1999-06-283913REPS754901999-06-28Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Delegation Reports7549754975497549Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 101st Inter-Parliamentary Conference, Brussels, Belgium, and a bilateral visit to Norway.In April, I was pleased to lead the Australian delegation to the 101st Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference in Brussels and a bilateral visit to Norway. At the outset I wish to commend the deputy leader of the delegation, Senator Jim McKiernan, and other members of the delegation—Mr Somlyay, Mrs Gallus, Mr Morris, Mr Causley and Senator Collins—for their hard work, assistance and support. In my 16 years in parliament I have participated on some fine delegations but none more cohesive and purposeful than this one.Honourable members will be aware that over the years Australian delegations to the IPU, lead by former Speakers McLeay, Martin and Halverson, have made a significant contribution to the work of the IPU, participating in debates, chairing drafting committees to formulate final resolutions for adoption by the plenary session of the IPU and networking with parliamentary colleagues on matters of mutual interest. I can report to the House that this delegation has maintained the high level of commitment and contribution of past delegations, and this is particularly pleasing given the fact that most of the members of the delegation had not been to an IPU before, and its various committees, practices and procedures can be a mystery to the uninitiated.I would particularly like to commend the work of Mr Neil Bessell, the Senior Clerk of Committees in the Senate, whose organisation, authority and sensitivity to IPU matters and experience was invaluable to all committee members, and Mr Peter Gibson, the chief of staff in my office, for his support and assistance.The report I have just tabled records in detail the work undertaken by the IPU and our contribution to its deliberations. The House should note that Senator McKiernan participated in the debate and chaired the drafting committee on nuclear proliferation and disarmament and Mr Somlyay chaired the drafting committee on highly indebted poor countries. The fact that Australians should chair two of the drafting committees was quite remarkable. In addition to that, the delegation submitted a memorandum and draft resolutions on nuclear proliferation and disarmament; Mr Causley participated in the debate on the problem of metropolitan areas; Mr Morris participated in the debate on the supplementary item added to the agenda on writing off the government debt of highly indebted poor countries; Mrs Gallus participated in the deliberations of the meeting of women parliamentarians; I made a speech to the IPU during its general debate on the situation in Kosovo and the plight of our aid workers in Yugoslavia; and, of some import, Senator Collins and I met with members of the Yugoslavia delegation, including the Speaker of the Yugoslavia Parliament.In relation to this last matter, the IPU is often described as the world parliament of parliaments and is dedicated to dialogue and goodwill between nations. Accordingly, the delegation considered it essential that we seek a meeting with the Yugoslav parliamentary delegation to make the strongest possible representations for the release of the aid workers being detained in their country.In keeping with past practice, I commend to the House that section of the committee's report dealing with the IPU Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians. Following the IPU at Brussels, the delegation flew to Tromso, 300 kilometres north of the Artic Circle, to begin its bilateral visit to Norway. The delegation's report again records in detail the work undertaken in order to meet the aims and objectives of the visit.In summary, I had the honour to be granted an audience with His Majesty King Harold V of Norway. The delegation as a whole was honoured to meet with the Prime Minister of Norway, the Foreign Minister of Norway, the President of the Storting, the President of the Lagting, the Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, three ministers of state and several representatives of industry and trade. The report addresses the matters discussed at these various meetings. Most importantly, the delegation's report also attests to the warmth of the welcome, the level of interest and the mutual respect that underpins what is a mature and harmonious bilateral relationship between Australia and Norway.During the delegation's visit, the comment was made on several occasions that, although Australia and Norway are at opposite ends of the globe, we have mutual interests and concerns and are both committed to the role of good international citizens. Notwithstanding these similarities in approach, I can assure the House that Australia's view on whaling is well known in Norway. Also, the delegation, and in particular the member for Page, raised on several occasions issues on trade liberalisation, the WTO and, in particular, subsidies for agriculture.I wish to report our special appreciation of the Norwegian Storting, its President, Mrs Kirsti Kolle Grondahl, and the Vice President of the Lagting, Mr Svein Ludvigsen, for coordinating the delegation's excellent program and for the warm welcome and hospitality extended during its visit. The delegation also wishes to thank Mr Stephen Brady, the Australian Ambassador, and his staff for the excellent briefing papers on Norway provided on arrival and commends the Ambassador and staff for the outstanding assistance and advice provided during the visit. The Ambassador's support of the delegation was exemplary. I commend the delegation's report to the House.12:38:007550Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—Mr Speaker, I firstly join with you in expressing my appreciation of the personnel who assisted the delegation, particularly Mr Bessell, and also our staff in the embassy in Stockholm and of course the recipients, the Norwegian parliament. I also place on the record a reiteration. I have made some remarks in the past about the role of the IPU and the fact that it offers a third level of international relations. In a world that is increasingly tribalising with people going back to smaller and smaller groups and, in many cases, smaller and smaller parliaments, I find the fact that they are communicating at this informal level very valuable as both a parliamentarian and as an Australian. It is very important that we play the role that we have developed over the years in the IPU which, whilst not recognised, is still fundamentally important.I want particularly to refer to some remarks I included in the delegation report regarding education out of Norway. What we are experiencing here is really quite unprecedented in the fact that a First World country, a European country in particular, is now exporting huge numbers of students. In the current year, something like 11,000 Norwegian students will leave Norway to study overseas. Of that number, some 1,000 will come to Australia. That number is increasing around the world. The Norwegian government has a positive policy of internationalising its student body quite deliberately because it feels that there are great benefits to be obtained from that. Looking at Australian universities, we find that they are also internationalising more and more. This is not simply about trade and economics; it is also about the nature of universities, and it goes back many hundreds of years. Universities have always internationalised and the dimensions are very similar to what they were three or four hundred years ago.Looking at it from our point of view as a country, there are really substantial benefits in the fact that European countries are moving down this path. There is a great danger that it will become Eurocentric and the students will stay within Europe, which, to be honest about Norwegian students, is the norm. Most of them stay in Europe and go to universities in other European countries. They are closer, it is simpler, they perhaps have more lan guage familiarity and it is easier for them to be aware of what the universities are like in terms of quality. But a lot of Norwegian students are wishing to go overseas in a much more extensive way, whether it be to Canada, America or Australia. We are seeing that growth here.My concerns about that are that we do not make it any easier as a country. We actually make it quite difficult. We have a panel of only three doctors, one of whom does not seem to be very responsive to students. If one imagines that 1,000 students a year may apply for a visa, normally within a very short time frame—a couple of weeks twice a year—that means that that panel of effectively two doctors is really not good enough. That is one aspect that needs to be looked at. In relation to fees, visas are incredibly expensive. An Australian visa costs something like four times what an American visa costs. Our medical requirements are quite extensive as well, even for short-stay students when other countries only apply those requirements to long-stay students. Looking at those aspects, there is great scope for internationalising our student body more.I also want to mention briefly the fact that we visited the Arctic research centre in Tromso, Polaria. Scope for intergovernmental cooperation across Arctic-Antarctic research is not currently being explored. I would recommend very strongly that we as parliamentarians should be urging our governments to link up more closely. The potential for those two programs to help both our trade and international understanding are too good to be missed. I commend the report to members.12:42:007551Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—Mr Speaker, let me commence my comments on this delegation's report by congratulating you on your leadership of the delegation. It was, as you said, an extremely good delegation with much friendship within the group between Labor, Liberal and National parties. I think it was very much due to your leadership that the delegation achieved a lot both at the IPU conference itself and later in Norway. First of all, on the delegation to the IPU, Australia's representation was undoubtedly very good. We were extremely busy not only in what is visible with what goes on during the speeches and committee meetings but also behind the scenes. I acknowledge the work that the member for Newcastle did in re-establishing alliances that he had made earlier at previous IPU meetings.Unfortunately for myself and for some of the other members of the delegation, it was our first visit to the IPU, so we were only starting to form those networks which are so incredibly important at the IPU. I was very pleased to meet with the Cambodian delegation to discuss matters of mutual interest, including the prosecution of war criminals in Cambodia and how we could assist in facilitating that to go ahead by some actions of this parliament. I will not address that now but at a later date, but I certainly note that the Belgium parliament has already moved in an appropriate direction. We might follow in their footsteps.I know that as parliamentarians we should tell everybody how hard we work on these delegations. Indeed, we worked extremely hard, but I might also say that the visit to Norway was an absolute pleasure. We could not have asked for better hosts than the Norwegians. We learnt how to skol properly at a dinner. I suspect our health was worse for it, but it did certainly add to our visit. We found that we had a lot in common with the Norwegians, and there are many opportunities for us to work on that friendship.One thing that is of particular interest to me is the working holiday-maker visa. We have a scheme where we have bilateral agreements with seven countries on working holiday-makers. Norway is not one of those countries, but it clearly should be. Norwegians generally speak English, and that would allow them to come here and also young Australians to go there. I am keen that we work on an exchange of working holiday visas with Norway, and I will be following that up with Foreign Affairs. I have already followed that up with the Ambassador to Scandinavia, Mr Stephen Brady, who I congratulate on the work he is doing there. I would also like to mention his staff Jon Oyslebo and Aud Loen, and to acknowledge not only the staff in Norway but also the assistance we had from Neil Bessel, Jeremy Webb—who was at the IPU with us from Foreign Affairs—and of course, Mr Speaker, your chief of staff, Peter Gibson.12:45:007552Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—It is a great pleasure for me to contribute to this report of the delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Conference in Brussels and the bilateral visit to Norway. This is the first delegation that I have been able to be with since I came into federal parliament, and I found it a very invigorating experience. I was probably a little sceptical about going to a conference such as this when I set out, because it is a very big conference of some 1,300 delegates. I wondered what it might achieve, being so big and so diverse as far as the countries were concerned. It seemed to me that it might be a talkfest and would probably get no further than that. I have to say that I was impressed with the way that the IPU works. Some of the subjects were sensitive subjects, in particular the one that I spoke on, which is called urbanisation and deals with the issues surrounding the continued urbanisation of our societies. It is almost code for population control, I might think. This is probably one of the biggest issues challenging the world at the present time and certainly one of the biggest issues that governments around the world have to consider.The other issue that I thought would be very sensitive was Third World debt. When it was initially raised in the conference, it seemed to me it had the potential to divide the haves from the have-nots and that there could have been a great gulf. Admittedly, debt is debt and, if you are going to borrow money, it has to be repaid, but I was very impressed with the committee systems that were set up and the report that came back to the general convention. There was a lot of sense. People obviously took note that there were countries in terrible problems with debt and that it was probably impossible for them to repay it, but they also understood the fact that it was an issue that could not be ignored and that, if people were to borrow money, there was some responsibility about having government policies in place that ensured that that debt was repaid. The way the conference handled that was the issue that I was most impressed with because it showed that a conference such as this could deal with those very important matters.I found the visit to Norway a very enlightening experience. We sat down and talked to the Sami people—in their tent, in fact, and there are a few photographs to show that—over a cup of hot reindeer soup, which is their traditional food. Having served on the Joint Standing Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund here in this parliament—the second parliament now—I found that some of the issues that were raised by the Sami people were exactly the same as those that are raised by our Aboriginal people. It was rather interesting to talk to them about those issues, because they are a very similar people to our Aboriginal people. They were nomadic; they followed the reindeer. Our Aboriginal people, within their bounds, roamed across the countryside as well. So it was a very interesting experience to sit down with those people and discuss with them the problems that they have.Norway itself was rather fascinating. I was very pleased to get back and see the Viking ships. Coming from southern England, I suppose you always think that there may be a little bit of Viking blood in your veins. The Vikings were great explorers—and plunderers, you might say—right through that area. It was fascinating to have a look at their ships, the way they were designed and the seaworthiness of the vessels.It was probably symptomatic of the way that we were received that we got an audience with the King and we met the Prime Minister. In fact, on the visit to Tromso in the north, we had Svein Ludvigsen, the President of the Lagting, with us, who took us to his home. I found it extremely hospitable that he would take us to his home to have lunch with him and his family. I found that extremely good. I would like to think that the fact that we also had the President of the Storting with us for a full day was quite impressive.I would like to thank the people who supported us on the trip to Norway and Brussels, Neil Bessel and Ambassador Brady, but I mention especially Anne-Grete Nodeide. I understand she has been our honorary ambassador in Norway for some years and now gets some support. The work that they put in to make sure that our visit was a success was certainly appreciated. I enjoyed the experience immensely.Committees75537553755312:51:007553Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Report 22—Five treaties tabled on 11 May 1999 , together with the minutes of proceedings and the evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—I point out that the title of this report as on the blue and on the Notice Paper is somewhat wrong. It was originally called the Pine Gap Agreement and five treaties , but the Pine Gap Agreement is not part of this report. It has been postponed for a further hearing.The report I have just tabled is the latest in the Treaties Committee's reviews of groups of treaties that have been tabled in this parliament from time to time. It is the fifth report we have tabled since March this year. In the 39th parliament, the Treaties Committee continues to deal with a very heavy workload.The five treaties tabled on 11 May were as follows: a proposed Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement with India, a proposed Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement with Lithuania, a proposed Trade and Economic Relations Agreement with Fiji, amendments proposed to the constitution of the World Health Organisation and a proposed Mutual Recognition Agreement with Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Our review of these five treaties followed our standard practice. They were advertised nationally and we held two short public hearings in which we took evidence from officials in the appropriate government agencies.Two treaties in this group raised some significant issues. The proposed Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, or IPPA, with India is an important agreement with a significant trading partner of Australia's. The obvious comparison is with the IPPA with Pakistan, considered by the committee in its 15th report, which was tabled on 2 July last year. In that report, the committee drew attention to the nuclear tests under way in South Asia in 1998, adding that these tests had added `a considerable irritant' to the bilateral relationship with Pakistan.Last year we recommended that ratification of the IPPA with Pakistan should be delayed until ministerial and other senior official contacts were resumed. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade advised during our review of the proposed agreement with India that there had been some movement by both India and Pakistan to comply with some of the elements of the Security Council's resolution about nuclear testing. Therefore, in the current situation where the outcome of the fighting in Jammu and Kashmir is really not yet clear, we believe that little purpose would be served by delaying implementation of the proposed agreement with India.During the negotiation of these agreements, Australia uses its own model text. In the case of this proposed agreement with India, there are a number of changes to the model text because India also has its preferred version. It was necessary to reconcile the two texts and, while some minor changes were required to our version, we think the proposed agreement is certainly consistent with our requirements to protect Australian investments.The other significant agreement tabled on 11 May was the proposed Mutual Recognition Agreement, or MRA, with Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. In report No. 20, the committee reviewed a proposed MRA with the European Community, and we expressed some concerns about the understanding of the EU rules of origin and we hoped that the efforts of Australian companies to export goods assembled here would not be hampered by the new arrangements.Implementation of this MRA has not been very smooth, with some considerable delays in finalising it after signature. In conjunction with the MRA for the European Union, this proposed agreement will ensure that uniform conformity assessment provisions apply between the European economic area countries. New examination requirements are intended to ensure that free movement of Australian goods from particular product areas into and between those countries takes place.The MRA deals with competence to test and to certify a specified range of products to meet domestic regulatory requirements. It will provide alternative mechanisms for importers over there and exporters from here to comply with regulatory requirements while hopefully avoiding delays and extra costs. So, when the proposed MRA is operating, one examination in Australia by conformity assessment bodies will suffice for both domestic markets here in Australia and export markets.We have concerns about this proposed agreement which were highlighted by the position in which an Australian company, Nulite Systems International Pty Ltd, found itself in connection with this MRA with the European Community. This firm found out the hard way.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member's time has expired.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—If indeed my time has expired, I am happy to table the text of my remarks and, if necessary, find time later on in the parliamentary schedule to continue them myself. Is that acceptable to the chair?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The chair would in fact be prepared to recognise the member for Wentworth a little later, if that were necessary, when other committee members have had an opportunity to participate.12:58:007554Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—This is the fifth report the Treaties Committee has tabled in this parliament, continuing the amount of work that this committee does. It continues to deal with the many treaties that come before the parliament and are tabled before the country and are tabled in the parliament. There is nothing of great significance in the treaties that are dealt with in the report that we are tabling today, though they have been given good consideration by the committee. The chairman has outlined the five treaties in some detail.In the case of the proposed Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement with India, the current fighting between India and Pakistan in Kashmir has its impacts on Australia's relationship with both of those countries—we took some action last year by cutting off some of our contact with them. I am very pleased, and it is reassuring to everybody, that those countries are coming a little closer on the nuclear question in relation to the UN position, and Australian measures have therefore been somewhat relaxed towards that end. It is hoped that both these governments of India and Pakistan will avoid using the emotive issue of Kashmir in their domestic politics which would lead only to a furthering depth in the dispute there.The proposed IPPA with Lithuania was entered into for political reasons, to bring us together. We have strong contacts with the Baltic states and we want to strengthen those—that was the evidence put before us—and we will continue to do that. There are potential contacts in this region with the Soviet Union, but the committee would not want to overemphasise these opportunities. I do not think there is a lot of trading potential there in the future, and it may take a long time before there are any great opportunities to build up major dollar signs in our trading with this area. Having a better documented treaty in place will mean good relations and opportunities will arise.The proposed Mutual Recognition Agreement with Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway raises issues concerning Australians seeking to export into the European market. We were concerned that the information that was given to us to implement this agreement may have been a little optimistic. There have been some difficulties in getting this agreement in place in the EU, and that is of concern to us.Nulite Systems International is a firm that manufactures dental materials and, in connection with the agreement with the EU, it was inspected and passed to export to that market. They found that the Europeans, as they sometimes do, had a higher benchmark than us and that became a trade barrier, as such, to keeping products from our companies out. This was a very unfortunate thing to occur, but it seems to have occurred on this occasion.While the five treaties do not raise large issues, they have been examined and several matters have been documented in our report. The committee will continue to play that role into the future as other treaties come before us.13:03:007555Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am pleased to associate myself with the remarks of the honourable member for Wentworth and the honourable member for Lyons. As members of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, we continue to play a role in opening up the treaty process to those people in Australia who want to participate in it. They certainly have the opportunity to do that as a result of the work of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. The matters contained in our 22nd report raise a few issues which were canvassed well by my colleagues, and all of our reports are important in the context of treaty making.Some of the departments have suggested that the committee does not need to look at everything, that there are some standard agreements. I think, as a principle, the committee views it as important to check everything, because it is an obligation we have to both the parliament and the people.The treaties committee gives those who want to comment on the process the opportunity to do so. The opportunity has existed only since the Howard government's reforms of 1996, and many citizens have taken the opportunity to comment on a variety of subjects. Most things are easy, but empowerment of the people is an important principle that we uphold. We are not gatekeepers in the sense that we are holding things back; we are gate-openers in our process.There have been a number of inquiries in the last couple of months about a couple of matters. The matter known as the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the MAI, and the Fifth Protocol to the General Agreement on Trade in Services, or the GATS, has caused a number of interesting comments. It is worth noting that the fifth protocol does not affect ownership of Australian banks. There are a lot of false and deliberately misleading interpreta tions being put around about that. The fifth protocol deals with doing business, not with ownership issues.The committee deliberated in favour of the GATS because it reflects existing measures already in place in this country. It in fact complements government measures passed by parliament last year. The new Australian rules open up our nation to further benefits from additional international banking competition. That is a result of the rules passed in the parliament, not as a result of the GATS.We have not given away any of our sovereign decision making capacity on these matters. Australia has made it clear that all of the commitments are subject to foreign investment policy and that foreign acquisitions remain subject to the national interest test under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975.In my own electorate, banking services are now being provided from a number of different foreign banks, which is keeping the local banking sector a little more on their toes. I am sure most Australians would agree that the big four banks need that sort of shake-up from that sort of competition. The General Agreement on Trade in Services will help Australian companies also expand their business operations offshore. So the committee rightly deliberated in favour of that fifth protocol. As a nation, we have achieved some real market access opportunities for our exporters in creating extra jobs here and, by being a party to the fifth protocol, we were able to cement in an international forum some of the arrangements we hold dear in Australia.I am sure many members have received correspondence on these matters. What concerns me as an active participant in the treaty committee's activities is the range of abuse and wild accusations that these particular matters have generated. People have a right to express their views on matters in the public domain, but accusations of treason and treachery delivered to members of the treaties committee do nothing for my stomach. We are doing our duty and, I think, compared to so many other nations in the world, you will not find a system more open and more offering as far as presenting the facts about inter national arrangements to the people are concerned.Treason is a serious matter and it is a serious accusation in any context. The problem in cases such as the MAI and the Fifth Protocol to the General Agreement on Trade in Services is that the committee has often been seen as part of the problem and, in view of its role, this is a dreadful irony. To object to every proposed treaty, as some people in our public debate might suggest, is madness. To suggest that it may impinge on our sovereignty is a matter of concern always, but how Australia would cope in a globalised world without these treaty arrangements and obligations between consenting states is not defined.The treaties committee, on behalf of the parliament, empowers the people. It is an important process. We are part of the solution of opening up to public discussion matters that had not been well understood in the past. It is a process we take very seriously, and we will continue to do so on behalf of all members in this place.13:08:007556Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—by leave—Before moving the motion to conclude the debate, I wish to make a few more remarks about the company Nulite Systems, which had some difficulty over one of these MRAs with the European Community. It found out the hard way that in the area of its products—which are non-metallic bio-material dental restoratives and associated products—the EU standards are considerably higher than Australia's. The firm incurred additional costs in having to arrange for another audit of its manufacturing processes to be done. Unfortunately, as a result of these experiences, the company will not be involved in exporting to the European market. As a committee, we are not in the position to adjudicate in detail one way or the other on this matter, but we do believe that the attitude taken by the responsible agencies towards Nulite Systems has been dismissive and that the firm is right to feel aggrieved about its treatment.During the public hearing on 7 June, we were told that the proposed agreement will provide additional benefits at a minimal cost by extending the number of countries covered by MRAs. Since regulations for the three countries concerned are identical to those applying in the EC, we were informed that Australian conformity assessment bodies will not have to incur additional costs or burdens in being designated under this proposed agreement. We trust that our concerns are groundless and that other firms will not find themselves in the same unhappy situation that Nulite Systems found itself in.The amendments to the proposed constitution of the World Health Organisation are quite routine. The proposed trade and economic relations agreement with Fiji seeks to strengthen the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the two countries. We are an important market for Fiji.While Australia has strong ties with all three Baltic states, sadly there is little trade with any of them. The proposed IPPA with Lithuania should encourage more bilateral trade and economic activity. We are not totally convinced by all of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's views on Lithuania's position as an entry point to the Russian CIS and other former Soviet bloc countries' markets in that region. But, if there are opportunities for Australia's exporters in this area, we hope that the IPPAs will assist them in their efforts. I commend the report to the House. I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Private Members' Business7556755613:11:007556Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I move:That this House:(1) recognises the vital and growing role electronic information transmission plays in education, research and business activity throughout Australia;(2) further recognises that the availability of adequate capacity, high quality and appropriately priced bandwidth—for the electronic transmission of information—is an important strategic issue for the development of the information economy in Australia;(3) notes that regional areas throughout Australia have a poorer electronic information infrastructure than metropolitan areas, and the gap is widening; and(4) acknowledges the urgent need to provide affordable broadband electronic communications to Australia's regional centres and, in particular, to our regional universities.First of all, I would like to thank Dr Ian Atkinson and Kent Adams from James Cook University for their assistance in preparing this speech. In that sense, this speech will be largely devoted specifically to James Cook University and how the poor infrastructure in regional Australia affects it. Even though this is merely a case in point, it underlines the case in general of what is happening throughout Australia. I think those who read and listen to this speech will understand how the current poor facilities relate not only to universities in regional Australia but also to the business world and how the business world is being held back.James Cook University is the primary tertiary education provider in northern Queensland. It is a research institution of international significance, particularly with respect to issues of tropical and regional relevance. It plays a critical role in the regional economy of Australia. It has both a mission and an obligation to provide diverse curriculum for a relatively small student population, to produce graduates for the region's businesses and professions and to improve the region's low tertiary education participation rate.In itself, JCU is part of the region's infrastructure. It is a community facility of considerable value and importance and is vital to the community's economically sustainable development. However, JCU has two main campuses that are over 400 kilometres apart and is remote from other major cities and, hence, remote from options to access and utilise, either singularly or in partnership, the infrastructure enjoyed by metropolitan institutions. The impact of infrastructure deficiencies on JCU, particularly those of telecommunications, and costs affect its role as a vital part of its regional infrastructure. Many of those deficiencies likewise impact on the prospects for economic development of the region.Universities are, in essence, generators, providers and users of information. Their capacity to produce and transmit knowledge is highly dependent on the means by which information is stored and disseminated. Invariably the regions have a poorer information infrastructure than metropolitan areas, and the gap is widening. For example, in its traditional mode, regional state and business libraries have been closed or downsized, and the options to form cooperative links with major libraries—such as state and university libraries—are severely limited by distance's tyranny. Regional university libraries are required to be more self-sufficient but on a smaller resource base. This is certainly the case with JCU.Information transmission for the regions is becoming increasingly dependent on telecommunications, particularly via the Internet. The role of the Internet in teaching, research and general economic activity is now well established. It is absolutely critical not only for the continued wellbeing of a regional university—and hence for the region's key information resource—that Internet access in northern Queensland is adequate but also for the capacity of the region's community and businesses to fully participate in activities that rely on data transmission such as electronic commerce.Australian universities pioneered the introduction of the Internet to Australia with the development of the Australian Academic and Research Network. AARNet, as it is called in shorthand terms, in its current form connects a single node or hub in each state at very high speed, and that is currently 155 megabits per second. In Queensland this hub is physically sited at the University of Queensland at St Lucia. Because of their physical proximity to the AARNet hub at UQ, universities in the southern corner of Queensland can connect to the Internet at very high speeds—up to 34 megabits per second—by use of a microwave based communications system at modest capital and maintenance costs.But JCU and Central Queensland University are a long way away from that hub. Indeed, JCU's campus in Cairns is 1,850 kilometres away, and Townsville is 1,450 kilometres away. The cost of getting communication over that distance is prohibitive. Currently what happens is that both JCU and Central Queensland University have to rely on an inadequate and saturated two megabits per second frame relay connection leased from Telstra.A recent CISCO survey confirms that JCU—listen to this—has the lowest ratio of Internet bandwidth per staff-student of any Australian university. That is simply unacceptable. The cost of building microwave based communications infrastructure to Brisbane would be prohibitive for JCU. A preliminary estimate from a commercial vendor has indicated a conservative capital cost of $3½ million and an annual maintenance fee of $450,000 for a 34 megabits per second microwave connection running from Cairns to Brisbane via Townsville. That connection is available at very low charge for the southern Queensland universities but at a prohibitive cost for James Cook. Essentially, such a project would duplicate the microwave based communications infrastructure of Telstra over this region.Alternatively, a 34 megabits per second connection from JCU's Cairns and Townsville campuses to the AARNet hub at UQ can be purchased from Telstra at a cost of $800,000 per annum. That is beyond JCU's budget, and certainly that cost would severely impact on JCU's ability to adequately resource its teaching and research programs. Alternate sources of government support for JCU and CQU have been exhaustively explored; namely, the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund and the DETYA Australian Partnership for High Performance Computing Program.Consequently, the capacity of both JCU and Central Queensland University to fulfil its missions of teaching and research are at a significant disadvantage compared with the institutions in the rest of Australia. The costs to opportunities available to regional universities come in many areas, including national competitive research grants; a range of options for basic, environmental, applied and industrial research; high performance computing; remote and electronic library access; teaching and learning; capacity to recruit and retain staff of high quality—and it goes on.The list is not exhaustive but it indicates the range of activities that are increasingly being negatively impacted on by the absence of high-speed data connections. In effect, there is a significant distance based discrimination for the regional institutions that prevents them from full participation in new developments in teaching, learning and research that make significant demand of high bandwidth communications. Furthermore, many of these missed opportunities also apply to regional industries and businesses which cannot afford the very high charges required for high-speed connections. Without these broadband connections, their ability to compete or survive in the developing information based economy is seriously compromised.The issue of staff recruitment and retention is particularly serious. The success of many strategic initiatives in northern Queensland is becoming increasingly reliant on the availability of underlying IT infrastructure. Examples of negative impacts that are already felt by businesses in North Queensland because of the absence of affordable high bandwidth communications include: high density imagery cannot be digitally transmitted outside the region—a major problem for environmental, multimedia and GIS bureaus—graphic designers cannot email digital files to separators in Brisbane; colour separations cannot be prepared for printing; engineers cannot work interactively on CAD-CAM based projects; and 3D computer simulation skills based at the Queensland Manufacturing Institute in Townsville cannot be accessed interactively by the Stereo Lithography Unit at the Queensland Manufacturing Institute in Brisbane.Businesses wanting to participate in enterprise-wide knowledge management and electronic commerce—for example, sending images and data around the world to support their products, teleconferencing, data transfer and product research access—cannot do this presently in North Queensland. Unless the region can get access to high-speed data transfer, national and international businesses will increasingly avoid the region. Any competitive advantages this region may have in terms of other features will be compromised without an effective modern communications system.This motion seeks to address these particular problems. I believe that all Australians should have equal access to the bandwidth capacity that is necessary to do business and to look after education. I certainly support this motion.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?NV5FORRESTMr Forrest—I second the motion and reserve my right to contribute.13:22:007559Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I rise to speak on the private member's motion moved by the member for Herbert. Part (1) of the motion states:That this House:(1) recognises the vital and growing and vital role electronic information transmission plays in education, research and business activity throughout Australia.I can only agree totally with the sentiments of the member for Herbert in his recognition of the importance of electronic information. The extent to which education has benefited cannot be overstated. Universities, schools and other educational institutions can share information, carry out research without boundaries, communicate internationally and raise efficiencies of administration. Through electronic information, students have the ability to work from home, research from any computer with an Internet connection and increase their exposure to the subject matter they are learning. Electronic information transmission has created the learning methods and expectations of the 21st century. The enhanced ability of our academics and scholars to access the world of thoughts and ideas has accelerated both global learning and understanding. These technologies have gone past the whizzbang and are now essential tools for modern learning. The ability to access electronic informa tion is no longer so much a competitive advantage as the lack of access has become a recognisable impediment.This reliance is growing at such a pace that the children of today cannot honestly comprehend how the rest of us managed without this technology in the past. Education and learning can be without bounds but only where information has the same criteria. In research as in business the information age is an inescapable reality. Whether we embrace them or not, new technologies are rushing towards us and forever altering the way we live and the way we do business. Business should embrace to a very large extent the opportunities provided by these new technologies. Many Australian businesses have already done this. Australian business now enjoys global markets, mobility of capital and the opportunity for international enterprise on a previously unimaginable scale. In fact, these new technologies go so far as to throw into question our traditional notions of the nation state as a business base. This is the challenge of new technologies but, for our sparsely populated island continent, this may be our opportunity.Electronic transfer of information has created industries and markets in which Australia can compete free of many of our traditional disadvantages. Information industries do not require the capital that is often so hard to find for other industries. The globalisation of markets will liberate us from the suffocating effects of our small domestic markets. The tyranny of distance is eliminated now that we are all just one mouse-click away from each other. This technology can do good things for all Australians, but it will be particularly good for rural, regional and isolated Australia. The growing role of electronic information has liberated those parts of Australia previously trapped by isolation. Through information technologies there is a growing equity between the services, information and entertainment available to both our country cousins and their city counterparts.But the rate of growth of these vital services for the bush is still trailing. This is a genuine problem. Whilst equity of access to the world is the hallmark of this new technology, unfortunately it is rendered meaningless without equity of access within Australia. Only this equity will allow country Australia to be a fundamental part of the new Australia, let alone the rest of the world. This leads me to the second part of the motion:(2) further recognises that the availability of adequate capacity, high quality and appropriately priced bandwidth—for the electronic transmission of information—is an important strategic issue for the development of the information economy in Australia;The development of the information economy is vital to the future of Australia. We are isolated geographically but not electronically, and certainly not intellectually. Australia has always relied on its natural resources and the sheep's back for its wealth and growth but, as everyone would recognise today, that is no longer the case and it is certainly no longer enough.The information age is shifting global demand for goods and services—global demand that we can satisfy. Countries without our natural resources are developing these new economies. Australia cannot lose ground in these early years while we subsist off historical and diminishing economies. This new age is still very much in its infancy. We can get on board now or we can dabble around while we remain resource reliant. If we do that, sooner rather than later we will find that we are poorly placed in the main game of global markets and the world economy. We must put into place today the strategies and policies that will see new industries, new business and new developments drive the Australian economy. Australia must harness our historical ability to overcome distance. We are a nation that has developed remote communities and provided remote services. After all, our country has perfected distance education through the School of the Air and open learning at our universities as well as the Royal Flying Doctor Service. Should we not then have something to contribute to a technology that has further broken down the need for face-to-face contact on a global level? These technologies are creating new economies that can be easily developed in any region with the initiative. The economies of the future are about things we have not even dreamed of yet. The requirement is for an infrastructure system and national policy to ensure that it occurs at all and that it occurs equitably. Part (3) of this motion:(3) notes that regional areas throughout Australia have a poorer electronic information infrastructure than metropolitan areas, and the gap is widening . . .This reaffirms the importance of universal service obligations. Universal service obligations in communications infrastructure are part of what has ensured that everyone in this country gets the services they need at an affordable price throughout the entire country. This has been of particular benefit to people living in the bush. The cost for one connection to an outback property is vastly in excess of the connection of the same service in the city. But that does not mean that people in the bush should not have access to the same service and for the same cost. Universal service obligations must extend beyond fair access to a telephone line, to include the infrastructure required for the full employment of all of today's information technologies.It is the role of government to ensure that these services are provided, maintained and kept up to date. Private enterprise cannot be expected to deliver universal service obligations at the same level as would government. The impact of these obligations on corporate profits would see the eventual neglect of this role and diminishing returns for the bush. Even if the government could successfully legislate for the provision of equitable services, perhaps from a privatised Telstra, the reality is that Telstra would be bound to provide today's telecommunication needs only as a universal service obligation. Tomorrow's information technologies would, however, be provided by a privatised Telstra at the market rate, if at all in some areas. Even now, too few regional Australians have access to a telephone genuinely capable of supporting modems and other basic electronic information equipment.Australia's communication agency would have no incentive to initiate new services or technologies for isolated and rural communities whose number would not be commercially viable. Such services in regional communi ties would lead only to public pressure to provide them at affordable rates well below the actual cost. Thus, tomorrow's technologies and tomorrow's services will be lost to the bush. Regional Australia needs to be confident that government will always keep central to decision making the provision of services to the bush that are of equal capacity and of equal value with city Australia. If this government place extra commercial pressure on Telstra by further sale, they will continue to erode that confidence. Instead, this government must recognise that the information technologies are as an important part of the social and economic life of regional Australia as they are in the major metropolitan centres and, to a very large degree, can be seen as even more so. Finally, part 4 of the motion:(4) acknowledges the urgent need to provide affordable broadband electronic communications to Australia's regional centres and, in particular, to our regional universities.The member for Herbert is to be commended for being supportive in his motion of both electronic communications and Australia's universities. I hope he will become an active voice of opposition in his party room when the rest of his colleagues continue to dismantle and destroy both of these services.If the member supports electronic communications, then he must also reject the government's laws that will severely handicap and ultimately undermine local Internet industries. The government's online services amendments are an enormous imposition on our growing local Internet service providers. The impact on local service providers will be severe enough, though the legislation will go no way towards reducing the level of or access to inappropriate material on the Internet. If the member supports universities, then he also stands in contrast to the government. This government have savaged universities. They have cut university funding and associated research efforts. They have cut incentives for business investment and research and development. The education and training of scientists and engineers has been limited by the government's unhealthy decision to introduce differential rate HECS and impose a higher rate on students wishing to study science or engineering. (Time expired)13:32:007561Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—I too would like to commend the member for Herbert for bringing this motion to the chamber for debate today, and also the member for Oxley. I was with him for most of his remarks, but he tended to lose me at the end. Australians have always been adept at taking up technology. It has been our hallmark for years. In the rate at which Australians have taken up mobile telephone technology, we now lead the world per capita, which reflects on the diverse geographic region and continent we are. Internet use worldwide is growing at a rate beyond comprehension. Between 1993 and 1997 the number of Internet hosts, that is, computers connected to the Internet, grew from one million to 20 million. By 2001 that figure is expected to rise to 120 million. So the technology uptake is well and truly with us.The member for Oxley mentioned that these days youngsters wonder how we managed without this technology. There are some in the gallery who are probably more adept at using technology than we are. I recall my first introduction to a computer. It was in my first year at university. I will not say when, but it was a fair while ago when the size of the computer was about half the size of this chamber. We are now able to carry that sort of capacity around in our breast pocket. We need to ensure that the infrastructure is rolled out so that what we know will be a very high uptake by Australians can take place.With respect to education, a few years ago the Mildura Aboriginal District Education Council were conducting a seminar on mud brick construction. MADEC, as they are referred to, conduct a lot of projects of assistance to Aboriginal communities and remote Australia. This was the first of a series of symposiums and seminars to ensure that there was expertise amongst the community. I remember sitting in a darkened room at their facility in Mildura with 70 participants from around Australia and New Zealand linked through a televideo conference hook-up to Professor Paul McHenry from the University of Mexico in Albuquerque, New Mexico, an expert in adobe construction. This was several years ago, but reflecting back on it in today's terms it was a very primitive video conference with the use of telephone and video facsimile. Bandwidth is increasing. I think the point of the member for Herbert's motion is to ensure that it is rolled out to rural communities at a commensurate rate so that they do not get left behind. Their desire, certainly, to take up this technology is more than obvious to me.Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, like many other members who represent rural regions across Australia, you have universities in your electorate. I have the same in Mildura. The facility I described at MADEC is now extending to La Trobe University and as recently as today there is some interest from Monash University wanting to promote access to university course information where the geography becomes completely irrelevant. To do that they need broadband facilities in the Sunraysia region. I am hoping that those universities at Mildura can keep pace with Southern Cross University up at Coffs Harbour so that education is provided to those rural people whom, like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, we represent. We are determined to ensure that the infrastructure of this technology is available to them. They have made conscious decisions about where they want to live in Australia. They have made a reasonable and generous contribution to the GDP by their involvement in primary production and they deserve the same sort of support in the provision of broadband technology as every other Australian enjoys who lives in provincial and metropolitan centres. I congratulate the member for Lindsay for bringing this motion to the attention of the House. I look forward to the ongoing roll-out and the uptake from people like MADEC in my region. (Time expired)13:37:007562Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I support the motion of the honourable member for Herbert. The matter which the member raises affects all universities throughout Australia, including universities in my electorate of Lowe. Lowe is the home of the main campus of the Australian Catholic University. The ACU is a national university with two campuses located in Melbourne and campuses in Ballarat, Canberra and Brisbane. It is instructive to explain to this House the nature of the problem that the member for Herbert refers to in his motion.Australian universities pioneered the introduction of the Internet to Australia with the development of the Australian Academic and Research Network. AARNet was gradually developed to include Internet connection of all Australian universities. AARNet will also provide connection of voice services. This provides cost savings by providing university telephone services by microwave.In 1995, the original AARNet infrastructure was sold to Telstra and the proceeds used to develop AARNet2. AARNet2 was based on Optus services that connected a single node or hub in each state at very high speed through the use of optic fibre technology. Now that AARNet2 is up and running, this provides a good bandwidth range between all universities in Australia. AARNet2 is a child of the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee and is about to be incorporated as a private company. Through the Optus deal, AARNet2, the amount of bandwidth is able to cope with demand.For universities to connect to AARNet2, they need to provide their own `tails' to their regional network organisation. One RNO point exists in each state, made up of all universities and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Therefore, there are eight RNOs—one in each state and territory—which provide the Internet infrastructure in each state for all Australian universities.The ACU has two campuses in Sydney. Therefore, one tail is required for each campus. Each campus had to build its own connection point. Funding for this upgrade in the ACU has come partly from the government as a special grant and partly from recurrent funding. A sum of $2.5 million was spent on microwave connection plus aided technology. Half this amount was paid by the ACU itself. Because the ACU campus at Strathfield is city based, this overhead is relatively inexpensive, but the cost rises as distance increases because more microwave relay points are required. Hills get in the way or space must be rented for existing space on towers or building rooftops. Thus, regional campus over heads are badly affected by distance in terms of cost. For example, Charles Sturt University, with campuses in Bathurst, Wagga and Albury, has just gone through this exercise at great expense. James Cook University's problem is much worse, given the sheer distance between campuses—for example, between the Cairns campus and the Queensland RNO hub in Brisbane. James Cook University's alternative is to rent from a major carrier. The Telecommunications Act 1996 places restrictions on universities so that they can use AARNet only for university purposes. Only following a Senate inquiry was ministerial exemption pursuant to subsections 51(1) and 95(1) given in January 1998, allowing university students the right to have access to AARNet. Universities cannot go into partnership with commercial entities to develop high technology products or allow commercial interests to use AARNet.The act introduced the concept of the `immediate circle'. Universities can allow only staff, and now students, to use AARNet on a position of `competitive neutrality'. This is a joke. This policy is a blight on universities and denies them the right to work with private enterprise. If universities could go into partnership with private enterprise, there would be a much larger financial pool available for funding infrastructure. Because private enterprise is statutorily denied from using AARNet, all network infrastructure must be funded either by the government or by the universities themselves. This lack of funding has not been such an issue for the big city universities but it is a big issue for the regional universities. The statutory obstruction in the Telecommunications Act has been a direct cause of the delay in providing broadband services to regional university campuses.In the case of the University of Ballarat, a separate microwave facility was built requiring it to sell capacity to pay for this project. While this is of great benefit for the region, it has been a two-edged sword in that the University of Ballarat has had to assume commercial risk in such a venture. The only way the ACU Ballarat campus could afford a high-speed Internet connection was by leasing part of the University of Ballarat's service. This is the only way the ACU campus in Ballarat could have made use of microwave technology.The ministerial exemption is due to expire at the end of this year. This exemption from the ordinary operation of the act allows universities to operate AARNet for research purposes; otherwise the act requires universities to be carriers in their own right. Finally, I note that the TAFE institutions are excluded from access to AARNet. The Telecommunications Act shows itself to be the champion of telecommunications corporations, protecting their interests against the needs of students, and the needs of those with disabilities. (Time expired)13:42:007563Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—May I say how pleasant it is not only to support the member for Herbert's motion but also to hear such positive statements from both sides of the House and to see a bipartisan approach to what is a very important issue. As we have heard, the universities in Australia are high intensity centres of information. They create information, they use information and they provide information. It is important that universities outside the capital cities have the ability to participate in this information transfer and the generation of information to the same degree as do the commonly classed sandstone universities.A number of speakers have already aptly demonstrated the importance of data transfer and e-commerce and the very poor situation, in terms of our capabilities, that exists outside the capital cities. I find it ironic that the Internet is used in Australia by universities and has been developed by universities, and yet we have a situation where not all universities are able to use it equally. Capital city universities are, of course, at a distinct advantage, which sees them probably able to transfer data at even five times the rate of my local university, the University of Southern Queensland which, of course, had its data transfer capabilities upgraded substantially as a result of a $190,000 grant from the federal government. But, as I say, it is 20 per cent of the rate of capital city universities and, when we get up to the member for Herbert's area, the situation deteriorates to an enormous degree.In terms of the importance of this issue, I can only agree that to facilitate e-commerce and the transfer of information and to provide the opportunity for government to use the Internet to its maximum in serving the people of Australia, I support the member for Oxley's comments of a universal service obligation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Statements by Members756475647564Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—Regardless of the position the community takes on the GST package, there is one part that cannot be justified by anyone, not even the Treasurer—that is the tax on literacy, the tax on education, the tax on books. I raise this issue because of a letter I received from a local author, Nick Earls. Nick has written three books: Zigzag , Bachelor Kisses and Headgames . In his letter he reminds me of the promise made by the Australian Democrats before the last election. Back then the Democrats said that a tax on books was a tax on learning and literature and that they would not vote for a tax on books. They may have hidden in their offices during the vote on books, but it was their deal that ensured that it got through. The opposition will never forget this, nor will authors such as Nick Earls.Nick Earls represents to some extent the book industry in Australia. He knows from overseas experience that the tax on books will have a negative impact on literacy and it will mean fewer books in the home. Not for those on the government benches—they will be comfortable and relaxed—but for the struggling families in my electorate it will be just another expense too far to reach. Of all the regressive policy contained in the GST ideology, a tax on literature will be written in history as the worst. I just hope that those who are most affected by it will have the literacy skills to understand what it says. I have always believed that learning is a lifelong journey and that the journey is more important than the destination. That still remains true today, except most people will now be travelling in cattle class. (Time expired)75647564Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—Last Saturday I attended the 150th anniversary celebrations of Pambula Public School. One hundred and fifty years is a long time for anything in Australia, and I am sure many people would be surprised to learn that Pambula Public School is in fact the fourth oldest public school in New South Wales. Public education in New South Wales celebrated its 150th anniversary last year, so the establishment of a school in Pambula came very early on in the history of public education in New South Wales. It was a wonderful day of celebrations, with probably thousands of people involved. People came from all over Australia, and the reunions that took place gave many people a lot of joy.The official ceremony was conducted under the guidance of the longest-serving headmaster of Pambula School, Mr Frank Maher. Frank was the headmaster from 1968 through to 1983. He still lives in the region, and he and his wife Fay are great community workers. Colin Walters, the district superintendent, spoke at the gathering, and a plaque commemorating the event was unveiled by the state member for Bega, Russell Smith. I assisted the two school captains, Rachelle Dirou and Danny Jones, to bury a time capsule which will be dug up for the 175th anniversary. Congratulations to the Principal, Peter Ongley, to the P&C president, Greg Whitby, and his wife Robyn, and to all of the committee who organised the superb celebrations.75647564Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I want to commend the students of Browns Plains High School for their sound understanding of the impact that the GST will have on them and on their families. They were asked by the local newspaper, the City & Shire Leader , to submit their views on that impact. In particular I want to mention Rebecca Naylor, Melissa Johnson, Viet Pham, Rick Mortonson, Brett King, Rima Salameh, David Caswell, David Starr, Jason Friend, Jessica Ferns, Mark Skalczyaski and Jessica Petrovic. These are just a couple of samples of the letters that they submitted. This one came from Rebecca Naylor:I think the GST is a waste of time. Why bring in a tax on everyday items such as food and let the prices rise? Why do we need extra taxes? I don't think the GST is fair. It is going to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.Melissa Johnson:I think the GST is a bad idea. Yes, the prices of VCRs and TVs will go down but food will go up. You buy food every week and hardly ever buy a TV or VCR. The GST will not be beneficial to my family at all.Brett King:The GST is for the rich not the poor. Average families will not be able to afford it.I say to the Prime Minister: you might be able to hoodwink some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool the students of Browns Plains High School.75657565Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—The previous speaker was an economic adviser to Prime Minister Hawke, and I think we see why: he has not caught up with the fact that food is actually exempt from the tax parcel.Last week a constituent of mine who lives in the state electorate of Elder contacted me. His son had received a renewal notice for the ALP. The only problem was that his son had never joined, never signed and never paid for his membership and did not want to be an ALP member. My constituent contacted the South Australian ALP and was told it was a mistake and could he please return the renewal notice. Fortunately, he did not. He refused to. Both he and his son are angry and baffled that someone had used his name to join the ALP. This is not an isolated case. On Australia Day of this year 2,000 members joined the South Australian ALP. Many were taken from club lists, and some were deceased. The member for Port Adelaide—and I agree with him on this—and some state members doorknocked these members, and most were not aware that they had joined the South Australian ALP. Last Friday the Federal Court heard how the AMWU recruited ALP members and paid their subs from a special fund. I note that there are not too many members of the South Australian ALP sitting in this parliament. You might ask why. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition should ask why. In fact, if the Leader of the Opposition were a true leader he would consider the calls within his own party for federal intervention based on the performance of the SA ALP.75657565Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—I want to share with the House today a great example of what a small town with a big heart can achieve. I was out at Clermont over the weekend for the opening of the Clermont Multi-Purpose Centre and hospital fete. When I was there I saw a fantastic display of handmade patchwork quilts made by the members of the Clermont Patchwork and Quilters Group for the Kosovar refugees who have been taking shelter in Australia for the past couple of months. The quilts were made by the group in response to a call that went out on Australia All Over . Sue Flynn, one of the members of the group, heard the call for 5,000 quilts to be made to give to the Kosovar refugees. So the group got to work and over the past six weeks the 25 members of the Clermont Patchwork and Quilters Group have made 25 bright and beautiful quilts to give to the Kosovar refugees.It has been a great effort by those quilters and they have been given wonderful support by the whole community of Clermont. A notice went out in the community newsletter for donations of material and the response was really overwhelming. The group was swamped with material from right across the community. In fact, the local schoolchildren handpainted individual patches with their names and messages for the Kosovar children and those patches made up three of the quilts that were sewn. I should not neglect to mention that in the nearby town of Moranbah they are donating 10 quilts and the group at Belyando has also made a quilt.I want to offer my congratulations to the people of Clermont for getting behind this project. It is a very heart-warming project and I am sure that the refugees will appreciate the effort that went into it. Congratulations to President Ruth Cole and the members of the group. (Time expired)75667566Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I am delighted to follow the member for Capricornia on the matter of the Kosovar refugees because that is exactly the subject that I wanted to raise today in the 90-second statements.I am the patron of the Hampstead safe haven in South Australia and I rise today to thank the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and his parliamentary secretary, the department of immigration, the Army and the Red Cross for the extraordinarily good work that we are doing at the Hampstead safe haven for 150 Kosovar refugees who came there about three weeks ago.Mr Horne interjecting—9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—And elsewhere too, the member for Paterson is quite right; but particularly at Hampstead which I think is the most superior of all of the safe havens in Australia. The accommodation there is tremendously good, the food is very good and, similarly to the member for Capricornia, the Red Cross had 150 quilts made and put in the bedrooms of the Kosovar refugees. Their attitude is absolutely tremendous. We have terrific education facilities there for them and they are responding extremely positively. It is a very happy program and I am sure that my co-patron, Senator Chris Schacht, is happy to be associated with such a great success as is occurring at the Hampstead safe haven.75667566Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—The Don College's recent musical success, Pippin: His Life and Times , continues a fine tradition of quality college musicals since 1981. The values and skills learned are invaluable and students and staff carry their shared experience and friendships forever. I have had the privilege of being involved in nearly all of these productions during my time at the Don College. These experiences are rarely repeated in other endeavours in life. Pippin oozed talent, commitment and professionalism and obviously a very special bond existed between everyone involved, of which there were over 130 in this critically acclaimed production.I would like to particularly recognise the outstanding performances of Nathan Burley as Pippin, James Hutchinson as the Leading Player, Regan Vick as Lewis and Lauren Gould as the devious Fastrada. Pippin was the result of hundreds of hours of volunteer production time, construction and rehearsal and a great love of theatre.Congratulations to musical directors Jill Colgrave and Christine Watson; Dianne Truskett in publications; Anne Heazlewood photography; Brian Harris on video; Vanessa Hartle, Carolyn Lynch, Lance Coleman and Keren Smithies backstage; Rick Smith, Barry Brown and Ian Clarke front-of-house; and John Lee-Archer as such a supportive principal. Most especially I wish to recognise director extraordinaire Shane Wolfe—his drive, talents and personality are incomparable and the college and the region are so lucky to have such a gifted personality and resource. On a personal note, I too am proud to have worked with Shane as a teaching colleague and fellow thespian, but more importantly as a good friend. Congratulations to all involved in Pippin. It was a privilege and a treat to have been in the audience last Friday evening. Thanks for the memories. (Time expired)75667566McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I wish to refute the wild and unfounded claims of the Otways Ranges Environment Network about the harvesting of timber in the Barwon Water Otways region. The OREN are claiming that the harvesting of timber will have a detrimental effect on the collection of water by Barwon Water for the Geelong region. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Barwon Water Authority works with a very stringent forest code and obviously the drought over the last two years has been the major feature of the reduction of water into the catchment in the Otways.When things get difficult for the OREN people, they immediately shift the argument away from the scientific basis of the RFA. The government is committed totally to the sustainable and balanced RFA in the Otways and will not accept the questionable arguments of the OREN group who have no scientific evidence to back up their claims that the water quality of the Barwon Water catchment is affected by logging operations.75677567Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—Mr Speaker, I refer you and all members and senators to a recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald on Thursday, 24 June in the `Stay in Touch' column on page 20. The article gives details of a challenge race between me and the member for Makin, Ms Draper. The foot race over five kilometres will take place in Canberra on 8 December this year. Thanks to the initiative of my friend the member for the Northern Territory, and after discussion with you, Mr Speaker, and the President of the Senate and with the cooperation of the staff of the parliamentary gym, I believe it is appropriate to make this an event for the whole of the parliament and all those who work in it. This not only is in the interests of good health but will also ensure that the most funds possible are raised for both the Asthma Foundation and Heart Foundation from this event.Today, Mr Speaker, I issue a fresh challenge to the remaining 222 senators and members of the House of Representatives to join the race with me and the member for Makin. I promise to donate $10 to either the Asthma Foundation or the Heart Foundation for any member or senator who beats me over the five kilometres. In return, I hope that any member or senator that I beat will donate $10 to the Heart Foundation.Mr Speaker, if every member of the House of Representatives and Senate competes and beats me, I will be liable to pay $2,220 to charity whereas the liability of any member or senator is limited to $10—not bad odds. In the interests of diplomacy, for those members and senators who happen to find themselves indisposed, they can donate $10 and their honour remains intact. My brother Lou will come out of his 22-year retirement to assist me in the race. I thank him for that. It is time for members to put their bodies, or if not, their moneys on the line. (Time expired)75677567Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I rise briefly to highlight the strong performance of the coalition government in this parliamentary term. Whilst the Labor Party has no policies and no direction and wants to concentrate on throwing mud and making personal attacks on members of the government, we have been getting on with policies and putting forward initiatives for this country. In this parliamentary term we have seen the further sale of Telstra which will deliver great initiatives and great benefits to this country. The sale of Telstra will eliminate Labor's debt—that is what it will do.75677567Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise to speak about a great restoration project in my electorate of Greenway at the once run-down park at Riverstone called Knudsen Reserve. Riverstone is a slightly isolated area that was once renowned for its local abattoir which provided almost all the jobs for local residents. When it closed down, this area received a major body blow that it is only now beginning to recover from. This reserve, named after a prominent deceased resident of the Riverstone district, is being lovingly restored by a great band of people on a small committee called the Friends of Knudsen Reserve. This committee is led by Chairperson Maureen Harper, Secretary Ruth Williams and Treasurer Janelle Keith-Sumi.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2.00 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Ministerial Arrangements756814:00:007568Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade will be absent from question time this week. He is visiting New Zealand to attend the APEC trade ministers meeting and participating in discussions on trade liberalisation. In his absence, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will act as Minister for Trade.Questions Without Notice756875687568Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, I refer to reports of a proposal by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business that small retailers could pay a different rate of GST on their total turnover, the actual rate depending on the nature of their business. Treasurer, do you support Peter Reith's plan to ameliorate your GST compliance nightmare?7568Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Of course the second part of the question is based on an entirely false presupposition, and I totally repudiate it. In relation to the first part of the question, the legislation provides that in relation to those items that attract GST they attract it at 10 per cent. As people would know in relation to administering the Income Tax Act, the commissioner from time to time issues guidelines on what will and what will not be acceptable in terms of claims and the like. He would have the same power in relation to the administration of the goods and services tax. It would be a matter for his consideration. If he wanted to issue such draft guidelines, there would be adequate power for him to do so.75687568Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the House what extra steps the government is taking to prevent illegal immigration and what obstacles exist to prevent the government going further in this area?7568Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The House will be aware of the announcement I made with the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in Sydney yesterday that we will commit an additional $124 million of resources over a period of four years to step up in anticipation the fight against illegal immigration into this country. I make it clear that our record to date in stopping illegal immigration has been very effective indeed, and I place on record my appreciation of the work of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, who has handled a very difficult issue with great skill and very great care.As all Australians know, legal immigration to this country is part of our history and always welcomed. This government is second to none in its belief that immigration over the centuries has made a tremendous contribution to building the modern Australia. But illegal immigration, people smuggling, which now involves about four million people worldwide a year, poses a very significant threat to countries like Australia. We are an attractive place to come to, we have a big coastline, and there are aspects of our laws which convey the perception in some parts of the world that, if only you can get into Australia, you can tie up the legal system for years and stay here.That is a perception that would be removed overnight if the Labor Party were to drop its opposition in the Senate to certain legislation that the minister has been trying to get through. So, in addition to the measures I announced yesterday, can I again ask the Australian Labor Party, in the national interest, to stop saying no and to stop being negative and would they please withdraw their Senate opposition and allow the passage of the legislation that will do so much to remove the perception that exists in countries around the world that this country is a relatively easy mark, judicial review wise, providing you can get here in the first place?Importantly, yesterday's announcement provided for the stationing of 12 immigration officers in potential source countries, the acquisition of two additional Dash 8 aircraft and a night capable helicopter to be used in the Torres Strait area, the establishment of a National Surveillance Centre and better intelligence arrangements, and a new position of Director-General of Coastwatch to be filled by an officer of the Australian Defence Force and that person to be directly answerable to the head of the Australian Customs Service.It is an appropriate response to a looming challenge. It occurs against the background of this government having had a great track record in dealing with the problem to date but, recognising that there is no room for complacency and further measures and further resources are needed, once again the government is getting on with the job of governing well for the future of Australia. I ask the Labor Party to drop its negativity towards the minister's legislation. Let the legislation go through so that we can send a loud and clear message to the rest of the world that this country is not an easy mark and that if you come here illegally you are going to be returned to the country you came from very quickly and without any undue delay.75697569Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—My question is directed to the Treasurer and I refer to the Treasurer's advice to a constituent that the GST on books can be avoided by buying over the Internet rather than buying from Australian booksellers. Isn't it true that a price comparison between amazon.com and major Australian booksellers for the top 10 selling books, which include titles such as Hannibal , Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and The Testament , shows that your GST will make buying from Amazon up to one-third cheaper than buying in Australia? How can the Australian book industry keep going under these circumstances?7569Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The presupposition of the question is entirely false again.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Treasurer has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—As was comprehensively displayed last week, the one thing you can always trust about the Labor Party is if they do not have an argument they will always try a smear—always. They will make a false allegation in the belief that by repeating it people will come to think it is true. The rules that are to apply to the GST prima facie are those rules that apply to the wholesale sales tax—rules put in place by the Australian Labor Party; rules, if they were rules allowing tax avoidance, that would allow tax avoidance on CDs, that would allow the avoidance of tariffs on clothes—DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, yeah!CT4Mr COSTELLO—They would be allowing avoidance on clothes. If the Australian Labor Party believe they should not open every parcel, is it not the case under Australian Labor Party rules that you could order clothes over the Internet without a tariff? They are the rules of the Australian Labor Party, the great defenders of tariffs. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has spent three years telling Australia what it needed was tariffs and in the last eight months he has been saying that he is drying out—the born-again, redeemed alcoholic.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. He has been given a specific question on books on which there is no wholesale sales tax. He has been presented with the fact that there is a one-third reduction on bestsellers if you put in place a GST but order through amazon.com. That's what he's got to answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I presume the Leader of the Opposition is raising a point of order on relevance?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The chair was listening to both the question and the answer. I deem that, since the question dealt with the issue of imported goods, the Treasurer was being relevant in the comparisons he was making.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The import rules apply regardless of the nature of the item. They are the same rules. There is no import rule for books, another import rule for CDs and another import rule for jeans. The import rules apply to imports. As Kep Enderby famously once said in this House, most of our imports come from overseas. The rules in relation to imports apply to things from overseas, whether they be CDs, jeans or books, and they are subject to a de minimus rule. They are subject to a de minimus rule which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition recently described as sensible, as I saw in one radio interview. They are sensible for this reason: if you do not want to have a de minimus rule, you can start opening every parcel that comes into the country to see if it is a CD or to see if it is jeans, because if it is jeans there should be a tariff paid. But for years and years and years under Labor Party rules you operated a de minimus rule.As for this argument that a six per cent rise in the price of books is suddenly going to drive people onto the Internet, the example I gave this House last week was the fine book by the member for Werriwa. A $25 book would go up $1.50, and the Australian Labor Party says that this is going to drive people onto the Internet—$1.50, or a six per cent increase. They are going to go onto the Internet and they are going to order in sea mail or airmail. I think most people would order airmail. How could you wait longer than four days to get the member for Werriwa's book? Under the Australian Labor Party rules, they will go airmail to avoid $1.50. I gave the example in the House that you can get the book, as I bought it, fair and square, for $24.95 in an Australian bookshop or you could go onto the Internet with priority airmail and can avoid $1.50 in GST and buy it for $93.70.Even if you could buy cheaper overseas, your argument is this: that a six per cent increase is going to drive people onto the Internet. Let me throw down a challenge to the great micro-economic reformers of the Australian Labor Party who are now apparently worried about the price of overseas books sold in Australia. The biggest item in keeping Australian book prices high for overseas publications are the rules which prevent parallel importing. We all know that. If the Australian Labor Party were interested in the price of overseas books in Australia, they would have a policy on parallel importing, would they not? But what was their position on CDs? To oppose the abolition in relation to parallel importing. Why? To keep CD prices up in Australia.2V5SWANMr Swan—Oh, rubbish!CT4Mr COSTELLO—It was. That was the whole idea—to keep CD prices up in Australia because the argument was that it would then go to the Australian subsidiary of the multinational company and they would pay off the artist. That was your argument.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order, and it is of course a point of order on relevance. None of us here know what he has been smoking, but he is a long way off the point and it is time he came back to it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business knows that that is quite an inappropriate interjection to make.CT4Mr COSTELLO—We will take some interest in the Labor Party worrying about the price of books when we see the Labor Party take a position in relation to parallel importing. Until it does so, like all of its questions on tax, this is just sheer hypocrisy from a party which has no policy and can do nothing but nitpick and engage in negativity. As I said earlier, why would you have a party without a policy? Why would you bother running a party if it did not have a policy? It is nothing more than a jobs racket to keep these particular people employed.75707570Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I would like to hear the Treasurer again.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Indi will come straight to his question or resume his seat.XU5Mr LIEBERMAN—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. How will the introduction of a goods and services tax lead to the simplification of company tax payments, withholding tax and fringe benefits tax?7570Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The good thing about the introduction of a goods and services tax with quarterly returns is that it gives the government the opportunity to dramatically simplify other taxation obligations for companies. The goods and services tax return will provide for a business its company tax instalment notification, its fringe benefits tax notification, its prescribed payments system and its reportable payments system. We have the obligation under this new system to collapse five separate taxation systems into one. It will also provide an alignment of business tax payments and the introduction of an Australian business number, and with the introduction of the Australian business number and quarterly GST returns the opportunity to attack the black economy.Mr Speaker, the Australian Labor Party, which says it opposes a goods and services tax, nonetheless says it supports an Australian business number and a pay-as-you-go tax system. What it does not realise is that a pay-as-you-go tax system works off a GST return. The Australian Labor Party policy was to introduce a system derived from a GST return whilst opposing a GST return. So, in other words, you would require the equivalent of a GST return, without having a GST. That was the position that the Australian Labor Party took to the last election. They said the same thing in relation to the Australian business number. The Australian business number is the registration for GST. The Australian Labor Party said, `We support the ABN. In other words, we will make them all register for GST, even though we won't have a GST system.'Mr Speaker, these were, of course, nonsensical propositions which were put by a party which had no policy. The only policy it had in the last election was to adopt ours or to tax pre-1985 capital assets. That was the other policy that it put forward, as John Della Bosca has now said, to tax pre-1985 assets, a complete miscalculation of the electorate. Aren't we glad that Labor weren't elected? The only thing they pledged to do they now admit themselves was wrong. They have no policy, no ideas and they oppose for the sake of it.UU5HORNEMr Horne—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, because the Treasurer was specifically asked to identify the good points for business in the GST package.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer has completed his answer.UU5HORNEMr Horne—He couldn't do it, and obviously he didn't.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson will resume his seat.Distinguished Visitors757110000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am pleased to have the opportunity to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Speaker of the Parliament of Singapore, Mr Tan Soo Khoon. The Presiding Officer and I are very pleased to have the Speaker of such a loyal friend as Singapore present in the House and, on behalf of all members, I extend to you and your wife a very warm welcome.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice757175717571Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister confirm that his agreement with the Leader of the Australian Democrats involves a significant shift in the mix of taxes in Australia with a much increased reliance on indirect taxes relative to direct taxes? I ask whether the Prime Minister supports the comments of Senator Lees in her 30 May press release that:The tax mix switch will be largely eliminated by 2005 as bracket creep pushes average weekly earnings towards $50,000.7571Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, there is some tax mix switch, yes. I am not denying that and I have never sought to deny it. But you have to compare it with the tax mix switch that occurred in 1993 when—despite your promise that you were against increases in indirect tax and despite your l-a-w promise which you broke—you increased indirect tax without compensation. Neil Warren has been quoted by both sides in this taxation debate, and, as he said, the scandal of 1993 was that you hit the pensioners without compensation. What you did in 1993, despite what you said in the election campaign when you ran a fear campaign against the Hewson-led opposition—despite all of those promises—you shamefully increased indirect tax without compensation to the great detriment of the poor in this country. In those circumstances you have no credibility getting up here asking me questions about tax mix switches.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Will you answer the question? 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition does not have the call and will resume his seat.75727572Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister advise the House of the steps the federal government is taking to redress the problems of dry land salinity? How will this be boosted by the extra $250 million going to the Natural Heritage Trust from the further partial sale of Telstra?7572Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the member for Hume for his question and for his interest in dry land salinity. It is a natural resource management problem that exists in his electorate of Hume. Obviously, we are taking very seriously the issue of dry land salinity as quite an insidious problem across Australia. It is not just a problem that affects agriculture or farmers; it is a problem that all Australians should be cognisant of. Of course, the extra $250 million going into the NHT out of the further privatisation of Telstra will allow us to enhance programs that will address dry land salinity across Australia. This is a problem which affects almost 2½ million hectares of intensively farmed land, and also it affects some 80 regional towns. This is not just an agricultural problem; it is a problem for all Australians that we need to address.Last Thursday at the national science briefing I launched phase 2 of the government's national dry land salinity program, a program pitched squarely at finding solutions to this enormous problem. We are allocating $15 million to that program, along with the states and the stakeholders. As part of that, I announced another $550,000 to further boost dry land salinity research and development. The important issue to identify here is the fact that we have a policy in place to address this very serious issue as far as Australia's farmers are concerned. It is interesting to note that in the 1994-95 budget the allocation for natural resource management was around $90 million. In the 1999-2000 budget the allocation is around $186 million and the further investment of another $250 million taking the NHT funding to $1.5 billion—the largest environmental exercise any government has undertaken—will give us a lot more capacity to address this issue.It should be noted that our land and environmental assets have carried Australia throughout its history. It has been the wealth generated from these assets that has been used to build the infrastructure of this nation and our government is committed to protect and preserve these assets. We have a policy in place to do this. We are further enhancing that now and we will be able to add a further $250 million to the NHT, something that the Labor Party could only dream about.75727572Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Have you seen reports of concerns by the Taxation Institute and Arthur Andersen that the tax office would face chaos in implementing your new GST because of a $1 billion shortfall in funds, and that they would not be able to advise business properly on compliance? Treasurer, will you be providing the additional resources for them to do their job?7572Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Yes, I read Mr Cleary's story in the Financial Review this morning, like most people, and the report, of course, was complete nonsense.MG4LEEMr Lee—He's a favourite of yours, isn't he!CT4Mr COSTELLO—You used him as your election material on election day, you will recall. So you obviously found something in his stories. The Australian Taxation Office has said that that is complete nonsense. The notion that efficiencies to be achieved elsewhere in the ATO are to fund the GST is also completely wrong. The administration of the GST is funded from GST revenue. This is a critical point to bear in mind: all revenue from the GST goes to the states, and it is out of that revenue that the costs of collection are paid. All revenue goes to the states, and it is out of that revenue that the collection costs are paid. They are a separate item to be paid for out of the revenue raised. It does not come from anywhere else in the Australian Taxation Office; it comes out of the revenue which the GST raises, and the states pay for the collection.DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, do they?CT4Mr COSTELLO—Yes, they do, as a cursory reading of ANTS would demonstrate. It has been the published policy now since the policy was issued. It may take a few times to get through, but I say it again: all of the revenue from GST goes to the states. That is why we say the states have a growth revenue. The states have 10 per cent of the goods and services, subject to GST-free areas, produced in Australia. That is why they have a growth revenue. They could never get a growth revenue under the Australian Labor Party. Under the Australian Labor Party, Labor kept wholesale sales tax and then gave money through financial assistance grants. Revenue from GST goes to the states. We are now in the situation where this government takes the responsibility for reforming federal-state relations, which gives the states a new growth tax without seeking or obtaining any of that revenue, and the collection costs come out of the moneys that are raised.To say that something comes out of any other area of the tax office is conceptually completely wrong. The states have agreed that the money for collection will come out of the revenues that they receive. As I recall, the Treasurer of Tasmania could not get his signature on the GST revenue fast enough. He could not wait to get his signature on it, along with Peter Beattie and Bob Carr. Do not think that it is the whole of the Labor Party that is troglodytic in its thinking on tax. There are some progressive elements in the Queensland government, the New South Wales government and the Tasmanian government. They could not wait to get their signatures on the revenues quick enough.As I recall, one of the things that they are insisting on doing is making sure that the collection costs are kept to a minimum. They were most insistent that they were going to scrutinise the situation to ensure that the tax office's collection fees were not inflated in any way. We agreed to that because we have said that, less the collection costs, the states should get the revenue. So conceptually it is quite an erroneous thing to say and, of course, we are not surprised for that reason that it was raised by the Labor Party.75737573Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, last week the Australian Industrial Relations Commission released the findings of its eight-month long inquiry into junior rates of pay. What has been the response of parties that have an interest in this issue?7573Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Boothby for his question. There has been a very strong and unequivocal reaction from the Australian public on this issue. It really is time that we had a likewise black and white response from the Leader of the Opposition as to exactly what his policy is. He is slipping and sliding on an issue where the jobs of thousands of young people are at stake, and no point of order will save him.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and it goes to relevance. He had a very explicit and specific response from me last Thursday. If he wants it again, he should put his stupid motion again.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows that was not a point of order.WI4Mr REITH—That point of order comes from the Leader of the Opposition, who was chuffed earlier this year that he voted against the jobs of young people. This point of order comes from the Leader of the Opposition, who had his union mates out there in the press on the weekend attacking this decision by the Industrial Relations Commission. We know where his bread is buttered. The Leader of the Opposition has a lot of trouble standing up for young people's jobs.Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition!WI4Mr REITH—In the Australian community, take for example the Australian Industry Group—Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows better than to defy the chair.WI4Mr REITH—His chance will come when the legislation is before the parliament. We will see how fair dinkum he is. The Australian Industry Group said:The finding handed down today by the AIRC in relation to the Junior Rates Inquiry represents a sensible decision reflecting the realities of the youth labour market in Australia.The retailers said:The report vindicates our concerns about the disastrous impact on young jobs if junior rates were to be abolished . . . Retailers, their young employees and potential young employees now need certainty about employment conditions and wages for juniors.That is what we demand of you. The Farmers Federation said:The report recognises that there is an indisputable relationship between any abolition of junior wage rates and reduced employment prospects for young people all over the country.That is something the Labor Party is reluctant to admit. The Business Council of Australia said:It provides a strong basis on which to support the government's youth employment bill.The Daily Telegraph said `Start up wage still crucial'. It pinned the Leader of the Opposition in its editorial on the weekend by saying:The opposition is beholden to the trade union movement which believes all workers, no matter what age, experience or ability, should be paid the same.It went on to say:Labor should not deprive youngsters of these opportunities and assets through its pigheaded rejection of youth wages.That is the Daily Telegraph's response to your vacuous speech last week. The West Australian makes the same point again, as do even young people themselves. For example, there is a report on a young worker from McDonald's in Jolimont, Gemma Jones:She said she started on a wage of $5.80 an hour in 1996. Her wage had gone up with each birthday and she now earned $9.97 an hour.In the Courier-Mail today in Brisbane, Dione Stewart, an 18-year-old, said:It is great that they are staying, because a lot of young people wouldn't get jobs.She went on to say:I've learnt basic skills that will take me into any job that I will do later on, like customer service, dealing with complaints, working with other people and sacrificing my time for work time.These are the voices of ordinary Australians. These are the voices of young Australians who demand that the Labor Party finally stand up for their jobs, stand up in the national interest and give them some certainty by passing our legislation. The Leader of the Opposition has cancelled his overseas trip. He has got nothing but points of order; he has no policy.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Has the Leader of the House completed his answer?WI4Mr REITH—No, I'm going to finish him.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Absolutely, and this goes to relevance. What the minister started to talk about had absolutely nothing to do with the issue of youth wages. When he tried to pull this on last week, he got comprehensively done over as we pointed out our policies—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the House has the call; his answer is relevant to the question.WI4Mr REITH—In conclusion, this is psychobabble wrapped up in a point of order that we have now had twice. The Leader of the Opposition was right when he told his party room that there would be a lot of negativity on industrial relations for the Labor Party. I tell you what: there will be a lot of negativity, and it will not just be coming from us. It will be coming from young people in this country who demand security in the jobs that they have got now.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—You've been well and truly done over on this.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is not only defying the chair but also denying the member for Dickson the call.75757575Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, will you confirm that the explanatory memorandum to the diesel grants scheme bill states that a 10-tonne furniture truck that makes a round trip from Forbes to Sydney to Dubbo to Forbes will be eligible for a grant for diesel used on the whole trip? How will this rule apply in the many situations happening today, where such a truck then picks up in Sydney city and makes a delivery in Parramatta before travelling on to Dubbo? Is it the case that a grant will not be claimable for the diesel used in the leg from Sydney to Parramatta? Minister, aren't you imposing a compliance nightmare on such a truck owner who has to determine how many litres of diesel was used on the Sydney to Parramatta leg and then make a deduction from the total claim at the risk of a heavy fine if he gets it wrong?7575Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The member for Dickson appears to have read the explanatory memorandum and has a reasonable concept of the realities that we are putting before the Australian people—which are that, in essence, where diesel fuel is used for the purposes of regional and rural economies, it will indeed be exempt for vehicles that weigh over 4½ tonnes loaded. The real issue here is that, whilst the tax package in relation to diesel is not exactly as we originally designed it, the overwhelming benefits to rural and regional Australians flow and the overall benefits to the broader economy flow. The economic growth that is thus produced and accelerated—XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order on relevance. The question asks for the application of the example in the explanatory memorandum to this particular case involving Sydney to Parramatta and beyond.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister was being relevant to the question. He was referring to the whole matter of the diesel fuel excise as it affected trucks, whether in rural or regional areas, and I call him.4K4Mr ANDERSON—I make the observation that the minute we start to get to something—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question.4K4Mr ANDERSON—which relates to their position, it suddenly becomes a point of order on relevance for them to raise. Quite simply, the point in all of this is that, given that today is a broadcasting day and there are a lot of people in regional Australia who listen to this, what ought to be brought home yet again is that you are totally and absolutely opposed to the benefits of reducing transport costs.75757575Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. What evidence is available regarding the attitudes of young Australians towards the Work for the Dole program, and are there any alternative views about the appeal of such government programs?7575Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Robertson for his question. I note with pleasure that a group of young Work for the Dole participants on the Central Coast have been rewarded for their efforts in organising, promoting and conducting an Australia Day under 18s dance party by winning an award for the best youth event in New South Wales. I know that people in the electorate of Robertson support Work for the Dole because they have written letters to their marvellous local member saying things like, `I would have to recommend Work for the Dole to anyone who is in the unemployment rut.' Another quote is, `This is the best thing that has happened to me in a long time.'Last week I noted that the Leader of the Opposition dismissed the appeal of government programs to generation X, amongst whom support for the Labor Party has collapsed from 52 per cent to just 37 per cent. I am sure that in his travels around his backbenchers' offices, doing his beetroot in gumboots routine, the Leader of the Opposition will notice growing support for Work for the Dole. He will notice amongst Labor people who, in the words of Michael Thompson, support loyalty, saving, work, mutual obligations, patriotism and family—the sorts of Labor people who have been aban doned by the Leader of the Opposition—growing support for Work for the Dole.Last week I had the honour of launching a paper by the Here for Life movement, entitled `Voices of young Australians', based on forums involving more than 5,000 young people, which called for `a diversification and expansion of Work for the Dole', and I am delighted to say that the government is doing both those things. A fortnight ago a survey of 3,000 young Western Australians showed more than an 80 per cent support for Work for the Dole. The department's own research shows that more than 80 per cent of participants believe that their involvement with Work for the Dole has boosted their self-esteem and their determination to find work. The New South Wales Chamber of Commerce and Industry ran a survey which showed that the single most popular measure in the Treasurer's widely acclaimed budget was the doubling of Work for the Dole.So I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition interrupt his travels around his backbenchers' offices to visit some Work for the Dole teams. I am sure that he would find, as I have, scarcely a single participant who is not glad to be doing something rather than nothing. It would certainly be a nice distraction from refereeing the fight between Gary Gray and John Della Bosca. If the Leader of the Opposition were to have any credibility at all, he would listen to the advice of those people on his own side who take policy seriously, he would put someone like the member for Werriwa immediately back on his front bench and he would reject the sort of stuff that is being said by John Della Bosca now.75767576Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is again addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. As the minister was unable to answer the specific detail in the last question, could he please tell the House whether it is true that a diesel grant will not be claimable in the many situations happening today where a 10-tonne truck makes a delivery run from Port Botany to Penrith and return? Is it true that a diesel grant will be claimable for the entire journey in the many situations where a 10-tonne truck makes a delivery run from Port Botany to Katoomba and return? Also, isn't this system open to rorting—that is the point—by a truck driver who sneaks into the non-metropolitan area just so he can claim a grant for the entire journey?7576Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Dickson for her question. It is made quite plain in the explanatory memorandum. For vehicles of 4.5 tonnes gross vehicle mass and over but less than 20 tonnes GVM, a grant will be available for transport tasks including return journeys performed (a) between a point outside the metropolitan areas and another point outside the metropolitan areas; or (b) between a point outside the metropolitan areas and a point inside a metropolitan area; or (c) between different metropolitan areas—that is, interstate journeys. In terms of the administrative details, as has been made quite plain in this place, the details will follow further—UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Oh!4K4Mr ANDERSON—There is nothing unusual about that. We have never denied it. There is nothing made up about this. We have been open and frank about it. It is the normal way it is done. But the member for Dickson wants those whose journeys are obviously specifically made to the benefit of rural and regional economic outcomes to have to record that portion of their trip before they leave an urban area, then the portion of the trip between there and their destination and then on the return trip to differentiate again. That would be the administrative nightmare. The bottom line in all of this is quite simple. The bottom line in all of this is that the ALP and the member for Dickson stand for fuel with a 43c a litre excise rate. That is the bottom line. The coalition, on the other hand, stands for fuel excise at 20c a litre. The ALP stands for higher transport costs—I hope they have told the AWU and the Transport Workers Union—and we stand for lower transport costs.75767576Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Has the government performed any modelling on the impact of the revised tax package on the environment? If so, could he advise what will be the impact on air quality and greenhouse emissions?7577Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the member for Kennedy for his question and for his ongoing interest in greenhouse gas and also in delivering better policy as far as the transport industry in regional and rural Australia is concerned. The answer to the question is obviously yes, we have done an analysis. It has been done by Environment Australia and the Australian Greenhouse Office, drawing on work that has been done by ABARE and BTE. That analysis shows that the new revised package will deliver greenhouse gas savings of 5.5 megatons by the year 2010.That is completely contrary to the assumptions made by the Australia Institute, in which the greenhouse implications of the original tax package were overstated and the greenhouse savings measures of the renewable energy and transport initiatives in the revised package have been ignored. Such measures include: $100 million per year over four years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, incentives for low sulphur diesel, new diesel/petrol vehicle standards, subsidies to accelerate conversion of suitable vehicles to compressed natural gas and LPG, and a grant program to encourage households to install photovoltaic cells. It is not surprising that that work done by the Australia Institute was commissioned by Greenpeace and the Australian Conservation Foundation—two groups not noted for their political balance. Most importantly, the new analysis that the government has had done confirms the positive environmental outcomes secured in the agreement between the government and the Australian Democrats in delivering air quality and greenhouse gas savings. The Environment Australia analysis shows that the revised tax package will deliver 5.5 megatons of greenhouse gas savings by 2010. We have had this new analysis audited by a respected energy economist, Dr David James, who found the savings will almost certainly be much greater than those that were set out in the analysis.In simple terms, the agreement secured with the Australian Democrats will ensure that there will be a net benefit in greenhouse savings and similarly air quality will be improved. The BTE estimates that the new package will deliver a 40 per cent reduction in particulate emissions from the transport sector by 2005. The Australian people will get a cleaner, greener environment as a result of this government's negotiations and agreement with the Australian Democrats, again to the exclusion of the Australian Labor Party.75777577Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—My question without notice is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of observations by the member for Menzies, made in the report To have and to hold , that marriage breakdown costs Australia around $6 billion per year? Prime Minister, why then, in responding to the report last week, did you merely re-announce budget funding of $5 million per annum extra, which represents just 0.0083 per cent of the total cost of marriage breakdown? Prime Minister, why have you ignored the criticism of the committee and failed to provide some real resources for a truly national family early intervention strategy?7577Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. I will take a moment to recapitulate what I did say in response to the report by the member for Menzies. May I congratulate the member for Menzies on the lead that he has taken and the view that I know he shares with members on both sides of the House about the importance of the family as an institution in the Australian community. If the member had carefully studied the responses that I gave—not only the response to the document but also the one I delivered when I launched that formal response—she would be aware that I pointed out to those present and to the Australian community that the government's response to the evident need to support families in the Australian community is not limited to specific initiatives designed to provide specific incentives for such things as premarriage education and relationship counselling but also goes very directly to the economic environment in which families live. It is true that family breakdown costs the community very dearly, and I agree with the member for Chisholm on that subject. It not only costs the community very dearly in economic terms but also costs the community very dearly in psychological and emotional terms. Anything we can do as members of parliament to prevent that we should do. I would say to the member respectfully that the economic climate in which families live does influence their capacity to stay together. It is one of the factors. She will know from her own life experiences, as we all know, that if families are subjected to economic pressure there are difficulties. Those of us who have been involved in any way will be aware of that. If you have a strong economy, low interest rates, rising real wages and growing numbers of jobs, then you have more conducive circumstances for families to stay together. Governments that deliver strong and growing economies, low interest rates, lower taxes and rising job opportunities are governments that are supporting Australian families; governments that deliver the opposite are governments that are not supporting Australian families.You can produce all the specific responses in the world, you can provide all the vouchers for premarital education in the world and you can provide all the instruction in the world, but if you have a bad economic climate you are going to put enormous pressure on Australian families. That is why we regard the most pro-family of all the family policies this government has followed in the last 3¼ years as being the way in which we have brought unrivalled prosperity to the Australian economy.The member for Chisholm shakes her head, but—through you, Mr Speaker—is she seriously asserting that interest rates which are now $330 a month lower than they were in March 1996 have not taken pressure off Australian families? Is she seriously saying that the fact that we have 400,000 more jobs has not taken pressure off Australian families? We are going to deliver, against the opposition of the Australian Labor Party, to which she belongs, $12 billion of personal tax cuts to Australians on 1 July next year and, on top of that, we are going to deliver $2½ billion of additional family benefits.Mr Swan interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Lilley!