates in his article. In that area Australia has always been at the very lowest of that category. Taken as a percentage of tariff lines in 1988 Australia had 3.4 per cent of tariff lines with non-tariff barriers and that dropped in 1996 to 0.7 per cent. If we look at Japan, which traditionally has been high in this area, 13.1 in 1988 went to 10.7 in 1996. We look at the USA: 25.5 to 16.8. I think that those are the sorts of things that we need to bear in mind when traditionally Australia has been a leader in that rush to free trade. I understand that there is plenty of economic theory about why that should be the case. In a global economy there are, at the end of the day, advantages to Australia but I just wonder whether we should be the trendsetter all the time.In particular I want to raise the case of one particular firm that operates in my electorate and that is the Howe company which makes automotive leather products. Howe was taken to the World Trade Organisation by United States concerns. I think that is an indication of how the powerful lobby groups in the United States operate. They can get well funded cases taken to organisations like the WTO when, in fact, they think they are under threat by actions of overseas competitors. Regrettably, in this case the decision of the WTO appellant body went against what the government had done to assist Howe Leather. I note now that the government have decided not to appeal the decision. That is on the basis that after consultation with the company they believe they can enter into a course of action that will protect Howe's interests. In this particular case I have got to say that I take to heart the interests, as a local member, of the 350 people who actually work for Howe and the protection of their jobs. But Howe has been very much a success in the way in which it has been able to compete on the world stage of commerce. I believe that Howe is placed to be able to expand its operations and should be given support to enable it to do so. As to the fact that the government has decided not to appeal, having received the reply from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, I can see that there are particular reasons why he has taken this course of action. (Extension of time granted)Whilst I understand in this particular case the reasons that the Minister for Trade has taken this action, I am a little concerned about whether Australia is equipping itself properly to take protective action when these sorts of questions are raised at the World Trade Organisation. If we look at the particular problems that Australia now has with lamb, amongst other things, the only way we are going to have any success in sticking up for our producers and manufacturers is by having properly resourced people that attack the cases of our competitors in the World Trade Organisation, getting a better understanding of the way in which our competitors play the game and, if need be, taking the type of retaliatory action that has been taken by other governments.Going back to the Colebatch article, it is very interesting to look at the levels of protection in the United States and Canada, which are amongst the most aggressive governments when it comes to protecting their producers and manufacturers. In the European Union, the non-tariff barriers have dropped from 26.6 per cent to 19.1 per cent of the tariff lines. I just hope that, as we rush to this goal of pure free trade, Australia might take the attitude that we have to be realistic about the pace at which we implement it, that we take the realistic view that what we endeavour to do on behalf of Australian business and commerce is to look to a situation that has as its basis fair trade.17:27:007323Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—My friend and colleague the member for Scullin, in his use of the Age newspaper and Tim Colebatch's research, has prompted me to join the debate. The Age have been the most consistent economic protectionist newspaper in this country, and they have been consistently wrong. Does anyone here pretend for a moment that Australia would now be better off with Malcolm Fraser's tariff levels, that if we went back to the tariff levels of the late 1970s, Australia would somehow be better off? Because that, in the end, is the logical conclusion of what people like Colebatch say.The other thing about Tim Colebatch is that not only is his paper sullied on this issue but his own independence is in question because he is wrapped up with a political outfit in Melbourne dedicated to the end of free trade. They are as inward looking and regressive a group as you will find on any part of the Australian political landscape. So let us question the independence of Colebatch and also the research. There is a very interesting study—I wish I had brought it up with me—by Fred Bergsten of the APEC grouping, showing that, for Australia's significant trading partners, their rate of trade liberalisation has been much faster than ours.I would not worry too much about Europe and what is happening in downtown Switzerland. That is not a major component of Australia's trade. I would worry much more about New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore, all with very much lower average rates of tariff than Australia. I would not worry too much about this unilateral disarmament argument, because if everyone said, `Well, we will look over our shoulder,' then logic tells you what happens. If every country says that, nothing happens. There is no trade liberalisation. It defies every single rule of multilateral agreements.The thing that Australia has agreed to is the APEC agreement. That says that every country will do its very best to reach the Bogor targets of free trade and investment for developed nations by the year 2010, non-developed nations by the year 2020. That is not a bilateral agreement. It is a multilateral agreement, where every country gives a commitment to do its best. Whether we like it or not in Australia, our best is not good enough, because two of our manufacturing sectors are among the most heavily protected sectors in the developed world—TCF and cars.While we have made significant progress, you need to be ever vigilant in these debates and ever mindful of some of the poor research and some of the poor motives. So I put these things to the parliament not because I think my colleague would ever be wrong, but I would hate to see him misguided by poor research and poor motives. I am just trying to be helpful on these things and clarify some of the matters to match up the APEC—XJ6ANTHONYMr Anthony—I thought you were meant to be debating us, not each other.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—We can debate you on this because you are responsible for keeping the tariffs high in TCF and cars. You are the government of the day that squibbed it. Not only that, you are the government which has written into our individual action plans for APEC the unilateral disarmament nonsense. You have written into our IAPs for APEC the fact that Australia will look over its shoulder, that what we do in the year 2005 on TCF and cars will be conditional—these are your words—on what other countries do. So don't get too swarmy over there.You ought to read your own individual action plan for APEC. It shows very clearly that you too have fallen for some of this protectionist nonsense that emanates from the Melbourne Age. You should know better, coming from northern New South Wales, and you should be aware of your own individual action plans. You have written in conditions that Australia will not reduce its rates of tariff in these two highly protected industries in 2005 unless other countries do likewise. If everyone said that, nothing would happen, no trade barriers would be removed and there would be no net gain for any of the countries in the Asia-Pacific region. You should go away to your minister and rewrite those individual action plans; not only question the research and the motives, and try and be as helpful as I have, but actually act on it and do something constructive for the cause of free trade and cooperation between nations.In the end, people on this side of the parliament believe in cooperation between people in different nations. If you cannot cooperate and see the benefits of multilateral trade agreements and stick to them, it is a very poor day for the left wing of politics. If you do not believe in international cooperation in an era of global capital, you can believe in nothing; you believe in nothing more than distrust and dishonour and some of the poor research you get out of the likes of Tim Colebatch.17:32:007324Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—If only to prove how robust the Australian Labor Party is, I feel obliged now, having caused this extension of the debate on this portfolio item, to make a few comments on the comments by my colleague the honourable member for Werriwa. At the end of the day, the debate that we have is about the pace of the change. I do not think we should jump to the conclusion that anybody is concluding on this side of politics that we really want to wind back and return to the type of protectionist world that has existed.I can see that in the area I represent, where we have a high reliance on manufacturing industry for employment, that at the end of the day, by proper international competition, there is some gain to be had. But having said that, I think that when we look at industries like the automotive industry and textile, clothing and footwear industry with the concentration of employment participation in certain areas and regions of Australia, to take the pure form of policy action that the honourable member for Werriwa is putting quite earnestly and consistently—and one has to admire that he has stuck to that path—is something that does need to be looked at. It would have devastating effects on the northern suburbs of Melbourne, for instance, if we were to rush to the timetables that were previously considered.The agreements that were made about the textile, clothing and footwear industry and about the passenger motor vehicle sector mean that Australia will achieve what was intended over a longer period. Whether the Age is protectionist, whether Victoria is protectionist, is not really the point. That might only indicate the point that I made, that in some regions of Australia the effect of this type of trade liberalisation can be greater than in other areas.The point that I also want to emphasise is that, no matter what the statistics, whether other trading competitors have been able to achieve greater rates of change because they were off higher bases or whatever, Australia should not be done over by the actions of others. This has been my concern all along. I can make that point at the same time that the honourable member for Werriwa makes his point. Australia cannot afford, in the transition that is going on in trade liberalisation, to be done over by competitors that will not do the right thing.In fact, there are a number of sectors where it appears that that is the case. If the honourable member for Werriwa is suggesting that trading competitors like the United States and, in some sectors, Japan, are doing the right thing and achieving trade liberalisation at the right pace, I stand to be corrected. In certain areas, I believe that they are not because of the way in which their political systems work to lead to the