1999-06-293914REPS767701999-06-29Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Privilege767714:01:007677Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to raise a matter of privilege which I think is of concern to all members of this House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am presuming the matter for privilege does not affect any business immediately before the chamber?QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—No, it is another matter.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Privilege is a very serious matter. It would be my intent then to allow question time to proceed, the member for Calwell having raised this matter at the first available opportunity, and to call him as soon as it is convenient after question time.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Thank you.Questions Without Notice767776777677Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer recall saying at a doorstop on 15 February this year, `Business tax changes are going to be revenue neutral, right? The business changes will fund themselves'? Treasurer, do you stand by this commitment?7677Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The government has given terms of reference to Mr Ralph, and one of those terms of reference was that business changes should be revenue neutral. Mr Ralph will be reporting in July, and the government will look at and assess his report. As far as the government is concerned, this is the last leg of tax reform in Australia. The reform of the indirect tax system, I hope, will be accomplished this afternoon. The reform of the personal income tax system, I hope, will be accomplished this afternoon. The reform of family assistance, I hope, will be accomplished this afternoon. The reform of Commonwealth-state relations, I hope, will be accomplished this afternoon. The final leg will be the reform of business taxation.76777677Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the House of the significance for Australia of the government's tax reform program?7677Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—It is appropriate that the honourable member for Hughes, who is one of those many members on the government's side who are very much in touch with the needs of middle Australia, should ask me a question about tax reform that goes directly—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order under the anticipation rule. According to the Notice Paper , immediately after question time and the MPI there will be the full debate on these matters. By any interpretation of the anticipation rule—and you have, for reasons with which we agree sometimes, interpreted it very narrowly—and even under its narrowest interpretation, this is anticipation of debate of a matter on the Notice Paper .10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I agree with the Manager of Opposition Business that it would be inappropriate for the Prime Minister to canvass matters which are of a legislative nature, but that does not prevent him referring to government policy, and I call him.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is appropriate that a member such as the member for Hughes should ask me this question, because I am immensely proud, as all members of the government are, of what we believe will be the verdict of this chamber this afternoon. We made it very clear almost two years ago that we were determined to deliver taxation reform to the Australian community. We are on the verge of seeing that commitment delivered, and it will be a truly historic day for the economic welfare of Australia when that verdict is delivered because it will bring to an end a process that has now gone on for almost a quarter of a century.I have with me a copy of the report of the Asprey committee, entitled Taxation Review Committee: full report, that was delivered to the Whitlam government on 31 January 1975, fulfilling a remit given to it by the former coalition government and by the late Billy Snedden, who was Treasurer in the McMahon government in March 1972. In the concluding portion of the introduction to the Asprey report, the committee had this to say:Accordingly, this Committee expresses the hope that, out of the discussions which appear and the recommendations which are contained in this report and from the disputation which will inevitably follow upon its publication, a fairer, simpler and more efficient taxation system will eventually emerge than the one which presently produces the revenue for the Australian Government.I am delighted to say to the House that the policies that the government is implementing in the area of taxation reform will, almost 25 years after that expression of hope was delivered by the Asprey committee, be delivered to the Australian people.It is fair to remember that, when I announced the explicit commitment of the government to taxation reform in August 1997, I said that the government's process would be guided by five principles. The first of those principles was that there should be no increase in the overall taxation burden. Far from there being an increase in the burden, in fact, taxation is going down under the government's plans. We are going to cut personal tax by $12 billion a year. We are going to provide another $2.5 billion worth of family benefits, particularly to middle Australian families. So a big tick to the first point. The second point is that any new taxation system should involve major reductions in personal income tax with special regard for the treatment of families. That also has been delivered in full.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. We now have had two points of detail directly related to legislation that we will be discussing this afternoon. I think the Prime Minister has gone from general discussion of policy to specific consideration of detail.WI4REITHMr Reith—The question of the anticipation rule on the tax debate has been before you before. I remind you of your own statement back in December last year when you said:I will allow the question. It is clearly not necessary for the Treasurer to respond in detail, but the general principles of the tax reform may be addressed. Those principles of tax reform obviously go to the components, the pro-family bias and looking after those who are disadvantaged; they are clearly general principles and not the details.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House has made his point of order. The chair's ruling is consistent with the ruling given in December. I accept the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition where he is anxious that any legislative details not be canvassed, and the Prime Minister is also aware of that.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, I am not endeavouring to canvass legislative details; I am talking in the broad about the pathway ahead for the Australian taxation system. The third lane in the highway was that consideration should be given to a broad based indirect tax to replace some or all of the existing indirect taxes. Once again, the government gets 10 out of 10 for what it has done. Once again, we have delivered in full on that commitment.The fourth lane was that there should be appropriate compensation for those deserving of special consideration, and I think it is very, very important to emphasise that the compensation provided in the government's plan is very generous by any measure. It is in stark contrast to the lack of compensation provided by the Keating government after the 1993 election when it dramatically increased every indirect tax it could lay its hands on, hurt the poor in the process and gave not one dollar of compensation to the poor and low income earners of Australia. Finally, we committed ourselves to a reform of Commonwealth-state financial relations.So, in every particular, we have delivered in full on the commitments that we have made. We have given a new basis for Commonwealth-state financial relations, and that is why the premiers, despite what they periodically say, all lined up to sign it. And none was more enthusiastic than Bob Carr—he almost bumped Peter Beattie out of the way. He drew himself up to his full height and, in that serious historical tone, he said, `You know, Prime Minister, it is not the policy of my party to support this—but, please, where do I sign, Prime Minister?' And no wonder, because this is a marvellous deal for the states.The states, under this plan, for the first time in 50 years, will have a financial base for providing the additional government schools, the additional police services, the additional hospital services and all the other social services that it is the constitutional duty of the states of Australia to provide. They have been begging and arguing and pleading and cajoling and requesting and demanding a growth tax for as long as I have been in politics, and I believe they have been doing that since World War II days—and at long last the government has delivered on it. I know that deep down the states cannot wait to get their hands on the GST revenue because it will give them a fiscal base the like of which they never dreamt they could ever have.So I say in response to the member for Hughes: this is a great day most importantly for Australia's economic future; this is a very important day for middle Australia—we are giving them lower personal taxation. We are providing a proper fiscal basis for the states of Australia; we are providing reductions in costs for our business community; we are providing reductions in costs for our exporters. As I look across and see the vast array of representatives of both the Liberal and National parties who represent rural Australia and regional Australia, I know that we are delivering something that—in addition to lower interest rates, which we have also delivered—the people of the bush really want, and that is lower fuel costs.It will ever be to the shame of Labor that it voted to keep fuel costs to the Australian bush higher than those fuel costs ought to be. But Labor is against lower fuel costs for the Australian bush, and that is a message that will be taken by every coalition member all around rural Australia—and you will not be allowed to forget the infamy of voting against measures that are designed to cut the costs of fuel for Australian farmers.76797679Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I have a question which is addressed to the Treasurer. In light of the Treasurer's previous answer, can he confirm that the changes flowing from the Ralph review will not draw on any future budget? Will he also confirm that the business tax measures already announced and costed in his tax package will not be included in revenue neutrality calculations?7679Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I find it passing strange that I am now being asked questions about future budgets. This last budget which was brought down in May, to my knowledge, has not even been enacted, the appropriations have not even been enacted in the Senate—and they are already onto future budgets. I love the way in which the Labor Party asks me about what is going to happen to surpluses in future budgets. What a luxury question that is.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The Treasurer has been asked a simple and highly specific question to establish the revenue neutrality of his business package.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat and I will rule on relevance.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—He has missed every single one of his targets thus far. We would like to know something about that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer was asked, as I recall the question, about the impact that recommendations in the Ralph review may have on future budget allocations, and I deem him to be entirely relevant to that question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—My point is this: would a government which had fought so hard to get a budget into surplus be in the business of giving that away? We were opposed every single step of the way. I thought I heard—I will have to go back and read the Hansard —the Leader of the Opposition just say that I had missed my targets on budgets. I think that is what he said. But when he was the finance minister of this country, he said that the budget was in surplus when it was ten thousand millions of dollars in deficit.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It goes to relevance. The question asked of the Treasurer related to whether or not he is going to sustain revenue neutrality in the business package and whether he is going to include elements taking money off business in the ANTS package within the framework of that revenue neutrality. He talked about keeping compensation revenue neutral; he talked about no impact on his budgets—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is making a point of order on relevance.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—in the various things he has gone through so far. We want to hear him on this. It is very specific.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat! The Treasurer was asked a question about the Ralph review and its impact on future budgets. There was also reference to revenue neutrality, as the Leader of the Opposition has said. I would have thought that budget surpluses had some relevance to revenue neutrality.CT4Mr COSTELLO—This is the government that took a budget which was ten thousand millions of dollars in deficit, after the finance minister had run around in an election campaign claiming it was in surplus—probably the most dishonest claim ever made in this country.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—There is one more dishonest claim.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Banks! The Leader of the Opposition has the call on relevance.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, my point of order goes to relevance. I resist talking about a $26 billion deficit we inherited and point out this—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will come to his point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—This is the question: will the Treasurer also confirm that the business tax measures already announced and costed in his tax package will not be included in revenue neutrality calculations? It is a simple question, and it requires a yes or no answer. He is canvassing a huge debate on budgets which is way off the mark.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Treasurer is thus far in order, and I invite him to bring his remarks back to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—This is a government which took a budget that was ten thousand millions of dollars in deficit and put it into surplus. When I brought down this government's budget in May of this year it was the third surplus in a row and it was fought every step of the way by Labor. Having put this budget into surplus, we are going to keep it there.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Again, Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. We want a simple answer to this proposition: will the Treasurer also confirm that the business tax measures already announced and costed in his tax package will not be included in revenue neutrality calculations? It is not frivolous; it is a reasonable point of order on a simple, direct question.WI4REITHMr Reith—On the point of order, Mr Speaker: I put it to you that this is clearly a frivolous point of order designed to disrupt the flow of the Treasurer's answer. As you have ruled on a number of occasions and as all of us who have been here for many years would know, there is no question about the relevance of the answer. We have now had the Leader of the Opposition repeating a question three times, a question which was quite clear the first time.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On that point of order: as you know, Mr Speaker, the Treasurer regularly arranges dorothy dixers to himself in order to range widely across his portfolio. He now has a specific question. Given that this is a matter of public interest now under active consideration, we are entitled to a yes or no.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has been in this chamber just a little longer than I have, and he knows that at no stage has anyone ever been entitled to a yes or no, even though a number of questions from both sides in that period of time could have had yes or no answers. The Speaker has only one standing order relative to the answer to a question, and that is that the answer be relevant to the question. The Treasurer is invited to continue his answer and, of course, he will be relevant to the question or I will require him to come back to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—When this government came to office the budget was ten thousand millions of dollars in deficit, and this government put it into surplus. The last budget that we brought down on this side of the House was the third surplus in a row. The only threat that ever came to delivering surplus budgets in this country came from the Australian Labor Party which opposed every single measure required to put the budget into surplus.When this government engaged in tax reform and when this government engages in future tax reform, I can tell the House entirely this: this government is going to reform the taxation system and keep its fiscal strategy on track. We would not have brought the budget back into surplus, we would not have fought the Australian Labor Party every inch of the way to give away the advantages which we have secured for the Australian people.Mr Ralph has been given terms of reference and he will abide by those terms of reference, as I said in my opening answer, and what is more the government will abide by its fiscal strategy. There is no threat to the government's fiscal strategy from John Ralph. The threat to the fiscal strategy lies where it always lay—with the Australian Labor Party, with the $23 billion man, the man who did two budgets for an accumulated deficit of $23,000 million.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will come back to the question.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I remind all members of standing order 55.76817681Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen claims that a GST once introduced can never be replaced? Is this really the case? What is the government's response to such claims?7681Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Today is a historic day for Australia. Today we stand on the edge of giving Australia a new taxation system: a new taxation system for indirect tax; a new taxation system for income tax; a new taxation system for Commonwealth-state relations; and a new taxation system for family allowances. As the Prime Minister said, this brings to an end a chapter of 25 years—25 years of trying for a new taxation system in this country—and we stand today on the eve of establishing a new taxation system for Australia.All of those Australians that care about Australia seizing its opportunities for the next century are going to say that this was a parliament that finally was able to deliver fairness to the Australian people and families. It was able to deliver an economic future for them. Today we can say in relation to tax reform that negativity and backward looking thinking have been defeated. The negativity of the no-policy opposition has been defeated. As the Prime Minister said, the Asprey inquiry in 1975 recommended a new tax system. In the Fraser government it was the current Prime Minister, then as Treasurer, who took up the leadership on the tax issue.Mr Griffin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Bruce!CT4Mr COSTELLO—I would not want to seem partisan in this because in the 1980s it was Labor that took up the cudgels for tax reform. As Prime Minister Hawke said in November 1984, `Unless there is a source of income in the consumption area, then the mass of Australians, the ordinary taxpayers, are not going to be able to get the substantial cuts in personal direct taxes to which they are entitled.' He was right. The Labor Party in the 1980s was led, and it stood for tax reform.Then when Labor lacked leadership and began opposing tax reform for the meanest, cheapest, opportunistic, populist reasons, it was the coalition again that took up the cudgels for tax reform. We were glad to do it. We were glad to stand up in the national interest and support tax reform. It was done as a result of great leadership that was shown by the Prime Minister again after his election in 1996, with the support of the Liberal and National parties, with the goodwill of the Australian public, with the support of the business community and with the good wishes of all of those that believed Australia de served better. In 1985 Mr Keating, the then Labor Treasurer, said this:If we don't as a nation adopt this proposal—that was Labor's consumption tax proposal—then you won't see significant reform in this country in taxation for the balance of this century.Mr Keating was proved wrong by a year. In 1999, this was the parliament that took leadership and this was the parliament that delivered it. Having opposed the government every step of the way in relation to tax reform, having taken the cheap, mean, populist, opportunistic road, what do you think the Labor Party would then say once the tax reform was introduced? The latest pearl of wisdom we had from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on the 7.30 Report was, `Well, if it is introduced, what will we do about it? We'll keep it.' He said this:The system is in place. We will have to deal with that. We recognise, as we have said consistently, it is almost impossible to unscramble the egg.Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—Is that what he said—`almost impossible to unscramble the egg'? In other words, he was saying, `This system which we hate so much—if we ever got elected, we'll just have to take the benefit of it. That growth tax for the states which we oppose so strongly—we'll just have to let it stay.' And on the cheapest of reasons. That was not true. He knows it. He could very easily run to the next election with a promise to reintroduce wholesale sales tax. It can be totally unscrambled, every `enact' word changed to `repeal' and every `repeal' word changed to `enact'. Labor could go, as a modern political party, into the next federal election saying, `Bring back wholesale sales tax. What we need in this country is a narrow indirect tax base, with higher income tax rates and five rates.'He would find that that proposition has been totally endorsed by one of the thinkers of the Labor backbench. Yes, Mr Speaker, should I say—singular—the thinker of the Labor backbench? The member for Werriwa said on 9 December 1998—remember this was the pearl of wisdom last night, `You can't unscramble the egg. Poor old Labor will have to take advantage of all of the coalition's hard work'; poor old Labor—in this parliament:It is not as if, as some have said, the GST is like some scrambled egg which can never be unscrambled. It is in fact just another tax, which this government is trying to place on the statute books. Just as the GST can be legislated in, it can be legislated out.In a debate on tax policy, who would you put your money on? The thinker of the frontbench or the thinker of the backbench? Who do you think actually has a policy and a thought on these particular issues? It is not as if they are devastatingly interesting policy or thoughts, but if you have a thought you are different in the Labor Party. He is engaged in this experiment as to whether it is possible to be a thinker and a member of the Labor Party. If you do that, you realise that what the member for Hotham is saying is absolute nonsense. The member for Hotham is trying to get off the end of a long skewer. If he were being consistent, he would run to the next election with a proposal to reintroduce his wholesale sales tax, with all the modernity of the tax system of Botswana and Swaziland and the modern thinking of the frontbench of the Labor Party.76827682McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. What assessment has been made of the impact of your diesel fuel grants scheme on the demand for and the price of trucks which fall just below the 20-tonne threshold? What impact do you expect these measures to have on the resale value of the 28 per cent of registered trucks which are in the 12- to 20-tonne category? Will those Australians who purchased the almost 2,000 trucks sold in this category over the last 12 months receive any compensation for the slashed resale value of their purchases?7682Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I am sorry to have to say I just cannot believe the ineptitude, the narrowness, the stupidity, of a question of that nature—this from the people who do not want to reduce transport costs, this from the people who do not want to remove $4½ billion of taxes on our exports.Mr Griffin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Bruce is warned.4K4Mr ANDERSON—This from the people who want to leave wholesale sales tax on every item.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. He is not as effective a ranter as his predecessor, but he has still got a problem with relevance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition knows that a point of order must be addressed immediately.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I go immediately to the matter of relevance. He knows nothing about it, we know. Nevertheless, we live in hope. He has been asked a specific series of questions of some importance to quite a number of people.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has been on his feet for all of 24 seconds. It is a little premature for me to rule on relevance, but I will ask him to come to the question.4K4Mr ANDERSON—I return to the point. There would not be a trucking company, there would not be anybody involved in transport in Australia today, who does not say our package is an infinite improvement on anything that they have offered. For their record in this area we go back to 1993, and against all the promises they made during the election campaign they have increased taxes on transport. This is unbelievable.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order which goes to relevance. The question was: what assessment has been made of the impact of your diesel fuel grants scheme on the demand for, and price of, trucks just below the 20-tonne threshold. What impact do you expect these measures to have on the resale value of the 28 per cent of registered trucks that are in the 12- to 20-tonne category?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will be reassured to know that the chair has a note of the question—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Very good.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—and, as someone familiar with trucks between 12 and 20 tonnes, I had made a note of it as well. I deem that the minister's comment about diesel fuel consumption in trucks is entirely relevant.4K4Mr ANDERSON—The fact of the matter is that whether you are buying a truck or any other piece of capital equipment relating to transport, whether you are maintaining it, whether you are running it, it is going to be cheaper. I have not met anybody who either is involved in transport or uses transport who does not overwhelmingly prefer our approach.In relation to the narrow issue of what will happen to the second-hand value of trucks below 20 tonnes when they are loaded, all I can say is the new trucks will be cheaper—everyone in transport and who depends on transport will welcome that—and the marketplace is the appropriate instrument to work out the value of second-hand trucks in this country.76837683Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the current wholesale sales tax a tax on knowledge, and will the government's tax reform package rid Australia of this tax on knowledge? Minister, can you advise the House of the benefits of the government's tax reform package for education and families wanting to educate their children? Is the minister aware of any comments on this reform, and what is the government's response to these comments?7683Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Fairfax for his question. Today is, as we all know, a historic day because today we are on the eve of getting rid of Labor's wholesale sales tax—a tax on knowledge. The member for Fairfax has put his finger on what is one of the great weaknesses of the taxation system supported by the Labor Party, because the wholesale sales tax, unlike the goods and services tax, is a cascading tax. It flows through, adding cost to item after item. When the Treasury calculated the impact of the wholesale sales tax on the cost of delivering education, it found that it added, over a four-year period, almost $1 billion to the cost of providing education in this country.Labor's wholesale sales tax is a massive tax on knowledge which this government is now going to get rid of. That means education is going to be cheaper to provide. It means that state governments, private school providers, non-government school providers and parish schools will be able to provide education more cheaply to their communities than they can at the present time. There will be a saving of something like $1 billion—$960 million over four years.But the families of this country who believe in education and young people who believe in education should take further comfort from the historic reform which the Prime Minister has brought through this parliament and which will see success today. This tax will provide a growth tax to the states that will ensure that there is a continuing growth in revenue needed to support the government school system in this country. This tax package will provide a massive income tax reduction to Australian families—the biggest income tax reduction in Australian history. The average family in this country will be some $40 to $50 per week better off as a result of this package. This means that education will be more affordable than ever before.This is a wonderful tax package for education, and this has been recognised by responsible people outside the government parties in this parliament. As Senator Lyn Allison of the Australian Democrats has said, `Education is a winner from the fairer GST.' It is only the babblers on the other side of the House, the lap-dogs of the Australian Education Union, who are prepared to put up the argument that somehow or other this tax package is not fair for education. Constant negativism and opposition, nothing positive, is what is destroying the reputation of the opposition amongst families and amongst young people. I do not think anyone summed it up better than 19-year-old Katie Hall, who was quoted in yesterday's Australian when she said about the opposition leader:What's he done recently except bag the government?That is what young Australians think. Young Australians want an Australia that is moving ahead, young Australians want something positive, young Australians want leadership—and that is why this generation of young Australians is backing the government, backing its tax reform and backing better education in this country.76847684Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, will you confirm that a business in Geelong operating a 10-tonne truck will get a diesel fuel grant when the truck makes a journey to Ballarat but not when it makes a journey to Melbourne the next day? Are you expecting the business to measure and keep a record of the amount of diesel used on each journey so that a lawful claim can be made? Minister, if they do not do this will the business face a heavy penalty for making a false claim? How will your scheme work?7684Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—This issue was canvassed yesterday and answered. We are negotiating and talking through the compliance arrangements with the Democrats. We have had discussions with the Australian Taxation Office, and we will involve others. It might even be possible this time—Government members interjecting—No!4K4Mr ANDERSON—No, probably not. They have made themselves utterly irrelevant. We know that they do not want the abolition of WST on transport. We know that they want trucking costs to stay up. Isn't it amazing that the minute we start to talk about their policy they see it as irrelevant?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order that goes to relevance. He has not managed to answer a single question of detail—not one.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Has the minister concluded his answer?4K4Mr ANDERSON—Yes.76847684Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House of the benefits which will flow to Australian families from the tax reform package?7685Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Hinkler for his question. The good news is that from 1 July of next year all Australians will receive an income tax cut. This will be done by increasing the tax-free threshold by some 11 per cent, from $5,400 to $6,000. It will be done by dropping the 20c tax rate to 17c. It will be done by dropping the 34c and 43c rates to 30c and by pushing out thresholds. It is government policy that 80 per cent of Australian taxpayers will have no higher marginal tax rate than 30 cents in the dollar. That is a great break for Australian families.For example, a one income family with one child under five years of age on a salary of $29,000 from 1 July of next year will have their tax cut by $800 and their family assistance will be increased to around $5,355. A single income family with one child under five as a result of tax cuts and family assistance benefits from 1 July next year will take home an extra $58 a week in increases in tax cuts and family assistance. That will be a result of reforming the tax system. To quote the words of Bob Hawke:Unless there is a source of income in the consumption area, then the mass of Australians—the ordinary taxpayers—are not going to be able to get the substantial cuts in personal direct taxes to which they are entitled.Mr Hawke was right. As a result of tax reform, families will do much better. Also, the abolition of Labor's hated wholesale sales tax will make many items cheaper; 21 days after royal assent is given to the abolition of Labor's hated wholesale sales tax the 32 per cent rate is going to come down to 22 per cent. So 21 days after royal assent to the legislation prices should start falling on tape recorders, radios, televisions, watches, clocks, cameras, binoculars and a whole host of items which Labor has been secretly taxing at 32 per cent for decades. Once we get around to abolishing Labor's wholesale sales tax on 1 July 2000 all of those taxes are abolished, but in the interim as a transitional measure the 32 per cent rate will come down to 22 per cent. That will start in advance of 1 July 2000, with those prices starting to fall.The great thing about reforming the tax system is that you can abolish the hated wholesale sales tax. We have a program to abolish stamp duties on shares, a program to abolish the financial institutions duty. All of those taxes can go. Income taxes can be reduced. Family assistance can be increased. That is what makes this a historic day for the reform of the Australian taxation system, a great day for the families of Australia, for whom tax reform is going to mean so much.76857685O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, will you confirm that a business in Ballarat operating a 10-tonne truck will get a diesel fuel grant for all of the 99 kilometre trip to Melbourne but a business in Geelong operating a similar truck will not get a grant for any of the 73 kilometre trip to Melbourne? Won't the business in Ballarat be free of compliance problems, as it can claim a grant for all journeys that the trucks make, whereas the business in Geelong has the compliance nightmare of claiming grants only for journeys into non-metropolitan areas? Minister, won't this inequity discourage any business operating mid-range diesel trucks from locating in Geelong or in other areas like Penrith and Ipswich?Mr Lloyd interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Robertson is warned.7685Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—Let me begin to respond to that question by just saying three things that we know very clearly about the ALP's policy in this regard.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I understand the Leader of the Opposition is raising a point of order on relevance.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Absolutely.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—And I will rule accordingly.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, on that point of order—UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Oh!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the House comes to order, I will recognise the Minister for Forestry and Conservation who has, obvious ly, exactly the same rights as anyone else in this House to raise a point of order.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—On the point of order, I draw your attention to the precedent of the ruling of Speaker Snedden on a debate of this nature—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Chifley will resume his seat while the Minister for Forestry and Conservation is heard.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—when he pointed out that it was relevant for a minister of the government to compare the policies of the government with the policies of the opposition.QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition rose to make a point of order and you interrupted him on the basis that you were prepared to rule—that is perfectly within the standing orders, but you then accepted another point of order before your ruling. If you are going to interrupt a member in making a point of order on the basis that you are going to give a ruling, then you should give the ruling.KV5NEVILLEMr Neville—Mr Speaker, the original point of order—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Hinkler wish to speak to the point of order?KV5NEVILLEMr Neville—Yes, to the original point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it reasonable to ask you to rule on relevance before the minister's three points were even discussed?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think it may be reasonable for the chair to reflect on what are largely hypothetical issues. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services had indicated in his opening remarks that he was about to reflect on opposition alternatives to which, understandably, the Leader of the Opposition took a point of order on relevance, about which I agreed I was to rule. Other points of order were then brought to my attention. In the case of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, it was clear he wished to elaborate on what had been a precedent established by a former Speaker, so I allowed him to do so. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent in the way in which I have treated any member of this House, nor will there ever be so long as I have any say in the matter. I will now rule on the Leader of the Opposition's point of order. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services is of course entitled to commence his answer in any way he wishes, but he is obliged to be relevant to the question. I now call him and ask him to be relevant to the question.4K4Mr ANDERSON—Let me then put it to the House in these terms. I wish to make three points regarding how our policy proposals vary from theirs. The first is that we propose a billion dollar slashing of Australia's transport costs, including hundreds of millions of dollars reduction in fuel excise. They propose not to allow the Australian economy to benefit from any of these measures. The second—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I take a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. Because it was raised by the minister for forests, I would just like to make the point that, generally speaking, when Speakers in the past have allowed a compare and contrast answer, it has been on a specific question that invites it. We have heard many questions indeed, generally from the government—about three or four of them in the course of this afternoon—that effectively invite a compare and contrast. There was no invitation to a compare and contrast in this. It was a very specific set of propositions relating directly to legislation for which the minister has responsibility. He has had problems answering the first two questions which were similar, but it is in continuation—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows that he cannot enter into argument. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services will respond to the question and the chair is listening to ensure that he is relevant. That does not mean that he is not able to refer to diesel fuel excise rebates or whatever he wishes to in general terms, but he must be relevant to the question.4K4Mr ANDERSON—The second point I wish to raise is that we support tax reform and they do not. The relevance of this to this debate is that in 1993, because they would not support tax reform, they had to increase wholesale sales tax and fuel excise. Their record is one of increasing fuel excise.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition's exasperation is somewhat unfounded. He was unaware that the member for Corio was in fact seeking the call, but I recognise the Leader of the Opposition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I will bet it was on the same point of order as mine. There is a very specific set of questions here about the ridiculous nature of this measure and we are entitled to an answer on it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will invite the minister to come back to the question and the Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.4K4Mr ANDERSON—The third point is that there is absolutely nothing unusual—in fact, it is normal practice for a government to set out clearly in an act its intentions, when it comes to the administration—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—He does not know the answer.4K4Mr ANDERSON—You say I do not know the answer. It is quite apparent that it is normal practice for you to work through the compliance and administrative arrangements subsequently. We have been quite open about that.Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—No. You want to remain irrelevant to the whole process. That is fine; but it ought to be remembered very clearly—and this is part of the third point—that the fact is that there are 110,000 primary producers in Australia at the moment and every time they make a diesel fuel claim, they have to distinguish between on-road and—WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Mr Speaker, I have been very patient listening to the honourable member; my point of order is on relevance. I asked the minister specifically a question relating to businesses operating in Ballarat and Geelong and the question of diesel fuel grants relating to those businesses. I also asked him about the compliance nightmare that Geelong businesses would face as a result of his policy. Could you ask him to come to the point of that question?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Corio will resume his seat. The chair has exercised a great deal of tolerance on this whole ques tion. By any measure, the member for Corio's point of order does not stand up. The chair has some experience with the whole question of primary production. It is not my job to enter into the debate in any way at all, but I am aware that it is reasonable to talk about compliance difficulties in the context of primary production and other diesel users. In that sense, I rule the minister's answer entirely relevant.4K4Mr ANDERSON—I can conclude by simply stating that the reality is that these arrangements already exist.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Let the Speaker answer the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks!4K4Mr ANDERSON—I have been absolutely open and frank with the House. Our intention is to deliver huge savings in the cost of transport. Let no-one miss the essential point in all of this, which is that the Labor Party is opposed to the cutting of transport costs. That is the bottom line. That is all there is to be said to those people who are looking for cheaper fuel in Australia.76877687Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister outline the major environmental initiatives achieved by this government since coming to office in 1996? What is the underlying philosophy behind these initiatives?UNKNOWNOpposition memberOpposition member—Good question!7687Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I agree with an interjection from the Labor Party. Someone said, `Good question,' and I think it is a good question. It demonstrates the ongoing interest of the member for Moore in the environment of Australia. I am pleased to be able to take a few moments of the House's time to outline for the benefit of honourable members and the Australian public the major initiatives that this government has undertaken over the last three years to improve the Australian environment.We regard the environment as a serious mainstream political and social issue in this country. I am especially proud of the fact that we established, through the Natural Heritage Trust which is worth $1.5 billion, the biggest single package in Australian history for dealing with fundamental environmental problems. That is not a bad opening for the answer to the honourable member for Moore—a $1.5 billion Natural Heritage Trust. And guess who voted against it? The Australian Labor Party.Out of that, we are dealing with such antisocial activities as tackling river degradation and pollution of coasts and oceans. Mr Speaker, you would think everybody would put their hand up to spend money to fix up the rivers, the oceans and the coastline of Australia, but no, the Australian Labor Party said, `No, we can't agree to that because it's being proposed by the Liberal and National parties.'I will give the Leader of the Opposition one piece of advice. If he wants a bit of guidance on political tactics, he ought to listen to the most successful Labor leader in Australia at the present time, and that is Bob Carr. He ought to listen to what Bob Carr has said about automatic negativity. He ought to remember that one of the things Bob Carr said about political oppositions and political parties is that the public is getting sick and tired of political leaders who automatically say no to a proposition just because it is being advanced by their opponent. That is exactly the approach that has been adopted by the Australian Labor Party under the current leadership in relation to so many of the government's policies.Through the Natural Heritage Trust, we tackled not only river degradation and pollution of coasts and oceans but also land degradation and damage to the Australian bush. We have created over 600,000 hectares of new reserves under the regional forest agreements. The Labor Party even said no to the regional forest agreements. The whole idea of regional forest agreements was originally put forward by the Labor Party in government. What are they now doing? They are voting against their own policy. That is what the Labor Party are doing. They proposed this when they were in government and now, in opposition, they are voting against it.We have also put in place a comprehensive oceans policy to balance the legitimate con cerns of conservation and the environment. We have created the world's second largest marine park, the Great Australian Bight Marine Park. We have reformed environmental laws to give more consistency and clarity.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You are a legend in your own mind!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks!ZD4Mr HOWARD—What happens when we reform environmental laws? We witness in the Senate not cooperation and support from the Australian Labor Party but a torrent of abuse directed at the Leader of the Australian Democrats by Senator Faulkner, the leader of the Labor Party in the Senate. We have put in place the most far-reaching and comprehensive assault on urban air pollution and greenhouse gases of any Australian government. We have new world-class standards of vehicle emissions supported by a billion dollar package of government programs.In answering this question, I would like to record my great respect and gratitude for the great work that has been done by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage in my government, Senator Hill, the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator Hill, the hero of Kyoto, the man who negotiated an outcome, the man who—Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Here we go again. Here we get a splendid example. Kyoto was all about preserving jobs in regional Australia. The Labor Party wanted us to sell out the coalminers of the Hunter Valley and the Bowen Basin. They wanted us to sell out the iron ore workers of Western Australia. Senator Hill did a great job for Australia. He did a great job for Australian jobs. He achieved an outcome that was good for the environment and also good for Australian industry. I am also very pleased to note that, within the environment movement, there are those who have the Labor Party disease—they say no automatically to anything proposed by the government—but there are other organisations like the Worldwide Fund for Nature, the Humane Society International and many of the state conservation councils which are adopting a far more sensible and moderate position.In summary, this government has outstanding environmental credentials. It has an outstanding environmental minister. It has achieved the right balance between caring for the environment, promoting job growth and protecting Australian industry. It can be done. You do not have to sell out the special interest groups to do it. Under Senator Hill's leadership in this area, we are delivering first-class environmental outcomes for all Australians.76897689Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, what is your response to a letter sent to the Deputy Prime Minister last week by the Mayor of Indigo Shire, Don Chambers, who says:The implementation of the current tax proposal on the wine industry will see the Federal Government increasing their tax revenue from the North East Victoria Wine Region by a conservative $1.125 million from cellar door sales of $15 million . . . Please review your approach or you will destroy the livelihood of the wine industry and all those groups associated with it.Minister, does it concern you that these comments have been made by a mayor who is a paid-up member of the National Party? Minister, will you push for a review on behalf of all members of the National Party or are you prepared to do absolutely nothing and allow the wine industry to be destroyed?7689Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I am quite happy to answer a question on tax because I bear responsibility for tax matters. As everybody in this place knows, it was the Australian Labor Party which put wholesale sales tax on wine at 26 per cent. It was done after the 1993 election. The Australian Labor Party went to that election promising income tax cuts—sorry, not promising income tax cuts. Income tax cuts were l-a-w. It abolished them and introduced a wine tax instead.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. My question was deliberately targeted to the Deputy Leader of the National Party. What I want to know is what the National Party is going to do for wine grow ers in the region. I do not want to hear from the—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter does not have a point of order. The member for Hunter will resume his seat.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—They're now just a faction of the Liberal Party.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks is warned! When the House has come to order and the cross chamber conversation has ceased, I will call the Treasurer since it has been the custom so long as I have been a member of this place for whoever is responsible for the portfolio area to respond to the question. I call the Treasurer.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The WST on wine had been taken to 26 per cent. If my memory does not fail me, I think that increase in wholesale sales tax on wine was voted for by the then member for Hunter. When Labor's wholesale sales tax was to be abolished and replaced with the GST, as the government said in its election policy, it was necessary to equalise the price back and it was equalised back with a wine equalisation tax. In relation to the wine equalisation tax, although during the election policy it was posited at something like 32 per cent, the bill actually imposed it at 29 per cent. If I am not wrong, in the Senate yesterday when the Greens voted to change that to a volumetric tax, the Australian Labor Party voted against the Greens. The vote was two to 62, with the Australian Labor Party supporting the government both on the wine equalisation tax and the rate. No amendment was moved by the Australian Labor Party in relation to the rate. Oh, Mr Speaker! Oh, what a tangled web we weave.In relation to cellar door sales, the government has said and always said that it believes that cellar door sales should be rebated, and they should be rebated as they always have by state governments. Why was it state governments that were running rebate schemes? It was state governments that were running rebate schemes because, in addition to Labor's 26 per cent wholesale sales tax on wine, the state governments had business franchise fees. The business franchise fees by and large exempted cellar door sales. But when those fees were struck down by the High Court at the request of the states, the Commonwealth said it would apply a uniform tax, as it was required to do under the Constitution, in return for the states running rebate schemes. When the wholesale sales tax is abolished and replaced by a wine equalisation tax, the states should continue to run those cellar door schemes.That is the agreement that we have reached with the Australian Democrats. The South Australian government has already indicated to me that it will be keeping a rebate scheme in relation to wine equalisation tax. Again, if the Labor Party want to make a positive contribution, what they should be doing is joining the government, supporting the government, going to the states, including people like the Treasurer of Tasmania, and saying to them, `Keep those cellar door schemes going.' That would be a positive contribution. That is what oppositions used to do. There are some members in this place who think that oppositions have always been negative, populist, opportunistic and nitpicking. That was not the case. This is a new rule led by a party with no policy. Get on board, support the government and together we can fix this problem.76907690Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, are you aware of the call for a case-by-case approach to the retention of junior wage rates? Minister, could you inform this House of the government's response to this proposal?7690Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Longman for his question. As chairman of the backbench committee, he has been very concerned to secure the passage of the government's legislation to protect the jobs of young people not just in his own electorate but Australia wide. Clearly, the report from the commission goes not just to the question of protecting the jobs of existing young people—important as that is, given the fact that there are something like 160,000 or 170,000 jobs of young people at stake if we are unable to secure the passage of the legislation which the government is proposing—but also, importantly, to the possibilities of creating further jobs for the benefit of young people. For example, my department in advice to me—and I think it was part of our submission—made the point that in the building and construction industry there could be another 6,000 jobs for young people if we had an effective junior rates system now available. We are in favour of young people having the chance of a job in the building and construction industry. The Labor Party is not in favour of such a proposal.In the area of the manufacturing industry, it is our view that the incorporation more widely of junior rates would give young people the chance of a job in manufacturing. That is something which the coalition is in favour of. That is something which the Labor Party is opposed to. The reason I say that is that one of the people who controls the policy of the Leader of the Opposition, Dougie Cameron of the AMWU, made it very clear in the Age last Friday that he was totally opposed to junior rates in his industry. He said that there would be national industrial action if anybody tried it.How do we know that counts a lot in the Labor Party? We know because his union paid over $350,000 to make sure that you lot on your side do what you are told by the Dougie Camerons of this world. This is why the Labor Party are basically negative on this issue, as they are on so many other issues.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Mr Speaker, on a point of order on relevance: I am not sure how long the minister has to be relevant but this question was quite specific—it was for a case by case approach to the retention of junior wage rates. Will you draw the minister back to the question, please?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will certainly require the minister to address his remarks through the chair since his reference to `you' at one stage made me feel distinctly uncomfortable. The minister will respond to the question, although I did not deem his previous answer to be irrelevant.WI4Mr REITH—In that case I will continue. The Prime Minister made reference to the comments of the Premier of New South Wales about being negative for the sake of being negative. I think it is worth quoting.Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!WI4Mr REITH—Bob Carr said:I think the electorate is telling political leaders these days to come up with positive approaches. Don't waste your time just attacking the other side. We're sick of that.It is no wonder young people in this country are looking to the government for political leadership. Why shouldn't they?Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is defying the chair.WI4Mr REITH—If you look to this government not only will we will provide political leadership but also you have a better chance of keeping your job with John Howard as Prime Minister. I see the Labor Party are going to change tactics. The Leader of the Opposition was in the party room this morning. It seems he has put up a white flag on tax reform. He has told his party room—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Mr Speaker, on a point of order on relevance: the question actually asked about case by case consideration of junior rates and whether the minister was aware of these policies. To date he has not mentioned case by case. He has rambled through a broad junior rates discussion. Now he has left junior rates altogether and gone on attack—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane has made his point of relevance. I will rule. When the point of relevance was raised by the member for Paterson, I ruled in favour of the minister. But since that time he has not referred to the matter of junior wage rates and I invite him to do so.WI4Mr REITH—I was concluding with exactly that point, Mr Speaker, because junior wage rates go to the question of the employment of literally hundreds of thousands of young people. I am informed reliably by AAP that the Leader of the Opposition announced in his party room that he is going to make a major policy statement on employment in Melbourne on 23 and 24 July at an employment seminar. This does provide a new challenge for the Leader of the Opposition. Fancy him telling his own side that he is going to an nounce a policy. Fancy him saying that on 23 July he is going to announce a policy. What he ought to do is announce a policy that will provide jobs for young people. That is what he ought to do. That is his challenge. That is where the high jump bar is and it is time—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: he knows that we are supporting youth wages—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The actions of those on both opposition and government front benches have done nothing to elevate the standards of this House in the eyes of the rest of the nation over the last three minutes. I invite them to reflect on their actions.76917691Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the outcome of the recent Australia-Democratic People's Republic of Korea talks that were held in Bangkok on 25 June? What is the significance, Minister, of these talks for regional security?