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I thank the member for Chisholm for raising this issue, because it gives me an opportunity to talk about something that is central to what this government is about. This government is about delivering stability both socially and economically to the mainstream of Australian families; this government is about helping families; this government is about cutting their taxes; it is about cutting their interest rates; it is about providing jobs for Australian children; it is about providing choice for Australian parents—Mr Wilkie interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Swan is warned.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I warm to the task. In the last budget that was brought down by the Treasurer—in the words of the National Director of the Independent Christian Schools of Australia—this government has done more to provide choice to working-class families so far as education is concerned than any government in Australian history. I am proud that I lead a government that has a Treasurer that would deliver such a budget and that has an education minister who has that kind of vision.Mr Swan interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley is warned.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I say to the member for Chisholm that I share her commitment to the cause of Australian families. It is a commitment that I believe ought to be shared across the political divide. I invite her attention to the wonderful economic conditions we have delivered that have done absolutely marvellous things for the environment in which Australian families now live and operate and raise their children for the future benefit of the Australian community.75797579Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Can the minister inform the House what the government is doing to care for frail, older Australians to enable them to remain in their own homes?7579Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—This is a very important issue and I do thank the member for his question. I know he shares with older Australians generally their desire to look forward to remaining in their own homes as long as is possible. Unfortunately, not only did the Labor Party run down residential care and withdraw $1.5 billion and leave us 10,000 residential places short but also they failed to pay attention to the need, requirement and desire of older Australians to remain in their own homes for as long as possible. This government has focused on both. We are making up the difference, making up those 10,000 lost places—which was the legacy of the Labor Party—and we have now increased by some 374 per cent the amount of spending that we are putting into community aged care packages which will allow older Australians to remain in their own homes. In this latest round, some 4,300 additional places have been advertised that we have made available. This means that older Australians can have the dignity of remaining in their own home with their own things around them by having someone to come and help them with the fundamentals like bathing and dressing in their own home, having a little home maintenance and having food brought into their own home.It means also that we have paid attention to the plight of carers. Carers are very important in enabling Australians to remain in their own homes, and so we have dramatically increased the amount of money that we are spending on respite care so that people can have that break and still allow people to remain in their own homes. We have increased spending on HACC—home and community care—which is shared with the state governments. We provide 60 per cent of the funds and the state governments provide 40 per cent. In other words, at every opportunity we have increased the amount of funding and the amount of help that is given to older Australians in need of care to enable them to have it in their own home for as long as possible—because, quite frankly, that is where most people want to be.75797579Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Did the minister describe the Regional Forest Agreement for Western Australia as `heralding a new dawn for the timber industry'? Since then, haven't both the Western Australian Premier and Deputy Premier called for significant changes to the agreement, particularly in respect of logging levels and better protecting icon forests? In light of their criticisms, will you permit the Western Australian Premier to alter the agreement, especially concerning protected icon forests?Mrs Irwin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler is warned.7579Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—My last contact with the Premier of Western Australia on this issue was on Saturday. He assures me that he plans no changes to the Regional Forest Agreement. Secondly, when certain questions were raised and suggestions were made that there were legal questions to be settled on this issue, the reality is that the Premier has also said publicly that the state of Western Australia proposes no such change. The agreement that was signed with the Western Australian government just happens to be based exactly upon the National Forest Policy Statement. Mr Speaker, you might remember who created the National Forest Policy Statement. It was created in 1992 by a political party that goes under the misnomer of the Labor Party.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It goes to the issue of relevance. The minister has completely answered the question that was asked of him. He is now deviating to rehearse matters that were not asked of him. He has gone on sufficiently far. We do not need anything more.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I will determine when the question has been answered in full.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—This policy has been applied implicitly in the Western Australian agreement. What is more, the associated JANIS criteria on reserve areas has the highest percentage compliance of any agreement signed to date. That is recognised amongst most Western Australian members of parliament with the exception of the party that actually signed off on the National Forest Policy Statement for Western Australia—the Labor Party. The person that signed it is known for her lack of memory. But some of the others might have been able to remember that it was the now member for Fremantle that signed that agreement for the people of Western Australia. That is the agreement that has been met and that is the agreement that is in place.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Bruce and the member for Prospect will exercise more restraint.MG4LEEMr Lee—What about those over there?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell is warned. The Speaker had not even completed his statement before the member for Dobell felt he had some licence to interject. The minister will come back to the question.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—The question relates to regional forest agreements in Western Australia. I refer to the Western Australian parliament. I repeat `parliament', because although it was a Labor government the responsibility of then Liberal oppositions was to support this policy as the suitable response to a very, very difficult issue. The response was: give people high levels of reserve areas, which has been done, give people job opportunities and job protection, which has been done, and give the national economy a chance because it is very expensive to find forest products from other parts of the world. Of course, implicit in that is that you can buy as much timber product from the rest of the world as you like, provided your policy says you can cut down other people's trees. That is the other issue that this party of no policy and no relevance seems to be unable to address.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will wind up his remarks.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—The federal government has signed an agreement in good faith. It is standing by it and, I am confident, so will the Western Australian government.75807580Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Has the minister seen statements from the Minister for Regional Development in New South Wales referring to infrastructure funding for the sugar industry? Can the minister give the House the truth in this matter?UU5HORNEMr Horne—Mr Speaker, there is a point of order. It relates to the nature of the question. In that question it is implied that the state minister in New South Wales is lying.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Members on my right!4T4MELHAMMr Melham—There's only one self-confessed liar, and that's Tuckey.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the minister rising on a point of order?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—There has just been an interjection across the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That was a point of order, Minister.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—I ask that the remark made be withdrawn.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Was the minister responding to an interjection?Mr Tuckey interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister does not have the call. The Speaker is seeking to ascertain whether the minister was responding to the point of order raised by the member for Paterson or to a separate interjection.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—No, a separate interjection that occurred down at the other end of the table.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Minister! The minister will resume his seat. Mr Griffin interjecting —10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Bruce is warned. I call the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The chair's specific instruction was for the minister to resume his seat. I understand that he took it to mean—WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I think there is a misunderstanding. The minister objected to a remark passed across the chamber and was simply seeking for it to be withdrawn on the basis that it was unparliamentary and offensive. He was reflecting on remarks from the member for Banks.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The chair—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—He didn't even hear it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect is warned. The chair is at something of a disadvantage, not having heard the interjection allegedly made by the member for Banks. If the member for Banks wishes to withdraw, he may.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—I'm prepared to tell you what the interjection was—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It should not be necessary for the chair to require silence by rising. I did not hear the interjection made. For that reason I felt it was inappropriate for me to rule and asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation to resume his seat. I now call the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification. I didn't understand you to rule on the point of order raised by the member for Paterson.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson raised a point of order about the authenticity of the question, as I recall, and suggested that the question reflected unfairly on the New South Wales administration.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Mr Speaker, the question was: would the minister here tell the truth?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, that is not a point of order. The member for Paterson will resume his seat. That is not a point of order. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has the call.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—It's a trick, Mark. Don't answer it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Watson is warned.7581Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—It is interesting to note the member for Paterson's compulsion to get up and defend the New South Wales minister, a former member of this House, but I wasn't going to insinuate anything of the kind with regard to the New South Wales minister, who I think is the member for Clarence. Just in the process I would like to acknowledge the interest of the member for Page in this issue. This government put together the sugar industry package which allocated adjustment funding for both the New South Wales and Queensland sugar industries. The Queensland industry got on and got the work done. The funding flowed from the Commonwealth through to the industry and it achieved the desired outcomes that were agreed to between our government and those respective industries.It was not the case in New South Wales. Mr Speaker, you may ask yourself why. The reason is that around the time of the New South Wales elections the minister in New South Wales, who didn't want to give any conservative government any credibility as far as the agreement was concerned, held up the funding having legal interpretations and legal assessments of the process undertaken, which cost New South Wales taxpayers money and cost the New South Wales sugar industry time as far as the developments they wanted to fund with the million or so dollars that were on the way through. Unfortunately, we had to deal with this issue through the New South Wales government and through that particular department in New South Wales. The only people who were disadvantaged were the people that the Commonwealth, with Commonwealth dollars, set out to help.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Why don't you get some of your mates to bring it on in the states?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order!SU5Mr VAILE—On the weekend, we had the person in question, the member for Clarence, with his colleagues in Melbourne talking about Country Labor. The Labor Party could not give two hoots about people in country Australia. They could not give two hoots.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Get them to bring it on there!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson is warned.SU5Mr VAILE—It has taken the New South Wales Labor government over six months to assist the process of getting Commonwealth dollars spent on the ground to help the people it is supposed to help—and all for political means around their election in March of this year. And that is what the member for Paterson is trying to defend.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Personal Explanations758215:08:007582Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Yesterday, the Sunday program ran a cover story of about 30 minutes length which contained an extraordinary and sustained attack on me. It was a clear attempt at character assassination. There were no less than 27 false statements or errors of fact in the program, even including errors about the political process. I will not take up the time of the House in rebutting all these statements; let me say just two brief things. Firstly, the Sunday program's second half made claims about the 1993 incident concerning Chinese students. Yet the program failed to mention the fact that these issues were re-examined by the Australian Federal Police in 1997—including material which the Sunday program had at that time and which it showed yesterday—and, nevertheless, I was sent a letter from the Australian Federal Police clearing me again of any impropriety in this matter. Secondly, the program made numerous references to me in connection with the National Crime Authority. I was amazed to see the chairperson of the NCA, Mr Broome, commenting publicly on the investigation. I have today issued a four-page statement to the media in which I have explained my views of the actions of the NCA in this matter and my claims of their impropriety. I can make the statement available to any interested member of the House. I repeat again the comments I made very late last Thursday night in relation to my innocence in this matter, and I will continue my parliamentary duties.Questions to the Speaker758275827582Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—Mr Speaker, is it true that the inappropriate conduct of the member for Leichhardt towards members of the press gallery during question time last Thursday has been raised with you? Can you advise the House what, if any, action you are taking arising out of the concerns that were expressed? Will you undertake to report to the House on this matter before the parliament rises this week?7582Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I can report to the House, and I do not think there will be any reason to report any further to the House, that I was unaware of the activities in the chamber that allegedly occurred last Thursday. I was unaware because there are members on both sides of the House who, if someone is standing at the dispatch box, are somewhat advantaged, so that I was unaware as to whether any allegations were true or false. However, when the matter was reported to me by a member of the press gallery, I took up the matter with people sitting in the general vicinity of the member for Leichhardt and with representatives of the press gallery. So far as I know, no further action is expected to be taken since there seems to be some uncertainty as to whether the member for Leichhardt was any more guilty of impropriety than people in the gallery.7582Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—Mr Speaker, would you consider reviewing the tape, which may throw some further light on this matter?7583Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I have responded to the House. I am clearly happy to look at the tape, but I consider it is a matter that now rests with the gallery and, from my point of view, it has been dealt with. I dealt with it as expeditiously as I thought I could in the absence of any other evidence.75837583Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—My question to you, Mr Speaker, specifically relates to the last question asked by the member for Page to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Is it going to be the practice in this House from here on that questions are asked simply to denigrate ministers in other states who do not have the right to come here to defend themselves? Because that is precisely why that question was asked.7583Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—As the member for Paterson is aware, the standing orders of the House allow members, where they are personally misrepresented, to address that issue. Where allegations are allegedly made about governments of any political persuasion by anyone in the House, there is no such facility, but of course the debate allows people to address any misrepresentations that they believe may have occurred. This is consistent with what has been the past practice of the House.75837583Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—Mr Speaker, under standing order 150, I raise with you the fact that question 465, addressed to the Treasurer, has been outstanding on the Notice Paper since 8 March. I know I have raised it with you before, but it is still outstanding. I ask that you write again to see whether I can possibly get an answer from the Treasurer.7583Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow the matter up.75837583Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Further to the question asked by the member for Gellibrand, it was very clear to opposition members, where I sit, in question time exactly what was going on. I can accept that you may not have wished to have asked us what happened, but to fail to look at the tape to see what the tape might reveal—because the gesticulation was quite clear, and we were not in any way inhibited in our views—is hard to accept.7583Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Chifley will resume his seat. The Speaker makes no apology for his decision to speak to some members of the House and then take an action, given that I was unaware of any facility that would allow the tape to view what was happening in the gallery. But I am happy to look at the tape, as I indicated to the parliament and as heard by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Speaker is less than amused at the action taken by those on his left, who seem to feel that some sort of interjection is entirely appropriate following a ruling.758310001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:75834054WF6Danby Michael MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned, draw the attention of the House to the discrimination experienced by same sex couples in the provision of superannuation benefits.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to reintroduce and pass the Private Member's Bill, entitled the Superannuation (Entitlements of Same Sex Couples) Amendment Bill, introduced into the House by the Member for Grayndler and seconded by the Member for Melbourne Ports.And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray.Mr DanbyWF6Mr Danby(from 4,054 citizens)758321068K6Fitzgibbon Joel MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the issue of proposed imports of uncooked salmon that are likely to contain active fish disease agents. Your petitioners therefore request the House to take note of Australia's favourable disease status and the threat that these imports post to the recreational freshwater fishery, endangered fish species and the salmonoid aquaculture industry in Australia, and take the necessary action to ensure that these valuable community and economic assets are protected from the threat of exotic disease introductions.Mr Fitzgibbon8K6Mr Fitzgibbon(from 2,106 citizens)758413970PG6Macklin Jenny MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:Considering that:(1) the Government has proposed a Goods and Services Tax (GST) and, relying on the outcome of the recent elections, intends to introduce legislation for such a Tax;(2) the Government's proposals, as published, discriminate between the providers of orthodox and complementary medicines and services by making the former GST-free and the latter subject to a 10 per cent GST; and(3) many Australians desire freedom of choice as to what medicines and services they use.Therefore, your Petitioners request that, in the design of a GST, the House ensures that complementary and orthodox medicines and practitioners are treated equally, so that:(1) all therapeutic goods on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, and all herbal remedies prepared extemporaneously by herbalists and other natural therapists from raw materials, are GST-free; and(2) all services provided by herbalists and other natural therapists are GST-free.Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin(from 13,970 citizens)7584143PG6Macklin Jenny MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:Considering that:(1) 30 per cent of Australians seek alternative medical treatments each year;(2) the Government intends to proceed with its Goods and Service Tax (GST)(3) this tax will be paid by persons seeing alternative medicine practitioners but not when seeing medical practitioners.Therefore, your Petitioners request that Australians retain a choice of medical treatment and ensure that:(1) all services provided by alternative medicine practitioners, as currently recognised in Schedule 1 of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations, be GST-free; and (2) all medicines listed on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, and all medicines mixed extemporaneously by practitioner, be GST-free.Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin(from 143 citizens)75849UK6Thomson Kelvin MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of St Linus' Anglican Parish, Merlynston, Victoria 3058 petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray &c.Mr Kelvin ThomsonUK6Mr Kelvin Thomson(from nine citizens)Petitions received.Bills7584r7977584Bill presented by Mr Speaker, and read a first time.75847584Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill which I have just presented is a historic development in the administration of the parliament of Australia. It provides, for the first time, for the establishment of a separate Parliamentary Service, independent of the Australian Public Service but drawing on the same principled professionalism and sharing the values properly expected of those authorising the use of public money and expecting public trust.The proposed Parliamentary Service will support the operations of the Australian parliament, the support services for which are currently provided by staff employed under the generic Public Service Act 1922—the same act which provides support for the executive arm of government.Establishing a separate Parliamentary Service with its own legislation will publicly restate the principles that the legislative arm of government is separate from the executive arm and that its staff are responsible to the Australian parliament rather than to the government of the day.That is not to say that the underlying philosophy and framework of these two services need as a matter of course be different. Indeed, there is great value to both in having arrangements sufficiently similar to foster mobility between them so that both can learn from each other.Other than four changes which I will now outline, this bill is the same as the Parliamentary Service Bill 1997 passed by this House in October 1997.The first change relates to a drafting oversight which may have inadvertently extended the coverage of the Privacy Act to the parliamentary administration. The second change is that some citations and dates have been altered to reflect the passage of time.The third change is that a schedule of amendments to the Parliamentary Service (Consequential Amendments) Act 1997 has been added to update references in that act to this bill.The fourth change is to the setting of remuneration for the clerks of each house. Under this bill their remuneration will be set in the same way as for other secretaries to parliamentary departments—that is, by the Presiding Officers after consideration of a report from the Parliamentary Service Commissioner. In the case of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the Speaker will make the determination. In the case of the Clerk of the Senate, the President will make the determination.These arrangements are similar to those proposed in the Public Service Bill 1999 for secretaries to departments in the wider Australian Public Service.I turn now to the main provisions of this bill.The Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 follows as far as possible the philosophy, content and structure of the Public Service Bill 1999. That bill changes significantly the structure and management of Public Service employment. It is less prescriptive and centralised and places responsibility and accountability more squarely with the operating agencies. To enable this, it also provides greater flexibility to those agencies.To this end, the Parliamentary Service Bill provides for a Parliamentary Service code of conduct and for Parliamentary Service values. These are similar in philosophy to the code of conduct and values in the Public Service Bill 1999, but differ in the recognition of the Parliamentary Service's accountability to the parliament rather than to the government. A value common to both bills is that employment decisions must be based on merit. The Parliamentary Service Bill provides for the creation of a new office of Parliamentary Service Commissioner with a role similar to that of the Public Service Commissioner. The Parliamentary Service Commissioner will advise the Presiding Officers on management practices and policies of the Parliamentary Service and, if requested by the relevant Presiding Officer, investigate and report on specific issues.While the bill provides specifically that the Parliamentary Service Commissioner is to be appointed separately and independently by the Presiding Officers, it is expected that, in the normal course of events, the same person will be both Parliamentary Service Commissioner and Public Service Commissioner. This will assist in ensuring general compatibility and consistency between the two services. However, the bill specifically provides that the Parliamentary Service Commissioner cannot be subject to direction by the executive government in relation to the Parliamentary Service. Under this bill the Presiding Officers will, in broad terms, have the same em ployment powers as those proposed for ministers under the Public Service Bill 1999. Those powers will be exercised after considering advice from the Parliamentary Service Commissioner.The Presiding Officers will have the power to give secretaries of parliamentary departments, including the clerks, general directions relating to the leadership and management of the Parliamentary Service. However, those secretaries cannot be directed in the exercise of their powers in respect of specific individuals in the parliamentary departments.Consistent with the need to preserve the independence of the clerks as impartial advisers, the clerks of each house of the parliament are not to be subject to direction from the Presiding Officers in relation to advice provided to either house, members and senators or parliamentary committees. Secretaries of the parliamentary departments are to have the same employment powers as those proposed for secretaries of executive departments under the Public Service Bill 1999.The Parliamentary Service Bill provides for the appointment, tenure and termination of secretaries of parliamentary departments. There are transitional arrangements to ensure the continuation in office of the current secretaries. Tenure for the clerks of each house will be of one, non-renewable, 10-year period. The bill stipulates the conditions for earlier termination of a clerk's appointment.Other secretaries will be appointed for five years. These appointments will be renewable. Termination arrangements for these positions will be similar to those proposed for secretaries of executive departments under the Public Service Bill 1999.As indicated earlier, this bill provides for unfettered mobility, without loss of accrued entitlements, between the Parliamentary Service and the Public Service.In conclusion, I refer to the first object of this bill. That is to establish a non-partisan Parliamentary Service which is efficient and effective in serving the parliament. This bill provides an employment framework consistent with that proposed for the Public Service generally while excluding the requirement to serve the government of the day. It does this while emphasising the continuing need for professionalism and cost effectiveness in the provision of services.This bill provides the parliament with a set of arrangements which will allow it to continue to attract and provide careers for those staff able to deliver the high standard of service which the parliament currently enjoys.I present the explanatory memorandum and commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Lee) adjourned.Private Members' Business7586758615:26:007586McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I move:That this House:(1) recognises the importance of the efforts of the Jubilee 2000 Debt Coalition in working to obtain a debt free start in the new millennium for a billion people in impoverished countries;(2) supports the Jubilee 2000 Debt Coalition's efforts to present a 370,000 signature petition to the G7 leaders meeting in Cologne on 19 June 1999; and(3) supports the Jubilee 2000 Debt Coalition's efforts to encourage the G7 leaders to take effective steps to prevent high levels of debt building up again in impoverished countries.I rise today in support of the efforts of the Jubilee 2000 Debt Coalition to encourage governments, in particular the leaders of the G7 countries, to address the issue of debt reduction and debt prevention in impoverished countries.The Jubilee Debt 2000 Coalition is an international movement comprising a broad range of people and groups from over 40 countries. Their vision is for the alleviation of debt and the development of debt prevention strategies so those one billion people living in impoverished countries have the chance for a better life in the new millennium. The coalition has a social justice and a preventive outlook.I have been approached by individual people and groups in the Stirling electorate and from other areas to take an interest in this issue, to support the efforts of the coalition in presenting a 370,000-signature petition to the leaders of the G7 countries and its encouragement of the G7 leaders with debt prevention strategies for the future.I was pleased to accept an invitation to participate in a forum in this House when the coalition displayed the 370,000-signature petition prior to its being sent overseas, for presentation to the G7 leaders on 19 June 1999 in Cologne, Germany. I was pleased to see and hear the bipartisan support and words for the coalition's efforts from members of this House and the Senate. The people and groups who contacted me have been very clear in stating the reasons why they think this is an important issue and why they think the coalition's efforts should be supported.I will read out the concerns expressed in a letter I received that was signed by a number of people. It is one of many such letters and phone calls I have received at my electorate office. It said:We are writing to express our concern about the enormous burden of debt on many Third World countries. The effects of this debt are felt most by the citizens of these countries—the poorest people in the world—as health and education budgets are increasingly diminished in an attempt to service it.The letters points out that:. . . through its participation in the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Australia has a voice to lobby- against the inhumanity of maintaining the fiction of repayment; and- for incentives rather than punitive measures towards economic and political stability. Please help Australia use that voice.As one of the many voices that has supported this issue, I agree that it is an appalling situation that over one billion people live in poverty with little access to the basics of life such as health services and immunisation programs, clean water, transport infrastructure, jobs and stable economies. It is tragic that debt repayment schemes have drained money and resources out of these countries and have kept the level of poverty so high. Due to spiralling interest rates in the 1970s and 1980s, some countries have actually repaid their debts more than once. Some countries are repaying $3 for every dollar that they borrowed.The coalition strongly points out in its publications and letters that everyone loses from the effects of debt and that everyone benefits from the effects of debt forgiveness. We are diminished as human beings and as a community if we do not work with other countries to address the debt and poverty issues in Australia as well as in these impoverished Third World countries. Every child or adult who dies because of the lack of immunisation or basic health services or access to clean water is a loss to their family, their community, their country and the world.Australia must raise its voice and make every effort in its spheres of influence to ensure the G7 leaders, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other mechanisms hear the concerns and solutions raised by the coalition. The leaders of the G7 countries, which are the world's richest countries, are to be commended for their decision to cut billions of dollars from Third World debt at their recent meeting in Cologne in Germany. Their support of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, the official debt relief program, along with their messages to the world's poorest countries to undertake economic reforms, must also be commended.It is pleasing to see that this government recognises that `unsustainable debt has been recognised as a constraint in the ability of poor countries to pursue sustainable development and alleviate poverty'—a statement made by Senator Hill in the Senate on 11 May this year. I look forward to seeing the government's continued support for initiatives such as the Jubilee Debt 2000 Coalition and for the development of additional strategies that will enable human and social development in some of the world's poorest nations. As citizens, and as a nation, we will all be enriched by these developments.The people and groups who have contacted me consider that sympathetic consideration must also be given to a debt moratorium for poor countries which have been stricken by major natural disasters, such as is the case in Central America. I am sure that everyone, like me, was distressed by the terrible scenes portrayed in the media, particularly on TV, of the hurricane in Central America and was appalled at the numbers of people who died, were injured or made homeless. But they would have been particularly distressed and appalled at the scenes where the relief facilities could not cope with the enormous number of people left homeless and in greater poverty because of that natural disaster. We have had many such disasters in the countries surrounding us, ranging from cyclones to earthquakes, to famine and disease.In the interests of a fair go, Australians have always been interested not only in building up the infrastructure and wealth and benefits of this country but also in extending their generosity to less well-off places. In this tradition, I call on the House to support the coalition with every effort, with every resource and with every bit of energy they can put into helping to bring about solutions in these countries.In this House we have always worked not only to build up the democratic processes in Australia but also to promote and build up the democratic processes in other countries. The Australian parliament recently sent 12 members and senators to the Indonesian elections as observers. This was a strategy to support and promote democratic institutions and infrastructure. If the countries around us are stable and the countries in the world are stable and if the democratic processes and institutions are strong, then the likelihood of wars breaking out—conflicts like we have seen in Kosovo—will be diminished. That is a goal I am sure everyone in this House wants to work towards. Third World debt—regarding the debt of the world's poorest countries as being an issue—must be addressed by this House. In support of the people of Australia who have asked for us to take this action, I commend their efforts to the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! Is the motion seconded?AV5QUICKMr Quick—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:35:007588Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—Unsustainable debt makes it difficult for poor countries to pursue sustainable development and alleviate poverty. At the moment there are two initiatives happening globally—the IMF-World Bank Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative and the Jubilee Debt 2000 Coalition. Those two initiatives have similar goals but they have different strategies to achieve them. They are both concerned with the high levels of debt that we see in developing countries, in the HIPC, but they have different approaches to them.Total external debt owed by the highly indebted poor countries increased from $US58 billion in 1980 to $US189 billion by 1990. It increased slowly in the last decade, so now it is about $US200 billion. On average those countries have about an 18 per cent annual debt service to exports ratio, and the World Bank feels that if countries have anything higher than a 20 per cent to 25 per cent service to exports ratio then they would be unable to service their debt. The reasons for the high levels of debt include large terms of trade losses since 1980, countries borrowing for consumption, low economic growth due to civil disturbances, weak governance, poor macroeconomic policies and poor human capital development compared with other countries.The Jubilee 2000 project was launched in 1996. They reject the IMF-World Bank HIPC Initiative. They would like to cancel debt, including debt which cannot be serviced without placing a burden on impoverished people—debt already paid in real terms, debt incurred by repressive regimes, apartheid debt and apartheid related debt in southern Africa, the debt in Honduras and Nicaragua due to natural disasters, and also debt for improperly designed policies and projects.The already established HIPC initiative does provide debt relief to countries that have demonstrated a commitment to structural reform and sound economic policies. Australia has committed $30.5 million to the HIPC initiative. In total, the Jubilee Coalition have already provided $6.1 billion in debt relief and they estimate that up to 26 highly indebted poor countries will have relief by the year 2000. There is also a review of this initiative going on which is due to report in September of this year.The options that people are looking at for improving the HIPC initiative include deeper and broader debt relief and relief higher than the Paris Club's 80 per cent ceiling. At present, they have mechanisms to forgive 80 per cent of the debt. They are also looking at shortening the period for a country to establish a track record for sound policies. The solution to looking at the debt of the highly indebted poor countries is likely to be more along the lines of this initiative—that is, looking at ways of improving it but making sure that there are conditions attached.There are two problems with forgiving debt. One is the problem of moral hazard, in that you give no incentive for good policies. The second is that it is hard to attract foreign capital in the future if you have countries where the debt has been completely forgiven. We should also recognise that over the last decade the international financial community have introduced significant debt relief. They have had outright bilateral debt forgiveness; they have had buybacks of commercial debt. They have also had rescheduling of the debt. Despite that, new borrowing has led to increased outstanding debt.Let us look at what Australia has done. Australia has already forgiven $195 million of Egypt's debt. We gave Vietnam $5 million to clear their arrears with the IMF. We gave Cambodia $2½ million to clear their arrears with the IMF. I think the Jubilee 2000 campaign has a good motivation, but I do have reservations about completely cancelling all HIPC debt because of, as I said before, the moral hazard and the problem of attracting foreign capital in the future. It also does affect the credit rating of lending agencies.I would like to commend those Australians who have taken an active interest in Jubilee 2000, especially the 350,000 who have signed the petition. The effects on poor countries, especially in sub-Sahara and Africa and some countries in South America, of unmanageable debt are well known and have been extensively studied. International debt is a serious problem. Debt servicing reduces potential government expenditure on other goods and services in the community. The government fully supports finding a long-term solution to international debt.As I said before, I support the HIPC initiative because it aims to reduce the debt burden of the heavily indebted poor countries subject to satisfactory economic and social policies—what is called conditionality in that they do have to modify their policies. The initiative aims to reduce the debt of the world's poorest countries to sustainable levels, subject to the pursuit of economic and social policies. I think that is the most credible way to reduce sustainable debt relief because it seeks to achieve a lasting solution to the debt problem. Unlike previous mechanisms, the initiative deals with debt in a comprehensive way by involving all creditors, including multilateral institutions. So far, as I said, the initiative has contributed $US6 billion in nominal debt service relief.In addition to Australia's support for the HIPC initiative, Australia is a member of the Paris Club. The Paris Club is an informal group of 17 creditor countries which meets monthly to ensure a coordinated approach to the negotiation of debts rescheduling and, in some cases, write-downs on government to government debt in developing countries. The primary concern with debt relief is to ensure that any relief is sustainable and not counterproductive. A fundamental part of the solution to the debt problem and achieving long-term sustainable growth is the pursuit of sound economic and social policies and poverty alleviation.Debt write-off may send the wrong signals to that country and other countries which are managing their international debt. This is the problem of moral hazard. By writing off debt, governments may not continue to pursue their responsibility of sound economic governance. This may cause another international debt problem some time in the future. It may also discourage creditors from providing further assistance and send the wrong signal to those countries that are managing their debts well and in a sustainable way. Debt relief must be provided in a way that supports good governance, especially if the burden of international debt is to be prevented from occurring again.The World Bank and the IMF are conducting a two-phase review of their heavily indebted poor countries initiative with the aim of maximising its effectiveness. Phase 1 addresses concerns about the current framework and phase 2 will allow a more in-depth consultation regarding the link between debt relief and social development. The review will take into account the recent Cologne initiative by the G8 countries to expand the heavily indebted poor countries initiative by providing broader, faster and deeper debt relief. It will be completed by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund annual meetings in September.As I said before, Australia has supported this initiative with the Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Costello, announcing an Australian contribution to the initiative of $30 million in June last year. By encouraging the HIPC review process, we also welcome the Cologne initiative by the G8 countries. In response to the motion that we are discussing, I commend the motivations which are behind the Jubilee 2000 Debt Coalition. I believe that the HIPC initiative from the IMF and World Bank is a more credible way of approaching international debt and avoiding the problems of moral hazard and the problems that poor countries would have attracting foreign capital in the future.15:44:007590Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—I am delighted to be able to rise in the House to speak on this motion proposed by the honourable member for Stirling. I congratulate her for raising this issue in this place, thereby focusing honourable members' minds and the minds of those listening to this broadcast on this crucial matter. Debt relief for Third World countries is a huge moral issue facing this world as we pass into the new millennium. I would like to place on the public record my support for the Jubilee 2000 campaign. As speakers have said, it is an international movement in over 40 countries advocating a debt-free start to the millennium for a billion people. Here in Australia, a coalition of over 40 non-government and church organisations are supporting this cause.The issue of Third World poverty has been an interest of mine for a very long time—well before I entered this place in 1993. I am very pleased to say that there is in this parliament a dedicated group of members and senators—I guess you could call us a poverty coalition—who are working not only in our electorates but also across the country in seeking to support endeavours that bring this issue to the nation's attention.As previous speakers have said, the Jubilee 2000 Debt Coalition is working to obtain a debt-free start in the new millennium for a billion people in impoverished countries. For my part, it was pleasing to see media articles last week reported from the Washington Post and from the Reuters news network on this very issue. It was pleasing that these articles spoke of the leaders from the group of seven rich countries agreeing to a landmark plan to ease the debt burden of the world's poorest countries. These seven countries have pledged to relieve poor countries of nearly three-quarters of a crushing load of their debt that, for decades, has frustrated them in their seemingly insurmountable task of climbing out of poverty.This agreement is to forgive debt of up to $107 billion, which is an enormous amount of money. Most of us are unaware of just how crippling this debt really is. Over 50 countries throughout the world have debts that will never be paid back but continue to be paid daily with people's lives. In Zambia, for instance, every citizen currently owes the country's creditors $790. It does not sound like much for us, but that is more than twice that nation's average annual income.Every year in these debt ridden countries, resources are being diverted from health, education and sanitation towards unproductive debt service. The United Nations Development Program in 1997 stated that 21 million children's lives could be saved if the money used for debt service was put back into health and education. The agreement in Cologne last week was seen by President Bill Clinton as:. . . an historic step to help the world's poorest nations achieve sustained growth and independence while targeting new resources for poverty reduction, education and combating AIDS.He went on to say:It represents a sound, humane effort to promote widely shared prosperity.Now that the G7 countries have bitten the bullet, one would hope that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund will move quickly to support the G7 initiatives. In my mind, for too long the World Bank and the IMF have dragged their heels over this issue, despite their HIPC initiatives. Debt sustainability is currently defined by the IMF and World Bank as being basically nothing more than reducing debts to a level at which debt service due equals debt service actually paid. Radical reforms by the IMF and the World Bank must follow the great news from the G7 initiative in Cologne if Jubilee 2000's goals are to be met. I commend the member for Stirling's motion to the House and would ask that all honourable members do what is in their power to support, in any way possible, the work of the Jubilee 2000 Debt Coalition.15:49:007591Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—I would also like to congratulate the member for Stirling for raising this matter. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to it today. At a local level, my constituent organisation, the St Patrick's Parish Justice Group, including Dr Ray Watson and indeed the chair, Josie Micich, has been working hard to collect some 2,000 signatures from the Ballarat district in relation to the Jubilee 2000 initiative. Dr Watson wrote to me recently. Unfortunately, I could not attend one of its meetings because parliament was sitting. Dr Watson said:At this stage we know that the 2000 signature target has been exceeded. Given the inherent difficulties in the process of first educating people prior to their signing, we are very pleased with this result.I would just like to congratulate my constituent organisation on educating people in relation to this issue and on collecting some 2,000 signatures.The issue is, of course, an extremely difficult one. I do not think there would be anyone in this House who likes to see or read about the problems faced by a number of countries throughout the world which have extraordinarily high and indeed unmanageable levels of debt. The ramifications of that debt level are quite obvious: ultimately, poverty and a standard of living that I do not think anyone in this House would like to see inflicted upon their fellow man. I think the reasons behind the Jubilee 2000 campaign are very laudable. While I fully endorse and support everything the campaign is trying to do, the issue I have with Jubilee 2000 is its requested outcome. I would hope that the Cologne initiative will give the Jubilee 2000 people great heart. I think we need to accept the fact that past practices did not work. Past practices really just put debt on top of debt and incurred for those people poverty on top of poverty. That is quite obviously no solution at all, and it is not one that I would support in any way.I hope that out of Cologne will come a realisation that, in relation to this whole issue, we have to have a very healthy dose of commonsense. I am sure that the member for Stirling would not want to encourage practices that would encourage further debt accumulation if what she is requesting were to occur, and I do not think that is the appropriate way either.We need to accept that there is a problem, that that problem is recognised by hundreds of thousands of people throughout Australia and that many men and women have gone out and collected signatures from well-meaning people who share our concern in relation to the unmanageable debt levels of those of our fellow brothers and sisters throughout the world who are unable, through their own means, to address this. Most of it is governmental, and very few of the people who are wearing the outcomes of these high levels of debt are in a position to do anything about it.I hope that Cologne does come up with some commonsense. I hope that we appreciate the fact that it is not about debt being repaid; it is about our being in a situation throughout the world to be able to encourage development and impact positively on the economic and social lives of many people in many countries throughout the world. My hope is that Jubilee 2000 has pricked a conscience that will lead the world leaders to sit down and look at an appropriate and achievable mechanism to address what I think is an appalling problem.