protection of very serious and strong lobby groups, especially in the United States Congress.Australian manufacturers and Australian primary producers should not be the people that suffer because of that phenomenon of their political system. That is the point that I tried to make. As we go down the track, I think it is a matter of the way in which we implement the types of reductions in trade barriers that Australia will continue to make. Australia has achieved a lot. Australia has been a major leader in the way in which it has reached the degree of trade liberalisation it has. As I said from the outset, I do not want to be the country that gets the gold medal for achieving free trade first if at the end of the day we have got nothing to trade because we have been done over by unfair tactics of our competitors.17:36:007325Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN3E4MoncrieffLP10—I am here essentially to talk on foreign affairs matters and my colleague, the parliamentary secretary for trade, will respond in detail on trade issues.However I cannot resist making one comment in relation to the siren song of protectionism that we have heard from the member for Scullin. Prior to my being a member of the House of Representatives, I had more than 10 years as a senator for Queensland and I fought the great fight on tariffs with the Victorians in my party room on what was good for Australia and what was not. Then through all my years in opposition in the House of Representatives, I had this mantra chanted at me by constituents: `Yes, but look what our competitors are doing. It is all very well for us to talk about doing the right thing but it is not a level playing field.'It is a siren song. It always comes from the people whose industry is presently under pressure. It is not a general debate in the community. The people who are espousing it might shift from time to time, depending on whether it is the car industry or textiles or the sugar industry or some other industry which is under pressure. Really, it is a debate of virtually no intellectual objective value.When it comes from someone who does not have an interest in the issue, then I will take it more seriously. That level playing field, which I think the Colebatch article was essentially supposed to be about, is an argument that has never been well demonstrated.I sympathise with the member for Werriwa, but he was a frontbencher in the opposition in the last parliament—I guess there were some pretty vigorous debates in the shadow ministry as well as in the caucus on the subject—but it was in the last parliament that the Labor Party took away the bipartisan support of this issue that we, the coalition when in opposition, at some cost to ourselves, actually gave to successive Labor governments on the issue.To return to the couple of points about foreign affairs that have been made, I thank the members for Maribyrnong and Griffith for their contributions to the debate and their interest in the estimates of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The suggestion made by the member for Maribyrnong that DFAT—I hope I have got this right—should establish some sort of task force to identify our needs and opportunities in the region, is one that I cannot answer off the top of my head, but certainly it will be conveyed back to the minister and to the department and will receive due consideration.Reference is, nevertheless, made to the fact that we have taken two initiatives in this budget, to open a consulate in Dili and a post in Zagreb. Whilst Zagreb is in Croatia—although my geography is not good, that much I know because my briefing notes say so—I am not totally sure whether Croatia and Bulgaria have a border. Nevertheless—QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—No, there's no border.3E4Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN—But they are in the same area.QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—Yugoslavia is in between.3E4Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN—Right, but they are in the same area. It was decided to open an embassy in Zagreb, at a time when one does not lightly make decisions to open embassies, because of its location in relation to the region and how it might serve our interests in the region along the lines suggested by the member for Maribyrnong.The member for Griffith, who I understand is a former DFAT officer, made some comments about what he called soft diplomacy. There has been quite a bit of debate in recent years about the Australian government's approach to issues such as Australia Television International and Radio Australia and I do not intend to revisit those debates. However, it should be said that these are, of course, not the only arms of government activity in the area. I will return to that in a minute but I just want to make a couple of comments. Radio Australia performs a very particular function and one that I know is appreciated by many people who receive it. It is very particular and radio, after all, is a pretty cheap sort of technology on the whole. ATI of course, is in another category. It would be lovely, I am sure, if Australia had some worldwide satellite broadcast television channel that rivalled the BBC. We would all be very pleased and proud and happy, but that is not in the realms of the real world. (Extension of time granted)What do I watch on the rare occasions when I do watch television? Apart from Australian news, I do turn to satellite TV, I have to admit. The general pap that is on Australian commercial television is not something that—QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—Did you say `pap'?3E4Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN—Yes. It is not something which entertains me greatly. I suspect that the member for Griffith and I might have something approaching the same tastes in television. I do watch BBC World, amongst other channels, as my little bit of television viewing.However, the facts are that when one looks at television ratings in Australia it is the form of television that I have rather rudely referred to as `pap' that is the high rating stuff. That is what Australians like. That is what they watch, and it includes programs like Neighbours and so on. I have never watched Neighbours. I do not say that with any sense of pride, it just so happens that I have not seen it. There have been other programs on that I would rather watch at the same time.I have watched ATI when I have been travelling in the region. Principally I would turn it on out of curiosity to see if there was some news, or to watch a football game if the semis or finals were on, or something like that. I would do that out of curiosity to see what sort of image we are broadcasting. Having satisfied myself as to that, I will then turn to BBC World or CNN and watch them as my main television entertainment when I am travelling overseas.However, we have to be careful not to be snobs about this. This is the television that portrays Australia. It is the sort of television that Australians like to watch, and that should be taken into account. I am not going to be prescriptive about what ATI should be showing but I just caution the member for Griffith not to be too fussy in his views on what should be shown on it, and to cast his mind over what are the sorts of programs that his own constituents like to watch. It is the real stuff of Australian entertainment.We have not withdrawn, as the member said, from the matter of our image overseas, not at all. DFAT has a program called Images of Australia which is a very active one. It recognises certainly that radio and television are powerful in other countries, but it recognises also that the main power in those countries is with their own radio and television.All our posts are very active in identifying first of all anything negative—any negative reporting or image of Australia—that appears in any other country's media. It then employs appropriate ways of addressing the problem. I might say it does so with a very high degree of success in terms of meeting either in the print media, radio or television the things that might give an unfavourable, an unfairly unfavourable, image of Australia. Such things are very promptly addressed. We have people serving us overseas who are very skilled and well placed in order to combat those negative messages.Images of Australia has other dimensions to it which relate to exhibitions, travelling exhibitions, cultural events and so on. The whole idea is to try to give as rounded an image of Australia as we can particularly, but not exclusively, in our region.In summary, it is therefore a mistake to say that Radio Australia and ATI are the only ways in which our images are conveyed in other countries. It is also a mistake to look through the prism of one's own personal preferences in multimedia entertainment. That said, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Main Committee for its forbearance in allowing me to talk for so long.17:45:007327Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I would certainly like to respond to some of the comments made by the members for Maribyrnong, Griffith, Werriwa and Scullin. But unlike the opposition, I certainly will not be arguing with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs over policy formation because I think it was clearly demonstrated in this Main Committee not so long ago that there is a defined foreign affairs policy as well as a trade policy that the coalition has installed. We have a vision and we would certainly hope that at some point in time the Labor Party, too, will have a unified position when it comes to trade.There are some points that I would like to note, particularly from the member for Maribyrnong, when he mentioned briefly—and it was covered by the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs—that there is now a fairly active engagement that is happening in the Balkan regions, particularly with the new office in Zagreb and the outpost in Budapest and Romania. New trade offices and trade commissions are opening up in that area to give a much broader access for Australian exporters and to develop our relations there. I also noted the comments that the member for Maribyrnong made that he went with the member for Forde and the member for Deakin to Albania, I believe—QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—No, I said that they have been there.