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the minister, I should indicate that in fact the chair was in error, and I will take two questions from the opposition.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members on my right!7691Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the member for Curtin for her question. This is an important issue to Australia.Mr Tanner interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne runs the risk of in fact denying his side the facility I extended to them.4G4Mr DOWNER—I particularly acknowledge the interest of the member for Curtin in our international relations. The Australian and North Korean officials had a meeting in Bangkok on 25 June. This was the first meeting of capital based officials between Australia and North Korea in a very long time. Meetings have taken place between embassy officials in Bangkok, but meetings of capital based officials have not taken place since the end of diplomatic relations between Australia and North Korea many years ago.These were discussions which covered a range of issues: the food security situation in North Korea, importantly, as well as regional international security issues and relations between North and South Korea. Australian officials at these talks, on my instructions, stressed to North Korea that progress in bilateral relations does require clear and positive moves by North Korea on a range of arms control and non-proliferation issues, especially in the missile and nuclear areas. We also want to see constructive engagement by North Korea with South Korea. And we want to see, in an overall sense, changes in North Korea's international behaviour which would contribute to an easing of regional tensions.Members of the House may know that some few weeks ago the members for Griffith and Holt visited Pyongyang, capital of North Korea, and possibly other parts of the country. They came back and gave me quite a graphic account of the food security situation in North Korea. There have been many other reports also from international agencies, in particular, the United Nations, about the food shortages in North Korea. We told the North Korean officials in Bangkok that Australia, which had committed $10 million in humanitarian assistance to North Korea this calendar year, would continue to work closely with the international community in monitoring relief efforts. Australia would be prepared to provide additional assistance to North Korea in the future, given the severe food problems that North Korea has. But it would be all the easier for us to be generous if North Korea were to meet some of the benchmarks that the international community wants it to meet on arms control and disarmament issues.The talks were an important contribution by Australia to regional security and they do contribute to efforts by the international community to draw North Korea out of its isolation and to contribute to a relaxation of tensions on the Korean peninsula. The South Korean government has particularly welcomed the contacts that we have been making with North Korea.76927692O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. In light of your previous answer on wine tax, do you recall last week telling the House that South Australia had agreed to the $300,000 wine tax proposal in your deal with the Democrats? Why then did South Australian Premier Olsen tell 5DN's Jeremy Cordeaux last week: I notice there was a report from the Federal Treasurer this week that there would be cellar door exemption. There hasn't been any discussion with South Australia yet on who is paying that and I just want to say to your caller I think the Federal Government ought to be paying it needless to say.Treasurer, have you checked with the South Australian Premier on why he is contradicting you?7692Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As I informed the House last week, the Winemakers Federation of Australia had put in a submission to the Senate saying the following:Following industry representations to the state governments after the release of the tax reform package, the South Australian and New South Wales governments have agreed to continue cellar door rebates and remaining state governments are also likely to agree.After I was asked about this matter in the House and various allegations were made by members of the Labor Party, I rang the South Australian Treasurer, Mr Lucas, who indicated that indeed the South Australian government had said that it would run a rebate scheme. In other words, the Winemakers Federation submission was right and I was entitled to rely on it. I have discussed this matter with the South Australian Treasurer, who has made it clear that they would continue a rebate scheme, which is, of course, federal government policy. The honourable member opposite then says that the states might try to make the Commonwealth pay for it.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—That would be novel.CT4Mr COSTELLO—And the sun might come up tomorrow. We would all be surprised if a state government came along to the Commonwealth and said, `We would like more money to pay for something.' This would be the most unusual event in Commonwealth federal history. I well remember the words of one of the Labor ministers who said, `Never stand in between a premier and a pot of money.'ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—It was in fact my predecessor.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I am informed by the Prime Minister that it was his predecessor, Mr Keating. It is the man whom those opposite admire, as I recall. In the 1996 election campaign, the Labor Party advertised that the only person who had the capacity to lead Australia was Mr Keating. Well may they say that; there is certainly nobody else on the Labor side who is qualified to lead the country. No wonder so many of them still pine for the good old days.Would I be surprised if a state premier said that, in relation to the rebate scheme that they were operating and were pledged to continue, they would seek a Commonwealth contribution? No more than the suggestion that the sun would come up tomorrow. Will the Commonwealth government be picking up an area of state responsibility? No, the Commonwealth government will be funding the states with a growing growth tax, with all of the revenue of the goods and services tax replacing all of the financial assistance grants. And we will be delivering on our agreement with the Australian Democrats to ensure that those rebate schemes are continued by the states.76937693Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Does the minister endorse the statement by the member for Bradfield that it serves neither the interests of the government, the public nor the members of the Australian Medical Association that Dr Brand should continue in his role as President of the AMA? Will the minister clarify how he intends to proceed with the General Practice Agreement, the legislation to eliminate gap payments and the cuts to pathology and pharmaceutical spending without the support or involvement of the AMA?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the Minister for Health and Aged Care, I would remind those on my left that this is an extra question that has rightly been accommodated, as it should be. If there is any semblance of derision, I will rule it out of order.7693Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her question. It would be seriously unwise for me, as minister, to get involved in the internal affairs of the AMA. So I have no intention of commenting on that matter at all. With respect to the other things that the honourable member raises, the pathology agreement is with the pathologists, not with the AMA, so I do not see what that part of the question has to do with anything. The savings in pharmacy relate to the GP agreement and, as I have explained several times previously, if that does not go ahead, the government actually saves money.76937693Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister inform the House of the progress of government initiatives to improve the future of the Australian wool industry, in particular to improve the opportunities for wool growers in my electorate of Wannon?7693Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for Wannon for his question. Obviously from the electorate that he represents he takes a great deal of interest in issues revolving around the current circumstance of the Australian wool industry. This week is a significant week in the history of the Australian wool industry. The first reason is that today our government gets the new tax package through this House. We will be introducing a lot of savings and a much better taxation system for the entire rural community, particularly for wool growers. The benefits from the reduction in transport costs, which we have been debating in the chamber this afternoon, will flow on to wool growers and there will be extra savings for the rail industry with a $160 million cut in diesel excise to the rail industry.Just as importantly, members would be aware that last year when the government decided to freeze the stockpile in Australia it also decided to privatise the stockpile. This Thursday, WoolStock Australia comes into existence as the new grower controlled company that has the responsibility of managing the stockpile from that point forward. This move has been completely endorsed by the industry. The industry, the entitlement holders in the original stockpile—the shareholders in WoolStock Australia—will be able to take control of this asset from Thursday under the leadership of Mr Donald McGauchie. He will do an excellent job as the Chairman of WoolStock Australia. That starts on Thursday.There is another important point to note this week for the Australian wool industry. Members will recall that at the end of last year, at a meeting that was held in Goulburn, the wool industry as a whole made a fairly significant decision; they expressed, very clearly, their feelings on how their industry was being run, and the government responded to that.I announced in this House that we would establish a Future Directions Taskforce which would report by the middle of this year. I am pleased to announce that the report of the wool industry Future Directions Taskforce will be made public tomorrow. We will be consulting with the Australian wool industry on the way forward from that point on—how to restructure the industry and how to better target the practices of the industry for the future of the industry and, particularly, for the growers in the industry.I will finish on the point that I started on. This week is also a great week for the Australian wool industry because of the benefits that will flow to it from this government's tax reform package, which will go through the House today.76947694Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, will you release the full report of the task force on coastal surveillance, chaired by the secretary to your department, Mr Max Moore-Wilton? Will you now also release the reports by Air Vice Marshal Heggen—ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—What was the second bit?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison may repeat the question.RH4Mr KERR—Will you now also release the reports by Air Vice Marshal Heggen into breaches of coastal surveillance after boats came ashore undetected in Cairns and Nambucca Heads earlier this year? How can the community be satisfied that the measures you have announced are anything more than a cover-up of administrative and ministerial failures if you refuse to publicly release these reports?7694Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will have a look at what can be released without prejudicing anything that is an operational matter. As a former justice minister, I am sure the member will be aware that there is some material in this area that, in the public interest, ought not to be released because it could compromise the future effectiveness of operational things. I, therefore, think it is unreasonable, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary—and I cannot imagine that he would have it—to imply that there is some cover-up. There is no cover-up on this. I am perfectly happy to make things available which do not compromise operational matters—anything that does, I will not.We adopted all of the recommendations of the Moore-Wilton report. It is my understanding that Moore-Wilton's report subsumed the report that was being done by Heggen into the two particular incidents and dealt with them. I will go and have a look at the material and at what can be made available without prejudicing operational things, because we do not have anything to hide. I make it plain that there has been no attempt at covering up anything. We are trying to provide better protection for this country against illegal immigration, and we believe that we have. In the spirit of making information available consistent with protecting operational things, I will see what I can do.76947694Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the House about the historic reconciliation talks now taking place between East Timorese factions in Jakarta? What support has Australia provided for these talks?7694Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Indi for his question and indeed for his interest in these historic talks. As some honourable members may know, the DARE II talks are under way in Jakarta at the moment and are due to conclude tomorrow. We do regard these talks as a significant step forward in the reconciliation process in East Timor. We do not have unrealistic expectations about what can be achieved from this first really effective meeting of reconciliation of the conflicting parties to the East Timor conflict, but we do regard it as a very significant step forward. I know that future meetings will be required and future activity to encourage reconciliation will be necessary, but at least after 24 or so years of violence in East Timor the process of reconciliation is beginning.It will not come as a surprise to members of this House that the government has been extremely supportive and active in encouraging the DARE II process to take place. We have funded an academic from the Australian National University, Mr George Quinn, as a consultant to DARE II. The government has provided $80,000 worth of help to fund the DARE II meeting, and we are quite willing to contribute to further reconciliation efforts. We have also been involved in extensive discussions with all of the parties involved: the Indonesian government, the pro-integrationists, and the pro-independence people.In conclusion, the Australian government does very warmly welcome the participation not only of the pro-integrationists but also of the pro-independence leadership in these discussions. The fact that the Indonesian government has agreed to allow Xanana Gusmao and members of the East Timorese diaspora—in particular Jose Ramos Horta—to participate in these talks is a very important step forward. We have a very long way to go before East Timor is able to live in peace, but this is a constructive step forward, and the Australian government will continue to encourage and support these efforts.76957695Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Does the government's decision not to give priority to its VSU legislation in the Senate mean that the government now supports the views of the 35 leading Australians—ranging from Cardinal Clancy to Andrew Denton—who have joined students, staff, Vice-Chancellors, Tasmanian Liberals, South Australian Liberals and New South Wales Young Liberals in opposing his plan to destroy student unions and the services they provide? Is the Prime Minister aware that even his hero, Robert Menzies, is recorded as welcoming the fact that student guild buildings at the University of Western Australia were paid for by the student body itself using a compulsory fee which Sir Robert Menzies described as `a spectacular type of self-help'? Prime Minister, do you now concede that Sir Robert Menzies was right?7695Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—What a marvellous question to get at the end of question time. I have an enormous respect for the views of Sir Robert Menzies on a large number of issues and I read from time to time what he has had to say to draw a bit of inspiration and understanding, although I cannot say that I have recently spoken to him on the subject of voluntary student unionism. I do know that over the years I have had cause to reflect on the fact that although Sir Robert and I had similar views on a lot of subjects there are a number of subjects on which our views were different. For example, Sir Robert, as befitted people of that generation, had a very different view about centralised wage fixation from the view that I hold. He had a very strong view about the role of the then Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on those issues. Over the years any dynamic evolving political party, no matter how much it holds in respect its founders or its earlier leaders, will evolve policies that are appropriate for the times. If ever there was a policy that is appropriate for the Australian times as we move towards the third millennium it is a policy based on a simple liberal principle—and that is freedom of association.The government's attitude towards voluntary student unionism has not changed. Any suggestion that we have sort of gone slow on the legislation in the Senate because we have altered our view is wrong—Mr Tanner interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—We remain very strongly committed to the principles underlying that bill. I think there is a very important principle of the liberty of the subject involved in voluntary student unionism. I believe that voluntary student unionism speaks of a society where people should not be compelled to join, that voluntary student unionism speaks of a society where the money of students should not be, against their will, conscripted to be spent on causes in which they do not believe.Mr Tanner interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am very surprised indeed that some of the people who have put up their hands and have put their signatures in support of the opponents of voluntary student unionism, perhaps in ignorance—Mr Tanner interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne is warned.ZD4Mr HOWARD—of some of the activities on which conscripted money has been spent.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—This is a free and open society, and any of the people who have put their name to that petition in the paper have a right to do so and they have a right to espouse their cause. But equally, as political participants, the members of my party and I have a right to disagree with them and to say that on that issue they are wrong. I think that every signatory to that petition is in error on this issue. I do not make any exceptions in relation to any of them. I think they are wrong on that issue. When you go through the signatories to that petition, you see that they are what I would call the usual suspects, with one or two exceptions—Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—There are some honourable exceptions to that.DT4CREANMr Crean—Who are they?ZD4Mr HOWARD—You know, because you know the usual suspects. You see Jennie George, and you go on through the list. It is not the least bit surprising.Can I just say that, at 3.40 on an afternoon where the Labor Party is obviously in some degree of depression and despair, this is the sort of question you really dream of getting because it enables you to state one of the fundamental things that divide this side of politics from the other side: they are still in favour of compulsion; they are still in favour of a society which allows power centres in our society to tell people what to do as distinct from affording them choice.Voluntary student unionism is built on the great principle of choice. I believe that men and women who go to universities have a perfect right to decide whether or not they belong to student organisations. The world has changed since the great founder of my party uttered those words. As we go towards the next millennium, the policy put forward by my colleague the minister for education, the policy campaign fought so vigorously by so many of my own party, including the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and many other members and senators of the party, is the right policy for the time. It is a soundly based Liberal policy. It is a Liberal policy that, give or take a few of the usual suspects, has wide support within young Australia.76967696Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is to the Minister for Community Services. Would the minister please inform the House of the benefits that will flow to Australian carers on 1 July as a consequence of the government's Staying at Home package and related budget initiatives? How will these measures benefit Australian families caring for elderly family members or children with disabilities?7696Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for Dawson for her question. It again draws to attention the vast difference between this side of the House and the other. On a historic week in Australian politics, when the absolute emptiness of the policy bin on the other side has become so apparent, where it is so clear that they have all caught the Gareth disease, `relevance deprivation syn drome'—no policies, nothing to say—this government continues to get on with the job.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question.GT4Mr TRUSS—We get on with the job. From 1 July, there will be significant new benefits available for carers, those who look after the elderly and people with disabilities in our community. About half a million Australians care for people with severe or profound disabilities.Mr Griffin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—By any measure, I have exercised a great deal of tolerance to the perpetual interjections from the member for Bruce. He now faces a choice: he can either apologise to the chair, or excuse himself under 304A and deny the electors of Bruce his representation for an hour.VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—I apologise, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the member for Bruce.GT4Mr TRUSS—The carers of Australia are some of the unsung heroes of our nation, forgoing many opportunities for themselves to care for children with disabilities, or their ageing parents. This government is taking significant steps from 1 July to assist carers in their special responsibilities. We have done a lot already. We have extended the carer payment to parents caring for young children with disabilities. We have introduced 70 carer respite centres since 1996—something that Labor never did. Now, in the Staying at Home package, there is another $150 million worth of assistance for carers.Whilst the states have primary responsibility in many of these areas, the Commonwealth is now providing additional resources to help fund assistance to carers. From 1 July, the carer allowance will replace the child disability allowance and the domiciliary nursing care benefit, and we estimate that another 14,000 Australian carers of people with disabilities will have access to this new benefit. It will not be subject to income or assets tests, and it will not be taxed. So it is a very generous benefit to recognise the special contribution that carers make in our community. This government admires their self-sacrifice in the contribution that they make. We are prepared to help and support them. We have policies to assist Australian families—and what a difference that is from those who sit on the opposite side.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions to the Speaker769776977697McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I have a question to you, Mr Speaker. It follows the questions asked yesterday by the member for Gellibrand and the member for Chifley to which you indicated you would consult the tape with regard to the matter they raised. I ask you whether you have consulted that tape, as I have; whether, as a consequence, you believe that the behaviour was appropriate; and, if not, what action you propose to take.7697Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I should indicate to the House that I have consulted the tape. I believe that the member for Leichhardt's action was inappropriate. I have also consulted the Press Gallery. I do not propose to take any further action, given that the member for Leichhardt's action on the tape, while inappropriate, in my view, does not warrant any further action other than his recognition of the fact that what he did was inappropriate.Privilege769715:44:007697Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of privilege which I think will be of great concern to all members of this House. As everyone is now aware, there is an investigation by the National Crime Authority pertaining to me. In a public statement that I made yesterday, I said:I can confirm that this group of NCA officers were involved in a comprehensive and highly intrusive tapping of my telephone at my offices and possibly my home and mobile for an extraordinarily long period of time—10 months, possibly as long as 18 months. This intrusive process not only meant that the NCA officers were aware of all my personal, political and community activities, they were also aware of the details of constituent cases, including the details of immigration cases. From the informa tion which has come to me, it is clear from the interviews that the NCA has been conducting that they believe they have the right to question people about the substance of their immigration cases and the advice given to them by a member of parliament in relation to the best course available to them on those cases. I believe that this is a gross interference in the duties of a Member of Parliament. If this precedent is to be followed, the capacity of the Members of Parliament to deal confidentially with constituents, especially those in crisis and who seek their help, becomes virtually impossible.I can now assert that there are two issues which I believe constitute a prima facie case of breaches of parliamentary privilege in this matter by a group of officers from the NCA.Firstly, I have today gained copies of some documented evidence of interviews conducted by a group of NCA officers as part of this investigation. Prior to question time today, I have confidentially provided you, Mr Speaker, with copies of that evidence. In these interviews, this group of NCA officers have asked questions based on information obtained from the tapped telephone conversations. These questions do not pertain to issues of corruption but rather to the detailed claims which people have made in immigration cases and the detailed advice that I have given them in relation to their cases. They have also asked questions about people's personal lives based on this information from the telephone tapping. In each of these cases, this group of NCA officers have set themselves up as having the right to question the confidential advice given by a member of parliament and the course of action the constituent took.I have sought advice from the Parliamentary Library in relation to this matter. I consider that, on the basis of this advice, the actions by this group of NCA officers constitute a breach of section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1997 in that `they constitute improper interference with the free performance by a member of the member's duties as a member'. The Privileges Committee has in the past accepted the following:. . . as well as participating in proceedings of Parliament Members perform other tasks, including the provision of assistance and advice to constituents. This issue arose especially in the cases of Sciacca in 1993 and of Cameron in 1995. In relation to this, the Parliamentary Library's advice states:. . . impropriety might be shown in a number of ways, as for instance where police or investigating officers act unlawfully or for an improper purpose. But conduct may also be `improper' where the actions taken amount to no more than a `fishing expedition', the investigation process is unnecessarily oppressive or in some other way offends the principles of natural justice and due process.I assert that, in the current case pertaining to me, both of these conditions have been met; that is, in my opinion, there has been improper action in relation to constituent cases by certain officers of the NCA and there has been a fishing expedition involved in the use of tapped telephone conversations. Some of these cases also relate to my parliamentary duties in the area of policy development, since I have directly referred to them in parliamentary debates—without, of course, mentioning the names of the persons concerned.A fundamental principle arises in this matter which this parliament must now determine in terms of the protection of members' rights. This has to do with the capacity of members to provide confidential information and advice about immigration and other constituent cases without this advice being subject to telephone interception by bodies such as the NCA and then being improperly intruded into. There is a second issue. The Privileges Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into the use by bodies, such as the NCA, of members' files which have been seized, especially when such files relate to the personal and often sensitive problems of constituents. The terms of the inquiry are as follows:The question of the status of records and correspondence held by Members of the House of Representatives, with particular reference to:(1) the adequacy of the present situation(2) the question of whether additional protection could be extended to Members in respect of their records and correspondence; if so, whether those records and that correspondence should be subject to additional protection, and, if so, what the form and nature of such protection should be. I maintain that this current inquiry by the Privileges Committee is highly relevant to the investigation pertaining to me. I claim that the NCA has firstly misused a search warrant in seizing constituent files and, secondly, misused the information in those files to ask questions in interviews which pertain to the details of immigration cases and not to details of corruption. In so doing, I believe that they have breached parliamentary privilege in this matter.Mr Speaker, I believe that the issues I have raised are extremely serious and constitute prima facie breaches of privilege. Whether or not it is finally determined that there have been breaches in this matter, I believe that it is critical for the Privileges Committee to clearly determine the rights of members with respect to the confidentiality of constituent cases and whether some form of protection of the details of such cases should be provided for all members.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will examine the Hansard record and the confidential documents that the member for Calwell has lodged with me and determine whether or not a prima facie case exists for reference to the Privileges Committee. Does the member for Calwell have any other material he wishes to table at this stage?QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—No, Mr Speaker, but I may have some other confidential material to provide to you.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, I was not asking the member to table the confidential material but any other material that he may wish to table in support of his case. I will consider the matter and report back to the House at an appropriate time.Auditor-General's Reports769976997699Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 49 of 1998-99 entitled Performance audit—Staff reductions in the Australian Public Service .Ordered that the report be printed.Documents76997699Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Matters of Public Importance7699769910000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hunter proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The adverse impact of the Wine Equalisation Tax and the GST on the Australian wine industry.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:52:007699Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—In response to a question I asked today during question time on the government's new, double whammy wine tax, the Deputy Leader of the National Party squibbed it by passing the question on to the Treasurer. The Treasurer then proceeded to mislead this House. He misled this House on two bases. First, he misled this House in trying to sell the House the concept that his wine equalisation tax combined with the GST will have no net increase impact on the wine industry. Second, he misled this House by assuring the House that his plans for the states to provide a cellar door rebate had the imprimatur of the states.I watched the Prime Minister as he left question time. What did he do? He approached both the member for Warringah and the member for North Sydney and asked them to speak on this matter, but of course they declined. I understand that we are going to get the member for Boothby—not a member of the National Party, not a member of the government frontbench, not a Liberal representing regional Australia but a member from a metropolitan seat in Adelaide. That is how seriously this government takes the wine industry and all those who are employed within it.At around 4.55 p.m. yesterday, the Democrats and the government combined to vote down a Labor amendment to facilitate growth and prosperity in Australia's wine industry. The nation's 1,000 wineries employ almost 16,000 Australians directly and many more tens of thousands indirectly. When tourists visit one of our 50 winegrowing regions, they go there to enjoy the cellar door experience. While they are there they buy wine. They buy restaurant meals—which, by the way, will now be subject to the GST. They purchase local arts, crafts and souvenirs. They stay in local resorts, hotels and motels—again, things that are about to become subject to the GST. So, in other words, they voted in the Senate yesterday to destroy jobs. During question time today, as I said earlier, the Deputy Leader refused to take the opportunity offered to him to explain why.The Deputy Leader of the National Party and his colleagues want to impose not one tax on the wine industry but two taxes. They describe the second of those taxes as the wine equalisation tax—in other words, a tax designed to top up the wine tax, for good public health policy and for good social policy. The opposition does not in principle disagree with a top-up tax. But, by the government's own admission, the price of wine is going to increase as a result of this measure. The government will reap an additional $147 million annually from the industry. Or, to put it another way—as the Treasurer put it in a recent letter to Senator Winston Crane:. . . according to Treasury analysis, there is about an 8% increase in revenue collected under both the GST and the WET compared to collection under the current WST system.During question time today, in an attempt to avoid the question I had asked the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the Treasurer attempted to return to `Labor's wine tax'—as he described it. That wine tax amounted to some 41 per cent tax on the industry. But, as the Wine Federation of Australia tells us—not relying only on their own figures but on the figures of Coopers and Lybrand—the double tax being imposed on this industry by this government measures 46 per cent. So, yes, Labor had a tax on wine, but the Treasurer, Liberals from regional Australia and members of the National Party want to increase the effective tax on wine from 41 per cent to 46 per cent.Mr Downer interjecting—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—Maybe the minister sitting before us can tell me how you can possibly call it a top-up tax when it is going to reap an additional $147 million annually from the industry. This question is not only being asked by the opposition. This question is being asked by bodies such as the Winemakers Federation, the Winegrape Growers Council of Australia, the Australian Regional Winemakers Forum, the South Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation, the Victorian Wine Industry Association, the New South Wales Wine Industry Association, the Western Australian Wine Industry Association, the Vineyards Association of Tasmania and the Queensland Wine Industry Association—and of course by every winemaker around this country, many of them in the very marginal seat of Mayo. As I pointed out today in question time, the Mayor of Indigo, a paid-up member of the National Party, says the combined effect of the GST and the wine equalisation tax will `destroy the wine industry'. On 23 April this year, the country's leading winemakers and grape growers handed out bottles of what they call `extinction wine' as a way of highlighting the death effect the Treasurer's double tax whammy will have on this very important industry.4G4DOWNERMr Downer—You said you were in favour of the tax.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I will pick up on the interjection of the minister. What I said was that the opposition quite clearly understands that, on the basis of good public health policy and good public social policy, it is important that, as a result of the introduction of the GST, the price of wine does not dramatically fall. We support that principle. What we cannot understand is why the Treasurer, to use his own words, wants to reap an additional eight per cent or $147 million from the industry annually. How can you describe that as a top-up tax or a wine equalisation tax? Even the minister cannot possibly explain the logic of an equalisation tax which reaps eight per cent additional revenue from the industry. This is a measure that should have been revenue neutral in its application. It is clearly not, and the Treasurer has conceded as much.I will concede one thing to the minister and to the government. I concede that probably—and I underline `probably'—the larger wine producers will survive this tax, because they will no doubt pass it on to the consumer. But my particular concern is the hundreds and hundreds of small to medium winemakers around this country who form the very basis of our tourism infrastructure.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The Minister for Foreign Affairs should not leave the chamber!8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—He is very rude. I have noticed that before. The opposition's amendments to the wine equalisation tax yesterday were designed to protect those small to medium wineries and, of course, the jobs that they create. In the Senate yesterday the opposition proposed to exempt from the wine equalisation tax cellar door sales and mail orders up to a value of $300,000 annually. This is not the first time we have moved these amendments; earlier this year we moved them in the House of Representatives as well. You have got to ask the questions: where was the member for McEwen? Where was the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the member for Mayo, who has just scurried out of the House in shame? The member for North Sydney refused to front up in this debate, the member for Warringah refused to front up in this debate, the Deputy Leader of the National Party refused to field the question and now the member for Mayo, representing an electorate in a regional wine growing area, has scurried out of the House once again in shame. He is so ashamed he scurried out of this House.There is one subtle difference between the amendment moved by the Labor Party in the House of Representatives and the amendment we moved in the Senate yesterday. The difference is the level of the threshold that would apply on the cellar door exemption. In the House we suggested that that threshold should be in the order of $100,000. We came to that conclusion in one hell of a hurry, having had the bill dumped on us late one night. We arrived at that figure—which we thought reasonable at the time—under a great deal of pressure. The wine industry quite rightly pointed out to us that we had got it wrong, measuring it the way we did, and when we went into the Senate yesterday we increased it to $300,000. But the $300,000 was not our arbitrarily drawn figure; it was the Treasurer's figure. The Treasurer announced only last week that he had reached what he described as `another historic agreement with the Democrats to ensure that the states shall provide a $300,000 exemption on cellar door sales and mail orders'. What the Treasurer effectively did on that occasion was to absolutely concede that the policy of the Labor Party is correct. But, further to that, he conceded that the cellar door exemption is crucial to the survival of the industry—particularly of the small to medium wineries.You cannot concede that this policy is necessary and then say that you are going to make the states pay for it. Before I move to the other point, I should say that this is the second way in which the Treasurer misled the House today. He told the House that he had agreement with the New South Wales Treasurer and the South Australian Treasurer to implement and to fund this rebate. I have two documents with me. The first is a media release from the Treasurer of New South Wales which says a number of relevant things, but I think this is the most relevant paragraph:The Treasurer, Michael Egan, said NSW had not been consulted on the changes and it was not yet known what effect they would have on wineries and State Government revenue.As the member for Kingston pointed out to the House last week, the South Australian Liberal Treasurer said this during South Australian estimates last week. With respect to the agreement with the Treasurer, he said:No, it is not true . . . We have not been consulted, so at this stage we cannot agree to anything.The Treasurer has misled the House, and to try to slip-slide his way out of it he plays this other confidence trick: he tries to tell us that the cellar door has historically been the responsibility of the states. What a load of rubbish. Let us go back to the process. The states once had a state licensing franchise fee which the High Court found to be unconstitutional—by the way, that franchise fee exempted cellar door sales—so the Commonwealth came to the rescue, increased its wholesale sales tax rates and rebated the amount of money raised back to the states. But there was a difference between the franchise fee and the increased wholesale sales tax rate. The new tax rate applied also to cellar door sales. It was administratively difficult for the Commonwealth to differentiate between the two, so it raised taxes on cellar door sales and then rebated the cellar door component back to the states in order that the states could rebate the cellar door component back to the wineries. So there was never a cost to the states. But now, notwithstanding the fact that the Commonwealth, unlike with the GST, will be the sole recipient of the wine equalisation tax—in other words, it will reap all the rewards of the WET—it wants the states to pay for the cellar door exemption. How outrageous is that? What did Senator Kemp say to the Senate? His explanation for all of this was that the GST was going to produce for the states so much additional revenue each year that of course they should pay for the cellar door rebate. So we have seen a bit of what can be expected in the future. The Commonwealth will expect to increase the impost on taxation. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before I call the next speaker, I am afraid I have to make some remark about the absence from the chamber of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.Opposition members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I do not need any help from those on my left. There is no standing order, indeed, that inhibits any member of the government leaving the chamber to go to the bathroom. However, there has been a very strong convention, since Federation, that a minister or parliamentary secretary always be at the table and that, if there was a need to leave, a whip or another member should be invited to seek a replacement. There is also a precedent that the chair has been left and the sitting suspended until the bells have been rung. Just for the information of everybody I make that point.16:08:007702Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—What we have just heard from the shadow minister is his mea culpa of why the Labor Party blew it in the House of Representatives and why they blew it in the Senate. One thing we did not hear in the last 15 minutes is: if the Labor Party oppose this legislation and if the Labor Party feel that it is so bad, why did they not oppose it in the Senate? Why did they not divide on it in the Senate? Why did they not oppose it in the Senate? What we know from the industry—83UCOXMr Cox—Because we are opposing the GST.TK6Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTT—We hear from the member for Kingston. If ever there was a conflict of interest, it is exemplified in the member for Kingston, the man who is running against tax reform in the wine industry. He is running against the WET. What is he? He is a grape grower. He actually has self-interest tied up in the whole debate. I have a quote where the member for Kingston talks about the shadow minister's exemption for the first $100,000 of cellar door sales. The member for Kingston reported a meeting he had with the winemakers in his area to talk about what the Labor Party are doing. He quotes the winemakers as saying:. . . look, your $100,000 exemption's a wee bit token, it's only a small amount of wine.That is from the member for Kingston. Essentially, this debate is about: we have a WET and the industry says that they support the concept of a broad based goods and services tax—that is, the government policy—and they support the principle of a wine equalisation tax. We have heard that the opposition, as well as the industry, supports that. Where there has been some dispute is essentially about whether the wine equalisation tax should be 24½ per cent or whether it should be 29 per cent. The policy that the government took to the last election actually proposed that it be 32.4 per cent. It is actually less than we proposed at the election. It is actually raising less money than we proposed at the election.Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—TK6Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTT—Why did you not oppose it in the Senate? Why did the Labor Party not oppose this in the Senate?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Boothby will ignore the member for Hunter.TK6Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTT—When we look at the agreement between the government and the Democrats on the wine equalisation tax, it says: historically, rebates for cellar door sales have been a state responsibility; the government and the Australian Democrats agree on the importance of maintaining cellar door arrangements. We agree with that. We propose that there be a rebate for the first $300,000 of cellar door and mail order sales. But we also feel that it should be the states that provide the rebate. The member for Hunter mentioned the South Australian Treasurer. My understanding is that, while they are still looking at the detail, they have always provided a 15 per cent rebate for cellar door sales and they have no intentions of changing that.What will happen from 1 July 2000 is that the state governments will be receiving the revenue from the goods and services tax. If the Labor Party are so concerned about this, they should lobby the Treasurer in New South Wales, lobby the Treasurer in Tasmania—the brother of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—and lobby the Treasurers in Labor states and ask them to maintain the rebate which they currently provide.If we look at what the industry position has been, the Winemakers Federation supports the introduction of a broad based goods and services tax. The Winemakers Federation supports an ad valorem based top-up type tax and rejects a volumetric tax. It also supports the policy of implementing a wine equalisation tax to replace the difference between a 41 per cent wholesale sales tax and a proposed GST. They would have preferred a 24½ per cent WET to the 29 per cent WET the government is proposing. But, had you stuck with a 24½ per cent WET, the problem is that cask wine would decrease in price. The Winemakers Federation in their submission to the Senate Select Committee on A New Tax System recognised the positive factors for tax reform. They talked about the higher disposable income levels—the government is introducing the largest tax cuts ever—increased savings to benefit capital intensive industries and increased consumption and expenditure, especially in bottled wine.The whole thrust of the Labor Party's argument today has been to say, `We influenced the government's policy to make them introduce a $300,000 rebate in cellar door sales.' The Australian Labor Party have had no influence in the whole debate on tax reform that has been going for 2½ years. They have opposed everything. We have heard the great windbag himself, the Leader of the Opposition, come here and say, `We're all in favour of tax reform, but we are just not in favour of company tax reform or goods and services tax reform or reforming Commonwealth-state financial relations.'So we said in the new tax system policy that the WET would be levied at a rate such that the price of a four-litre cask increased by 1.9 per cent—the general price increase associated with tax reform. The industry and the Treasury all agree that our policy would do that. At present, under the system that we inherited from the Labor Party, wholesale sales tax is paid on samples, promotions and tastings. That will not apply. There will in fact be no GST payable under the new tax system. The Senate committee's report estimated that the compliance cost would be minimal compared with the current compliance cost of accounting for the wholesale sales tax system.Regarding the debate between ad valorum and volumetric, I think it is fair to say there has been quite a debate over the last year and there have been a number of reports which show that a volumetric would be detrimental for the industry, especially in high volume areas like Riverina, the Riverland and Sunraysia. I support ad valorem and I notice that most members of the Senate do. The Greens did at least try to amend the government's tax legislation. They did not agree with it and they voted against the legislation and put up an amendment that it be volumetric instead of ad valorum. It was defeated two to 62. And what did the Labor Party do about the 29 per cent WET? They did not oppose it in the Senate. Cellar door sales have traditionally been an area of responsibility for the state governments and this is the Labor Party's approach to keep on taking responsibilities from the state government. Since August 1997, the Commonwealth has collected excise for alcohol for the states and they have continued the 15 per cent state rebate. Rebates are best left to the states which will receive GST revenue from 2000; and it is estimated that that will grow.In terms of the Labor Party's record on wine tax, it is worth going back to the history behind the 41 per cent wholesale sales tax that we had, effectively, when we came into office in 1996. In 1984 a wholesale sales tax of 10 per cent was introduced. In 1986, wholesale sales tax went up to 20 per cent. In 1993, in one of the most hypocritical acts that any government has ever undertaken, the Labor Party ran on an election promise not to raise taxes. They ran an election that was dominated by a debate about indirect tax. When it came to the 1993 budget they proposed to increase the wholesale sales tax on wine to 32 per cent. On top of that, you have a wholesale sales tax from the states of 15 per cent. The coalition—the Liberal and National parties—opposed that in the Senate. It stayed at 22 and it was 26 when we came in. When you add in the 15 per cent wholesale sales tax from the states, you get an overall tax of 41 per cent.