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.759215:54:007592Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—I move:That the House of Representatives supports the proposal of Tidal Power Australia for a tidal energy station at Doctors Creek, Derby, WA, to supply the electric power needs of Derby, Fitzroy Crossing, Western Metals and Broome in an environmentally sensitive manner with true renewable and non-polluting energy.In 1963, John Lewis, a British engineer, came to Australia and did a survey of the whole of the Kimberley region, of the north-west, and he produced a paper which was reproduced faithfully in a journal of the Institution of Engineers Australia at the time. John Lewis said that the potential that we had to harness the tides across many narrow inlets all through the range of the Kimberley outstripped Australia's total power requirements by 10, 20, 30 or 40 times.I might remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have spoken in this place about tidal power on numerous occasions, and the Minister for Community Services, who is at the table, nods in agreement. I hope he is not tired of hearing it, because it is a subject of which I will not tire. The reason for that is the fact that, while soever we continue to burn hydrocarbons—we burn oil, coal and gas—no matter the fact that they are inexpensive, we are pumping carbon into the atmosphere in undesirable forms and we are burning up our carbon resources that future generations, future millennia, of people around the world will not thank us for because they will have other needs for that carbon. Once it is burnt, it is burnt. When it is gone, it is gone, and we cannot bring it back again.Australia has a unique opportunity with this full range of high tides up to 10 metres across a whole range of relatively narrow inlets all through the area of the Kimberley. It is very expensive to produce the stations that produce the power. One needs to build a barrage across the entry and restrict the tidal water flow in or out and then run the water either on the way in or on the way out, or both, through turbines in that same wall to produce electricity. One of the problems we have had is the electricity so produced is more expensive per kilowatt hour than that produced by burning brown coal or indeed black coal.Although we have known we have had the potential since 1963, for some reason we have not fully developed that potential, and we have yet to built the first tidal power station in Australia. That is a shame, because we should at least be experimenting. We should be showing the world that we have the ability to produce bulk supplies of power—not minute quantities of power for one individual home—that is clean, green and absolutely renewable. As long as the moon comes up and goes down, the tides will come up and go down. If either ever stops, we are in diabolical trouble.In 1991, a Western Australia select committee of that parliament tabled a report which examined tidal energy and the potential for hydrogen transmission. That report of the committee recommended that long-term plans be made to harness Kimberley tidal power as one of a range of renewable energy sources that Australia will need to employ to achieve sustainable development and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That was back in 1991.In 1993, a friend and colleague of mine, a fellow of the Institution of Engineers Australia, John Remington, wrote a paper which was published in the journal of the institution, again looking at this whole area of the range of tidal power potential across the Kimberley and the potential to use that power to convert water into its basic elements of oxygen and hydrogen, transmit the hydrogen and use the hydrogen in fuel cells or low temperature burners on the east coast where we need the bulk of the power. Mr Remington, who is a retired mechanical engineer, said the potential power from selected sites along the north-west Australian coast between King Sound and Cambridge Bay had been calculated at 270,000 megawatts. By contrast, the installed power capacity in the whole of Australia in 1990 was a mere 35,000 megawatts.I have long been an advocate of tidal power. It is a source of clean energy which, as long as the moon keeps rising, is a sustainable and predictable power source. In France, near St Malo, the French Electricity Commission built the world's largest tidal power station at 240 megawatts. It was commissioned in the mid-1960s with a design life of 120 years and it has to this day continued to provide reliable, pollution-free power. The initial construction debt has been repaid, and it now produces power cheaper than gas or nuclear alternatives.At long last in Australia, we have a proposal which will provide a commercial scale demonstration of the tidal power generating potential. The proposal by Tidal Energy Australia is to provide a 48-megawatt tidal power station at Doctors Creek, Derby. It is designed to supply all the electricity demand of Broome, Derby, Fitzroy Crossing and the large lead and zinc mine at Pillara. Tidal Energy Australia and its partners have invested over $4 million in site investigation and engineering design. Construction tenders have been sought and Leighton Contractors has been selected on the basis of a fixed cost and guaranteed completion contract. Work could commence within 12 months and be completed by mid-2002. The selected design provides continuous power by a novel use of two storage basins—the first time this has been developed anywhere in the world. The design also allows for progressive increases in installed capacity. Additional turbines would be added at marginal cost to provide cheap power for regional growth.The statutory approval process is largely completed. Aboriginal heritage surveys have been undertaken and no sacred sites have been identified. Land has been resumed from a pastoral lease and, although this is the trigger for native title, no native title claim has been lodged. This is due to the sensitive approach adopted, which has resulted in support for the project from the local Aboriginal community. They feel access for traditional fishing will be improved and that there will be enhanced job opportunities in tourism and aquaculture. The 500-kilometre transmission line is also capable of serving many remote Aboriginal communities between Broome and Fitzroy Crossing. Land tenure and transmission easements have been approved and mining leases issued to provide local materi als for construction of the barrages. An environmental review has been under consideration for several months, and approvals are expected shortly.The government of Western Australia has recently invited tenders for the private supply of power to the West Kimberley, and this is to be commended. Tidal Energy Australia has been invited to tender, along with several fossil based generation companies. I am pleased to note that the state government is to take into account in the tender evaluation process the environmental and regional benefits which this project will bring.Members will also be aware of the provision in the GST bills for encouragement of renewable power generation. In particular, the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program and the Remote Area Generation Program are relevant to the Derby tidal power project. This project is the largest renewable energy proposal on the drawing boards in Australia today. It could pave the way for further tidal power schemes in the Kimberley which would dwarf the achievement of the Snowy Mountains scheme. It would open up rich bauxite deposits and allow downstream processing in Australia using pollution free energy.It is long past the time when we had excuses for not building a demonstration plant to prove that we can produce power from the tides inexpensively and at a cost in relative competition with coal, oil and gas. This will give us a better share of cleaning up the greenhouse problem for the world and it will put Australia at the forefront, as one of the leaders, in international industry in proving that we can really produce renewable energy.I commend the project to the House and I recommend that favourable consideration be given to its inclusion in the relevant environmental support programs. I commend the motion to the House.84THAASEMr Haase—I second the motion and request permission to speak to the motion later.16:04:007593Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—I am quite happy to rise in support of the motion that the House of Representatives supports the proposal that has been mentioned by the honourable member for La Trobe, but I do so on the condition that all standard environmental impact processes to do with this project have been covered.The first round of funding for the Australian Greenhouse Office's Renewable Energy Commercialisation Program was announced in April this year, and I note that the Derby Hydro Power project received a $1 million grant to construct the 48-megawatt tidal power station near Derby to supply electricity to Derby, Broome, Fitzroy Crossing and the Western Metals lead and zinc mine at Pillara. Already, there is a recognition by government through the RECP which should see this pilot project go ahead. It is a pilot project which, as the honourable member for La Trobe has stated, has the potential to supply electricity to a great deal of the communities in the Kimberley and the mining operation that has been mentioned.The notion of using energy from tides for power generation dates back to the 11th century in Britain when tides were used to turn waterwheels and produce mechanical power. In this case, electrical power will be generated. As the honourable member for La Trobe has championed over a long time, which I do recognise, this is a use of a renewable source of energy which has minimal polluting side effects. In saying that, I wish to stress that we have to cautiously look at the mechanical changes that will be made to the estuary and creek system—in this case, Doctors Creek—because there are some concerns that we should properly evaluate any environmental damage to the ecosystems involved there in an assessment of this project. Having said that, though, I recognise that in doing that we have to find and maintain a balance between what are the environmental positives and, in a more general sense because of this project's contribution to minimising the climate change effect, what might happen to local ecosystems.The great challenge for us has been in the promotion of these types of renewable sources of energy, with one of the difficulties being that the actual source of the energy is not in anybody's ownership. A project of this sort is unlike a petrochemical project where some body owns the resource, makes an investment in the infrastructure by which electrical energy is created and then gets some additional value because of that being got from the resource. In this case, as with solar power, nobody owns the source of the energy initially. That has made it a great deal more difficult to encourage people to take the large step of putting in place the key initial infrastructure costs which, as I understand it, can be much greater than in normal cases.But, as has been stated with tidal power and tidal power projects such as the one we might see in Derby, there is a long period of time over which those costs can be amortised. Also, it has been indicated that some of these projects can have a usable life of some 120 years. In this case, with the use of the double design ensuring that flows in both ways can be used for power generation, we will have continuous generation of electricity; and we have developed more innovative turbine generator configurations that maximise conversion into electrical energy.The other fact about this particular project—and the honourable member for La Trobe made mention of this—is that there is the potential to look at that region of the Kimberley for the supply of electricity. Having recently visited Fitzroy Crossing, I would hope that such a community gets benefit from it. But, when we put in place the transmission lines, I would hope that other remote communities in that area get the benefit as well, because sometimes we see benefits such as these going only to the larger communities.Having said that I wished to keep my contribution brief, the important thing is that, as long as we have looked at any ramifications of the project's design on the surrounding ecosystem and we can make some valuation of that as against the overall general benefit of our using a renewable source in a less polluting way, I think this project will be worthy of putting in place. It will be of benefit in being able to be taken as a pilot of tidal power in Australia, even though we have seen the benefit of tidal power stations elsewhere in the world.16:10:007595Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—As the federal member for Kalgoorlie, which includes the majestic Kimberley region, I wish to support the motion moved by the member for La Trobe. I have taken a close interest in the Derby tidal power proposal and, although I recognise and support the benefits of clean energy, my concern is for regional growth and cheap power. At present, electricity generation at Broome, Derby, Fitzroy Crossing and the Western Metals mines sites is by isolated diesel generation. The state government is exploring options to replace diesel with alternative fuels, including tidal power. But the tidal power option brings with it other benefits.The tidal plant operation depends upon the creation of a high-tide basin, which is topped up twice a day at high tide to maintain high-level water storage. This tidal basin is some 15 kilometres in length, reaching close to the Derby town site. It will have a surface area of 12 square kilometres and will provide good conditions for aquaculture, recreational fishing, tour boats to the tidal plant and a haven for boat refit and servicing.Studies into regional benefits suggest that the tourism potential of the tidal plant and the high-tide basin will create a demand for an additional 300 rooms in Derby, with a flow-on effect to Broome. There will be a need for 580 person years during construction and some 500 permanent jobs in tourism and aquaculture. The 500-kilometre transmission link with Broome and Fitzroy Crossing could form part of an Australia-wide grid. However, it will pass many remote Aboriginal communities and there is the prospect of providing reliable power to the expensive and often poorly maintained generating plant in these remote communities.Next I turn to the economics of tidal power production. Capital costs for this 120-year project are high but, once built, there is no fuel to buy and running costs are extremely low. Once capital debt is repaid, electricity costs will be amongst the cheapest in Australia. However, they will be not only the cheapest but the cleanest and absolutely renewable—as reliable as the moon.The problem for the project is short-term cash flow. Tidal Energy Australia has been exploring government funding options which allow for the repayment in full of any public support. In this regard, discussions have been held with Invest Australia, although the recent changes to the GST bring forward new funding opportunities. The objective is to remove for all time the ongoing state subsidy to meet the Commonwealth service obligation.The Derby tidal power project achieves these objectives and will bring jobs, economic growth and an improvement in the quality of life for residents in Derby. This is silver clean moon power at its best, utilising leading edge technology that may ultimately prove the catalyst to enormous population and productivity growth in the majestic Kimberley region. In answer to the member for Scullin wanting assurance of due consideration of the environment, it gives me great pleasure to say that all EPA surveys have been attended to and there is a satisfactory outcome in that regard. This is a power source that is going to be forever clean and forever cheap. If only we can overcome the cost of capital in this venture, we will have one of the most economically secure supplies of large quantities of power in the Kimberley. It will indeed become an example of cutting edge technology. With the resource of tidal power widely distributed along the Kimberley coast, there is a huge opportunity for the future of the Kimberley region at large. I commend the motion to the House.16:15:007595McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—What people listening should be aware of is that, while I do not think any of us have any objections to the matter we are talking about, it is a form of energy generation which is very much in its infancy. While I have no objection to the way in which the member whose electorate this project is in addressed the House, his reference to the experimental project as clean, pure, silver moon power may give people the idea that these are cargo cult things which they should look at rather askance. Since the first oil shock in 1974, there has been great interest all around the world in alternate types of power generation for electricity. People realised that using fossil fuels was bad for the environment and oil was becoming very expensive, so people looked at different types of technology—solar power, wave power, wind power and tidal power.It is interesting to realise that many of those applications are very useful here in Australia, particularly in the northern part of our country where we have massive tide rises. If people go to Broome, they need only to go and stand out on that jetty to see the massive height that the jetty is above the water at low tide. We also have incredibly high numbers of sunny days. So solar power and tidal power are two alternate types of power generation which are very suitable for Australia.The north-west of Australia, both the Kimberley area and parts of Queensland, have dramatic tide movements. The average movement over a year is 10 metres, which is a very dramatic rise and fall. But often the areas with these tide movements and with so many days of sunshine have been a long way away from the population centres of the country. Therefore, the transmission or transport costs of that energy to areas where it can be used become prohibitive. In the cost-benefit analysis of whether to use this type of generation or fossil fuels, which we have an abundance of around the population centres on the east coast, fossil fuel has often won out.But I think there is a chance with this project in the Kimberley because it does meet the cost value equation. If you have a look at a book by A.C. Baker entitled Tidal Power that was commissioned by the Institute of Electrical Engineers, you will see that he says the cost value equation for tidal power in north-west Western Australia is comparable to other projected sites in the rest of the world. I think the fact there is a plant here that can provide power for the surrounding region of 20,000 people and a number of resource projects will make it a self-sustainable project.I would also—as you have, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins—raise the question that we should make sure we get the environmental side of this right because these projects are long-life projects. This project is expected to be able to stay in situ for 120 years. If it is going to be barraging that part of the King Sound for 120 years, we ought to be making sure there are no unintended consequences. The fact that you can get a project that will last for 120 years up for $125 million shows that we should be looking at investing in that in Australia.If we are the country in the world that want to say that we are the clever country, if we are the country in the world that has been at the cutting edge of things like wind power and solar power, certainly with the resources we have for tidal power we should be getting a plant on-stream here so that we can show the world that that type of tidal power is a viable option. There are numerous other places around the world where this type of technology could be installed. If we were able to install it, make it work and profit from it, it is something that we can sell not only to the region where we live where there are a number of potential projects, such as in India and in Korea, but also to other parts of the world. (Time expired)16:20:007596Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—I rise in general support of the motion because this kind of project is commendable. Australia has the potential, as honourable members have said, to be a good demonstrator of this kind of technology. Tidal power has a role to play in Australia. Given the economics of it, it will play that role at first in some of the more remote and regional parts of Australia where the economics of generation are a bit different.In this particular case the site is quite close to the massive reserves of natural gas which Australia has. Indeed, it is one of the largest reserves of natural gas in the OECD. However, the proximity to those reserves is quite coincidental in this case. I do not think that should prevent us from examining the merits of this kind of project on a site in a remote region like the Kimberleys.Australia has to look very closely at the way it applies renewable energy technology not only because this is non-polluting but also because the CO2 equation is one which the whole world will have to pay serious attention to in the not too distant future. We have always approached these kinds of questions in the past from the issue of the environment and pollution. For example, coal-fired power stations produce substantial pollution including nitrous oxide, sulphur oxide and carbon particulates. However, they also produce carbon dioxide. That is a very significant issue—not one that was taken into account in the past but one which we will have to take account of in the future.The greenhouse equation is a very insidious thing. It is sneaking up on the world at large and, even though we are aware of it and the costs of each country's contribution are not that great, the totality throughout the world is very substantial. The long-term consequences for the world will be very deleterious indeed if the worst case scenarios come to pass. Unfortunately, we will not know whether those scenarios are accurate or not until it is too late and impossible to reverse. So for those reasons we should be looking at technologies which not only are non-polluting but also do not contribute to the greenhouse gas load of the world at large.Obviously tidal power is one such technology. The government have recently moved to try and increase the amount of our energy supply which comes from renewable sources. They have an equation whereby, by 2010, they will increase the amount of electricity generated by renewable sources by some two per cent. This will take the current level of some 10 per cent of our energy coming from renewable sources to 12 per cent over that period. But this will have a significant cost. Doing that by government fiat will impose a real cost on the community estimated to be of the order of $100 million to $250 million by 2010, based on generation costs.That is a very real burden on the community. It is worth imposing if the benefits are there. Certainly in terms of the CO2 generation issue the benefits are there. But we need to look at whether this is the best way of spending between $100 million and $250 million of the community's money. Even though the government is laying down the law, so to speak, in this area, the reality is that it is the community which pays. Even if there is no immediate cost to the government and the taxpayers as such, the community is paying that cost through increased electricity charges and through the increased cost of goods produced by electricity.If we invested that kind of money in research, we might well be able to produce technologies which were non-polluting in terms of CO2 or carbon particulates but able to make a more economic contribution to the world. The CSIRO is at the forefront of the hybrid solar fossil fuel systems in fuel cell technology, which will certainly be very much more non-polluting and reduce the CO2 load. We have the potential conversion to gas. We have the solar cell contribution from the Australia Prize winners in New South Wales. The reality is that forcing people to pay through higher electricity may or may not be the best way to achieve what we want. I suspect the best way is direct investment in research and development to secure technologies which not only are better for the environment but are economically competitive. We should make that investment. We must make that investment. But we must do it in a way which makes economic sense. I suspect that increased research is the best way to invest the community dollar in this area—not compulsion in terms of increased electricity costs. Rather, let us work out what is the most effective way of doing it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate7597Question proposed:That grievances be noted.759716:26:007597Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—I rise in this grievance debate today to answer accusations and innuendos that have been made by this government and in particular by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—and today by his friend who is bailing him out of the problems that he has got at the moment, namely the Prime Minister—trying to establish a link between the recent arrival of illegal immigrants and the question of judicial review and deportation. Today during question time, the minister and the Prime Minister kept trying to connect judicial review—or, in simpler terms, the removal of people's ability to have their case heard in a court of law—with the current crisis of illegal immigrants. The fact is that the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.The majority of boat people—the illegal immigrants—are shipped back to their own country within usually four weeks under existing law. These are the facts straight out of the minister's own media statements. I will read snippets of some of the statements that the minister himself has been putting out on these issues. The first, dated 28 June 1999, is headed `Illegal boat people returned to China', and says:The 60 illegal Chinese entrants who recently arrived at Scotts Head Beach near Coffs Harbour were returned to China last week, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Philip Ruddock, said today.Another one he issued on Thursday, 20 May 1999, is headed `More illegals arrive as smugglers target Australia', and says:Mr Ruddock said that the Government was committed to returning people who had no legal right to be in Australia although it would continue to honour its international protection obligations.Of the 340 illegal boat arrivals in 1997, some 272 or 80 per cent had been returned. Of the 200 illegal arrivals in 1998, some 159 or 80 per cent had been returned.These people had no claim to be in Australia and were returned within weeks of having arrived illegally in Australia.Another press release of Mr Ruddock, dated 28 June 1999, is headed `Cairns boat people victims of racket', and says:26 people who beached their boat on Holloway's Beach, Cairns on 12 March this year were victims of an organised people smuggling racket, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Philip Ruddock, said today.Announcing their recent return to China, Mr Ruddock said the group—22 men and four women—had been constantly lied to by the operation's organisers and had paid dearly for their ill-fated journey.It goes on to say:Mr Ruddock said that so far this financial year, excluding yesterday's NSW arrival, 21 boats carrying 279 unauthorised arrivals arrived in Australia, including 170 Chinese. Most had since left Australia.From his own mouth he tells us what the position is with these illegal boat arrivals. The minister must stop saying that without this so-called privative clause, stopping judicial review, which he is trying to introduce with the government—and now aided and abetted in a public campaign by the Prime Minister—he cannot send illegal immigrants back. That is what he is trying to say. It is just a plain untruth. It is designed to mask his own incompetence and the incompetence of the Minister for Justice and Customs in not sending a clear signal to those smuggling people into our country—that Australia is not open for business.I will tell you why these people smugglers continue to smuggle people here: they think we are an easy target. Why do they think we are an easy target? I will tell you why. Not long ago we had the spectacle of a large ship that came down the coast of Queensland, beached at Holloways Beach near Cairns and went undetected. We then had the spectacle of another ship coming 2,000 kilometres down the east coast of Australia, beaching near Coffs Harbour and also going undetected. A multitude of these ships have been arriving over the last couple of months. Why are they arriving? It is because the people smugglers overseas see us as not being prepared to spend money and resources to ensure that these people are caught.I want to say something shortly on what the Prime Minister had to say yesterday. The Prime Minister, fed up with this incompetence and doubletalk, has obviously decided to run the show himself, relieving both ministers of their responsibilities and implementing what the Labor Party has been suggesting for months, to the letter. A press release that I issued on 23 May 1999 headed `"Illegal immigrant problem quickly reaching crisis proportion", says opposition' states:Mr Sciacca continued his calls for the Government to increase intelligence gathering personnel at Australia's immigration posts around the World to detect in particular organised people smuggling rackets, before they set off for Australia.Mr Sciacca said that by not providing adequate extra resources in both the coastal surveillance area and immigration intelligence gathering in overseas posts, the government is sending a message to the people smugglers that Australia is an easy target.Then I go on to talk about the budget surplus. Another press release dated Thursday 27 May and headed `Opposition warns of national security threat over illegal boat arrivals' states:Shadow Minister for Immigration, Con Sciacca today said the Government must now view the flood of illegal immigrants as a major crisis and a possible threat to national security, following the latest unauthorised landing between Weipa and Thursday Island.Mr Sciacca said that this matter must now be placed at the top of the government's agenda and every available resource must be made available to both the Immigration Department and our coastline surveillance teams. `We must send a clear message to both the poor people being duped and to the people smugglers, that Australia is not an easy target and they will be caught and sent back,' Mr Sciacca said.The Labor Party is as tough as, if not tougher than, the government when it comes to illegal immigrants. The Labor Party is not about—this is the important point—taking away the right of people who are here legally to have their day in court. Throwing away the right of people to have their case heard in court, people who are here legally in the sense that they have obviously applied for asylum, to stop a few greedy lawyers from abusing the system is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.Over the last few months the minister has been making extraordinary and absurd attacks on the judiciary, attacks which a minister of the Crown, who supposedly understands the concept of the separation of powers, has no right to make. This has been documented in a number of articles. A press release I issued on 7 December 1998 states:`The minister is coming dangerously close to offending the doctrine of the separation of powers', Mr Sciacca said.`It is unacceptable to have a Minister of the Crown launching such a concerted and deliberate attack on members of the Judiciary simply because he doesn't like some of their decisions. I have no doubt that Mr Ruddock is making these comments in an attempt to publicly sell the Government's decision to limit Judicial review from decisions of Immigration Tribunals to the Federal Court and the High Court.'There is an outrage among humanitarian and refugee groups, among legal associations, among High Court judges and eminent jurists, when it comes to this minister's decisions, proposals and statements. I understand that including this privative clause could be in breach of our United Nations conventions on refugees. The minister is challenging the Constitution and the separation of powers. The courts in this country are, if you will, the independent watchdog of the politicians.One of the submissions put to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee was made by National Legal Aid, comprising eight associations of legal aid lawyers—not greedy lawyers, people who are rorting the system, as the minister says. I notice my friend opposite, the minister for financial deregulation. I am sure he will understand that lawyers are the custodians of the freedom of democracy of this country. I will only read the submission's conclusion:One recurrent theme in a comparative analysis of the refugee determination procedure of Australia, the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom is that each jurisdiction maintains in some form, the right of judicial review of administrative decisions in relation to Convention applications for protection.This submission has argued that in order to comply with our international obligations and with the requirements of the rule of law, Australia must strive towards a system fair and just in its determination of applications for refugee status and a system in which decisions are accountable and made according to the law. The scheme proposed in the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill does not fit comply with those standards and therefore should not be implemented.The Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs should stop telling straight-out untruths. They should stop trying to connect illegal immigrants with judicial review. It has nothing whatsoever to do with it. I commend them for doing what they did yesterday; it is about time. All they did was to take exactly what the opposition have been saying and what I have been saying for some time. I am sick and tired of straight-out lies from this government.760016:36:007600Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I want to speak about a very special and unique school, the St Gabriel's School for Hearing Impaired Children in Castle Hill, a school that has developed a program of teaching very young children to hear and to speak. Recently I received a letter from Professor Gibson, who is director of the Children's Cochlear Implant Centre. Professor Gibson states:It is now possible to provide most children with effective hearing devices, either hearing aids or cochlear implants. The important thing however is that the children receive the devices at a young enough age so that they can benefit maximally. Hearing and listening skills are acquired normally within the first few years of life. If children are deprived of this opportunity then they are unlikely to develop usable speech and have a problem with communication which affects their ability to obtain work and to communicate with their families.St Gabriel's School for Hearing Impaired Children have taken up this challenge of modern science. They have a proud and long history of assisting deaf and hearing impaired children. The program now in operation at Castle Hill is called the Auditory-Verbal Intervention Program. Mr Bill McNamara, chairman of the school board, board members, Brother Jerry McGrath—one of the great teachers of the deaf in Australia—and current principal Elizabeth Ker, as well as the former principal, Mr Allan Kelly, have raised the argument with me that, to effectively assist those who are hearing impaired, early intervention will gain better results. It not only gets results for a better and improved life for the young people involved—so that they can have fulfilling communication, obtain work and communicate with their families, as Professor Gibson says—but costs less. The matter I want to raise in the House today is the fact that there seems to be a failure within our system of operation to understand that sometimes departmental officers have to stray across boundaries in order to implement effective programs.The problem with the current situation is that the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs says that this is a disability service, that these young people are disabled and, therefore, it cannot be a matter which is going to be assisted by educational bureaucrats or educational programs. But, because all disability services are provided by the Department of Family and Community Services, it should be a matter for that department and not a matter which is considered by the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Also, the department of education has the view that the children are young, that whilst they are under the age of five they cannot be school children and cannot be dealt with in a normal educational program, and that children below school age cannot be assisted.On the other hand, the Department of Family and Community Services says that, because St Gabriel's School for Hearing Impaired Children has `school' in its title, it must be a school. Therefore, because the department has a responsibility for nought to five-year-old children or a responsibility for the disabled, it will have to put that to one side because the title of the institution says that it is a school; therefore, there are no programs that the department can assist it with.At a meeting I arranged between officials, a request came forward to see whether the New South Wales government, which administers many of the Commonwealth grants, would allocate some of its special needs learning program funds to assist the school. The New South Wales government and its departments had exactly the same problem as the Commonwealth in determining whose responsibility it was. Neither the department of education and training nor the health department would say that it was their responsibility to encourage the remediation of hearing impairment of nought to five-year-old children. Despite the Commonwealth putting something like $92 million per year into students with disabilities, nothing could be done to give any substantial support to the kids at St Gabriel's.Recently these children who can actually speak, only by the wonders of their teachers and science, had the privilege of singing for the Prime Minister. Many of you may have seen the television advertisement for Telstra showing the wonder of the cochlear implant and the difficulty which the children in that advertisement have in speaking. It is a touching advertisement and beautifully presented. Similar children to that sang I Still Call Australia Home for the Prime Minister. It was just as touching to see children singing who must have learned to enunciate words only through the wonders of modern science and wonderful teachers. They sang in tune, not perfectly formed words, but very strong words, easily understood, and in a most beautiful manner.St Gabriel's have received a small number of these special needs programs, not for an early intervention program but just because they happen to have children over the age of five. They have received a declining share of those funds. In 1995, they received $38,000; in 1997, $31,000. This program results in complete integration of the young child after the age of five or six into normal education. They do not need further remediation. They can undertake normal education, going to a normal school and learning with normal children. That is a wonderful result which speaks volumes about the capacity of brilliant people like Elizabeth Ker.The costs for early intervention for each child nought to five years of age, with specialist and general teachers, transportation and the total program from the time they need special attention, would be about $80,000. However, if those children are not attended to and go to normal schools, suffering impairment of speech from disabled hearing and the incapacity of communication, the cost of remediation would be almost doubled to $155,733. So the commercial and economic imperative is very great indeed.St Gabriel's is funded as a special school, but not for early intervention. It has been going since 1922, and some of the most gifted, brilliant and dedicated people have worked there. Some small amount has been granted, but parents and friends are raising the rest. I would like to conclude my drawing of this grievance to the attention to the House by reading two letters. One is a short story from a girl:This is a story about my life.I was born in Sri Lanka in 1987. I was the first child born in my family. I have two younger sisters.When I was a baby my Mum and Dad took me to the hospital to find out if I was deaf because when my mum spoke to me or played with me I couldn't hear her. Mum was very sad that I was deaf.When I was two I moved to Singapore to go to a school for deaf children.In 1995 I came to Australia and came to school at St Gabriel's.In 1996 I had a cochlear implant. I can hear much better now but sometimes it's still very hard to understand people.At school I work hard because I want to learn everything I can. When I finish school I would like to be a teacher or work in a clothes shop.And a short note from Jack:Good morning Mr Cadman and everyone. When I was a baby I couldn't hear. I couldn't hear my Mum and Dad talking. When they said, "Jack we love you." I couldn't hear them. Because I couldn't hear I couldn't speak either. I couldn't tell my Mum and Dad I loved them.Now I have an implant I can hear and I am learning to speak well. My Mum and Dad cried when I did hear them and they are very happy now I can speak. They like it when I say "I love you Mum and Dad."(Time expired)760116:46:007601Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—That indeed was a very touching story, and I thank the member for Mitchell for sharing that with the House.The Howard government has failed young Australians and, what is worse, it is blaming young Australians themselves for the problems that the government has failed to address. The Prime Minister should take no comfort in today's Newspoll reported in the Australian. There might be some people who are momentarily attracted to the Liberal Party's `greed is good' ethos, but when it comes to voting will they vote for a Prime Minister who has been unable to apologise to the stolen generation, who has destroyed our environment and supported uranium mining? Will they vote for a Prime Minister opposed to a republic, who endorses a `just say no' response to drugs and a ham-fisted and ignorant approach to Internet regulation?This government has ignored most of the issues young people hold dear and treats young people with suspicion and enmity. It has attacked their living conditions, their working conditions and their right to political representation. The Howard government's July 1997 introduction of the common youth allowance has been a disaster for ordinary families, and this disaster will be worsened with the introduction of the GST and the consequential increased cost of living. The common youth allowance parental income test for unemployed young people aged 18 to 20 reduced or cancelled payments for an estimated 45,000 young people. Families with combined incomes below average weekly earnings had their payments dropped by up to $88 per week. Young people living away from home lost up to $133.70 per week. The recent budget decision to restore a maximum of $18.75 to those families which lost money under the previous cuts only adds insult to injury.Furthermore, the common youth allowance is only available to young people under 18 if they are involved in full-time education or training. Forcing young people into schooling which is not meeting their needs lets down the individuals involved and also has obvious consequences for other students who are keen to learn and for the teachers who are doing their best to keep teaching while dealing with students who do not really want to be at school. Due to this government's neglect, since 1996 school retention rate have dropped for the first time in 20 years. While Labor doubled the proportion of students completing their final year of school, under this government the year 12 retention rate has slipped to 71.6 per cent, and to less than 66 per cent in government schools.If the government is serious about school retention rates, it might have provided funding to expand the TAFE sector. It is acknowledged that one of the primary reasons for the decision to leave school early is the lack of suitable curricula and learning environments. Indeed, the TAFE sector has been left to languish, with no increases to funding. Furthermore, when DEETYA sought $140 million to implement the common youth allowance for 15- to 17-year-olds, knowing that there would be a flow of young people back into the school system, they instead received only $42 million. The then Liberal education minister in Queensland described the common youth allowance as a classic case of cost shifting from the Commonwealth to the state. The government has reduced funding for public school education and dramatically cut university funding. Indeed, the figures are available to anyone who cares to research them, but I think the two that are most salient are the enrolment benchmark adjustment, which has cut $112.9 million from government schools, and the cut to universities, which adds up to $961.59 million.When it comes to working conditions, you will find that the 70,000 young Australians out of work are not lazy. They are not unwilling. They do not have to be forced to accept the challenge of work, and indeed the pay and self-esteem that a job brings. What they really need—other than educational achievements—is an actual job. Dr Judith Bessant in her l999 article cites US research showing that of all the explanations for the high level of youth unemployment the most convincing is that since the 1970s there has simply been a decline in full-time jobs for young people. While part-time jobs have increased, they certainly have not made up for the decline in full-time positions for young people. Yet the government's response has been predictably one-dimensional.The Prime Minister pledged that no worker will be worse off. However, despite the fact that 65 per cent of full-time 15- to 17-year-olds already earn less than the poverty line, the Prime Minister's plan is to pay young people less and make them easier to sack. The introduction of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 [No. 2] barely hours after the release of the Industrial Relations Commission report into youth wages shows that, no matter what the outcome of the inquiry, no matter what the findings of the 350-page report, the government's only agenda is to force down the wages of those young workers currently earning adult wages.Given these attacks on young people, it is not surprising that the government is doing its best to undermine the political representation of this group. Members will have noticed the advertisement in today's Australian calling on the Senate to reject the government's voluntary student unionism legislation. The government is worried that the culture of student unionism may make people more prone to joining unions later in life: it might make them less selfish; it might make them more inclined to think of the common good than their individual interests. It is a shocking development indeed—encouraging collective action for the common good.Nationally the average compulsory amenities and service fee in 1999 is, on average, $264 per student or about $118 million in total. Approximately five per cent of this total is spent on student representation, with the remainder on amenities and services including, for example, student loans, child care, accommodation assistance, sporting facilities, entertainment and subsidised catering. If the decline in membership nationally followed the Western Australian trend, the aggregate revenue of campus unions would fall to around $11 million. Regional campuses would be the worst hit and the pain would not be limited to students but to the entire community around the university. That is why Bob Katter, Joanna Gash and various members of the coalition are on record as opposing this legislation. The real agenda of voluntary student unionism legislation has nothing to do with choice and everything to do with punishing organisations which have been critical of the government.The defunding of the Australian Youth Policy Action Coalition is another case in point. It has been well reported that AYPPAC was defunded after a June 1998 announcement by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. It was formed in 1978 and had over 20 years of experience in providing information on youth issues and analysis of government policy. It was replaced instead by the National Youth Round Table, a body of 50 people which was set up to fail. Recent media reports describe how the Round Table has been under resourced and prevented from criticising government policy.We read today in the newspapers as well that there is another Liberal Party policy to close the electoral rolls on the day that writs are issued rather than as it is at the moment. The proposal will affect young people's ability to vote in elections. For example, if you take the 1998 election, 350,000 people enrolled in the five working days prior to the electoral roll being closed which included 64,000 new enrollees.I want to finish with a letter that was in the Australian last week from Erin O'Neill from the Australian National University. She writes:I'm a Generation Xer and John Howard reckons he understands me and can buy my vote—here's my asking price.Australia as a meritocratic, open and healthy nation, therefore: accessible and equitable education for all, at all stages of life; clean air, clean water and clean soil; equitable health—no rich versus poor health system (private versus public); the Queen of England is just that—a person who supports English trade and interests over Australian ones—(she was born to it, she didn't earn it) dump her; appointments based on ability, not politics (don't think I haven't noticed); governance for all, not for those who can afford to buy your favour—or Brian Harradine; Australian prisoners are more important than the cricket final (cricket is just a game, prisoners lives are not to be played with); if you are going to have ministerial guidelines, stick to them (if not, don't bother); integrity over hypocrisy (you insisted Japan apologise over World War II, I insist you apologise to Aboriginal Australia—only don't yell at them this time); compassion before political expediency—just ask any refugee; results not ideology; honesty before politics; humanity over economics.So there it is John Howard. You've got until the next election. Put up or rack off.I think the Prime Minister will find that the challenge of winning the trust of today's young people is much greater than he imagines.760316:56:007603Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—I rise this afternoon to speak on matters of national significance relating to the management of Australia's natural resources.As members in this House know, each new generation of Australians inherits a truly unique environment. We have developed a lifestyle and cultural values that place us ideally out of doors for recreation and relaxation. Our nation's icons tend to reflect our natural resources—our koalas, our kangaroos, our sparkling beaches, our glorious bush. Over the last 200 years we have prospered as a result of the value and volume of our readily-exploited natural resources. Our natural resources and ingenuity have enabled us to build an economy and lifestyle which are the envy of much of the world. In fact, we have an economy today that has grown faster than any other industrial nation in the developed world.However, our urban and rural development has come at a significant price. Because we have only been a nation in that sense for 100 years and it is only 200 or so years that we have had a European settlement in this country, we are only now beginning to realise what the full cost of our natural resource development and exploitation really has been. For example, we have cleared or modified some 70 per cent of our native vegetation. We have lost 2.5 million hectares to dry land salinity at an estimated cost of $180 million in lost agricultural production, $40 million in lost environmental assets and $50 million in damaged or destroyed infrastructure. This includes road surfaces and building foundations in cities like Wagga, where literally scores of houses are now condemned because the salt in high water tables is affecting the structure of their foundations. We have seen 50 per cent of our mammals and monotremes and 30 per cent of freshwater fish become rare, endangered or vulnerable in the last 200 years. And we have seen the extinction of 20 mammals, nine birds and 97 plant species.I am proud to say that at last we have a government that understands the complexities, the urgencies and the need to have nationally consistent standards that identify the current state of the environment and the remediation needed across the country and our coastal waters. This government has chosen to dedicate $1.5 billion through the Natural Heritage Trust which is now becoming very well known across Australia. Literally thousands of community groups have had access to funds to help them do the remediation they understand is so desperately needed. These Natural Heritage Trust funds are financing the biggest environmental rescue plan ever seen in Australia, but we recognise that this is just the beginning.Strategic national policies are now being developed to better manage and monitor our fragile natural resources. Just one of these is the National Vegetation Framework. Many still do not know about or understand this framework. It is, in one sense, one of the state and federal government's best-kept secrets, but it is soon to become much better known as we move from the development of the framework through to implementation plans.All Australian governments have committed themselves through the Bushcare program of the Natural Heritage Trust to achieving the national goal of reversing the long-term decline in the quality and extent of Australia's native vegetation cover by June 2001. This goal obviously is very ambitious and some, not all that cynically, suggest it is impossible to achieve. I was very recently in Far North Queensland talking with the small landcare groups there, who work very hard to replant several hundred hectares per year in that tropical rainforest area. But looking about them as several thousand hectares of tropical rainforest country is cleared, you can understand their cynicism and distress. We are currently still clearing around 315,000 hectares per annum but only replanting nationally some 100,000 hectares of vegetation. When we say `vegetation' we include grasslands, the indigenous scrubby species, as well our great towering trees that are national icons.The reason a nationally consistent strategy on native vegetation management is so crucial is that land clearing controls or management still differ substantially among different jurisdictions. We now understand that there is a nexus between inappropriate land clearing and problems like soil erosion, soil salinisa tion, a loss of biodiversity and acid soils. It is not simply a case of leave the trees there because they look better; we now understand that the nexus between our vegetation cover and our water balance, our soil fertility and the structure of that soil is absolutely a given.States and territories are at different stages of tackling the problem of inappropriate clearing. That is what we now understand—and perhaps it has been understood for a very long time, but this Commonwealth government is aiming to bring about cooperation and coordination between the states. Some states have established legislative and regulatory controls, some have detailed mapping, planning and management systems, some protect public or private land from inappropriate clearing, but they do not tackle the freehold land issue. We have a lot of work to do.The Commonwealth, with the support of all states and territories, has realised the urgency, as I say. The National Vegetation Framework will benchmark a series of best practice standards and guidelines including regional vegetation management planning, revegetation strategies, land clearing regulations, threatened species legislation, land use codes and practices, the role of local government, mapping and monitoring. The framework is not about imposing unrealistic restrictions on land-holders but about making sure that our vegetation management is quite simply ecologically sustainable. The framework takes into account that each state is at a different stage in its regional and urban development. The framework acknowledges that some states are already pretty well there in terms of their legislative frameworks and others are still very much at the beginning. But it is very important that the key stakeholders understand the urgency of the task ahead and there is cooperation and full understanding.Another major national initiative, and one that this week will see some movement, is COAG water reform. For example, already in parts of Australia our approach to water supply and overuse has been the principal cause of rising water tables, waterlogging and salinisation, inadequate environmental flows, loss of native fish stocks, outbreaks of blue-green algae, rising salinity and declining biodiversity. So in a country with the oldest and driest landscapes we have a real urgency about addressing water reforms across this nation.The COAG water reform agreement recognises there is no time left to ignore the health of our fresh water, inland, underground and coastal water resources. The process was set in train some five years ago now and it is reaching a vital stage in July 1999 when some $800 million in national competition payments will fall due to those states that have implemented a range of water reform measures. This is a critical time in the development of Australia's response to both vegetation and the water reform agenda.Some states have focused on legislative reform in relation to their water resources. They have put much effort into consulting with communities and developing new laws. Considerable attention has been given to developing new approaches to water planning, focussing on community participation. But let me quote from Mr Malcolm Topp, Chairman of the Queensland Murray-Darling Committee, who has just hosted the Murray-Darling Basin Commission for several days of work, looking at his particular part of the world around Toowoomba. He said in the media:Urgent action is needed to prevent further degrading of the state's most intensively used river systems at the headwaters of the Murray-Darling Basin.He went on to say:You are flat out hiring an earth mover at the moment as everyone is rushing to build dams before they miss out.We have a real need to understand that many rural communities are hard pressed at the moment in terms of their rates of return and declining commodity prices. It is very hard to look a farmer in the eye and tell him, `You cannot push to build a new dam on your private property or clear a bit more of your vegetation, knowing full well that that will increase your income so you can have a quality of life that is somehow comparable to your brothers and sisters in urban parts of that state.' But the reality is that our current land and water use practices, our vegetation prac tices, too often are simply not sustainable in this country.This government is taking some of the hard decisions about needing to work nationally with our states. We understand that in some states, which were developed first, it is a case of learning by our mistakes, not having to reinvent the wheel in each state as newcomers come along and press the natural resource to its ultimate limits. (Time expired)760617:06:007606Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—Only moments ago the Senate took an historic vote on the government's GST package. History will now record that the deal between the Democrats and the Howard government will impose the most regressive tax on Australians that this country has ever seen—a tax which will take $12 billion out of the progressive PAYE tax system and replace it with a $30 billion tax, a flat tax on every Australian, regardless of their income, regardless of their means, regardless of their social circumstances and certainly regardless of their ability to pay.Mr Hockey interjecting—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I pick up on the interjection from the minister at the table. There will be some $12 billion in tax cuts out of a progressive system, a system which takes into account one's ability to pay and replaces it with a $30 billion flat tax which is imposed regardless of one's ability to pay. What that indicates is that this is inherently an unfair, regressive and bad tax—a tax which will hit families, particularly low to middle income families; a tax which will hit students; a tax which will hit learning; a tax which will hurt the low income earners in our society; a tax which will hit the tourism sector for six; indeed, a tax which will hit the small business sector for six.