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—Having spoken to the member for Deakin, I think it was certainly quite enlightening for me to get a first-hand feeling from someone who has actually visited some of the refugee camps. May I take this opportunity as well to continue to hope and pray that Pratt and Wallace are released from their imprisonment in Yugoslavia.But the interesting point I thought was raised by the member for Griffith when he was talking about the need for greater soft diplomacy. Whilst I acknowledge the comments made about Australia TV, Radio Asia and other areas, of course, there were some budgetary measures that we did take in 1996 and soon afterwards in order to rein in the a $10,000 billion deficit that we inherited. I do not want to dwell on that but the important point that came from those measures that were taken was that in the years to follow, particularly when the crisis started—it was originally a currency crisis in Thailand and then it spread like a virus to Malaysia and started to engulf a lot of the South-East Asian regions—we were in many ways able to walk a lot taller through our own diplomacy because of the very tough economic measures that we decided to put in place to help, let us say, put a floor underneath the Australian economy when it came to some of our major trading partners.Of course, it is not just soft diplomacy. Actually, what happens in the field is hard diplomacy. We continued to make enormous efforts through EFIC to underwrite some of our major industries at times when any other finance company would have walked away, particularly for Korea and Indonesia. It may be for wheat or beef sales to Korea, which was a commitment that the Australian coalition government made to ensure markets.The other one, which it is a pity that the member for Griffith did not acknowledge, is in the IMF package where we are talking billions of dollars that Australia put on the line particularly for countries like Thailand and Korea which was more than just images—important as they may be through Radio Australia or through Australia TV—but in hard cash in taking part of that load when those countries needed it.Of course, we have continued to do that through other initiatives—Austrade, EMDG, the constant proliferation in bilateral relationships—as opposed to relying exclusively on multilateral, which was very much the policy of the previous government. I do not know whether it was appropriate to look almost exclusively towards Asia—which was the policy of the Labor Party in the last parliament—rather than a broader policy like the one adopted by the current Minister for Trade. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs would say, one of the best forms of soft diplomacy, and real diplomacy, is in the actual aid that we give—$1.5 billion, and a lot of that goes to Asia. So they are very real commitments that we are making in soft diplomacy.There was an entertaining discussion between the member for Werriwa and the member for Scullin, and I am sure they have gone off to hotly debate their different views. (Extension of time granted) I am not sure where the member for Maranoa stood on the issue, but I got the sense that he was on the side of the member for Scullin. They talked about the third wave; maybe next year will be the fourth wave for the Labor Party. I am not quite sure. But it is, I suppose, very interesting that they are lecturing us on trade policy or tariffs, when there is so much division within their own party and they are even prepared to air their linen in front of Hansard in the Main Committee. I suppose that does add to robust debate.I was interested in the member for Scullin's comments, when he talked about Tim Colebatch—and, of course, those of the member for Werriwa; there is obviously a secret trade cult that must be coming out of Melbourne, which we will have to investigate further— lamenting the decline in tariffs and non-tariff barriers, and perhaps rightfully so, questioning whether we need to put the brakes on in some areas. I certainly have some sympathy with that and that is, of course, what the coalition government did when it came to the automotive industry and the TCF. We believed that there needed to be a more gradual phase-down—perhaps if Beazley had still been in the previous cabinet, or Keating had still been the Prime Minister, or even if Gough Whitlam had still been here and slashed tariffs by 25 per cent, which he did in the 1970s.The interesting area was non-tariff barriers, particularly for Australia, which went from 3.4 per cent to 0.7 per cent, compared to the United States, which were still very sluggish, from 25.5 per cent down to 16.8 per cent. This did happen during the period where Labor were in government. Perhaps there needs to be some internal soul searching, because a lot of these substantial cuts that Tim Colebatch talks about actually happened under their stewardship.The member for Werriwa, whilst trying to deliver his own analysis, was obviously preoccupied with some of his other members. I hope the member for Hotham had the opportunity to listen to this debate. We certainly know where he stands. He had a very different view from the young Turks; he said quite the opposite from many of his members. This is interesting because he comes from Melbourne where I recall he was quite scathing that we did not keep tariffs high enough.It is difficult for us when we are engaging with the United States, Japan or Europe. The member of Werriwa was very wrong. I am quite surprised, because he is meant to be an intellectual within the party. Our trade has actually gone up 42 per cent with the European Union. The European Union is still very important: there has been an increase in trade there. Within their own party, the opposition have not actually formulated a trade policy.The member for Scullin talked about Howe Leather. He made some fairly reasonable comments there. The World Trade Organisation did rule on one of the findings regarding the grant. This is causing Australia to undertake some reassessment of that particular area. But, of course, the actual loan of $25 million which the government gave to those 350 employees—in a Labor seat, because we believe in looking after all Australians not just some Australians—was consistent with WTO provisions. So it was prudent, perhaps, not to engage in a further dispute with the World Trade Organisation, recognising that we want to keep people employed, we want to keep industry. Part of that is keeping a sensible, pragmatic policy when it comes to tariffs and protectionism.I would like to acknowledge the upcoming round with APEC that was talked about, and other measures, but perhaps I will finish my response now.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 5.54 p.m. to 6.08 p.m.Proposed expenditure agreed to.Department of Education, Training and Youth AffairsProposed expenditure, $986,397,000.18:08:007329Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I have twice raised the issue of alleged rorting of Commonwealth employment training funds before and I do so again because of widespread concern that millions of dollars of taxpayers' money is still being misused. I have been contacted by many employees, training providers and unions that question the way this scheme is being allowed to continue without appropriate checks and balances. Indeed, serious questions must be asked of the minister's unilateral decision to expand the system of employer incentives to existing workers. These incentives are part of a $300 million subsidy package which underpins the new apprenticeship scheme. Employers can receive up to $4,000 as a reward for employing a trainee or for converting an existing worker into a trainee. I do not have a problem with that as long as the money is being used properly. For example, should this money be used by employers to buy office equipment like filing cabinets or fax machines or be spent on new carpets or building extensions? I think not. Some trainees are receiving no training at all. Others who have completed training have signed up again regardless and the money still flows. There should be strict rules of accountability applied so that all money is used as it is intended and quality programs are offered.The notion of a traineeship is that it will provide an opportunity and training for a job. I just wonder under this scheme how many people, particularly young people, get the opportunity to start a new traineeship, and how many actually finish and have a job at the end?I note that, like the Queensland government, the Tasmanian Labor government is now instigating a review of its own into the traineeship scheme in response to these concerns, yet the federal minister does not seem to think there is a problem. Let me quote from the Minister for Education in Tasmania, Paula Wreidt. On 11 June she said:There is concern that some federal-state government training incentive schemes are being collected by employers to subsidise their wage costs without ensuring that the skills of young people are being developed . . . There are obviously problems in the current traineeship system and the government is keen to see Tasmania is at the forefront of addressing those issues before the situation worsens. Quality of training is what it is all about. Most of the focus in the past has been simply on playing a numbers game, without providing young people with foundations of a long-term career.In Tasmania, in the 12-month period since June last, there has been an 80 per cent increase in the total number of people training as apprentices and trainees. With the best will in the world I cannot see how this could occur at such a staggering rate yet ensure effective, qualitative training and learning outcomes.There is a similar story in Queensland. I note with interest the conclusions of Dr Larry Smith's extensive 1999 report for DETIR Queensland headed, `Apprenticeships and traineeships: Queensland trends'. I believe there is enough anecdotal information in other parts of Australia, and presented in the recent Senate estimates hearings, to make his conclusions nationally relevant. I would like to present these to you. He highlights two major concerns with respect to trainees. He says:First, most of the growth in numbers has been in the 25-plus age group, a 438 per cent increase from 1994-95 to 1997-98, and most of the contraction is in the younger age groups, from 53 per cent to 32 per cent in the same period. This is not in line with the intent for which traineeships were established. It also raises the distinct possibility, supported by a range of anecdotal evidence, that traineeships are frequently being used as wage subsidies for existing workers.A second is the quality of the teaching, instruction and learning support provided for trainees. The fact that only around one-third of trainees, as opposed to 53 per cent in 1994-95, are successfully completing their program of training, particularly when most traineeships are for one year or even less, is—at face value—alarming and requires urgent investigation.These two state governments are not the only ones concerned over the lack of accountability of the minister's scheme. The Joint Industry and Education Council of Australia, JITEC, is so concerned that it wrote to ANTA on 7 April 1999 seeking an investigation into the whole area of quality assurance in training. (Extension of time granted)Mr Brian Conroy of JITEC was concerned that states and territories do not satisfactorily demonstrate that the processes they have established ensure within the Australian Recognition Framework that the issuance of qualifications is tied to meeting the outcomes specified in training packages. He wrote:JITEC is not satisfied with the current process.I say to the minister: isn't there enough concern going about for you to lead from the front, acknowledge responsibility for what is a national system and stop passing the buck to the states and territories? The scheme is badly put together and is being badly managed. Minister, I would say to you that what is largely a provider driven marketing model should be discarded and replaced with one that is much more likely to provide comprehensive and unbiased information on training options to employers, apprentices and trainees.I would now like to raise another area of this minister's portfolio, and that is related to education. Much of what the minister did in the budget continues to mystify