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—It was a tax increase.TK6Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTT—Was it? It is very interesting to look at some of the debate around the 1993 budget because the previous member for Hunter spoke in defence of the 32 per cent plus 15 per cent—this 47 per cent wholesale sales tax that the opposition are saying is a terrible thing. He said:. . . there was an increase of one per cent in the wholesale sales tax rate and then 10 per cent, which takes it up to 31 per cent.I do not worry too much about that. I know that it will cause some problems for my vignerons, but I have great confidence in Australia's wine producers. I believe our wine will remain competitive on world markets and our wine industry will continue to thrive. I am quite confident that the advance in tourism that the Hunter Valley will receive will more than provide a satisfactory compensation for the increase in wine tax.He went on to talk about exports and how people say this tax rise would affect exports. He said:. . . let us get rid of this nonsense that the extra tax on wine is going to destroy our wine exports.So there you have it. That was the Labor Party's position. That was the previous member for Hunter's position when wine tax was increased higher than it will be under this new legislation.Opposition members interjecting—TK6Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTT—It was higher than it will be under this legislation because it was going on top of a 15 per cent wholesale sales tax from the states. It was effectively 46 per cent wholesale sales tax from the states.There are a couple of arguments in this debate as to whether the WET should be 24½ per cent or 29 per cent. We have proposed 29 per cent and the Democrats have agreed with that. That was what went through the Senate. It was not opposed by the Labor Party.There is the question of the cellar door rebates. The government and the Democrats agree that cellar door rebates are important for wine tourism and small wineries. We have proposed that there should be a $300,000 cellar door rebate and it should remain, as it always has been, the province of the state governments. The Labor Party proposed to pre-empt discussions with the states. Their attitude is just to hand out money. That is why they left us with $96 billion of government debt. That is why the Leader of the Opposition created $25 billion of government debt in the last two years they were in office.If we look at the debate about tax reform you would have to say, I suppose, that the member for Hunter is at least on the side of the forces of light in that he seems to have a lot in common with the member for Werriwa. In fact, I think he is the member for Werriwa's protege on the front bench. The member for Werriwa is sitting on the back bench and he has his protege, who is the member for Hunter, down on the front bench. The attitude of the shadow Treasurer has been to oppose everything—reflex opposition of tax reform. At least, to the member for Hunter's credit, he has said, `We oppose this legislation but we are going to amend the legislation that we oppose.'It is an interesting thing about the Labor Party. If you look at the people who have opposed tax reform in the Labor Party, you find that the people who are running against the GST and tax reform all support it now. Gary Johns has come out in favour of it. Bob Hogg has come out in favour of it. We know Paul Keating historically supported tax reform. You have got to ask the question: where is the Labor Party heading on this? Because the Labor Party seems to think they are going to spend the next two years opposing what has now gone into legislation. They are now going to oppose the privatisation of Telstra which is now up to 49 per cent. They are going to oppose tax reform.It helps to explain why 18-year-old to 24-year-old Australians, Generation X, are more and more in support of the government. They see a government that is actually implementing its policies and that is prepared to stand up for what it believes in. What does the Labor Party stand for? The overriding principle that the Labor Party stands for is opposition to government policies. The Labor Party has now become the party of reaction; the Labor Party is a reactionary party. The Liberal Party and the National Party are promoting reform in areas like privatisation and tax reform. Where does the Labor Party stand? Does the Labor Party seriously think that it is just going to spend the next two years opposing government policy and that people will vote for that in two years time? I do not think so.16:23:007705O'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—I have listened with great interest to the member for Boothby. Unfortunately, I am no further enlightened as to any kind of defence the government can put up for the wine equalisation tax or the dodgy deal they are trying to force onto the states. The Senate voted yesterday on the wine equalisation tax. The government and the Democrats voted completely in accordance with the exchange of correspondence of 22 June 1999 between Senator Lees and the Prime Minister in which the Prime Minister said:Historically rebates for cellar door sales have been a State responsibility. The Government and the Australian Democrats agree on the importance of maintaining cellar door arrangements. The government undertakes to ensure that the States keep arrangements which provide a tax exemption for cellar door and mail order sales up to $300,000.The Government will also examine a number of definitional issues arising from the WET bill, which you have advised, and the scope for concessional treatment of low alcohol wine and intends that these be dealt with in a Bill to be introduced in the Spring sittings. As a consequence of these commitments the Government and the Australian Democrats are agreed that the WET legislation will be passed by 30 June 1999.To which Senator Lees replied:The Australian Democrats now believe all of the matters covered by our `in principle' agreement of May 28th have been adequately dealt with by way of amendments, appropriations or your letter.Since that agreement, there have been a number of conflicting statements made by the Treasurer, Peter Costello, the Treasurer of South Australia, Rob Lucas, and the Premier of South Australia, John Olsen. These statements demonstrate that the issue of a $300,000 exemption from the wine equalisation tax for cellar door sales has not been adequately dealt with, and it would obviously be a gross dereliction of duty for the Senate to pass the WET bills in an unamended form on the basis of any undertakings given from this government. However, unsafe or not, the bill has passed. When the Treasurer announced the exemption to the House last Wednesday, he said:Now that the Commonwealth is abolishing financial assistance grants, abolishing the safety net arrangements and introducing a goods and services tax which will ensure that the states have all the revenue which they previously had and more, the states should be in a position to continue those rebate schemes. Indeed, I understand that South Australia has already indicated that it will, and I understand that the matter is under consideration in Western Australia and quite possibly in Victoria as well.A couple of hours later, the shadow Treasurer of South Australia, Kevin Foley, raised this matter in an estimates committee of the South Australian parliament by asking the Treasurer:I have been advised that, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, Senator Meg Lees has done a deal with the Commonwealth Government that commits the State Government to rebate the wine equalisation tax (commonly known as the WET tax) for the $300,000 of cellar door or mail order sales. Is this true? I have also been advised that the Treasurer has agreed to this with Canberra; is this so?And the Treasurer, Rob Lucas, replied:The second question is easy to answer: no, it is not true. We have not been consulted on whatever might or might not be part of the Commonwealth Government/Australian Democrats arrangements in relation to cellar door sales. Today, we have been hurriedly trying to get further information. However, we have not been consulted and, until we can see the exact nature of whatever this proposal is, we will have to reserve our position. I would imagine that it would require some State agreement if it is as described. I hasten to say all I have seen is what the honourable member has probably seen which is what was in the newspaper. We have not been consulted, so at this stage we cannot agree to anything. Over the next 24 hours we will do what we have been doing today, namely, urgently trying to get some detail on the proposal and the implications that might have on South Australia.This reaction was hardly surprising since the states will not fund a rebate on a federal tax when it is the federal government, not the states, that is actually getting the revenue.Indeed, there are strong indications from other states that they are not going to fund the $300,000 cellar door sales rebate on the WET. The Winemakers Federation of Australia have produced a status report on each state's commitment to the existing state's rebate on that portion of the wholesale sales tax which replaces the former state liquor franchise fees and the proposed $300,000 rebate on the federal WET tax. Western Australia, South Australia and New South Wales have previously made commitments in relation to the existing rebates on cellar door sales, promotional stock and mail order sales. On 5DN, the South Australian Premier, John Olsen, told Jeremy Cordeaux that he noticed there was a report from the federal Treasurer this week that there would be a cellar door exemption. He said:There hasn't been any discussions with South Australia yet on who is paying that and I just want to say to your caller I think the Federal Government ought to be paying it needless to say. Our Treasury officials have been told to discuss the matter with Canberra with a view to them resolving it and them paying it.The Treasurer of New South Wales, Michael Egan, wrote to his state's wine industry association on 16 January 1999 saying:I am writing to confirm the NSW Government will retain the 15% rebate on cellar door sales by wineries in the event of the Federal Coalition Government's proposed new tax system being implemented.This decision naturally depends on the Federal Government keeping its commitment that the NSW budget will not be any worse off as a result of the Federal tax changes.On 15 December 1998, my own Premier, the Tasmanian Premier, Jim Bacon, wrote to the Vineyards Association of Tasmania saying:While my Government does not support the introduction of a goods and services tax (GST), the States and Territories may have little direct control over its introduction. At this stage there have not been any detailed discussions with the Commonwealth about the effect a GST would have on wine. My Government is therefore not in a position to make a specific commitment in relation to the future of the cellar door subsidy.The Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, wrote to the managing director of a Victorian based wine company regarding the WET tax on 26 May 1999 saying:I understand your concern, but this is an issue that is within the Federal Government's responsibility.From these comments, it is obvious that there have been no consultations with the states and there is no substantial basis for the arrangement entered into. Indeed, the Treasurer confirmed this last Thursday when he was questioned about his misleading statement to the House, and his own explanation was:. . . having given that undertaking and assurance 36 hours ago, I now have 365 days minus 36 hours to bring it off.If one accepts a similar assurance to the one he gave the House, it seems Senator Lees was probably misled by the Treasurer, and that would be quite an adequate justification in any reasonable person's mind for her not to be bound by that part of the agreement. If the Leader of the Democrats was not misled and actually understood the total lack of substance behind the Treasurer's assurance to them that he would procure the states' agreement to funding the rebate, they join the Treasurer in misleading both the wine industry and the country.The only practical solution was Labor's amendment to include the cellar door exemption in the WET bills. Labor has been in negotiation with the Winemakers Federation of Australia about the appropriate level for the exemption since Kim Beazley had a meeting with the wine industry the Friday after the budget. The shadow minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, spent some time travelling the country speaking to representatives of the industry to make sure that our position would reflect the needs of the industry. The Australian Democrats have lost all leverage to force the federal government to provide an adequate exemption for cellar door sales by passing the WET bills in an unamended form.The Winemakers Federation of Australia has calculated that a proper equalisation rate as promised by the government would be 24.5 per cent, not the 29 per cent currently contained in the WET bills. When the industry comes to realise the opportunity that has been lost by the Australian Democrats, I imagine they will be very angry. Stuart Bryce, the President of the Vineyards Association of Tasmania, is already very angry.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—A good bloke.84SO'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE—A good bloke, indeed. He was quoted in last Friday's Launceston Examiner summing up the state of limbo that this decision has placed the wine industry in. He said:We have no guarantee that states will continue with this shabby arrangement—I repeat, this shabby arrangement—. . . there is no legislative support for its continuance.The wine industry in Tasmania is fast growing, innovative and produces—one would say arguably, but I would say definitely—the best cool climate wines in the country. It is a vital part of the entire tourism industry. In a submission to the Senate Select Committee on A New Tax System, Dr Andrew Pirie of the Vineyards Association of Tasmania gave a summary of the role of the regional wine producer outlining the multiplicity of roles played by those producers. He said:The small regional operator:. produces many of Australia's premium wine labels which act as flagships in export markets,. is more labour intensive because of lack of economies of scale,. plays a major role in regional tourism,. is pro-active in the case for responsible use of alcohol,. is the risk-taker introducing new varieties,. is the pioneer of new wine-producing areas,. plays a significant role in wine education, and. (the 894 producers that) contribute to 1.8% of the Australian production in 1997 paid 15.7% of revenue raised through WST.Geoff and Lindy Bull from the National Coalition of Small Winemakers believe that:. . . the government's proposal will destroy small regional wineries and concentrate wine production within a handful of major corporate wineries.As you can see, the Tasmanian industry has been very vocal in its campaign to stop the government's unfair tax. Unfortunately, this has not always been appreciated by all Tasmanian senators. When approached about the unfair impact of the WET on Tasmanian industries, Senator Abetz responded in this manner to the Vineyards Association of Tasmania:Whilst it would be fair to say that I have been less than impressed by the antics of some elements in the industry during the course of the last election campaign, I am committed to working for the benefit of the industry as a whole.Can I respectfully suggest that letters that are faxed to all Tasmanian Senators that refer to the Liberal's current tax regime on wine is singularly unhelpful and misrepresentative.Tasmanian senators should be listening to the needs of the Tasmanian wine industry. They should not be listening only if the needs reflect their particular policy or concerns. The WET is an unfair tax. It will severely disadvantage small wineries, especially in Tasmania. The Treasurer agrees with this to the extent that he has proposed an exemption. It is to the detriment of the industry that he has failed to take responsibility for this attack on small wineries. This is a Commonwealth government tax and the Commonwealth government should be funding the exemption. They should be protecting jobs in the industry by taking responsibility and enshrining the exemption in legislation. (Time expired)16:33:007708Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—I find it quite ironic that on this historic day of the greatest reform in the Australian tax system in the history of Federation we are here talking about a wine equalisation tax at a time when the wine industry is historically at its strongest ever. I find it even more remarkable that on this historic day the Labor Party would even stick their heads out of the parapets.83UCOXMr Cox—Something to do with the Treasurer misleading the parliament.HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—The desperate comments from the member for Kingston on the other side will not persuade the Australian public of the reality of the situation. The history which the member for Boothby documented very well earlier—that is, the history of taxation on the wine industry from 1983 onwards—really does bear repeating. The new Hawke Labor government in August 1984—which in that period would have been the time when the budget was brought down—introduced a new 10 per cent wholesale sales tax. The wholesale sales tax was subsequently raised to 20 per cent in the August 1986 budget by the Labor Party, by the Hawke government. I wonder who the Treasurer was. I think it was one Hon. Paul Keating. Then, of course, as the member for Boothby so rightly reminded us, on 17 August 1993 that very famous budget of John Dawkins's—which will go down in Australian history as absolutely one of the more remarkable budgets—raised the then tax of 20 per cent introduced by the Hawke government up to 31 per cent.Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—That is very creative from the member for Hunter. I will not interject across the chamber, but I remind the House, as the member for Boothby has done so well earlier, that after that famous election when we were not going to have any more tax rises—we were going to have l-a-w tax cuts—the tax on wine went from zero in 1984 to 31 per cent in 1993. That is how the Labor Party plays this game. It is very interesting to listen to them on the opposition benches, or should I say the opposition trenches. Today, on this historic day, we have a most incredible situation: we have this change and this great leap forward into the third millennium, as the Prime Minister was reminding us, with a new tax system appropriate for a new century, and we have the Labor Party talking about WET at a time when the wine industry is in very good shape. I will just remind the House of how strong the wine industry is currently.Tomorrow we will have a report brought down on the wool industry which will show that the wool industry is in dire straits, a famous industry in this country brought to its knees by a range of circumstances very much contributed to by the Labor Party in the last 10 or 15 years—not all by Labor; there were certainly market factors as well. So I believe it is relevant to speak about the strength of the wine industry. In 1994-95, the price of cabernet sauvignon per tonne was $845. In 1997-98, the price was $1,183 per tonne. Those figures are based on the Riverland Indicator price. Australian wine exports, by value, in 1991-92 were $234 million and in 1997-98 were $812 million. I think the daily press is reminding us that we are heading towards a billion dollar export industry this year.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—You're out for another growth tax.HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—The member for Hunter reminds me, and I must bring it before the House, of the taxation on the industry. Labor brought wholesale sales tax on wine from zero per cent to 31 per cent in 1993. I should remind the House, and give the Labor Party a little credit, that due to the outcry in 1993-94 the tax did revert to 22 per cent but then went back up to 26 per cent. This is one of the most remarkable things. For three months in 1993 the tax actually stayed at 31 per cent and then it went back to 22 per cent. Turning to the issue of the wine equalisation tax and the actual taxation measure, let me quote from A New Tax System, which went to the people and was voted on in October 1998. It stated:The wine equalisation tax will be levied at such a rate that the price of a four-litre cask of wine need only increase by the estimated general price increase associated with indirect tax reform; that is, 1.9 per cent. The concessional taxation treatment of the alcohol content of cask wine will therefore be preserved.That is from the tax document, which was freely available to all and sundry before the election. I think the Labor Party really needs to talk, to look inside itself and to look at what it did in the last 15 years with the wine industry—from zero to 31 per cent, down to 22 per cent, up to 26 per cent. It is a very interesting record of the Labor Party. Those opposite come in here today, on the eve of the greatest step forward in tax reform in Australia's history, and they talk about a wine equalisation tax.83UCOXMr Cox—Oh, come on, Barry. It's the greatest step back.HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—I know it embarrasses you. You have nothing better to come to this place with. I know it is difficult. You come to this place with nothing better to contribute.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Grey will direct his remarks through the chair. The chair does not believe that it has nothing better to contribute.HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—Mr Speaker, I certainly will. In my final comments I remind members of the opposition that our tax reform will actually lower their costs of production, not to a great degree but at least it is heading in the right direction. Our tax system takes out the embedded wholesale sales tax, which has been there for the last 30 or 40 or 50 years. So the new tax system will reduce their costs. In terms of the increase in price of the product to the consumer, there will be a 1.9 per cent increase on four-litre casks. That is equivalent to the increase in prices of general consumer goods, including beer and spirits. We have a wine industry which is in a very strong condition. I welcome that of course, and I am sure the Labor Party does as well, but we must get this into perspective. We cannot get distracted on this great day of the passage of the new tax system.The Labor Party have found nothing better to do than to come into this place and talk about an industry which is very strong and about a tax system which is as fair as you can get it and which has been much debated. The Treasurer has spent much time and energy in discussing this issue with the industry. I have no doubt in my mind that the issue of the rebates for the states will be resolved with some commonsense from the states and the goodwill of the Commonwealth. After all, much of that was introduced by a decision of the High Court beyond the control of this parliament. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The discussion has concluded.Committees77097709770916:43:007709Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 9 August 1999. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 9 August 1999Pursuant to standing order 331, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 9 August 1999. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 REPUBLIC REFERENDUM—JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE: Advisory report on the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 and the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 45 minutes.Speech time limits—First 2 Members speaking—10 minutes each.Other Members—5 minutes each.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1Mr 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.Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.2Dr Nelson to move:That the House:(1) recognises the very high and entrenched levels of unemployment that exist within indigenous communities throughout Australia;(2) recognises that fewer indigenous Australians actively participate in the labour market and have lower skill levels compared to the rest of the general population;(3) welcomes the federal Government's specific commitment of $115 million towards tackling unemployment within indigenous communities in Australia; and(4) calls on governments at all levels to work in cooperation with indigenous communities and employers in addressing these critical problems.Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3Mr Danby to move:That the House:(1) notes with sadness that 4 June 1999 was the tenth anniversary of the date of the Tiananmen Square massacre;(2) expresses its sympathy to the families of those who died as a result of their participation in the democracy protests of 1989 in the People's Republic of China as well as those who have suffered for their efforts to advance human rights and democratic expression during the past decade;(3) commends citizens of the People's Republic of China who peacefully advocate democracy and human rights; and(4) deplores ongoing human rights abuses in the People's Republic of China and calls on the Government of that country to:(a) re-evaluate the official verdict on 4 June 1989 Tiananmen pro-democracy activities and initiate open investigations on the 4 June event with the goal of providing a complete and accurate account of those events;(b) treat fairly Chinese students who elected to stay in Australia after 4 June 1989 under special temporary visas and who have since returned to their homeland;(c) release all prisoners of conscience, including those still in prison as a result of their participation in the pro-democracy protests of May and June 1989, provide just compensation to the families of those killed in those protests and allow those exiled on account of their activities in 1989 to return and live in freedom in the People's Republic of China;(d) put an end to harassment, detention and imprisonment of Chinese citizens exercising their internationally recognised rights to the freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of religion; and(e) proceed quickly to ratify and implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which it signed on 5 October 1998.Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Miscellaneous7711Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration: Australian Sports Commission Amendment Bill 1999 Miscellaneous77117711Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous771110000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received messages from the Senate returning 34 A New Tax System bills with requests, with amendments and without amendments or requests. I do not propose to read these messages to the House. Details of the messages are contained in tables A, B and C now being circulated. Copies of the schedules of requests and schedules of amendments have been placed on the table for the information of honourable members. Details of the messages will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .771116:46:007711Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:(a) consideration together forthwith of the Senate's requested amendments to A New Tax System bills conveyed to the House in Senate messages Nos. 105 to 107 and 132; and(b) messages from the Governor-General then being announced together recommending appropriations for the purposes of requests for amendments by the Senate in respect of A New Tax System bills conveyed to the House in Senate messages Nos. 105 to 107 and 132; and(c) a Minister then moving one motion—That the requested amendments of the Senate conveyed to the House in Senate messages Nos. 105 to 107 and 132 be made—with speech time limits applying to consideration of this motion as follows: for the two Government members nominated by the Leader of the House, 20 minutes and 15 minutes respectively; the Leader of the Opposition; 20 minutes; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, 15 minutes; and all other speakers, an unspecified number of periods each not exceeding 5 minutes; and(d) then consideration together forthwith of the Senate's amendments to A New Tax System bills conveyed to the House in Senate messages Nos. 109 to 112, 114 and 134; and(e) a Minister then moving one motion—That the amendments of the Senate conveyed to the House in Senate messages Nos. 109 to 112, 114 and 134 be agreed to; and(f) a Minister then moving one motion—That Senate messages Nos. 108 and 113 be considered at the next sitting.In speaking briefly to this procedural motion, can I start by saying that this has been agreed with the opposition, and we appreciate their cooperation in the proper management of the processes of the House so as to provide one final opportunity for them and others in the House to present their points of view on the final passage of the tax legislation. This is truly a historic occasion, one which has been a long time in the making.I remember that in what must have been at least 1979, if not further back, the then Treasurer, the Hon. John Howard, first started to propose the concept of indirect tax reform. He was rejected. In 1981 he tried again. He was rejected. In 1984, as the then shadow Treasurer, he included in the coalition's then tax policy the proposition to adopt a broad based consumption tax to replace the wholesale sales tax system. We were not successful. The issue was then taken up by the Labor Party. It was then revisited by the coalition parties in 1990.I take the opportunity to also pay tribute to John Hewson who, as the then Leader of the Opposition, took us to the 1993 election with the GST as part of our then tax reform policy. It is worth remembering because that election, whilst we were unsuccessful, was an example of an opposition standing up for what it believed to be right. When you look back on the history of reform in Australia all through the 1990s, the fact is that it was the opposi tion which was at the heart of reform measures—not just in tax but in a wide range of policy issues. We were defeated in 1993. Some of us paid something of a political price for it, but we did pave the way for the later adoption and final implementation of this package.These remarks, as I said, will be short. Now that the Prime Minister is here I do intend to complete my remarks in a timely fashion. I pay tribute to the leadership that he has shown in bringing this to a head. I also pay tribute to the coalition backbench—those who, all through those difficult years of the 1990s, supported tax reform. I refer to people like the member for McEwen, who has just walked into the chamber. She lost her seat, but people on our side have always been prepared to stand up for policy, even if it has been a hard one to fight.I pay tribute lastly to the thousands of people in the Liberal Party and National Party organisations who were very disappointed that we lost in 1993. But I think they would look back on those times and say that we were right, and we perceived the public interest even though we paid a political price for doing so. It should never be forgotten that, when the hesitation factor was recorded in the 1998 election, it was the second highest hesitation factor ever recorded in a general election.The highest ever hesitation factor for swinging voters coming across to the Liberal-National coalition was in fact twice that rate. It was recorded in the 1993 election, and that prevented the election of the Liberal-National parties to government back in 1993. Australia lost three valuable years, but we learnt the lesson. We were re-elected in 1996 and we now have, I believe, the greatest reform government this country has seen. It has already produced benefits which are providing assistance to families right across the income spectrum.Moving this suspension of standing and sessional orders will provide an opportunity for the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to address the House. How appropriate and historic that address will be from the Prime Minister, who has led this debate from start to finish to provide Australia with a better tax system. I commend the suspension to the House.16:53:007712McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—There was a certain appropriateness about that. The Leader of the House seems never to be able to keep the word he gives on anything. He said he was going to speak for a couple of minutes—he went for nearly eight. I will not take up the time of backbenchers who want to speak on this by responding to the provocative things that he said. I will simply say that we accept the procedural arrangements. It is a great pity that eight minutes of it has just been wasted, but we accept the procedural arrangements and look forward to the debate and the vote.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills7713r698Billsr701Billsr754Billsr800Billsr703Billsr699Billsr657Billsr700Bills7713r755Billsr756Billsr8367713Bills returned from the Senate with a request for amendments and amendments.Ordered that the requested amendments and amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX) BILL 1998(1) Clause 1-2, page 2 (after line 8), at the end of the clause, add: (2) However, if, before the day on which this Act would (but for this subsection) commence under subsection (1), there have not been appropriated, for the purposes of the programs referred to in the second column of an item in the table: (a) in respect of the financial year starting on 1 July 2000—the amount referred to in the third column of that item; and (b) in respect of the financial year starting on 1 July 2001—the amount referred to in the fourth column of that item; and (c) in respect of the financial year starting on 1 July 2002—the amount referred to in the fifth column of that item; and (d) in respect of the financial year starting on 1 July 2003—the amount referred to in the sixth column of that item; this Act commences on, and tax is not payable under the * GST law until, the day on which the last of those amounts to be appropriated for those purposes has been appropriated under an Act.Amounts to be appropriated ProgramFinancial years2000/012001/022002/032003/04($ million)($ million)($ million)($ million)1Book industry assistance plan606060602Supported Accommodation Assistance Program15151515Total75757575(2) Clause 9-15, page 14 (line 13), at the end of subclause (3), add: ; and (c) a payment made by an *Australian government agency to another Australian government agency is not the provision of consideration if the payment is specifically covered by an appropriation under an *Australian law.(3) Clause 9-30, page 17 (lines 8 to 15), omit subclause (4) (including the note), substitute: Supply of things used solely in connection with making supplies that are input taxed but not financial supplies (4) A supply is taken to be a supply that is *input taxed if it is a supply of anything that you have used solely in connection with your supplies that are input taxed but are not *financial supplies.(4) Clause 9-39, page 17 (after table item 4), insert: 4A Gambling Division 126(5) Clause 11-15, page 22 (after line 19), at the end of the clause, add: (3) To the extent that an acquisition relates to making *financial supplies through an *enterprise, or a part of an enterprise, that you *carry on outside Australia, the acquisition is not, for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), treated as one that relates to making supplies that would be *input taxed.(6) Clause 11-99, page 24 (after table item 2), insert: 2A Financial supplies (reduced credit acquisitions) Division 70(7) Clause 11-99, page 24 (after table item 8), insert: 8A Reimbursement of employees etc. Division 111(8) Clause 15-10, page 28 (after line 21), at the end of the clause, add: (3) To the extent that an importation relates to making *financial supplies through an *enterprise, or a part of an enterprise, that you *carry on outside Australia, the importation is not, for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), treated as one that relates to making supplies that would be *input taxed.(9) Clause 17-99, page 32 (table item 5), omit the table item.(10) Clause 17-99, page 32 (after table item 9), insert: 9A Insurance Division 78(11) Clause 17-99, page 33 (table item 15, 2nd column), omit "or imported to make supplies", substitute ", imported or applied to make financial supplies".(12) Clause 21-1, page 40 (lines 3 to 10), omit the clause, substitute:21-1 What this Division is about If debts are written off as bad or are outstanding after 12 months, adjustments (for the purpose of working out net amounts) are made. They can arise both for amounts written off or outstanding and for recovery of amounts previously written off or outstanding. Note: This Division does not apply to supplies and acquisitions that you account for on a cash basis (except in the limited circumstances referred to in Division 159).(13) Clause 21-5, page 40 (line 16), at the end of paragraph (c), add ", or the whole or a part of the debt has been due for 12 months or more".(14) Clause 21-5, page 40 (line 18), at the end of subclause (1), add ", or 1/11 of the amount that has been due for 12 months or more, as the case requires".(15) Clause 21-5, page 40 (lines 21 and 22), omit subclause (3).(16) Clause 21-10, page 41 (lines 2 and 3), omit "written off as bad".(17) Clause 21-10, page 41 (line 4), at the end of paragraph (b), add ", or the whole or a part of the amount that has been due for 12 months or more, as the case requires".(18) Clause 21-15, page 41 (line 13), at the end of paragraph (c), add ", or the whole or a part of the debt has been due for 12 months or more".(19) Clause 21-15, page 41 (line 15), at the end of subclause (1), add ", or 1/11 of the amount that has been due for 12 months or more, as the case requires".(20) Clause 21-20, page 41 (line 23), omit "written off as bad".(21) Clause 21-20, page 41 (line 25), at the end of paragraph (b), add ", or the whole or a part of the amount that has been due for 12 months or more, as the case requires".(22) Clause 27-30, page 53 (line 27), at the end of the heading, add "to take account of changes in tax periods ".(23) Page 54 (after line 23), after clause 27-35, insert:27-37 Special determination of tax periods on request (1) The Commissioner may, in accordance with a request you make in the *approved form, determine the tax periods applying to you to be the tax periods specified in the request if the Commissioner is satisfied that: (a) your *annual turnover meets the *tax period turnover threshold; and (b) the tax periods specified in the request are consistent with the commercial accounting periods that apply to you; and (c) the tax periods specified in the request would, if determined under this section, result in 12 complete tax periods in each year; and (d) any other requirements specified in the regulations are complied with. Note: Refusing a request for a determination under this section is a reviewable GST decision (see Division 7 of Part VI of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 ). (2) A determination under this section overrides any determination under section 27-15 or 27-30 relating to tax periods applying to you.(24) Page 54 (after line 23), after clause 27-35, insert:27-38 Revoking special determination of tax periods (1) The Commissioner must revoke a determination under section 27-37 if the Commissioner is satisfied that any of the requirements of paragraphs 27-37(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) are not complied with. Note: Revoking a determination under this section is a reviewable GST decision (see Division 7 of Part VI of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 ). (2) The revocation takes effect on the day specified in the instrument of revocation. However, the day specified must be 1 January, 1 April, 1 July or 1 October. Note: Deciding the date of effect of the revocation is a reviewable GST decision (see Division 7 of Part VI of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 ). (3) A revocation under this section revives any election under section 27-10, or any determination under section 27-15 or 27-30, relating to tax periods applying to you.(25) Clause 29-39, page 61 (table item 9), omit the table item.(26) Clause 29-39, page 61 (after table item 10), insert:10A Reimbursement of employees etc. Division 111(27) Clause 29-39, page 61 (table item 13, 2nd column), omit "or imported to make supplies", substitute ", imported or applied to make financial supplies".(28) Clause 29-40, page 61 (after line 5), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) However, any charitable institution, any trustee of a charitable fund or any *gift-deductible entity may choose to *account on a cash basis, with effect from the first day of the tax period that the institution, trustee or entity chooses, whether or not its *annual turnover exceeds the *cash accounting turnover threshold.(29) Clause 29-50, page 63 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add: (5) Paragraph (1)(a) and subsection (3) do not apply in relation to any charitable institution, any trustee of a charitable fund or any *gift-deductible entity.(30) Clause 29-99, page 65 (after table item 1), insert:1A Gambling Division 126(31) Clause 31-99, page 68 (after table item 3), insert:3A Insurance Division 78(32) Clause 33-99, page 72 (after table item 4), insert:4A Insurance Division 78(33) Clause 37-1, page 75 (table item 11), omit the table item.(34) Clause 37-1, page 75 (after table item 11), insert:11A Financial supplies (reduced credit acquisitions) Division 70(35) Clause 37-1, page 76 (after table item 23), insert:23A Reimbursement of employees etc. Division 111(36) Clause 37-1, page 76 (table item 32, 2nd column), omit "or imported to make supplies", substitute ", imported or applied to make financial supplies".(37) Clause 38-10, page 80 (line 9), before "9 or 12", insert "6A, 6B,".(38) Page 78 (after line 4), after clause 38-1, insert:Subdivision 38-AA—Food 38-2 Food A supply of *food is GST-free .38-3 Food that is not GST-free (1) A supply is not GST-free under section 38-2 if it is a supply of: (a) *food for consumption on the *premises from which it is supplied; or (b) hot food for consumption away from those premises; or (c) food of a kind specified in the third column of the table in clause 1 of Schedule 1A, or food that is a combination of one or more foods at least one of which is food of such a kind; or (d) a *beverage (or an ingredient for a beverage), other than a beverage (or ingredient) of a kind specified in the third column of the table in clause 1 of Schedule 1B; or (e) food of a kind specified in regulations made for the purposes of this subsection. (2) However, this section does not apply to a supply of *food of a kind specified in regulations made for the purposes of this subsection. (3) The items in the table in clause 1 of Schedule 1A or 1B are to be interpreted subject to the other clauses of Schedule 1A or 1B, as the case requires.38-4 Meaning of food (1) Food means any of these, or any combination of any of these: (a) food for human consumption (whether or not requiring processing or treatment); (b) ingredients for food for human consumption; (c) *beverages; (d) ingredients for beverages; (e) goods to be mixed with or added to food for human consumption (including condiments, spices, seasonings, sweetening agents or flavourings); (f) fats and oils marketed for culinary purposes; but does not include: (g) live animals (other than crustaceans or molluscs); or (h) any grain, cereal or sugar cane that has not been subject to any process or treatment resulting in an alteration of its form, nature or condition; or (i) plants under cultivation that can be consumed (without being subject to further process or treatment) as food for human consumption. (2) Beverage includes water.38-4A Premises used in supplying food Premises , in relation to a supply of *food, includes: (a) the place where the supply takes place; or (b) the grounds surrounding a cafe or public house, or other outlet for the supply; or (c) the whole of any enclosed space such as a football ground, garden, showground, amusement park or similar area where there is a clear boundary or limit; but does not include any part of a public thoroughfare unless it is an area designated for use in connection with supplies of food from an outlet for the supply of food.38-4B Packaging of food (1) A supply of the packaging in which *food is supplied is GST-free if the supply of the food is GST-free. (2) However, the supply of the packaging is GST-free under this section only to the extent that the packaging: (a) is necessary for the supply of the food; and (b) is packaging of a kind in which food of that kind is normally supplied.(39) Clause 38-10, page 79 (after table item 1), insert:1A Acupuncture(40) Clause 38-10, page 79 (after table item 6), insert: 6A Herbal medicine (including traditional Chinese herbal medicine)6B Naturopathy(41) Clause 38-10, page 80 (after line 11), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) A supply of goods is GST-free if: (a) it is made to a person in the course of supplying to the person a service referred to in item 6A or 6B of the table in subsection (1); and (b) it is supplied, and used or consumed, at the premises at which the service is supplied.(42) Clause 38-25, page 81 (lines 7 to 11), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) A supply of services is GST-free if: (a) it is a supply of services covered by Schedule 1 to the *Quality of Care Principles; and (b) it is provided through a residential care service (within the meaning of the Aged Care Act 1997 ); and (c) the supplier is an approved provider (within the meaning of that Act).(43) Clause 38-25, page 81 (line 26), after "include", insert ", and are only provided to people who require,".(44) Clause 38-25, page 81 (after line 29), at the end of the clause, add: (4) A supply of accommodation is GST-free if it is made to a person in the course of making a supply to that person that is GST-free under subsection (1), (2) or (3). (5) However, a supply of services that is covered by an extra services fee within the meaning of Division 35 of the Aged Care Act 1997 is only GST-free under this section to the extent that the services are covered by Schedule 1 to the *Quality of Care Principles.(45) Clause 38-40, page 82 (line 24) to page 83 (line 5), omit the clause, substitute:38-40 Specialist disability services A supply of services is GST-free if the supplier receives funding under the Disability Services Act 1986 or under a complementary *State law or *Territory law in respect of the services.(46) Clause 38-45, page 83 (after line 12), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) A supply is GST-free if the thing supplied is supplied as a spare part for, and is specifically designed as a spare part for, another thing the supply of which would be GST-free under subsection (1).(47) Clause 38-45, page 83 (line 13), omit "subsection (1)", substitute "subsection (1) or (1A)".(48) Page 83 (after line 16), after clause 38-45, insert:38-47 Other GST-free health goods (1) A supply is GST-free if it is a supply of goods of a kind that the *Health Minister, by determination in writing, declares to be goods the supply of which is GST-free. (2) However, a supply is not GST-free under subsection (1) if the supplier and the *recipient have agreed that the supply, or supplies of a kind that include that supply, not be treated as GST-free supplies.(49) Clause 38-50, page 83 (after line 29), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) A supply of a drug or medicinal preparation is GST-free if, under a *State law or a *Territory law in the State or Territory in which it is supplied, the drug or medicinal preparation may only be supplied: (a) by a *medical practitioner, *dental practitioner, or by, or on behalf of, a pharmacist; or (b) a person who is permitted by that law to supply the drug or medicinal preparation in circumstances where pharmacy services are not available.(50) Clause 38-50, page 84 (after line 6), at the end of the clause, add: (4) A supply of a drug or medicinal preparation is GST-free if: (a) the drug or medicinal preparation is an analgesic that has a single active ingredient the supply of which as a drug or medicinal preparation would be GST-free under subsection (2A) if it were supplied in a larger quantity; and (b) the drug or medicinal preparation is of a kind the supply of which is declared by the *Health Minister to be GST-free, by determination in writing.(51) Clause 38-90, page 85 (lines 5 and 6), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) in any case—any supply of *food as part of the excursion or field trip is not GST-free under this section.(52) Clause 38-105, page 86 (line 8), omit "food", substitute "*food".(53) Clause 38-255, page 92 (lines 24 and 25), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) the goods were supplied to the institution, trustee or gift-deductible entity: (i) as a gift; or (ii) by way of a supply that was GST-free because of a previous application of this section.(54) Page 93 (after line 3), after Subdivision 38-F, insert:Subdivision 38-FA—Raffles and bingo conducted by charitable institutions etc.38-270 Raffles and bingo conducted by charitable institutions etc. A supply is GST-free if: (a) the supplier is a charitable institution, a trustee of a charitable fund or a *gift-deductible entity; and (b) the supply is: (i) a supply of a ticket in a raffle; or (ii) an acceptance of a person's participation in a game of bingo; or (iii) a *gambling supply of a kind specified in the regulations; and (c) the supply does not contravene a *State law or a *Territory law.(55) Clause 38-285, page 93 (line 7), after "GST-free", insert "under this section".(56) Heading to Subdivision 38-M, page 96 (line 21), omit the heading, substitute:Subdivision 38-M—Farm land(57) Page 97 (after line 14), at the end of Subdivision 38-M, add:38-480 Farm land supplied for farming A supply of land is GST-free if: (a) the supplier has *carried on a *farming business on the land for at least the period of 5 years preceding the supply; and (b) the *recipient of the supply intends to carry on a farming business on the land.(58) Clause 40-35, page 103 (lines 5 to 15), omit the clause, substitute:40-35 Residential rent (1) A supply of premises that is by way of lease, hire or licence (including a renewal or extension of a lease, hire or licence) is input taxed if: (a) the supply is of *residential premises (other than *commercial residential premises); or (b) the supply is of *commercial accommodation and Division 87 (which is about long-term accommodation in commercial premises) would apply to the supply but for a choice made by the supplier under section 87-25. (2) However: (a) the supply is input taxed only to the extent that the premises are to be used predominantly for residential accommodation; and (b) the supply is not input taxed under this section if the lease, hire or licence, or the renewal or extension of a lease, hire or licence, is a *long-term lease.(59) Page 104 (after line 22), at the end of Division 40, add:Subdivision 40-E—School tuckshops and canteens40-130 School tuckshops and canteens (1) A supply of *food is input taxed if: (a) the supply is made by a non-profit body through a shop operating on the grounds of a *school that supplies *primary courses or *secondary courses; and (b) the non-profit body chooses to have all its supplies of food through the shop treated as input taxed. (2) However, the non-profit body: (a) cannot make a choice under paragraph (1)(b) if any supplies are made through the shop that are not supplies of *food; and (b) cannot revoke the choice within 12 months after the day on which the non-profit body made the choice; and (c) cannot make a further choice within 12 months after the day on which the non-profit body revoked a previous choice. (3) This section does not apply to a supply of *food by a*school to boarding students of the school as part of their board.(60) Clause 48-5, page 108 (line 20), omit "*companies", substitute "entities".(61) Clause 48-5, page 108 (line 22), omit "companies", substitute "entities".(62) Clause 48-5, page 109 (line 1), omit "companies", substitute "entities".(63) Clause 48-5, page 109 (line 3), omit "companies", substitute "entities".(64) Clause 48-5, page 109 (line 4), after paragraph (1)(c), insert: ; and (d) the entity so nominated is an *Australian resident.(65) Clause 48-5, page 109 (line 5), omit "companies", substitute "entities".(66) Clause 48-5, page 109 (lines 6 and 7), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) If the application for approval includes 2 or more *companies, the application need not include all the companies of the *90% owned group to which the 2 or more companies belong.(67) Clause 48-10, page 109 (line 12), omit "A *company", substitute "An entity".(68) Clause 48-10, page 109 (line 13), omit "company", substitute "entity".(69) Clause 48-10, page 109 (lines 14 and 15), omit paragraph (1)(a), substitute: (a) is: (i) a *company; or (ii) is a *partnership or trust that satisfies the requirements specified in the regulations; and (ab) is, if the entity is a company, a company of the same *90% owned group as all the other members of the GST group or proposed GST group that are also companies; and(70) Clause 48-10, page 109 (line 17), omit paragraph (1)(c).(71) Clause 48-10, page 109 (line 23), omit "company", substitute "entity".(72) Clause 48-10, page 109 (line 26), omit "company", substitute "entity".(73) Clause 48-40, page 110 (line 9), omit "a *company", substitute "an entity".(74) Clause 48-40, page 110 (line 11), after "supply", insert "(unless it is a taxable supply because of Division 84 (which is about offshore supplies other than goods or real property))".(75) Clause 48-45, page 110 (after line 27), after subclause (1), insert:(1A) In deciding, for the purposes of subsection (1), whether an acquisition or importation by a *member of a *GST group is a *creditable acquisition or *creditable importation, the acquisition or importation is treated as being solely or partly for a *creditable purpose if, and only if, it would be so treated if: (a) the GST group were treated as a single entity; and (b) the GST group were not treated as a number of entities corresponding to the members of the GST group.(76) Clause 48-45, page 111 (line 1), omit "a *company", substitute "an entity".(77) Clause 48-45, page 111 (line 4), after "despite", insert "sections 11-5 and 15-5 (which are about what are creditable acquisitions and creditable importations), and".(78) Page 134 (after line 11), at the end of Division 57, add: 57-50 Non-residents that belong to GST groups This Division does not apply in relation to a *non-resident that is a *member of a *GST group.(79) Clause 60-20, page 137 (after line 16), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) To the extent that an acquisition or importation relates to making *financial supplies through an *enterprise, or a part of an enterprise, that the company will *carry on outside Australia, the acquisition or importation is not, for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), treated as one that relates to making supplies that would be *input taxed.(80) Clause 69-10, page 144 (after line 16), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) you are not, for the purposes of the A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax) Act 1999 , entitled to quote an *ABN in relation to the supply to which the creditable acquisition relates, or in relation to the importation, as the case requires; and(81) Page 144 (after line 24), after Division 69, insert:Division 70—Financial supplies (reduced credit acquisitions)70-1 What this Division is about In some cases, acquisitions relating to financial supplies can attract a reduced input tax credit, even though no input tax credit could arise under the basic rules.70-5 Acquisitions that attract the reduced credit (1) The regulations may provide that acquisitions of a specified kind that relate to making *financial supplies can give rise to an entitlement to a reduced input tax credit. These are reduced credit acquisitions . (2) For each kind of *reduced credit acquisition specified, the regulations must specify a percentage to which the input tax credit is reduced.70-10 Extended meaning of creditable purpose (1) The fact that a *reduced credit acquisition relates to making *financial supplies does not stop it being for a *creditable purpose, to the extent that it relates to making financial supplies. (2) The fact that you *apply a *reduced credit acquisition in making *financial supplies does not stop it being applied for a *creditable purpose, to the extent that it relates to making financial supplies. (3) This section has effect despite sections 11-15 and 129-50 (which are about the meaning of creditable purpose).70-15 How much are the reduced input tax credits? (1) The amount of an input tax credit for a *creditable acquisition of a *reduced credit acquisition is an amount equal to the GST payable on the supply of the acquisition multiplied by the percentage specified under subsection 70-5(2) for acquisitions of that kind. (2) However, the amount of such an input tax credit is further reduced if the acquisition is only *partly creditable. (3) This section has effect despite section 11-25 (which is about the amount of input tax credits).70-20 Extent of creditable purpose (1) If: (a) a *reduced credit acquisition is a *creditable acquisition; and (b) it is not wholly for a *creditable purpose because of this Division; it is *partly creditable. (2) The extent to which the acquisition is acquired or applied for a *creditable purpose is worked out using the following formula: Extent of | Extent of Division 70 | Percentage credit creditable purpose + | predictable purpose | x reduction where: extent of creditable purpose is the extent to which the purpose for which you applied or acquired the acquisition was a *creditable purpose otherwise than because of this Division, expressed as a percentage. extent of Division 70 creditable purpose is the extent to which the purpose for which you applied or acquired the acquisition was a *creditable purpose because of this Division, expressed as a percentage. percentage credit reduction is the reduced input tax credit percentage prescribed for the purposes of subsection 70-5(2) for an acquisition of that kind. Note: This section affects sections 11-30 and 129-40. It is used even if the reduced credit acquisition is used wholly in carrying on your enterprise (unless the acquisition was wholly for a creditable purpose because of this Division, then section 70-15 applies). Example 1: You make a reduced credit acquisition of $110,000, wholly for the purposes of carrying on your enterprise, partly for the purpose of making financial supplies (40%) and partly for the purpose of making taxable supplies (60%). Assume the percentage credit reduction to be 50%. The extent to which you make the acquisition for a creditable purpose is: 60% + (40% x 50%) = 80% Applying section 11-30, your input tax credit is $8,000 (assuming you were liable for all the consideration). Example 2: You subsequently apply the acquisition partly in making financial supplies (40%), partly in making taxable supplies (40%) and partly for private use (20%). The extent to which you made the acquisition for a creditable purpose is: 40% + (40% x 50%) = 60% Applying Division 129, your input tax credit is reduced to $6,000, giving you an increasing adjustment of $2,000.70-25 Sale of reduced credit acquisitions (Division 132) (1) If: (a) you supply a *reduced credit acquisition in circumstances to which Division 132 applies; and (b) you made the acquisition for a *creditable purpose because of this Division, or you applied the acquisition for a *creditable purpose because of this Division; this section applies for the purposes of Division 132. (2) In working out the full input tax credit in subsection 132-5(2), the reference to a *creditable purpose in paragraph (a) of the definition of full input tax credit is to be read as a reference to a *creditable purpose otherwise than because of Division 70. (3) In working out the adjusted input tax credit in subsection 132-5(2), the extent of the *creditable purpose because of subsection 132-5(4) is increased by the following extent: Extent of Division 70 Percentage credit Creditable purpose x reduction where: extent of Division 70 creditable purpose has the same meaning as in section 70-20. percentage credit reduction has the same meaning as in section 70-20.(82) Division 75, page 148 (line 2) to page 150 (line 25), omit the Division, substitute:Division 75—Sale of freehold interests etc.75-1 What this Division is about This Division allows you to use a margin scheme to bring within the GST system your taxable supplies of freehold interests in land, of stratum units and of long-term leases.75-5 Choosing to apply the margin scheme (1) If you make a *taxable supply of *real property by: (a) selling a freehold interest in land; or (b) selling a *stratum unit; or (c) granting or selling a *long-term lease; you may choose to apply the *margin scheme in working out the amount of GST on the supply. (2) However, you cannot choose to apply the *margin scheme if you acquired the freehold interest, *stratum unit or *long-term lease through a *taxable supply on which the GST was worked out without applying the margin scheme.75-10 The amount of GST on taxable supplies (1) If a *taxable supply of *real property is under the *margin scheme, the amount of GST on the supply is 1/11 of the *margin for the supply. (2) The margin for the supply is the amount by which the *consideration for the supply exceeds the consideration for your acquisition of the interest, unit or lease in question. (3) However, if: (a) the circumstances specified in an item in the second column of the table in this subsection apply to the supply; and (b) a valuation of the freehold interest, *stratum unit or *long-term lease, as at the day specified in the corresponding item in the third column of the table, has been made that complies with any requirements determined in writing by the Commissioner for making valuations for the purposes of this Division; the margin for the supply is the amount by which the *consideration for the supply exceeds that valuation of the interest, unit or lease.Use of valuations to work out marginsItemWhen valuations may be usedDays when valuations are to be made1The supplier acquired the interest, unit or lease before 1 July 2000, and items 2, 3 and 4 do not apply.1 July 20002The supplier acquired the interest, unit or lease before 1 July 2000, but does not become *registered or *required to be registered until after 1 July 2000.The date of effect of your registration, or the day on which you applied for registration (if it is earlier)3The supplier is *registered or *required to be registered and has held the interest, unit or lease since before 1 July 2000, and there were improvements on the land or premises in question as at 1 July 2000.1 July 20004The supplier is the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory and has held the interest, unit or lease since before 1 July 2000, and there were no improvements on the land or premises in question as at 1 July 2000.The day on which the *taxable supply takes place (4) This section has effect despite section 9-70 (which is about the amount of GST on taxable supplies).75-15 Subdivided land For the purposes of section 75-10, if the freehold interest, *stratum unit or *long-term lease you supply relates only to part of land or premises that you acquired, the *consideration for your acquisition of that part is the corresponding proportion of the consideration for the land or premises that you acquired.75-20 Supplies under a margin scheme do not give rise to creditable acquisitions (1) An acquisition of a freehold interest in land, a *stratum unit or a *long-term lease is not a *creditable acquisition if the supply of the interest, unit or lease was a *taxable supply under the *margin scheme. (2) This section has effect despite section 11-5 (which is about what is a creditable acquisition).75-25 Adjustments relating to bad debts (1) If: (a) you have an *adjustment under Division 21 relating to a supply that you made that is a *taxable supply of *real property under the *margin scheme; and (b) the amount of the adjustment would (apart from this section) exceed 1/11 of the *margin for the supply; the amount of the adjustment is 1/11 of the margin for the supply. (2) This section has effect despite sections 21-5 and 21-10 (which are about adjustments for writing off and recovering suppliers' bad debts).