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—They love it!8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—The minister at the table says they love it. I will quote his own Treasurer who said, `This will be nightmare on main street for Australia's small business constituency, nightmare on main street.' With respect to rural and regional Australia, we have now seen that the government's plans to reduce diesel fuel excise for rural and regional Australia has resulted in nothing more than nightmare on highway one. This is all despite the fact that the Senate inquiry conclusively found that little benefit to the Australian economy will flow from the introduction of this regressive tax. So there will be lots of pain upon those who can least afford to bear it and very little, if any, economic benefit at the macro-economic level. Certainly, not one job will flow from it.Much has been said about the GST in both this place and the Senate. I do not think I need to take too much of my time tonight to dwell on it again and again. The disgraceful deed has been done and not much I can say now will change that fact. It appears that the GST is here with us. What I do want to focus on is another vote which took place in the Senate only moments before that final vote, indeed at around 4.55 p.m. I was present for it. That was the vote on Labor's amendment to the government's unfair wine equalisation tax, a matter that the minister at the table and I have discussed in this place before.It is very clear that by introducing the wine equalisation tax at 29 per cent on an ad valorem basis the government is taking more money from the wine industry than it is at present. In other words, it is reaping additional income from the wine industry as a result of the introduction of its wine equalisation tax, and the Treasurer has now conceded that. This is supposed to be a wine equalisation tax—that is, a top-up tax, a tax imposed to ensure that, on the basis of public health policy and social policy, as a result of the introduction of the GST, wine prices need not fall dramatically. The opposition has no problem with that principle, but how can you call it a top-up tax, an equalisation tax, when you intend to reap from the industry an additional $147 million? The minister at the table might like to explain that.What the opposition attempted to do in both the House and the Senate was to amend this bill to make it fairer. We did that by proposing that cellar door sales for wine be exempt from this inherently unfair tax, given the rate at which it had been struck. Of course, we were defeated here. We put an improved amendment to the Senate again, an amendment which increased the threshold to $300,000 at the cellar door level. Where did we get the $300,000 figure from? Why did we increase it from $100,000, which was the amount in our original amendment, to $300,000? Firstly, we were happy to concede that the $100,000 was inadequate. As members will recall, we had the WET bill thrust upon us late one night and we needed to move quickly on our amendments. I am happy to concede that the $100,000 was not adequate. At the time we thought it was. We now concede that the exemption needs to be higher to protect the wine industry, in particular those wineries in regional Australia which form such a vital part of our wine tourism infrastructure.But the $300,000 is the Treasurer's figure. The Treasurer announced in question time last week that he was going to negotiate with the states to ensure that a $300,000 cellar door exemption was available to wineries in rural and regional Australia. So the $300,000 is his figure. By so doing, the Treasurer conceded—admitted—that our policy was right. He has conceded that giving cellar door exemptions up to a value of $300,000 is good policy. There is no other way in which you could read that statement. I see the minister at the table not attempting to because he concedes the point as well. So he concedes that the ALP amendments represent good public policy.Mr Hockey interjecting—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—Minister, how can he not concede it? How can he come into the House and say, `Don't worry. We're going to make sure the wine industry is protected. We're going to make sure jobs are not lost in wine tourism in rural and regional Australia by ensuring that the states deliver a $300,000 cellar door exemption'? How can the minister at the table possibly claim that the Treasurer is not agreeing with our policy? Of course the Treasurer is agreeing with our policy. But there is one problem: he says our policy is good and it is right and it is correct, but he is not prepared to part with the money. He wants the states to provide the funding for the cellar door exemption.This is despite the fact that the recipient of all the wine equalisation tax is the Commonwealth. So the Commonwealth says, `We're going to have a wine equalisation tax to top up the GST to make sure wine prices don't rise, but we're going to take an additional $147 million along the way. We recognise that cellar door sales up to $300,000 should be exempt, but we will leave the states to pay for it.' What sort of a public policy approach is that? What guarantee can the Treasurer give us that the states will deliver on that cellar door exemption?We already know that the South Australian Liberal Treasurer has said, `We're not happy about that,' and, `No, I haven't been consulted.' I have spoken to the New South Wales Treasurer; no, he has not been consulted. Over the course of the next little while, we hope to get some answers from the other premiers involved, but it is quite clear that they have not been consulted. The Treasurer, while identifying the problem, has refused to fix it: he is going to leave that to the states. I sat in the Senate for this historic vote, and what did the Assistant Treasurer say in response to Labor's amendments? Labor attempts to enshrine the cellar door exemption in Commonwealth legislation and make the Commonwealth, the body receiving the tax, pay for the exemption. You do not take the tax, recognise that some of it should be exempt and say that the states should give it back. What an outrageous thing to say.I remember the last time we had this debate in the parliament Minister Hockey was talking about the old franchise fee and the High Court decision and, by implication, was saying that the states were responsible for the exemption. That is rubbish. The states lost their franchise fee. The Commonwealth upped the wholesale sales tax, applied it to cellar door sales as well and gave that component—that is, the cellar door sales—back to the states to rebate it back to the wineries. How could you say that that means that, historically, the states were responsible for the rebate? They never were. This is a Commonwealth wine equalisation tax. They should be funding the exemption. They should be enshrining in legislation, as our amendments sought to do, the exemption of cellar door sales, and they should be doing so with one purpose in mind—that is, the protection of jobs in the wine and tourism industries in rural and regional Australia. (Time expired)760817:16:007608Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—It is ironic that I rise this evening to speak about my concern over the continued loss of jobs and job opportunities in my electorate of Riverina after hearing the member for Hunter speak of future job losses. It is for this reason that I speak in the House of past job losses and the continuation of those. We continually hear of the exodus from rural areas into city and coastal conurbations. However, there appears to be no real will to try to redress this. In the past two weeks, the Wagga Daily Advertiser has contained nothing but bleak outcomes: 50 jobs lost at Laminex, eight jobs gone with a CASA restructure, 55 jobs under threat in a Telstra restructure and people in remote New South Wales facing the loss of access to fresh milk. Just today, residents of Hay, Hillston and Ivanhoe are being told that they may no longer have access to fresh milk for their families. Surely, this must contravene the human rights agreement.Introduction of state laws on local butcher shops has put many under threat of closure. These people have been employing locals for years, and they have not had any health risks, but the new regulations are beyond the financial abilities of small family businesses to comply. Indeed, these new regulations are appearing to have governments joined with major supermarket chains in forcing small family businesses out of the market. We do not have to have a GST before we have job losses; this is already happening. It is to be hoped that the introduction of a GST will quell the problems that we have faced for many years. Yet to come is a diminished economy and jobs lost through an imminent dairy deregulation that will see income reduced by an average of $85,000 per farm in my electorate. These figures are conservative as farmers provide proof of the crippling effect of Victoria's push to force New South Wales and other states into total deregulation.In addition, cuts to education in the state budget will mean that the loss of 630 TAFE positions state-wide will most certainly directly affect the Riverina. By far, the biggest cloud that hangs over the city is the uncertainty of the future of RAAF Base Forest Hill, Wagga Wagga. Whilst the base is still on the list of possible closures, the economy will never pick up and the largest inland city in New South Wales will continue to struggle with how they can continue to service the surrounding areas. Then we have the ludicrous decision by the New South Wales state government that road construction and maintenance in rural areas will in future be put out to general tender rather than allow local councils to do their own work with the local established work force. It is obvious we will witness more unemployment as smaller local councils are forced to shed staff.Decentralisation has not been seriously driven by any form of government. Even where it has been attempted to decentralise government departments into rural and regional areas, it has been all too hard to get bureaucrats to move into country areas, away from the perceived centres of cultural, educational and recreational power—the metropolitan cities. A typical example is the recent decision to move CASA jobs from Wagga Wagga to Canberra. Government must show leadership in decentralisation. It is completely unrealistic to expect private enterprise to relocate into country areas when all forms of government remain firmly entrenched in city areas. Over the years, state and federal governments have paid lip-service to the very real issue of the revitalisation of rural and regional areas. It is widely recognised that city professionals consider rural and regional amenities to be second grade, yet successive governments have failed to invest in any major infrastructure improvements in rural and regional areas that can assist in overcoming this enormous problem.The Riverina has much to offer in education, infrastructure, a reliable work force, extended telecommunications, reliable air, road and rail transportation, geographic lo cation, entertainment, competitive land and housing values and a great quality of life. However, it lacks some basic amenities that are taken for granted in the city. Under the New South Wales Labor government, there has been a serious dwindling of health facilities and an acute shortage of rural nurses and doctors. There is a lack of access to a life-saving radiotherapy unit that would see many of our rural people electing to undertake life-saving treatment rather than to opt against it purely because of costs associated with having to go to the city for extended periods. Yes, there will be a cost to government in making these facilities available, but if we are to attract serious interest in decentralisation these basic amenities are essential—not to mention the fact that rural and regional residents would have a similar chance of survival as their city counterparts.Similarly, we must keep our existing business and industry from being attracted to other areas. Encouraging these businesses to expand again requires expenditure on infrastructure. There is also a need for recreation and quality of life requirements such as a large entertainment venue and an indoor heated recreation and swimming centre in Wagga Wagga. The city has no real accessible cardiac, asthmatic, rheumatic and rehabilitation heated water space for the community as well as all year round training facilities for sports men and women.Wagga Wagga has produced many world-class champions over the years. Needless to say, the numbers are now dwindling as those who are gifted must move to the city to access the proper training facilities and technology that will enable them to compete on a level playing field. There is one thing sadly overlooked on this supposed level playing field: it can never be level because our children are removed from their families, friends and general quality of life if they pursue a dream. This is not so for the city kid.It is critical that all forms of government seriously invest in the real economic advancement of rural and regional areas. The short-term economic benefit may not be easy to define. However, the key is to convince those living in metropolitan areas of the attractiveness of living and working in rural and regional Australia. To do this, we must embrace service and development with a passion.The infuriating attitude that pervaded the 13 years of Labor rule that it was easier to transfer country into the city than vice versa must be eradicated. If there is to be a downsizing or a restructuring in government departments, it should take place in the city areas and efficiencies should be transferred into the country. There must be leadership shown. We need to put aside the verbal rhetoric and replace it with affirmative action. Let us not look at all the reasons why this cannot be done, as it was under 13 years of Labor rule and currently is in New South Wales under Labor rule. We must begin the task of convincing the decision makers that this must be done.I despair for the future of rural and regional Australia if we cannot change this short-sighted mind-set. This government has recognised the need for rural and regional investment in its budget. However, we have a long way to go. We have a long way to overcome many years of rape and pillage of rural and regional Australia. I implore the government to continue to look after country and rural Australia to encourage the advancement of rural and regional decentralisation. I implore all of those members in the House to support those jobs, where necessary, being moved into country areas.760917:25:007609Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I agreed very much with the first half of the member for Riverina's comments, until we got onto the apparent `rape and pillage' under the former Labor government. I am not quite sure where that came from, but her expressions of concern are taken on this side of the House, as she well knows, personally.We have heard much lately about this government's so-called social bonus for regional and rural Australia from the further sale of Telstra. But I have heard much more from the people in my electorate of Braddon, who in many cases are still saddled with second-rate telecommunications services. Metropolitan Australia enjoys easy access to telecommunications services of all manner and type, but it is a vastly different story in regions like my own, and I know this is shared in other parts of Australia. It sounds like this government is starting to respond to the call from regional Australia, but I stress at the moment that it only sounds like it.The reality is that it is trying to buy off regional Australia, and it is trying to do it on the cheap to achieve its own political ends. This government says Australians will have the chance to become stakeholders in Telstra, but I argue that all Australians already have a stake in Telstra and that it is a Commonwealth responsibility to ensure equitable access to telecommunications services. For the life of me, I cannot see how a fully privatised Telstra, or other independent communications operator, will want to provide the additional infrastructure or ongoing services to geographically and demographically marginal areas of rural and regional Australia.But there is no communications equity where I come from while King Island, Circular Head, many parts of the west coast of Tasmania and small communities along the north-west hinterland do not receive SBS television. There is no communications equity when television reception in numerous areas of my region is so poor as to be almost unwatchable at times. There is no telecommunications equity when many areas get only one or two television channels at the best of times when their metropolitan colleagues in Tasmania receive four channels.Likewise, there is no telecommunications equity when whole communities are without access to mobile telephone networks, and mobile phone black spots in my region are too numerous to mention. There is no telecommunications equity when the provision of new services to regional areas in Tasmania is in serious decline and falling well behind national standards, as revealed recently by the Australian Communications Authority.Tasmanian members in particular were shocked by the detail of the authority's quarterly telecommunications performance monitoring bulletin. It showed a 24 per cent decline in new services to rural areas compared to a six per cent decline nationally. I can vouch for this several times over with numerous complaints in my electorate over this very issue. The ACA performance monitor also revealed an 11-hour increase in the time taken to repair faults to public payphones, for instance.It is not a question of the quality of technical expertise available but the actual availability on the ground. Staff cuts and restructuring have diminished services, so how will this diminution be improved from a further sale of Telstra? The very fact that it took no fewer than 29 hours, for instance, to repair a fault at the Queenstown hospital in March this year after its telephone system crashed shows how inadequate services in regional areas really are.To date, funds intended to improve regional telecommunications infrastructure have in the main not found their way into my electorate, despite repeated claims these problems are being addressed, and I suggest that is shared by other members in this House on both sides in rural and regional areas. There is little tangible proof that my region has been better off because of the earlier sale of the first tranche of Telstra, and I challenge the government to prove otherwise.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Big winners.849Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—I would invite the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, at the table, to come to my electorate and prove me wrong. Get out of the city, friend, and come and visit regional Australia. You had better bring a nice pillow, because you will need it when you travel on some of the roads. I look forward to seeing you anyway.What has been proved is that this government's much vaunted Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund is inadequate and it shows that the government really is not serious about improving services in regional areas. The government says money from the further 16 per cent sale of Telstra will give Tasmanians access to advanced telecommunications systems. That is long overdue and I welcome it, but for many in my electorate they cannot even get something as basic as decent television reception.The Minister for Transport and Regional Services only last week in his euphoria over the further 16 per cent of Telstra being sold—only matched, I would say, in euphoria by the minister sitting opposite—was boasting about how wonderful the so-called social bonus will be for telecommunications in, to use his terminology, `far-flung regions'. The minister does not need to go too far outback to find the blatant inequities that exist. I suggest, for instance, that the minister goes to Gunns Plains, south of Ulverstone, and tries to watch the evening television news, or goes to Port Sorell and flicks through channels to see what the reception is like. One family have spent many hundreds of dollars setting up their own mast to try to improve their reception in one of the fastest growing demographic areas in the state. This is not a backwater or a far-flung region that we are talking about; it is a popular holiday residential retreat, a stone's throw from the city of Devonport.When the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and the minister at the table come down to my electorate, we will go to Marrawah or Christmas Hills in Circular Head or communities in the upper Forth Valley or to the west coast of Tasmania or King Island—I could go on and on. They all have the same problems. I urge the relevant minister and the minister opposite to see what sort of reception they get in some of these areas.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—It's good news.849Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—If the benefits to the far-flung places of regional Australia are so great from the sale of Telstra, why can't people living in regions like mine see the benefits? Good News Week ! Ha! If this government was really serious about regional telecommunications, why wouldn't it direct some of the massive Telstra profits to improving basic services like television reception? This is basic, friend.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—For 13 years you were in government. 849Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—Yes, and cocky was an egg once too. Are you going to go back forever?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! I ask members to address their remarks through the chair.849Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—Indeed, my humble apologies, only matched by his discourtesy, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the minister at the table is interested, the community of the valley of Forth where I live has a population of a few hundred, and it raised $12,000 to establish its own translator to get two channels, one of which was the ABC. It was only because of the generosity of the Central Coast Council that sufficient funds were provided to get the two remaining channels, including SBS. `So what?' the minister might say. `Good news!' My village is only 10 minutes west of Devonport and eight minutes east of Ulverstone, yet without significant community finances TV reception would be severely limited. My village situation is repeated many times over in my electorate.Wouldn't we stand a much better chance in the future of getting improved services if money from Telstra's massive yearly dividend to the government was added to funding for regional telecommunications infrastructure? The amount of money from Telstra's half-yearly profit of $1.8 billion spent on regional Australia puts this government's commitment to telecommunications infrastructure into clear perspective.Its so-called social bonus is only a token gesture to improving services in regional Australia. How much of future Telstra profits do you think will be directed to regional Australia if this government's single-minded mission to sell Telstra continues? It still wants to sell Telstra completely, and that has alarm bells ringing around regional Australia because we know, if it goes, ultimately our chances of getting services comparable to metropolitan areas will go with it. What will be the fate of regional telecommunications in the future in Australia if this happens?This government has hoodwinked regional Australia and has done so by building the level of expectation in rural and remote areas that they will be the winners from the sell-off of Telstra. But how can this be in reality? The social bonus will come and go, but the current dividend will end if Telstra is completely sold off. Simple maths will tell us that the compounding dividend, if continued, will massively surpass the one-off social benefit. If marginal areas are underserviced now, how on earth will they be catered for in the future?So what we are saying on this side of the House is that regional Australia will be going for everything it can now because of the pot of gold being offered from the Telstra sale which will disappear as fast as the rainbow. Many believe, and rightly so, that if they do not get these basic telecommunications services now the chances are they never will if this government has its way with Telstra. I have much more that I would like to add, and I will do so on a later date. (Time expired)761217:35:007612Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—I rise in today's grievance debate on the issue of postwar reconstruction and developments in the Balkans. Even though these events are happening many thousands of kilometres from our shores, they are still very relevant to Australia and its people. In May I had the privilege of visiting Albania with the assistance of World Vision and the Australian Ambassador to Italy, Mr Rory Steele. I thank both World Vision and the ambassador for their help in getting me to Albania, but more particularly in getting me out. World Vision is based in Deakin. It is an excellent organisation and I commend its ongoing work not only in that region but throughout the world.It was abundantly clear at the time that the need for temporary shelter, food and comfort for hundreds of thousands of refugees was the world's first priority. Over one million Kosovar Albanians were displaced. Thousands of women, men and children, young and old alike, streamed into neighbouring countries—140,000 into Macedonia and over 410,000 into Albania alone.We have all heard the horrible, indeed torturous, stories of mass murder, forceful eviction, robbery, rape and physical assault—stories that very few Australians have ever experienced and could really understand. The emotional terror written into the hearts and minds of these people, especially the children, is a tragedy. My hope is that all Kosovars, indeed all people living in the Balkans—including the Serbians, Croatians and Bosnians—can one day soon enjoy permanent peace and greater prosperity.My experiences in Albania, as well as those I gained through having the opportunity of welcoming a plane load of refugees on their way to Puckapunyal, have only strengthened my resolve to ensure that, as a nation, Australia continues to do all that it can. Since my visit to the region in May, and contrary to popular belief amongst the locals at the time, we now have cessation of the war in Kosovo.However, the region, while enjoying the end of military activity, has not seen the last of its problems. In fact, many new problems have only just surfaced and, in one sense, the difficulties of returning to a life without war will be felt for much longer than the 11 weeks of recent military action. The destruction of vital infrastructure, roads, bridges, electricity generation and transmission facilities, communications networks, et cetera can all be repaired and replaced with relative ease. As opposed to human misery and dislocation, the tasks of civil reconstruction simply require physical action and, of course, finance.Students of history and older Australians who have spent time in Europe may remember the European Recovery Program. This program, otherwise known as the Marshall Plan, was developed by the then United States Secretary of State, General George C. Marshall. In June 1947, he outlined a program of economic assistance to postwar Europe. It was this program that has led to the prosperous and united Europe of today. The Marshall Plan responded to a crisis in postwar Europe, resulting from a decline in production, a shortage of capital, a serious balance of payments deficit and food shortages.General Marshall, in a speech at Harvard University, said that the United States was prepared to `assist in the return to normal economic health the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace'. He went on to say:Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist.He stressed that the initiative had to come from the European nations themselves, as they were expected to join in a cooperative effort. History records that the European nations reacted immediately and enthusiastically.In current day dollars, around $88 billion was allocated. Grants made up more than 90 per cent of the total, providing essential commodities and services. Goods included food, animal feed, fuel, raw materials and production equipment. Grants financed the upgrading of manufacturing, mining, transportation and communication industries. History also records that the plan added to the Europeans' own economic efforts and, as a consequence, economic growth increased in the late 1940s onwards. The economic recovery set the stage for ongoing economic growth and, in turn, this growth led to European integration and new forms of cooperation. The current day strength of France, Germany and Italy, to name just three nations in a united Europe, should mean that the Balkans get the same sort of assistance.From an Australian perspective, these nations, along with the United States of America, need to do all they can—and then some more—to ensure that the people of Kosovo, Macedonia, the greater Yugoslavia and the other Balkan states have the same opportunities in the future. Restoring the normal functions of markets, free trade and commerce is important, but so too is the restoration of democracy, the rule of law and vibrant civil institutions.It is no understatement to suggest that living in Australia is very easy. The hardships of absolute poverty, physical displacement, war and torture are things we only read about. The peace and prosperity of our land should never stop us from working towards making other regions just as peaceful and wealthy. Reconstruction in the Balkans is essentially a European problem. However, there is a role for Australia to play. As honourable members would be aware, Australia has received and placed 4,000 refugees. These people are now accommodated in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. Along with a number of my colleagues, I will soon be visiting one or two of these refugee safe havens.In total, we are providing $6 million of direct assistance. This money is helping the humanitarian organisations working in the region—namely, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, World Food Program and the International Committee of the Red Cross. This assistance has been targeted to meeting the immediate relief needs of refugees and internally displaced persons.Our role has been effective, as it has met immediate needs. It has also been a source of national pride, as almost all Australians have been supportive of the government's efforts. Despite the recent events of just one family at the Singleton safe haven, millions of Australians have thrown open their hearts in support of the displaced Kosovars. I welcome their presence in Australia and hope that they can return home when the time is right. The timing of their return will depend on many factors, not the least of which are adequate housing, food and the ability to earn a living.As the European countries develop and finalise their response to the needs of the Balkans, there is one thing for certain: the reconstruction costs will amount to billions of eurodollars. These expenditures present a wonderful opportunity for Australian businesses. As a nation, we have the opportunity to provide a wide range of goods and services. Food production and civil engineering, in which we have expertise, are just two of many areas that are and will be in high demand. A move both in the immediate and long term to greater levels of trade and activity with Eastern Europe will complement the trade strategies already implemented by the coalition government.In recent times, with the South-East Asian downturn, we have seen our exporters having to diversify into alternative markets. Our exports to Europe have increased in recent years and should do even further as the stability pact is implemented. I am glad to say that, in addition to organisations such as World Vision, there are many Deakin based businesses that are successful traders on the world stage. A number are already exporting into Europe with the support of Austrade and, using their own commercial instincts, there should be more opportunities for them in the very near future.The member for Maribyrnong—who visited Macedonia at about the same time I visited Albania—and I realised through discussion that the Marshall Plan, developed earlier this century by the United States, should become a model for future reconstruction efforts. The United States, Europe and other nations should become partners in the reconstruction efforts.Official American statements have indicated that in 1999 the US will not adopt the same sorts of policy measures. We can all understand the anger and emotion directed towards the destructive actions of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and President Milosevic. But, having seen first-hand the results of the Kosovo conflict, I am of the firm opinion that all the civilians—whether they are from Kosovo, Albania or Yugoslavia itself—should be assisted now that the conflict is over. The US policy of isolation and punitive sanctions have not seen the fall of other regimes. Unfortunately, the people of these and other nations have suffered because of their governments. We all know the Kosovar Albanians have suffered, but so have the civilian Serbs who until recently lived in Kosovo. The future of a plan for reconstruction and restoration must cover all those living in the Balkans. As we have seen from history, a strong and united Europe has remained peaceful. Although it is difficult to imagine, I hope that in a couple of decades the people of the Balkans will enjoy the same level of peace and prosperity as Australia.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—The time for grievances has now expired. The debate is interrupted and I put the question:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous761410000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 30 June 1999, at 9.40 a.m., as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Bills7614r8477614Bill presented by Mr McGauran, and read a first time.761417:47:007614McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 proposes amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to:. improve opportunities for the live television coverage of designated events and series by introducing an `anti-hoarding' regime for free-to-air broadcasters;. protect regional broadcasters from `look alike' metropolitan free-to-air programming on regional pay TV services;. introduce a new retransmission regime, which will require pay TV operators wishing to retransmit free-to-air radio or television broadcasting services to seek the consent of the originating broadcaster; and. provide for an increase in the time allowed for sponsorship announcements on community broadcasting services from four minutes to five minutes per hour.The anti-hoarding, retransmission and regional protection provisions were originally introduced in the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill 1998 last year, before lapsing with the calling of the last federal election.This bill reintroduces these provisions, with changes to the regional protection and retransmission provisions reflecting the Senate legislation committee process, and further consultations with the industry and the Australian Broadcasting Authority, ABA.The new retransmission regime will fulfil a previous coalition election promise to give broadcasters control over their own signal, consistent with the general approach adopted by the Copyright Convergence Group, CCG, in its 1994 report Highways to Change: Copyright in the New Communications Environment. It will overcome an anomaly in the current retransmission rules which allows pay TV operators to retransmit free-to-air broadcasting services without consent or compensation.The new regime will require the prior agreement of the originating broadcaster to any retransmission of the free-to-air broadcasting service, except in limited circumstances such as in remote areas or for self-help purposes where exemption from this general rule is considered desirable in the public interest.The bill provides for early enforcement of the broadcaster right in the event of any delay to the passage of proposed associated amendments to the Copyright Act 1968. These amendments will provide for a new broadly based technology-neutral right of communication to the public, and will require pay TV operators to compensate owners of underlying copyright material in broadcasts for the retransmission of those broadcasts.The government has consulted widely with all relevant interest groups on the proposed retransmission arrangements, and on associated provisions to protect regional broadcasters from the rebroadcast of programs on regional pay TV services, which are substantially similar to prime time metropolitan television programming.Free-to-air broadcasters and pay TV operators should have a clear mutual interest in agreeing to reasonable terms for future retransmissions, which will also benefit many viewers who receive improved reception of free-to-air services through such retransmission arrangements. The bill provides for a review of the operation of the new retransmission arrangements within two years to ensure that the public interest is met.The bill also introduces an `anti-hoarding rule'. The proposed scheme consists of a `must offer' obligation to be imposed on free-to-air broadcasters and their regular program suppliers who have live broadcast rights to designated events or series but who do not intend to facilitate live television coverage of these events. Free-to-air commercial broadcasters in this situation will have to offer the unused rights to the ABC and SBS for a nominal charge. The ABC and SBS will have to offer such rights to each other in similar circumstances.Under the current provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act, free-to-air broadcasters are given priority access to the purchase of broadcasting rights to a wide range of major sporting events set out in the anti-siphoning list. However, there is nothing in the legislation to actively encourage free-to-air broadcasters to exercise the rights they have acquired. Broadcasters may delay coverage, or televise only a small proportion of an event.The current provision for the minister to remove events from the anti-siphoning list is unlikely to be effective in situations where a broadcaster decides, at short notice, not to fully televise an event. Such a situation occurred in 1997 when the Nine Network decided not to show the first session of play in the test matches of the Ashes cricket series in England, to the grave disappointment of many cricket supporters and sporting lovers. Who will ever forget the outcry at the time!The operation of the proposed anti-hoarding amendments will be confined to events and series designated by the minister. It is envisaged that the ministerial designation power will be used only in limited circumstances—for example, where there is a wide public expectation, based on past practice, of the full live televising of an event—such as, I would imagine, the Ashes cricket series.Finally, the bill gives effect to the government's election commitment to increase the community broadcasting sponsorship limit from four to five minutes per hour. This will assist the viability of individual stations and quite rightly bring the community sector into line with similar limits imposed on the SBS. The amendments in this bill are expected to have no significant impact on Commonwealth expenditure or revenue. I table an explanatory memorandum and commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned.Bills7616r7717616Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.7616Bill (on motion by Mr Abbott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills7616r7947616Bill returned from Main Committee with amendments; certified copy of bill and schedule of amendments presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Main Committee's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, page 9 (before line 3), before item 2, insert:1A Saving for the Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977The repeal of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977 does not affect an obligation to pay money under an arrangement made under section 21 of that Act.(2) Schedule 2, item 6, page 11 (lines 21 to 25), omit the item, substitute:6 After section 3 Insert:3AA Operation despite repeal of Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977This Act continues to apply despite the repeal of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977 as if: (a) section 3 and Part IV of that Act had not been repealed; and (b) any arrangement under subsection 21(1) of that Act that ceased to be in force only because of that repeal had not ceased to be in force because of that repeal. Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.7616Bill (on motion by Mr Abbott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills7616r6757616Bill returned from Main Committee with amendments; certified copy of bill and schedule of amendments presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Main Committee's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 24 to 27), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) has had direct experience, and has direct knowledge, of the needs of people, or groups of people, significantly affected by government decisions.(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (lines 7 to 11), omit paragraph (ab), substitute: (ab) to inquire into the adequacy of the procedures used by authorities of the Commonwealth and other persons who exercise administrative discretions or make administrative decisions, and consult with and advise them about those procedures, for the purpose of ensuring that the discretions are exercised, or the decisions are made, in a just and equitable manner; and(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (lines 31 to 33), omit paragraph (g), substitute: (g) to facilitate the training of members of authorities of the Commonwealth and other persons in exercising administrative discretions or making administrative decisions; and(4) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (line 12), after "President", insert "of the Council".(5) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (line 17), after "President", insert "of the Council".(6) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (lines 6 to 9), omit subsection (2), substitute: (2) An instrument of appointment of a person as an appointed member may state that the person is appointed for the purposes of a particular project specified in the instrument that is being, or is to be, undertaken by the Council.(7) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (lines 15 to 19), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) the person is to take part in the project and has the rights of a member only for the purposes of taking part in the project; and(8) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (lines 22 to 29), omit paragraphs (d) and (e), substitute: (d) if the appointment has not previously ended under paragraph (a) or under section 54 or 55 or been terminated under paragraph (c), it ends when the President of the Council certifies in writing that the Council has finished the project; and (e) when the appointment ends or is terminated, the person is eligible for reappointment, whether for the purpose of taking part in the same project or another project or otherwise.(9) Schedule 4, page 9 (line 8), omit "wherever", substitute "last".(10) Schedule 5, page 10 (lines 2 to 9), omit the Schedule.(11) Schedule 11, item 1, page 22 (lines 5 and 6), omit the item, substitute:1 At the end of paragraph 39B(1A)(c)Add ", other than a matter in respect of which a criminal prosecution is instituted or any other criminal matter".(12) Schedule 15, page 26 (lines 2 to 7), omit the Schedule.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.7617Bill (on motion by Mr Abbott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills7617s1827617Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills7617s1977617Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Business76177617Motion (by Mr Abbott)—by leave—agreed to:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent order of the day No. 20, private members' business, for the second reading of the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill 1999, being called on forthwith and the bill proceeding through all stages without delay.Bills7617r753Consideration resumed from 22 March.7617Motion (by Mrs Gallus) proposed:That the bill be now read a second time.18:00:007617Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—This is the third time this particular bill, the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill 1999 , has been introduced into this House. The member for Hindmarsh first introduced it in 1995, just before the 1996 election, and she reintroduced it in 1998, just before the 1998 election. Perhaps this time it will actually go forward to the Senate and come into effect; not, I have to say, that the bill coming into effect will make a staggering difference to the lives of those residents of Adelaide who live near Adelaide airport because it is not accompanied by any noise amelioration proposals. But I do think there is some justification for having legislated curfews, which is what this bill will achieve, as opposed to administrative ones. I think a good case can be made out that such an approach, even if it leaves much up to regulation and ministerial discretion, is potentially a more accountable and transparent way of doing things.We have had quite a few debates in here recently—debates on the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Amendment Bill 1999 , for example, and on the diesel fuel bill—in which, I remember, we were told the detail would be filled in afterwards. At least this bill spells out, in an accountable way, what it seeks to achieve. To that extent, the member for Hindmarsh goes against the trend of things that are closed, secretive and patently unaccountable that we have seen building up in this place. But it does remain the case that no other airport in the country is being put forward as a candidate for a legislated curfew, and so an interesting question to ask is: why Adelaide airport? Is there something unique about Adelaide airport?Mrs Gallus interjecting—XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—No other one apart from Sydney, I would say to the member for Hindmarsh—sorry. But the point is Adelaide is quite different from Sydney. It is similar to Brisbane and similar to Perth. The question is: what is important and unique about Adelaide? You could ask the member for Griffith and the member for Lilley if they thought that, if they were to put up a similar bill applying to Brisbane airport, the government would extend the same courtesy to them in having the bill passed expeditiously.Mrs Gallus interjecting—XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—However, as we did last year, Labor will support this bill and, as Labor did last year, we will again move amendments to extend to Adelaide residents living near the airport the same level of insulation against noise currently being offered to residents of Sydney. The member for Hindmarsh interjected just a little while ago that Sydney has a legislated curfew, and the point Labor wants to make is that Sydney also has legislation on noise insulation and insulation is offered to residents there. We say that the two things go hand in hand.This bill imposes a curfew on aircraft using Adelaide airport between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. There are in this bill a number of exceptions to that rule. There are curfew shoulder hours from 11 p.m. to midnight and from 5 a.m. to 6 a.m. The main purpose of these shoulder hours is to provide some flexibility for inter national flight schedules, and the operators of international aircraft may apply to the minister for permission to use Adelaide airport during these shoulder hours. The aircraft must be of the newer, quieter type known as chapter 3 aircraft, in accordance with standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation.It is worth noting that Australia has already agreed to implement the ICAO program to phase out non-chapter 3 subsonic jet aircraft so it is not a particularly startling initiative in this particular bill, but it is welcome. Operators of low noise, heavy freight aircraft over 34 tonnes can apply to use the airport during the curfew period, subject to regulation limiting the number of takeoffs and landings during the curfew hours. These aircraft must comply with ICAO chapter 3 noise standards and they must also comply with the 90-95 rule. Under that rule, aircraft cannot exceed 90 decibels on takeoff and 95 decibels on landing. That should rule out DC9s, for example, using Adelaide airport during the curfew hours. I note that the member for Hindmarsh has changed her bill to leave the number of heavy freight movements entirely up to the minister. In the previous version of this bill, these movements were specifically limited to the number allowed by regulation—eight per week—and the number of movements by DC9s to four per week. I assume that the change comes about because of an expectation of increased demand for such flights, but it would be interesting to hear the explanation of the member for Hindmarsh for that point of difference between the last bill and this version of the bill. I also note that the previous bill came into effect within 28 days of receiving royal assent, whereas the current bill gives the government a period of up to six months in which to proclaim it.There are also some further restrictions on aircraft once they have received permission to use the airport during the curfew. They must not use reverse thrust greater than idle upon landing, and they must use only runway 05/23—that is, they must approach and land from over the sea unless the weather conditions prevent them from doing so. Where flights do end up approaching over the city and landing on runways other than 05/23, the operator of the aircraft must submit a report on the reasons for landing on that runway, including the prevailing wind conditions. The bill also requires Airservices Australia to provide the Secretary to the Department of Transport and Regional Services with a monthly report on flights that landed on runways other than 05/23 during the curfew shoulder hours or the curfew period.Propeller driven aircraft and jet aircraft under 34 tonnes are also permitted to use the airport during the curfew period, provided they meet noise standards and, in the case of jets, they must comply with the 90-95 rule. There are also some exemptions for emergencies—for search and rescue missions, for medical emergencies, for disaster relief and for reasons of aircraft safety. So, in essence, there is still a fair amount of traffic that can come and go from the airport during the curfew period, and there is quite a lot left to regulations and to the discretion of the minister in terms of the numbers of international and heavy freight traffic that can come in. So not much is going to change out there in the real world. As I say, though, I think it is better to have a legislated curfew than an administrative one.This bill leaves plenty of room for a greater number of international flights to access Adelaide airport during those shoulder hour periods. Labor does not have a problem with that, but it does raise the question of noise. We accept the need to balance the demand for access to airports for the transport of both people and goods, with the concerns of nearby communities. It is often very difficult—and many have found this to their cost—to strike a fair and reasonable balance between these two competing needs. But we have had this debate and, in many respects, we are back to square one here. That is why I foreshadowed that when we get to consideration of the bill in detail I will be moving amendments for noise insulation for people already affected by noise.As my predecessor, Lindsay Tanner, pointed out when this bill was last debated, this legislative curfew, like the administrative one it replaces, does nothing to help those people living near Adelaide airport who are already affected by noise. It really raises the question: why do we want curfews? It is because planes make a lot of noise. We want to restrict that noise to certain hours. If that noise is excessive, what are the rights to noise insulation of those people who live near airports? We have said in the past that what applies in Sydney should apply to all airports, and we see no reason to move from that position.