educationalists, parents, students and the average Australian, but I must say to people who are long-term observers of the minister it is a little bit more of the same. The inequity of funding between public and private education does not add up. It makes no sense to abolish the merit based equity scholarship scheme for university students living in regional and remote areas like my own. Since 1996, 70 students from my state have won the scholarships with over half coming from the west/north-west coast. The main aim of the university scholarships was to help students from low income families in regional areas get to university. Now the hopes of many students who would otherwise not have the chance to go to university have been dashed and there has been much community angst related to that.Students living outside metropolitan areas, as we all know, deserve a fair and more equitable share of the education dollars but in the current budget they have missed out. In my own state, above and beyond the set fees and HECS, it costs something like $10,000 to $12,000 extra to take up tertiary education. No wonder our retention rates are so low and this government appears not to be prepared to invest in the future. Likewise, there is widespread dismay and anger over the level of funding to public education compared to private schools. While I acknowledge recognition in the budget of the need for assistance to the more needy private schools, especially those in the Catholic schools sector, this assistance should be complementary rather than in competition with the necessary increases in public education funding.The views of many of those in the state school system aggrieved by the situation are best summed up in an open letter written by the president of the Hellyer College Council, a secondary college in Burnie in my electorate. I would like to quote extensively from that because I think it highlights much of this cynicism in terms of this government's attitude to education. I quote:Under Dr Kemp's leadership—if we can use that term—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 which 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.Dr Kemp and his counterparts will argue that they fully fund the state system but the 1998 enrolment benchmark adjustment and this year's hand-outs prove otherwise. The letter goes on:State schools have unmatched quality in teaching, curriculum design and innovation and assessment accountability despite these resource cuts.It concludes:We urge every parent with students in state schools to register their anger over the federal government's education agenda and to argue for additional funds to the state system from the nation's unnecessarily large budget surplus.A surplus, I would add, which has been significantly diminished since the introduction of the Democrat-coalition GST.If the mood of animosity towards the government's education funding policy needs any more reinforcing the minister might consider comments from an acting principal of a local high school who wrote to me recently. I quote:Currently the public system allows all students access to high quality education.(Extension of time granted) .Our high school is concerned that the continued erosion of funding will undermine the quality of public education and will disenfranchise 75 per cent of the nation's children. I urge you to challenge this proposed funding shift and make representations in parliament on behalf of all Australian children particularly those in rural Australia.He goes on to question the value of having the budget in surplus while essential services like education are in dire need of extra funding. I quote again:I suspect history will judge this period as one of great shame with youth disillusionment leading to an upward spiral in suicides being accepted yet we have a $5 billion budget surplus.Finally, there exists a large question mark over how much of the minister's claimed funding for government schools is actually new money in the budget. When asked recently how much of it was new funding, he replied, and I quote:Well, a great deal of it is new money.When challenged further, he claimed that the budget delivered an increase of $1 billion over four years for government schools. In fact, the truth is that the genuine new money for government schools was $22 million a year for more than two million students, which is less than $10 per child. The only way the minister can get to a figure anything like the $1 billion is to claim credit for automatic increases for inflation in schools costs and growing student numbers. Sadly, these increases, which are guaranteed in legislation, are the only increases government schools are ever likely to get from this minister and this government.18:20:007332Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—Most of us engaged in the public politics of this nation know perfectly well how to mouth the rhetoric of the importance of education. I think the rhetoric of the education debate has been engaged in by politicians of all political persuasions, both Commonwealth and state, at various times in recent decades, including the present time.However, there is a huge and yawning chasm between engaging in the rhetoric of this debate and actually doing something about it. That is what the school children of the nation, the parents of the nation and the teachers of the nation expect us to deliver on. I think there is a hearty sense of the community being completely fed up with politicians simply engaging in the externalities of this debate rather than getting down into its guts and delivering real programs which work in our universities, schools and preschools right across the country.I am heartened and encouraged by the participation in this debate by the member for Braddon. The member for Braddon was a former teacher and has lots of practical experience in this field. If my recollection serves me well, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, you were a former teacher as well. Therefore, the two gentlemen to whom I have just referred will understand full well what I mean by things that actually work in the classroom—at the chalkface—as opposed to things which sound elegant and acceptable in well-crafted glossy policy documents put together by bureaucracies here in Canberra.We turn to three areas on which I would like to comment briefly: firstly, higher education; secondly, numeracy and literacy in schools; and, thirdly, the national Asian languages and studies strategy. Firstly, on higher education, in Queensland in particular, historically we had the huge problem of the relative underfunding of higher education. This was a problem which went right back into the early 1970s when the Commonwealth assumed responsibility for higher education in Queensland in about 1974. What the Commonwealth did then in relation to all the states was accept their then existing base of funding for higher education, which the states up until that time had themselves delivered, and take that as their base for future allocations to those states for the period post 1974.The problem was that in Queensland in 1974 in the Bjelke-Petersen government, we had a government which did not esteem highly the value of higher education. In fact, it was considerably the reverse emphasis. As a consequence, when the Commonwealth assumed responsibility back then, I think we had something like 13 per cent of the nation's youth population but something less than 10 per cent of the nation's higher education outlays.That disparity sustained itself through the 1970s and through the 1980s. And through the 1980s, during the period of the Hawke government, and subsequently the Keating government, the gap started to narrow. But it was actually not until 1995 that we managed to close the gap. It was a negotiation in which I participated in an earlier life in order to persuade the then federal minister for education to provide a one-off additional allocation to higher education places in Queensland, so that, if you were graduating from the school system in Queensland, you would have no greater nor less an opportunity to attend university than had you graduated from the school system in any other state of the country.Prior to that correction occurring, we had an annual underfunding in the order of 8,000 to 10,000 places. That is a lot of places per year when you allocate it across a state as large as Queensland and with a total population in the order of three million.So we took something approaching 25 years to rectify what was a historical wrong. But what we have had in the last several years, since the current government has occupied the treasury bench, is a wholesale onslaught on higher education funding. We have had $800 million over three years withdrawn from the higher education sector. On top of that, if you include the extra moneys which the Commonwealth now raises through the increase in HECS, we have something like an effective $2 billion withdrawal from the higher education sector on the part of the Commonwealth. Translated back into what is occurring in the state of Queensland, the number of additional full-time equivalent places in Queensland universities is in decline. (Extension of time granted)The one-off improvement that we were able to obtain in 1995-96 has not been able to be sustained into the future. The universities in Brisbane with which I am principally familiar—I am not as familiar with provincial universities such as those represented by the member for Hinkler—have campuses which are struggling with their budgets day to day. There are real problems in terms of the recurrent funding allocations to universities in Brisbane. The consequence is that the number of places on offer in those universities is now in decline and, as I said, the historical catch-up we were able to achieve back in 1995-96 has now evaporated.We hear a lot on literacy and numeracy from the federal minister. Like education itself, it is a non-motherhood expession. Nobody in this room would be opposed to improvements in literacy and numeracy in our school system. Yet, again, the question becomes one not of the sort of rhetoric that we articulate on this question but of what we actually do in the classroom. Again, in an earlier life in the state of Queensland, in my own local community in the suburb of Morningside in Brisbane and in the Morningside State School where I was active on the P&C for some years and where one of my children still goes to school, we had major literacy problems among a particular group of grade 2 and 3 students. Something in the order of 16 kids out of a total group of 20 or 30 were exhibiting problems of basic literacy and numeracy. We accessed the disadvantaged schools program which was then operated by the Keating Labor government. As a consequence, through a one-off grant, we were able to access funds and provide for a couple of additional specialist literacy instructors to work with kids who had basic problems, and six months later we were able to see a massive improvement in those children. Of the 16 who exhibited problems at the beginning of the year, we were down to a core of four who had problems by the end of the year.That was achieved through doing two things: one, administering a test up-front to see where the kids had a problem; and, two—and this is the critical point—having funds capable of being delivered to that school to hire a couple of additional literacy instructors to