(83) Division 78, page 151 (line 2) to page 152 (line 25), omit the Division, substitute:Division 78—Insurance78-1 What this Division is about Settlements of claims under insurance policies in most cases entitle insurers to input tax credits. Entities that are insured can be liable for GST on the settlement, but third parties paid under the settlement are not liable for GST.Table of Subdivisions 78-A Insurers 78-B Insured entities 78-C Third parties 78-D Insured entities that are not registered etc.Subdivision 78-A—Insurers78-5 Creditable acquisitions relating to settlements of insurance claims (1) If, in settlement of a claim under an *insurance policy, an insurer: (a) makes a payment of *money; or (b) makes a supply; or (c) makes both a payment of money and a supply; the payment or supply is treated as *consideration for an acquisition made by the insurer. (2) The acquisition is a creditable acquisition if: (a) the insurer settles the claim for a *creditable purpose; and (b) the insurer is *registered, or *required to be registered. (3) However, this section only applies if the supply of the *insurance policy by the insurer was a *taxable supply. (4) An insurance policy is a policy of insurance (or of reinsurance) against loss, damage, injury or risk of any kind, whether under a contract or a law. However, it does not include such a policy to the extent that it does not relate to insurance (or reinsurance) against loss, damage, injury or risk of any kind. (5) This section has effect despite section 11-5 (which is about what is a creditable acquisition).78-10 Amount of input tax credits relating to settlements of insurance claims (1) The amount of the input tax credit for a *creditable acquisition to which section 78-5 applies is an amount equal to 1/11 of: (a) all payments of *money made in settlement of the claim in question; plus (b) the market value of all supplies, made in settlement of the claim, that are not *taxable supplies; minus (c) any payments of an excess under the *insurance policy in question. (2) However, the amount of the input tax credit is reduced by the extent (if any) to which the settlement relates to one or more *non-creditable insurance events. (3) An event is a non-creditable insurance event if the supply of an *insurance policy would not be a *taxable supply if it were only an insurance policy against loss, damage, injury or risk that relates to that event happening. (4) This section has effect despite section 11-25 (which is about the amount of input tax credits for creditable acquisitions).78-15 Acquisitions of goods by insurers in the course of settling claims (1) An acquisition of *goods is not a *creditable acquisition if: (a) it is solely an acquisition made by an insurer for the purpose of supplying the goods in the course of settling a claim under an *insurance policy; and (b) the supply of the insurance policy by the insurer was not a *taxable supply. (2) This section has effect despite section 11-5 (which is about what is a creditable acquisition).Subdivision 78-B—Insured entities78-30 Taxable supplies relating to settlements of insurance claims (1) If, in settlement of a claim under an *insurance policy, an insurer: (a) makes a payment of *money; or (b) makes a supply; or (c) makes both a payment of money and a supply; the payment or supply is treated as *consideration for a supply made by the entity insured under the insurance policy, whether or not the payment or supply is made to that entity. (2) The supply made by the entity insured under the insurance policy is a taxable supply if the entity was entitled to an input tax credit for the premium it paid relating to the period during which the event giving rise to the claim happened. (3) It does not matter whether the entity is *registered, or *required to be registered, at the time of the settlement or at the time of the payment or supply by the insurer. Note: Subdivision 78-D deals with how GST applies to the taxable supply if the insured entity is not registered, or required to be registered. (4) However, the supply to the entity insured is not a *taxable supply to the extent (if any) that the *consideration for the supply is a taxable supply. (5) This section has effect despite section 9-5 (which is about what are taxable supplies) and section 9-15 (which is about consideration).78-35 Payments of excess under insurance policies are not consideration for supplies (1) The making of any payment by an entity is not treated as *consideration for a supply, to the entity or any other entity, to the extent that the payment is the payment of an excess under an *insurance policy. (2) This section has effect despite section 9-15 (which is about consideration).78-40 Effect of payments of excess under insurance policies on amounts of GST (1) If, in settlement of a claim under an *insurance policy: (a) the entity insured under the insurance policy makes a *taxable supply under subsection 78-30(2); and (b) the entity makes a payment of an excess under the policy; the value of the taxable supply is reduced by an amount equal to 10/11 of the amount of the excess. (2) This section has effect despite section 9-75 (which is about the value of taxable supplies).78-45 Supplies of goods to insurers in the course of settling claims (1) A supply of goods is not a *taxable supply if it is solely a supply made under an *insurance policy to an insurer in the course of settling a claim under the policy. (2) In working out the value of a *taxable supply that is partly a supply of goods made under an *insurance policy to an insurer in the course of settling a claim under the policy, disregard the *consideration to the extent that it relates to the supply of those goods. (3) This section has effect despite section 9-5 (which is about what are taxable supplies) and section 9-75 (which is about the value of taxable supplies).78-50 Settlements of claims relating to non-creditable insurance events (1) Despite section 78-30, a supply by an insured entity under subsection 78-30(1) is not a *taxable supply to the extent (if any) that it relates to a settlement that relates to one or more *non-creditable insurance events. (2) This section has effect despite section 9-5 (which is about what are taxable supplies).Subdivision 78-C—Third parties78-65 Payments etc. to third parties by insurers (1) The making of any payment by an insurer to an entity is not treated as *consideration for a supply to the insurer by the entity, to the extent that the payment is made in settlement of a claim under an *insurance policy under which the entity is not insured. (2) The making of any supply by an insurer to an entity: (a) is not to be treated as a *taxable supply by the insurer; and (b) is not to be treated as *consideration for a supply to the insurer by the entity, or any other entity; to the extent that the supply is made in settlement of a claim under an *insurance policy under which the entity is not insured. (3) This section has effect despite section 9-5 (which is about what are taxable supplies) and section 9-15 (which is about consideration).78-70 Payments etc. to third parties by insured entities (1) The making of any payment by an entity to another entity is not to be treated as *consideration for a supply to the entity by that other entity, to the extent that: (a) the payment is to discharge a liability of the entity to that other entity; and (b) the payment is covered by a settlement of a claim under an *insurance policy under which the entity was insured against that liability. (2) The making of any supply by an entity to another entity: (a) is not to be treated as a *taxable supply by the entity; and (b) is not to be treated as *consideration for a supply to the entity by that other, or any other, entity; to the extent that: (c) the supply is to discharge a liability of the entity to that other entity; and (d) the supply is covered by a settlement of a claim under an *insurance policy under which the entity was insured against that liability. (3) This section has effect despite section 9-5 (which is about what are taxable supplies) and section 9-15 (which is about consideration).Subdivision 78-D—Insured entities that are not registered etc.78-80 Net amounts (1) If an entity insured under an *insurance policy is not *registered or *required to be registered, it does not have a *net amount under Part 2-4 merely because it makes a *taxable supply under section 78-30. (2) This section does not prevent an *adjustment arising that relates to such a supply, but the entity cannot have a *decreasing adjustment unless it is *registered or *required to be registered. (3) This section has effect despite Division 17 (which is about net amounts and adjustments).78-85 GST returns (1) If, during a month: (a) an entity makes any *taxable supplies under section 78-30; or (b) an entity has any *increasing adjustments that arise in relation to any such supplies (whether made in that month or a previous month); and the entity is not *registered or *required to be registered during that month, it must give to the Commissioner a *GST return, within 21 days after the end of the month, relating to those supplies it made in that month and those adjustments. (2) The *GST return need not state a *net amount. (3) This section has effect despite sections 31-5, 31-10 and 31-15 (which are about giving GST returns). 78-90 Payments of GST (1) If an entity is not *registered or *required to be registered during a particular month, it must pay: (a) amounts of GST on *taxable supplies under section 78-30 that it makes during that month; and (b) amounts of *increasing adjustments that it has that arise, during that month, in relation to supplies that are *taxable supplies under section 78-30; within 21 days after the end of the month, and at the place and in the manner specified by the Commissioner. (2) This section has effect despite Division 33 (which is about payments of GST).(84) Page 159 (after line 11), at the end of Division 87, add:87-25 Suppliers may choose not to apply this Division (1) This Division does not apply to a supply of *commercial accommodation if the supplier chooses not to apply this Division to any supplies of commercial accommodation that the supplier makes. (2) The choice applies to all supplies of *commercial accommodation that the supplier makes after the choice is made and before the choice is revoked. (3) However, the supplier: (a) cannot revoke the choice within 12 months after the day on which the supplier made the choice; and (b) cannot make a further choice within 12 months after the day on which the supplier revoked a previous choice.(85) Page 175 (after line 24), after Division 108, insert:Division 111—Reimbursement of employees etc.111-1 What this Division is aboutYou may be entitled to input tax credits for reimbursing employees, agents, officers or partners for expenses they incur in connection with the carrying on of your enterprise. 111-5 Creditable acquisitions relating to reimbursements (1) If: (a) you reimburse an employee, other *PAYE earner or agent for an expense he or she incurs that is related directly to his or her activities as your employee, PAYE earner or agent; or (b) you are a *company and you reimburse an *officer for an expense he or she incurs that is related directly to his or her activities as your officer; or (c) you are a *partnership and you reimburse a partner for an expense he or she incurs that is related directly to his or her activities as a partner in the partnership; the reimbursement is treated as *consideration for an acquisition that you make from the employee, PAYE earner, agent, officer or partner. (2) The fact that the supply to you is not a *taxable supply does not stop the acquisition being a *creditable acquisition. (3) However, the acquisition: (a) is not a *creditable acquisition to the extent (if any) that the employee, *PAYE earner, agent, *officer or partner is entitled to an input tax credit for acquiring the thing acquired in incurring the expense; and (b) is not a creditable acquisition unless the supply of the thing acquired, by the employee, PAYE earner, agent, officer or partner in incurring the expense, was a taxable supply. (4) This section has effect despite section 11-5 (which is about what is a creditable acquisition).111-10 Amounts of input tax credits relating to reimbursements (1) The amount of the input tax credit for a *creditable acquisition the *consideration for which is a reimbursement to which section 111-5 applies is an amount equal to 1/11 of the amount of the reimbursement. (2) However, if: (a) the incurring of the expense by the employee, *PAYE earner, agent, *officer or partner is only in part related directly to his or her activities as your employee, PAYE earner or agent or officer, or as a partner in the *partnership, as the case requires; and (b) the reimbursement does not constitute: (i) a fringe benefit within the meaning of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 ; or (ii) a benefit that, but for paragraph (g) of the definition of fringe benefit in subsection 136(1) of that Act, would be a fringe benefit within the meaning of that Act; the amount of the input tax credit under subsection (1) is reduced by an extent equivalent to the extent to which the incurring of the expense is not related directly to those activities. (3) This section has effect despite section 11-25 (which is about the amount of input tax credits for creditable acquisitions).111-15 Tax invoices relating to reimbursements For the purposes of subsection 29-10(3), you are taken to hold a *tax invoice for a *creditable acquisition the *consideration for which is a reimbursement to which section 111-5 applies if you hold a tax invoice for the *taxable supply referred to in subsection 111-5(3).(86) Division 123, page 182 (line 6) to page 191 (line 2), omit the Division.(87) Clause 126-10, page 193 (lines 9 to 13), omit the definition of total monetary prizes , substitute: total monetary prizes is the sum of: (a) the *monetary prizes you are liable to pay, during the tax period, on the outcome of gambling events (whether or not any of those gambling events, or the *gambling supplies to which the monetary prizes relate, take place during the tax period); and (b) any amounts of *money you are liable to pay, during the tax period, under agreements between you and *recipients of your gambling supplies, to repay to them a proportion of their losses relating to those supplies (whether or not the supplies take place during the tax period).(88) Clause 126-10, page 193 (after line 16), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) In working out the total monetary prizes for a tax period, disregard any *monetary prizes you are liable to pay, during the tax period, that relate to supplies that are *GST- free under Subdivision 38-FA.(89) Page 194 (after line 22), after clause 126-30, insert:126-32 Repayments of gambling losses are not consideration (1) A payment of money is not the provision of *consideration to the extent that the payment: (a) is made by a supplier of *gambling supplies to a *recipient of gambling supplies that the supplier makes; and (b) is made, under an agreement between them, to repay to the recipient a proportion of his or her losses relating to those supplies. (2) This section has effect despite section 9-15 (which is about what is consideration).(90) Page 194 (after line 22), after clause 126-30, insert:126-33 Tax invoices not required for gambling supplies (1) You are not required to issue a *tax invoice for a *taxable supply that you make that is solely a *gambling supply. (2) This section has effect despite section 29-70 (which is about the requirement to issue tax invoices).(91) Page 197 (after line 8), at the end of Subdivision 129-A, add:129-10 Adjustments do not arise under this Division for acquisitions and importations below a certain value (1) Despite section 129-5, an adjustment cannot arise under this Division for an acquisition or importation that *relates to business finance, unless the acquisition or importation had a *GST exclusive value of more than $10,000. (2) Despite section 129-5, an adjustment cannot arise under this Division for an acquisition or importation that does not *relate to business finance, unless the acquisition or importation had a *GST exclusive value of more than $1,000. (3) An acquisition or importation relates to business finance if, at the time of the acquisition or importation, it: (a) related solely or partly to making *financial supplies; and (b) was not solely or partly of a private or domestic nature.(92) Page 197, clause 129-20 (line 25), omit "However", substitute "Despite subsection (1), for an acquisition or importation that *relates to business finance".(93) Clause 129-20, page 198 (after line 6), at the end of the clause, add: (3) Despite subsection (1), for an acquisition or importation that does not *relate to business finance: (a) if the *GST exclusive value of the acquisition or importation is $5,000 or less—only the first 2 such tax periods are adjustment periods ; or (b) if the GST exclusive value of the acquisition or importation is more than $5,000 but less than $500,000—only the first 5 such tax periods are adjustment periods ; or (c) if the GST exclusive value of the acquisition or importation is $500,000 or more—only the first 10 such tax periods are adjustment periods . However, the Commissioner may, having regard to record keeping requirements for the purposes of income tax, determine in writing that a fewer number of tax periods are adjustment periods for a particular class of acquisitions or importations that do not *relate to business finance.(94) Clause 129-25, page 198 (lines 9 to 12), omit paragraph (1)(a), substitute: (a) you dispose of a thing acquired or imported (other than in circumstances giving rise to a *decreasing adjustment under Division 132); or(95) Clause 129-25, page 198 (lines 21 to 23), omit paragraph (2)(b), substitute: (b) the disposal takes place in circumstances giving rise to a *decreasing adjustment under Division 132;(96) Clause 129-50, page 201 (after line 3), at the end of the clause, add: (3) To the extent that an *application relates to making *financial supplies through an *enterprise, or a part of an enterprise, that you *carry on outside Australia, the application is not, for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), treated as one that relates to making supplies that would be *input taxed.(97) Division 132, page 204 (line 2) to page 206 (line 16), omit the Division, substitute:Division 132—Supplies of things acquired, imported or applied to make financial supplies132-1 What this Division is about You may have a decreasing adjustment if you make a supply of something that you earlier acquired or imported, or subsequently applied, to make financial supplies.132-5 Decreasing adjustments for supplies of things acquired, imported or applied to make financial supplies (1) You have a *decreasing adjustment under this Division if: (a) you make a *taxable supply of a thing (or a supply of a thing that would have been a taxable supply had it not been *GST-free under Subdivision 38-H); and (b) the supply is a supply by way of sale; and (c) your acquisition or importation of the thing related solely or partly to making *financial supplies, or you subsequently *applied the thing solely or partly to making financial supplies. (2) The amount of the *decreasing adjustment is as follows: 1 | Adjusted input tax credit | ___ x Price | 1 — _________________________ | 11 | Full input tax credit |where: adjusted input tax credit is: (a) the amount of any input tax credit that was attributable to a tax period in respect of the acquisition or importation; minus (b) the sum of any *increasing adjustments, under Subdivision 19-C or Division 129, that were previously attributable to a tax period in respect of the acquisition or importation; plus (c) the sum of any *decreasing adjustments, under Subdivision 19-C or Division 129, that were previously attributable to a tax period in respect of the acquisition or importation. full input tax credit is the amount of the input tax credit to which you would have been entitled for acquiring or importing the thing for the purpose of your *enterprise if: (a) the acquisition or importation had been solely for a *creditable purpose; and (b) in the case where the supply to you was a *taxable supply only because of section 72-5 or 84-5—the supply had been a *taxable supply under section 9-5. price is the *price of the *taxable supply. (3) However, if the amount worked out under subsection (2) is greater than the difference between the full input tax credit and the adjusted input tax credit, the amount of the *decreasing adjustment is an amount equal to that difference. (4) In working out the adjusted input tax credit, the acquisition, importation or *application in question is treated as having been for a *creditable purpose except to the extent that the acquisition, importation or application relates to the making of *financial supplies.132-10 Attribution of adjustments under this Division (1) A *decreasing adjustment under this Division is attributable to: (a) the same tax period as the *taxable supply to which it relates; or (b) if it relates to a supply that is not a taxable supply—the tax period to which the supply would be attributable if it were a taxable supply. (2) This section has effect despite section 29-20 (which is about attributing your adjustments).(98) Clause 135-5, page 207 (line 10), after "going concern", insert ", or a supply that is *GST-free under section 38-480".(99) Clause 135-10, page 208 (line 2), after "going concern", insert ", or a supply that is *GST-free under section 38-480".(100) Clause 135-10, page 208 (line 18), after "going concern", insert ", or a supply that is *GST-free under section 38-480".(101) Clause 156-1, page 218 (line 5), omit "on a progressive or periodic basis", substitute "for a period or on a progressive basis".(102) Clause 156-5, page 218 (line 10), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) for a period or on a progressive basis; and(103) Clause 156-10, page 218 (line 21), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) for a period or on a progressive basis; and(104) Clause 156-20, page 219 (line 14), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) for a period or on a progressive basis; and(105) Clause 165-1, page 225 (line 12) to page 226 (line 6), omit the clause, substitute:165-1 What this Division is about The object of this Division is to deter schemes to give entities benefits by reducing GST, increasing refunds or altering the timing of payment of GST or refunds. If the dominant purpose or principal effect of a scheme is to give an entity such a benefit, the Commissioner may negate the benefit an entity gets from the scheme by declaring how much GST or refund would have been payable, and when it would have been payable, apart from the scheme. This Division is aimed at artificial or contrived schemes. It is not, for example, intended to apply to: . an exporter electing to have monthly tax periods in order to bring forward the entitlement to input tax credits; or . a supplier of child care applying to register under the Childcare Rebate Act 1993 (registration would make the supplies of child care GST-free); or . a supplier choosing under section 9-25 of the A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act 1999 to use the average wholesale price method for working out the taxable value of retail sales of grape wine; or . a bank having its car fleet serviced earlier than usual, and before 1 July 2000, so that the servicing does not, at least initially, bear the GST.(106) Clause 165-5, page 226 (after line 12), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) the GST benefit is not attributable to the making, by any entity, of a choice, election, application or agreement that is expressly provided for by the *GST law, the *wine tax law or the *luxury car tax law; and(107) Clause 165-5, page 226 (line 20), omit "a principal effect", substitute "the principal effect".(108) Clause 165-5, page 226 (line 22), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; and (c) the scheme: (i) is a scheme that has been or is entered into on or after 2 December 1998; or (ii) is a scheme that has been or is carried out or commenced on or after that day (other than a scheme that was entered into before that day).(109) Clause 177-1, page 236 (after line 20), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) If the Commonwealth or a *Commonwealth entity is notionally liable to pay GST for a supply made to another entity (other than the Commonwealth or a *Commonwealth entity), the *GST law applies in relation to the other entity as if: (a) the supply were a *taxable supply to that entity; and (b) the amount of GST for which the Commonwealth or a *Commonwealth entity is notionally liable for the supply is treated as the amount of GST payable for the supply.(110) Page 236 (after line 26), after clause 177-1, insert:177-3 Acquisitions from State or Territory bodies where GST liability is notional If: (a) an *Australian government agency, other than the Commonwealth or a *Commonwealth entity, makes a supply to another entity; and (b) the agency is not liable for GST on the supply, but an amount relating to the agency's notional liability for GST on the supply is included in the *consideration for the supply; the *GST law applies in relation to the other entity as if: (c) the supply were a *taxable supply to that entity; and (d) the amount of GST for which the agency is notionally liable on the supply is the amount of GST payable on the supply.(111) Clause 177-10, page 237 (before line 18), before paragraph (a), insert: (aa) paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of adult and community education course in the Dictionary; or(112) Clause 177-10, page 237 (lines 24 and 25), omit subclause (4), substitute: (4) The *Health Minister may make a determination for the purposes of: (a) paragraph 38-15(c); or (b) subsection 38-47(1); or (c) paragraph 38-50(4)(b).(113) Page 240 (after line 27), at the end of Division 182, add:182-15 Schedules 1A and 1B The second columns of the tables in Schedules 1A and 1B are not operative. In interpreting an item in those tables, or any other operative provision, those columns may only be considered for a purpose for which an *explanatory section may be considered under subsection 182-10(2).(114) Clause 195-1, page 250 (lines 19 and 20), omit the definition of actual input tax credit amount .(115) Clause 195-1, page 250 (lines 21 and 22), omit the definition of adjusted input tax credit amount .(116) Clause 195-1, page 251 (after line 5), after the definition of adjustment period , insert: adult and community education course means a course of study or instruction that is likely to add to the employment related skills of people undertaking the course and: (a) is of a kind determined by the *Education Minister to be an adult and community education course and is provided by, or on behalf of, a body: (i) that is a *higher education institution; or (ii) that is recognised, by a State or Territory authority, as a provider of courses of a kind described in the determination; or (iii) that is funded by a State or Territory on the basis that it is a provider of courses of a kind described in the determination; or (b) is determined by the *Education Minister to be an adult and community education course.(117) Clause 195-1, page 253 (after line 5), after the definition of batch repair process , insert: beverage has the meaning given by subsection 38-4(2).(118) Clause 195-1, page 255 (line 7), after "sections", insert "78-30, 78-35, 78-65, 78-70,".(119) Clause 195-1, page 255 (line 16), at the end of the definition of creditable acquisition , add "and subsection 78-5(2)".(120) Clause 195-1, page 255 (line 17), omit "78-10,", substitute "78-15,".(121) Clause 195-1, page 255 (line 18), omit "and 93-5", substitute ", 93-5 and 111-5".(122) Clause 195-1, page 255 (lines 19 and 20), omit the definition of creditable diesel fuel consumption .(123) Clause 195-1, page 256 (after line 2), at the end of the definition of creditable purpose , add: Note: This meaning is affected by section 70-10.(124) Clause 195-1, page 256 (table item 5 in the definition of decreasing adjustment ), omit the table item.(125) Clause 195-1, page 257 (line 4), omit the definition of diesel fuel .(126) Clause 195-1, page 257 (line 5), omit the definition of diesel fuel credit .(127) Clause 195-1, page 257 (lines 6 to 8), omit the definition of diesel or like fuel .(128) Clause 195-1, page 257 (after line 17), after paragraph (f) of the definition of education course , insert: (fa) an *adult and community education course; or(129) Clause 195-1, page 257 (after line 18), after paragraph (g) of the definition of education course , insert: (ga) a *first aid or life saving course; or(130) Clause 195-1, page 259 (lines 5 and 6), omit the definition of excluded insurance transaction .(131) Clause 195-1, page 259 (after line 24), after the definition of financial year , insert: first aid or life saving course means a course of study or instruction that: (a) principally involves training individuals in first aid, resuscitation or other similar life saving skills; and (b) is provided by a non-profit body that is: (i) registered (or otherwise approved) by a State or Territory authority that has responsibility for registering (or otherwise approving) bodies that provide such courses; or (ii) approved to provide such courses by a State or Territory body that has responsibility for approving the provision of such courses.(132) Clause 195-1, page 260 (after line 2), after the definition of floating home , insert: food has the meaning given by section 38-4.(133) Clause 195-1, page 260 (lines 20 to 27), omit the definition of gross vehicle weight .(134) Clause 195-1, page 264 (line 10), omit "78-5(3)", substitute "78-5(4)".(135) Clause 195-1, page 263 (table item 5 in the definition of increasing adjustment ), omit the table item.(136) Clause 195-1, page 265 (after line 21), after the definition of long-term lease , insert: luxury car tax law has the meaning given in section 27-1 of the A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax) Act 1999 .(137) Clause 195-1, page 265 (lines 22 and 23), omit "*potential residential land", substitute "*real property".(138) Clause 195-1, page 265 (line 24), omit "*potential residential land", substitute "*real property".(139) Clause 195-1, page 266 (lines 14 and 15), omit the definition of minerals .(140) Clause 195-1, page 266 (line 16), omit the definition of mining operations .(141) Clause 195-1, page 267 (after line 14), after the definition of new residential premises , insert: non-creditable insurance event has the meaning given by subsection 78-10(3).(142) Clause 195-1, page 267 (after line 27), after the definition of non-taxable importation , insert: officer , except in section 38-510, has the meaning given by the Corporations Law.(143) Clause 195-1, page 268 (line 10), omit "section 11-30", substitute "sections 11-30 and 70-20".(144) Clause 195-1, page 269 (after line 6), after the definition of pre-establishment importation , insert: premises , in relation to a supply of *food, has the meaning given by section 38-4A.(145) Clause 195-1, page 270 (lines 6 to 8), omit the definition of process of beneficiation ceases .(146) Clause 195-1, page 271 (after line 21), after the definition of recognised tax adviser , insert: reduced credit acquisition has the meaning given by subsection 70-5(1).(147) Clause 195-1, page 272 (after line 2), after the definition of registration turnover threshold , insert: relates to business finance has the meaning given by subsection 129-10(3).(148) Clause 195-1, page 274 (after line 10), after the definition of State law , insert: stratum unit has the meaning given by subsection 124-190(3) of the *ITAA 1997.(149) Clause 195-1, page 275 (line 1), after "9-5,", insert "78-30,".(150) Clause 195-1, page 275 (line 3), omit "78-10,", substitute "78-45, 78-50, 78-65, 78-70,".(151) Clause 195-1, page 276 (lines 1 and 2), omit the definition of transport vehicle .(152) Clause 195-1, page 276 (lines 3 and 4), omit the definition of transport for beneficiation of minerals or ores .(153) Clause 195-1, page 276 (line 16), omit "78-15,", substitute "78-40, 78-45,".(154) Clause 195-1, page 276 (after line 21), after the definition of value , insert: wine tax law has the meaning given in section 33-1 of the A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act 1999 .(155) Page 276 (after line 25), after Chapter 6, insert:Schedule 1A—Food that is not GST-freeNote 1: See section 38-3.Note 2: The second column of the table is not operative (see section 182-15).1 Food that is not GST-free *Food specified in the third column of the table is not GST-free.Food that is not GST-freeItemCategoryFood1Prepared foodquiches2sandwiches (using any type of bread or roll)3pizzas, pizza subs, pizza pockets and similar *food4*food marketed as a prepared meal, but not including soup5platters etc. of cheese, cold cuts, fruit or vegetables and other arrangements of *food6hamburgers, chicken burgers and similar *food7hot dogs 8Confectioneryconfectionery, *food marketed as confectionery, food marketed as ingredients for confectionery or food consisting principally of confectionery9popcorn10confectionery novelties11*food known as muesli bars or health food bars, and similar foodstuffs12crystallised fruit, glace fruit and drained fruit13crystallised ginger and preserved ginger14edible cake decorations15Savoury snackspotato crisps, sticks or straws, corn crisps or chips, bacon or pork crackling or prawn chips16seeds or nuts that have been processed or treated by salting, spicing, smoking or roasting, or in any other similar way17caviar and similar fish roe18*food similar to that covered by item 15 or 16, whether or not it consists wholly or partly of any vegetable, herb, fruit, meat, seafood or dairy product or extract and whether or not it is artificially flavoured19*food consisting principally of food covered by items 15 to 1820Bakery productscakes, slices, cheesecakes, pancakes, waffles, crepes, muffins and puddings21pavlova and meringues22pies (meat, vegetable or fruit), pasties and sausage rolls23tarts and pastries24doughnuts and croissants25pastizzi, calzoni and brioche26scones and scrolls27bread (including buns) with a sweet filling or coating28Ice-cream foodice-cream, ice-cream cakes, ice-creams and ice-cream substitutes29frozen confectionery, frozen yoghurt and frozen fruit products (but not frozen whole fruit)30flavoured iceblocks (whether or not marketed in a frozen state)31any *food similar to food listed in items 28 to 3032Biscuit goods*food that is, or consists principally of, biscuits, cookies, crackers, pretzels, cones or wafers2 Prepared food, bakery products and biscuit goods For the purpose of determining whether particular *food is covered by any of the items in the table relating to the category of prepared food, bakery products or biscuit goods, it does not matter whether it is supplied hot or cold, or requires cooking, heating, thawing or chilling prior to consumption.3 Prepared meals Item 4 in the table only applies to *food that requires refrigeration or freezing for its storage.4 Candied peel None of the items in the table relating to the category of confectionery include candied peel.5 Goods that are not biscuit goods None of the items in the table relating to the category of biscuit goods include: (a) breakfast *food consisting principally of compressed, rolled or flattened cereal; or (b) rusks for infants or invalids, or goods consisting principally of those rusks. Schedule 1B—Beverages that are GST-freeNote 1: See section 38-3.Note 2: The second column of the table is not operative (see section 182-15).1 Beverages that are GST-free *Beverages specified in the third column of the table are GST-free.Beverages that are GST-freeItemCategoryBeverages1Milk productsany of the following products: (a) milk, skim milk or buttermilk (whether liquid, powdered, concentrated or condensed); (b) casein; (c) whey, whey powder or whey paste2*beverages consisting of products referred to in item 1 (or a combination of those products), to the extent of at least 95%, but not including flavoured beverages3lactose4Soy milk and rice milk*beverages consisting principally of soy milk or rice milk, but not including flavoured beverages5Tea, coffee etc.tea (including herbal tea, fruit tea, ginseng tea and other similar *beverage preparations), coffee and coffee essence, chicory and chicory essence, and malt6malt extract, if it is marketed principally for drinking purposes7preparations for drinking purposes that are marketed principally as tea preparations, coffee preparations, or preparations for malted *beverages8preparations marketed principally as substitutes for preparations covered by item 6 or 79dry preparations marketed for the purpose of flavouring milk10Fruit and vegetable juicesconcentrates for making non-alcoholic *beverages, if the concentrates consist of at least 90% by volume of juices of fruits11non-alcoholic carbonated *beverages, if they consist wholly of juices of fruits or vegetables12non-alcoholic non-carbonated *beverages, if they consist of at least 90% by volume of juices of fruits or vegetables13Beverages for infants or invalids*beverages, and ingredients for beverages, of a kind marketed principally as *food for infants or invalids14Waterbottled natural water, non-carbonated and without any other additives2 Tea, coffee etc. None of the items in the table relating to the category of tea, coffee etc. include any *beverage that is marketed in a ready-to-drink form.3 Fruit and vegetable juices For the purposes of items 11 and 12 in the table, herbage is treated as vegetables.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1998(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 8 (lines 12 and 13), omit ", creditable importations and acquisitions and importations of diesel or like fuel", substitute "and creditable importations".(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 12 (lines 16 and 17), omit ", an input tax credit or a diesel fuel credit", substitute "or an input tax credit". (3) Schedule 1, item 7, page 17 (lines 10 to 12), omit ", a creditable importation or an acquisition or importation of diesel or like fuel for creditable diesel fuel consumption", substitute "or a creditable importation".(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 29 (after table item 11), insert:11A refusing a request for a determination section 27-3711B revoking a determination under section 27-37 subsection 27-38(1)11C deciding the date of a revocation subsection 27-38(2)(5) Schedule 1, item 7, page 35 (lines 27 and 28), omit "or acquire or import diesel or like fuel for creditable diesel fuel consumption,".A NEW TAX SYSTEM (PERSONAL INCOME TAX CUTS) BILL 1998(1) Schedule 1, item 11, page 4 (lines 2 to 5), omit the item, substitute:11 Subsection 20E(2) (table)Repeal the table, substitute: Tax rates for resident taxpayerColumn 1 For the part of the ordinary taxable income of the taxpayer that: Column 2 The rate is:exceeds $20,000 but does not exceed the adjusted tax-free threshold13%exceeds the adjusted tax-free threshold but does not exceed $50,00030%exceeds $50,000 but does not exceed $60,00042%exceeds $60,00047% Note: The heading to section 20E is altered by omitting "$20,700 " and substituting "$20,000 ".(2) Schedule 1, item 14, page 4 (lines 10 to 12), omit the item, substitute:14 Clause 1 of Part I of Schedule 7 (table) Repeal the table, substitute: Tax rates for resident taxpayerColumn 1 For the part of the ordinary taxable income of the taxpayer that: Column 2 The rate is:exceeds $6,000 but does not exceed $20,00017%exceeds $20,000 but does not exceed $50,00030%exceeds $50,000 but does not exceed $60,00042%exceeds $60,00047%(3) Schedule 1, item 15, page 5 (lines 1 to 3), omit the item, substitute:15 Clause 1 of Part II of Schedule 7 (table) Repeal the table, substitute: Tax rates for non-resident taxpayerColumn 1 For the part of the ordinary taxable income of the taxpayer that: Column 2 The rate is:does not exceed $20,00029%exceeds $20,000 but does not exceed $50,00030% exceeds $50,000 but does not exceed $60,00042%exceeds $60,00047%A NEW TAX SYSTEM (AGED CARE COMPENSATION MEASURES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT) BILL 1998(1) Schedule 1, items 2 and 3, page 3 (lines 6 to 17), omit the items.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (INDIRECT TAX ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1999(1) Schedule 1, item 22, page 6 (lines 11 and 12), omit subparagraph (ii).(2) Schedule 1, item 37, page 8 (line 22), omit "or a diesel fuel credit,".(3) Schedule 1, item 84, page 17 (line 6), omit "or".(4) Schedule 1, item 84, page 17 (lines 7 and 8), omit paragraph (d).A NEW TAX SYSTEM (FAMILY ASSISTANCE) (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1999(1) Clause 112, page 94 (lines 1 to 7), omit the clause.(2) Clause 126, page 103 (lines 2 to 6), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) The Executive Director may direct that a hearing be conducted without oral submissions from those parties that may make oral submissions if: (a) the Executive Director considers that the review hearing could be determined fairly on the basis of written submissions by all the parties to the review; and (b) all parties to the review consent to the hearing being conducted without oral submissions.Senate's requested amendments—A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX TRANSITION) BILL 1998(1) Page 6 (after line 27), after clause 10, insert:10A Supply of rights exercisable on or after 1 July 2000 (1) A supply of a right that has been or is granted on or after 2 December 1998 (other than a supply of a right granted on or after 1 July 2000) is taken to be a supply made on or after 1 July 2000 if, and to the extent that, the right could reasonably be expected to be exercised on or after 1 July 2000. (2) The Commissioner may make a written ruling determining methods for working out the extent to which a right could reasonably be expected to be exercised on or after 1 July 2000 where that extent is not readily ascertainable. (3) This section does not affect the operation of section 12.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (COMPENSATION MEASURES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT) BILL 1998(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (before line 22), before item 34, insert:33C Section 1064 (after Module B) Insert:Module BA—Pension supplement Pension supplement1064-BA1 The amount of a person's pension supplement depends on the person's maximum basic rate. There is a pension supplement amount for each maximum basic rate listed in the table in point 1064-B1. Amount of pension supplement1064-BA2 The amount of a person's pension supplement is worked out by: (a) calculating the amount (the provisional supplement amount ) that is 4% of the person's 1 July 2000 maximum basic rate; and (b) rounding off the provisional supplement amount in accordance with points 1064-BA4 to 1064-BA6. Note: The pension supplement amounts are indexed 6 monthly in line with CPI increases (see sections 1191 to 1194).1064-BA3 A person's 1 July 2000 maximum basic rate is the maximum basic rate that would have been the person's maximum basic rate if the rate had not changed since 1 July 2000.Rounding off of provisional supplement amount1064-BA4 If a provisional supplement amount is a multiple of $2.60, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount.1064-BA5 If a provisional supplement amount is not a multiple of $2.60, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount rounded up or down to the nearest multiple of $2.60.1064-BA6 If a provisional supplement amount is not a multiple of $2.60, but is a multiple of $1.30, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount rounded up to the nearest multiple of $2.60.(2) Schedule 1, page 6 (before line 24), before item 47, insert:46C Section 1065 (after Module B) Insert:Module BA—Pension supplement Pension supplement1065-BA1 The amount of a person's pension supplement depends on the person's maximum basic rate. There is a pension supplement amount for each maximum basic rate listed in the table in point 1065-B1. Amount of pension supplement1065-BA2 The amount of a person's pension supplement is worked out by: (a) calculating the amount (the provisional supplement amount ) that is 4% of the person's 1 July 2000 maximum basic rate; and (b) rounding off the provisional supplement amount in accordance with points 1065-BA4 to 1065-BA6. Note: The pension supplement amounts are indexed 6 monthly in line with CPI increases (see sections 1191 to 1194).1065-BA3 A person's 1 July 2000 maximum basic rate is the maximum basic rate that would have been the person's maximum basic rate if the rate had not changed since 1 July 2000. Rounding off of provisional supplement amount1065-BA4 If a provisional supplement amount is a multiple of $2.60, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount.1065-BA5 If a provisional supplement amount is not a multiple of $2.60, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount rounded up or down to the nearest multiple of $2.60.1065-BA6 If a provisional supplement amount is not a multiple of $2.60, but is a multiple of $1.30, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount rounded up to the nearest multiple of $2.60.(3) Schedule 1, page 7 (before line 12), before item 53, insert:52C Section 1066 (after Module B)Insert:Module BA—Pension supplement Pension supplement1066-BA1 The amount of a person's pension supplement depends on the person's maximum basic rate.Amount of pension supplement1066-BA2 The amount of a person's pension supplement is worked out by: (a) calculating the amount (the provisional supplement amount ) that is 4% of the person's 1 July 2000 maximum basic rate; and (b) rounding off the provisional supplement amount in accordance with points 1066-BA4 to 1066-BA6. Note: The pension supplement amount is indexed 6 monthly in line with CPI increases (see sections 1191 to 1194).1066-BA3 A person's 1 July 2000 maximum basic rate is the maximum basic rate that would have been the person's maximum basic rate if the rate had not changed since 1 July 2000. Rounding off of provisional supplement amount1066-BA4 If a provisional supplement amount is a multiple of $2.60, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount.1066-BA5 If a provisional supplement amount is not a multiple of $2.60, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount rounded up or down to the nearest multiple of $2.60.1066-BA6 If a provisional supplement amount is not a multiple of $2.60, but is a multiple of $1.30, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount rounded up to the nearest multiple of $2.60.(4) Schedule 1, page 11 (before line 16), before item 103, insert:102C Section 1068A (after Module B)Insert:Module BA—Pension supplement Pension supplement1068A-BA1 The amount of a person's pension supplement depends on the person's maximum basic rate. Amount of pension supplement1068A-BA2 The amount of a person's pension supplement is worked out by: (a) calculating the amount (the provisional supplement amount ) that is 4% of the person's 1 July 2000 maximum basic rate; and (b) rounding off the provisional supplement amount in accordance with points 1068A-BA4 to 1068A-BA6. Note: The pension supplement amount is indexed 6 monthly in line with CPI increases (see sections 1191 to 1194).1068A-BA3 A person's 1 July 2000 maximum basic rate is the maximum basic rate that would have been the person's maximum basic rate if the rate had not changed since 1 July 2000. Rounding off of provisional supplement amount1068A-BA4 If a provisional supplement amount is a multiple of $2.60, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount.1068A-BA5 If a provisional supplement amount is not a multiple of $2.60, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount rounded up or down to the nearest multiple of $2.60.1068A-BA6 If a provisional supplement amount is not a multiple of $2.60, but is a multiple of $1.30, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount rounded up to the nearest multiple of $2.60.(5) Schedule 1, page 13 (before line 2), before item 120, insert:119B Subsection 1191(1) (after table item 1) Insert:1A.pension supplement(a) 20 March (b) 20 September(a) 20 December (b) 20 Junehighest June or December quarter before reference quarter (but not earlier than June quarter 1979)$2.60(6) Schedule 1, item 122, page 17 (before line 1), after section 1206GA, insert:1206GAA 1 July 2000 increase in rent assistance amounts (1) This section applies to an amount (the base amount ) of rent assistance that is provided for in a provision listed in column 2 of Table A. Note: Amounts provided for in provisions listed in Table A are amounts as altered from time to time under Division 2 of this Part (CPI indexation). (2) This Act has effect as if, on 1 July 2000, the base amount were replaced by an amount (the replacement amount ) worked out by: (a) calculating the amount (the provisional replacement amount ) that is 7% greater than the base amount; and (b) rounding off the provisional replacement amount in accordance with section 1206GD, using the rounding base for the base amount (see column 3 of Table A). Table A: RatesColumn 1 ItemColumn 2 Provision providing for base amountColumn 3 Rounding base for base amount1point 1064-D5—table—column 4—all amounts 5.202point 1066-D4—table—column 25.203point 1066A-EA12—table—column 4—all amounts 5.204point 1066A-EB13—table—column 4—all amounts 5.205point 1067G-D6—table—column 4—all amounts0.206point 1068-F15—table—column 4—all amounts0.207point 1068A-D3—table—column 35.208point 1068B-F6—table—column 4—all amounts0.209point 1069-E4—table—column 4—all amounts0.20(7) Schedule 2, item 1, page 27 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute:1 Paragraph 30(1)(b)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) $25 per fortnight; and (c) the supplement amount per fortnight provided for in subsection (1A).1A After subsection 30(1) Insert: (1A) A person's supplement amount is the amount of pension supplement that would be payable to the person under point SCH6-BA2 if the person were receiving a pension at the rate listed in column 3 of item 1 of the table in point SCH6-B1, divided by 26.(8) Schedule 2, page 27 (before line 6), before item 2, insert:1C Subsection 59B(1) (after table item 1)Insert:1A.pension supplement(a) 20 March (b) 20 September(a) December (b) Junehighest June or December quarter before reference quarter (but not earlier than June quarter 1979)$2.60(9) Schedule 2, page 29 (after line 11), after item 18, insert:18A Part 2 of Schedule 6 (after Module B)Insert: Module BA—Pension supplement Pension supplementSCH6-BA1 The amount of a person's pension supplement depends on the person's maximum basic rate. There is a pension supplement amount for each maximum basic rate listed in the table in point SCH6-B1.Amount of pension supplementSCH6-BA2 The amount of a person's pension supplement is worked out by: (a) calculating the amount (the provisional supplement amount ) that is 4% of the person's 1 July 2000 maximum basic rate; and (b) rounding off the provisional supplement amount in accordance with points SCH6-BA4 to SCH6-BA6. Note: The pension supplement amounts are indexed 6 monthly in line with CPI increases (see sections 59B to 59E).SCH6-BA3 A person's 1 July 2000 maximum basic rate is the maximum basic rate that would have been the person's maximum basic rate if the rate had not changed since 1 July 2000. Rounding off of provisional supplement amountSCH6-BA4 If a provisional supplement amount is a multiple of $2.60, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount.SCH6-BA5 If a provisional supplement amount is not a multiple of $2.60, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount rounded up or down to the nearest multiple of $2.60.SCH6-BA6 If a provisional supplement amount is not a multiple of $2.60, but is a multiple of $1.30, the amount of the pension supplement is the provisional supplement amount rounded up to the nearest multiple of $2.60.(10) Schedule 2, item 32, page 32 (before line 1), after section 198G, insert:198GA 1 July 2000 increase in rent assistance amounts (1) This section applies to an amount (the base amount ) of rent assistance that is provided for in column 4 of the table in subpoint SCH6-C8(1). Note: Amounts provided for in column 4 of the table in subpoint SCH6-C8 are amounts as altered from time to time under Division 18 of Part IIIB (CPI indexation). (2) This Act has effect as if, on 1 July 2000, the base amount were replaced by an amount (the replacement amount ) worked out by: (a) calculating the amount (the provisional replacement amount ) that is 7% greater than the base amount; and (b) rounding off the provisional replacement amount in accordance with section 198M, using the rounding base of $5.20.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (COMPENSATION MEASURES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT) BILL 1998(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 9), omit "subsection (2)", substitute "subsections (2) and (4)".(2) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add: (4) Schedule 4 commences, or is taken to have commenced, immediately after the commencement of Schedule 4 to the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 .(3) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 21), after item 33, insert:33A Point 1064-A1 (method statement, after step 1) Insert:Step 1A. Work out the amount of pension supplement using Module BA below.33B Point 1064-A1 (method statement, step 4)After "1,", insert "1A,".(4) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 23), after item 46, insert:46A Point 1065-A1 (method statement, after step 2) Insert:Step 2A. Work out the amount of pension supplement using Module BA below.46B Point 1065-A1 (method statement, step 4)After "2", insert ", 2A".(5) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 11), after item 52, insert:52A Point 1066-A1 (method statement, after step 1)Insert:Step 1A. Work out the amount of pension supplement using Module BA below. 52B Point 1066-A1 (method statement, step 4)After "1,", insert "1A,".(6) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 15), after item 102, insert:102A Point 1068A-A1 (method statement, after step 1)Insert:Step 1A. Work out the amount of pension supplement using Module BA below. 102B Point 1068A-A1 (method statement, step 4)After "1,", insert "1A,".(7) Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 1), after item 119, insert:119A Section 1190 (after table item 1)Insert:1AA.Pension supplementpension supplement[Pension Rate Calculator A—point 1064-BA2—all amounts] [Pension Rate Calculator B—point 1065-BA2—all amounts] [Pension Rate Calculator C—point 1066-BA2] [Parenting Payment Rate Calculator—point 1068A-BA2](8) Schedule 1, item 121, page 13 (line 6), omit "1 July 2000", substitute "19 March 2001".(9) Schedule 1, item 121, page 13 (line 7), after "4%", insert "or 7%".(10) Schedule 1, item 122, page 14 (table item 5), omit the table item.(11) Schedule 1, item 122, page 14 (table item 7), omit the table item. (12) Schedule 1, item 122, page 14 (table item 8), omit the table item.(13) Schedule 1, item 122, page 14 (table item 10), omit the table item.(14) Schedule 1, item 122, page 14 (table item 12), omit the table item.(15) Schedule 1, item 122, page 15 (table items 16 and 17), omit the table items.(16) Schedule 1, item 122, page 15 (table item 25), omit the table item.(17) Schedule 1, item 122, page 16 (table item 31), omit the table item.(18) Schedule 1, item 122, page 16 (table item 32), omit the table item.(19) Schedule 1, item 122, page 16 (table item 34), omit the table item.(20) Schedule 1, item 122, page 17 (table items 38 and 39), omit the table items.(21) Schedule 1, item 122, page 17 (line 1), omit "4% ", substitute "1 July 2000 ".(22) Schedule 1, item 122, page 17 (line 2) to page 19 (line 24), omit subsection (1), substitute: (1) If an amount (the affected amount ) is: (a) an amount described in the table in section 1206GA or in the table in section 1206GAA that is indexed under Division 2 of this Part; or (b) a maximum basic rate provided for in point 1064-B1, 1065-B1, 1066-B1 or 1068A-B1; or (c) a pension supplement provided for in point 1064-BA2, 1065-BA2, 1066-BA2 or 1068A-BA2; this section applies to modify the way the amount is indexed under Division 2 of this Part for a limited period after 19 March 2001. Method statementStep 1. Work out the current figure for the affected amount on 19 March 2001.Step 2 . Multiply the current figure by 0.02. The result is the provisional overall adjustment amount .Step 3. Round off the provisional overall adjustment amount in accordance with subsections (3) to (5), using: (a) for an affected amount described in the table in section 1206GA or in the table in section 1206GAA—the rounding base set out in that table for that amount; and (b) for a maximum basic rate provided for in point 1064-B1, 1065-B1, 1066-B1 or 1068A-B1—the rounding base of $2.60; and (c) for a pension supplement provided for in point 1064-BA2, 1065-BA2, 1066-BA2 or 1068A-BA2—the rounding base of $0.10. The result is the overall adjustment amount .Step 4 . For the first indexation day for an affected amount that occurs after 19 March 2001, subtract the current figure from the indexed amount (arrived at using the method statement in subsection 1192(2)). The result (which could be zero) is the first indexation increase amount .Step 5 . Compare the overall adjustment amount with the first indexation increase amount. If the overall adjustment amount is equal to or less than the first indexation increase amount, go to step 6. If the overall adjustment amount is greater than the first indexation increase amount, go to step 9.Step 6 . Subtract the overall adjustment amount from the indexed amount referred to in step 4. Step 7. If the indexed amount is a pension supplement, round off the result in accordance with subsections (3) to (5) (as if the amount were a provisional overall adjustment amount), using the rounding base of $2.60. Step 8. The result obtained under step 6 or step 7 (as the case requires) is taken to be the indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subsection 1192(2) and this section has no further application in relation to the affected amount. Note: The indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subsection 1192(2) may be increased under section 1195 in certain cases.Step 9. The indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subsection 1192(2) is taken to be equal to the current figure worked out under step 2 of the method statement in subsection 1192(2). Go to step 10. Note: The indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subsection 1192(2) may be increased under section 1195 in certain cases.Step 10 . For the second indexation day for the affected amount that occurs after 19 March 2001, subtract the first indexation increase amount from the overall adjustment amount. The result is the remaining adjustment amount .Step 11 . Subtract the current figure from the indexed amount (arrived at using the method statement in subsection 1192(2)). The result (which could be zero) is the second indexation increase amount .Step 12. Compare the remaining adjustment amount with the second indexation increase amount. If the remaining adjustment amount is equal to or less than the second indexation increase amount, go to step 13. If the remaining adjustment amount is greater than the second indexation increase amount, go to step 16.Step 13 . Subtract the remaining adjustment amount from the indexed amount.Step 14. If the indexed amount is a pension supplement, round off the result in accordance with subsections (3) to (5) (as if the amount were a provisional overall adjustment amount), using the rounding base of $2.60. Step 15. The result obtained under step 13 or step 14 (as the case requires) is taken to be the indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subsection 1192(2) and this section has no further application in relation to the affected amount. Note: The indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subsection 1192(2) may be increased under section 1195 in certain cases.Step 16. The indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subsection 1192(2) is taken to be equal to the current figure worked out under step 2 of the method statement in subsection 1192(2). Go to step 17. Note: The indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subsection 1192(2) may be increased under section 1195 in certain cases.Step 17. Repeat the method set out in steps 10 to 16 in relation to the third indexation day and to subsequent indexation days until the remaining adjustment amount is zero.(23) Schedule 1, page 19 (line 26), omit "Step 9", substitute "Step 11".