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.7619Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.18:09:007619Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—I wish to move the first of the two amendments circulated in my name. In order to save the time of the chamber, I would like to anticipate debate on the second amendment, because it is the same principle that applies here. I foreshadow that we will be calling a division on the second amendment. I move:(1) Clause 2, page 2, after line 7, insert "; and"As I said during the second reading debate, while this bill achieves a step forward in legislating a curfew, it does not take the necessary next step and deal with noise insulation. It really leaves it very much open-ended in terms of regulation and concedes that the existing problems are very likely to get worse. I know that many members in Adelaide look forward to an increase in traffic at Adelaide airport for other economic reasons but, with the runway extension and with the government's response to the Productivity Commission's open skies report, we do know that there is going to be an increase in international traffic into Adelaide in the coming years, and we do acknowledge that the structure of this bill also acknowledges that reality.At one level, this can be an exercise in accountability. At another level, if you were really cynical, you could say that it is a bit of electoral posturing. It talks about a curfew, but it does not tackle noise. Those people who have problems with noise during normal operating hours find that there is nothing extra for them in this bill, and those people who have problems with noise during the shoulder hours find that their concerns are not addressed in this bill. That is why, when this bill came up last year, the then shadow minister for transport and the member for Melbourne, Lindsay Tanner, moved these amendments that I am also moving today.These amendments prevent the bill from commencing until Adelaide airport is identified as a qualifying airport under the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act. We are saying that it is not right to do half the job. By all means legislate the curfew but, secondly, be serious about the effects of increased traffic and you must link noise insulation with any opportunity for increased noise on top of the existing noise.Labor went into the last federal election with very clear commitments to ensure that such insulation was available to all home owners living by airports on the same basis that it is provided in Sydney under the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act 1995. Why not Adelaide? If we are going to have this legislated curfew, why not Adelaide? We consider that to be the very fair thing to do. Last time around, the member for Hindmarsh said that she felt that the Sydney insulation program was not necessarily appropriate to Adelaide, as though there was some huge distinction between living close to an airport in Adelaide and close to an airport in Sydney. I do not believe she has actually made the case for that. I am quite ready to say that different cities may have different needs but, given that this is actually an improvement for those who live near airports and experience existing noise, I cannot see why the member for Hindmarsh should actually not support these amendments.We are taking a first step to ensure that Adelaide residents have the same access to noise insulation as their Sydney counterparts. If we can have a legislated curfew at Adelaide airport, why can't we also have a legislated noise insulation program? That is the question. Why can't members of the government support that? That would be the fair and proper thing for both the government and the member for Hindmarsh to do.18:14:007620Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—The member for Dickson brings no originality to this House—no fresh ideas; no new ap proach. Instead, we get the same irrelevant, nonsensical and obfuscatory amendment that the member for Melbourne added to this bill, the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill 1999 , during the second reading debate in the last parliament. For the benefit of the member for Dickson, your amendment is unacceptable for the following reasons. Firstly—even if this amendment were possible at this time—it would delay the implementation of the legislated curfew, which is not in the interests of residents of Hindmarsh. In delaying the commencement of this legislation, the member for Dickson will allow a continuation of a situation that allows aircraft that do not meet the 90-95 rule—which is a new initiative in this legislation for noise approach and landing—including the DC9, which traditionally comes in in the early hours of the morning, to land during the curfew hours. She will also perpetuate the situation where aircraft approaching over the city on runway 23 during shoulder hours do not have to fill out a report and, therefore, have no incentive not to come in over the city. I do not think that the residents near Adelaide airport would thank her or the ALP for that delay.Secondly, this amendment is unacceptable because the new ANEF bands for Adelaide are only now being finalised and no survey of houses under the ANEF bands has been done, and this is a long and complicated exercise. Thirdly, this amendment is unacceptable because this bill is not the appropriate instrument by which to introduce insulation for residents living near Adelaide airport. The member for Melbourne knew this when he originally made the amendment. It still is not appropriate. You did not learn anything.It was prior to an election, and the member for Melbourne was in a dilemma. He did not want to support my efforts, but he also did not want to oppose the legislation and make the ALP look bad in Hindmarsh. So he did the next best thing: he added an unacceptable, superficially attractive amendment which he hoped would make Labor look good, knowing it did not make much sense but could be used to confuse the electorate. I understand why the member for Melbourne would want to confuse the electorate in the run-up to an election, but it beats me why the member for Dickson is doing the same more than two years before an election. Perhaps that is what they do in the Senate, but usually we do things differently in this place. The member for Dickson should have learnt by now, but maybe she is a slow learner.If the member is really interested in obtaining insulation around Adelaide airport, I will tell her how to do it. Firstly, examine the situation in Adelaide and identify the parameters under which she wishes to provide insulation to Adelaide residents—ANEF 20, ANEF 25, ANEF 30 or ANEF 35. Secondly, carry out a survey to determine the road boundaries that would be appropriate and the number of homes that this would include. Thirdly, determine what levy Adelaide airport should charge passengers into Adelaide—in and out—to cover that insulation cost, and discuss with Adelaide airport the effect this will have on air traffic into Adelaide and their willingness as the owners to impose such a levy, especially as a levy of $7 is about to be imposed because of the cost of the new terminal. Fourthly, if the member is really serious after she has done her homework, she should put her amendment to the appropriate legislation or regulation—that is, to the Aircraft Noise Levy Act 1995 and the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act 1995—and not the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill 1999 , which is clearly inappropriate.For the information of the member for Dickson, insulation is an issue for Adelaide airport residents and deserves more than grandstanding. The West Torrens Council and its Mayor, Reese Jennings, have worked hard to get insulation for the worst-affected residents in their council area. As the federal member, I am concerned for these residents whose lives are negatively affected by aircraft noise. I will not be grandstanding on the issue and raising the false hopes of those who had never been covered by the ANEF bands. But, as I have with this current bill before the House today, I will work with the community and approach the minister on the community's behalf for appropriate action, including insulation for these homes near Adelaide airport most seriously affected by aircraft noise—that is, I will be doing it properly and not grandstanding like the member for Dickson, who seems to know little about the appropriate bills in her portfolio.18:19:007621Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—I have just a few general comments. Although I was not in this place at the time, I recall the severe embarrassment of the member for Hindmarsh when she had to vote against these amendments last time. It really is inappropriate to say, `If we accept these amendments we are delaying the curfew.' That is no excuse for actually accepting the principle that curfews are about noise reduction. Other appropriate matters, such as what causes the noise and leads to the need for reduction, should be addressed at the same time. There are just far too many examples in this place of doing half the job and saying, `We will fill in all the details and fix it up later.' All of the components that the member identified as being part of doing the job properly can and should be done before this bill, the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill 1999 , comes into effect.As for the example that there is already a $7 levy coming in to cover the cost of the new terminal, why should those who suffer aircraft noise have to take any responsibility for that? That comes about as part of the costs of the airports borne by those who choose to operate within airports and who want to own and operate terminals; that is not the responsibility of those who bought houses or were living in houses close to airports well before the noise levels became extremely difficult for them. So it is really just about doing the job properly, not doing half the job. If the member is so concerned for the residents—and she has had all of these years to get it right—she could have been out there as part of the government making sure that this second half of the job was done now and was not further delayed. That is the point. You are in government, you are the local member and you have an opportunity to do something about it.Amendment negatived.18:21:007621Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—I move:(2) Clause 2, page 2, after subclause (2), add:"(3) This Act shall not commence unless Adelaide Airport is a qualifying airport in terms of Section 6 of the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act 1995" .I do not wish to make any further remarks; I have covered them before.Question put:That the amendment (Ms Kernot's ) be agreed to.The House divided. [6.26 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr D.H. Adams) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the negative.Bill agreed to.7622Bill (on motion by Mrs Gallus)—by leave—read a third time.Sitting suspended from 6.33 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.Bills7622r8157622Consideration resumed from 24 June.20:00:007622Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—Since I last spoke on the ACIS Administration Bill 1999 , to which the member for Fraser had moved an amendment, a couple of sitting days have elapsed. I was interrupted then just before question time, and during question time the Treasurer felt the need to attack me for calling for a Productivity Commission inquiry into the car industry. It seems that the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia, while he loves the Productivity Commission and indeed was instrumental in setting it up and drawing together various government bodies, including the Industry Commission, to constitute the new Productivity Commission—83VEMERSONMr Emerson—He doesn't want it to inquire into anything.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—The member for Rankin is exactly right. He does not want it to inquire into things that he thinks will cause him difficulty. Instead, he wants a quick and dirty internal inquiry to decide what the tariff regime is going to be after the year 2005 and to decide what assistance the car industry is going to receive when the ACIS arrangements expire. They are called transitional arrangements—they have a cap on them of $2 billion, and they are going to expire in 2005. It is an heroic assumption to suggest that a quick and dirty internal inquiry, probably done by Treasury with as limited inputs as they can tolerate from Senator Minchin's department, will come out with the sorts of arrangements that the car industry will need post 2005.The parliamentary secretary who was at the table last time I was speaking suggested that a full-scale inquiry would create uncertainty. I simply cannot see how a quick and dirty internal inquiry can do other than cause great uncertainty—people will not understand the process, people will not have the opportunity to make the sorts of inputs that you are able to in a proper inquiry, there will not be a draft report, there will not be the opportunity for feedback; it will just be whatever the government thinks is a convenient thing for it at the time. We do not know when they are going to do it. The industry will be left in a great deal of uncertainty by this refusal to have a proper full-scale inquiry into the car industry before there is any further phasing down in tariffs.20:03:007622McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I understand the important point the member for Kingston was making. I do not want to dwell too much on the Treasurer's little performance in question time to which he responded, but the member for Kingston is absolutely correct. It was actually so odd it was bizarre, but it was part of a bizarre day that the Treasurer was having. What the member for Kingston is saying, what the opposition is saying, is that there should be a public inquiry, not a private one.Why do we think this amendment to the ACIS Administration Bill 1999 is necessary? Why are we talking about the fact that the government has created the ridiculous circumstance in which it is proposing an inquiry in 2005 into a scheme that expires in 2005 and therefore creates the threat of a hiatus? This is not the height of fantasy. This is not our imagination. In a joint statement by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the then minister for industry, dated 5 June 1997, they set out at dot point three: `There will be a review in 2005.' What we are saying is: that is a crazy time to have the review.I do not object to there being a review in 2005, if circumstances at that stage justify it—let us wait and see. What we are saying is: the parliament is being asked to approve a proposal for some changes which come into effect in 2005 and in this particular bill the implementation of a support measure, so-called transitional measure, which expires in 2005, and the only public information we have is a government commitment to have an inquiry in 2005. Yet when we pressed this point in the second reading debate and heard the parliamentary secretary respond, what did he say? He said, `We don't need an amendment about an inquiry because the government might have an inquiry anyway.' We do not actually know they will. Nobody knows what sort of inquiry it is. Nobody knows whether the parliament will receive the report from that inquiry. Nobody knows whether the public will get a chance to make submissions, whether the industry will get a chance to make submissions, whether the affected communities for this very important regionally based industry will get a chance to make submissions, whether the state governments, particularly of South Australia and Victoria, will get a chance to make submissions.I think there is legitimate concern that, while we all know that the big players are going to get a chance to be heard, this is an industry where the extent of small and medium sized enterprise involvement is underestimated because everyone thinks of the automobile industry as the four car manufacturers. Of course they are very important players in the industry fundamental to, for example, the City of Geelong, as our colleague the member for Corio made clear in his speech on the second reading. But what about all the automobile parts manufacturers and the other service suppliers affected by this? It is necessary that we propose to have a proper inquiry before the scheme folds and before the tariff changes take place so that all those views can be heard and an informed decision made.The tariff is important because, while I think both sides of the House remain committed—I know we do, and I think it is the same for the government—to the 2010 APEC objective, the pace and timetable of achieving that are matters properly for informed judgment. But the most important thing is this: what is going to follow these transitional arrangements? How are these transitional arrangements going to continue beyond 2005? We do not want $2 billion of support after five years to just fall straight off the edge of the cliff to zero support, and that is what the parliament is being asked to vote for at the moment.It is an unreasonable proposition. The amendment is one that the government could accept, except that it is so pig-headed. It is the `was not made here' syndrome. Because the opposition is proposing it, the government is now saying, `You don't need anything about an inquiry. We might have one and we'll tell you about it at the time. The form of it will be one that we'll decide when we're good and ready.' If there is a change of government, there will be an inquiry and it will be public. What we want is the parliament to ensure that, whether there is a change of government or not, that inquiry takes place.20:08:007623Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I appreciate the contribution from the member for Fraser. However, the amendment is unacceptable to the government. The automotive industry requires certainty, not further reviews. We had a full Industry Commission inquiry into the automotive industry in 1996-97 to enable the government to take early decisions about post-2000 arrangements. This was to provide the industry with a stable framework in which it could plan its future. The government has brought forward a package of legislation which fully articulates these post-2000 arrangements and provides policy certainty past 2005. This encompasses the 10 per cent tariff from 2005 and the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme. These measures were developed as an integrated package and are fully supported by industry.The tariff reduction in 2005 is in line with Australia's commitment to trade liberalisation and is a tangible step towards our APEC goal by the year 2010. It is important that we give full effect to the government's tariff decision now to give the industry time to adjust to the new tariff environment. Not to do so would be irresponsible and consign the industry to a future of additional uncertainty. A further review of the industry which may result in a late change to these tariff settings is, as the member for Hindmarsh pointed out, simply nonsense. It should not be underestimated how costly and distractive a review would be for the industry. This is not something to be embarked upon lightly.The tariff settings and ACIS are an integrated package of measures to provide transitional assistance to help the automotive industry achieve a self-sustaining future in a more liberalised trade environment. Any review of tariff settings would also put in question the associated assistance arrangements. The industry must have certainty that ACIS will run until the end of 2005 and will not be subject to mid-term review which could undermine the very investments which ACIS is designed to encourage. Notwithstanding this, ACIS, like all Commonwealth programs, will still be subject to periodic evaluation to assess its performance against stated objectives without the uncertainty generated by another full-scale review of the entire industry.It is important to remember that the industry was fully consulted prior to the government announcement in June 1997 and the industry agreed with the post-2000 measures outlined in that announcement. The government has continued to consult extensively with the industry during the further development of these arrangements, and the industry has given its full support to this legislative package proceeding in its current form. The government has created the right environment for growth and for the car industry, which is dynamic, productive, optimistic and outward looking. These policy settings give industry the certainty that it needs to plan for its future. It supports employment in this important sector and I repeat that it goes forward with the full support of industry. We do not need another review in the near term.20:12:007624McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I was not proposing to speak again. I thought I had made all the points, but that contribution was amazing. I feel really sorry for the minister. I do not criticise her. I am sure someone advised her to say all those silly things, but they cannot be consistent with the conclusion that she came to or with the things the parliamentary secretary said previously. But let us not worry about that; let us just think about this question of certainty.What the government is saying is, `We are going to have a review in the middle term privately, but that won't in any way involve any question of uncertainty. But, if you have it in public, it will create great uncertainty.' The amount of uncertainty is precisely the same. We are dealing with ACIS now. This is a bill about the transitional arrangements. Even if the government has the view which the minister outlined with regard to the tariff changes which relate to the next bill and the next package of amendments, none of that is in any way a rational argument against having a review of the transitional arrangements.Of course everybody knows they will continue to 2005. That is what the bill says. That is what we are all voting for. It is a question of whether we review it before it finishes. After 2003 is when the uncertainty will begin to emerge because people know that the support scheme is going to finish in two years. They will want to know what is going to happen after that—that is, four years from now. When people say, `What's going to happen after 2005?' when people do not know what is going to happen in two years, that is called uncertainty. That is exactly what we are seeking to avoid. If this policy continues, the government will shamefacedly get up and say, `Yes, well, of course there's going to be an inquiry because we want to know what's going to happen after 2005,' but they just do not want to admit it.To say that an inquiry before ACIS expires creates uncertainty flies in the face of the English language. It cannot conceivably be an argument against this measure. There may be some other argument—I do not know what it is—but it cannot be that it is going to create uncertainty in people about the future of ACIS, because it is going to do the exact opposite. There may be a flaw in this amendment, but I do not see it. I am interested to hear the argument, but it cannot be the one that the minister just put, and I feel sorry for whoever gave her the advice to say such a silly thing.Amendment negatived.Bill agreed to.7625Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly)—by leave—read a third time.Bills7625r8147625Consideration resumed from 13 May, on motion by Mr Moore:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.7625Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly) read a third time.Bills7625r8187625Consideration resumed from 13 May, on motion by Mr Moore:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.762520:17:007625McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—by leave—I move amendments Nos 1 to 9 together:(1) Schedule 1, page 3, before item 1 (before line 6), insert: inquiry certificate day has the meaning given by section 117 of the ACIS Administration Act 1999 .(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 9), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 14), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 5), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (line 10), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(6) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (line 4), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(7) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (line 9), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(8) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (proposed item 53B), omit "31 December 2004", substitute "the day before the inquiry certificate day".(9) Schedule 1, item 8, page 10 (proposed item 53C), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".These amendments are consequential on those which we dealt with under the principal bill, the ACIS Administration Bill 1999 . I do not want to delay the House too long, because we could all with great enthusiasm reiterate the arguments that surround it with regard to that debate when this is simply the tariff change element of the proposal for an inquiry. It goes to the point that the inquiry should be held before the changes come into effect, not after. It has always seemed to me to be a good principle of public policy that, before we go forward, we should know the current circumstances.The proposal the government has with regard to 1 January 2005 is essentially one that, on the face of the facts at the moment, we support. But we simply believe it is a good idea to inform ourselves contemporaneously, and to inform the public and the people in the industry at the time, as to whether we should proceed with that measure at that time or at some other time. But we have had the debate; I will not reiterate it. I think the amendments are sensible and rational. We all know that the government cannot bear to accept them because they could not bear to accept that the opposition might have got something right. Eventually this is what will happen. We simply have to wait a few years for it to happen.Amendments negatived.Bill agreed to.7626Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly)—by leave—read a third time.Bills7626r8257626Debate resumed from 13 May, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.20:20:007626Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—This legislation, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1999 , is essentially in two parts. The first part relates to the company law review, and various consequential anti-avoidance amendments to the tax laws were made as a result of major changes made to the Corporations Law by the Company Law Review Act 1998. Amongst other things, that act abolished the concept of par value for shares and the associated terms of share premium, as well as making it easier for companies to return capital to shareholders. What is known as the tainting rule prevents companies disguising a profit distribution as a tax preferred capital distribution from the share capital account by first transferring profits into that account and then distributing from it.A similar rule applied to share premium accounts before their abolition on 1 July last year because of the Company Law Review Act. In cases where the share premium account contained amounts other than share premiums, or the tainted share premium accounts, the share premium account was also treated as a profit account for taxation purposes. This bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and associated tax laws to ensure that the share capital tainting provisions are not triggered in inappropriate cir cumstances. Broadly speaking, this is achieved by ensuring that: first, the share capital account does not become tainted by the merger of tainted share premiums with share capital unless the share capital account ceases to be more than the total of the tainted share premium account immediately before the merger; second, all debt for equity swap arrangements which should qualify for the exception to the tainting rule do so; and, third, the delayed crediting of share capital to the share capital account does not trigger the share tainting rule.These amendments restrict the original anti-avoidance provisions to their intended scope. In effect, they are cleaning up unintended consequences which could have arisen from the original provisions where non-tax avoidance transactions would have been unfairly caught by the anti-avoidance provisions. The amendments are backdated to 1 July 1998, which is when the review act changes commenced. In addition, technical amendments are proposed to ensure that a technical defect in the commencement provisions for the original anti-avoidance legislation is remedied so that it does apply from 1 July last year as intended. Labor is supportive of this proposal.The second part of the legislation relates to managed investment schemes. In order to provide better investor protection and more efficient management and regulation of collective investment schemes, the parliament passed the Managed Investments Act 1998 to regulate the industry, and Labor was supportive of that happening. The Managed Investments Act allows for a two-year transitional period from 1 July 1998 during which certain collective investment schemes in existence on that date must change to the new structure. Schemes which commence after 1 July 1998 are required to operate under the new rules and are not eligible for relief.In addition to the change in a scheme structure, the Managed Investments Act requires substantial amendment of a scheme's trust deed. Without specific provisions in the law, schemes restructuring under the Managed Investments Act to comply with the new single responsible entity structure will incur a capital gains tax liability on all of the unrealised gains contained within their asset portfolios. In addition, other unintended and unfair taxation liabilities would arise. The combination of these makes it undesirable for entities to restructure into the single responsible entity form, and this is said to be frustrating the aim of the Managed Investments Act.The measures proposed in the bill will grant taxation relief where schemes make the necessary structural and operational changes in order to comply with the Managed Investments Act, thereby avoiding unintended taxation consequences arising, provided that the scheme, as administered, is the same kind of entity immediately before and immediately after making the changes, that the changes are made during the transitional period between 1 July 1998 and 30 June 2000 and that the scheme is registered in accordance with the Managed Investments Act.Relief will also be granted in respect of changes to a trust deed not strictly required by the Managed Investments Act providing that the relevant criteria are met and that, in comparing the situation before and immediately after the changes, the changes do not create shifts in value between members or classes of members, the market value of members rights is not reduced and there has been no change in the membership of the scheme. There is no revenue consequence for these amendments as they simply remove windfall gains that would otherwise accrue to the Commonwealth. Once again, Labor is supportive of this aspect of the legislation.I do want, however, to make a number of observations about the way in which the second part—the managed investments section—of the legislation operates. I have had the benefit of correspondence from Kerrie Kelly, the National Director of the Trustee Corporations Association of Australia, who has pointed out in correspondence to the opposition a number of points concerning the scope of the capital gains tax relief provided in the bill, which I think are worth drawing to the attention of the House and to the attention of the government.The Trustee Corporations Association have advised the opposition, as I am sure they have advised the government, that the bill does not extend capital gains tax relief to wholly owned trusts of an entity that will be involved in transition under the provisions contained in the Managed Investments Act—for example, subtrusts of head property trusts. They point out that this will have significant implications for Australian investors in property trusts as it is common for property trusts to use wholly owned subtrusts for the ownership of properties.They point out that many fund managers are taking the opportunity provided by the legislative requirement for affected schemes to transition to a managed investments structure to simplify outdated trustee structures and remove outmoded business practices. Should the bill not be amended then, either Australian investors will personally incur the capital gains tax liability on their investment or they will be denied the benefits that could be obtained from their scheme restructuring.The Trustee Corporations Association also go on to propose changes to recognise the right of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to extend the transition date of particular schemes beyond 30 June 2000. They note that their tax advisers, KPMG, had written to the Assistant Treasurer on 10 June concerning this issue seeking those amendments. At the time they wrote to the opposition, they had not received a response to their letter to the Assistant Treasurer. It is their belief that those amendments are not controversial and will benefit Australian investors in property trusts.A significant speech was also made by Kerrie Kelly to a conference held on the issue of single responsible entities at the end of May. It makes a number of points about the operation of the single responsible entity regime, in particular the need for some legislative change. Kerrie Kelly pointed out that:Even before the MIA was passed by Parliament, almost a year ago, we knew that CGT relief legislation was essential to providing ordinary Australian investors with certainty that they would NOT incur CGT on their restructured property and equity managed investments.She said:How did the Government address investors' legitimate concerns? Nearly a year later, on 12th March 1999, Assistant Treasurer Senator Rod Kemp announced by Press Release his intention to grant tax relief to funds restructuring to comply with the MIA. Legislation by Press Release clearly falls outside of Australia's legislative process! Draft legislation, finally appeared on 13th May, in the form of Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1999 .And then she says:And what a convoluted piece of drafting it is; although it is certainly better than the year-long vacuum that preceded it! The legislation also gives little comfort to those schemes that have head and sub-trusts—those of you involved with such scheme structures, particularly property trusts, need to carefully consider this legislation as it does not give CGT relief to the sub-trusts!She said:With the potential amounts of capital gains tax payable by ordinary Australian investors in schemes such as property trusts, legal and taxation advisors will rightly be concerned to give careful advice to fund managers, trustees and investors until such time as the Bill is passed by the Commonwealth parliament.The implementation of the relief legislation continues to cause my members real concern. Indeed some trustees and fund managers are saying that schemes may not be able to transition until the CGT relief legislation is actually passed .She also pointed to stamp duty as another unresolved issue and noted:When the MIA legislation was introduced, we were told that the States would legislate to exempt managed investments schemes.As a result of some of the states not having yet taken action to do this, she said:It is worth remembering that the failure of governments to efficiently resolve capital gains tax and stamp duty problems associated with the MIA's introduction have been the major reasons nominated by fund managers for not moving more quickly to comply with the new MIA regime.Let me quote her again:Whilst the Federal Government has worked at a snail's-pace with respect to taxation relief associated with the transition to the new managed investments regime, the regulator has not been proactive in posing and then answering relevant questions about keeping investors informed.So there are a series of concerns which the Trustee Corporations Association has outlined, and Kerrie Kelly said:To an undue extent, the rules are being made `as we go along'.I hope the government, having the benefit of those observations, does take them into account as this legislation proceeds through the parliament. I now wish to move an amendment to the second reading in the following terms:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading,the House notes that in relation to taxation policy:(1) the government has not achieved real tax reform in Australia, it has merely agreed to introduce an unfair GST;(2) the new Howard/Lees GST will involve a massive tax mix switch which will hurt ordinary families, which is directly contrary to the balloted policy of the Australian Democrats;(3) that the Howard/Lees deal will actually increase the tax on food in Australia;(4) that ordinary people will now face a GST on top of state indirect taxes on bank accounts;(5) the GST will be an administrative nightmare for Australia's one and a half million small businesses; and(6) that the amended tax package is still unfair and will also damage the environment".In speaking to the amendment, we have had the opportunity to canvass a significant number of the implications of the GST as this debate has proceeded through the parliament, but there are a number of areas that continue to come to light, particularly in the wake of the deal struck between the Democrats and the government, which I think warrant some further attention. It is certainly my intention and that of other speakers in this debate to flesh out some of those issues and flush out some issues that have not yet received adequate public scrutiny. For example, one of the claims of the government has been that no group will be worse off under the GST. They started out by saying, `Nobody would be worse off under the GST.'8I4MARTINMr Martin—Who said that?UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Prime Minister John Howard said, `Nobody would be worse off under the GST.'8I4MARTINMr Martin—He said, `Never, ever.'UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—He said that too. I think we have been able to comprehensively demonstrate that he is wrong and, as a result, recently I have noticed the rhetoric changing to, `This will be good for the nation'—83VEMERSONMr Emerson—That is also wrong.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Yes, that is wrong too. But it is now, `This will be good for the nation,' as opposed to, `This will be good for you.' Nevertheless, I have had some information provided to me by Mr Kevin Swann concerning the GST compensation for a particular category of superannuants. He raises the situation of a group of superannuants who will receive no compensation for the extra GST costs through the proposed change to the tax system. The people he is pointing to are the lower income levels of those who receive a pension from a taxed superannuation fund and who are therefore entitled to a tax rebate of 15 per cent. That arises from act No. 105 of 1989 section 26. As he points out, those with a higher superannuation income are not affected.But those with an income under $21,000 with no dependants and those with an income under about $29,000 with a dependent spouse will receive no increased take-home pay whatsoever under the new tax scheme because the rebates that they are already entitled to are greater than the total tax. This means they have absolutely zero extra dollars to spend on the higher cost of living which will arise as a consequence of the GST.Mr Swann has provided to me relevant tables showing that a single person with a $21,000 income from such a superannuation pension is presently entitled to $3,105 in total rebates. They are liable to pay tax of $3,060 presently, and $2,590 under the government's proposed income tax arrangements. But in each case, the rebates they are entitled to exceed the amount of tax they would have to pay, so they are in a situation where they do not have to pay tax on that income and, as a result, they will be getting absolutely no extra income to compensate them for the extra costs that arise from the GST.Similarly, we see exactly the same thing being put in place for a couple with a $29,000 income from a single superannuation pension. Looking at the rebates to which they are entitled, including their spouse rebate, those rebates total in the order of $5,712—once again exceeding the tax which would be payable under either the existing regime or that proposed by the government. Therefore, they get absolutely no compensation under the revised tax scales, no extra money with which to meet the extra costs that will come with the GST.The other area I turn to and wish to spend some time on involves the long-term impact of a tax on books. I would point out to the House that the Australian book industry has issued a joint statement—and when we are talking about the Australian book industry we are talking about the Australian Society of Authors, the Australian Booksellers Association, the Australian Publishers Association and the Printing Industries Association of Australia—saying:. . . while the Democrats are negotiating in good faith about a short-term `compensation' package, our concerns about the long-term impact of the proposed tax have not been addressed at all.It continues:The Australian public should not be comforted by talk of so-called compensation. Book prices will rise no matter what short-term initiatives are pursued. The Australian public should not be misled by claims that the majority of books are going to be cheaper. This is just not true. The majority of books are purchased by individuals who will pay more for those books.The industry has called on the Democrats to rethink their support for the tax on books. It states:The net benefit to government of $26.4 million is nothing compared with the money that will have to be spent offsetting the long-term impact of this tax in the community, across the education sector and in the book industry. The economic arguments just don't add up.I have here correspondence from Senator Allison, an Australian Democrat senator for Victoria—83VEMERSONMr Emerson—For now.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—For the time being at least—from someone who has written to her expressing concern about a GST on books. She says—and it may entertain the House to hear this:We fought hard to gain an exemption from the GST on books and it was a major disappointment to us that the Government would not, in the end, agree.It just makes you wonder who is calling the shots here. When the government is in the minority in the Senate but able to say, `We will not agree to the removal of the GST on books,' it makes you wonder who makes the decisions.I have the benefit of the response from the educational publishers to the statements put out by the Democrats in defence of their position of support for the government's introduction of a GST on books. The points made by the educational publishers are as follows:The effect of a manufacturing bounty on the retail price of books is likely to be significantly less than the 10% suggested. (The manufacturing component of an educational book is normally between 12% and 18% of the selling price.) The introduction of a bounty of 10% on the manufacturing cost would result in a retail price reduction of 2% at the most.Eighty percent of educational books sold in Australia are locally originated. However, fewer than 20% of these books are printed in Australia. Because of this, the proposed reintroduction of the bounty will benefit fewer than 20% of educational titles.The publishers also note:Currently 41% of books are educational books. Fewer than 50% of these are purchased by educational institutions, which are eligible to claim a rebate on the GST. The majority of educational books are purchased by students and parents who will have to pay GST. Purchases by institutions will undoubtedly increase due to their favoured position compared with that of individual buyers. This will seriously reduce individual ownership of educational books and will result in fewer books being published and sold.Individual buyers of educational books will not be able to claim back the GST. University students, TAFE students and parents of schools students will be paying 10% more than eligible institutions. Part of the $240 million package should be used to compensate individual buyers and to encourage personal ownership of text books and other educational resources. At the very least, institutions which onsell books to individual students should be GST exempt for these transactions. Let us turn to the comments made by the Democrats in defence of their position on a GST on books and make the following observations. They express disappointment that the government would not agree to taking the GST off books, but the real issue is: why did the Democrats agree to it? Firstly, the Democrats had no need to make this concession. After all, it is the government's task to bring forward legislation which accommodates the concerns of the electorate. The government had failed to gain a mandate to implement its own proposal; the Democrats, on the other hand, had a quite specific mandate whereby they had given the electorate clear commitments that they would not support a GST on books—and they were honour bound to keep those commitments.Secondly, the Democrats said, `The government has given a three-year commitment to the book industry.' What on earth is the basis for the claim that the impact of the GST will last for only three years? Since when did these disincentives have a shelf life of just 36 months? Clearly, by providing this token assistance, the government and the Democrats are conceding that the GST will dampen demand for books. What guarantees can the Democrats provide that the subsidy will flow on to reduce book prices? What kinds of realistic enforcement procedures does Senator Allison envisage? Why should we believe that the proposed assistance will keep Australian made books at the current prices or slightly lower? What modelling have we seen to arrive at the figures which the government uses? What guarantee do we have that the government will honour its commitments in this regard beyond the current year let alone the life of a new parliament?83VEMERSONMr Emerson—None at all.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Indeed, none at all. Thirdly, the Democrats claim that the price of Australian made books will fall relative to imported books. It is fascinating to ask: precisely when did this government become an advocate of protectionism and when can we expect this new policy to flow on to other endangered industries? If the government wants to impose a tariff on imported books, contrary to that commitment it provides in other circumstances to level playing fields, it ought to do that openly and up front.What entertains me is that, any time we have a debate about bounties and industry support of a general character, the government says that these things are absolutely of no benefit. Then it comes into the House and says, `We are going to look after the book industry and protect it from a GST by putting a bounty on it.' The same thing happens with the issue of price control. The government always comes into the House and says that price controls do not work, but when it comes to the GST it says, `We are going to give the ACCC extra powers to engage in price monitoring to make sure that there is no profiteering as a result of the GST.'The Democrats also claim that the cost of overseas books will be contained by the removal of embedded wholesale taxes. What precisely are these taxes? Australian booksellers who import books pay the wholesale price direct to the overseas distributor. Who imposes or collects a tax on that—the US government? How would the impact of the 10 per cent be reduced unless someone somewhere rebated five per cent of the retail price to the bookseller?Are the government and the Democrats seriously asking us to believe that some overseas taxing authority which currently levies an embedded wholesale tax of unspecified proportions is going to waive that tax because the Australian government has imposed one of its own? Clearly, that is nonsense. The realistic conclusion to draw from the agreement is that the government believes that there is significant revenue to be obtained from a GST on books. The Democrats made all manner of commitments about the fact that they would stand firm on these issues. As recently as 15 May, Senator Lees said:The government knows exactly where we stand on food, on tourism, on books, health and education. It is all there in our report after the Senate committee was finished, and Mr Costello has my number.Again, we find Senator Allison, as recently as 17 May, urging the government to replace the $2.5 billion of GST related cuts to diesel taxes for business with a cut to payroll tax. I find it all fascinating, given the definitive nature of the Democrats' non-negotiable pre-election promises. Their policy on truth in political advertising states:Australians deserve much better political advertising standards. The Australian Democrats believe that legislation is necessary to prevent false or misleading political advertising. This would help to restore trust in politicians and the political system.Why Controls are needed over Political Advertising. as elections are one of the key accountability mechanisms in our system of government, it is important that advertisements purporting to state `facts' are legally required to do so accurately;. the private sector is already required by law not to engage in misleading or deceptive conduct by the Trade Practices Act , why should politicians be any different?. the perception of politicians as being untrustworthy is one of the most serious threats to the legitimacy and integrity of our democracy.That is certainly correct, but the Democrats have only added to that perception of politicians being untrustworthy by going to the election with all manner of undertakings concerning a GST and then engaging in a shabby and dishonest deal with the government in which they have comprehensively been stitched up and have come out very much the worse off.We see that during the debate in the Senate the Democrats moved amendments in relation to education supplies, books, complementary medicine, disability services, therapeutic goods, private health insurance, spectacles, public health goods, credit unions, food, local government, inbound tourism, public transport, renewable energy and energy efficiency supplies, diesel fuel credits, fuel efficient vehicles, housing and renovations, charities—you name it, they moved an amendment to it. They then come back into the parliament and want to hold their heads up, having entered into a shabby deal as a result of which Australians will be worse off. Australians will remember only too well once the GST comes in just who it was that visited the GST on them and will respond accordingly at the ballot box next time. I urge the House to support the amendment.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—Is the amendment seconded?83VEMERSONMr Emerson—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.Debate (on motion by Mr Slipper) adjourned.Bills7632r8417632Debate resumed from 10 June, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.20:50:007632Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—It is with considerable pleasure that, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, I welcome the arrival of the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 before the House. It represents for us a further step towards a goal that we on this side of the House have long cherished: an Australian republic. One of the people with whom I intend to discuss this bill—he is out of the country at the moment—is former Prime Minister Paul Keating. Whilst his political party had the republican issue on the agenda for a long time, he gave it legs and life with a vigorous and, ultimately, extremely well-informed and perspicacious advocacy not just of the fact of a republic but also of a structure for it.At the outset, let me congratulate the government on conforming substantially to the recommendations of the 1998 Constitutional Convention and also for the presentation of these bills as exposure drafts for public comment. I have already addressed the issues of concern that Labor has with this bill in a letter to the Prime Minister after the exposure draft bill was released. I note that the views I expressed to him have not been picked up in the bill but I believe they can be adequately addressed in the context of the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum. Let me now state Labor's intention to cooperate with the government in producing the best possible bill. All of our suggestions should be taken in that spirit.I want to mention the long title of the bill in a bit of detail here tonight because it is its long title which will rest in the minds of average Australian electors as they contemplate their vote and ultimately cast it. Currently this reads:A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with a President chosen by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.That is a good title but it could be better. Our concern is that this title does not sufficiently capture the essence of the proposed alteration to the Constitution, namely, the replacement of the British monarch with an Australian citizen as our head of state. Nor does it, in our view, sufficiently describe the full process of selection of the new head of state. That process includes the public nomination procedure and the requirement for a special majority of a joint sitting of the parliament. These were important features of the compromise model recommended by the Constitutional Convention. We submit that a more appropriate title would be:A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for an Australian citizen chosen from nominations submitted by the people and approved by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of the Commonwealth Parliament to replace the British monarch as Australia's head of state.That is only slightly longer, but it is entirely descriptive of the process and its significance—the calling home of the Australian Constitution. We are constantly given reminders of how important that is—how important it is to bring our symbols in tune with our reality. If we ever needed any convincing of it, the High Court gave us another reason the other day, when it determined that the nation of origin of our head of state was in fact a foreign power. Many people can have arguments with the High Court's interpretation of that, but they set down with absolute clarity that the person that we call our head of state is not an Australian citizen and the relationship with the power of which she is both citizen and head of state is a relationship similar to that with any other of the nations from which Australians originate.It is important that there is a proper reflection of that fact—that change in the title. It is also important to point out the role that the people have in that process—the fact that they can make nominations for the position—and the fact that it has to be approved by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of the Commonwealth parliament. We are going to have many important arguments during this referendum campaign. In many ways those arguments are going to be conducted at, if you like, a fairly elite level. I have absolute confidence that the Australian people know what they want in this regard: they want to change the arrangements for our head of state.Arguments about dismissal procedures and about two-thirds or whatever are going to be dominating the airwaves, but will probably be of far less significance to the average voter than that fundamental underpinning sentiment which I believe is very much out there. Nevertheless, some will be influenced by that currency of debate, and it is important that they have the clearest possible view in their minds of what it is that they are voting on and what changes they mean.The bill's long title—as I meant to say at the outset and it is the reason why I have been belabouring the point—is the wording of the actual referendum question. Our amendment is not enormously longer than the current long title. It is more faithful, however, to the Constitutional Convention's wishes and, as I said, more informative to the voters.Our support for this bill springs from our longstanding ambition for an Australian republic. I said in my first major address of this year, the day before Australia Day, that this is the year for ambition in constitutional reform. I spoke then of what had been a century of confounding Australian constitutional conservatism. It strikes me as strange that a nation founded in such a flush of constitutional optimism at the turn of the century should have proved so reluctant in its first full century of nationhood to use the mechanisms for constitutional change born of that optimistic spirit.We were the great democratic innovators of the 19th century. South Australia gave women the vote in 1894, also becoming the first parliament anywhere in the world to admit women as members and the only parliament to admit women as members on the vote of people who did not think women should have the vote at all. The story of the franchise and ultimately the determination that women should be members of parliament in South Australia is a very interesting one. The initial proposition was for female suffrage but not for female membership. The anti-female suffrage members moved an amendment to add to female suffrage female membership. The consequence was that both were passed and their ambitions in that regard were frustrated. The National Party had early origins!South Australia also pioneered the use of ballot papers printed with candidates' names and vacant boxes next to them in the 1858 Legislative Council election. The first elections anywhere in the world to be conducted by secret ballot were held for the Victorian Legislative Council in 1865. Those same elections also saw the first polling booths in the world designed for the purpose—by a Melbourne lawyer, Henry Chapman. Australia also pioneered the preferential voting system when Queensland introduced what they then called `contingent voting' in 1892.Taken together, all this democratic and constitutional zeal last century paints a picture of an innovative, confident and rapidly evolving polity. Strange, then, that we should have been so conservative in the intervening century. The past century's record of Australian constitutional reform has indeed been well short of dazzling. This year's referendum on the republic will be the 43rd question put to the Australian people this century. Only eight have been successful. I pledge to this House again today, as I have before, that my Labor colleagues and I will lend the referendum's yes case all the energies we can muster. We also extend our hand to those of our colleagues on the other side of the parliament who support an Australian republic. I say to them that a successful referendum depends on their advocacy as much as, if not more than, it depends on ours.But I do believe the gains will be considerable for us as a people if we pass it. Firstly, all our national symbols will be truly national. I was in an interesting debate recently before a forum that I would not normally appear before: the senior girls of the Methodist Ladies College in the seat of Curtin—Ms Bishop's electorate—in Western Australia. My appearance there was occasioned by the fact that I was ambushed by their politics class at a play. They insisted that I should come along, and I agreed to speak to them about the republic. They also got the local member for Curtin to speak because they thought she would be a monarchist and, despite an equivocal first nine minutes, the last minute was with us. So she was unsatisfactory from that point of view.The monarchists did not turn up at all, but the republicans did produce a chap. The folk were interested in the speech of the member for Curtin and my speech, but I have to say, in all honesty, there was a gradual decline in fascination. And then this republican spokesperson had a flash of genius. Obviously finding it hard to get his point across, he sought a practical example, and he said this, `It's just like this, you see. Supposing the senior girl, the school captain, of Methodist Ladies College, were not a student at Methodist Ladies College at all. Suppose she were the school captain of St Hilda's, down the road. Suppose she appeared every Monday morning at the gate of Methodist Ladies College, pinned a Methodist Ladies College badge on her shirt as she went in, otherwise attired in St Hilda's uniform, gave the assembly and left forthwith, taking her badge off as she went out the gate.' There was an audible gasp. The principal of Methodist Ladies College was impressed. She said, `That was the worst school you could have chosen as an example.'We have a great deal more affection for the schools from