spend one-on-one time with those children to overcome their problems using such programs as `reader recovery', `support a reader' and those sorts of literacy intervention programs and systems which exist for primary school age children. This is the sort of practical work which makes a difference in the classroom. Based on that experience, the state Labor government of Queensland at the time, in 1995, framed a budget which sought to take that sort of strategy right across the state. As a consequence, $45 million was allocated in the state budget of 1995-96 with a view to establishing those programs in all Queensland state and non-government schools.The problem we have with the tonality and the substance of the current minister's engagement in this debate is that we have not seen any substantial new commitment of funding. What we have seen in many respects is a repackaging and rebadging of the old disadvantaged schools program which existed in the federal Labor government's time, and called something new. But when you ask people who are specialists in their field to quantify precisely the new additional quantum of funds which has been delivered to this area, you generally get an embarrassed silence. It is either non-existent or it is very small in number indeed.Therefore the challenge which the portfolio and the minister faces is basically to get real with this. It is a problem across the nation. We do need to improve literacy and numeracy levels in the schools. We do need to intervene early in primary school education. The policy directions are broadly right. But if we are serious about them and not just engaging in the rhetoric of this debate, we have to commit public resources to doing that, and that is what has been lacking to date in the current minister's commitment.The third point which I said that I would address is: the national Asian languages and studies strategy for Australian schools. This is a very important strategy for the future of the nation. I have touched on this strategy once before in the Main Committee. Again, this program had its origins in Queensland in so far as the Queensland Labor government in the early 1990s sought to introduce a program to provide Asian language education right across the state primary and secondary school systems starting at year 3, emphasising the principal languages of Asia—Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian and Korean. (Extension of time granted) As a consequence of that program being introduced in 1990, through the period 1991, 1992 and 1993 a large number of primary schools right across Queensland were able to introduce these languages, initially starting with grades 6 and 7 children and now we are down to grades 4 and 5 children. It is a large scale and comprehensive program. I think schools in the electorate of Hinkler would also be the beneficiaries of this program.In 1993 a decision was taken to take this model nationally through the COAG process, the Council of Australian Governments, and for several months during that year I chaired an Asian languages and studies working group of the Council of Australian Governments, as the Queensland government's representative, to develop such a national strategy which became NALSAS. NALSAS was subsequently endorsed at the COAG meetings of 1994 in Hobart in February and, from memory, in Darwin later that year, in September.This is a national program which seeks to have all Australian school children provided with foreign language education—Asian language education in particular—from year 3. The logic of the program is to ensure that, if kids choose to pursue their studies in a language when they emerge from the school system, they will have had not just a year or two of exposure but several years of systematic exposure and, if a child were to stay with a particular language from year 3 through to year 12, 10 years of systematic exposure to that language. If we are serious about educating our children in the principal languages of Asia, where 60 per cent of this country's exports still go, where our principal economic engagements still lie, this is the sort of long-term investment which the nation needs to make.I have noted with some satisfaction the fact that since the change in government in 1996 the current education minister has continued this program. I am also aware of the fact that his department probably briefed him to the reverse upon the change of government in March 1996. I do not think the then federal department of education—whatever its acronym was at the time—was enormously enamoured of this program. But to give the minister his due, he sustained it.The problem, however, begins to emerge when the funding levels committed to it are beginning to erode in real terms. For the upcoming triennium we have allocated to this national Asian languages and studies program $30 million of Commonwealth funding each year for the three coming years. That basically continues funding levels at the level at which they were at the end of the current triennium.The problem is, however, that as the scope of this program is extended to include children who are not just at years 6 and 7 but at years 3 and 4 and year 5 as well, the number of children included in the overall net of this program increases. Furthermore, as they go from primary school into secondary school, we end up with a very large number of children indeed. The calculations I have seen suggest that we now have something like 500,000 Australian school children studying one of the principal languages of Asia as a consequence of this national strategy.Again, my criticism does not lie with the government in terms of its decision to continue with this policy direction. I applaud that. If there is a criticism, it is simply that we are beginning to see a funding gap emerge between that which is necessary to sustain the program, on the one hand, and that which the Commonwealth in its most recent budget papers has been prepared to commit.When we look to the future we are looking at a strategy such as NALSAS which will not yield its full-term benefit until these children emerge from the school and university systems into the employment market in about the year 2010. It is one of those programs which requires the support of politicians, but the yield and the benefit in terms of what we see out the other end will not be had until many of us have retired from this place.It is, however, critical for the future of the nation. It is critical for our future economic development. It is critical if we are to maximise our export performance in the region and if we are also able to maximise the value-added we can provide in domestic industries such as tourism, given that large slices of the inbound tourism market come from the region as well.In summary, I will conclude by saying this: we have a range of programs which this government has currently engaged where there is an emerging gap between the rhetoric and the reality. In higher education it is at its most stark. I hate to think that we have reached the day in this nation when a kid who is qualified to go to university cannot get to university. I thought we had passed that time when we got through the 1970s. That time is re-emerging. On literacy and numeracy the policy direction is right but the funding gap is huge. On the Asian languages and studies strategy, the policy is right but the funding needs to catch up as well.18:36:007336Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I am pleased to respond to some of the points that have been raised here this evening by the member for Braddon and the member for Griffith—perhaps not necessarily in order. Of course, the subject of having a surplus and how one should never have a surplus, that it should always be spent on something, has been raised by the member for Braddon.It would have been lovely to have come to government without having such an enormous deficit. The only way any deficit can be paid off is by having some surpluses to do it. In fact, if it had not been for this sale of Telstra, our situation would have been different. We now know that another 16 per cent of the sale has been achieved and if there are no further sales then we are going to need another 45 years of surplus budgets before we will have paid off the deficit left to us when we came to government. To keep the argument honest that needs to be said.The issue was also raised about rorts in the system of traineeships and apprenticeships. Once again, I think the member for Braddon has been following Senator Carr's line in Senate estimates. At the 18 June ANTA meeting the ministerial council ministers confirmed the successes of the Commonwealth states and territories in delivering this quality training system for Australian industry. The Commonwealth, of course, has noted the Queensland and Tasmanian inquiries into their own training systems and, should any allegations that bear on the Commonwealth responsibilities emerge from this, then they will be rigorously investigated. To date nothing has come forward requiring that but I would encourage the member for Braddon that if he has any evidence whatsoever of any rorting of the system the Commonwealth would be only too pleased to have it most vigorously investigated. It is one thing to come here to a place like this and make such an accusation; it is quite another matter to come forward with the hard evidence.It is also a fact that the number of young people in apprenticeships and traineeships has actually grown. The proportion of 15- to 19-year-olds in apprenticeships and traineeships has increased from 5.7 per cent of the age group in 1995 through to 6.2 per cent in 1998.Again, the subject of funding and what was real and what was new and what was fudged—as one would expect from the opposition—has been raised. This budget, in fact, sees $870 million more funding directed towards education. The government is building an education sector which strives for excellence and diversity, providing parents and students with real choices in education opportunities, and is accountable for its performance. Opposition claims that this increase will not compensate for previous cuts are not correct.After adjustments for such factors as the transfer of Austudy, which now forms part of the youth allowances, to the Family and Community Services portfolio, for instance, and the treatment of HECS funding for universities under the accrual accounting system, the education sector for 1999-2000 will have $300 million more than would have resulted under the previous government's policies. Of course, with the new tax system, there will be even more money available to the states should they choose to spend it on such an important area as education.The member for Griffith raised the issue of literacy. It is true, as he has pointed out, that it is an important issue. No-one would want to see children go through their schooling, as some of them have done, without reaching standards that are going to assist them to a more comfortable, satisfactory and happy life and with greater opportunities for employment.It is true that the previous disadvantaged school funds are included in the literacy grants, but the government has expanded these grants and, importantly, set benchmark standards for what is expected of students at year 3 and year 5. It is also true to say, which I would encourage the member to understand, that this $131 million this year is additional