(24) Schedule 2, page 27 (after line 5), after item 1A, insert:1B Section 59A (after table item 1)Insert:2.Pension supplementpension supplement*Rate Calculator—point SCH6-BA2—all amounts(25) Schedule 2, item 3, page 27 (line 10), omit "1 July 2000", substitute "19 March 2001".(26) Schedule 2, item 3, page 27 (line 11), after "4%", insert "or 7%".(27) Schedule 2, page 29 (after line 2), after item 15, insert:15A Subpoint SCH6-A1(2) (method statement, after step 1)Insert:Step 1A. Work out the amount of pension supplement using Module BA below. 15B Subpoint SCH6-A1(2) (method statement, step 4)After "1,", insert "1A,".15C Subpoint SCH6-A1(3) (method statement, after step 2)Insert:Step 2A. Work out the amount of pension supplement using Module BA below. 15D Subpoint SCH6-A1(3) (method statement, step 4)After "2,", insert "2A,".15E Subpoint SCH6-A1(6) (method statement, after step 1)Insert:Step 1A. Work out the amount of pension supplement using Module BA below. 15F Subpoint SCH6-A1(6) (method statement, step 4)After "1,", insert "1A,".(28) Schedule 2, item 32, page 31 (table item 6), omit the table item.(29) Schedule 2, item 32, page 32 (table item 12), omit the table item.(30) Schedule 2, item 32, page 32 (table item 13), omit the table item.(31) Schedule 2, item 32, page 32 (line 1), omit "4% ", substitute "1 July 2000 ".(32) Schedule 2, item 32, page 32 (line 2) to page 34 (line 32), omit subsection (1), substitute: (1) If an amount (the affected amoun t ) is: (a) an amount described in the table in section 198G that is indexed under Division 18 of Part IIIB or under section 198, 198A, 198D or 198F; or (b) the amount described in section 198GA; or (c) a maximum basic rate provided for in point SCH6-B1; or (d) a pension supplement provided for in point SCH6-BA2; or (e) an amount provided for in paragraph 30(1)(a); or (f) a pension supplement provided for in subsection 30(1A); this section applies to modify the way the amount is indexed under that Division or section (as the case may be) for a limited period after 19 March 2001. Method statement Step 1. Work out the current figure for the affected amount on 19 March 2001.Step 2 . Multiply the current figure by 0.02. The result is the provisional overall adjustment amount .Step 3. Round off the provisional overall adjustment amount in accordance with subsections (6) to (8), using: (a) for an affected amount described in the table in section 198G—the rounding base set out in that table for that amount; and (b) for the amount described in section 198GA—the rounding base of $5.20; and (c) for a maximum basic rate provided for in point SCH6-B1—the rounding base of $2.60; and (d) for a pension supplement provided for in point SCH6-BA2—the rounding base of $0.10; and (e) for an amount provided for in paragraph 30(1)(a)—the rounding base of $0.10; and (f) for a pension supplement provided for in subsection 30(1A)—the rounding base of $0.10. The result is the overall adjustment amount .Step 4 . For the first indexation day for an affected amount that occurs after 19 March 2001, subtract the current figure from the indexed amount (arrived at using the method statement in subsection 59C(2)). The result (which could be zero) is the first indexation increase amount .Step 5 . Compare the overall adjustment amount with the first indexation increase amount. If the overall adjustment amount is equal to or less than the first indexation increase amount, go to step 6. If the overall adjustment amount is greater than the first indexation increase amount, go to step 9.Step 6 . Subtract the overall adjustment amount from the indexed amount referred to in step 4. Step 7. If the indexed amount is a pension supplement, round off the result in accordance with subsections (6) to (8) (as if the amount were a provisional overall adjustment amount), using the rounding base of $2.60. Step 8. The result obtained under step 6 or step 7 (as the case requires) is taken to be the indexed amount for the purposes of step 5 of the method statement in subsection 59C(2) and this section has no further application in relation to the affected amount. Note: The indexed amount for the purposes of step 5 of the method statement in subsection 59C(2) may be increased under section 59EA in certain cases. Similarly, if the indexed amount is a rate worked out under section 198, that amount may be increased under subsection 198(6) or (7) in certain cases. Step 9. The indexed amount for the purposes of step 5 of the method statement in subsection 59C(2) is taken to be equal to the current figure worked out under step 2 of the method statement in subsection 59C(2). Go to step 10. Note: The indexed amount for the purposes of step 5 of the method statement in subsection 59C(2) may be increased under section 59EA in certain cases. Similarly, if the indexed amount is a rate worked out under section 198, that amount may be increased under subsection 198(6) or (7) in certain cases.Step 10 . For the second indexation day for the affected amount that occurs after 19 March 2001, subtract the first indexation increase amount from the overall adjustment amount. The result is the remaining adjustment amount .Step 11 . Subtract the current figure from the indexed amount (arrived at using the method statement in subsection 59C(2)). The result (which could be zero) is the second indexation increase amount .Step 12. Compare the remaining adjustment amount with the second indexation increase amount. If the remaining adjustment amount is equal to or less than the second indexation increase amount, go to step 13. If the remaining adjustment amount is greater than the second indexation increase amount, go to step 16.Step 13 . Subtract the remaining adjustment amount from the indexed amount.Step 14. If the indexed amount is a pension supplement, round off the result in accordance with subsections (6) to (8) (as if the amount were a provisional overall adjustment amount), using the rounding base of $2.60. Step 15. The result obtained under step 13 or step 14 (as the case requires) is taken to be the indexed amount for the purposes of step 5 of the method statement in subsection 59C(2) and this section has no further application in relation to the affected amount. Note: The indexed amount for the purposes of step 5 of the method statement in subsection 59C(2) may be increased under section 59EA in certain cases. Similarly, if the indexed amount is a rate worked out under section 198, that amount may be increased under subsection 198(6) or (7) in certain cases.Step 16. The indexed amount for the purposes of step 5 of the method statement in subsection 59C(2) is taken to be equal to the current figure worked out under step 2 of the method statement in subsection 59C(2). Go to step 17. Note: The indexed amount for the purposes of step 5 of the method statement in subsection 59C(2) may be increased under section 59EA in certain cases. Similarly, if the indexed amount is a rate worked out under section 198, that amount may be increased under subsection 198(6) or (7) in certain cases.Step 17. Repeat the method set out in steps 10 to 16 in relation to the third indexation day and to subsequent indexation days until the remaining adjustment amount is zero.(33) Schedule 2, page 35 (line 19), omit "Step 6", substitute "Step 8".(34) Schedule 2, page 35 (line 22), omit "Step 7", substitute "Step 9".(35) Schedule 2, page 35 (line 28), omit "Step 9", substitute "Step 11".(36) Schedule 2, page 35 (line 30), omit "Step 11", substitute "Step 15".(37) Schedule 2, page 35 (line 33), omit "Step 12", substitute "Step 16".(38) Schedule 2, page 36 (line 6), omit "Step 9", substitute "Step 11".(39) Schedule 2, page 36 (line 9), omit "Step 9", substitute "Step 11".(40) Page 41 (after line 11), at the end of the bill, add:Schedule 4—A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 19991 At the end of Schedule 4Add:9 Adjustment of amounts following 7% increase to maximum rent assistance amounts (1) This clause applies to modify the way an amount specified in column 3 of the table in clause 14 of Schedule 1 (the maximum rent assistance amount ) is indexed under Part 2 of this Schedule for a limited period after 19 March 2001. Method statement Step 1. Work out the current figure for the maximum rent assistance amount on 19 March 2001.Step 2 . Multiply the current figure by 0.02. The result is the provisional overall adjustment amount .Step 3. Round off the provisional overall adjustment amount in accordance with subclauses (2) to (4). The result is the overall adjustment amount .Step 4 . For the first indexation day for the maximum rent assistance amount that occurs after 19 March 2001, subtract the current figure for the amount from the indexed amount (arrived at using the method statement in subclause 4(2)). The result (which could be zero) is the first indexation increase amount .Step 5 . Compare the overall adjustment amount with the first indexation increase amount. If the overall adjustment amount is equal to or less than the first indexation increase amount, go to step 6. If the overall adjustment amount is greater than the first indexation increase amount, go to step 7.Step 6 . Subtract the overall adjustment amount from the indexed amount referred to in step 4. The result is taken to be the indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subclause 4(2) and this clause has no further application in relation to the maximum rent assistance amount.Step 7. The indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subclause 4(2) is taken to be equal to the current figure worked out under step 2 of that method statement. Go to step 8.Step 8. For the second indexation day for the maximum rent assistance amount that occurs after 19 March 2001, subtract the first indexation increase amount from the overall adjustment amount. The result is the remaining adjustment amount .Step 9 . Subtract the current figure for the maximum rent assistance amount from the indexed amount (arrived at using the method statement in subclause 4(2)). The result (which could be zero) is the second indexation increase amount .Step 10. Compare the remaining adjustment amount with the second indexation increase amount. If the remaining adjustment amount is equal to or less than the second indexation increase amount, go to step 11. If the remaining adjustment amount is greater than the second indexation increase amount, go to step 12.Step 11. Subtract the remaining adjustment amount from the indexed amount. The result is taken to be the indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subclause 4(2) and this clause has no further application in relation to the maximum rent assistance amount.Step 12. The indexed amount for the purposes of step 4 of the method statement in subclause 4(2) is taken to be equal to the current figure worked out under step 2 of that method statement. Go to step 13.Step 13. Repeat the method set out in steps 8 to 12 in relation to the third indexation day and to subsequent indexation days until the remaining adjustment amount is zero. Rounding of provisional overall adjustment amounts (2) If a provisional overall adjustment amount is a multiple of the rounding base for the maximum rent assistance amount (see column 5 of item 4 of the CPI Indexation Table in subclause 3(1)), the provisional overall adjustment amount is the overall adjustment amount. (3) If a provisional overall adjustment amount is not a multiple of the rounding base, the overall adjustment amount is the provisional overall adjustment amount rounded up or down to the nearest multiple of the rounding base. (4) If a provisional overall adjustment amount is not a multiple of the rounding base, but is a multiple of half the rounding base, the overall adjustment amount is the provisional overall adjustment amount rounded up to the nearest multiple of the rounding base.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (BONUSES FOR OLDER AUSTRALIANS) BILL 1998(1) Clause 10, page 11 (lines 3 to 10), omit the clause, substitute:10Qualification for bonus paymentA Family and Community Services customer is qualified for a bonus payment under this Part if the customer is qualified for: (a) only the aged persons savings bonus component of the bonus payment; or (b) only the self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component of the bonus payment; or (c) the aged persons savings bonus component, and the self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component, of the bonus payment.(2) Clause 11, page 11 (line 25) to page 12 (line 24), omit subclause (2), substitute:Self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component—person aged over 61 1/2 (woman) or over 65 (man)(2) A Family and Community Services customer is qualified for the self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component of a bonus payment if: (a) on 1 July 2000, he is aged 65 or more or she is aged 611/2 or more; and (b) he or she is an Australian resident on 1 July 2000; and (c) his or her annual retirement income is less than $30,000 and he or she has annual savings and investment income of more than $1,000; and (d) at least one of the following applies: (i) he or she did not receive a disqualifying payment at any time during the period from the start of 1 April 2000 until the end of 1 July 2000; (ii) he or she received a disqualifying payment during the period from the start of 1 April 2000 until the end of 30 June 2000, his or her partner died during that period and he or she is not receiving a disqualifying payment on 1 July 2000; (iii) he or she received a disqualifying payment during the period from the start of 1 April 2000 until the end of 1 July 2000 in a circumstance prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subparagraph; and (e) the amount of the self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component, worked out under subsection 15(3), is greater than nil.Note: The customer's annual retirement income and annual savings and investment income are worked out based on either of 2 qualifying years or the customer's circumstances at the time his or her bonus entitlement is determined under this Part: see sections 5 and 6.Self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component—person aged between 55 and 611/2 (woman) or 65 (man)(3) A Family and Community Services customer is qualified for the self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component of a bonus payment if: (a) on 1 July 2000: (i) he or she is aged 55 or more; and (ii) he is aged under 65 or she is aged under 611/2; and (b) he or she is an Australian resident on 1 July 2000; and (c) his or her annual retirement income is less than $30,000 and he or she has annual savings and investment income; and (d) his or her annual business and wages income does not exceed $1,000; and (e) he or she did not receive a disqualifying payment at any time during the year beginning on 1 July 1999; and (f) the amount of the self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component, worked out under whichever of subsections 15(3) and (3A) applies, is greater than nil.Note 1: The customer's annual retirement income and annual savings and investment income are worked out based on either of 2 qualifying years or the customer's circumstances at the time his or her bonus entitlement is determined under this Part: see sections 5 and 6. Note 2: The customer's annual business and wages income is worked out based on the customer's circumstances at the time his or her bonus entitlement is determined under this Part: see section 6A.(3) Clause 15, page 15 (lines 6 to 12), omit paragraphs (a) and (b), substitute: (a) if he or she is qualified for only the aged persons savings bonus component of the bonus payment—the amount of that component; or (b) if he or she is qualified for only the self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component of the bonus payment—the amount of that component; or (c) if he or she is qualified for both the aged persons savings bonus component and the self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component of the bonus payment—the sum of those components.(4) Clause 15, page 16 (line 12), after "payment", insert "for a Family and Community Services customer aged 60 or more".(5) Clause 15, page 17 (after line 11), after subclause (3), insert:Self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component—person aged under 60(3A) The self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component of a bonus payment for a Family and Community Services customer aged under 60 is worked out in accordance with the following table:Amount of self-funded retirees supplementary bonus componentItemIf the Family and Community Services customer's annual retirement income is:. . . the amount of the self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component is equal to:1$20,000 or lesshis or her annual savings and investment income, up to a maximum of $2,0002more than $20,000 but less than $30,000 (a) his or her annual savings and investment income, up to a maximum of $2,000; less (b) the phasing out fraction (see subsection (5)) of the amount worked out under paragraph (a) of this item Example: Dawn, aged 59, has annual retirement income of $24,000, all of which is annual savings and investment income. Dawn's self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component is worked out as follows. Dawn's savings and investment income of $24,000 is only allowable up to a maximum of $2,000. The phasing out fraction of the $2,000 then needs to be subtracted. The fraction is: $24,000—$20,000 4 $10,000 10Therefore 4/10 of $2,000 (i.e. $800) needs to be subtracted. This leaves a self-funded retirees supplementary1 bonus component of $1,200.(6) Clause 38, page 39 (lines 3 to 10), omit the clause, substitute:38 Qualification for bonus paymentAn ATO client is qualified for a bonus payment under this Part if he or she is qualified for: (a) only the aged persons savings bonus component of the bonus payment; or (b) only the self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component of the bonus payment; or (c) the aged persons savings bonus component, and the self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component, of the bonus payment.(7) Clause 39, page 39 (line 23) to page 40 (line 20), omit subclause (2), substitute:Self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component—person aged over 611/2 (woman) or over 65 (man) (2) An ATO client is qualified for the self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component of a bonus payment if:(a) on 1 July 2000, he is aged 65 or more or she is aged 611/2 or more; and(b) he or she is an Australian resident on 1 July 2000; and(c) his or her taxable income as shown in his or her assessment for the qualifying year, or for either or each of the qualifying years, is less than $30,000, and he or she has adjusted savings and investment income of more than $1,000, for that year or those years; and(d) at least one of the following applies: (i) he or she did not receive a disqualifying payment at any time during the period from the start of 1 April 2000 until the end of 1 July 2000; (ii) he or she received a disqualifying payment during the period from the start of 1 April 2000 until the end of 30 June 2000, his or her partner died during that period and he or she is not receiving a disqualifying payment on 1 July 2000; (iii) he or she received a disqualifying payment during the period from the start of 1 April 2000 until the end of 1 July 2000 in a circumstance prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subparagraph; and(e) the amount of the self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component, worked out under subsection 43(5), is greater than nil.Self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component—person aged between 55 and 611/2 (woman) or 65 (man)(3) An ATO client is qualified for the self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component of a bonus payment if: (a) on 1 July 2000: (i) he or she is aged 55 or more; and (ii) he is aged under 65 or she is aged under 611/2; and (b) he or she is an Australian resident on 1 July 2000; and (c) his or her taxable income as shown in his or her assessment for the qualifying year, or for either or each of the qualifying years, is less than $30,000, and he or she has annual adjusted savings and investment income for that year or those years; and (d) his or her adjusted business and wages income for the 1999-2000 income year does not exceed $1,000; and (e) he or she did not receive a disqualifying payment at any time during the 1999-2000 income year; and (f) the amount of the self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component, worked out under whichever of subsections 43(5) and (5A) applies, is greater than nil.(8) Clause 43, page 42 (lines 20 to 26), omit paragraphs (3)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) if he or she is qualified for only the aged persons savings bonus component of the bonus payment—the amount of that component; or (b) if he or she is qualified for only the self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component of the bonus payment—the amount of that component; or (c) if he or she is qualified for both the aged persons savings bonus component and the self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component of the bonus payment—the sum of those components.(9) Clause 43, page 44 (line 3), after "payment", insert "for an ATO client aged 60 or more".(10) Clause 43, page 45 (after line 3), after subclause (5), insert:Self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component—person aged under 60(5A) The self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component of a bonus payment for an ATO client aged under 60 is worked out in accordance with the following table:Amount of self-funded retirees supplementary bonus componentItemIf the ATO client's taxable income as shown in his or her assessment for the qualifying year is:. . . the amount of the self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component is equal to:1$20,000 or lesshis or her adjusted savings and investment income, up to a maximum of $2,0002more than $20,000 but less than $30,000(a) his or her adjusted savings and investment income, up to a maximum of $2,000, less (b) the phasing out fraction (see subsection (7)) of the amount worked out under paragraph (a) of this item Example: For the 1999-2000 income year Susan, aged 59, has an assessed taxable income of $24,000, all of which is annual savings and investment income. Susan's self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component is worked out as follows. Susan's adjusted savings and investment income of $24,000 is only allowable up to a maximum of $2,000. The phasing out fraction of the $2,000 then needs to be subtracted. The fraction is: $24,000—$20,000 4 $10,000 10Therefore 4/10 of $2,000 (i.e. $800) needs to be subtracted. This leaves a self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component of $1,200.(1) Clause 3, page 2 (line 30) to page 3 (line 8), omit subclause (3), substitute: (3) The basic qualifications for the self-funded retirees supplementary bonus are: (a) an individual is aged 55 or more, and is an Australian resident, on 1 July 2000; and (b) he or she has an income amount of less than $30,000, and a savings and investment income amount, for 1998-1999 or 1999-2000; and (c) he or she has not received certain pensions or benefits during the period 1 April 2000 to 1 July 2000; and (d) if the individual is a woman under 611/2 or a man under 65: (i) he or she has also not received those pensions or benefits during the rest of 1999-2000; and (ii) he or she has business and wages income of $1,000 or less for 1999-2000; and (e) if the individual is 60 or more, his or her annual savings and investment income is more than $1,000.(2) Clause 4, page 4 (after line 6), before the definition of annual retirement income , insert: annual business and wages income has the meaning given by section 6A.(3) Clause 4, page 4 (after line 14), after the definition of bereavement allowance , insert: business includes any profession, trade, employment, vocation or calling, but does not include occupation as an employee.(4) Clause 4, page 5 (after line 16), after the definition of qualifying year , insert: salary and wages has the meaning given by section 10A of the Social Security Act 1991 .(5) Page 8 (after line 26), after clause 6, insert:6A Annual business and wages income A Family and Community Services customer's annual business and wages income for the purposes of this Part is worked out as follows: Method statement Step 1. Work out what would be the customer's annual retirement income if it were worked out under subsection 6(2). Step 2. Work out how much of the step 1 amount is attributable to income from a business carried on by the customer, or to salary and wages earned by the customer. The result is the customer's annual business and wages income .(6) Heading to subclause 15(3), page 16 (line 10), omit the heading, substitute: Self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component—person aged 60 or more(7) Clause 15, page 16 (line 15), after "Kath", insert ", aged 63,".(8) Clause 33, page 32 (after line 6), before the definition of adjusted savings and investment income , insert: adjusted business and wages income has the meaning given by section 34A.(9) Clause 33, page 32 (after line 21), after the definition of bereavement allowance , insert: business includes any profession, trade, employment, vocation or calling, but does not include occupation as an employee. business and wages income has the meaning given by section 34A.(10) Page 36 (after line 20), after clause 34, insert:34A Adjusted business and wages income (1) In this Part, an individual's adjusted business and wages income for the 1999-2000 income year is worked out as follows: Method statement Step 1. Work out the individual's business and wages income for the year: see subsections (2) and (3).Step 2. Subtract from the step 1 amount the sum of the individual's deductions for the year, to the extent that the deductions relate to any or all of his or her business and wages income.Step 3. If the final result is nil or negative, the individual does not have any adjusted business and wages income. (2) In this Part, an individual's business and wages income is the sum of the following: (a) all of the individual's assessable income that is PAYE earnings; (b) all of the individual's assessable income (other than PAYE earnings) derived from a business carried on by the individual. (3) However, an individual's business and wages income does not include the following amounts: (a) any amount paid to the individual that is included in the individual's assessable income and that is covered by paragraph (c) of the definition of salary or wages in subsection 221A(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 ; (b) so much of the amount of any eligible termination payment (as defined in section 27A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 ) made to the individual as is included in the individual's assessable income under section 27B or 27C of that Act.(11) Clause 39, page 39 (line 19), omit "for either or each of the qualifying years", substitute "for the qualifying year, or for either or each of the qualifying years,".(12) Heading to subclause 43(5), page 44 (line 1), omit the heading, substitute:Self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component—person aged over 60(13) Clause 43, page 44 (line 6), after "Joan", insert ", aged 63,".(14) Clause 46, page 48 (lines 14 and 15), omit "because of an amendment of an assessment of the ATO client", insert "where section 45 applies".A NEW TAX SYSTEM (FAMILY ASSISTANCE) BILL 1999(1) Clause 22, page 23 (after line 25), after subclause (5), insert:Individual aged 21-24 undertaking full-time study (5A) The individual is an FTB child of the adult if: (a) the individual has turned 21 but is aged under 25; and (b) the individual is in the adult's care; and (c) the individual is an Australian resident or is living with the adult; and (d) the individual is undertaking full-time study.(2) Clause 31, page 31 (lines 18 to 21), omit subclause (3), substitute:14 weeks reduced in certain circumstances (3) The period for which the individual is eligible for family tax benefit under subsection (2) does not include: (a) if the child was undertaking full-time study at the time the child died—any day on which the child would have been aged 25 if the child had not died; or (b) in any other case—any day on which the child would have been aged 21 if the child had not died.(3) Clause 34, page 34 (line 21), omit paragraph (a), substitute:(a) the individual: (i) is aged under 21; or (ii) is aged under 25 and is undertaking full-time study; and(4) Clause 65, page 67 (line 30) to page 68 (line 2), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) For the purposes of the method statement in subsection (1), a day in the lump sum period is an excluded day in relation to the child if: (a) where the child was undertaking full-time study at the time the child died—the child would have been aged 25 on that day if the child had not died; or (b) in any other case—the child would have been aged 21 on that day if the child had not died.(5) Schedule 1, clause 7, page 81 (cell at table item 3, column 1), omit "21", substitute "18".(6) Schedule 1, clause 7, page 81 (at the end of the table), add: 4 FTB child who has reached 18, but is under 25, years of age $1,306.70(7) Schedule 1, clause 26, page 95 (line 7), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) The FTB child rate for the purpose of subclause (1) is: (a) for an FTB child who has not turned 18—$956.30; or (b) for an FTB child who has turned 18—$1,306.70.(8) Schedule 4, clause 2, page 119 (cell at table item 3, column 1), omit "21", substitute "25".(9) Schedule 4, clause 3, page 122 (cell at table item 3, column 1), omit "16-20", substitute "16-24".7752Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I have received messages from His Excellency the Governor-General recommending, in accordance with section 56 of the Constitution, appropriations for the purpose of requests for amendments of the following bills:a bill for an act to implement a new tax system by providing bonus payments to older Australians and for related purposes,a bill for an act to provide for compensation measures related to the implementation of a new tax system and for related purposes,a bill for an act to implement a new tax system by providing assistance to families and for related purposes, anda bill for an act to implement a new tax system by making transitional provisions for the start of the goods and services tax and for related purposes. I understand it would suit the convenience of the House for the members to be able to refer to both Senate amendments and Senate requests during debate on this motion.16:55:007752Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I move:That the requested amendments of the Senate conveyed to the House in Senate messages Nos 105 to 107 and 132 be made.In moving this motion, it gives me an immense amount of pleasure to begin the final stage of one of the most important debates that has taken place in the national parliament since Federation and certainly to bring to an end the most important policy debate that has occurred during the time the government I lead has been in office. It is a historic mo ment that at long last Australia is to have a new tax system.It is a source of immense pride to me as leader of the coalition government that, by dint of the policies we put forward and by reason of the fact that they were easy to misrepresent and could be subjected to a populist fear campaign, and having suffered considerable electoral losses in the process—and I want to place on record my appreciation not only to the members of the coalition party who were returned at the last election but also to our colleagues who were not returned in 1998—we were prepared in 1998 to stand for reform and to stand for the future economic strength and economic health of our nation.There are occasions when political risks have to be taken in the national interest. There are occasions when, if nations and parliaments pass up the opportunity for fundamental reform of things such as the taxation system, long-term damage is done to those nations. I was reminded of that last week when I read one of the better articles of economic analysis I have seen for many months from a person whom I regard as probably the foremost economic political writer of our current period, Max Walsh, who is now the Editor-in-Chief of the Bulletin. He recalled historically:Perhaps the most famous episode of tax policy undermining national economic strength was the situation a century ago in Britain. Back then its economy which had pioneered the industrial revolution debauched its global leadership by economic and political ignorance. Queen Victoria's Britain refused to introduce a tax provision for the depreciation of capital equipment. Consequently, because maintenance and repairs could be expensive, Britain's factories preferred to maintain old equipment rather than investment in new. As a result, the second phase of the industrial revolution became focused in Germany. Important British inventions such as the first synthetic chemical and improved iron and steel production techniques were developed at a commercial level by and in Germany. Germany displaced Britain as a developer and exporter of capital equipment.The footnote is that it took 80 years and the courage and leadership of Margaret Thatcher to turn the industries of Britain around and once again place that country in a stronger economic position. The significance of that historic analogy is that there are occasions when you have to ask yourself: what is the long-term national interest? What is the call that you have to take for Australia's sake rather than your own personal or political sake?The reason today is a great day is not for any personal satisfaction that I derive from it, the Treasurer rightly derives from it or the members of the coalition derive from it, but that we have done something good for Australia's future. We have done something good for the national interest. Any objective observer who has been the least bit awake and involved in a literal way in the economic debate that has taken place in this country over the last 20 years would recognise that, during that 20-year period, we have essentially faced the need for reform and change in five major economic areas.We needed to get our fiscal situation into a position of strength and surplus. We needed, in the early 1980s, to deregulate an old-fashioned, overregulated financial system. We needed to undertake tariff reform to expose the industries of Australia to necessary competition. We needed to undertake fundamental reform of our arthritic labour market and to deregulate our industrial relations system. Last but not least, we needed to undertake fundamental taxation reform. I will take a moment of the House's time to traverse each of those five reform areas, paying credit where it is due to initiative and reform undertaken by Labor governments and Labor prime ministers. If we are to have an intelligent debate, we should have the honesty to give credit where it is due on occasions when good things were done by Labor governments and by Labor prime ministers.Fiscal policy is now in its strongest position ever. I cannot think of a time in Australia's postwar experience where the fiscal accounts of the Commonwealth have been in better shape. I want to pay unambiguous and unconditional tribute to the work that the Treasurer, in particular, has undertaken in that regard, ably assisted by the Minister for Finance and Administration and others. To take the sort of deficit we inherited and turn it into the most robust surplus in the Western world is a truly significant and monumental achievement. It has given this country an economic self-respect and an economic dignity that I do not think I have experienced in the 25 years that I have been in public life. I think that is a monumentally significant achievement.The second issue is that of financial deregulation. Those who remember the overregulated financial system we had in the 1970s and the early 1980s will remember that we had an exchange rate fixed by almost daily leadings of the Secretary to the Treasury, the Governor of the Reserve Bank, the head of the Department of Finance and the head of the Prime Minister's department. It became, in its later days, a system described as the crawling peg. It was a very unsatisfactory way of adjusting our exchange rate. It did not do anything to stop the speculators; they still speculated. They still bought against certain positions, and they still put enormous pressure on the Australian exchange rate and the Australian financial system.We as a government established the Campbell review which recommended reform of all of those things. The former Fraser government had taken a decision to admit foreign banks before it was defeated. To its great credit, the incoming government, due largely to the activities of the Prime Minister of the day, Mr Hawke, and the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Bob Johnston, took a decision to float the Australian dollar, subsequently to admit foreign banks into this country and to implement the major elements of the Campbell committee's recommendation. Through all of the positions I have occupied, both in opposition and government, I have always given credit to the Hawke government for what it did in relation to the deregulation of the financial system. I will say, though, that they were aided and abetted by the fact that at no stage did we oppose anything they did in that area. On every occasion because we saw it to be in the national interest—83UCOXMr Cox—What about the assets test?Mr Emerson interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Kingston! The member for Rankin!ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—The Labor Party will try to destroy any attempt to have a decent, intelligent, constructive debate about important national interest issues. In the early 1980s, accepting a floating exchange rate was not an easy thing for many members of the National Party, yet we were prepared to accept in the national interest that that was a desirable policy. It is to the credit of the Hawke government, particularly to the credit of the former Prime Minister rather than the then Treasurer and the then Governor of the Reserve Bank. I think Mr Hawke and Mr Johnston were the heroes of the floating of the Australian dollar, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is completely wrong.The third area is the area of tariff reform. I am prepared once again to give credit, particularly to the leadership of Mr Hawke, on this issue. It was not easy for a Labor Prime Minister to argue the cause of tariff reform. The measures that were announced by the Hawke government in that respect had our support because they were measures that were for the long-term benefit of Australia. They got our support because they were in the national interest. I record once again that the opposition parties did not play politics on tariff reform. You could have run the mother of all fear campaigns on the 1991 statement made by the former Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, on that subject, but we chose not to do so because we knew in our hearts that that was in the national interest. That is where, justifiably on their merits, I leave the complimentary remarks I make about the policy stances taken by the Labor Party.I move inexorably to the issue of labour market reform. Here we have had to fight every inch of the way without any assistance of any kind from the Australian Labor Party.DT4CREANMr Crean—That's nonsense!ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Having been given a mandate to reform the Australian industrial relations system, at every stage we have been opposed by the Australian Labor Party.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I expect the Prime Minister to be heard in silence, and I expect the Leader of Opposition to be heard in silence as well.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—The fourth great area of economic reform has been left to the tenacity and determination of the coalition government that I lead. I want to pay particular tribute to what the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, the member for Flinders, has done in this area. All of us will remember the great courage he displayed when he went about reforming the Australian waterfront. All of us will remember the thuggery to which he was subjected in public debate terms by the union movement and by members of the Australian Labor Party. In the long run, history has vindicated his stance and shown that he has delivered a more efficient and a more effective waterfront that is going to build in time a more competitive Australia and a more competitive export system. That, of course, brings us to the issue immediately before the parliament.I wanted to take a few moments to put in context the importance of what we are going to vote on in the next hour. We are voting to put into place the last of five great pillars that underpin the modern Australian economy. Without all of those reforms that I have mentioned, we would not be the modern, strong, robust economy that we are. If the Australian parliament were to deny us the vote that we seek tonight, we would be robbing future generations of this country of the strong economy that we believe future generations are entitled to have.The measure of the significance of what is before the parliament tonight is that, of all the reforms that I have touched upon, none is more important than the cause of taxation reform. Taxation reform is something that people have been pursuing and seeking for the last 25 years. Every significant figure on both sides of politics over the last 25 years, in their serious moments about the future of the Australian economy, has known that taxation reform was necessary.The former Prime Minister Mr Hawke knew it was necessary. The former Prime Minister Mr Keating knew it was necessary. I will never forget going into his office before the release of the white paper, when he was Treasurer and I was economic spokesman. He handed me a copy of the white paper and said, `Keep it to yourself for a while. I haven't given it to some of my blokes, and I might be in trouble.' And he said, `But sometimes, mate, you've got to do good things for the long-term benefit of the country.' He was right on that occasion. I recall, and I think, I gave him more support in relation to that white paper than he got from many who sat behind him in the government of the day. He certainly got more support on that from many on our side of politics than he got from members of the Labor Party and members of the ACTU.But, significantly, the now Leader of the Opposition was one of the strongest supporters of Keating in the cabinet debates on taxation reform in 1985. As I read it, the two strongest supporters he had were Gareth Evans and Kim Beazley. Deep down, the Leader of the Opposition knows that what we are doing tonight is right, but he does not have the political courage to stand up. He should have the courage but, more importantly, he should have the political integrity to recognise that the Australian people voted for this plan.But the opposition has made its decision; the opposition has made a decision to run the politics of negativity and the politics of obstruction. In the long run the Australian people will make a judgment on that, and I do not intend to spend any more time on it in this speech tonight.What I rather want to do is emphasise to the House just how important the decision that we are making tonight is. Not only will this give us the reformed taxation system that has eluded governments for the last 25 years but it will give us the most dramatic reductions in personal income tax that we have had since World War II; it will deliver to 80 per cent of the Australian community a top marginal rate of 30 cents in the dollar; it will deliver $12 billion of personal income tax cuts, and it will deliver $2.5 billion of family benefits over and above that; it will deliver billions of dollars of benefits through reduced costs for Australian exporters. It will deliver to the farmers of Australia and the people of the Australian bush lower fuel costs, which they certainly need and which are long overdue; it will deliver to the business community of Australia a simpler, fairer and less complicated taxation system.Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition: if I intervene again, it will be to warn you.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—It will deliver to those who seek to evade their tax, particularly through the cash economy, a far more difficult challenge and a far more different environment in which to operate. But, most importantly of all, I think it will deliver to the Australian people the knowledge that, if you persevere long enough and you try hard enough and you keep at it, in the long run you can achieve good things for the long-term benefit of Australia.There have been many occasions over the last couple of years when people have told me that pursuing taxation reform has not been worth a candle. People said, `Give it away and concentrate on other things; keep talking about the current strength of the Australian economy.' That on occasions, I suppose, was an attractive option. But all of us, particularly on this side of the House, know that the current strength of the Australian economy is the product of important and good decisions taken a few years ago.What we are doing today by voting for this legislation is that we will in five and 10 years time be delivering the sort of economy we now have, which has been delivered as a consequence of decisions that have been taken over the last few years—some of those decisions taken, to their credit, by Labor Prime Ministers and supported by us. But, sadly, that support is not being reciprocated in relation to taxation reform. Beazley is unwilling to do in relation to our tax reform what we were willing to do in relation to their financial deregulation and tariff reform. In the long run, the Australian people will make a judgment about that.But the judgment they make about us tonight is that we have done the hard yards for the long-term benefit of Australia. In the process of that, I do want to thank all of my colleagues for the support and the loyalty that they have given on this issue. I know it has not been easy, and I know I have overcome the concerns and reservations and objections of some in the process. I understand that, but in the long run you have to back your judgment against others in reaching those positions. I particularly want to thank my colleague the Treasurer for the way in which he has handled the detail and the complexities with great skill and great flair; that is evident every day in question time. I want to pay particular tribute to him for having done that.But, most importantly, I want to pay tribute to the support that we have received from the Australian community, the understanding of the Australian community. Even though they may worry about aspects of it, even though they may not like aspects of it, even though there may be aspects of it they do not fully comprehend, deep down they realise and believe that it is better for Australia than the present system, and that is why they are going to go along with it.I know that it is the fond hope of the Australian Labor Party that they can run a fear campaign on this. The Leader of the Opposition mutters across at question time that they hope the whole thing falls around our ears in two years time. That may be their hope, and let them do their worst. Let them run their negative campaign. Let them run their campaign of obstruction. Let them try to run a campaign designed to torpedo a long-term reform. But, in the end, we on this side of the House have enough faith in the intelligence and the goodwill of the Australian people to know that deep down, in the end, they will back a government that has got the guts to do the right thing for Australia rather than the right thing for their short-term political benefit.17:15:007756Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—The Australian people do not want this tax and they are right not to want it. The Australian people know instinctively—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to be heard in silence, and anyone who interrupts will be treated under standing order 304A. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I thank you, Mr Speaker, but I do quite like it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will not encourage it.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I am used to people making a lot of noise when I speak and I do not mind it. The Australian people do not want this tax. Listening to the Prime Minister's remarks, never has so much been claimed for such a tawdry little objective. Since his deal with the Democrats, the Prime Minister has been exhibiting all the cockiness, all the relief, that comes from somebody who in political terms has faced a death sentence and had it repealed, had it drawn back. He has faced that death sentence because his party knows and the Australian people know that these tax changes—no longer tax reform—are bad for them and bad for the country. There is no doubt at all that the Australian people need tax reform. They need it repeatedly. No tax system is going to stand for all time as valuable and as always relevant; it is going to need to be subject to constant change. Massive changes in the taxation system were put in place when we were in office. The Prime Minister in defending himself erects these gigantic hurdles which he has allegedly leapt: for example, his statement that the tax cuts on the benefit side of this tax package are the biggest since World War II. Let me inform the Prime Minister of this: when we put our tax package in place and the subsequent changes we made to the taxation system that we inherited from him as Treasurer, the total value on an annual basis of the income tax cuts was $30 billion—not $12 billion but $30 billion. He talks about the bottom marginal rate coming down from 20 per cent to 17 per cent. Do you know what the rate came down to under us when we took over from you? It came down from 30 per cent to 20 per cent. Compare that with coming down from 20 per cent to 17 per cent. Do the Australian people recollect those $30 billion worth of tax cuts? Will they recollect the $12 billion, which basically hands back bracket creep under us and bracket creep under them, and be grateful for that? No, they will not be grateful for it. But they will experience an element of that tax system which has been a drag on European economies where the system was invented—in contrast to that of the United States—which they now wish to exit. We are putting this tax in place while the Europeans are trying to work out how to exit this tax.If you compare the growth in the American economy with the growth in the European economy, you have to see a factor of difference between the two. There are many factors and I am not going to be silly enough to claim that this is the only one. But if you said in the United States that you had a beaut new idea in tax—which was that every time a fellow decided to add a bit of value to an object you would tax it and invite him to become a tax collector while you did so—you would be received in the most successful economy in the world today with a very loud horse laugh. Indeed, the Americans considered the goods and services tax during the year of the Reagan tax reforms. They were a little insulting about it, I might say. They said that it was redolent of socialism. That was the view of the US Treasury Secretary at the time on the sort of tax put in place by big spending governments who did not care about adding value. That was the suggestion of the American Treasury Secretary of the time—it was a bit insulting I suppose to our side of the House—and that was why they did not do it. One of the many reasons why the Europeans are now trying to exit this tax is that it sits at the heart of their black economy. The size of the black economy in Europe based on the evasion of VAT is the size of the entire British GDP. In Britain itself, a massive proportion of VATable transactions are evaded. The European Commission is now looking at trying to get the tax off services, for two reasons: firstly, it is almost impossible to organise an honest service industry and succeed in the United Kingdom; and, secondly, when you do it has all the characteristics of a payroll tax, a tax on labour and therefore a tax on jobs. So now the Europeans— unfortunately for them it is very hard—are trying to work out ways to reduce and ultimately eliminate this tax. They cannot do it with any sort of readiness at all because a unit veto operates in the European system. Each country has a different perspective when it comes to revenue raising, each Treasury has a different concern about the amount of revenue being brought in, so they have to move to the tune of the lowest common denominator. But they are addressing this at the same time as we are putting this proposition in place.The odd thing about it all is that the base that is attacked in political terms in the first instance is not ours, although our people experience great unfairness; it is the people who are obliged to organise it—the small business people of this country who find themselves now the tax collectors of the government.If you extract from this process the goods and services tax, what else do you have in this tax reform package? In the rest of this tax reform package you have things with which we agree—the business numbering system, the taxing trusts as companies and the rest of it. But what people really want in tax reform is how you deal with the fact that a lot of people are evading paying their fair share of tax. You do not deal with it by making those who are paying their fair share of tax pay more, which is precisely what you are doing with a GST; you do it by getting to grips with them. The Treasurer is up on his scrapers here every day saying that you cannot have a business numbering system if you do not have a GST. Tell it to Charlie Bell, sport, because he is the bloke who did the study for you on small business. He said, `Yes, instead of doing provisional tax, do this tax numbering system for business, and put it in place to make it easier to pay the other taxes that we have some responsibility for'—a commonsense suggestion that we go along with. It is not dependent on the introduction of a goods and services tax.The other thing they claim is that they confronted this gigantic budget problem which they are now dealing with—a $9 billion deficit compared with a $26 billion deficit which we confronted when we came into office. They actually confronted the third best budgetary position in the industrialised world. That was the giant hurdle they had to leap over. They leapt over it manfully. And what did they produce with the combination of bracket creep, the cuts they made and the taxation system that they said was broke? They produced a budget surplus—the budget surplus which is now being spent.They talk about sounder finances of government. Let me go through the four reasons why we have this GST: (1) sounder finances for government services, says the government; (2) a tax system which boosts exports, investment and business; (3) rewarding effort; and (4) making the tax system easier to deal with. Let us take `sounder finances'. Half the surplus raised under the old taxation system is being spent on putting this tax system in place. They claim that everybody is going to be better off. That claim is based not on the implementation of the GST but on the spending of the surplus. If this surplus is not spent, a massive impact is felt by ordinary middle income Australians. If you spend the surplus on tax cuts, then you might be able to offset the impact of it. But do not kid yourself that is a result of tax change. It is a result of dealing with a reasonable system and a reasonable situation that you yourselves were left with.The consequence of spending all of that on putting in place this debilitating tax is that you limit your capacities everywhere else. The Treasurer was on his scrapers again in question time today saying that the business tax reform agenda is going to be conducted in a revenue neutral way. Why do it in a revenue neutral way? You have to do it in a revenue neutral way only because you have spent so much in putting this in place—on the compensation measures that you have to put in place to deal with this. But, if you really were about jobs and about the sort of innovative economy that we need to be in the next century, you would not be talking about swapping accelerated depreciation—that is, the tax problem confronted by British industry at the end of the 19th century about which you spoke, Prime Minister, oddly enough. You would not be eliminating the question of accelerated depreciation to pay for a 30c rate. You would be talking about encouraging people to invest. You would be talking about capital gains tax changes that would reward people investing in an innovative product. You would be talking about putting back the R&D concessions that you have eliminated.You have achieved a couple of great outcomes on the social and educational agenda of this nation. Prime Minister, you alone in the Western world preside over a government which is seeing a net diminution on what is being spent on education and research and development. We were not all that good to start with, it has to be said. We were in the middle of the field. It is not as though we were up there with plenty of fat to play with. We were in the middle of the field. You have denied yourself the capacity to deal with these sorts of needs in our community. Why? Because you spend so much on compensating for a goods and services tax.You said `a tax system which will boost exports'. Peter Dixon—who, along with all the economic journalists in this country has abandoned this tax package—says in the conclusions of his analysis of the package:It'll generate a significant risk of reduced employment in the short run, not increase employment in the long run, harm Australia's exports of tourism and educational services, reduce the terms of trade, the prices of Australia's exports relative to its imports and have a negligible long-run effect on Australia's economic welfare average standard of living.What a terrific report card! What a little ripper! What a marvellous statement! Every single one of the government's claims for this are massively undermined: bad for exports, bad for jobs, bad for equity. At the end of the day, Dixon—who, it has to be said, was no friend of the previous Labor government, just like Ross Gittins and Terry McCrann—says, `Why would you bother?' Why would you bother to do something as silly as this?On the issue of rewarding effort, again they fail. There was one truly innovative proposal in relation to tax reform in the last election campaign. If we wanted to pick up something that actually was useful from the European experience—and this was from both the European and American experiences—it would be the idea of putting in place a working tax credit, an earned income tax credit to reward you when you decided to participate in the work force. The irony of it is that without a GST it would have produced (a) a better budgetary position and (b) a greater tax benefit for most families—something like $20 or $30 a week more for the average family than produced by the proposals of this government. They know that that tax change is right but, because the Labor Party first advocated it in this country, they will not do it.Do not go through all this guff and garble about how we were so bipartisan. Prime Minister, I remember question time after question time when you got stuck into us on the means testing that we put in place of benefits in this country. You got stuck into the assets test up hill, down dale, campaign after campaign, as we struggled to bring the budget—your budget—into balance, as we struggled to deal with the fiscal mess you left us. You—not someone else—were up on your scrapers every day attacking us. So do not come up with this guff and garble from your 24-hour memory, Prime Minister.As well as leaving us with a $24 billion budget deficit, you also attacked us when we started to deal with that with a decent amount of assets testing. That was you and your situation as one rorter after another ripped away at the taxation system which you presided over. In relation to this business about you wandering around with tax reform, I have heard from people who were there in the cabinet room with you. The tax reform proposals of the Prime Minister were not so much a bang as they were a little whimper in the background of it all. But, when we came to do something serious with a bit of fiscal responsibility, you were in the trenches against us at every point.Finally, they claim it will make the tax system easier to deal with. This really is an extraordinary claim. From 70,000 taxation points associated with the wholesale sales tax system, we go to 1.5 million. We turn every small business person and every business person in this country into a tax agent of the government. We increase the staff of the Taxation Office by some 4,000 people to deal with the impact. We say we are going to control the price effect by a bit of action from the ACCC. The ACCC has no powers, but it will have a few additional personnel. I am told—and I may be out by one or two, but what would it matter?