which we originated, but the point is absolutely clear: at this stage of our historical progress how could we possibly say to the rest of the world that we have made an active choice that chose somebody from another nation to be our head of state? There are many penalties to be paid if we do not win in this referendum, which is another reason why we take this awesomely seriously. Not least would be the tabloids in London on the day after. You could guarantee `The Aussies cannot cut the paper. The Aussies cannot do it alone'. I am an attendee at these cricket matches from time to time, and there is no group of barrackers I love more than the `Barmy Army'. But don't the Barmy Army take a waddy to us, take the mickey out of us, when they get up there and sing `God Save the Queen, she's your Queen too' and so on? Through the process there is total mockery of Australian national symbols as derivatives. It is always an interesting exercise for those who have to stand alongside them. They are the games that people play at sports, but they have a deeper symbolism for all of that.For us to be in the situation where we have a Constitution `in continuation', if you like, is to a degree explicable both to ourselves and to the world around us. For us, 100 years on from the Federation of Australia, to make a determination to sustain somebody else other than an Australian as our head of state is unthinkable. The consequences of such an act—and I do not rule out the possibility; if this referendum succeeds there will have been eight successful referendums in 43—are not an encouraging start for this. I do not underestimate that difficulty, but I do think that, at the end of the day, the majority of our fellow Australians will see the impossibility of a no vote in this situation and the national humiliation involved. They will not feel good about themselves—they know that—if they wake up the next day and find that the situation is as it was before; only this time we, not the founders, would be responsible for it.I also hope very much that if we get this referendum through—and I firmly believe we will, because there has been solid support for a long time now for an Australian head of state—there will be other benefits. We will start to use our Constitution properly. I have to say that I think, by accident, our political opponents have not hit on a bad mechanism with this Constitutional Convention. I am at the moment reading a book by Alan Clark on the history of the British Conservative Party, talking about Baldwin's approach to the difficulties of an argument between free trade and protection. It was suggested from opposition that perhaps they needed a referendum. As Alan Clark points out, a referendum is the solution sought by those in a political party who know that they cannot control the inter nal debate but must say something, and that has been replicated on a number of occasions in British constitutional history.For `referendum' in our case—which has, of course, a substantial constitutional meaning—read `Constitutional Convention'. The Constitutional Convention proved a useful body before which to put a series of problems to be nutted through by the delegates from a broader base than even this well and broadly based parliament can provide, to generate a fascination in the rest of the community with the things that they considered. A republic is interesting, but there are other issues that are interesting as well. We have gone for work-around after work-around on our Constitution; we have never done what the founders suggested, based on that experience of failure of referendums. We have had the latest example of that failure from attempting a work-around—the collapse recently of the cross-vesting of judicial authority between the Commonwealth and the states. That was disastrous. It was a very sensible outcome, well supported by all sides of Australian politics, but the High Court said, `Forget it.'The High Court is getting increasingly interesting in its interpretations of the powers in the Constitution and increasingly unwilling to accept a pragmatic outcome. It did not accept a pragmatic outcome in relation to the question of the states' authority to raise certain excises. It did not accept a pragmatic outcome on cross-vesting. In a different context, it was prepared to overturn what had been the prevailing land tenure system in relation to native title without necessarily answering every question you could conceivably want it to answer on that subject.We all may well have views about all of this, but it indicates that the High Court is saying to this parliament, `If you want to change the Constitution, you change it in the way the founders said you should change it. Don't try to impose on us one of your work-arounds which we find in some way inimical to a reasonable reading of various aspects of the Constitution.' When you actually sit down, read the Constitution and see so many dead-letter elements, so many impracticalities and so many features of it out of date in the way in which Australia actually operates, there is a complete lack of representation of the actual structure of government contained in that Constitution. Unless we start to make this Constitution user-friendly, there are plenty of opportunities for interesting future interpretations by the High Court. There is only one way to make it user-friendly. The parliaments have to get to grips with how you structure a referendum debate to produce an outcome that allows us to be a mature nation in the handling of our own constitutional affairs.As I said, I did not much like the way the Constitutional Convention was structured—and I still would not have the same sort of structure for a future Constitutional Convention—but the process itself is a good one to put issues before. Every few years, you could put before it, say, the proposition of the powers of the Senate or the division of powers between the Commonwealth and the states. These are issues which are critical to the long-term future of our nation and a decent government in this country. If we start down the road of this republic, I do believe that not only will we get ourselves a starting point in the Constitution of which we can be proud but every Australian child can aspire to be an Australian head of state. Every Australian child, no matter what their religious or cultural background, can aspire to become a head of state who is not under any constraint in regard to that.I am an Anglican. I feel at least satisfied in the current constitutional arrangements in one aspect, and that is that there is an Anglican up there running the show. I have to concede that I am now in a decreasing minority as far as this community is concerned. Not even at that level can the majority of Australians see a representative character. And that has its own integrity and value, no matter whether you want to change another darn thing in the Constitution or not. But, if you do think that there are other things that ought to change, we may be starting to hit on a process that is effectively maturing in our constitutional arrangements. I talked about work-arounds legislatively; there are also work-arounds in voting terms. I talk about the Senate. Govern ments—whether they are ours or those of our political opponents—rail constantly against the powers of the Senate and constantly their solution is to seek some way of rorting the vote to change that. Instead of rorting the vote, change the powers. That would be a far more sensible way of dealing with that particular problem.There is one group in particular that I do want to appeal to tonight in regard to all of this—a group that I feel needs to look at this not as a static singular event in an unchanging Constitution but as part of a dynamic process. They are the ones who describe themselves effectively as the direct election republicans. I can understand their frustration with constitutional conservatism. I ask them only to consider: if they, in coalition with the monarchists, defeat this year's referendum where will we be?Firstly, we will not be anywhere they want us to be. This is not an attack on these people. Probably a substantial portion of my party are direct election republicans. Maybe if you scratched all members of my party, most of them would be direct election republicans. I think you would find quite a lot would be of that persuasion. But what is the point of defeating this? Would that particular view be advanced by the defeat of this proposition? No, it would not be. The consequence of the defeat of this proposition would be, for the first week or two, massive national humiliation and, secondly, a marked reluctance on the part of political parties for some considerable time to place the issue again before the Australian people. There is a knowledge on the part of those who lead the political process that, if you are going to go much further than the minimal change model, you have to have a convention not only about the character and origins of the head of state but also effectively on the powers of the head of state and the relationship of the head of state to the parliamentary process. A considerable amount of detail would be required.It may be that at the end of the day you decide to deprive that person of any powers and put them in the situation of the Irish President. But it would have to be said that that would be a substantial retreat from the current powers of the Governor-General. That in itself would contain its own argument as to whether or not that was an intelligent political course to pursue. There would be no option but to engage. It would be virtually impossible to arrive at a direct election president with the conventions that will be in place under this constitutional arrangement. It would be impossible to arrive at that position. You would have to either advance the definition a considerable way towards entrenching substantial power in the hands of the president or retreat them a considerable way to eliminate all powers in the hands of the president.So you would not arrive quickly at a conclusion for another referendum that would necessarily reflect the views of the direct election advocates. Furthermore, in moving over to that, you inarguably lose virtually all of the conservative side of politics. One or two take a slightly more opportunist view. Peter Reith can be relied on to disagree with Peter Costello. Peter Costello declared his hand too early. But the point, nevertheless, is that you would find very few on the conservative side of Australian politics who would support that. So you have a complexity of arguments—and the direct election republicans need to contemplate this—related to the powers, combined with confronting the most vigorous argument from the Right in Australian politics, broadly defined, about making any change at all while you did it. I have to tell you that there would be very few Labor Prime Ministers who would pull on that particular debate with any form of cheerfulness at all. Furthermore, the process which gives hope to all of those who want to have in place a capacity for constitutional debate and, therefore, change would also have been massively set back.A much more intelligent approach from a direct electionist would be this—and I know it is the position that has been adopted by the state Labor leaders, most of whom turned very much to the direct election model; they thoroughly understand the political dynamic associated with this and they understand this—pass this, give the Australian people a user-friendly view of their Constitution, and the Australian people will start to address those issues at more leisure out of a heated environment and may well start to arrive at the conclusions that they would want them to arrive at about how their president should be appointed. That is something, really, for them to contemplate.There are very few people whom I know who are direct election advocates who are not also fascinated by the totality of the processes of constitutional change. They are interested in more than just electing presidents; they are interested in modernising the Australian Constitution. They must not take actions which make that process of constitutional change infinitely harder in this country. If we do not carry this referendum we may well render our polity comatose on the Constitution for yet another century. In many ways Australian democracy was frozen, set in aspic, at the end of the 19th century. You would have to ask the serious question today, given the record of our last 100 years as opposed to the 100 years prior to that: if the 100 years prior to our federation did not culminate in the Federation but in something else, would we now be federating today?What would have been the consequences of that in 1939 or, more particularly, in 1941? Which states would have been neutral? Which nation would the United States and the other powers have responded to when we were under threat? Which state would have declared neutrality when it realised it was affected by those consequences? Could we, as 18 million people occupying this territory—as a people, as opposed to a nation—have continued with confidence to occupy this territory in the way in which we want it occupied into the next century if we had not federated? Probably that eventuality that I mentioned never would have occurred. We may not have survived in a structure that we can recognise now as the Australia that we know and love.But we have to be prepared to modernise our Constitution. I do think that we are moving into an optimistic era. Australians do feel good about themselves. Australians in many ways have rendered themselves independent from political processes that they find unfortunate, unacceptable. They are much more confident these days about themselves as a people—where they have come from; where they are going. The nature of politics at a new millennium and a new century often reflects that optimism. I do believe that people in this country are going to be reaching out for new things, for changes in our society over the course of the next year or two. They are going to be focusing on many interesting features both of our society and of its structures.Those who want to put a complete agenda before the Australian people have to address all levels of what I believe is going to be a hunger for reform. This is a great starting point. I hope the government considers seriously the changes that we propose to their proposal, because they are put forward in the best spirit. I look forward to joining those of my Liberal and National Party compatriots who are republicans on the hustings over the course of the next few months.Debate (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly) adjourned.Bills7637r8257637Debate resumed.21:21:007637Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1999 taken in isolation is not particularly remarkable. The two amendments it contains are consequential and provide minor amendments to existing legislation. The first deals with tainted share capital accounts. The amendments contained in the bill constitute concessions to ensure that share capital rules in the income tax law are not triggered in inappropriate circumstances. The changes to the Corporations Law that came into place in 1998 as an anti-avoidance measure dealt with tainted share capital. Under the existing law, tainted share capital legislation is aimed at preventing capital distributions being treated more concessionally than the distribution of profit. However, this law could in certain circumstances have unintended consequences.The first amendment contained in this bill introduces concessions which will provide, firstly, that the share capital account does not automatically become tainted by the merger of tainted share premiums with share capital; secondly, that debt for equity swaps do not trigger the tainting rule; and, thirdly, that the delayed crediting of share capital to the share capital account does not trigger the tainting rule.The second amendment involves a restructuring of management investment schemes in such a way as to provide eligibility for transitional tax relief for schemes which become registered under the Managed Investments Act 1998. You will remember that this act was introduced to clarify the division of responsibility between a scheme's management company and its trustee. This amendment will provide relief from any unintended consequences, particularly with respect to capital gains tax being paid on gains realised as part of the restructuring process. Specifically, relief will be given to funds which were in existence as trusts on 1 July 1998 so that they are not penalised by the tax consequences of complying with the Managed Investments Act. The amendment includes a number of provisions which ensure the original intention of the 1998 act are in fact achieved.The two amendments which form this legislation simply deal with minor changes to the current legislation. On their own, they may not break new ground. However, and more significantly, they are part of a much broader package of measures already introduced by this government. These measures embody significant reforms to which this government is committed. This government is determined to pursue policies of reform which will bring benefits to all Australians. This approach stands in stark contrast to the no-policy, no-direction and no-hope approach of the opposition.This legislation reflects three areas in which this commitment to reform is evident. Firstly, this government has vigorously pursued tax reform. Already, we have enacted policies on a number of fronts to remove tax minimisation opportunities formerly available to high wealth individuals. For example, the govern ment has introduced measures to address dividends disguised as company loans, misuse of charitable trusts, the distribution of funds overseas, the problem of trading in trust losses, the creation of artificial capital losses, the franking credit trading and dividend streaming, tax minimisation through luxury car leases, to prevent the exploitation of infrastructure borrowings for tax avoidance purposes, to prevent the abuse of R&D syndication and the problem of taxation of foreign sourced income. It is important to remember that many of these tax avoidance measures existed throughout the 13 years of Labor and went unaddressed by Labor during that time. This government in three years has enacted a number of pieces of legislation to reduce, to restrict and to control these anti-avoidance measures.Further, the historic tax reform package passed today in the Senate will address other flaws which the current tax law had allowed high wealth individuals to exploit. The legislation includes taxing trusts like companies from the 2000-01 income year under the proposed redesigned company tax arrangement and would prevent all taxpayers, including high wealth individuals, from accessing profit tax free from trusts. This is an important measure aimed at reducing tax minimisation. The legislation also includes measures to prevent tax avoidance by the use of foreign trusts. Not only does it address these areas of tax avoidance but it tackles many other problems in the current tax system. It dismantles the unworkable tax system which had plagued the country for decades.The historic tax legislation passed today in the Senate delivers a number of benefits for Australian people. It delivers tax reform which will sweep aside the vast range of indirect taxes, particularly those burdensome to small business. It will sweep aside the range of wholesale sales tax ranging from rates of 12 per cent to 22 per cent and from 35 per cent up to 45 per cent. It is tax reform which will deliver $12 billion in income tax cuts to Australian workers. It is tax reform which will bring particular relief to low and middle income families. It is tax reform which will reduce the cost of exports by $4½ billion and reduce business costs by $10 billion, thereby stimulating growth and generation of jobs. It is tax reform which will provide a guaranteed source of revenue for state governments to enable them to provide the essential services that they found so hard to provide. It is tax reform which restores real incentives for Australian workers.It is important that the Australian people realise that Labor fought tooth and nail to block these reforms. Labor fought tooth and nail to hold on to an outdated, inefficient, unfair, inequitable job destroying taxation system. Fortunately for the people of Australia, today Labor has been defeated and from today that ramshackle, inefficient, unfair tax system will be swept aside.The Labor amendment proposed by the member for Wills prior to the interruption of this debate is laughable. It simply illustrates that Labor cannot accept the fact that they were totally sidelined in this debate. They cannot accept the fact that they dealt themselves out of the debate. They cannot accept the fact that they have become irrelevant in this greatest reform of taxation this century in this country. They cannot accept the fact that again they have shown themselves to be negative, backward looking and lacking in policy directions. All they have shown is that they want to keep a system that imposes massive burdens through a hidden sales tax system and burdens that are totally unfair, inefficient and restrictive on business.I was amused to hear the member for Wills having the hide, in introducing his amendment, to talk about the fact of no compensation. This was a tax system that under Labor was raised every time they had an opportunity with absolutely no compensation—no tax cuts, no compensation for lower and middle income earners, retirees and pensioners. And yet they secretly and surreptitiously went around raising sales tax rates wherever they could, for instance, rises across the board of two per cent in 1993—from 10 to 12 per cent, 20 to 22 per cent and 30 to 32 per cent—with no compensation.The only possible purpose there can be for the amendment of the member for Wills is for them to hide their own embarrassment at the fact that this legislation, which will deliver significant improvements to the Australian people, has passed through the Senate today without Labor having anything constructive to say or add to Australia's tax reform.The second aspect of this government's commitment to reform, which I believe is illustrated with this taxation laws amendment bill with the two amendments it contains, is its desire to promote and encourage share ownership in Australia. This government is determined to see as many Australians as possible, directly or indirectly through partnership in managed trusts and managed investment schemes, to be part owners in Australia's business. Australia already has the second highest level of per capita share ownership in the world. This has obvious benefits for the individuals involved and obvious benefits for the nation as a whole.It encourages people to save thereby helping to reverse our alarming low level of national savings and it encourages individuals to more effectively provide for their own retirement. It provides the opportunity for more people to share materially in Australia's growing wealth. It will provide more Australians with a sense of ownership in Australia's economic activity and Australia's future. It is sad to see that members opposite are opposed to seeing Australians becoming greater holders of shares, becoming greater sharers in Australia's business wealth. The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation has recently announced funding of a four-month study of share ownership in Australia which will hopefully lead to measures to further encourage share ownership in this country.Thirdly, this amendment legislation illustrates this government's commitment to seizing the opportunities that exist for Australia to become a centre for global financial services. Australia has enormous potential in this area. We have many natural advantages. First, Australia has a democratic political system and a strong reliable legal framework which provides security and certainty for all players. Secondly, Australia has a sturdy regulatory environment which brings confidence to the financial sector and minimises destabilising fluctuations. This framework provides ample but not excessive regulation thereby optimising the balance between protection and opportunity for service providers, for users and investors alike. This is a strong and timely contrast to the instability we have seen in our region, much of which was caused by the structural weaknesses in their financial system and their inadequate regulatory framework. Australia's strength in this regard must make Australia an immensely attractive proposition for financial services.Thirdly, Australia's skilled work force covering a range of support professions—accountants, actuaries, settlement staff, brokers, investment advisers, et cetera—and covering a wide range of language skills provides a valuable resource which is not replicated anywhere else in this region. Fourthly, Australia has a number of other assets—reasonable costed office accommodation, state-of-the-art telecommunications, an ideal location in a time zone between Europe and North America and an appealing location for international executives to live. These clear, competitive advantages provide Australia with enormous potential. If properly exploited, the benefits will flow to export income generation, to job creation, to economic growth and to Australian living standards generally.Already financial services employ some 350,000 employees and generate close to 15 per cent of GDP in this country. Even if growth of just two per cent can be achieved through seizing these opportunities, another estimated $8 billion per annum could be added to GDP and some 50,000 to 70,000 jobs created. Further, an equally exciting factor is the addition of another growth area to our export markets. The decline in terms of trade experienced by commodity producers in past decades and difficulties competing with low wage cost manufacturers have been softened by Australia's growth in service exports in past decades, notably in areas such as tourism and education. The export of financial services will allow for further diversification into another growth industry, allowing Australia to maximise the benefits by value adding with our high quality human skills and educated work force.The coalition government is keen to capitalise on the opportunities to remove impediments to genuine investments. The coalition government is keen to create the right regulatory framework to encourage this growth industry. The coalition government is keen to provide a positive economic environment to see that these benefits materialise. This government has already done much to improve the framework for the financial sector. Some credit, I have to say, is due to the former government in their earlier years only when they did introduce some valuable structural reform. They occurred in those years before Labor lost interest in reform, in those years before Labor lost any commitment to sound economic management, in those years before Labor regressed into a policy coma from which they have not yet emerged.In addition to the measures such as the Managed Investment Act, which does help by clarifying the lines of responsibility for investment managers and strengthening the managed investment sector, this government has undertaken a number of other significant measures to assist the financial services sector—the Wallis inquiry, a full inquiry into the financial sector with a number of worthwhile outcomes; the creation of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, one central financial prudential authority which increases the efficiency, consistency and certainty of regulatory processes in this country; the extension of the Australian Securities Commission to now include consumer responsibility for financial services; and the creation of the payment system board.Secondly, in what has been dubbed Wallis 2, the government has recently passed legislation to transfer regulatory responsibility for corporate governance and for prudential arrangements in relation to a number of non-bank financial intermediaries from state governments to the federal government. These include building societies, credit unions and friendly societies. This will again improve the consistency and reduce the duplication of prudential supervision.Thirdly, the government has legislation in the Senate—the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 —which will significantly encourage the development of a centre for global services in Australia by extending the offshore banking unit to include funds management and insurance, by abolishing interest withholding tax for government bonds, by increasing competition in the funds management sector by allowing US investment managers to compete with domestic funds, and by relieving some inappropriate thin capitalisation rules.In another important step, the Prime Minister has recently announced the formation of a specialist task force with representatives from both the public and private sector to assist in the development of the centre for global financial services. This has been reinforced with an allocation of $7 million over the next two years to facilitate this process.Even more recently, Australia has just been invited to join the Financial Stability Forum. This follows the announcement by the G7 heads of government at their recent economic summit that the Financial Stability Forum should be broadened to include significant financial centres—significant financial centres, that is, such as Australia. This move is a recognition of the significant contribution that Australia has made to international financial reform issues since the onset of the Asian financial crisis. It also reaffirms Australia's growing importance as a centre for global financial services.In all, this government's policy initiatives to date show its commitment to seeing that Australia benefits by the full development of its potential. This legislation, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7), while in itself only containing technical amendments, is part of this government's broader program of fiscal and financial reform. This government's program and commitment to fiscal and financial reform is a program which will increase growth, it is a program which will stimulate exports, it is a program which will generate jobs and it is a program which will improve living standards for all Australians.21:38:007641Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I wish to speak to the Labor amendment to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1999 . Today is a black day for Australia, for today the coalition government has conspired with the Democrats to pass through the Senate an unfair tax that will inflict a new burst of inequality on our once egalitarian society. I do not come to the debate simply as a loyal member of the parliamentary Labor Party, though I am that. I have been an active opponent of the GST for 14 years. Not long after gaining my PhD in economics from the Australian National University, I found myself locked in a battle against the GST. That was in 1985. I was economic adviser to then finance minister Senator Peter Walsh, and Treasurer Keating had proposed a GST for Australia.Having studied a lot of taxation theory for my PhD, I questioned the economic merits of a GST. There is very little in economic theory that argues for a uniform rate of tax on all goods and services. Yes, economists argue for a taxation system that is neutral in its effects on consumption and investment, but a broadly based consumption tax is not a neutral tax. I could go on today about the theory of optimal taxation and explain why a GST is not an optimal tax, but this is not the occasion for economic theory. I simply point out that, if the GST were to be so good for the economy, why has Treasury been unwilling or unable to estimate the rise in living standards from the GST, the extra jobs, the extra growth, the improvement in the balance of payments and the increase in national savings from taxing consumption rather than income? The answer is because the economic impacts of the GST are at best negligible and at worst highly damaging.I take the opportunity to commend Professor Peter Dixon of Monash University for the objectivity of his analysis of the GST which he correctly describes as job destroying. Professor Dixon has been able to identify the folly of a GST for Australia's long-term economic future. The GST will penalise Australia's modern labour-intensive export industries, tourism and education as long-term world prices are rising, and will reward our traditional export industries, mainly mining, whose long-term world prices are falling. The resulting adverse shift in our terms of trade will result in a reduction in average Australian living standards, a remarkable achievement for the Prime Minister's great tax adventure and the Treasurer's new tax for a new century.This analysis ignores the compliance costs associated with the GST which have been independently estimated at $1 billion a year, and that is before the compliance nightmare on main street agreed to by the government and Democrats is taken into account. Even the Prime Minister's preferred modeller, Chris Murphy, under the most optimistic assumptions which include no compliance costs, has estimated the economic benefits of the GST at just 65c per person per week. These negligible benefits, not enough to run one university, would not materialise for six to 10 years. It is a pity that our other colleagues in the economics profession did not see it in their interests to go beyond chanting the GST mantra and examine rigorously the economic evidence against this tax, both theoretical and empirical.But back to 1985. As a staffer in Peter Walsh's office, I worked on the GST with my thesis supervisor, Professor Ross Garnaut, who at that time was Bob Hawke's economic adviser. Ross was not in the GST cart, mainly because of its effects on wages and the economy at large. I also collaborated against the GST with Senator Peter Cook and another Labor staffer with whom I played volleyball, now Senator Stephen Conroy. I argued against the GST at public functions in Canberra. On one occasion at the Australian National University I argued against three young Treasury economists—Dr Ken Henry, Dr Martin Parkinson, who is now at the IMF, and Mr David Hudson, who is now my bother-in-law. I have since forgiven him.At the July 1985 tax summit, the GST was defeated. Two functions were held that night. One was a wake hosted by Paul Keating for Treasury officials. I do not think I was invited. The other was a celebration hosted by ACOSS, who, God bless them in those days, were implacably opposed to a GST. I could not stay for the ACOSS celebration because I had to rush to Sydney to see my mother in hospital. She died that night.Some 14 years later as a newly elected parliamentarian I was given the opportunity again of working to defeat the GST. When Senator Harradine said `I cannot', I thought we had saved Australia from the GST once and for all. But I had misjudged the capriciousness of those Democrats who were prepared to sacrifice the living standards of ordinary Australians for their place in the sun. I do, however, congratulate Senators Stott Despoja and Bartlett for their principled stand.I want to spend the rest of my time today explaining why this is such a black day for the nation. Australia has become a much more unequal society over the last 30 years. Income distribution in Australia is now more unequal than in the United States, Britain, Germany, France and most other developed countries. Inequality would have been much worse had it not been for Bob Hawke's much maligned child poverty pledge. The family payments associated with that pledge have lifted thousands of children out of poverty, but the gap between rich and poor continues to widen. As Bob Gregory and Boyd Hunter point out from their groundbreaking geographic analysis of unemployment:. . . one half of Australia does not know how the other half lives . . . the poor are increasingly living together in one set of neighbourhoods and the rich in another set. The economic gap is widening.Driving this widening inequality in Australia are the huge rewards from the information age to those who have the necessary skills to cash in on it and the huge penalties for those who do not. State schools in disadvantaged areas of suburban and regional Australia lack the resources to develop the literacy, numeracy and IT skills needed by students to compete for jobs in the information age. Thirty years ago, a young person leaving school at the age of 15 could obtain a trade and aspire to a reasonable standard of living. But in the information age of the new millennium, a child leaving school at 15 is likely to be condemned to a life of unemployment interspersed with casual, low-paid work. And yet, more than one-third of all students in government schools do not complete high school. That is more than 60,000 young Australians every year facing a high risk of unemployment in the information age.A major review of active labour market programs was conducted for the OECD countries in 1998 by John Martin. He found dismal results of training programs for young people, pointing to the need for much earlier intervention at primary school and even preschool. The review states:The evidence from Canadian and US evaluations suggest that the biggest payoffs for disadvantaged youths come from early interventions. This involves not only intensive efforts to boost their performance in primary and secondary schooling and reduce drop-out rates, it also reaches back to early childhood including the preschool period.The limited empirical evidence that is available suggests that early childhood interventions of high quality can have lasting effects upon the employment and earnings prospects of disadvantaged children. It is also important to target support not only at the youngsters themselves but also their families and local communities. It cannot be over-emphasised that if young people leave the schooling system without qualifications and a good grounding in the 3Rs, it is well nigh impossible for labour market programs to overcome these handicaps later on.In other words, if governments fail to fund adequately early intervention programs and basic literacy and numeracy in state primary schools, they will condemn more than 60,000 young Australians every year to a life of insecurity, low incomes and welfare dependency. And now, the parents of children attending those schools will have to bear additional costs of education. GST relief for private school fees will not be of any benefit to children attending state schools in disadvantaged areas. Parents of children in poorer neighbourhoods must pay GST on school uniforms, shoes, books, stationery and public transport. So too will parents of children living in affluent areas, but they will get the biggest cuts in personal income tax. That is why we need to be clear about the purpose of the government's plan to introduce a new $28 billion indirect tax.Conservative governments do not introduce new taxes equivalent to five per cent of the nation's GDP because they support bigger government and increased social spending to promote equality of opportunity. This would be completely out of character for the Howard government, which has slashed $800 million from education already. No, the GST is not designed to finance the social investments that will make Australia the land of equal opportunity in the next century. It is designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to shift Australia's taxation base towards indirect tax, allowing higher income earners to pay less tax overall. The conservatives and the Commonwealth Treasury hold the view that, in the information age, those equipped with the requisite skills are highly internationally mobile and that an important factor in their decisions as to where they will live and work is their marginal rate of income tax. The conservative argument is that, to retain and attract the highly skilled in the information age, the higher marginal rates of income tax must be reduced and the tax system shifted over to the taxation of consumption rather than income.The conservative dream goes on to reduce the role of the federal government to a few national functions such as defence and foreign affairs. Education will become exclusively a state responsibility, with the Commonwealth forfeiting any role in ensuring the adequacy of funding for schools in disadvantaged areas. Along the way, election strategies for the conservatives can be based on offering cuts in the higher marginal rates of income tax. After all, Mr Howard went to the 1987 election promising big income tax cuts, but his disastrous double-counting error exposed the fact that he could not afford them. He went to the 1998 election promising huge personal income tax cuts for high income earners—up to $170 a week for top corporate executives. Don't believe the fallacy that the GST revenue, by going to the states, is not funding income tax cuts for high income earners. The same day the GST starts reaping its revenue, untied grants to the states will be abolished, saving the Commonwealth $18 billion a year. This, and raiding the surplus, is how the government is paying for its income tax cuts.We on the Labor side support income tax cuts but do not agree with the government that the bulk of them should go to the top 20 per cent of income earners. After all, Labor adjusted the income tax scales seven times in 13 years, returning bracket creep to taxpayers. Yet the present government has failed to adjust them even once. It now says that handing back the proceeds of bracket creep it has accumulated since coming to office is conditional upon the introduction of a GST. Labor delivered tax cuts without a GST; why can't the coalition? The truth is that the real Howard government agenda is to withdraw Commonwealth involvement in education, health and social services—and that requires a GST. The full extent of this agenda will become clear following the so-called transition period with the states. From that time onwards, it is open to a conservative federal government to begin cutting the tied grants to the states—the specific purpose payments. These are used to fund such basic services as literacy and numeracy programs, higher education, vocational training, public hospitals, anti-drug programs, disability services, support for homeless young people, public housing and suicide prevention programs. These programs cost the Commonwealth $17 billion a year.Commonwealth officials made it quite clear to their state counterparts at the recent Premiers Conference that there were no guarantees about maintaining these tied grants beyond the transition period. Therefore, tied grants will be at the top of any Department of Finance and Administration hit list for spending cuts, and conservative governments would accept the department's advice. The argument in a coalition cabinet room would run something like this: `The states have the big new GST growth tax, so they can afford to provide these services from now on. We never get the political credit for these programs anyway, because state politicians always make the announcements.' A conservative government would seek these savings to fund further cuts in income tax at the top. Treasurer Costello said as much on 30 May on a television program when he said:I would want that top rate—which is 47c—out to be multiples of average weekly earnings.Meanwhile, the states will already have fully allocated their GST revenue. They will not have money sloshing around to fill the hole left by Commonwealth cuts to specific pur pose payments. Then the pressure will come on to increase the GST rate or to remove the partial food exemption. This time there will not be extra compensation for low income earners and pensioners, which was precisely the New Zealand experience.Over time, conservative governments will snip holes in the compensation safety net, allowing more and more disadvantaged people to fall through. Those who are vulnerable to any withdrawal of compensatory benefits will be left worse off. Already, under their most optimistic assumptions, Professors Warren and Harding, often quoted by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, find that self-funded retiree couples on about $20,000 a year will be worse off under the Howard-Lees package. This completely contradicts the often repeated claims of the government and Senator Lees that no-one will be worse off under their deal.What of those who are supposed to be better off? A single person earning $20,000 would gain, at most, 94c a week. A couple just setting out with a combined income of $30,000 a year would get a maximum of $2.34 a week. These are the battling young Australians. These are the under 30s whom Mr Howard, the Prime Minister, said he would be championing, the generation Xers. So we have a couple, just married, earning a combined income of $30,000 a year getting a maximum of $2.34 a week.This completely ignores the compliance costs for industry estimated at more than $1 billion, and of course industry will do its level best to pass those compliance costs on to consumers. Therefore, these estimates are a very real underestimate of the true impact of the tax package on low income earners. Let us look at age pensioners. They will get a couple of dollars a week, if they are lucky.The tragedy of the GST is that it will accelerate Australia's journey along the path of inequality. As conservative governments seek election and re-election on the basis of promised further cuts in higher marginal rates of income tax, Commonwealth payments to the states for education and other vital services in disadvantaged areas will be pared away and Australia will lose forever the sense of a fair go—that egalitarian streak that had been in us for the first 200 years of European settlement.As the ardent supporters of the GST in the media and the corporate world line up for their big income tax cuts, they will not ask how the other half of Australians live because they have never known them. Their children will never sit next to theirs in school or compete with them for the very best jobs the nation can offer.21:55:007645Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in support of the amendment moved by the opposition to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1999 . This is a historic week in the fiscal history of our Federation. It is historic because this week the parliament is about to pass into law the single most regressive set of changes to the nation's taxation system in our history. It is historic because never before in our history has Australian business had transferred to it so massive a compliance burden. It is equally historic because all this is happening without the government having advanced a single shred of evidence that their tax package will in any way advance our national economic welfare or in any way advance our national social welfare.We are told instead to embark upon this national taxation odyssey on trust and trust alone. Those opposite call it reform; I call it regression. Those opposite have made the fundamental mistake of confusing change for reform. Change this certainly is but reform it certainly is not. It is change in the wrong direction. While the Howard government marches boldly back in the direction of the 1950s when the Europeans first introduced consumption taxes, the Europeans themselves today are trying desperately to rid themselves of this taxation millstone as they embark upon a new century.It is very easy to mindlessly chant the mantra of economic reform. Those opposite now do it with almost religious fervour—if not religious fervour, then at least ideological fervour because the mainstream churches have abandoned them midstream and expressed their profound reservations about the taxation package before the nation.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—That's not true.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—At least most of them are chanting the mantra of the GST because there are still among them some political hardheads who know that this is not only of dubious value to the nation but also of political kamikaze value to themselves. All those government backbenchers out there in marginal seats donning their white headbands as they jump into the fray to defend that which is indefensible, to defend a tax which will create 1.5 million taxation agencies for the Australian Taxation Office from the ranks of Australian small business, and do so less than 12 months before the introduction of this tax on 1 July 2000.Of course, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are telling the troops day in and day out in this place that all this is in the cause of reform. Have they ever taken the time to advance the case as to just how this economy is to be reformed by this new $33 billion tax? Have they ever taken the time to explain to the nation how much the economy will additionally grow by as a consequence of this tax? Have they taken the time to explain just how much employment will grow by as a consequence of this tax?Have they taken any time to explain how much inflation will increase by as a consequence of this tax? Have they taken any time to explain just to what extent the existing revenue structure of the nation is somehow incapable of delivering adequate revenues for the future? Have they taken time to explain just how these measures will impact on the already substantial gap between rich and poor? No, they have taken no such time at all. They have failed to explain any of these things.Why have they failed to do so? Because they know that this package will not result in additional growth in the economy. They know that it will not result in additional growth in employment. They know that it will only result in an increase in inflation. They know that there is no fundamental fault with the existing revenue system which cannot be fixed within existing structures. They know that, as a consequence of this, they will treble the compliance burden for Australian small business. They know what its consequences will be for the future of Commonwealth-state relations. And they know fundamentally that this will result in an unfair system.But if it is all these things, why would you want to do it? The same question was asked by Professor Dixon of the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University. He said, `If it delivers all these downsides, why would you wish to introduce it?' A very good question indeed.I would posit that there are a number of reasons why you would do this. The first is that this whole strategy was conceived as a political distraction strategy; second, in its essence, this tax package is a wealth redistribution strategy; and, third, in the end, it became a political face-saving device for a Prime Minister and Treasurer who became hopelessly dug in.Turning briefly to the first reason—that is, that it was all one huge political diversion strategy in the first place. Let us cast our minds back to the events of 1997. The government was in diabolical political trouble, with the issue of nursing homes being brought to this parliament's attention by the member for Jagajaga. That issue blew up in the government's face day by day. The introduction of unlimited up-front nursing home fees, including the requirement that seniors sell their own homes to pay for those up-front fees, reflected in a true way the bleak Dickensian view of human charity which so much characterises the social policies of this government.The upshot? A government collapsing in the opinion polls and out of left field—or, should I say, out of right field?—what do we have charging in on the white charger? The GST, the perfect agenda shift. How we have all forgotten the Prime Minister's resounding proclamations going into the 1996 election that there would never, ever be a GST under his prime ministership. That was prior to the 1996 election. `We have learnt from the social experiment,' said the current Prime Minister, `from that great feral abacus, Dr Hewson, that a GST in fact is not good for the country, it is not good for the economy, it is not good for the society, and not on my nelly will we ever have one.' That was good, honest John Howard at the time. How things changed.The rest of course is history. Remember that the date on which this package was released to the nation was 13 August 1998, two weeks before the election was called. Yet those opposite have the audacity, almost on a daily basis in this place, to complain to those of us who occupy the opposition benches that 2½ years out from the next election we should be producing in detail our approach to tax policy and economic policy. I would simply ask those opposite to reflect upon the timing of their own pronouncements in the lead-up to the 1998 election. Their policy was just produced on the eve of that election, leaving barely any time at all for public scrutiny.However, I would predict in the full sweep of history that this will prove to be the end of this government—just as, in international experience, the introduction of a tax of this nature proved to be the destruction of the Canadian conservatives, it provided the basis for fundamental political damage to the Japanese LDP and, in Australia at the last election, it reduced what was a record majority for the Howard government to shreds. Nineteen seats were lost out of the 25 needed for a change in government. It was the most appalling performance by a first-term government in the history of the Australian Federation.We come to the second reason why we have this package before us tonight to pass into the law of the Commonwealth tomorrow and over the next several days. Having committed themselves to a political strategy which lost them such a large number of seats in the election, the government were then faced with their underlying rationale for this scheme they call reform. If we recall, no arguments had been advanced as to why this taxation scheme represented any net benefit to the nation. The economic case had not been made. The social welfare case had not been made. So what was its real rationale?Its real rationale is that this tax, in its essence, is a wealth redistribution tax of massive proportions. It is a redistribution tax which takes the taxation burden in a direction which advantages the rich and penalises those on low and middle incomes. This is not the Robin Hood tax; it is the Sheriff of Nottingham tax. It is an income transfer tax. It penalises low and middle income earners. It penalises pensioners. It penalises those on fixed incomes. It penalises small business through this monstrous compliance burden which is about to be imposed on them. But it rewards those at the top end of the income scale.This tax rewards the traditional constituency of the Liberal Party of Australia. It is a fundamental assault on the doctrine of progressivity that has characterised the income taxation system of this country since the war, and it replaces that principle of progressivity with a simple and stark principle of regressivity.At the heart of this proposal, we have at stake a debate about the future of the Australian nation. We have our past which has been characterised by a sense of fairness, an ethos which has governed this country for 1½ centuries, and its prospective replacement by a new ethos of unrestrained greed. We have the replacement of Henry Lawson as a national icon by a new icon called Gordon Gecko. We have a new, brutal view of the world that says that the only path to maximising national economic performance is one which maximises national economic inequality.This brings us to the third reason. The government hit the solid brickwall represented by Senator Harradine before turning to that wobbly wave of marshmallow otherwise known as the Australian Democrats. ANTS mark 1, the first package, the first variant thereof, was dead in the water. How then to move to ANTS mark 2 without having egg, cake, chicken, lettuce and doughnuts spread all over your face? Answer: total amnesia.Remember, we have already had one dose of amnesia in this debate when, just prior to the 1996 election, the Prime Minister stated that `never, ever, ever' would he ever introduce a consumption tax to this country. But now we have a second dose of amnesia, this one particularly characterised by the remarks of the Treasurer. Let us look at the robust policy consistency of the Treasurer on this point—his courageous pursuit of principle, his unswerving dedication to good policy and not grubby compromise with lesser outcomes. Let us look at the Treasurer's statements of 12 May 1999 at the National Press Club, where he said:Well look I've had numbers of meetings with the Democrats and I have tried to progress negotiations with them. [But] . . . their position is . . . a position which the Government cannot accept. That opens up $5 billion in the whole package.That is $5 billion which then could not be delivered but which mysteriously overnight can be.Let us go to the Treasurer's remarks of 21 April 1999, in his doorstop interview at Treasury Place in Melbourne, where he said:You really want a tax system where we're employing people sticking thermometers into chickens to try and run a tax system—it's nightmare on Main Street. It is not real life. They've made it to try and sort of get some brownie points. It won't work.Now apparently it does work, and the only thing that has changed is the fact that two or three months have gone by. Turning to more of the Treasurer's remarks, also of 21 April, he said:. . . unlike the Democrat position which really is a recipe for, well, a nightmare. A small business nightmare . . . the government will stick to its position.What was a nightmare just a couple of months ago apparently is a very pleasant dream today—at least in the Treasurer's reasoning.Again, looking at more of the Treasurer's statements of 21 April, he said:. . . if you exclude food and I think that costs 5 billion dollars. They're talking about another five billion dollars of compensation I think. Let me make this clear, to do that would be to put the budget in deficit, would be to risk Australia's prospects, it could put pressure on interest rates and the economic consequences of that for Australia would be very bad . . .A prognosis of doom, it seems, barely two or three months ago—but one which apparently is entirely compatible with rational and proper economic management a few months later.For a further episode in the record of consistency on the Treasurer's part on the architecture of the tax package, we turn to his statements of 30 March 1999, where he said:If you exclude food from GST, you are going to have tax inspectors running around trying to see whether the chocolate on a gingerbread man is bigger than the eyes, trying to determine whether it is food or a snack. You are going to have tax inspectors putting thermometers into pies to see whether they are fresh or takeaway.Now it seems our beloved Treasurer is quite happy to dispense tens of thousands of thermometers, one to every officer of the Australian Taxation Office, to go out there and do their duty for queen, empire and the taxation collection system of the country.We have the Treasurer's statements of 19 February this year, where he said:Excluding food would lead to nightmare compliance costs and efficiency and simplicity losses—compliance costs and efficiency and simplicity losses, it seems, which the Treasurer is now apparently happy to have the small businesses of this country bear.Finally, there are his remarks of 19 August 1998. When asked the question, `Is there any circumstance in which you would consider exempting food from the GST?' his answer is an unequivocal no. The no of yesterday is the yes of today.So which Peter Costello do we believe? Do we believe the Peter Costello of 19 August, the Peter Costello of 19 February, the Peter Costello of 30 March, the Peter Costello of 21 April, the Peter Costello of 12 May; or do we believe the Peter Costello that did the dirty deed with the Democrats? Do we believe the chameleon who struts and frets his hour upon the stage in question time in this place, or do we believe the Treasurer whose words are recorded in the documents I have referred to this evening? No wonder the public of this nation holds the political class of this nation in such fundamental contempt.So what is it that brings us to this last sordid compromise that we will face in this House tomorrow and during the remainder of this week? It could be described as the ANTS mark 67 package, replete with Democrat pike and twist. This latest and final variant of the package is a double disaster. It has all the downside of ANTS mark 1, but now we also have a total compliance nightmare for the 1.5 million small business taxation points that have been created under it.If we look at the verdict which has been delivered on this package by Professor Dixon of the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University—and this is the most recent package agreed on with the Democrats—he says:As with the original ANTS package, the Democrats' changes now being hastily adopted by the Government have not been subject to rigorous economic analysis. 