to that and not what was originally in those grants. (Extension of time granted)I would also like to emphasise, as Minister David Kemp has said, that setting those benchmarks is important. It is all very well to suggest throwing money at something but if there are not going to be checks and balances then unfortunately, as any teacher would know, students will find ways of covering up their inadequacies. That needs to be spelt out and discovered and reported on, not just school for school, and we need to know that these standards are being kept up and that this money is being spent effectively.The member for Braddon also mentioned what he claims to be the difference in funding between state schools and private schools. He quoted a teacher that he had heard from, a teacher who no doubt was a member of the teachers union. The two million government school students in this country are supported by annual Commonwealth and state budgets of $13 billion, and the Commonwealth's contribution to this $13 billion in direct funding for schools will be a record $1.9 billion in the year 2000. This is a 25 per cent increase, or $382 million, over the levels of 1996, which as we know was Labor's last year.Government schools get 85 per cent of their public funding from state governments and 15 per cent from the Commonwealth. Non-government schools get 18 per cent of their public funding from state governments and 37 per cent from the Commonwealth. The federal budget reflects these funding arrangements which have evolved over the last 30 years. A similar pattern of government and non-government expenditure was evident in Labor's education budgets without them having any fear of critical campaigning by the education union. All state budgets are overwhelmingly in favour of government schools but no-one claims that state governments are opposed to non-government schools for this reason. At this stage I would like to reflect on an article that I read in today's Sydney Morning Herald, a story on the New South Wales state budget. It says:But the State's private schools are effectively $10 million worse off after a decision by the State Government to claw back money it has lost through changes in the way the Federal Government funds schools.So what we see here is what we have seen so often before: if the Commonwealth gives some money to a particular area we find a Labor state government clawing it back.When all sources of public funding are taken into account, that is, Commonwealth and state government funding, they spend on average $5,600 on each government school student. The funding on average for a non-government student is $3,500 and for students at wealthier schools this figure can be as low as $1,500 per student.The Commonwealth budget delivered $320 million in election commitments. For government schools it delivered an extra $32 million for literacy in the middle years of schooling, $64 million additional for literacy and numeracy in the early years, $61 million additional for Asian languages and studies in Australian school strategies—another figure that I draw to the attention of those opposite—and $54 million for a quality teacher program in government schools. This is particularly important, as the members opposite would know, and Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, who had the chair before you, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, being a former teacher, would understand that the average age for teachers is, I think, 49 and therefore their quality teacher programs and professional development are very important. Very importantly, there is also $13.8 million for the drug education strategy. That is in addition to what had previously been announced, taking that figure to in excess of $27 million. Then there is $13.7 million for assistance to isolated children.The 1999 Commonwealth budget provides a five per cent real increase in financial assistance grants to the states and of course it is from these resources that the states could also put in additional funding for government schools. (Extension of time granted) State governments can do more in this area. According to the latest figures we have in New South Wales and Tasmania, the Commonwealth is already contributing about half of the funding for capital works at government schools in those states—$72 million and $6 million respectively. New South Wales government schools are in need of repair, as featured in the media recently, and perhaps should look to a better effort from their state minister.The union's other myth about school funding is the enrolment benchmark adjustment that the union claims takes money back from government schools to give to non-government schools. In fact the EBA is a mechanism to ensure that state governments do not receive windfalls in Commonwealth funding when the percentage of students shifts from the public sector to the private school sector. State governments are absorbing this adjustment in most places or, as I have indicated, now certainly not in New South Wales. For example, Minister Gude in Victoria has advised the Commonwealth government that the $2.6 million EBA liability for 1998 is being absorbed by the Victorian Treasury and no money is being withdrawn from schools in the government sector there.In the government's move to a fairer and more transparent model for funding non-government schools, there are some minor transitional adjustments of around $76 million in funding for the four per cent of students attending schools receiving the lowest levels of Commonwealth funding. The real benefit of this reform will go to the majority of students in those non-government schools serving the most disadvantaged communities. The role of the teachers union, as I have already mentioned, is, I suppose, to be expected but is also disappointing. There have been no cuts to school programs in any of the Howard government budgets. Education will be GST free. Funding for schools has increased but the government's efforts are still attacked; this is because the Australian Education Union is totally opposed to any education reform whether it comes from the Commonwealth or from state governments.The union has hamstrung any attempts at genuine education reform under Labor. Included in its recent track record is the attack by the union's leadership on the Commonwealth and state governments' effort to raise literacy and numeracy standards. It has never endorsed the goals for the national literacy and numeracy plan, which of course was agreed to by all state ministers at a recent meeting of MCEETYA. The union has opposed all attempts by state governments to provide better reporting to parents about their children's schooling. The union consistently denies that parents have any rights of choice in schooling and has campaigned against any funding for non-government schools. The union has fought against attempts to give schools greater control over their affairs, and strike action on this issue is now under way in Victoria and is dividing school communities. The union has contested state government efforts to sack incompetent teachers and to make teachers more accountable for the outcome of their teaching.It is ironic that the same union that claims government schools are underfunded is also opposed to greater parental involvement in schooling, to the payment of voluntary fees for government schools, even by those who could well afford them, and to more corporate sponsorship of government schools. These are all mechanisms which would increase the resources available to government schools.There is, of course, lots of other good news in the budget. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you would pleased to know that there is $60 million for the JPET program where disadvantaged youths—those who may have been or who are wards of the state, those who are homeless or are at risk of becoming homeless and those who have dropped out of school early—are helped. I am pleased to support this budget and pleased that the government of which I am a member has generously supported education, which is such a worthwhile cause and so important to the young people of our country.Proposed expenditure agreed to.Remainder of bill—by leave—taken as a whole, and agreed to.Bill agreed to.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills7339r8097339Consideration resumed from 11 May, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills7340r8107340Consideration resumed from 11 May, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Main Committee adjourned at 6.54 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing7341The following answers to questions were circulated:7341(Question No. 209)2097341Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:Further to the answer to question No. 804 (Hansard , 3 December 1996, page 7604), what proportion of (a) total health expenditure in Australia was funded by health insurance funds in each year since 1994-95 and (b) recurrent health expenditure was funded by health insurance funds for (i) public hospitals, (ii) private hospitals, (iii) medical services, (iv) dental services, (v) other professional services and (vi) all other services in each year since 1994-95.7341Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—Due to an administrative error by the Department of Health and Aged Care which confused private expenditure on health with private health fund expenditure, this answer replaces my previous answer to question No. 209 (Hansard , 11 May 1999, page 4165) to the honourable member and also addresses question No. 732 (Notice Paper , 10 June 1999, page 2004).In relation to the honourable member's original question, the data below shows the proportion of recurrent funding of health services met by private health insurance for 1994-95 and 1995-96. The data also shows the proportion of total health expenditure and total recurrent health expenditure funded by private health insurance for 1994-95 through to 1996-97 (detailed information on health expenditure is not available beyond 1995-96).Proportion of funding of health services met by private health insurance, by area of expenditure, 1994-95 to 1996-97 (per cent)1994-951995-961996-97(a) Proportion of total health expenditure10.910.410.9(b) Proportion of recurrent health expenditure met by private health insurance(i) Public acute care hospitals4.23.4(ii) Private hospitals69.970.1(iii) Medical2.92.8(iv) Dental28.821.9(v) Other Professionals15.616.0(vi) Other health services (including administration)5.75.4Proportion of total recurrent health expenditure11.511.011.1Source: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.7342(Question No. 305)3057342Hall, Jill, MPMs Hall83NShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 7 December 1998:(1) What was the cost to the Commonwealth of closing the Medicare office in Belmont, NSW, including obtaining a release from the lease of its premises.(2) How long did the lease have to expire.(3) How many staff were employed in the office.(4) What was the total annual remuneration paid to the staff.(5) What proportion of the staff is still employed by Medicare or Medibank Private.(6) What was the projected operational cost of the office for the period of the lease.