—that the ACCC personnel to be devoted to monitoring the price effect of all of this in Western Australia will constitute one. One person will be responsible for monitoring the price effect of all of this. I could be wrong, it could even be two or three, but the way I hear it one will be responsible for doing this in Western Australia.We will find massive compliance costs associated with this in small business. To get a proper bar-coded cash register will cost $15,000. To get a reasonable cash register to deal with these sorts of things will cost $5,000. To get any guidance as to what you actually do, particularly for those 375,000 small businesses that now deal with the unbelievably complex arrangements as far as food is concerned, you would need at least that $5,000 cash register, but then again you would not know. If, say, you are running your local Kentucky Fried and somebody wanders out the door with a non-taxed coleslaw, sees a mate of his and wanders back in again, he has committed an offence—or somebody has. He has evaded tax. These are the complexities. Complexity on complexity has been built by this.Jeff Kennett is now trying to escape the responsibility for this by attacking you, though he was one of those who wound you up to do this. He now tries to escape his complicity in this. Why? It ought to suggest something to you. Jeff Kennett is the father of the goods and services tax, but he spurns his child because he knows that he will have to explain himself to all the service companies that are supposed to be driving jobs in Victoria; all those new manufacturing industries that he would love to see established, all those companies based on the introduction of new technologies—the biotech companies, the information technology companies. All of them will be faced with massive tax compli ance burdens, and he may be blamed. He also knows that the multifarious small businesses throughout Victoria will, courtesy of Kennett-Howard, find themselves as tax collectors. He wishes to crawfish out of his personal responsibilities in regard to this—and well might he do so.This tax is bad. It is bad for jobs, it is bad for families, it is bad for businesses, it is bad for the country. I will not begin to go into Dixon's explanation of how this will favour imports over domestically produced goods, but when one contemplates that the areas that are most highly taxed in the wholesale sales tax system happen to be businesses in the areas which are most affected by imports then you get some idea as to why that might be so.The point I want to make here today is that we need tax reform in this country, but this is not it. It is just a tax change. We need a reform that will make us more productive, we need a reform that will reward work, we need a reform that rewards innovation—none of that is here. What we have here instead is a pipedream of this Prime Minister in which he calls down all the gods of conservatives past to support him. He has denied his base and, in the process of denying his base, he is denying the Australian people what they truly need. It is a contemptible proposition and he will pay a penalty for it. (Time expired)17:35:007760Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I count it an honour to be standing here in the great forum of the nation on what will be one of its great historic days—a day when we sweep away the ramshackle tax system which was appropriate for 1932, a day when we set up a new system for Commonwealth-state financial relations, a day when we move to change Australia's income tax structure, a day when we change family assistance in a profound, deep and meaningful way; and one of those historic days which, in relation to the tax system, comes along perhaps every 40 or 50 or maybe even 99 years.When you see such days in the House of Representatives, the great days when change is effected on behalf of the nation, you have the opportunity to sit down and to reflect on and put into historical context what the chamber happens to be doing and the great anticipation that there will be for the decades which are to come. You saw one of those speeches from the Prime Minister as he stood at this dispatch box. He put into historical perspective where our country had been in the past in the course of opening up to the great winds of economic change and where it would go in the future as the government builds upon reform and stakes out a position for our country into the next century. It was one of those speeches which marks the occasion with thought and with deep analysis of where we are and where we want to go. I would like to follow in that tradition, not respond to the Leader of the Opposition who gave a speech which you would probably hear at any ALP branch meeting on a Thursday night in a small hall.The local members here tonight: what will he give his speech on? He will give a speech on: `Why we oppose tax reform'. I do not know—I have not heard too many of those speeches—but I imagine that the Leader of the Opposition has, over the last two years, probably stood in branch hall after branch hall and after they have read the minutes and the apologies and admitted the various members they will have said, `And now we have a person who needs no introduction, who will give us the benefit of his open, honest and new thinking in relation to the issues which confront the country.' That speech would have been delivered on, I guess, 1,000 occasions. There is always time to turn a new leaf. Perhaps we will see something substantive from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps when he comes to the dispatch box we will hear a vision of where Australia should be in the next century.83TRUDDMr Rudd—Why don't you for the first time actually argue the case for this thing?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Griffith is warned.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—But I will lay odds that it will be an ALP branch speech, the kind of speech you give when you have nothing positive to say—no policy, no direction, no vision, no future, no thinking—the kind of lazy, flaccid thinking that says, `If we cannot build, we will try to destroy.' But on this side of the House when we sat down two years ago to think about where we wanted to position Australia for the next century we thought that in the next century what this country needed was a new tax system.We do not begrudge the thinking of Scullin in 1932 when he was thinking about indirect tax. He was confronting an economy which had a narrow goods base. Services were probably unthought of. It was not known how you could possibly tax services. Scullin did what was right for the times of Scullin. But is it right for the 21st century? Could Scullin have thought about the way in which you would trade currencies across screens? Was Scullin thinking about the way in which sophisticated economies would develop services? Was Scullin thinking about how you would take taxes off exports in a WTO compliant manner in a modern trading world? Was Scullin thinking about how you would export financial services, accounting services or legal services and how you would take off those embedded taxes in a new modern trading world? Of course he was not.His was not the world of the PC; his was the world of the practical manufactured good. For his time he thought of an indirect tax system which was modern. But it is not modern for the 21st century. I think that if Scullin were here today he would probably be very surprised that there were people in an economy which he did not recognise still supporting a tax which he had authored. I think this would be a matter of great surprise to Scullin—a man who believed in policy right for his time—that in a society that he did not recognise in any meaningful sense there were still people who believed that tax wisdom ended with him. I think he would probably be very surprised that it had not moved on.Let us look at the broad sweep of tax reform history. As the Prime Minister said, the Asprey committee in 1975 came to the conclusion that we needed to broaden the indirect tax base. I can remember when I was a student that the big debates going on in those days were how Australia would modernise its tax system. We look at the efforts of the Prime Minister when he was Treasurer in the Fraser government to broaden the indirect tax base and to move into line with most of the developed world. We look at the contribution that was made by Hawke and Keating. Prime Minister Hawke said this, and I could not agree with it more:Unless there is a source of income in the consumption area, then the mass of Australians—the ordinary taxpayers—are not going to be able to get the substantial cuts in personal direct taxes to which they are entitled.He was right then; he is right now. The allegation was made by the Leader of the Opposition that somehow taxing consumption encourages the black economy. Let me quote Paul Keating in 1985:The great majority of the Australian people would be better off; that is a change of this kind that is cleaning up the tax system, knocking out all the rorts and ramps developing a base in consumption, that is taxing expenditure, which means you tax people who sometimes either minimise their tax or worse than that, cheating and evading tax you get a proportion of it when you tax it when you buy something and by doing that, the people who have been paying their fair share of tax will get net tax cuts and be better off.That was the thinking of Keating in the mid-1980s. It is pure invention that at this stage in 1999 all of the thinking on taxing consumption and bringing in the black economy was somehow wrong, that what we really needed all along was a wholesale sales tax, the tax of Scullin. I have been subject to review teams that have come through Australia representing state-of-the-art international thinking, from the IMF and from the OECD. Both of them have regularly recommended that Australia needs to broaden its indirect tax base. Funnily enough, since I have been Treasurer no mission from the IMF and no mission from the OECD has ever come through and said, `What you need is a wholesale sales tax.' They have never, ever said that or anything like it. They have never said anything like, `What you need to do is narrow your indirect tax base. What Australia needs is a goods based tax system in a services based economy.' They have never said anything like that. Why is that? It is because of this: if you want an indirect tax base that is going to grow in proportion to your economy, it has to be a tax on the output of your economy, which is goods and services. A goods base shrinks in proportion to the economy, and a tax on goods shrinks proportionately year by year. As a consequence of that, you either cut services or you increase income taxes. Australia has been in the business of doing both.The Leader of the Opposition made an interesting point before. In many European countries value added taxes were supported by social democrat governments. Why? Because they knew it was important to secure a revenue base to secure a social base. What we are doing here—and, let it be said, opposed by Labor—is securing the revenue base to secure the social base. All of that revenue goes to state governments to secure the social base for future citizens.Do we believe for a moment that the Labor Party would run to the next election with a policy of abolishing the goods and services tax and reintroducing wholesale sales tax? Do we believe that? No. That is why we know, by putting in place a base indirect tax system which grows in proportion to the economy, that this parliament can say, here and now, that for decades to come we have secured the means to look after the poor in Australia—those who have needed a helping hand—to look after the education of our young people, to look after the road infrastructures.The people who cared about social services in this country were the people who cared enough to develop a revenue base to fund it. That is the point that I want to make in relation to the Labor Party. The Labor Party can go on with a lot of hypocrisy in this debate, but the people who cared for the poor and those who were going to be in need in the decades to come were the people who cared enough to secure the revenue base to look after them. I make no apologies for doing that—for securing the future for those who are going to be in need, those who are going to need education, those who are going to need a helping hand. And let us never hear from the Labor Party, the party that was prepared to put opportunism before caring and compassion, that it ever had an interest in securing the social base for the future.I want to make some more points in relation to tax reform. One of the things you did not hear the Leader of the Opposition talk about in his speech was a plan to rerate Commonwealth-state relations. There is no other plan in Australia to rerate Commonwealth-state relations. There is no other plan in Australia to give the states a growth tax. It does not exist. It has not been put forward. His plan in relation to GST is wholesale sales tax. His plan in relation to Commonwealth-state relations is nothing. His plan in relation to income tax is higher income taxes. And his plan in relation to family assistance—which he also opposes—is nothing. Nothing has been put forward from Labor in relation to increased family assistance; there has been no proposal in relation to increasing family thresholds or increasing part A or part B family allowances.You heard it in the speech from the Leader of the Opposition: in a 20-minute speech, it was at the 19-minute 40-second mark that he talked about an alternative. It was in these words: `Labor supports tax reform when it opposes broadening the indirect tax base. Labor supports tax reform when it opposes income tax cuts. Labor supports tax reform when it opposes new Commonwealth-state relations. Labor supports tax reform when it opposes family assistance.' Labor does not propose; Labor opposes.As I have said previously in this House, why would you take a completely negative position in relation to these matters? It may sound good at the ALP branch meeting, but developing and building is always much harder than tearing down. That is why I think those in the Liberal and National parties, who are sitting in this House on this historic occasion today, can take pride in this: they were builders, not destroyers; they were looking forward, they were not looking back; they were the people who were securing the future for the poor and the needy and not doing them in the eye; they were the people who put principle before opportunism; and they were the people who believed Australia deserved a new tax system for a new century and that we could go into the next century with confidence in a new tax system.When Paul Keating put forward these reforms and was unable to bring them off, he said this:If we don't as a nation adopt this proposal then you won't see significant reforms in this country in taxation for the balance of the century.Here, in our time, in 1999, under the leadership of the Prime Minister—and I want to pay absolute tribute to the Prime Minister who led this debate from the 1970s on—at this turn of the century, there were people who wanted to build. There were people who took hard decisions. There were people who were prepared to take the onslaughts of opportunism and populism because we believed and we wanted to build because we knew Australia always deserved better; because we knew a new tax system was necessary for a new century; because we had a vision for a new Australia; because we had a vision for reform; and because we were prepared to work to get it.And the winners will be the Australian nation and the Australian people and the families of Australia who will have the opportunity to work and save. They will have more money in their pockets, and they will have the assurance that the social base has been secured because the government was prepared to lead, and this is the government that takes great pride in doing so. (Time expired)17:50:007763Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—This is not a great day for Australia. It is a black day for Australia. This is not a tax that builds the nation and it is not a tax for the poor and the needy. This tax destroys the fastest growing employment sector in this nation because it is a tax on their value added. It is a tax on services. It is a tax on the wealth creation of this nation as it stands today. This is a dated tax and this is a government that would have you believe it is the modern direction for the new millennium. Nor is it a tax reform package for the poor and the needy because it does not look after them. It does them in the eye because the government, with their partners in crime the Democrats, have not looked to the compensation measures.As for the humbug of this being the great forum of the nation in which these issues can be debated, why did they guillotine the first bills through the House back in December and why are they guillotining it through tonight? If they really believe that this is the forum for debate, why won't they have the debate? Why won't they answer the questions we have asked them day after day in this place about the problems with the diesel fuel, the dipsticks on highway 1? Why won't they answer the questions about what food is in and what food is out? Why won't they answer the questions about when the salad becomes taxed and untaxed again? Because the truth is they have not got the answers. This is a complex morass of a tax. And it is not in the interests of this nation.The only time we got scrutiny in these bills was when we took that issue into the Senate, and it was the Treasurer who fought every inch of the way to stop that scrutiny. So let us have none of this unctuous, schoolboy Treasurer coming into this place pretending that what he has done is to bring to the nation a great opportunity and to give this parliament a great capacity to debate it. He has not. He is a fraud, and he should be seen for just that.Today, we see the last act in this House of the Prime Minister's great tax adventure. His great defining moment in 25 years of public life, and what is it? It is a 10 per cent tax. How original: Mr 10 per cent. This is the John Howard defining moment. In 25 years in politics, what can he come up with? A new 10 per cent tax. Mr 10 per cent, what a dud. And today we see the Liberal-Democrat deal to give this country a new regressive tax which will collect some $27 billion per year, an unnecessary tax through a deal that was best summed up by Peter Garrett when he said that it was a dirty deal done dirt cheap. And so it was. But the truth of the matter is that thousands of Australians will suffer as a result of this GST. They will know, every time they feel the hand of the tax man in their pocket, that Peter Costello put it there. Make no mistake: as much as he wants to heap praise on the Prime Minister and in effect say, `It's his tax; it's not mine,' the truth is this is Peter Costello's GST just as much as it is John Howard's and Meg Lees's. The Australian people will not forget that. They will know the people who have given them this unfairness, this complexity and this approach that is not in the interests of the growth of this nation.When this legislation came into the House last December, Labor opposed the bills which introduced the GST. We said there was insufficient time in the House to give it scrutiny, and we supported and successfully achieved that scrutiny in the Senate. We correctly argued that the compensation package proposed was unfair and inadequate. We correctly argued that the GST was not good for the economy, and we correctly argued that the GST was a threat to jobs. But we said that, if the GST were passed in this chamber, we would not oppose the associated compensation measures, such as the pension increases and the tax cuts, because it would be doubly unfair to impose a GST without any compensation—no matter how inadequate that compensation was. We did not oppose those measures, despite what this government argues. We voted for those compensation measures once the GST was passed, and that will be the principle that we adopt with these amendments and these requests back in the House today.The GST itself has passed the Senate. The bulk of the amendments that are before us today go to making this a less unfair tax. We will therefore not oppose them, but that does not mean that Labor's opposition to the GST is weakened. We have done just as we said we would do; we have used every tactic and every argument to try to defeat this unfair tax. Every time there has been a vote in the parliament on this GST, we voted against it. We built the coalition against the GST. We opposed Democrat amendments which secured their initial opposition to the bill. Once Senator Harradine made his principled `I cannot' speech, we built the coalition against the government's GST, which could have and should have buried the GST forever. Unfortunately, a majority of the Democrats decided to resurrect it, but that is a decision that they will have to live with. They said they had to negotiate the GST; they did not. They could have said, `We cannot.' They did not. They were dealt a hand where they could have bid nine no trumps; they bid six and won one. That is how good they were in this exercise.As a last effort today, Labor will be moving two amendments to the requests and the amendments. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the requests be referred back to the Senate for further consideration so as to produce a new tax system without a GST".I also foreshadow that, at the appropriate time later in the debate, I will be moving:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the amendments be referred back to the Senate for further consideration so as to produce a new tax system without a GST".The truth of it is that there are alternatives to the GST, and this hypocrisy from the Treasurer coming in saying that Labor has not put up any alternatives is absolute nonsense. Labor has gone on the record—and not only in the last election—with the alternative that the leader referred to before: the innovative tax credits proposal that economists, the Business Council and many around the country have embraced, but not this government. And we have the unction of the Prime Minister coming in here saying, `Hand on heart, when we see a good idea, we'll pick it up.' Absolute rubbish. The person who leads this nation has not been capable of bipartisanship in his life. This is a person so steeped in his past that he cannot see the future. This is a person incapable of embracing a decent idea if it comes from the Labor party, despite the fact that he went to the last election and the one before claiming to govern for all of us. He is incapable of it, and he has been shown up in this debate as well.It was not only in the last election that we put the alternative forward. I spelled out back in February the principles that we would be looking to in guiding us in the direction of tax reform. At the National Press Club in May, we spelled out the way we would approach the budget and the way in which we could do tax reform without the GST, and that was a position reiterated in this parliament in the response to the budget back at the end of May and in early June. The truth of it is that there can be tax reform without a GST, and the simple truth is that it still may not be too late. That is why we are trying, as a last effort, to get these amendments up today. There can be a fair outcome for families, there can be an efficient outcome for small business, but this package does not deliver on those outcomes.Among the amendments and requests that we have before us there are some elements that we would oppose were there time to do it. For example, the highrollers amendment—the one that gives the special breaks to the casinos and the high rollers but duds pensioners. What sort of balance and fairness is that? Now that it has the chooks in, chooks out clause, where is the amendment which is actually prepared to put the details of this GST on the receipts? They used to rail forth about the hidden taxes and the embedded taxes in the wholesale sales tax. If they are so proud of this new tax, why won't they put it on the retail receipts? We will campaign around these issues because they are important. People need to know what they are taxed and they need to know when this man, the Treasurer, has his hand in their pocket. Why haven't we got the amendments that would strengthen the hand of the government in terms of tax avoidance to ensure that what we get is people paying their fair share of tax, not just being slugged with a new 10 per cent?Because this thing is being rushed through tonight, we are not allowed the opportunity to pick it apart, but Labor did everything it could to defeat this unfair tax. We started from the argument that the GST is unfair, bad for jobs and bad for the economy, and we proved that case. We justified our claim. I want to pay tribute to everyone on the Labor side in the Senate and in the House of Representatives who participated in the exercise that scrutinised this bill, who tested the government's arguments, who found them wanting, who never made a claim in relation to our position that could not be supported by the evidence. Labor played the honest role in this debate. This government made assertion only—never backed it up by modelling, never backed it up by evidence. Not only were they decried by the modellers but also accused of empty rhetoric. And empty rhetoric it was in terms of this government's justification.As the facts came out in this debate, community sentiment against the GST hardened. Australians, as the Leader of the Opposition said, do not want this tax. They do not want it, they should not have it and they do not deserve it. It is not in their interests and we do not need it. The tax system is not broke, and this government has dipped into the surplus by a huge amount to fund this unfair tax by giving the compensation and skewing it at the top end of the scale. That is why it is unfair. These are the things that, through the painstaking scrutiny and the exposure of the weaknesses and unfairness of this tax, we demonstrated through the Senate process.The Democrats sold out on the GST on Telstra and on the environment, on wine, on books, on their balloted policy and on their membership. It is the Democrats who are the casualties of this debate. They did not have to deal, but deal they did. Their leader has managed to engineer such a poor deal that it divided her parliamentary membership, her party membership and even sparked an attempted leadership spill. The other thing that Senator Lees did was to deliberately mislead Labor about her intentions concerning the environment legislation and the sale of Telstra.Prior to her deal with the Prime Minister, Senator Lees requested Labor's assistance to defer Senate consideration of the environment legislation and the Telstra legislation until after 30 June. She had it within her power to ensure that that occurred, but she reneged on it. Instead, Senator Lees deliberately allowed the further sell-off of Telstra and then made the deal concerning the environment legislation. What you cannot do in politics is turn your back on your base, and the Democrats have done that in this rush to get this bill and this legislation through for the government.As these bills pass, we will truly have a dog's breakfast of a tax for the new century—a mess that no-one wanted. We not only took a position to the last election but we have developed it since. The amendments we are moving today continue that theme. We developed that package in consultation with a lot of groups in the community, and we will be developing our further position in the same way. Against the same principles and in consultation with the same groups, we will develop a better alternative. We did it at the last election, we have done it since that election and we will do it in the lead-up to the next election. This country does not need a GST. I would urge the House to support the amendments moved by the opposition.18:05:007766Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I second the amendment. This is a tax we do not have to have and it is a tax that we cannot afford. It is the most fundamental and biggest tax hike on Australian families in Australian history. I cannot work out who is more out of touch—whether it is the Prime Minister, whether it is Meg Lees or whether it is Peter Costello. The Democrats went to the last election saying that they would keep the bastards honest and all they have produced is a bastard tax, a tax which is going to be a fundamental attack on the security and living standards of Australian families.John Howard has the hide to come into the House today to say to us that Australians will forget this at the next election. Well, as Michael Caton said in the movie The Castle, `He's dreamin'.' He is certainly dreaming. Then Peter Costello, the Treasurer, goes on radio this morning and says that this will be great for Australian families. He says that they will be able to save more. He says that they will not have to go out and spend more on school shoes, they will not have to go out and spend more on bus fares. But they do not have the choice. They cannot give up consuming. Low and middle income Australians cannot stop consuming because this government has a 10 per cent GST on all the necessities of life.The tax cuts offered to low and middle income earners in this package are not enough. They will be more than consumed by massive price rises which will erode their standard of living. Despite all the inane crowing that comes from this government that they represent the battlers or that they represent middle Australia, it turns out that some thing like 50 per cent of the frontbench over there all have family trusts. That compares to two per cent of the Australian population. How can they go around this country masquerading in the belief that somehow they understand what it is like to go to the shops to buy a trolley full of goods and not have enough money to pay for those goods?They are seriously out of touch because there is one thing that this package does: it is very strong in taxing the weak and very, very weak in taxing the strong. In addition to that, in addition to putting the biggest tax hike in Australian history on Australian families, the government have presided over some of the biggest cuts to family services in the history of this country. Go through the cuts to child care, go through the cuts to housing, go through the cuts to all of those essential services that battling Australian families depend on—something like $2.9 billion worth in their first term. The compensation package that the government are bringing in goes nowhere near to restoring those cuts or making up for the impact of the GST.The most fundamental group in the community who will suffer the most will be families with children. Families with children spend more on housing costs, families with children spend more on fuel and power, families with children spend more on clothing and footwear. The GST will hit all of those items very, very hard. Despite the bastardisation of this tax in the deal with the Democrats, some one-third of all food that people purchase will still be hit by the GST. Seventy-five per cent of the expenditure of a family or a pensioner earning less than $30,000 a year will still be hit by the GST. When you put that up against the inequity of the tax cuts, you can see how this government has one favourite minority—the wealthy, because all of this package is tilted upwards, taking money from low and middle income Australian families.A child born into a family earning $30,000 is worth something like one-quarter of the tax cut that the same child born into a family earning $100,000 will get. So we will be going around the country explaining the unfairness of this package. And every smirk from the Treasurer, every sly grin, will reinforce the inequity of this package. Australians will understand when they look at the structure of the tax cuts, when they look at the impact of the GST on all the fundamentals of life, that they have been absolutely dudded. It is nothing but a cruel hoax.Then you come to the family package. The compensation arrangements in this package are built on the assumption that the GST will cost a family just 30c per week per child. What a fraud! 30c a week is what this package is based on. You cannot compensate and have not compensated families at all, while at the same time you have provided a structure of tax cuts which gives tax cuts to those who are earning the most.This is not tax reform; this is tax deform. You have deformed the tax system. You have screwed the tax system upwards. You have taken money off low and middle income Australians and in the process of so doing you have reduced the opportunities for their children to get ahead in life. And simultaneously you cut back essential expenditure on education and you attack low and middle income families. (Time expired)18:10:007767Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—The goods and service tax and accompanying amendments to the taxation system are sitting in wet cement. Whether that cement sets and in what shape it sets time will show—and the distorted shape and cracks are yet to show, but they will. I have made my position clear over many months: the goods and service tax is a regressive tax that favours the well-off at the expense of those caught like a rabbit in the glare of the tax office headlights—nowhere to go to avoid, no discretion. The big tax avoiders, the friends of big government, are laughing. The heat is off. I think I heard the Treasurer today say that tax reform has been completed. Labor cannot cry crocodile tears for lower income earners either. Where was their attack on tax avoidance?It is a bottom up not top down tax. It gives the greatest benefit to those on higher incomes when a fair progressive system should take more from those who have to provide services which give those who don't the chance to improve their situation. The former Taxation Commissioner Trevor Boucher says there is $21 billion worth of avoided tax and shelters out there that should and could be raided long before the imposition of an unfair tax on those who cannot avoid it. Not only that, but the further you go down the tax scale the less is the impact of tax cuts and the more every dollar spent attracts this tax. The compensations cannot be guaranteed; the GST can.The Prime Minister suggests the only route to tax reform is a GST—that is absolute rubbish and the broader tax base we need is one based on greater income tax revenue, not consumption. The government has marketed the proposed changes as a new tax system for a new millennium, but the reality is the package is little more than an old fashioned, regressive, bureaucratic GST—nothing more, nothing less. Take the GST out of the package and the whole thing falls down like a pack of cards.Some of the concessions granted to the Democrats were funded by reduction in income tax rates to higher earners. But those taxes in the first place are funded not from the GST, which goes to the states—and heaven help local government under that new funding regime. The tax cuts were funded through cutbacks to the states—funnily enough, cuts in university funding, labour market programs, legal aid and programs like the dental scheme. Incentives have been offered to the regional transport industry and farmers and to rail transport only after it was squeezed from them by the Democrats—the sorts of reforms that could and should have been funded by taxation gathered from areas identified by Mr Boucher.I took a platform of opposing this tax to the last election and I claim a mandate from my electorate for that opposition. I totally reject this regressive, outdated, unfair tax for all of those reasons.18:13:007768Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I feel privileged to be a part of history on this side of the House.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I remind members on my left!DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I feel privileged that one side of the House is making history and the other side of the House is a victim of history. On this side of the House we are implementing the structural reform that is going to change the shape of our nation. It is going to build a new nation for a new century in four key areas—and I pay tribute to the Treasurer for the structural reform that is a part of this package in Commonwealth-state relations because that is an area that the Labor Party has neglected for years. It is an area that governments right through the history of Australia have always treated with contempt.I was a part of a state government that came to Canberra with a begging bowl looking for growth revenue that could fund the schools and the hospitals and the police that we needed in our state. When we could not get growth revenue out of the Commonwealth, we had to resort to regressive taxes that were having a penetrating effect on the social fabric of our nation. We looked at gambling taxes for new revenue; we looked at bed taxes for new revenue; we looked at a whole range of small, idiosyncratic taxes that were going to have an incredible effect on the social fabric of our nation.Mr Hatton interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Blaxland.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Those taxes have in many ways undermined the social fabric of Australia. What we are doing is rebuilding the growth revenue for the states, who are the big spenders for the people most in need. The second area of great structural reform is the poverty trap. We have completely smashed the poverty trap that has prevented Australians earning more than $23,000 a year from staying on a social security system that sucks up $60 billion a year of Commonwealth expenditure.I turn to the third area, and I ask this question of the Labor Party: if you were building a new taxation system today, would you cast aside a tax on services? Services represent a significant part of our economy today. People providing services are not paying their fair share in tax. People purchasing services are not paying their fair share. Under this circumstance, we are sharing the burden of tax. A tax on services is going to deliver what the Treasurer described as the social fabric of the future.The fourth area is the message we are sending to the world today. That message to the world is that we are prepared to take the hard yards; we are prepared to rebuild Australia's taxation system. It is so easy to change matters of expenditure but it is damn hard to change areas of revenue. That is half the Commonwealth budget every year.This is the side of the parliament that has courage. This is the side of the parliament that has fortitude. This is the side of the parliament that has the support of the Australian people. And we totally stand by the fabric of the nation being built today by this taxation system—a new taxation system for a new century.18:17:007769Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—Mr Speaker—Motion (by Mr Costello) agreed to:That the question be now put.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Crean's amendment) stand part of the question.The House divided. [6.22 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Mr Costello) proposed:That the amendments of the Senate conveyed to the House in Senate messages Nos 109 to 112, 114 and 134 be agreed to.Amendment (by Mr Crean) proposed:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the amendments be referred back to the Senate for further consideration so as to produce a new tax system without a GST".10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the amendment seconded?2V5SWANMr Swan—I second the amendment.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Crean's amendment) be agreed to.The House divided. [6.31 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Mr Costello) proposed:That Senate messages Nos 108 and 113 be considered at the next sitting.18:33:007769Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—We agree. I understand this is necessary because not all the states have signed up, despite the fact that the government said they welcomed this new dawn. So we support the motion.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills7769The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—Excise) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—Customs) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Australian Business Number Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (End of Sales Tax) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Income Tax Laws Amendment) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—Customs) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Excise) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Customs) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Excise) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax and Luxury Car Tax Transition) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 A New Tax System (Closely Held Trusts) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Ultimate Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) Bill (No. 1) 1999 A New Tax System (Ultimate Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) Bill (No. 2) 1999 Sitting suspended from 6.34 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.Bills7770s182Consideration resumed from 28 June.777020:00:007770Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1999 is perhaps the most significant legislation dealing with environmental issues that has ever been presented to the Commonwealth parliament.The bill represents the only comprehensive attempt in the history of our federation to define the environmental responsibilities of the Commonwealth. It proposes the most fundamental reform of Commonwealth environmental law since the first environment statutes were enacted by this parliament in the early 1970s.Reform is necessary because the existing suite of Commonwealth law does not ensure high environmental standards in the areas of Commonwealth responsibility. Just as importantly, the existing legislation does not provide the community with certainty as to the Commonwealth's role, nor does it provide an efficient and timely assessment and approval process.Over the last three years, the federal coalition government has worked cooperatively with the state governments to identify the reforms needed to produce a more effective and efficient national approach to environmental management. The result was an agreement, given in-principle endorsement by the Council of Australian Governments in 1997, which defines the Commonwealth's role by reference to certain matters of national environmental significance. The COAG agreement also seeks to ensure the seamless integration of Commonwealth and state laws through a transparent mechanism for Commonwealth accreditation of state processes.The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1999 implements the COAG agreement. In doing so, it provides the framework for a more effective national approach to environmental management, ensuring resources are focused on delivering better environmental outcomes at all levels of government. The Commonwealth's role in this national approach will, for the first time, be clearly and logically defined.The bill will replace five existing Commonwealth acts—the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992, the Na tional Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, the Whale Protection Act 1980 and the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983.The bill will establish a new legislative framework to overcome the deficiencies of the existing regime and to allow Australia to meet the environmental challenges of the 21st century with renewed confidence. The bill will promote, not impede, ecologically sustainable development and will conserve biodiversity. The bill will ensure the Commonwealth is equipped to deal with current and emerging environmental issues in accordance with contemporary approaches to environmental management.National environmental significanceA major deficiency in the existing regime is that Commonwealth involvement in environmental matters is determined by ad hoc and indirect triggers, such as foreign investment approval and Commonwealth funding decisions.Reliance on such triggers has undoubtedly limited the effectiveness of the Commonwealth's contribution to environmental protection. It has also created significant and unnecessary delay, uncertainty and duplication for industry.More fundamentally, the use of indirect triggers means the Commonwealth becomes involved in the assessment of projects which raise environmental issues of only local or state significance. This should not occur. Conversely, under the existing law, the Commonwealth is sometimes locked out of contributing to an issue of genuine national significance because of the absence of an indirect trigger.In accordance with the COAG agreement, the bill therefore abandons the reliance on ad hoc and indirect triggers in favour of appropriate environmental criteria.The bill introduces a new and more efficient assessment and approval process that applies to actions which are likely to have a significant impact on the Commonwealth marine area; world heritage properties; Ramsar wetlands of international importance; nationally threatened species and ecological communities; and internationally protected migratory species.The bill also applies to environmentally significant nuclear actions, actions on Commonwealth land and actions by the Commonwealth and Commonwealth agencies.An activity which does not have a significant impact on one of the matters of national significance will no longer trigger Commonwealth involvement in the assessment and approval process, even if it requires a Commonwealth decision or approval such as foreign investment approval.In accordance with the COAG agreement, the bill provides a framework for recognising any additional matters of national environmental significance after consultation with the states and the proper consideration of state views.AccreditationAnother deficiency in the existing regime is that it does not enable early, transparent and effective accreditation of state processes and systems.For projects of national environmental significance that trigger Commonwealth involvement, the bill substantially increases the capacity for the Commonwealth to `accredit' state processes.The Commonwealth will seek to rely on state processes which meet appropriate criteria by entering into bilateral agreements with states which detail accreditation arrangements. In summary, the Commonwealth will be able to `delegate' to the states the responsibility for conducting assessments under the bill where state processes meet best practice criteria.The capacity for accreditation of state processes in the bill is significantly greater than under existing legislation. For the first time, legislation will allow the Commonwealth to provide up-front accreditation of state processes, broader accreditation of state processes and systems—avoiding the need to provide accreditation on a case by case basis for all projects—and accreditation of state decisions, but only in accordance with agreed management plans which meet best practice criteria. The bill provides a framework for identifying appropriate criteria for use in the accreditation process.An efficient environmental assessment and approval processThe bill implements a modern environmental assessment and approval process that will transform the Commonwealth process from its archaic 1970s structure.Reliance on direct environmental triggers will substantially increase the certainty and efficiency of the assessment and approval process. Accordingly, the new process delivers significant benefits for proponents without compromising on environmental standards. The proponent may trigger the process, avoiding the current delays associated with designation under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. By relying on specific environmental criteria as the trigger—and not the existing indirect triggers—the proponent and the community know up-front whether the Commonwealth is involved. There is not the existing capacity for late intervention, and tight statutory time frames are now included at all stages in the process to ensure timely decision making.The decision whether to grant approval is made after considering social and economic factors as well as the matters of national environmental significance.Other features of the new process include express recognition of the precautionary principle and other principles of ecologically sustainable development, the adoption of a strategic assessment process to promote cumulative and regional assessments and the establishment of a framework for state accreditation of Commonwealth assessments—for example, for projects affecting more than one jurisdiction.Biodiversity conservationThe loss of biodiversity represents the greatest environmental challenge currently facing Australia. The Howard government has demonstrated its commitment to addressing this challenge by establishing the largest environmental program in Australia's history—the Natural Heritage Trust. The bill now provides a substantially improved legal framework for the conservation and sustain able use of Australia's biodiversity to complement the Natural Heritage Trust. Some of the features of the bill which will improve Australia's capacity to protect its biodiversity include:. providing for voluntary conservation agreements with landholders for the conservation of biodiversity;. enhancing protection for threatened species through improvements to the listing process, providing for the recognition of vulnerable ecological communities and conservation dependent species and the application of specialised criteria to assess the conservation status of marine biota;. providing that regulations may be made for the control of access to biological resources in Commonwealth areas;. providing for the improved management of Commonwealth reserves, including through application of the Australian IUCN reserve management principles;. improving protection for world heritage properties;. for the first time, providing legislative protection for Ramsar wetlands of international importance and migratory species;. recognising and promoting improved management for biosphere reserves; and. promoting bioregional planning.The bill also provides for the formal establishment of the Australian Whale Sanctuary. The establishment of this sanctuary complements Australia's efforts at the international level to secure, through the establishment of a truly global sanctuary, a permanent international ban on commercial whaling.The reforms presented in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1999 are the product of a long period of negotiation with the states and consultation with key stakeholders, including industry, conservation groups and indigenous peoples. This consultation process included an extensive inquiry on the bill by the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee. The bill has been improved, to the advantage of all key stakeholders, as a result of government amendments adopted in the Senate. These amendments will:. Increase transparency and public involvement. For example, there is: increased public notification; more opportunity for public comment in the environmental assessment and approval process; and requirements for public consultation on making bilateral agreements and bioregional plans. Proponents will be consulted on conditions to be attached to environmental approvals.. Provide increased recognition of the important role of indigenous peoples in conserving biodiversity and managing jointly managed Commonwealth reserves. The statutory office of the Director of National Parks has been retained at the request of traditional owners.. Ensure that the range of matters of national environmental significance which trigger Commonwealth assessment and approval is reviewed every five years.. Impose additional strict safeguards relating to the delegation of Commonwealth environmental approvals to the states.. Put in place additional specific time limits on relevant steps in the environmental assessment process.. Require all Commonwealth bodies to report annually on how their activities accord with the principles of ecologically sustainable development.Ultimately, of course, we need more than just the best possible environmental law regime to protect Australia's environment and promote ecologically sustainable development. Accordingly, not all of the matters of national environmental significance recognised in the COAG agreement are being addressed in this bill. The Howard government is dealing with issues such as land degradation and the retention of remnant bushland through the Natural Heritage Trust. In 1997 the Prime Minister announced a $180 million policy to reduce the growth in greenhouse gas emissions, and recently committed a further sum of $100 million per year to support greenhouse abatement programs.The COAG agreement also identifies heritage places of national significance as a matter of national environmental significance. However, in this instance the `Consultation Paper on the Reform of Commonwealth Environmental Legislation' indicated that development of a national heritage places strategy by the Commonwealth and the states should be concluded before legislation to give effect to a new national framework for heritage protection is progressed. The outcomes of the national strategy will, as necessary, be translated into future legislative reforms. At the Commonwealth level, these reforms can be accommodated within the framework of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1999 .In conclusion, the bill enables the Commonwealth to join with the states in providing a truly national scheme of environmental protection and biodiversity conservation, recognising our responsibility to not only this but also future generations. It does so by respecting and building upon the strengths of our Federation and the primary responsibility of the states for delivering on-ground natural resource management. It does so also in a way that is `user friendly' with predictable, transparent and timely assessment processes. By accepting Commonwealth leadership, respecting the role of the states and providing best process for users, the bill provides a framework within which to build public confidence and support for its vitally important objectives. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Bills7773s197Consideration resumed from 28 June.777320:14:007773Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill continues the process of reform of Commonwealth environmental legislation. It is an adjunct to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1999 which proposes the most fundamental reform of Commonwealth environmental legislation since the first environmental statutes were enacted in the early 1970s.The Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1999 has three primary objectives. Firstly, the bill provides for the repeal of the five acts to be replaced by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1999. These are the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, the Whale Protection Act 1980, the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 and the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992.Secondly, the bill puts in place savings and arrangements for a smooth transition from the processes in place under the existing acts, including environment assessment and permitting arrangements, to the new schemes established under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1999.The bill also amends Commonwealth government legislation that is affected either by the repeal of the five acts or by the content of the proposed Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1999.The bill, together with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1999, provides a new environmental law regime which enables the Commonwealth to join with the states in providing a truly national scheme of environmental protection and biodiversity conservation, recognising our responsibility to not only this but also future generations. It does so by respecting and building upon the strengths of our Federation and the primary responsibility of the states for delivering on-ground natural resource management. It does so in a way that is `user friendly', with predictable, transparent and timely assessment processes. By accepting Commonwealth leadership, respecting the role of the states and providing best process for users, the new regime provides a framework within which to build public confidence and support for its vitally important objectives.I commend the bill to the House of Representatives and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Bills7774s182Billss197Bills7774Debate resumed.20:17:007774Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The first source of concern one might have on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1999 and the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1999 is that legislation which purports to simplify and streamline environment protection legislation in fact runs in the one case to 530 pages and in the other to an additional 80 pages. So there are over 600 pages of simplification here. One has to ask oneself just what old-growth forests hit the fence in order that this might happen. The second thing one would have to be concerned about is that this legislation features many amendments which have been provided to the parliament only in the last few days and rushed through the Senate without adequate opportunity for scrutiny by either parliament or public. Thirdly, this problem is compounded by the fact that this evening we are being given only a couple of hours to debate what, by the government's admission, is fundamental legislation. It is to treat this parliament with scant respect that we should be given a couple of hours to debate legislation which has been so extensively amended since the parliament and this House last saw it.This is not a debate about legislative efficiency, it is not a debate about reducing administrative complexity or duplication, it is not a debate about clarifying the responsibilities of each level of government for protection of the environment; this debate is about the Howard government's determination to revisit history and to remake it. It is also about the determination of their new coalition partners, the Democrats, to bend over backwards to facilitate what is a return to the past.I have been reading an article in a newspaper which ought to know better that said that young people under the age of 25 are or should be supporting the Howard government. But, on this issue, as on so many others, this government is taking a position widely out of kilter with the aspirations of young people which, in this case, is for a decent system and proper standards of environment protection. I and other opposition speakers intend to unmask this government's ideologically driven obsession to restage battles which have long been lost by the forces of reaction, their desire to reset the rules of engagement and to erase from the record the victories won in past years by environmentalists. This debate is also about incompetence on the part of the Democrats and their betrayal of their environmental and indigenous constituencies. Fair dinkum, you really could sell the Democrats the Brooklyn Bridge. It is not easy being green, so what have the Democrats done? They have given up. They came from the Liberal Party and they are going back. They are turning blue. When they said they were green, we did not realise it was simply the green shade of envy. They wanted to be part of the government and now they are. Their party president recently said that Democrat members who were critical of the party's new direction wanted them to remain the fairies at the bottom of the garden. They are certainly not the fairies at the bottom of the garden any more; the garden has been woodchipped and the Democrats have turned into hobgoblins with chainsaws.The reason I say this is that this legislation seeks to remove the Commonwealth from being an active participant on the side of environmental and biodiversity protection. It comes from a government which would have this nation turn its back on international undertakings and responsibilities by radically diluting the Commonwealth's power to give legislative and administratively enforceable effect to Australia's obligations accrued over time for this sovereign nation, for our region and for the biosphere as a whole. The government has presented the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill as the only comprehensive and fundamental attempt to reform environmental responsibilities in the history of Federation. Although it might be the largest environmental bill introduced into the parliament, it is neither comprehensive nor fundamental reform. In many ways, it returns environmental law in Australia back to the 1970s and earlier where environmental concerns were the sole province of the states. This comes from Prime Minister Howard who is a back to the future, yesterday's man. He is one of those Liberals who bitterly resent the Commonwealth finding and using powers in past years to protect the environment, to protect the Franklin River, to protect the Daintree Forest and to protect Coronation Hill.This bill, firstly, significantly limits the scope for Commonwealth activity on environmental issues. Secondly, even within that limited scope, the bill provides for an extremely broad range of exemptions from its standard procedures on so-called matters of national environmental significance. Thirdly, ministerial discretion in the bill is uniformly unfettered by any semblance of clear environmental standards. Fourthly, public participation in critical environmental decisions is negligible. Fifthly, and I guess unsurprisingly, this bill and its companion Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1999 , engage in another mean-spirited attack on the hard-won victories and rights of indigenous peoples in this country. It contains amendments, forged in a backroom deal with the Democrats in direct contradiction of traditional owners' expressed wishes, that have taken no account of the principles of joint management and shown no respect for the expertise of indigenous communities in caring for their environment. These flaws will ensure that this bill will be unable to deliver the certainties sought by all stakeholders.It might be worth spending a little bit of time on the history of environmental law during the past few years. It is fair to say that national and international awareness of the importance of protecting the environment has blossomed in the past 50 years. International awareness of the environment is a significant example of one of the new social movements of the late 20th century, driven by local communities concerned about the effects on the social and ecological environment of unchecked pollution, industrialisation and unsustainable resource use. Australia has been no exception to this international phenomenon. All of the great environmental battles fought in Australia have had strong community support, with polling consistently showing environmental issues high on the list of community concerns.The 1972 declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment marked the beginning of a serious attempt by the world community to weld environmental concerns to economic and social issues. As with the UN declaration on human rights, the declaration on the environment is an aspirational statement concerned with the potentially catastrophic effects of unchecked industrial development and resource use on the quality of life of all people and on the conservation of nature and ecosystems. During the past three decades, these aspirational statements have been fleshed out in a range of specific international environmental treaties relating to environmental damage, the marine environment, protection of the atmosphere, nuclear risks and the conservation of nature and other living things.In the early 1970s, a Labor government introduced the first ever national approach to environmental regulation, with the introduction of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. That legislation was aimed at ensuring that significant environmental matters are considered in relation to actions, proposals and decisions taken by the federal government and its agencies. Commonwealth legislative initiatives on the environment have been critical in saving what are now considered as national environmental icons. The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, passed by a Labor government, ensured that invaluable areas such as Kakadu and Uluru became national parks under national control. Following the 1983 election, fought partially on the question of the Tasmanian Liberal government's intention to construct the Gordon below Franklin dam, the Hawke government introduced the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. That act ensured Commonwealth protection of the Franklin River. Later that decade, the same Commonwealth legislation was used to stop the logging of the Queensland wet tropics, including the Daintree rainforest, by the Queensland National Party.These sorts of battles were won over the dead bodies of those opposite. Both those Commonwealth interventions were fought tooth and nail by conservative state governments and by the federal opposition under the guise of protecting state rights. The Commonwealth government under Labor invoked the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 when it sought to stop the logging of the Lemonthyme forests in Tasmania—forests identified for world heritage listing. Similarly, the Commonwealth intervened to stop the proposal to mine the ecologically and culturally unique Coronation Hill site in Kakadu.Without this national approach to environmental security, all these sites of national environmental significance would have been destroyed. From a constitutional perspective, the legal struggles initiated by the states over the Commonwealth's legitimate use of power to achieve such environmental protection have resulted in a series of High Court decisions finding that the Commonwealth has near to plenary constitutional power to enact laws to protect the environment. However, despite this constitutional scope supported by both national community concern and international obligations, the Howard-Lees government has drafted a bill that provides for a handover of environmental control to the states and territories. Thus we are going the full circle back to the 1960s when states' rights on such matters were sacrosanct.As we reflect on this history—a history of Labor achievement of environmental protec tion—I think it is fair to note that the Labor government and the Labor Party have not received enough credit for these things. It is high time that green groups gave up what I think is a rather silly, teenage infatuation with Independents and third parties—an infatuation shown by the Democrats' conduct concerning this bill to be very much misplaced—and realised that there is one party in this nation and one party alone which has delivered on environmental protection—and that is the Labor Party.This legislation purports to carve up the respective responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the states and territories through its definition of what it calls `matters of national environmental significance'. Despite the glossy description, the bill ensures that nominal Commonwealth control over even these areas can cascade directly to state and territory control through narrow concepts of the operation of such national matters and through a myriad exemptions to the standard assessment and approval processes. Within the bill, there are six specific matters of national environmental significance and one catch-all provision which grants the power to make regulations for additional matters of national environmental significance in accordance with specified constitutional powers.The policy justification for the nomination of these specific areas of national environmental significance is the Council of Australian Government's 1997 `Heads of Agreement on Commonwealth/State Roles and Responsibilities for the Environment'. However, COAG agreed that Commonwealth involvement should include 30, not six, identified matters of national environmental significance. The 30 agreed areas of responsibility included questions such as climate change, greenhouse gases, ozone depletion, air quality, soil salinity, desertification, water allocation, land degradation and land clearing. Despite identification of all these comprehensive issues, we have here a bill which gives effect only to some six. The rest of them do not appear. These major national matters are left to languish in the ether between Commonwealth and state responsibility. This is a recipe for legislative and for administrative paralysis. Those failed environmentalists, the Democrats, failed or forgot in their negotiations with the government to get even one of the 23 outstanding national matters added to the bill. Indeed, they voted with the government in the Senate to defeat Labor's proposal to add the trigger of greenhouse gas emissions as a further national matter. Hardly a satisfactory situation for legislation of environmental change claimed to be comprehensive and fundamental.But there is more. The second mechanism by which this bill narrows the ambit of Commonwealth control is that it limits Commonwealth assessment of proposals to those parts of a proposal which specifically affect the six specified matters of national environmental significance. So, if other aspects of the proposal are environmentally destructive, they cannot be assessed at all or they have to be assessed under a state regime, creating a duplication of process which, we are told, this bill is specifically designed to avoid. For example, if a facility were built on the site of an endangered species, it would require assessment by the Commonwealth in relation to that endangered species, but it might also require state government assessment of its greenhouse gas emissions. Such a process is clearly inefficient, involves duplication and fails to ensure coordinated and comprehensive analysis of environmental impact—a truly bizarre state of affairs. Indeed, the Democrat-government deal adds to the complexity. As if bilateral agreements were not bad enough, the amendments rushed through the Senate last week mean we have something new, bilaterally accredited management plans, BAMPs, which will have to be set up under the bilateral agreements. So, instead of a single layer of Commonwealth environmental regulation, this bill delivers three: legislation, bilateral agreements and BAMPs. It is my understanding that miners and other groups who have an interest in development are expressing concern, just as environmentalists are, about the nature of this legislation and the sorts of problems that it will pose for them.There is still more. The third way in which the bill devolves national Commonwealth power over the environment is the myriad of mechanisms to exempt Commonwealth control even within that narrowly defined range of national matters. The bill contains at least 17 exemptions or variations from the Commonwealth's ostensibly standard, unified and efficient procedures to assess and approve an action. I will briefly mention some of these. First, governmental authorisations are excluded, so the bill explicitly excludes a decision by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency to grant a governmental authorisation, however defined, to another person to take an action. That is in direct contrast to the current arrangements under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act that permits assessment of actions, proposals and decisions taken by or on behalf of the Commonwealth or its agencies. That is an extremely significant exemption. One of the implications of it is that we now have a bill which does not regulate the construction of nuclear power stations in Australia.I turn to bilateral agreements—another key exemption. The `Object' section of the bill tells us that bilateral agreements are fundamental aspects of this plan, but the proposed operation of bilateral agreements has caused acute concern for both industry and environmental groups. It is clear that these agreements could be used by the Commonwealth to completely abrogate its responsibility for so-called matters of national environmental significance. In effect, this is a complete retreat from the bill's raison d'etre—the establishment of a national environmental framework. The bill provides that a bilateral agreement may declare certain classes of action exempt from the approval processes if they are taken in accordance with one of the management plans that has been approved by the Commonwealth, state or territory or a specified agency in a specified manner. In `matters of national environmental significance', the criteria that the minister must abide by in determining the standard of satisfaction are minimal, vague and malleable, with no explicit minimum environmental standards as a condition of entering into such agreements. So these provisions constitute a sham. They constitute and provide the antithesis of environment protection.Finally, bilateral agreements can only be suspended or stopped in very limited circumstances. Suspension can only occur if the Commonwealth considers that a party to a bilateral agreement has transgressed such an agreement or a state or territory has requested suspension or cancellation. Even in that case, any actions by a private developer done in accordance with the agreement cannot be stopped. There is no provision to suspend or cancel an agreement if it has got unforeseen, negative consequences on the environment which do not amount to a contravention of the agreement.I turn to ministerial declarations. These declarations give the minister discretion to declare that a proposed action does not require Commonwealth approval if the Commonwealth or one of its agencies has approved the action in a specified manner. The minister has got to be satisfied that the alternative processes will involve consideration of the impacts of the action, but there is no provision for specified environmental standards or public consultation. Just to give a local example of this sort of situation, earlier this year I asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services what provisions he had in place for the environmental assessment of the City Link project, given that his Deputy Prime Minister had breathlessly announced that City Link would get the infrastructure borrowings tax concessions. He has written back to me effectively saying, `We're still working on this. We're still deciding what form of environment assessment is going to apply.' This while the City Link project is very close to completion. Clearly this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.Given the time constraints, there are many provisions of this legislation which I do not have the time to deal adequately with, but I do want to draw the attention of the House to a legal opinion provided just yesterday by the barrister David Mossop of Blackburn Chambers. Mr Mossop deals with a number of case scenarios and the possible effects of this bill. The first is:1. Oil Shale Deposits in Queensland—Oil shale mining—Great Barrier Reef—Some in World Heritage Area some notHe lists the scenario where there would be:(a) Bilateral agreement and accredited management plan in place delegating approval powers—mining not prohibitedHe says:In this case the power to both assess and approve the mine would lie with the Queensland government. So long as the Queensland government did so in accordance with the terms of the bilateral it could authorise mining both inside and outside the World Heritage area.He goes on to say:Once a decision was made to authorise mining the Commonwealth could not intervene without special legislation. That is because where the bilateral agreement is cancelled decisions made under it remain unaffected (cl 64).He was also asked to comment on a scenario involving the Fitzroy River in Western Australia:2. Fitzroy River—broad bilateral and management plan in place with WA government—agreement and plan cover threatened species and Ramsar sites—management plan not disallowed—subsequent approval by WA government of dam on Fitzroy River that floods habitat of endangered species and affects Roebuck Bay Ramsar site.Mr Mossop says:Once the decision by the WA government has been made the Commonwealth Minister has no power to `call it in' or require approval. Thus if the WA government had approved all stages of the project then the Commonwealth would have no power over it.This is the case even if the Commonwealth was funding the action. That is because Commonwealth funding of an environmentally significant action does not trigger the approval requirements in cl 28 (approval of Commonwealth actions affecting the environment). That is because funding is specifically excluded (by amendments in the Senate) from the definition of an "action" . . . The third scenario he outlines is that of Fraser Island, where he envisages:3. Fraser Island—bilateral agreement and management plan allowing for "ecologically sustainable development" not expressly mentioning sandmining . . . change in government in Queensland—new government approves "ecologically sustainable" sand mine . . . Once again, the Commonwealth would have:. . . no power to call in a particular decision once made by the State government. The State approval would be valid so long as it was in accordance with the bilateral agreement and management plan. Any power that the Commonwealth Minister might have to cancel the bilateral would not affect an approval already given.He also points out:A bilateral agreement may be for up to five years (cl 65) and hence may cover more than one State or Commonwealth parliamentary term.So if we look at these proposals and at the practical implications of this bill, we can see this piece of legislation for what it is: an act of revenge by a Liberal Party which is still distressed by the actions of Commonwealth Labor governments—the Hawke government in the 1980s—in protecting places such as Kakadu, the Daintree rainforest and the Franklin River in Tasmania.Labor believes that this bill is fundamentally flawed and that it should not progress pending resolution of a myriad fundamental issues. We think that the government has comprehensively failed to deliver a decent and workable piece of legislation and that it would be too time consuming in this place to return to first principles in an attempt to amend and redraft it. We do not have the numbers in this place to carry the day, but after the treachery of the Democrats in the Senate I think we owe it to Australians and to our environment to resist this law as strongly as we possibly can.If we were to proceed to make proper amendments in this place, we would begin with the fundamental flaws in the bill's drafting and construction. After having only hours to consider the government's 440 amendments in the Senate, we were able to provide in the order of 270 amendments to the Senate. Of course, the guillotine there prevented proper consideration of those amendments, just as it is the government's intention through a guillotine here to prevent consideration of these amendments. But we need to do what the government has failed to do, and provide adequate clarity and certainty concerning the preamble, definitions, objects clauses, decision making processes, assessment processes and review processes. It follows that the maintenance of a Commonwealth reserve power to protect the environment is central to the decency and acceptability of this bill.Labor cannot accept the concept and proposed application of bilateral agreements as set out in this bill. We believe we must also provide a review mechanism with uniform and explicit review criteria for any alternative regime. So this bill should not become law unless it is substantially amended to strengthen public accountability and transparency of decision making. Furthermore, any acceptable bill must recognise the breadth and diversity of the interests of indigenous Australians in critical environment and biodiversity issues and provide mechanisms to ensure that their views are accommodated in the process. Consequently, it would maintain current management arrangements both in law and in substance for places such as Kakadu, Uluru and Wreck Bay or, alternatively, provide for regimes in accordance with the wishes of traditional owners.Any acceptable bill will retain the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service not as, as per the Democrats' deal, just a token agency subject to direction by the minister without any requirement for that direction to be made public, but as a fair dinkum body. This bill will be further characterised by shadows rather than substance unless it clearly provides for the Auditor-General to fulfil the environmental audit functions which it prescribes.This bill fails these basic tests. It is a bill drafted in the department of wishful thinking on behalf of a government engaged in regressive nostalgia looking back down the time tunnel. It seeks to banish those pesky conservationists to the mercies of state governments. It hopes to rid bureaucrats, governments and developers from the unreasonable constraints that international agreements crafted by cunning conspirators have visited upon them. And it is drafted in the hope that, if a national government can flick environmental issues as far away from Canberra as possible, the issues themselves will go away.The opposite is the case. If you take away from people hard-won protections, the people will return to the methods that they used to gain them. We are already living with the consequences of this loss of faith in fair and open government. We saw the weak-kneed performance of the environment minister and his colleagues in this place in failing to protect Kakadu. That didn't just bring protests in the Northern Territory; it brought people into the streets across our capital cities and led to angry confrontations at the North Ltd offices.If the forest debate in Western Australia has taught this government anything, it should at least have realised that environment and natural heritage are in fact mainstream concerns and that they are concerns held by many that the coalition would see as part of their own constituency. You might not see these people in the streets as often or in as great numbers, but developers and governments will end up seeing more of them in the courts. Sustainable development in these circumstances becomes not even startable development as proposal after proposal is fought through the courts and out on the streets.The protection of our environment and heritage, of biodiversity and myriad ecosystems is a first order issue in our society and around the world. Conflicts over land use and resource allocation are real and enduring. Whatever this government might think, you cannot wish them into disappearing. A government wilfully shirking these problems will create more and bigger problems. This legislation is at best a failure of the will to govern well and justly. At worst, it is a cynical attempt to divide and favour, to promote individual profit over the common long-term good. This legislation is not so much about smaller government as about smaller minds. It is ultimately destructive of the interests that it seeks to serve as well as those it seeks to thwart.If this was ever intended to be more effective and better conceived legislation for the protection of the environment and the conservation of biodiversity, the government should withdraw it now. It should take it away and start again. It should consult better. It should draft better.We are being guillotined. We are being treated with scant respect. The environment is being considered here as a side issue worthy of a mere two or three hours for debate, but this is simply another step along the road. The conservation movement, supported by Labor, has come a long way and has no intention of going back.20:47:007781Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—Tuesday, 29 June 1999 is a great day for our nation. This parliament today is setting the foundations for the new millennium. These are measures for the new millennium we are talking about today. We have talked about economic positioning of the tax package, social justice in terms of the tax regimes in this country, support for communities that need it through improved state and federal financial relationships; and we have got the third leg of the triple bottom line here tonight—that is, talking about conservation protection legislation that is needed for the next century.On this historic night, when anybody since Federation would have felt it an honour and a pleasure to be part of the government in this nation's parliament, we get dished up that sort of drivel. We have heard it all before. The member for Wills usually wraps up the same way—`Isn't this unfair? This is unjust, you should withdraw it: insert name of bill,' and on he goes. But he does not really get to the nub of what we are here to talk about. It is so important that I feel duty bound to share with the member for Wills what it is that this parliament, I hope, will support tonight and what will underline 29 June as a great day in our nation's history.Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting—1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—It is surprising to hear the member for Wills interjecting about what evil this government is up to. Who would you believe? You listen to what the conservation movement has had to say about this package. You see notes from them discussing how long they have toiled to produce worthwhile meaningful conservation legislation, and it is almost with relief that they now have a government genuinely interested in the environment and conservation issues, prepared to work with conservation groups, happy to get down and do the work that is needed to protect our biodiversity in this country. And it is with relief we are greeted with statements like this from the World Wide Fund for Nature:For WWF, this agreement is the successful culmination of a decade of working for better legislation to protect threatened species and ecological communities, and four years of advocacy for better national environment legislation.Their bottom line is:[The new laws] will leave Australia with significantly stronger environment protection.That is from the WWF. Who would you believe? The member for Wills—the Big W from those opposite—or WWF? And that is just one example of the sorts of worthwhile things that are being done. The Humane Society International is also complimenting the Democrats and the government on what we have managed to achieve here:We now consider this to be a piece of legislation that will deliver a greater degree of protection for Australia's precious biodiversity and fragile environments than existing legislation.The only people in this nation talking up the existing legislation is the ALP. If the world is of one view on anything relating to these bills before the House, it is the view that something needed to be done to renovate, to upgrade and to prepare environmental legislation for this country for the next millennium. Everybody agrees with that, except those opposite. So, even on that subject, the ALP is out of step with what any thinking person is on about with regard to the environment.What is so special about this package is that it creates balance and bite in the Commonwealth's role in environmental issues. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage very eloquently outlined how we have worked with a range of interest groups to come up with a package that provides improved certainty for all participants, but also provides a new range of tools to ensure that Commonwealth environmental issues are properly managed and properly addressed by this parliament and subsequent parliaments. But this was not something that happened overnight, as the member for Wills seeks to suggest.The bills before this House actually implement a COAG agreement from 1997 on the need for clarity and improved tools. It was borne out of a landmark 1996 speech by our nation's best environment minister ever—the quiet achiever, Senator Robert Hill. He outlined the task that was before us. That there was a need for something to be done was supported by everybody, it would appear, except the ALP, and then we set about the task.The bills before the House this evening repeal the existing indirect and inefficient triggers for Commonwealth involvement in environmental issues. If you listen to the member for Wills talk, he likes the way it is now because you do not know what you get. He likes the mystery of the environment legislation in this country at the present time. There is a reason for that and, through his examples, he illustrated the motives of the ALP here. They would much rather have a political blue, a stoush, over an environment issue than have some solid policy on protecting the environment and the biodiversity of this country. They would rather have an argument over an endangered species than put in place the strategies and the plans to take that species off the endangered list. Some people opposite probably think an outcome in regard to an endangered species is to have it listed as an endangered species. In the circles I move in, the goal is to take the danger away. The goal is to see a species or an ecological community taken off the list, because then the danger is not there. Surely that is the goal. That needs a plan. That needs action and cooperation. That is what this bill is about, but members opposite could not get past the political blue. They would rather see a protest than solid progress on policy.This package puts balance and bite into the Commonwealth's role in environmental issues. This bill repeals the inefficient triggers that are there now and replaces those indirect triggers with six quite specific areas of national environmental significance. It puts it squarely at the feet of the Commonwealth government to do what it needs to do to make sure those Commonwealth environmental issues are properly addressed. It is the first major overhaul of environmental laws for a generation, and part of it is to make sure that there is accountability and responsibility for environmental issues in this country, given that we are a federation.What was also interesting about the member for Wills's contribution was his paying out on his ALP colleagues in the ALP state governments of Tasmania, Queensland and New South Wales. Obviously, I am not as familiar as he is with the environmental records of these ALP state governments, but I had never appreciated quite how evil they were until the member for Wills talked about how you cannot trust state governments with environmental responsibilities. Maybe that is an interesting area for us to research, but the point here is that we are clarifying where those responsibilities lie so that action follows and something occurs. We think that is a step forward, because there is clarity there. There is no buck-passing. There is no forum shopping, hoping that someone else will carry out the responsibilities of the states and territories. It is clear where the buck stops.It was even more fascinating that the member for Wills was talking about the limited influence the Commonwealth has on the areas that the states are responsible for and then proceeded to talk about areas where the Commonwealth has an interest, as if we just pack up and go home. Where has he been? This package of bills makes it very clear how seriously this coalition government takes Commonwealth environment responsibilities. As part of that balance and bite mix of this package of bills, under bilateral agreements we can endorse state processes that properly have regard to the issues for which the Commonwealth is responsible. Under his scenarios, you would think we had just gone home and it was just, `Let her rip.' It is interesting that some of the concerns that the states have had about this package are that maybe there is too much federal influence in it. Isn't it fascinating that we have the ALP federal representative bagging the ALP state governments in Tasmania, Queensland and New South Wales as if they are entirely incompetent with respect to their environmental credentials and their policy perform ance, then going further saying, `But hang on, maybe the Commonwealth is not going to pay any attention to that,' and then, in the next breath, saying, `We are going to be so heavy-handed about it.' You cannot have it all ways.The dilemma that faced the member for Wills was that this highlighted that he did not have anything to say about the package itself. He talked about a number of bureaucratic and administrative issues no doubt borne out of the documents circulated by the Wilderness Society, Greenpeace and the Australian Conservation Foundation. I lament Don Henry's appointment. I had such hope when Don Henry was appointed that the ACF might be a conservation organisation back in the real world, but never mind.The member for Wills has just run through the list, ignoring the entire point and purpose and the changes that have been reflected in this package to make sure that the environment is the big winner. But it is not the only winner. It is also those wishing to invest in the country, those people who want to put their hard-earned resources forward to risk something that they own in trying to do something in an economic way for this country. One of the great disincentives that exists under the current legislation is that they can shop around all over the place trying to find someone to talk to and may even have an entirely unrelated federal issue—whether it be a foreign investment approval, a decision to provide some Commonwealth funding, some licensing issues or the like or an export approval—and all of a sudden the feds are back. Most investors I have met, almost without exception, want to do the right thing. They are a species in this continent as well. They want to do the right thing, but they would like to know what the right thing is, and they would like to know who to talk to. This package gives that certainty to investors in industries. So we have gone from this no-win situation under the current legislation that it seems only the member for Wills seeks to defend through to this win-win situation right across the board.The member for Wills talked about some of the world heritage issues. Where has he been? One of the great problems with the world heritage legislation as it stands is that it is a last resort recourse. You have this absurd situation where the federal government can only proscribe things that cannot happen. The best minds in the country see something going on that has a world heritage implication. We cannot do anything to guide the people in the right direction. All we can do is sit down and dream up every conceivable action or step someone might take that we are not happy with rather than get on the front foot and have a conditional approval put forward—this is the way to go for the future.I would like to close by complimenting the government for tackling an issue that was unresolved for 25 years. Everybody knows there was a need for reform; it took a coalition government to grasp this very difficult issue, given that former governments found it all too hard to come to grips with. Focusing its efforts on those matters for which there is a national environment significance, the triggers make it clear where the federal government becomes involved. It is about precautionary principles being put on the table up-front so that the actions that follow are protecting the environment. That surely has to be a good thing for this country. The cognate bills before this House will provide significant benefits to business, industry, the government—all governments—and the broader community by allowing for a simplified, efficient and transparent framework of environmental approvals. I commend the bills to the House and may take an opportunity on another occasion to talk more about them.21:00:007783Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—If ever there was an example of the fact that this government treat the environment as a side issue, as an issue which is simply worth no more than guillotining, as an issue to which they devote some 2½ hours of scant debate, we have heard it from the member for Dunkley this evening. Contrary to his exhortations, this is not by any means a historic day for Australia. The majority of people who voted against the GST have had foisted upon them today a regressive and an unfair tax. Simultaneously, we have had it put to us in no uncertain terms that, as I say, this govern ment regards the environment as nothing more than a side issue.Again, the member for Dunkley was wrong in suggesting that environment groups by and large are opposed to the ALP's stance on this issue. In fact, no Australian based environment group that I know of—certainly not the ACF of which I am proudly a member—supports this legislation. It is simply wrong to say as he said that the ALP is out of step. We are working with the ACF and others to oppose this legislation which has attracted such universal opposition and exposes the government's lack of commitment and foresight on environment policy.In a nutshell, this legislation exposes and highlights the errors that can be made when political philosophy—in this case, that geared towards the issue of states' rights—takes precedence over good government. It is not a matter of simply not trusting the states, as the member for Dunkley would have us believe; it is a matter of this government standing up and accepting responsibility for a portfolio requiring a national degree of coordination, and that portfolio is of course the environment.However, in this case, unfortunately the issues cannot be reversed or resolved by a change of government. The damage to the environment and concomitant loss of species which live in it cannot be replaced, fixed up or patched up simply by policy shifts as a result of changes at election time. Indeed, the findings of the National Biodiversity Council say:Biodiversity conservation is too important to be allowed to be exposed to political vicissitudes.Australia is in fact one of the earth's 12 so-called mega-diverse nations. Most of its native plants are endemic due to the fact that Australia is an island continent and its biota has evolved very much in isolation. However, Australia has experienced the extinction of more of its mammal species than any other nation. There are in fact signs that many of Australia's bird species will decline towards extinction by the middle of the 21st century. There have already been phenomenal losses in biodiversity as regional populations of native plants and animals have been replaced by crops in cities and introduced species.I was recently informed, for example, by a constituent that the Northern Pacific sea star—a marine pest which has unfortunately no national enemies in Australia and feeds somewhat voraciously on sea sponge and other sea floor inhabitants which are important to the health of waterways—has been found in Port Phillip Bay and the Patterson River in my electorate of Isaacs. As many would know, this introduced species of sea star found itself in the Derwent River several years ago after having been discharged from the ballast of visiting ships. It is very distressing that a pervasive virus like foreign marine animals can find their way into not only our local waterways but also a tributary and a major river in my own electorate.The devastating environmental and commercial fishing impact of the sea star, which experts say is, by and large, impossible to eliminate, is not only cause for alarm but also a clear demonstration that biodiversity and other related environmental issues do not recognise state boundaries or national boundaries. Successful management of it requires a large scale, coordinated national approach, not the adhocery of a state arrangement of the kind that the member for Dunkley would foist upon us.Obviously this government does not believe in any sort of wholesale commitment to the environment enough to implement a national policy which facilitates across the board the overseeing of environmental issues, regardless of the state of their origin or their geographical breadth of impact. Instead, this government essentially wants to deal itself well and truly out of environmental responsibility altogether and duckshove that responsibility very much onto the states. I quote Senator Hill on this. When the government first came to power, he said:I want to get the Commonwealth out of direct involvement in issues that are really of only state or local significance.This is an extremely narrow-minded approach by the environment minister. It demonstrates his lack of capacity for any understanding or desire to implement policy which oversees on a coordinated basis the implementation of a national environment strategy for our country.It is somewhat perplexing and indeed ironic that our so-called federal environment minister should endeavour to divest responsibility for any environmental issues, regardless of their origin, to the states without any form of overriding safeguard or an overall policy framework. By confining federal involvement to a stock of matters deemed to be what he has termed of national environmental significance, the minister has thrust the care of the environment and its biodiversity into the hands of the states which are far more development oriented and, as we know, in Victoria especially, much less inclined to provide rigorous impact statements. The Victorian coalition tory government is particularly on the nose regarding its poor record on the issue of environmental responsibility. Indeed, there are some recent cases which bear citing to support this argument.For example, plans a few years ago to develop Mount Stirling in Victoria into a downhill resort were shelved at the last minute by virtue of public agitation for an environmental assessment that recommended against any such development proceeding for a moratorium period of about 15 years. Similarly, plans to turn our much beloved Wilsons Promontory National Park into a so-called hikers resort, resplendent with hotel style luxury accommodation at the expense of the natural wild beauty of the park—which draws so many visitors to the area from all parts of our nation—were temporarily averted, again as a result of community outcry. This is the sort of community outcry this government is fostering by virtue of trying to withdraw people's right to protest in such matters. Similarly, the state government's support for a toxic dump in Werribee, despite the articulated long-term risks to both the community and the environment, was fortunately not enough incentive for CSR to press on with the project. Again, there was well-organised public protest by the constituents of Lalor and many others.Finally, in my own electorate of Isaacs, which once again seems to be flavour of the month in Victoria for the dumping of toxic waste, the state government has turned a blind eye to the dumping of acid sulfate soil on private land by the contractors who have constructed the new City Link freeway project. It has also remained mute on the proposal for an increase in the prescribed waste accepted by the Lyndhurst landfill which is, indeed, very much ill-equipped to handle such increases—aside from the fact that the nearest residential area is a scant 200 metres distant and most of the waste is, by and large, trucked in from the north-western suburbs of Melbourne, an area far removed from Lyndhurst, which is in the south-east. I have written to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage requesting the initiation of discussions with him to try to devise a national strategy for both the transport and disposal of toxic waste. But, obviously, in light of his above comments and again the narrow focus detailed in this legislation, I am not hopeful of there being much in the way of discussions arising from my request.My genuine concerns for an increased role for the states are, once again, further compounded by the Kennett government's emasculation of the EPA and that agency's deference to government input on issues that should be closely scrutinised rather than simply glossed over. Unfortunately, I am by no means the only one excluded from any input on environmental policy decisions; more qualified people than I have been excluded from debate, and I refer in particular to indigenous groups. Their knowledge of and intimate relationship with their land is, as members on both sides of this place would know, vital to its sustainable development and the protection and fostering of its all important biodiversity. This legislation totally ignores indigenous expertise and their intimate relationship with their land. This move unfortunately totally ignores the recommendations of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, which stated:Governments should in full partnership with indigenous people and their communities recognise indigenous people's values, traditional knowledge and resource management practices with a view to promoting environmentally sound and sustainable development. Again I quote from the Rio declaration which said that indigenous peoples do `have a vital role in environmental management and states should recognise this'. This legislation, to its discredit, contains absolutely no provision whatsoever for any form of consultation with indigenous stakeholders. It similarly ignores native title and cultural heritage protection laws. Furthermore, it does not provide an effective framework for negotiation of indigenous land use agreements. Instead, this legislation affords the minister an unfettered discretionary power—a minister who has voiced a lack of interest, exhibited a dearth of interest, to my mind—in environmental issues unless they fall into the realm of those narrow descriptors applied to what he terms `matters of national significance'.Shamefully, this legislation returns Australia's environmental laws to pre-1970 status where the states were solely responsible for environmental matters. You will recall that in those times people took issues into their own hands and there was a range of protests on the streets, from the green bans to whatever it might be, to protect the environment. I fear this legislation will force people again to take action on their own part and protest in a similar way that brought them out onto the streets in the 1960s. One wonders whether the minister may be well and truly tired of political life and wishes to divest himself of this messy business of looking after the environment and ensuring that our grandchildren have a healthy world in which to live.Seemingly, this government has no conscience, no conscience at all, when it comes to environmental issues. Opposition parties were indeed given insufficient time to debate the bill in detail in the Senate, and this is indicative, as I said at the outset of my submission in this place tonight, of the government's absolutely blase approach to environmental policy. As the member for Wills said in his address, we have only some scant two hours or a little more of debate and then the guillotine. The member for Dunkley, who purported to be so concerned about the environment, made only a 10-minute presentation this evening.The Prime Minister has earlier today, and indeed in times past, referred to this legislation as `good for the environment and good for jobs'—a bit of a glib throwaway line, I might suggest. I think he probably had his fingers well and truly crossed behind his back when he said that, because it is indeed a pretty rugged call when the government is, as I say, shifting responsibility on to the states. There is no doubt that, without the protection of our environmental heritage and the cooperation of all stakeholders—be they indigenous or environmental groups or government or citizens in general—to preserve our unique biota, employment for future generations will be nothing more than a very much moot point.There are a couple of points that the member for Wills raised which I think do bear repeating. The first of those is simply that people have, by and large, lost faith in what was formerly recognised as being fair and open government. This government, for example, did indeed fail to protect Kakadu. Similarly, it obviously learnt nothing from the recent RFA based forest debate in Western Australia, where logging of old growth kauri forests still continues. It certainly has not learnt that, out there in the community, the environment is of mainstream concern to people. This legislation does seek to duckshove the green movement, for example—a movement with legitimate and abiding interests in the protection of our environment—onto state governments. This government does not want to deal with the green movement. This government wants to divest itself of responsibility for that and have the green movement dealt with—those tacky protesters often seen chained to trees, one of which I might become one day, in the event that I am turfed out of here.There is no doubt that this legislation is designed to push environmental matters as far away from Canberra as the government could reasonably push them, in the hope that they will simply go away. There is no doubt again that the same issues will—as I have just alluded to the 1960s—come back to haunt this government. As the member for Wills again said, the more meagre the resources in the hands of the environmentalists, the more fervently they will use those resources and the more steadfastly they will protest and maintain their legitimate protest. Similarly, the member said that the more you weaken the redress available through proper processes, the more people will, understandably and justifiably, seek redress through what the Tories opposite see as nothing other than improper processes.I conclude simply by saying that when you remove and totally withdraw, as this government is trying to do, these hard-won protections, people will revert to the same methods that were originally used to win them—whether that be protest in the street or protest in the forest groups around our forested areas, whatever. They will revert to those methods, which again will be distasteful for this government.As I said at the very outset, this legislation does highlight the areas that can be made when political philosophy—in this case the issue pertaining primarily to states' rights—takes precedence over good government and the development of sound government policy through a proper consultative process, both with the opposition and with all interested parties. This legislation does little more than set out to destroy those same interests that the member for Dunkley would have us believe it seeks to serve.This, by and large, is inappropriate legislation for the times and I join with the member for Wills, and I am sure the member for Lalor and those who will follow me, in urging the government to reconsider, to withdraw this legislation, to start again and to provide a framework for our environment which retains responsibility for its oversight within the federal arena so that environmental issues of national and indeed international significance can be dealt with where they should be dealt with—right here in the forum of the Australian parliament.21:19:007787Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 represents a gigantic step forward for Australia by enshrining in legislation on a federal level safeguards to preserve and maintain our unique but fragile environment. It encompasses many areas, but I want to specifically touch on a couple of these, as I am sure the bill's content will be further dissected by other members of the House tonight.This bill helps to fulfil our domestic responsibilities in relation to the conventions and treaties we have signed as a nation over the years, including the Ramsar convention on wetlands of environmental significance and world heritage properties. Australia has 11 world heritage properties, covering more than 42 million hectares, and Australian sites are among the very few on the World Heritage List that meet all four criteria for natural heritage, with some also meeting the cultural criteria—Uluru probably being the most globally recognised in this rare group.This legislation will complement the Natural Heritage Trust, which is Australia's first genuine attempt at an environmental rescue package. This bill will help to balance environmental protection with tourism, industry and the general community well into the next century. It is worth noting that funds from the Natural Heritage Trust have made a substantial contribution to Western Australia's single most dangerous environmental problem—salinity—through the state government's $100 million Salinity Action Plan. By simplifying the approval process for environmental assessment, the environmental protection and biodiversity conservation legislation eliminates the need to rely on indirect and ad hoc triggers. These ad hoc measures mean that currently two projects can raise identical environmental issues, with only one triggering Commonwealth involvement in environmental impact assessments.Importantly, this bill also eliminates the duplicity for business and industry when they are trying to deal with environmental approvals at both a state and federal level. It sets time frames for industry, and this will reduce delays as well as bring more certainty to the process. We cannot have effective legislation without certainty, and we cannot make a genuine attempt at environmental protection without clear guidelines that industry will accept and support.This bill implements the COAG agreement on the Commonwealth and state roles and responsibilities that was endorsed by all states and territories in 1997 and was open for public comment late last year. It recognised the role of the states and territories as being at the forefront of environmental management rather than the Commonwealth.The marine environment around our nation is also protected under this legislation, a feature particularly welcomed in my electorate, which has the Indian Ocean at its longest border. The Whale Protection Act has been incorporated into the bill, and the Australian Whale Sanctuary will be created as a result of this legislation. This title pertains to the highest level of protection that is afforded whales in oceans that come under Australia's jurisdiction.This helps species such as the humpback whale, which is more prominent in my state of Western Australia than anywhere else in this country. When the humpback became protected from whaling in 1963, the species was almost extinct. Now they number between 2,000 and 3,000 off the west coast and have spurned a rapidly growing tourism industry with whale watching. The Right whale, which was also hunted to the verge of extinction, can now be seen in increasing numbers in Perth metropolitan waters.Another aspect of this bill deserving a mention is the provision for conservation agreements which can be used to promote biodiversity on private land. Maintaining biodiversity in this country, and indeed on a global scale, is without a doubt the most important environmental challenge we face in the next century. The State of the Environment Report in 1996, issued by the Environmental Advisory Council, identified biodiversity loss as perhaps the most serious environmental problem in Australia today. It said species in all major groups of plants and animals are at risk.As someone who is keenly interested in the prosperity of biotechnology, maintaining our diverse gene pool and our plants is vital if we are to be forerunners in this new revolution. Being able to draw from the pool of wild genes to develop new and better strains of crops which are drought or pest resistant will be vital. Genes from a species of wild grass taken from South-East Asia were used to save sugarcane crops from a virulent disease in the 1920s. The genes from this wild grass gave the sugarcane crops a resistance to this mystery disease and even helped to increase the amount of sugar from the crops. You cannot reproduce that kind of strength in a laboratory.Despite what some callers to talkback radio or some sections of the media believe, everything we put in our mouths has had the benefit of genetic modification, thanks to being able to hand pick the best of the genes in our plants and animals. It is an absurd statement for people to say, `I don't want to eat genetically modified food.' If they stuck to this creed, they would not be able to eat anything. So, by maintaining our biodiversity, we ensure that nature's supermarket gives us the genetic variety to choose from and continually improves crops such as sugarcane.This bill also provides for the listing of a threatened species and the making and implementing of recovery and threat abatement plans. This measure takes over from the Endangered Species Protection Act, which has been incorporated into this bill. As an aside, another welcome development has been the establishment of a community based program known as the Threatened Species Network. Funded by the Natural Heritage Trust and the World Wide Fund for Nature, this network offers grants to community groups who need funds to take on the long-term responsibility for the recovery of threatened species in their region. These grants offer a fantastic way for community groups to demonstrate a hands-on commitment to conserving their local environment while at the same time fostering partnerships between government agencies, schools and community members that will help make sustainable biodiversity the ultimate beneficiary.Australia's environmental diversity is remarkable, and its island status ensures that it is unlike anywhere else in the world. There has been enormous damage done to this diversity in the 200 years since European settlement, and too many native species are now extinct. In fact, we have probably lost more in the past two centuries than in the last 65 million years. This bill is just one part of a new environmental management plan for Australia that this government has taken in the past few years that provides real solutions. Australians care about their unique environment and have welcomed such initiatives. I commend this bill to the House.21:27:007789Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—It is indeed appropriate that this cognate debate on these environmental bills should come before the House on the same day as the GST tax package. The similarities between the two are striking—both are a dog's breakfast, hastily cobbled together legislative nightmares. Both are the product of dirty deals between the government and the Australian Democrats, and in both cases the Australian Democrats have broken their word to the Australian people in making the deal.I rise to speak to this legislation because in my electorate environmental issues are pivotal. My electorate contains within its bounds both internationally protected wetlands, specifically the Port Phillip Bay western shoreline site, which is protected under the Ramsar Convention, and hazardous industries including, most notably, the petrochemical industry. Under this bill, there is nothing to stop—indeed this bill is predicated on allowing—the hand back of approval and assessment processes on issues like internationally protected Ramsar wetlands to the states. Let us use my electorate as a case study of what could happen and a case study of the complete duplicity of the Australian Democrats on this question.Since the election of the Kennett government, Victoria's environment has been under constant threat. The very fact that the current minister is Marie Tehan, a former and failed minister for health, indicates how high the environment is held as an issue under the Kennett government.UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—Not very.