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 compliance costs, the MONASH results indicate that the Democrats' changes will reduce Australia's overall economic welfare by about 0.3 per cent (approximately $1 billion a year).If this is the government's definition of policy success, I would hate to encounter what it would describe as a policy disaster.We are, however, not just looking at the verdict of the academic economists. We are looking at the verdict of the Australian community as a whole, the people who jump on to their telephones and ring us in our electorate offices across the length and breadth of this nation to express to us their point of view about how this new package will impact on them. I have here a letter, just one of the many my office has received recently—as many other members would have received recently. This particular letter is from the Melbourne City Mission, and it describes in great detail the impact of the GST on charitable organisations such as Melbourne City Mission.We have received letters also from the New South Wales P&C Association, concerning the impact of the GST on books. That association stated:The compromise decision by the Federal Government and the Australian Democrats to place a GST on books jeopardises the literacy development of Australian children.It went on to say:It is quite obvious that neither the Government nor the Democrats looked at the issues surrounding books in their recent compromise deal. There was no attention given to the impact on literacy, education or parents and their efforts to engender a love of reading in their children.We have had in this place in the last couple of days the most extraordinary illustration of what I can only describe as an active act of policy fraudulence on the part of the Treasurer of the Commonwealth. Today in response to a question from the member for Bendigo about the impact of the GST on books, the Treasurer again implied that the impact would not be great at all. The reality is that there is a price gap today between the purchase of most books from your local bookstore and Internet purchases. The reason why Australians are buying more through the Internet is not because of some quixotic interest in electronic commerce but because it is cheaper. The imposition of this new tax will make it doubly cheaper to purchase items through the Internet, which will deliver a body blow to the Australian book industry. You do not have to be a Rhodes scholar to work that out. What we have had in this place is an entirely thespian performance by the Treasurer of the Commonwealth trying to convince us that that difference does not exist at all. He stands condemned by it.This is a dark day in the history of the Federation; it is a dark day in the fiscal history of the Federation. In a decade's time we will look back and wonder why this country did it—why we imposed this burden on jobs, why we imposed the burden on pensioners and why we imposed this burden on the country at large. (Time expired)22:15:007649Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—At the outset, I would like to thank all participants for their contributions to this second reading debate on Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1999 . It is unfortunate that, owing to the wide definition of the title of the bill, every time a taxation laws amendment bill comes before the parliament we seem to reargue the question of whether Australia should have a new tax system as we approach the next millennium. Honourable members would recall that prior to the election last year the Prime Minister announced that, if the coali tion government received a further mandate, we would bring about a new tax system as we approached the next millennium. He said that a new tax system would deliver real and genuine tax reform to Australian taxpayers which was in the national interest. Speaker after speaker from the Labor Party have risen in the chamber and indicated quite clearly that they have no plan and no regard for the national interest. They are all about criticising the fact that this government received a mandate from the Australian people. The tax package delivers a complete abolition of Labor's inefficient and outdated wholesale sales tax which sees an enormous number of items charged at varying and irrational rates. There are presently seven rates ranging from zero per cent through to 45 per cent, with 12 per cent, 22 per cent, 32 per cent and 41 per cent on the way through. Examples of these goods include: household cleaning goods, toys, fruit juice, cordials and soft drinks being taxed at 12 per cent; CDs being taxed at 22 per cent; TVs and video cameras at 32 per cent—and so this irrational list goes on. The member for Griffith suggested there is nothing wrong with Australia's current tax system. It is very clear that the people of Australia voted for tax reform. They voted for a new tax system which, following the legislation's passage, will see basic food being GST free; 80 per cent of Australians paying no more than 30 per cent tax; and pensions, allowances and benefits increasing by four per cent. Pensioner compensation arrangements will be two per cent above the CPI. Labor put up taxes but never compensated those affected. We also know that the Labor Party promised time and time again that they were not going to sell government assets, yet they came into the parliament after an election and broke their promises. This government is seeking to implement the promises it gave to the Australian people prior to the last poll, yet we find that the Labor Party have done absolutely everything they can to frustrate the will of the Australian people as expressed in the election result of October last year. States and territories will receive all of the revenue from the GST. There will also be reductions in diesel fuel prices which will benefit the cost of transport throughout Australia. The list of benefits goes on. Many benefits are opposed by the Labor Party. That is why they are completely and totally irrelevant as far as this debate is concerned. They seek to criticise what they perceive as being anomalies. There will not be anomalies when the legislation is implemented because the legislation will be efficient. If Labor do claim there are anomalies, then the fact is they are responsible for frustrating the government's attempts to bring in the system as we originally announced it.In summing up I would like to outline the two measures contained in this bill. The first of these measures will make a number of changes to the share capital account tainting rules of the income tax law to ensure that those rules are not triggered in inappropriate circumstances. These concessional amendments will provide that the share capital account does not automatically become tainted by the merger of tainted share premiums with share capital, debt for equity swaps do not trigger the tainting rule, and the delayed crediting of share capital to the share capital account does not trigger the tainting rule.The second measure will provide tax relief from any unintended tax consequences arising on a managed investment scheme restructuring for the purposes of the Managed Investments Act 1998. That act makes important changes to the regulation of managed investment funds to ensure greater accountability of fund managers to investors. Under that act funds will be required to undergo some restructuring. The relief is provided as a practical measure because the underlying entity remains the same. These amendments are good news for the managed investment industry and their investors.The member for Wills referred to tax on food in his contribution to this debate. Basic food, of course, will be GST free. The Labor Party likes to chant that tax is largely not on food at the moment. The simple fact of the matter is that many food items in the super markets are subjected to tax and, in any event, the wholesale sales tax is embedded in all items—even those technically exempt from tax—through the cost of transportation, the cost of packaging, the cost of printing and so on. So the Labor Party is being quite hypocritical here.Also in the Labor Party amendment, which the government opposes, it referred to the tax mix switch claim. The Labor Party is the party which has increased both direct and indirect taxes, so it is absolutely hypocritical coming into the chamber and criticising the government's reforms. The member for Wills also saw fit to criticise the time lag between the Managed Investments Act and the announcement of tax relief. Again, I want to clarify the situation for the record. The Assistant Treasurer issued a media release on 27 July 1998 stating that capital gains tax relief would be provided. There was extensive consultation with the investment bodies to see what further relief was required, and then the Assistant Treasurer issued a further press release on 12 March 1999 detailing the further relief proposed by this bill. So the government's response, far from being dilatory, has indeed been quite swift.The member for Wills referred to the matter of stamp duty relief for the purposes of restructuring for the purposes of the Managed Investments Act. Anyone who understands our constitutional system in Australia will know that stamp duty is a matter for the states and territories. However, the Commonwealth is continuing to encourage the states and territories to keep to their commitments to ensure there is no stamp duty consequence as a result of a restructure required under the Managed Investments Act. Discussions with respect to this matter are continuing.The member for Wills also made the most amazing suggestion that legislation by press release is contrary to Australia's legislative regime and traditions. It is obvious that, when a government has announced—and all governments have done it—that as from a certain date the law will be changed, this is not retrospectivity. This is giving notice to the people that as from a certain date the law will be altered. What this government has done is quite reasonable and fair and no different from what has been the tradition in this country.The member for Macquarie, however, made a most competent and capable contribution. He praised the government's achievements and reform credentials. I would recommend that those honourable members opposite read the speech of the member for Macquarie. He pointed out that we are achieving genuine tax reform and he referred to many other initiatives of the government.Criticism has also been made of the government's environmental achievements. This government is the greenest government in Australia's history. We are spending an extra billion dollars for initiatives with respect to greenhouse gases and urban air quality. This government deserves the praise of the Australian people not only for the initiatives which we have brought in as a result of our tax plan but also because of what we have achieved through the Natural Heritage Trust, which sees well over $1 billion invested in Australia's largest environmental program in history. This government is determined to pass our environment on to future generations in a much better state than the state which we inherited when we took over government.This is real and important legislation. It is sad that every time a bill in relation to taxation comes into the parliament the Labor Party proceeds with the same tired old arguments. It is about time that the Labor Party recognised that it has no tax plan, it has no tax policies and it has run out of ideas. Member after member over there continues to write books making suggestions to the Leader of the Opposition, who has now cancelled his overseas trip because he needs to consult with the Australian people. That is a real and meaningful acceptance by the opposition that they are out of touch. They have dealt themselves out of the equation on tax reform. This government stood up prior to the last election. We said what we were going to do. We received a mandate from the Australian people. I would ask the House to support the bills currently before the chamber.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.7651Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Adjournment7651Motion (by Mr Slipper) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.765122:27:007651Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I rise tonight to speak about the very tragic and serious situation of women and girls in Afghanistan. Historically they have been discriminated against, but since 1992 their status has deteriorated rapidly. The situation has worsened significantly since the Taliban takeover of Kabul in 1996 and the implementation of severe social strictures. Women were immediately forbidden to work outside the home and were denied access to health and education. This is despite their involvement with the Taliban militia in fighting the Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan. US Senator Barbara Boxer said to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee this year:Today, under Taliban rule, women in Afghanistan cannot work outside the home, attend school, or even wear shoes that make a noise when they walk. They must wear a head-to-toe covering called a burga. Parents cannot teach their daughters to read, or take their little girls to male doctors. Women have been stoned to death, beaten, and otherwise abused for `breaking' these harsh laws.She continued:This intolerable treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan has continued despite repeated international requests that the Taliban restore their rights. We cannot in good conscience watch in silence what is happening in Afghanistan. Afghan women will continue to suffer at the hand of the Taliban unless the rest of the world presses for change.Reports from within Afghanistan and from refugee camps in neighbouring Pakistan are alarming. I should just say that it is estimated that over a million people are living in these refugee camps in Pakistan. Many women and girls are suffering chronic depression and anxiety. Some are managing to escape to neighbouring countries such as Pakistan, while others are choosing a more tragic and permanent form of escape in suicide. There are credible reports of women swallowing detergent or pesticide, or even setting fire to themselves. The USIA Washington File said:Womens and girls access to medical services and hospitals have been drastically reduced. Although they are allowed to receive emergency care in all Kabul hospitals and non emergency care in a few, women have died because male doctors were not allowed to treat them. Many of them suffered easily treatable ailments. The lack of ready access to medical facilities that do exist is further impacted by shortages of medicine and equipment.Of course, if young girls are not allowed to learn to read, let alone study further, the next generation of women doctors is certainly in doubt. As well as the restriction on access to medical services, women's health is affected by the poverty enforced on them by loss of income. Tens of thousands of war widows are the sole providers in their families and, when they are not able to work, they are forced to beg to feed themselves and their children. Both widows and their children are suffering malnutrition and some have starved to death.The Taliban has restricted education for girls, particularly in Kabul. Girls over eight years of age cannot attend formal schools and parents are forbidden to teach daughters to read at home. For some of the women who fled Afghanistan there was the possibility of continuing an education in refugee universities in the Pakistani border city of Peshawar. Unfortunately, in August 1998 the Pakistani government shut down these universities, alleging that they were operating illegally. These schools taught more than 1,000 female students in separate buildings. The Pakistani government claimed that the education offered was substandard and was business oriented. However, human rights activists claim the closures were part of a joint campaign on the part of the Pakistani government and its Taliban allies to force the refugees to return to Afghanistan. Pakistan wants to access the lucrative trade route through Afghanistan to Central Asia and, as a result, human rights officials claim, the Taliban have virtually been given a free hand to root out opposition within the refugee community.I would like to conclude by saying that the United States government has condemned Taliban policies publicly. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, during her visit to a refugee camp in Pakistan, described the Taliban treatment of women as `despicable'. She said:We are opposed to their approach to human rights, to their despicable treatment of women and children, and their lack of respect for human dignity, in a way more reminiscent of the past than the future.I believe that we here in Australia and people throughout the international community cannot allow these terrible crimes against women and girls to continue with impunity. We must do everything within our power to stop what is happening to women in Afghanistan. (Time expired)765222:32:007652Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I rise tonight to speak about some of the unsung heroes of my community: those who endure dialysis treatment, their families and the community that supports them. What is dialysis? What does it mean to people like you and me? Unless you have renal failure and need treatment it means nothing to the average Australian. Dialysis is a word most would not use or even have in their vocabulary. I do not have kidney failure and I am not affected, yet my daughter, then aged 2½, now 36, was for seven years in and out of hospital with kidney problems. The constant grind of visiting hospital is very familiar to me. She was one of the lucky ones—she survived. Not so for many of my friends in my electorate of Gilmore, where another 26 or so people need dialysis.Ten people travel to Wollongong three days a week for dialysis treatment, and recently I was fortunate enough to be invited to see for myself exactly what they went through. At 10 a.m. the driver of the Bombaderry ambulance bus starts the pick-ups. One lady says, `No, not today.' This is common, because being on dialysis is not a nice way to live. At 11 o'clock the bus stops at my office, and there is much consternation when I come out the front door and board the ambulance. No, I am not a patient yet, but I could be. We go off to Sanctuary Point to pick up Bob. On the way there are Pat and Col and then Dulcie from Illaroo Road. Her husband is very concerned—Dulcie is not very well.Finally, some two hours after starting out, the local pick-ups are complete. We set off for the Wollongong Hospital, the nearest kidney dialysis centre. Along the way we pick up Mary from Albion Park. I sit by Bob. He tells me why it is that often people do not want to go for their dialysis. He tells me of his family's trauma in seeing him unable to fulfil many of the functions he could before, and how he feels a burden to them rather than the head of the family. He is tied, three times a week, to visiting the machine that robs him of his energy and his morale. Yet, if he misses dialysis twice in a row, he is dead. There are no choices.In the ambulance it is like one big family. Russ, the driver, is definitely included. He has been an ambo for 25 years and considers it a privilege to share time with the people going for dialysis. On the bus they go crook at one another for losing their resolve. They insist on waiting for everyone, including the one who does not want to go. They know there is no choice—they must go. We are at the Wollongong Hospital by 2.30 p.m. We meet David, from Kangaroo Valley, there.Everybody has to weigh-in, have their temperature taken and wait for the doctors to determine how much fluid they need to lose today. The more you eat and drink, the more time it takes for dialysis. Everyone has to wait until everyone is finished, and it can be a very long day. Everybody dreads the average of six- to seven-hours on the machine. Although it prolongs their lives, it is uncomfortable, and there is always the fear of machine failure. Everyone is in one big room. Some are very quiet, some are crying, some are comforting others some are cracking jokes and some are asleep. The machines do not stop, except on Sundays. The sisters in the hospital are compassionate, though matter of fact about their tasks. They reinforce the message, `You can't miss your dialysis. Miss two and you're dead.' Bob has been con nected. Mary is ready to start. Pat has to wait until someone else is finished. Where is Col? There he is—connected and cracking jokes with a fellow patient.I went for a coffee with Russ, the ambo. I felt squeamish, close to tears, unable to help—an intruder in private lives, and yet made very welcome. On top of this, there is the six to seven hour wait for everyone's dialysis, a while to regain their composure, then the travel back from Wollongong and the reverse of the pick-up procedure. All this makes for a very long, rather trying and very tiring day. If it is a good day, they are home by 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. the next day. Thank God we have a community such as we do. Not only do they care, they put their money where their mouths are and have, in 12 months, raised $500,000 for six machines to be placed in the Shoalhaven in the Gilmore electorate.Russ and I have to leave early and, on the way home, Russ tells me about the people he would like to thank—people like Mr Franz Mairinger, President of Lions International, who knows nothing about dialysis and has no connection to anyone on the scheme, but who, when asked to help, said yes straightaway; people like Barry Mac from Radio 2ST who has spent hours taping anecdotes, encouraging the public to support the fundraisers, providing progress reports and MCing functions; and people like Kevin, Pat's husband, who spends hours selling $2 dialysis badges.Russ made the point that many people have problems and they also have choices. His patients have problems but have no choices: it is dialysis or die. We are morally obliged to help them. Thank you to the residents of the Shoalhaven for raising the funds to enable these people to receive their treatment here, for saving them six hours travel three times each week. I am very proud as the member for Gilmore to represent such a caring community with whom it is possible to share experiences such as this. Thank you to Bob, Dulcie, Col, Pat, Mary and Russ. David has died since I chose to do this speech. He missed two dialysis treatments in a row—he is now dead. Where there is life, there is hope. 765422:37:007654Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—Tonight I wish to return to a subject that I raised very briefly about 12 months ago. In a more substantive adjournment, the former member for Groom, Mr Bill Taylor, raised it on 25 May last year. This goes to concerns on behalf of sufferers of myalgic encephalomyelitis, or chronic fatigue syndrome, 12 months ago that the NHMRC staff clinical practice guidelines were rather narrowly based. The various state groups and associations—for instance, the ME Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Society of Victoria Inc.—have been trying to get funding out of NHMRC for more detailed research into the causes of the disease. They have come to me with their concerns about the contents of a letter that was sent on behalf of the NHMRC, which gave the results of the NHMRC's Strategic Research Development Committee. It had undertaken analysis of the data that was put forward by the various associations. They were trying to get the NHMRC to treat CFS research as a priority area.The SRDC believe that more work needs to be done to establish whether or not the NHMRC should be providing funding for research. Interestingly enough, they believe that Australian researchers have not done enough to more clearly define chronic fatigue syndrome for the purposes of research. The SRDC is basically asking researchers of this disease to get together and come up with a definition. The researchers are a bit perplexed, because there is plenty of precedent under which the SRDC could decide to make a definition. In their letter to the CFS Association, the SROC says:In the USA, the National Institutes of Health, especially the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), have highlighted the difficulty in obtaining relevant data on CFS, primarily because there are no distinct clinical markers for CFS.The people who are putting the case for CFS research say that, despite the concerns that the American authorities have, this does not prevent them from providing funding for research. The National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases are able to put funding towards two CFS cooperative research centres. Also, there is clear evidence that there are appropriate codings in international classifications of diseases. In other international classifications, appropriate codings can also be found which are already being used by a whole array of people in Australia who are researching the causes of CFS. In a letter on behalf of the CFS association, Jim Oakley says:The reasons the SRDC has given for not funding research into CFS at this time are unscientific and based on an ignorant viewpoint. The SRDC has made no attempt to chart a rational course through the issues surrounding CFS, but has instead opted to remove CFS from its agenda by imposing unworkable and invalid requirements on Australian CFS researchers.For the many thousands of sufferers of chronic fatigue syndrome, I think there is a need for continuing research. There is a need to determine the cause of the disease so that we can better tackle the disease on behalf of those sufferers. I know that NHMRC operates at arm's length, but I really do think that it should be made to reconsider its position in the way in which it has handled the genuine approaches to gain funding for a disease that is worthy of funding. I am sure that, given Australia's medical research talent, we would be able to assist in the international search for a cure. (Time expired)765422:42:007654Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to rise to speak on a matter that many people do not have to speak on or would not wish to speak on. I am thankful that I do have a special place like this chamber to thank the many people who have comforted me and my family on the tragedy that has affected us with the loss of our daughter and sister, Lottie, just six weeks ago. I have learnt two things: there is a lot of goodness out there, often from areas that you do not really expect it; and, secondly, we are not alone in our grief. My wife, Jayne, and son, Will, have been here today and have both been shown a lot of kindness by many strangers as well as by many friends too countless to mention. They are my strength. Our experience is that many constituents do not think that we are all bad, and I have been strengthened by the many kind thoughts expressed to me, as their local member, and to my family.It may seem strange to thank the various media outlets, but they also gave us the privacy that we wanted in those first few weeks and the compassion that we needed. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the kindness and help that you have given freely and sincerely to us, as have many people in this chamber and in the Senate, from both sides of the political fence, including the member for Lowe opposite. May I also thank the Prime Minister for his special sentiments and the time that he has spent with me. It is much more than I could have expected, much more than I could have asked and much more than I can express my gratitude for. Likewise, the Premier of South Australia, who has had similar grief, was helpful and supportive to all of us.Unless you have been in the situation, it is hard to imagine the pain. But I know now that we are not alone, because of the many phone calls and letters from people who have been through similar tragedies. Those sentiments have come from both strangers and friends and have helped us to cope, knowing that we are not alone. The community around our home town of Keith have been incredible in their support. They have rallied around us in their typical country way. This continues, and for that we are grateful.Lottie, our daughter and sister, was a special girl who touched the lives of people of all ages, and I thank this chamber for the opportunity to commemorate her short life in this way. I thank everyone for their support and kindness, which has eased our pain a little. Thank you for your help and for this rare opportunity.765522:46:007655Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I would like to support the member for Barker and his family. Adriana and I would like to extend our deepest sympathy for this tragic loss to him and to his family. Patrick has been very, very brave. I get along well with him. We are on different sides of the political spectrum, but he is a great member of this House. I know, Patrick, that I speak for everyone in this chamber tonight when I say you have our total support. I can assure you that my wife and I have been saying our prayers for you and your family and for your daughter.The adverse financial impact of asset testing on retirees seeking pensions has been brought to my attention through a growing number of constituent inquiries. In particular, I note from a new Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development survey of pension systems that Australian retirees are among the poorest of the industrialised world. It is, of course, hazardous to make comparisons between the Australian and European retirement regimes because Australia maintains a system of publicly funded retirement social security whilst the common practice in Europe is that pensions are a function of working contribution.That being said, I note from the OECD survey that in countries such as Britain, Germany and France pensioners enjoy incomes between 83 per cent and 103 per cent of average non-retiree incomes. The equivalent figure for Australian retirees is just 68 per cent, the lowest of the 10 countries surveyed. Supporters of means testing of pensions argue that this system is more economically sustainable than that used elsewhere in the world. This is based on non-sustainable intergenerational inequity arguments. The argument, so it goes, is that very generous pensions paid in Europe to today's retirees will have to be paid for by tomorrow's taxpayers. Australia, by comparison, has a means test which makes the publicly funded age pension viable through those paying who can afford to pay.This argument is deceptive for a number of reasons. First, the compulsory superannuation system in Australia is highly complex. It is questionable whether our regime needs to be this complex and whether a simpler system could not achieve the same ends. Second, Australian retirees have the option, in most cases, of withdrawing preserved superannuation on reaching 55 years of age. This gives individuals approximately 10 years to spend, distribute or hide their lump sums. This makes government superannuation planning very difficult. Finally, the compulsory superannuation scheme is unfair to the lowly paid Australians, especially as their super savings will act to reduce the amount they would have otherwise been able to draw from the government pension. I note the conclusion in the report titled Older Getting Wiser, a joint report of Australian, Canadian and British chartered accountants, states:Compelling people on half average earnings to put a substantial portion of their income into a private pension scheme when they might themselves, quite rationally, decide to spend the money on current consumption is, in economic terms, the equivalent of a tax on them.This asset testing regime is driven by cost cutting expediency. Australia has amongst the poorest retirees in the world; 48 per cent of Australian retirees fall into the bottom third of Australia's income population, compared with 28 per cent in France and 38 per cent in Britain. The key question is: whilst the government boasts our system is economically sustainable, is it sending our retirees broke? I think of two impacts as I say this. First, the loss of pension, either by income test or asset test, results in the loss of all benefits to the pensioner and, hence, a substantial increase in living expenses. Second, the impact of the goods and services tax will indiscriminately apply to all Australians, including pensioners.I further note the way in which Australians are able to draw upon their superannuation entitlements as a lump sum payment. This makes policy planning very difficult and places a higher burden on those retirees who do not take the lump sum, through a lower asset test threshold. A modest second home in my electorate of Lowe will place practically any person above the asset test line, thus denying them a publicly funded pension. The provision of a decent income in retirement and removing the weight of provision from the government are two aims not served by lump sum provision in the private sector. I urge the government to be consistent in the message it is sending the Australian public in the provision of their own superannuation. That is, either have a compulsory superannuation scheme that is actually going to fulfil that role—that is, a nest egg for retirement—or do not have such a scheme.The number of low income retirees with modest assets being caught by asset thresholds is causing asset stripping in the economy, especially in my electorate of Lowe. Retirees are being forced to flog assets just to maintain any level of lifestyle dignity. Had it not been for the strong protestations of the community, even the residential home would have been subject to asset testing. I therefore urge the government to look into making amendments to those superannuation laws that have seen this trend of asset stripping rise and are reducing the asset base of our retirees, who are already one of the poorest classes of pensioners in the world.765622:50:007656Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—Tonight I would just like to hold the House for a few moments to thank a great Queenslander on behalf of constituents in the electorate of Moreton. Senator David MacGibbon ceases his long service as a senator for Queensland at midnight this Wednesday—after virtually 22 years of selfless service to the community that I have the privilege of representing in this place. Senator MacGibbon has represented his state with great distinction and his nation with equal distinction. Indeed, I believe he has had a solid hand in creating a safer world for all of us and our children. His role in particular in the area of defence policy is highly regarded. I think both sides of the chamber in the other place have celebrated his contribution to debate in that place as well as, in particular, his contribution to matters relating to the detailed analysis of defence policy in this country. In typical David MacGibbon style, right up until the very last moment of his service for Queensland he is continuing to work and providing strong advocacy in issues relating to the Collins class submarines and other matters.Senator David MacGibbon will be sorely missed, I am sure, by all Queenslanders who value his strong service for them. He sees himself as being privileged to have served and that has been his sheer motivating force in his conduct in this parliament. He is cur rently the longest serving coalition senator and so with him goes a great deal of corporate knowledge. I know that a lot of Queensland Liberals but, I suspect, a lot of other Liberals and Labor Party members in this place will also miss the great generosity of advice and good humour as well as experience of Senator David MacGibbon.David's ethics are renowned. I was privileged to work with him for six years. He taught me a great deal about the importance of focusing on the people that you are elected to serve. In the Liberal Party, he has not had an organisational role virtually for 22 years because of his time in the parliamentary wing. Prior to that, his 13 years of service in various senior organisational capacities meant that David MacGibbon came to the job as senator for Queensland with a great deal of regard for the importance of the institutions of the Liberal Party. I am optimistic that, upon his retirement from the Senate in a couple of days time, David MacGibbon will again take up the cudgels of providing strong advocacy for decency of conduct within the Liberal Party organisation.Thirty-five years of strong and loyal service to the Liberal Party is not really well rewarded when one loses one's selection as David MacGibbon did. I think all of us in this place and all Queensland Liberals—certainly, all those who have the best interests of the party at heart—are disappointed that this was the way that David MacGibbon went out. But David said to me many years ago, `If one is not prepared to suffer the indignity of losing, then one perhaps should not be prepared to stand up for what one believes in.'So, David MacGibbon, I want to register my thanks and I know that the member for Longman who is here tonight, along with the member for McPherson and the member for Moncrieff who is at the table, would all of course want to be associated with my words of congratulations and sincere thanks to David MacGibbon for his service to the people of Queensland for such a long time.765722:54:007657Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—In the interests of those who are very keen to speak, including the member for Lowe, I will be very brief. Although the member for Lowe has already expressed sympathy to the member for Barker on behalf of all those in this place, as a member of the opposition executive, I formally extend the opposition's sympathy to the member for Barker and his family. Our thoughts are with them, and I must say that what he did tonight was very brave indeed.765722:55:007657Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—I would like to join with the comments of the opposition spokesman, and also with the member for Moreton's reflections on Senator David MacGibbon, who has been a great Queenslander and a great Liberal.Tonight I want to address my remarks to one of my constituents, Mr Gary Parsons. Gary has been running around Australia, leaving on Anzac Day from Brisbane. I wish to report to this parliament that today he has crossed the Western Australia-Northern Territory border having been to Townsville, through to Mount Isa and Tennant Creek, then up to Darwin and back down to Tennant Creek and now into Western Australia. He is some 10 days ahead of the world record held by another Longman local. He also took four days off the Northern Territory Long Run Record. He is running for Legacy. I would ask all of those people out there who are listening to this broadcast: as you see Gary Parsons run past your house, please give generously to a great Australian who is supporting an incredibly good cause and a man with an enormous amount of guts and determination who, I am quite sure, will put his name in the record books as being the world's greatest long distance runner.765722:56:007657Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise tonight on the eve of the end of the 1998-99 financial year to alert Australian investors to spurious investment offerings in speculative ownership of casks of Scotch whisky. I thank Campbell Evans from the Scotch Whiskey Association for his briefing on the subject. Being a teetotaller, I can assure him of my objectivity when talking about this matter.In 1995, the Scotch Whisky Association became aware of the establishment in the UK of companies outside the industry offering Scotch whisky in casks as an investment. The attraction to individuals, besides the obvious, was the suggestion that there would be a shortage of single malt Scotch whisky leading to increasing prices and substantial investment returns. Several firms mentioned the possibility of returns as great as 18 per cent a year.The Scotch whisky industry was obviously concerned about this development. Its concerns centred around a number of key issues. Firstly, the high price charged for the casks is often three times or more the value of the casks within the trade. Another area is the unrealistic investment return held out to potential investors. Also there is a lack of any market for individual casks, meaning that owners would be unlikely to be able to sell their casks, given that Scotch whisky companies generally lay down stocks for their needs many years ahead and any shortfall generally gets taken up through swaps between firms. This was all enormous news to me, not being that interested in scotch. The final point is that, in many cases, the scotch said to be in the cask does not actually exist. As you can imagine, that is quite a volatile environment for speculative investment in this product.Towards the end of 1996 and throughout 1997 the association took steps to warn unwary individuals by alerting the press to the nature of the trade. Given that one firm alone closed with debts of £1.9 million, of which £1.3 million was money paid by investors for unsatisfied orders, it is not surprising that some have estimated the scale of the trade to be in the region of £60 million per year. A crackdown by UK trade and fraud authorities, however, has seen much of this spurious investment activity closed down in the UK. The concern for this parliament is that there is evidence of similar offers appearing elsewhere in the world, particularly in Australia.I will not mention the companies that are involved, other than to say: please, show a great deal of caution about companies offer ing casks of Scotch whisky with unrealistic return expectations. If you are looking for an investment on the eve of the end of the financial year, I would suggest you look very carefully at it and look elsewhere. The most worthwhile thing you could do with the best return would probably be to invest in some activity in the electorate of Dunkley. That is a more worthwhile and virtuous way of investing.There is some discussion going on between the various consumer affairs authorities within the states who have primary jurisdiction over these matters. I want to alert this parliament and those listening to these concerns so that, if anyone is offered pre-purchase of casks of Scotch whisky with unrealistic investment returns, they can be aware of the history of these types of spurious investments and look elsewhere for somewhere to place their hard-earned investment funds.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., before I declare the House adjourned I want to join all members in acknowledging the courage of the member for Barker and his family, and reassure them that we will continue to hold them in our embrace. The House stands adjourned.23:00:007658House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Miscellaneous765876587658Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00to ask the Speaker:What has been the length of service as Clerk for each of the Clerks of the House.Notices7658The following notices were given:Mr Rudd to move:That this House calls on the Government to:(1) note mounting customer dissatisfaction across Australia at the deterioration of Telstra's 013 directory assistance services;(2) note, in particular, (a) customer irritation at increasing delays in operator response times, (b) operators cutting off customers before being able to provide further clarifying information on inquiries, (c) the intrusion of Telstra advertising of its 12456 `75 cents plus call costs' service in addition to (d) the plethora of other Telstra advertising forced on Telstra customers before finally being given access to the telephone numbers they are seeking;(3) acknowledge the impact of Telstra staff reductions on the quality of 013 services; and(4) direct the Australian Communications Authority to amend its performance standards for Telstra to require Telstra to provide a simple 013 directory service with proper staffing levels and without audio advertisements for other services.Mr McGauran to move:That for the Main Committee at its sitting on Wednesday, 30 June 1999, so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent reference to "Thursday" in standing order 274A (Main Committee adjournment debates) being omitted and "Wednesday" being substituted.Answers to Questions in Writing7660The following answers to questions were circulated:7660(Question No. 201)2017660Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham4T4BanksALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:Will the Attorney-General bring up-to-date the answer to question No. 2470 (Hansard , 2 March 1998, page 154) concerning legislation to implement the 1948 Genocide Convention with full domestic effect.7660Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:In answer to Question No. 2470 I said that the enactment of Commonwealth legislation to implement the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was not the highest priority issue for the Government at that time.That remains the case, and no further progress has been made toward the enactment of such legislation.I would reiterate that the Government has been advised that the common law and criminal codes of the States and Territories provide adequate punishment for a number of acts prohibited by the Convention.7660(Question No. 572)5727660Griffin, Alan, MPMr GriffinVU5BruceALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 31 March 1999:(1) Is it a fact that the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee (ADEC) approved the use of the pharmaceutical Tasmar (Tolcapone) but subsequently reversed its decision; if so, on what grounds did ADEC (a) originally approve the use of Tasmar and (b) reverse its decision.(2) Does ADEC's decision accord with the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee's recommendation to allow Tasmar to be listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; if so, how.(3) In reversing its original recommendation regarding Tasmar, what (a) specialist opinions did ADEC rely on and (b) other options did ADEC canvas. (4) What consideration did ADEC give to allowing Tasmar to remain listed.(5) Was consideration given to the condition that patients were fully informed of the risk of liver toxicity and consented to the risk, as occurs in parts of the USA.(6) Did his delegate decide to allow limited access to Tasmar under the Special Access Scheme; if so, (a) was he consulted about the delegate's actions or decision, (b) what specialist opinions did his delegate rely on in making his decision and (c) what other options were considered by his delegate.(7) How does the recently reported risk of liver toxicity of 3 patients in 100 000 for Tasmar compare with other drug approvals for pharmaceutical compounds to treat serious illnesses.(8) What is his position on the acceptability of slightly higher risks of toxicity for a pharmaceutical designed specifically to treat serious and devastating diseases such as Parkinson's Disease than for a more general pharmaceutical.(9) Is it a fact that as a result of the decisions on Tasmar, Australians suffering Parkinson's Disease can obtain this drug legally in Australia if they can afford to buy it directly from the manufacturer.(10) In which countries, in addition to the USA and New Zealand, is Tasmar available to sufferers of Parkinson's Disease.(11) Is it a fact that as a result of the decisions on Tasmar (a) some Australians suffering Parkinson's Disease are travelling to New Zealand, obtaining the pharmaceutical there and bringing a 3 month supply back to Australia which is permissible under Therapeutic Goods Administration and Australian Customs Service rules and (b) the unsubsidised price of the pharmaceutical, or a trip to New Zealand to buy it, is not affordable or practical for most sufferers of Parkinson's Disease; if so, what is his position on this outcome.(12) Will he (a) reconsider the issue personally and (b) exercise ministerial discretion to resubmit the matter to ADEC for further consideration.7660Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) approved Tasmar for marketing in Australia. The product was registered in March 1998. The TGA cancelled the registration of Tasmar in January 1999 for safety reasons. (a) The decision to approve Tasmar was based on the data available at the time. No major safety concerns had been identified during pre-marketing clinical trials. The TGA sought the advice of the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee (ADEC) before approving the product. (b) The registration of Tasmar was cancelled due to its association with serious, unpredictable and possibly fatal hepatic (liver) toxicity. Monitoring liver function may not protect against the development of these severe effects. The TGA sought the advice of the ADEC before taking the decision to cancel the registration of Tasmar. The ADEC considered that the risk/benefit balance for the product was unfavourable and it was not possible to restrict the indications adequately to permit its continued safe use.(2) The recommendations by the ADEC and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) were made independently and at different times. The ADEC recommendation that the registration of Tasmar be cancelled was made after the PBAC had considered the product for listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The PBAC subsequently delisted the product as the legislation does not permit pharmaceutical benefits to be made available in respect of unregistered products.(3) (a) The ADEC is an independent, expert advisory committee. The membership of ADEC includes practising physicians and eminent Professors of Medicine. The Committee is very experienced in appraising the benefits and risks of medicines. (b) The ADEC considered maintaining the registration of Tasmar but with a requirement for an informed consent form and two weekly liver monitoring. The Committee considered this to be impracticable. Furthermore, the available data demonstrated that the hepatic toxicity was unpredictable and there was no evidence that frequent liver monitoring would prevent a serious clinical outcome. The ADEC also considered restricting the indications for Tasmar or restricting the supply of the product to exclude supply to new patients. The Committee decided that it was not possible to restrict use adequately to permit continued safe use of the product.(4) See response to Question 3.(5) See response to Question 3.(6) No. My delegate confirmed the right of doctors to apply to the TGA for permission to supply Tasmar to particular patients under the Special Access Scheme. Such requests are considered on a case-by-case basis.(7) The true incidence of hepatic toxicity with Tasmar is not known. The TGA received reports of a number of cases worldwide of serious hepatic injury, including three deaths from fulminant hepatotoxicity, associated with Tasmar therapy. The number and nature of these events were sufficiently serious to warrant reconsideration of the continued marketing of the drug.(8) The ADEC and the TGA took into account the risk/benefit assessment for Tasmar. Risk/benefit assessment is considered in its clinical context, i.e. the nature of the disease and its severity.(9) It is not legal to purchase Tasmar directly from the Australian company. However, patients can purchase it from an overseas supplier and import (see response to Question 11).(10) I am advised that Tasmar is marketed in the United States, New Zealand, Switzerland, South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Hong Kong, Israel, Mexico, Peru, Singapore and the Philippines. It has been withdrawn from marketing in the European Union, Canada, Australia, Slovenia and Croatia. It is not registered in Japan.(11) (a) Patients do not need to travel overseas in order to import Tasmar for their personal use. Under the personal importation provisions, an individual is able to import into Australia limited quantities of Tasmar. (b) Financial assistance cannot be provided through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) towards the cost of any product which is not listed as a pharmaceutical benefit. Consequently, the cost of such products must be borne as a private prescription. The Government has no control over the prices of drugs not subsidised under the PBS.(12) The registration of Tasmar has been cancelled. The Australian sponsor for Tasmar lodged an appeal seeking review of the TGA decision. The appeal and supporting information were considered by my delegate and the initial decision to cancel the registration of Tasmar was confirmed. Re-registration of Tasmar would require a new application to be made by the sponsor. I am aware that similar medicines to Tasmar are being developed and trialled around the world and I look forward to their availability in this country as soon as possible.7661(Question No. 632)6327661Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MacklinPG6JagajagaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, upon notice, on 31 May 1999:(1) What actions have the governments of the Commonwealth, States and Territories taken to implement the platform of action adopted by governments at the Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing, 4-15 September 1995).(2) What steps has the Government taken to decide the composition and size of the Australian delegation to the Fifth World Conference on Women (New York, 5-9 June 2000).7662Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The actions taken by Australian governments to implement the Beijing platform of action are detailed in Fourth UN World Conference on Women: Platform For Action—Australia's Implementation Report, published by the Commonwealth Government in April 1997. The Government will provide further information on Australia's implementation of the platform of action through the UN reporting mechanisms during the preparations for the Special Session of the UN General Assembly to be held 5-9 June 2000.(2) The Government has not yet determined the composition and size of the Australian delegation to the Special Session of the UN General Assembly on 5-9 June 2000.7662(Question No. 684)6847662Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MacklinPG6JagajagaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, upon notice, on 3 June 1999:(1) Did the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (18 December 1979, New York) enter into force (a) generally on 3 September 1981 and (b) for Australia on 27 August 1983.(2) Are states parties to the convention required by Article 18 of the convention to submit a report to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (a) within one year after the entry into force for the state concerned and (b) thereafter at least every four years.(3) On what dates has Australia submitted reports to the committee.(4) On what date will Australia next submit a report to the committee.(5) Where and when was the last session of the committee held.(6) What were the qualifications of the persons who represented Australia at the session.(7) On what dates has Australia nominated an expert for election to the committee and with what result.(8) When will the next meeting of states parties be convened to elect members of the committee.(9) Does Australia propose to nominate an expert for membership of the committee at the next meeting of states parties.7662Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes.(2) Yes.(3)—ReportDate submittedYear consideredFirstOctober 19861988SecondJuly 19921994ThirdMarch 19951997(4) August 2000.(5) 19 January to 5 February 1999 in New York (20th Session).(6) First Secretary at the Australian Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York.(7) Justice Elizabeth Evatt was nominated by Australia and served as a member of CEDAW from 1984 to 1992. She was Chairperson of the Committee from 1989 to 1991. Australia has not nominated any other person for election to the Committee.(8) In January or February 2000. The Committee has not yet set the exact date.(9) No decision has been taken at this time on whether Australia will nominate an expert for membership of the Committee at the next meeting of states parties.