(7) What is the projected operational cost for the Medibank Private office at Charlestown, NSW.7342Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The costs of vacating the Belmont Medicare Office were kept to a minimum through an extensive program of recycling office material. These modest costs were included in the Health Insurance Commission's (HIC) normal operating costs. The HIC does not release leasing information as it negotiates leases with a range of major commercial property owners and managers throughout Australia. Release of this information may compromise their ability to negotiate the most favourable terms for the Commonwealth.(2) The lease had two years, three months to run at the time of closure.(3) Two full time and three part time staff.(4) $139,203.(5) All.(6) The Belmont office closed on 27/3/98. The operational and projected operational costs for the period of the lease, assuming the office remained open, are as follows: 1996/97—$164,098; 1997/98—$187,119; 1998/99—$250,438; 1999/00—$257,951; 2000/01—$265,689; TOTAL = $1,125,295.Operational costs cover salaries (and from `98/99 salaries on costs), rent and other minor expenditure.(7) The operational costs for Medibank Private offices are met solely from funds raised by the company in operating the Fund in competition with other private health insurers. This is a commercial-in-confidence matter. 7342(Question No. 480)4807342Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:(1) How many successful (a) Flex 1, (b) Flex 2 and (c) Flex 3 placements have been made in each of the 29 Job Network regions in each month since May 1998.(2) What is the (a) name, (b) date of cessation, (c) name of the participant to which the contract was subsequently allocated and (d) operating regions of each national participant who has withdrawn from the Job Network since it commenced operating.(3) What sum has the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business paid to national providers for Flex 3 payments.(4) What portion of the sum referred to in part (3) has been paid by the providers for assistance to the unemployed such as wage subsidies, training and clothing and fare assistance.7342Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Table 1 details the total number of placements for Job Matching made from 1 May 1998 to 30 April 1999.Table 2 shows the number of job seekers who have commenced assistance under Job Search Training.Table 3 shows the number of job seekers who have commenced assistance under Intensive Assistance.These data are based on the regions in which the Job Network Member sites operate.(2 and 3) No national providers have withdrawn from Job Network since its commencement.There is only one national Job Network Member—Employment National Ltd. The amount paid to Employment National Ltd for the provision of Intensive Assistance services is commercial-in-confidence.(4) The payment of wage subsidies, training and clothing and fare assistance is at the discretion of Job Network members and will depend on the needs and circumstances of individual job seekers and the relationship between the Job Network member and the employer. The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business pays Job Network members for achieving outcomes, not for providing individual forms of assistance such as wage subsidies, training or clothing and fare assistance.JOB NETWORK JOB MATCHING ELIGIBLE PLACEMENTSTABLE 1For 1 May 1998 to 30 April 1999Labour Market RegionMay-98Jun-98Jul-98Aug-98Sep-98Oct-98Nov-98Dec-98Jan-99Feb-99Mar-99Apr-99TotalAdelaide3007551,2021,2291,5391,6011,6141,1641,0131,5941,9701,45715,438Australian Capital Territory861732082402793623972732434454943873,587Balance of WA741421941472312723202922883174484363,161Brisbane City4399701,2441,3801,9842,1012,2621,6131,5512,3042,7522,16420,764Central Queensland1383023794626087507605705988921,0037347,196Darling Downs741191211843233694217233144886564884,280East Melbourne5139861,7451,6521,9632,2862,4531,7321,5192,4413,0582,26422,612Geelong1342132753164144714484043675777035624,884Gippsland681091952182884243553392753404343753,420Hobart and Southern Tasmania411021671962802503592103032834592352,885Hunter and North Coast2133746346969651,2331,3821,1788561,4161,5141,08711,548Illawarra and South East NSW1182603914306618968716656937388825367,141Inner Sydney1192464985127017479026095259731,1759287,935Moreton2285538721,0331,4391,8321,8321,5111,3281,7672,2311,55116,177North Sydney and Central Coast1121933675396607357665114607679927206,822Northern and Western SA311121591672402593451881902593792702,599Northern Queensland1754415275816118491,1177386168681,0149838,520Northern Tasmania and Mersey-Lyell951572602592223493822722633816383493,627Northern Territory531171551912743383402892153044613413,078Perth2475169801,0061,3241,5021,5411,1119891,5241,7111,31413,765Riverina1282944654826777529447391,0201,7481,4577419,447South West Sydney1703305517001,1141,1911,2798237391,3911,5471,10510,940Southern and Eastern SA442533412593373925254393455877573114,590Southern WA631882602802793484323384373884404193,872Victorian Central Highlands1803866216617637657455746971,6571,1027898,940West and Inner Melbourne3466611,0831,1841,4491,8331,6871,1871,2021,7852,2291,86616,512Western NSW1424254594207579651,4641,1639069511,1977979,646Western Sydney1673785275488227577985335038671,0637437,706Wide Bay-Burnett1232233913554556055714364124836935395,286Total4,6219,97815,27116,32721,65925,23427,31220,62418,86728,53533,45924,491246,378JOB NETWORK JOB SEARCH TRAINING COMMENCEMENTSTABLE 2For 1 May 1998 to 30 April 1999Labour Market RegionMay-98Jun-98Jul-98Aug-98Sep-98Oct-98Nov-98Dec-98Jan-99Feb-99Mar-99Apr-99TotalAdelaide952652642732603183611282972803303063,177Australian Capital Territory10084108106107721042569744850947Balance of WA42949443928621623305131406Brisbane City2912983153433483403801773103052862193,612Central Queensland18988010011754685875538642849Darling Downs01949542241321743655446442East Melbourne1603413583934354334573474524966084094,889Geelong77851371151431151355162107115571,199Gippsland0693045205336815695551451Hobart and Southern Tasmania355544857171593287675754717Hunter and North Coast591871622702852924331452802963242172,950Illawarra and South East NSW20122141221208194206591461862001141,817Inner Sydney91321671783002552371341952373201622,326Moreton2633914174974484394352953592663653164,491North Sydney and Central Coast56180128118136151111631101871091,259Northern and Western SA27245853544369234554049508Northern Queensland181031151701471431235053161210961,389Northern Tasmania and Mersey-Lyell45586685759891537996649684Northern Territory33881656628441533425256523Perth1121771912241312243322614362923623063,048 Riverina3510120216819715220647931121271031,543South West Sydney522253593874463994071673173644002603,783Southern and Eastern SA17567338523975236646767586Southern WA518147874526541041813339595Victorian Central Highlands1570108807512710322127136146871,096West and Inner Melbourne491342352452812372001802022432742202,500Western NSW541299113613714211294310854441,059Western Sydney82227235287263249197881421802591562,365Wide Bay-Burnett6556726476538925919210070853Total1,7203,7124,3544,9244,9484,7625,2562,3964,2614,6705,2763,78550,640JOB NETWORK INTENSIVE ASSISTANCE COMMENCEMENTSTABLE 3For 1 May 1998 to 30 April 1999Labour Market RegionMay-98Jun-98Jul-98Aug-98Sep-98Oct-98Nov-98Dec-98Jan-99Feb-99Mar-99Apr-99TotalAdelaide2,3472,9462,9052,7762,3841,4981,2121,3841,3341,3011,22894322,258Australian Capital Territory3005157015664502902031181701381441303,725Balance of WA2242742692624163143262382612432761913,294Brisbane City1,6842,2972,2081,8172,0201,5961,0821,0121,1301,3681,4471,00618,667Central Queensland8106876176827635133573323093654642666,165Darling Downs2125305863132702382221571382082661483,288East Melbourne3,3994,1013,5222,9772,5741,9791,6061,7601,5942,0212,2291,72629,488Geelong1,0058198341,0979377974195303594645553888,204Gippsland5835595504645855203152702843112722014,914Hobart and Southern Tasmania5477436224865546613153563072752632685,397Hunter and North Coast1,9033,1683,2953,4622,9572,1531,4691,3911,3451,6251,5191,14525,432Illawarra and South East NSW1,0011,5121,5471,4571,07075653055350963553945210,561Inner Sydney1,1431,1391,0981,1361,2261,10270261262068897665711,099Moreton1,7522,2772,6102,7282,7052,0401,6461,3821,2671,6051,9091,16323,084North Sydney and Central Coast9281,0917911,0267885933963873694635344577,823Northern and Western SA469664594693292178202157314244207994,113Northern Queensland7459728411,0466806165755704274665013287,767Northern Tasmania and Mersey Lyell4807116555486114833963743413963752605,630Northern Territory1662003313874883822761691612402421493,191Perth1,7242,3802,5831,8071,5111,4291,3881,2251,1851,2871,43593618,890Riverina5941,6441,2261,0339156243653864395145013258,566South West Sydney1,8102,6422,8092,6721,7671,1719611,2761,2401,1591,5101,22220,239Southern and Eastern SA3823686435453871842091861211701511433,489Southern WA2405144474023183762772362052002581343,607Victorian Central Highlands8911,5921,0619707765824826595994885994119,110West and Inner Melbourne2,5113,1822,2832,8523,3281,7491,2281,6491,3941,2671,3861,03623,865Western NSW7851,1861,0561,1631,0516815365705486646054029,247Western Sydney1,0241,7061,0971,2491,43297863279765785482665211,904Wide Bay-Burnett8248389308537845693142665283823822566,926Total30,48341,25738,71137,46934,03925,05218,64119,00218,15520,04121,59915,494319,9437345(Question No. 584)5847345Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:(1) Does question B4 in the questionnaire for the survey conducted by Centrelink on Job Search Training ask specifically whether the Job Network was responsible for placing the respondent in employment; if not, why not.(2) Is it a fact that the questionnaire has no capacity to determine whether the Job Network was responsible for assisting a respondent find employment.7345Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business conducts a survey of all job seekers who have received assistance through Job Network, including Job Search Training (JST). The survey is used to measure the level of employment and education or training outcomes around three months after completion of assistance. The survey does not ask whether or not the Job Network member was responsible for placing job seekers into employment, because information about whether job seekers were placed directly into employment by the JST provider or another Job Network member is available from Departmental computer systems.7345(Question No. 598)5987345McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:Further to the answer to question No. 185 (Hansard , 30 March 1999, page 3958), will he provide a list of private health insurers providing coverage for domestic nursing care.7345Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:All of the 44 registered health benefits organisations offer benefits for home nursing care:ACA Health Benefits Fund, AMA Health Fund Limited, Australian Health Management Group, Australian Unity Health Limited, CBHS Friendly Society, CDH Benefits Fund, Credicare Health Fund, Defence Health, Geelong Medical and Hospital Benefits Association Ltd, Goldfields Medical Fund (Inc), Grand United Health Fund, Grand United Corporate Health, Health Care Insurance Ltd, Health Insurance Fund of WA, Health-Partners, Healthguard Health Benefits Fund Ltd, Hospital Benefit Fund of Western Australia (Inc), Hospital Contribution Fund of Australia Ltd, IOR Australia Pty Ltd, Independent Order of Odd Fellows of Victoria, Latrobe Health Services Inc, Lysaght Hospital and Medical Club, Manchester Unity Friendly Society in NSW, Medibank Private, Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd, Mildura District Hospital Fund, NIB Health Funds Limited, NSW Teachers' Federation Health Society, National Mutual Health Insurance Pty Ltd, Naval Health Benefits Society, Phoenix Welfare Association Ltd, Queensland Country Health Limited, Qld Teachers' Union Health Society, Railway and Transport Employees' Friendly Society Health Fund, Reserve Bank Health Fund Friendly Society, SA Police Employees' Health Fund Inc, SGIO Health Pty Limited, St Luke's Medical and Hospital Benefits Association, Transition Benefits Fund Pty Ltd, Transport Friendly Society, United Ancient Order of Druids, United Ancient Order of Druids Registered Friendly Society Grand Lodge of NSW, Western District Health Fund Ltd, Yallourn Medical and Hospital Society.7345(Question No. 605)6057345McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 May 1999:(1) What resolutions did Australia sponsor at the UN Commission on Human Rights at Geneva in April 1999.(2) What was the text of each resolution which came to a vote.(3) Which members (a) voted for, (b) voted against, and (c) abstained from voting on each resolution.7345Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Australia was the principal sponsor of the Commission resolution 1999/72; National institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights.Australia co-sponsored the following resolutions:1999/2;Situation of human rights in Kosovo1999/7;Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories1999/8;Human rights in Cuba1999/13;Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran1999/14;Situation of human rights in Iraq1999/15;Situation of human rights in the Sudan1999/16;Cooperation with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies1999/17;Situation of human rights in Myanmar1999/18;Situation of human rights in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia andMontenegro), the Republic of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina1999/20;Situation of human rights in Rwanda1999/24;The right to food1999/25;Question of the realisation in all countries of the economic, social and cultural rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, and the study of special problems which developing countries face in their efforts to achieve these human rights1999/26;Human rights and extreme poverty1999/29;Hostage-taking1999/30;Question of a draft optional protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment1999/31;Independence and impartiality of the judiciary, jurors and assessors and independence of lawyers1999/32;Torture and other cruel inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment1999/34;Impunity1999/35;Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions1999/36;Right to freedom of opinion and expression1999/38;Question of enforced or arbitrary disappearances1999/39;Implementation of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief1999/41;Integrating the human rights of women throughout the United Nations system1999/42;Elimination of violence against women1999/47;Internally displaced persons1999/48;Rights of people belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities1999/49;The protection of human rights in the context of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)1999/50;Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph 5 of General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 19941999/51;Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities and the International Decade of the World's Indigenous People1999/54;Strengthening of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights1999/56;Situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo1999/57;Promotion of the right to democracy1999/60;Development of public information activities in the field of human rights, including the World Public Information Campaign on Human Rights1999/61;Question of the death penalty 1999/64;United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education1999/66;Implementation of the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognised Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms1999/69;Regional cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asian and Pacific region1999/71;Regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights1999/74;Assistance to states in strengthening the rule of law1999/75;Assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights1999/76;Situation of human rights in Cambodia1999/78;Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance1999/79;The right to development1999/80;Rights of the child1999/81;Work of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.(2) The text of all United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolutions is available on the Internet, at:http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsfby clicking on "Commission on Human Rights", then "Resolutions", then "1999".(3) The details of which members (a) voted for, (b) voted against, and (c) abstained from voting on each resolution are available on the Internet, at:http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsfby clicking on "Commission on Human Rights", then "Other", then "1999".Details are recorded by session of the Commission, and voting took place on the sessions covered in documents E/CN.4/1999/SR.30, 51, 54, 57, 59 and 60.7347(Question No. 623)6237347Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 31 May 1998:Is assistance under the Pig Producer Exit Plan (PPEP) available to pig producers receiving assistance under the Family Farm Restart Scheme (FFRS); if not, (a) why not and (b) will the Government consider extending coverage of the PPEP to recipients of assistance under the FFRS; if not, why not.7347Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Guidelines for the Pork Producer Exit Program (PPEP) containing a number of eligibility criteria specifying that Recipients will only be eligible for financial assistance under either the FFRS or PPEP but not both. A number of applicants have read this as meaning that a recipient of FFRS income support is precluded from the PPEP. The policy intention of this part of the PPEP Guidelines was to prevent "double dipping" into both the FFRS and PPEP. To clarify this, I recently agreed that the Guidelines should be interpreted to mean that a recipient of FFRS income support should not be excluded from the PPEP. A recipient of FFRS income support is eligible for the PPEP provided that—. the applicant would otherwise be eligible for the PPEP; and. an amount equal to the sum of any FFRS income support paid to the applicant is deducted from any PPEP exit assistance in the same manner as an amount equal to the sum of any FFRS income support is deducted from any FFRS re-establishment grant.7347(Question No. 639)6397347McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 31 May 1999:Further to question No. 605, what were the (a) positions and (b) qualifications of the persons who represented Australia at the session of the UN Commission for Human Rights in Geneva in April 1999. 7348Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Australian delegation to the 55th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights was:Mr Leslie Luck, Permanent Representative, Australian Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Geneva (Mr Luck was the leader of the delegation); Mr Andrew Goledzinowski, Counsellor, Australian Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Geneva; Mr Peter Heyward, Director, Human Rights Section, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; Mr Chris Sidoti, Human Rights Commissioner, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission; Mr Kieren Fitzpatrick, Director, Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions; Ms Robyn Bicket, Counsellor, Immigration, Australian Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Geneva; Mr Kerry Kutch, Counsellor, Development, Australian Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Geneva; Mr Peter Lawrence, First Secretary, Australian Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Geneva; Mr Eric van der Wal, First Secretary, Australian Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Geneva; Ms Tracey Goldsworthy, Administrative Assistant, Australian Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Geneva; Mr Ian Croucher, Research Assistant, Australian Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Geneva; and Mr Frederic Capdevila, Research Assistant, Australian Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Geneva.7348(Question No. 676)6767348Wilkie, Kim, MPMr Wilkie84GSwanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 1 June 1999:Do restrictions, stemming from the East Timor electoral process and associated violence, apply to the issuing of visas to Indonesians wishing to travel to Australia; if so, (a) what are the details and (b) do the restrictions apply to previously successful applicants who met the conditions of a previously issued visa.7348Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:No. Applications for visitor entry to Australia from Indonesia are assessed against exactly the same legislative criteria as apply elsewhere in the world.The decision to grant a visitor visa is determined by assessing the applicant's ability to fulfil certain legal and policy criteria determined by the Australian Government. The legal criteria for the grant of a visitor visa require, among other things, that the applicant meets Australia's health and character standards, has adequate funds for support for the period of the visit and that the applicant intends a genuine visit to Australia. When deciding whether or not an applicant intends a genuine visit, visa processing officers must take into account relevant considerations such as the applicant's personal circumstances, incentive to return home and financial situation. The likelihood of an applicant overstaying or seeking to remain in Australia is also a matter that has to be assessed.Because of differing risk factors exhibited by visitors from different countries, different approaches are taken to assessing whether the applicant meets the legislative criteria. Applicants from most low risk countries are able to access the Electronic Travel Authority. Applicants from high risk countries apply for a traditional paper visa and are required to undergo a higher degree of scrutiny. Applicants from Indonesia must apply for a paper visa.7349(Question No. 732)7327349Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 10 June 1999:(1) Is there a discrepancy between the statement in the answer to part (1) of question No. 2758 (Hansard , 30 November 1995, page 4511) that the proportion of total health expenditure funded by health insurance funds was 11.2 per cent in 1993-94 and the statement in the answer to question No. 209 (Hansard , 11 May 1999, page 4165) that the proportion of total health expenditure funded by private health insurance funds was 32.8 per cent in 1994-95; if not, why not.(2) Further to the answer to question No. 209, why is he no longer able to produce data showing the proportion of total recurrent health expenditure funded by private health insurance.(3) What impact is the lack of information referred to in part (2) having on the quality of health policy development.7349Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. See revised answer to question No. 209.(2) See table provided in revised answer to question No. 209.(3) None.