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—Marie of the Intergraph scandal now gets to run our national parks and other environmental issues. Under the Kennett government, national parks have been opened up to mining and commercial exploit ation, and large and persistent budget cuts have made it impossible for relevant agencies to ensure the protection of the environment. But surely the single greatest example of reckless environmental mismanagement and incompetence by the Liberals in Victoria is in the area of hazardous waste, in particular the Kennett government's plan to dump over 120,000 tonnes of hazardous waste every year for the next 15 years in Werribee.Motion (by Mrs Stone) agreed to:That the member be not further heard.Motion (by Mrs Stone) put:That the question be now put.The House divided. [9.34 p.m.](Madam Deputy Speaker—Mr J.A. Crosio) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the bill be now read a second time.The House divided. [9.39 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.7789Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.21:41:007789Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—by leave—I move:(1) Clause 3, page 2 (line 30), at the end of subsection 3(1), add: ; and (h) to encourage and provide for public involvement and participation in environmental assessment and protection.(2) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 2 to 6), omit paragraph (2)(a).(3) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 7 and 8), omit paragraph (b).(4) Clause 3, page 4 (lines 1 and 2), omit subparagraph (i) and (ii).(5) Clause 8, page 7 (lines 6 to 15), omit the clause, substitute:8 Native title rights not affected(1) Nothing in this Act affects the rights or interests of any indigenous person under: (a) the Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Act 1986 ; or (b) the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Act 1987 ; or (c) the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 ; or (d) the Native Title Act 1993.(2) Subject to subsection (3) and to the operation of Division 4 of Part 15, nothing in this Act prevents indigenous people from continuing, in accordance with law, the traditional use of any area of land or water for hunting or food-gathering (otherwise than for purposes of sale) and for ceremonial and religious purposes.(3) The operation of subsection (2) is subject to regulations made for the purpose of conserving wildlife in any Commonwealth reserve and expressly affecting the traditional use of the reserve by indigenous people.(6) Clause 10, page 8 (lines 9 to 12), omit the clause.(7) Clause 11, page 9 (lines 13 to 21), omit all words from and including "Approval", to and including "Reef".(8) Clause 12, page 10 (lines 9 to 12), omit paragraphs (1)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) has or will have a significant impact on: (i) a declared World Heritage property; or (ii) a part or feature of a declared World Heritage property; or (iii) the world heritage values of a declared World Heritage property; or (b) is likely to have a significant impact on: (i) a declared World Heritage property; or (ii) a part or feature of a declared World Heritage property; or (iii) the world heritage values of a declared World Heritage property; or(9) Clause 13, page 11 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add:(3) A property specified in a declaration made under section 15AA is a declared World Heritage property .(10) Page 14 (after line 26), after section 15, insert:15AA Other properties which may be declared World Heritage propertiesThe Minister may declare a specified property to be a declared World Heritage property by notice in the Gazette if: (a) the protection or conservation of the property by Australia is a matter of international obligation, whether by reason of the World Heritage Convention or otherwise; (b) the protection or conservation of the property by Australia is necessary or desirable for the purpose of giving effect to a treaty (including the World Heritage Convention) or for the purpose of obtaining for Australia any advantage or benefit under a treaty (including the World Heritage Convention);(11) Heading to Subdivision C, page 20 (line 16), omit "and communities ", substitute ", communities and critical habitats ".(12) Heading to clause 18, page 20 (lines 17 and 18), omit "or endangered community ", substitute "endangered community or critical habitat ".(13) Clause 18, page 22 (after line 19), at the end of the clause, add:Critical habitats(7) A person must not take an action that: (a) has or will have a significant impact on the critical habitat of a listed threatened species or ecological community; or (b) is likely to have a significant impact on the critical habitat of a listed threatened species or ecological community.Civil penalty: (a) for an individual—5,000 penalty units; (b) for a body corporate—50,000 penalty units.(14) Clause 18A, page 22 (line 25), at the end of paragraph (1)(b), add:; or (iii) the critical habitat of a listed threatened species or ecological community.(15) Clause 18A, page 23 (line 2), at the end of paragraph (2)(b), add: ; or (iii) the critical habitat of a listed threatened species or ecological community.(16) Clause 20, page 24 (line 25), at the end of paragraph (a), add "or the critical habitat of a listed migratory species".(17) Clause 20, page 24 (line 27), at the end of paragraph (b), add "or the critical habitat of a listed migratory species".(18) Clause 20A, page 25 (line 19), at the end of paragraph (b), add "or the critical habitat of a listed migratory species".(19) Clause 20A, page 25 (line 25), after "species", insert "or the critical habitat of a listed migratory species".(20) Page 38 (after line 25), after Subdivision F, insert:Subdivision FA—Protection of the environment from greenhouse actions24A Requirement for approval of greenhouse actions(1) A person must not take a greenhouse action that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. Civil penalty: (a) for an individual *5,000 penalty units; (b) for a body corporate *50,000 penalty units.(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an action if: (a) an approval of the taking of the action by the person is in operation under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (b) Part 4 lets the person take the action without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (c) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or (d) the action is an action described in subsection 160(2) (which describes actions whose authorisation is subject to a special environmental assessment process).24B What is a greenhouse action ?In this Act, a greenhouse action means any of the following: (a) establishing an industrial plant which emits, or is likely to emit, more than 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide equivalent per year; or (b) any other action, series of actions, or policies which will lead, or are likely to lead, to the emission of more than 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide equivalent per year.24C Offences relating to greenhouse actions(1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes a greenhouse action; and (b) the action results or will result in a significant impact on the environment. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.(2) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person takes a greenhouse action; and (b) the action is likely to have a significant impact on the environment and the person is reckless as to that fact. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility(3) An offence against subsection (1) or (2) is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a term not more than 7 years, a fine not more than 420 penalty units, or both. Note 1: Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 lets a court fine a body corporate up to 5 times the maximum amount the court could fine a person under this subsection. Note 2: An executive officer of a body corporate convicted of an offence against this section may also be guilty of an offence against section 495.(4) Subsection (1) and (2) do not apply to an action if: (a) an approval of the taking of the action by the persons is in operation under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (b) Part 4 lets the person take the action without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (c) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or (d) the action is an action described in subsection 160(2) (which describes actions whose authorisation is subject to a special environmental assessment process). Note: The defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .(21) Clause 25, page 40 (line 25), at the end of subclause (5), add:; or (f) taken in respect of the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.(22) Page 40 (after line 28), at the end of Division 1, add:25A Requirement for approval of certain other actions(1) A person must not take an action which contravenes a direction made under subsection (3).Civil penalty: (a) for an individual—5,000 penalty units; (b) for a body corporate—50,000 penalty units.(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an action if: (a) an approval of the taking of the action by the person is in operation under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (b) Part 4 lets the person take the action without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (c) there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling provision for the action and, if the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section 77, the action is taken in that manner; or (d) the action is an action described in subsection 160(2) (which describes actions whose authorisation is subject to a special environmental assessment process).(3) If the Minister is of the opinion that: (a) a matter not otherwise specified in this Division is a matter of national environmental significance; and (b) it is in the public interest to do so; the Minister may direct that: (c) the matter is a matter of national environmental significance; and (d) a person must not take an action of the type set out in the direction.(4) A direction made under subsection (3) takes effect when it is published in the Gazette .(23) Page 40, (after line 28), at the end of Division 1, add:25B Requirement for approval of specified projects(1) A person must not take an action which contravenes a direction made under subsection (2). Civil penalty: (a) for an individual—5,000 penalty units; (b) for a body corporate—50,000 penalty units.(2) If the Minister is of the opinion that: (a) a specified action has or will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment; and (b) the impact is of national significance; and (c) it is in the public interest to do so; the Minister may direct that: (d) the action is a controlled action, and this section is a controlling provision for the action; and (e) a person must not take the action unless: (i) an approval of the taking of the action by the person is in operation under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or (ii) Part 4 lets the person take the action without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of this section.(3) A direction made under subsection (2) takes effect when it is published in the Gazette .(24) Clause 26, page 28 (lines 12 to 14), omit the penalty, substitute:Civil penalty: (a) for an individual—5,000 penalty units; (b) for a body corporate—50,000 penalty units.(25) Clause 26, page 28 (lines 21 to 23), omit the penalty, substitute:Civil penalty: (a) for an individual—5,000 penalty units; (b) for a body corporate—50,000 penalty units. (26) Clause 28, page 44 (lines 23 to 27), omit the penalty (but not the note), substitute:Civil penalty: (a) for a Commonwealth agency that is an individual—5,000 penalty units; (b) for a Commonwealth agency that is a body corporate—50,000 penalty units.(27) Clause 28, page 45 (lines 7 and 8), omit paragraph (c).(28) Clause 28, page 45 (lines 18 to 30), omit subclauses (3), (4) and (5).(29) Division 1, clauses 29 to 31, page 48 (line 4) to page 50 (line 18), omit the Division.(30) Heading to Division 2, page 51 (line 2), omit the heading, substitute:Division 2—Matters protected by a provision of Part 3(31) Heading to Subdivision A, page 51 (line 3), omit the heading.(32) Clause 32, page 51 (lines 4 to 17), omit the clause.(33) Heading to Subdivision B, page 51 (line 18), omit the heading.(34) Subdivisions C and D, page 57 (line 1) to page 61 (line 19), omit the Subdivisions.(35) Chapter 3, clauses 44 to 65A, page 67 (line 2) to page 91 (line 15), omit the chapter.(36) Clause 66, page 92 (lines 9 to 11), omit "(It does not deal with actions that a bilateral agreement declares not to need approval.)".(37) Clause 66, page 92 (line 21) to page 93 (line 2), omit paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d).(38) Clause 69, page 95 (lines 1 to 11), omit the clause, substitute:69 Any person may refer proposal to MinisterAny person who is aware of a proposal by a person to take an action may refer the proposal to the Minister for a decision whether or not the action is a controlled action.(39) Clause 72, page 96 (line 11), omit "in a way", substitute "in writing in the form".(40) Clause 74, page 97 (after line 18), after subclause (2), insert:Inviting comments from the public(2A) As soon as practicable after receiving a referral of a proposal to take an action, the Environment Minister must place an advertisement in a national newspaper informing the public of the referral and inviting any person to give the Environment Minister within 10 business days information that relates to the proposed action and is relevant to deciding whether or not the proposed action is a controlled action.(41) Clause 74, page 97 (lines 27 to 31), omit subclause (4).(42) Clause 75, page 98 (after line 29), after subclause (2), insert:Information to be taken into account(2A) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Minister must consider any information received as a result of an invitation made by the Minister under section 74.(43) Clause 75, page 99 (lines 11 to 16), omit subclause (5) (but not the heading or the note), substitute: (5) The Minister must make the decisions and designation within 30 days of the referral.(44) Clause 77, page 100 (lines 27 and 28), omit "accordance with the regulations", substitute "a national newspaper".(45) Clause 77, page 101 (lines 10 to 13), omit "(whether or not in accordance with an accredited management plan for the purposes of a declaration under section 33 or a bilaterally accredited management plan for the purposes of a bilateral agreement)"(46) Clause 77, page 101 (lines 20 to 26), omit subclause (4), substitute:Reasons for decision(4) Within 28 days of giving a notice under paragraph (1)(a), the Minister must: (a) give reasons for the decision to a person who has been given the notice; and (b) publish reasons for the decision in the Gazette .(47) Clause 77, page 101 (line 28), omit "Subsection (4)", substitute "Paragraph (4)(a)"(48) Clause 78, page 102 (lines 26) to page 103 (line 4), omit paragraph (c).(49) Clause 80, page 106 (lines 8 to 10), omit "However, this Part does not apply to actions that a bilateral agreement on Ministerial declaration says are to be assessed in another way".(50) Clause 80, page 106 (lines 13 to 15), omit paragraphs (a) and (b).(51) Clause 81, page 107 (line 7), omit subclause (2).(52) Clause 82, page 107 (line 9) to page 108 (line 5), omit the clause, substitute: 82 What are the relevant impacts of an action?The relevant impacts of an action are the impacts that the action: (a) has or will have; or (b) is likely to have;on the environment.(53) Clause 83, page 108 (lines 6 to 29), omit the clause.(54) Clause 84, page 109 (line 1) to page 110 (line 24), omit the clause.(55) Clause 85, page 111 (lines 9 and 10), omit paragraphs (a) and (b).(56) Clause 87, page 112 (lines 5 and 6), omit paragraphs (a) and (b).(57) Clause 87, page 112 (lines 11 to 22), omit subclause (2), substitute:Minister must consult before making decision(2) Before making a decision under subsection (1), the Minister must place a notice in a national newspaper, relating to the assessment of a controlled action, inviting within 20 business days the provision of information relevant to deciding: (a) which approach is to be used for the assessment of the controlled action; or (b) the terms of reference for the assessment; or (c) the timeframe for the assessment.(58) Clause 87, page 112 (line 28) to page 113 (line 2), omit paragraph (3)(b), substitute: (b) any other information available to the Minister about the relevant impacts of the action; and(59) Clause 87, page 113 (lines 7 to 27), omit subclauses (4) and (5).(60) Clause 87, page 113 (after line 31), at the end of the clause, add:Nuclear action must be assessed by inquiry under Division 7(6) The Minister must require a controlled action which is a nuclear action to be assessed by inquiry under Division 7.(61) Clause 88, page 114 (line 4), omit "20", substitute "30".(62) Clause 88, page 114 (lines 12 to 24), omit subclauses (2) and (3).(63) Clause 90, page 116 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add:Reasons to be given(4) The Minister must publish reasons for revoking the first decision in the Gazette within 28 days after making the new decision.(64) Clause 91, page 116 (lines 26 and 27), omit "accordance with the regulations", substitute "a national newspaper".(65) Clause 91, page 116 (after line 30), after subclause (1), insert:Reasons for decisionWithin 28 days of giving a notice under paragraph (1)(a), the Minister must: (a) give reasons for the decision to a person who has been given the notice; and (b) publish reasons for the decision in the Gazette .(66) Clause 91, page 117 (lines 1 to 3), omit subclause (2).(67) Division 4, clauses 92 to 95, page 118 (line 2) to page 120 (line 14), omit the Division.(68) Clause 97, page 121 (line 13), omit "20", substitute "30".(69) Clause 97, page 121 (line 18), omit "20", substitute "30".(70) Clause 97, page 121 (after line 26), after subclause (2), insert:(2A) The guidelines must provide for the draft report to include: (a) quantitative information about all the certain and likely impacts of the action, with an indication of the statistical reliability of the information; or (b) where it is not possible to provide quantitative information about certain and likely impacts—a qualitative description of those impacts, together with reasons as to why the impact cannot be quantified; and (c) a tabular summary of the information referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).(71) Clause 98, page 123 (line 17), omit "20", substitute "30".(72) Clause 99, page 124 (line 9), after "publish it", insert "on the Internet and otherwise".(73) Clause 100, page 124 (line 25) to page 125 (line 10), omit all words after "Commonwealth" up to the end of the clause.(74) Clause 102, page 126 (after line 26), after subclause (2), insert:(2A) The guidelines must provide for the draft report to include: (a) quantitative information about all the certain and likely impacts of the action, with an indication of the statistical reliability of the information; or (b) where it is not possible to provide quantitative information about certain and likely impacts—a qualitative description of those impacts, together with reasons as to why the impact cannot be quantified; and (c) a tabular summary of the information referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).(75) Clause 102, page 127 (line 21), omit "may".(76) Clause 102, page 127 (line 22), before "invite", insert "may".(77) Clause 102, page 127 (line 24), before "take", insert "must".(78) Clause 103, page 128 (line 19), omit "20", substitute "30".(79) Clause 104, page 129 (line 14), after "publish it", insert "on the Internet and otherwise".(80) Clause 105, page 130 (lines 6 to 17), omit all words after "Commonwealth" up to the end of the clause.(81) Clause 130, page 151 (lines 6 and 7), omit paragraph (a).(82) Clause 130, page 151 (lines 8 and 9), omit paragraph (b).(83) Clause 130, page 151 (lines 10 and 11), omit paragraph (c).(84) Clause 130, page 151 (lines 12 and 13), omit paragraph (d).(85) Clause 133, page 154 (lines 4 to 7), omit paragraphs (a) and (b), substitute "the Minister believes it is in the national interest not to provide".(86) Clause 134, page 155 (line 17), before "protecting", insert "protecting the environment, including".(87) Clause 136, page 158 (after line 15), before paragraph (a), insert: (aa) protecting the environment;(88) Clause 136, page 158 (after line 21), before paragraph (a), insert: (aa) Australia's obligations under relevant international agreements; and(89) Clause 136, page 159 (lines 1 to 6), omit paragraph (e), substitute: (e) any other information the Minister has on the relevant impacts of the action; and(90) Clause 137, page 159 (lines 23 and 24), omit "not act inconsistently with Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention", substitute "have regard only to the protection, conservation and presentation, within the meaning of the World Heritage Convention, of the property".(91) Clause 138, page 159 (line 28), omit "not act inconsistently", substitute "act consistently".(92) Clause 139, page 160 (line 6), omit "not act inconsistently", substitute "act consistently".(93) Clause 140, page 160 (line 16), omit "not act inconsistently", substitute "act consistently".(94) Clause 145, page 165 (line 20) to page 166 (line 3), omit subclauses (1) and (2), substitute:(1) The Minister may, by written instrument, revoke an approval under this Part for the purpose of a specified provision of Part 3 if: (a) a significant impact on the environment has occurred because of the contravention of a condition attached to the approval; or (b) the action has had, or the Minister believes that the action will have, a significant impact on the environment that was not identified in assessing the action.(95) Heading to clause 172, page 200 (lines 7 and 8), omit "on Commonwealth land ".(96) Clause 172, page 200 (line 9), after "inventories", insert "on a national basis".(97) Clause 172, page 200 (lines 11 and 12), omit "and listed marine species", substitute ", listed marine species and critical habitats for those species and communities".(98) Clause 172, page 200 (line 12), omit "on Commonwealth land".(99) Clause 172, page 200 (lines 13 to 16), omit "5 years", (wherever occurring), substitute "3 years".(100) Heading to clause 173, page 200 (lines 21 and 22), omit "in Commonwealth marine areas ".(101) Clause 173, page 200 (line 23), after "surveys", insert "on a national basis".(102) Clause 173, page 200 (line 25), omit "Commonwealth marine areas", substitute: : (i) any waters of the sea inside the seaward boundary of the exclusive economic zone; and (ii) any waters over the continental shelf; and critical habitats for those cetaceans;(103) Clause 173, page 200 (lines 27 and 28), omit "and listed marine species", substitute ", listed marine species and critical habitats for those species and communities". (104) Clause 173, page 200 (line 28), omit "in Commonwealth marine areas", substitute "in the waters mentioned in paragraph (a)".(105) Clause 173, page 200 (line 29) to page 201 (line 3), omit "Commonwealth" (wherever occurring).(106) Clause 173, page 200 (line 29) to page 159 (line 3), omit "10 years" (wherever occurring), substitute "5 years".(107) Clause 173, page 201 (line 4), omit "Commonwealth" (second occurring).(108) Page 201 (after line 11), after clause 174, insert:174A Inventories and surveys to be publishedInventories and surveys prepared under this Division must be published on the Internet and otherwise in accordance with the regulations except where the Minister is of the opinion that publication of information contained in an inventory or survey would or would be reasonably likely to endanger a species, community or habitat.(109) Clause 176, page 202 (line 14), omit "may", substitute "must".(110) Clause 178, page 204 (line 15), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; (g) internationally threatened.(111) Clause 179, page 206 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add: (7) A species is eligible to be included in the internationally threatened category at a particular time if, at that time: (a) it is recognised by the World Conservation Union ( IUCN ) as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable; and (b) it is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, as determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria, outside the jurisdiction of Australia; and (c) Australia would provide a viable place of refuge.(112) Clause 181, page 206 (line 27), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; (d) conservation dependent.(113) Clause 182, page 208 (after line 3), at the end of the clause, add: (4) An ecological community is eligible to be included in the conservation dependent category at a particular time if, at that time, it is the focus of a specific conservation program, the cessation of which would, or would be likely to, result in the community becoming vulnerable, endan gered or critically endangered within a period of 5 years.(114) Page 208 (after line 11), after clause 183, insert:183A Listing of critical habitats(1) The Minister must, by instrument published in the Gazette , establish a list of habitats that are critical to the survival of: (a) listed threatened species; and (b) listed threatened ecological communities.(2) The Minister must not include a habitat on the list as first established unless the Minister is satisfied that the habitat is critical to the survival of a species or ecological community contained in a list under section 178 or 181 as first established.(3) In establishing a list under subsection (1), the Minister must, in accordance with the regulations (if any), obtain and consider advice from the Scientific Committee on the proposed list.(115) Clause 184, page 208 (line 15), omit "or 183", substitute ", 183 or 183A".(116) Page 211 (after line 14), after clause 186, insert:186A Amending list of internationally threatened species(1) The Minister must add to the list of internationally threatened species any non-native species that has been recognised by the World Conservation Union (IUCN ) as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable.(2) The Minister must not add an internationally threatened species to the list unless satisfied that it is eligible to be treated as an internationally threatened species.(3) The Minister must not delete an internationally threatened species from the list unless satisfied that: (a) it is no longer eligible to be treated as an internationally threatened species; and (b) it is no longer recognised by the World Conservation Union as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable.(4) In deciding whether a non-native species is eligible to be treated as an internationally threatened species, the Minister must not consider any matter that does not relate to the survival of the species concerned.(117) Page 212 (after line 18), after clause 188, insert:188A Amending list of critical habitats(1) The Minister must not add a critical habitat to the list unless satisfied that it is eligible to be treated as a critical habitat.(2) The Minister must not delete a critical habitat from the list unless satisfied that it is no longer eligible to be treated as a critical habitat.(3) A habitat is a critical habitat , in whole or in part, if it is: (a) the habitat of an endangered species, population or ecological community; and (b) critical to the survival of that species, population or ecological community.(4) Before deciding whether a habitat is eligible to be treated as a critical habitat, the Minister must take reasonable steps to consult with the Biological Diversity Advisory Committee and any Commonwealth agency, any State, any self-governing Territory, and any agency of a State or self-governing Territory, that would be affected by the listing of the habitat.(5) In deciding whether to include a critical habitat in, or delete a critical habitat from, a list, the Minister must not consider any matter that does not relate to the survival of a species, population or ecological community in that critical habitat.(118) Page 212 (after line 18), after clause 188A, insert:188B Interim emergency listing(1) The Minister may, by instrument published in the Gazette , declare that any of the following: (a) an unlisted threatened species; (b) an unlisted internationally threatened species; (c) an unlisted threatened ecological community; (d) an unlisted threatening process; (e) an unlisted critical habitat;is included on the relevant list as an interim emergency item if the Minister is satisfied that failure to include the item on the list would endanger the survival of the species, community or habitat.(2) The Minister must not include an item on a list as an interim emergency item unless the Minister has first obtained and considered advice from the Scientific Committee on the proposed interim emergency listing.(3) An instrument made under subsection (1) has effect until the Minister makes a decision under section 189 whether to amend a list referred to in section 178, 181, 183 or 183A in relation to the item.(119) Clause 189, page 212 (line 22), at the end of paragraph (1)(b), add "or 183A".(120) Clause 189, page 212 (line 26), after "subsection (1)", insert "or 188B(1)".(121) Clause 189, page 212 (line 30), after "paragraph (1)(a)", insert "or subsection 188B(1)".(122) Clause 189, page 212 (line 31), after "species", insert ", internationally threatened species".(123) Clause 189, page 213 (line 1), after "species", insert ", internationally threatened species".(124) Clause 189, page 213 (after line 6), after subclause (4), insert: (4A) If the Minister requests advice on an interim emergency listing under subsection 188B(1), the Scientific Committee must give its advice to the Minister within 30 days, or such longer period as the Minister specifies, after the Scientific Committee receives the request, and the Minister must make a decision within 7 days after receiving the Scientific Committee's advice on the interim emergency listing.(125) Clause 189, page 213 (line 7), omit "The Minister", substitute "After considering advice under subsection (1), the Minister".(126) Clause 189, page 212 (after line 12), after subclause (5), insert: (5A) The Minister must, as soon as practicable after making a decision in relation to: (a) the amendment of a list under subsection (5); or (b) the inclusion of an interim emergency item on a list under subsection 188A(1); cause a copy of any advice received from the Scientific Committee in relation to the decision to be laid before each House of the Parliament.(127) Clause 189, page 213 (line 15), after "90 days", insert "—or 7 days in the case of advice requested under subsection 188B(1)—".(128) Clause 190, page 213 (line 23), after "species", insert ", internationally threatened species".(129) Clause 191, page 214 (line 4), after "native", insert "or internationally threatened". (130) Clause 191, page 214 (line 9), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; or (d) a critical habitat to be included in the list referred to in section 183A.(131) Clause 191, page 214 (lines 14 to 22), after "species" (wherever occurring), insert ", internationally threatened species".(132) Clause 191, page 214 (after line 29), after subclause (4), insert: (4A) If the Minister decides that a critical habitat is not eligible to be listed, the Minister must, in accordance with the regulations (if any): (a) advise the person who made the nomination of the Minister's decision; and (b) give to that person a statement of reasons why the critical habitat is not eligible to be listed.(133) Clause 192, page 215 (lines 3 to 11), omit the clause, substitute:192 Rediscovery of threatened species that were extinct(1) If the Minister is satisfied that a native species that is listed in the extinct category has been definitely located in nature since it was last listed as extinct, the Minister may, under section 184, transfer the species from the extinct category to another category provided that the Minister has first obtained and considered advice from the Scientific Committee.(2) If the Minister requests advice under subsection (1), the Scientific Committee must give its advice to the Minister within 12 months, or such longer period as the Minister specifies, after the Scientific Committee receives the request.(134) Clause 196, page 216 (lines 13 and 14), omit "; and" and paragraph (d).(135) Clause 196, page 216 (after line 19), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person significantly modifies the habitat of a member of a native species or an ecological community; and (b) the member is a member of a listed threatened species or a listed threatened ecological community. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.(136) Clause 196, page 216 (lines 20 and 21), omit subclause (2) and the note. (137) Clause 196, page 216 (line 22), omit "The offence", substitute "An offence against subsection (1) or (1A)".(138) Clause 196A, page 217 (lines 5 and 6), omit "and" and paragraph (d).(139) Clause 196A, page 217 (line 12), omit ", (c) and (d)", substitute "and (c)".(140) Clause 196B, page 217 (lines 23 and 24), omit "and" and paragraph (1)(c).(141) Clause 196B, page 217 (lines 30 and 31), omit subclause (2).(142) Clause 196C, page 218 (lines 11 and 12), omit "and" and paragraph (c).(143) Clause 196C, page 218 (line 18), omit ", (b) and (c)", substitute "and (b)".(144) Clause 196D, page 218 (lines 29 and 30), omit "and" and paragraph (c).(145) Clause 196D, page 219 (lines 6 and 7), omit subclause (2).(146) Clause 196E, page 219 (lines 18 and 19), omit "and" and paragraph (c).(147) Clause 196E, page 219 (line 25), omit ", (b) and (c)", substitute "and (b)".(148) Clause 197, page 220 (lines 8 to 14), omit paragraph (d).(149) Clause 201, page 223 (lines 6 and 7), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) Subject to subsection (3), the Minister may, on application by a person under section 200 and after public consultation, issue a permit to the person. Note: Section 266S sets out the procedures for public consultation about the issuing of permits under this Part.(150) Page 274 (after line 13), after clause 201, insert:201A Publication of permit detailsThe Minister must give to any person who makes a request, written information about: (a) permits that have been issued; and (b) applications for permits that have been refused; under section 201.(151) Page 230 (after line 2), at the end of Subdivision A, add:209A Listing of critical habitats(1) The Minister must, by instrument published in the Gazette , establish a list of habitats that are critical to the survival of listed migratory species.(2) The Minister must not include a habitat on the list unless the Minister is satisfied that the habitat is critical to the survival of a species, or a population of a species, contained in a list under section 209.(152) Page 230 (after line 2), at the end of Subdivision A, add:209B Nomination of migratory species etc(1) A person may, in accordance with the regulations (if any), nominate to the Minister: (a) a migratory species to be included in the list referred to in section 209; or (b) a habitat to be included in the list referred to in section 209A.(2) Subject to subsection (5), the Minister must forward all nominations to the Scientific Committee.(3) If the Minister decides that a nominated migratory species or critical habitat is not eligible to be listed, the Minister must, in accordance with the regulations (if any): (a) advise the person who made the nomination of the Minister's decision; and (b) give to that person a statement of reasons why the species or habitat is not eligible to be listed.(4) The Minister may, at any time, request a person who has made a nomination to provide additional information about the subject of the nomination within such period as the Minister specifies.(5) The Minister may reject a nomination if satisfied that: (a) the subject of the nomination has previously been nominated; or (b) the nomination is vexatious, frivolous or not made in good faith; or (c) the nomination has not been made in accordance with the regulations (if any); or (d) any additional information requested under subsection (4) has not been provided within the specified period, or the information that has been provided is incomplete.(153) Page 230 (after line 2), at the end of Subdivision A, add:209C Interim emergency listing(1) The Minister may, by instrument published in the Gazette , declare that either of the following: (a) an unlisted migratory species; or (b) an unlisted critical habitat;is included on the relevant list as an interim emergency item if the Minister is satisfied that failure to include the species or habitat on the list would endanger the survival of the species or habitat.(2) The Minister must not include a migratory species or critical habitat on a list as an interim emergency item unless the Minister has first obtained and considered advice from the Scientific Committee on the proposed interim emergency listing.(3) An instrument made under subsection (1) has effect until the Minister makes a decision under section 209 or 209A whether to list the particular migratory species or critical habitat.(154) Clause 216, page 236 (lines 25 and 26), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) Subject to subsection (3), the Minister may, on application by a person under section 215 and after public consultation, issue a permit to the person. Note: Section 266S sets out the procedures for public consultation about the issuing of permits under this Part.(155) Page 237 (after line 28), after clause 216, insert:216A Publication of permit detailsThe Minister must give to any person who makes a request, written information about: (a) permits that have been issued; and (b) application for permits that have been refused; under section 216.(156) Page 240 (after line 1), after the heading to Subdivision C, insert:222A Advice from Scientific Committee(1) In deciding whether: (a) to accept a nomination of a migratory species or critical habitat under section 209A; or (b) to make a declaration about an interim emergency listing under section 209C;the Minister must, in accordance with the regulations (if any), obtain and consider advice from the Scientific Committee on the proposed action.(2) In preparing advice under subsection (1), the Scientific Committee may obtain advice from a person with expertise relevant to the subject matter of the proposed action.(3) In preparing advice under paragraph (1)(a), the Scientific Committee must not consider any matter that does not relate to the survival of the migratory species or critical habitat concerned.(4) If a migratory species or critical habitat has been nominated under section 209A to be listed, the Scientific Committee must give its advice to the Minister within 12 months, or such longer period as the Minister specifies, after the Scientific Committee receives the nomination from the Minister under that section, and the Minister must: (a) make a decision; and (b) if the Minister decides to list the species or habitat—cause the necessary instrument to be published in the Gazette ;within 90 days after receiving the Scientific Committee's advice on the listing.(5) If the Minister requests advice on an interim emergency listing under section 209C, the Scientific Committee must give its advice to the Minister within 30 days, or such longer period as the Minister specifies, after the Scientific Committee receives the request, and the Minister must: (a) make a decision; and (b) if the Minister decides to make an interim emergency listing—cause the necessary instrument to be published in the Gazette ;within 7 days after receiving the Scientific Committee's advice on the interim emergency listing.(6) The Minister must, as soon as practicable after making a decision in relation to: (a) the listing of a migratory species or critical habitat under section 209A; (b) the making of a declaration about an interim emergency listing under section 209C;cause a copy of any advice received from the Scientific Committee in relation to the decision to be laid before each House of the Parliament.(7) A member of the Scientific Committee has a duty not to disclose to any other person the advice, or any information relating to the advice, before: (a) if the advice relates to a listing under section 209A—90 days; or (b) if the advice relates to a listing under section 209C—7 days;unless the disclosure: (c) is for the official purposes of the Scientific Committee; or (d) if an instrument is published in the Gazette relating to the listing to which the advice relates—occurred after the publication. (157) Clause 228, page 243 (line 19), at the end of subclause (2), add "and published in the Gazette ".(158) Clause 238, page 253 (lines 2 and 3), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the Minister may, on application by a person under section 237 and after public consultation, issue a permit to the person. Note: Section 266S sets out the procedures for public consultation about the issuing of permits under this Part.(159) Page 254 (after line 5), after clause 238, insert:238A Publication of permit detailsThe Minister must give to any person who makes a request, written information about: (a) permits that have been issued; and (b) applications for permits that have been refused; under section 238.(160) Clause 251, page 260 (after line 15), after subclause (2), insert:(2A) The Minister must, as soon as practicable after making a decision under paragraph (2)(a) cause a copy of any advice received from the Scientific Committee in relation to the decision to be laid before each House of the Parliament.(161) Clause 255, page 264 (line 27) to page 265 (line 3), omit paragraph (d).(162) Clause 258, page 267 (lines 18 and 19), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) Subject to subsection (3), the Minister may, on application by a person under section 257 and after public consultation, issue a permit to the person. Note: Section 266S sets out the procedures for public consultation about the issuing of permits under this Part.(163) Page 268 (after line 20), after clause 258, insert:258A Publication of permit detailsThe Minister must give to any person who makes a request, written information about: (a) permits that have been issued; and (b) applications for permits that have been refused; under section 258.(164) Division 4A, page 271 (line 22) to page 272 (line 4), omit the Division, substitute:Division 4A—Invasive speciesSubdivision A—Listing 266A Listed invasive species(1) The Minister must, by instrument published in the Gazette , establish a list of invasive species divided into the following categories: (a) potentially threatening; (b) threatening but responding to control measures; (c) threatening but uncontrolled.(2) In establishing a list under subsection (1), the Minister must, in accordance with the regulations (if any), obtain and consider advice from the Scientific Committee on the proposed list.(3) The Minister must establish the list written 30 days after the commencement of this Act.(4) The Minister must cause a notice summarising the information contained in the instrument to be published in accordance with the regulations (if any).266B Minister may amend list(1) Subject to this Subdivision, the Minister may, by instrument published in the Gazette , amend the list: (a) by including items in the list; or (b) by deleting items from the list; or (c) by transferring items from one category in the list to another category in the list; or (d) by correcting an inaccuracy or updating the name of an invasive species.(2) An instrument mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) or (b) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .(3) Despite section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 as it applies in relation to an instrument because of section 46A of that Act, amendments of a list that delete items from the list take effect on the first day on which they are no longer liable to be disallowed, or to be taken to have been disallowed, under section 48 of that Act as it so applies.(4) When an instrument is laid before each House of the Parliament in accordance with section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 , the Minister must cause a statement to be laid before each House with the instrument explaining: (a) in the case of an item that has been included in the list by the instrument—why the item was so included; or (b) in the case of an item that has been deleted from the list by the instrument—why the item was so deleted.(5) The Minister must cause a notice summarising the information contained in an instrument to be published in accordance with the regulations (if any).266C Adding invasive species to the listThe Minister must add an invasive species to the list if the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary to include the species in the list to prevent significant damage to any listed threatened species, ecological community or critical habitat.266D Minister must consider advice from Scientific Committee(1) In deciding whether to add an item to, or delete an item from, the list, the Minister must, in accordance with the regulations (if any), obtain and consider advice from the Scientific Committee on the scientific aspects of the addition or deletion of the item concerned.(2) The Minister must: (a) decide whether to add an item to, or delete an item from, the list; and (b) if the Minister decides to add or delete the item—cause the necessary instrument to be published in the Gazette ;within 90 days after receiving the Scientific Committee's advice on the addition or deletion of the item.(3) A member of the Scientific Committee has a duty not to disclose to any other person the advice, or any information relating to the advice, before the end of that period of 90 days unless the disclosure: (a) is for the official purposes of the Scientific Committee; or (b) if an instrument is published in the Gazette relating to an addition or deletion to which the advice relates—occurred after the publication.266E Minister to make lists available to the publicThe Minister must, in accordance with the regulations (if any), make copies of up-to-date lists available for purchase, for a reasonable price, at a prescribed place in each State and self-governing Territory.Subdivision B—Permit system266F Possession etc of listed invasive species(1) Subject to subsection 266G, a person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person has in his or her possession a member of an invasive species; and (b) the member is a member of a listed invasive species; and (c) the member has been unlawfully imported. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.(2) Subject to section 266G, a person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person trades, keeps or moves a member of an invasive species; and (b) the member is a member of a listed invasive species; and (c) the member has been taken in or on a Commonwealth area. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.(3) Strict liability applies to paragraphs (1)(c) and (2)(c). Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .(4) An offence against subsection (1) or (2) is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine not exceeding 1,000 penalty units, or both.266G Section 266F does not apply to certain actionsSection 266F does not apply to: (a) an action authorised by a permit that is in force; or (b) an action provided for by, and taken in accordance with, a threat abatement plan made under Division 5 and that is in force; or (c) an action that is reasonably necessary to prevent a risk to human health; or (d) an action by a Commonwealth agency, or an agency of a State or of a self-governing Territory, that is reasonably necessary for the purposes of law enforcement; or (e) an action that is reasonably necessary to deal with an emergency involving a serious threat to human life or property; or (f) an action that occurs as a result of an unavoidable accident, other than an accident caused by negligent or reckless behaviour. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this section. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .266H Application for permits(1) A person may, in accordance with the regulations, apply to the Minister for a permit to be issued under section 266J.(2) The application must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by the regulations (if any).266J Minister may issue permits(1) Subject to subsection (3), the Minister may, on application by a person under section 266H and after public consultation, issue a permit to the person. Note: Section 266S sets out the procedures for public consultation about the issuing of permits under this Part.(2) A permit authorises its holder to take the actions specified in the permit without breaching section 266F.(3) The Minister must not issue a permit unless satisfied: (a) the specified action will significantly contribute to the eradication or control of the listed invasive species concerned; and (b) the taking of the action will not adversely affect: (i) the conservation status of any native species or population; or (ii) any listed ecological community; or (iii) any listed critical habitat.266K Publication of permit detailsThe Minister must give to any person who makes a request, written information about: (a) permits that have been issued; and (b) applications for permits that have been refused;under section 266J.266L Conditions of permit(1) A permit is subject to such conditions as are specified in the permit or as are imposed under subsection (2).(2) The Minister may, in accordance with the regulations: (a) vary or revoke a condition of a permit; or (b) impose further conditions of a permit.266M Contravening conditions of a permitThe holder of a permit is guilty of an offence punishable upon conviction by a fine not exceeding 300 penalty units if: (a) he or she does, or fails to do, an act or thing; and (b) doing, or failing to do, the act or thing results in a contravention of a condition of the permit.266N Authorities under permits(1) Subject to subsection (2), the holder of a permit may give to a person written authority to do for or on behalf of the holder any act authorised by the permit. The authority may be given generally or as otherwise provided by the instrument of authority.(2) The holder of a permit must not give an authority unless: (a) the permit contains a condition permitting the holder to do so; and (b) the authority is given in accordance with any requirements set out in the condition.(3) A permit is, for the purposes of this Act, taken to authorise the doing of a particular act by a person if the doing of that act by the person is authorised by an authority given by the holder of the permit.(4) The giving of an authority does not prevent the doing of any act by the holder of the permit.(5) Except as provided in this section, a permit does not authorise the doing of any act by a person for or on behalf of the holder of the permit.(6) A person who gives an authority must give to the Minister written notice of it within 14 days after giving the authority.266P Transfer of permitsOn the application, in accordance with the regulations, of the holder of a permit, the Minister may, in accordance with the regulations, transfer the permit to another person.266Q Suspension or cancellation of permitsThe Minister may, in accordance with the regulations: (a) suspend a permit for a specified period; or (b) cancel a permit.266R FeesSuch fees as are prescribed (if any) are payable in respect of the following: (a) the grant or the transfer of a permit; (b) the variation or revocation of a condition of a permit; (c) the imposition of a further condition of a permit.(165) Page 272 (after line 4), after Division 4A, insert: Division 4B—Public consultation before issue of permits266S Public consultation before issue of permits(1) Before issuing a permit under: (a) section 201; or (b) section 216; or (c) section 238; or (d) section 258; or (e) section 266J;the Minister must consider all written submissions made by persons or bodies registered under this section to the Minister on or before the day, and at the address for lodgment, specified in a notice under subsection (6).(2) The Minister must, at intervals of not more than 12 months, cause to be published in the Gazette and in a national daily newspaper a notice inviting applications from persons or bodies wishing to be registered for receipt of advice on applications for all or any of the following classes of permits: (a) a permit issued under section 201 for an action in relation to listed threatened species or listed ecological communities; (b) a permit issued under section 216 for an action in relation to listed migratory species; (c) a permit issued under section 238 for an action in relation to cetaceans; (d) a permit issued under section 258 for an action in relation to listed marine species; (e) a permit issued under section 266J for an action in relation to listed invasive species. (3) The Minister must register any person or body that applies in writing for the registration.(4) Registration has effect for the period specified in the notice.(5) As soon as practicable after receiving an application under: (a) section 200 (in relation to listed threatened species or listed ecological communities); or (b) section 215 (in relation to listed migratory species); or (c) section 237 (in relation to cetaceans); or (d) section 257 (in relation to listed marine species); or (e) section 266H (in relation to listed invasive species);the Minister must cause notice of the application to be given to each person registered in respect of that class of permit.(6) The notice must: (a) state that an application for a permit has been made; and (b) set out details of the application; and (c) invite persons to make written submissions to the Minister about whether a permit should be issued; and (d) specify: (i) an address for lodgment of submissions; and (ii) a day by which submissions must be lodged.(7) The day specified must not be a day occurring within 5 days after the last day on which the notice was given.(166) Clause 278, page 288 (after line 26), before paragraph (1)(a), insert: (aa) cause a copy of any advice received from the Scientific Committee in relation to the making or adoption of a recovery plan or of a threat abatement plan under this Subdivision to be laid before each House of the Parliament; and(167) Clause 281, page 291 (after line 13), at the end of the clause, add: (4) As soon as practicable after determining the conditions (if any) to which the giving of assistance under this section is to be subject, the Minister must cause a copy of any advice received from the Scientific Committee in relation to those conditions (if any) to be laid before each House of the Parliament.(168) Clause 285, page 293 (line 13), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; (e) a listed internationally threatened species that occurs in Australia or an external Territory.(169) Clause 286, page 294 (line 13), after "agency", insert "and an agency of a State or of a self-governing Territory".(170) Clause 293, page 297 (after line 26), before paragraph (1)(a), insert: (aa) cause a copy of any advice received from the Scientific Committee in relation to the making or adoption of a wildlife conservation plan under section 285 to be laid before each House of the Parliament; and (171) Clause 302, page 302 (lines 3 to 13), omit the clause, substitute:301 Control of access to biological resources(1) The Minister and the Indigenous Environmental Advisory Committee must, not later than 12 months after the commencement of this section, seek the involvement and approval of the holders and the proponents of traditional indigenous knowledge, innovations and practices based on that knowledge for the making of regulations under subsection (2).(2) The regulations may provide for the control of access to biological resources, subject to Articles 8(i) and 10(c) of the Biodiversity Convention. (3) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (2) must provide for: (a) respecting, preserving and maintaining knowledge, innovation and practices of indigenous and local communities in accordance with Article 8(i) of the Biodiversity Convention; and (b) promoting the wider application of that knowledge and those innovations and practices in accordance with Article 8(i) of the Biodiversity Convention; and (c) the equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilisation of that knowledge and those innovations and practices in accordance with Article 8(i) of the Biodiversity Convention; and (d) protecting and encouraging customary use of biological resources in accordance with Article 10(c) of the Biodiversity Convention.(4) Without limiting subsection (2), the regulations contain provisions about all or any of the following: (a) the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of biological resources in Commonwealth areas; (b) the facilitation of access to such resources; (c) the right to deny access to such resources; (d) the granting of access to such resources and the terms and conditions of such access.(172) Page 306 (after line 6), at the end of Division 8, add:303B Review by the Administrative Appeals TribunalAn application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of a decision by the Minister to issue a permit under: (a) section 201; or (b) section 216; or (c) section 238; or (d) section 258; or (e) section 266J.(173) Clause 313, page 314 (lines 5 to 21), omit the clause (but not the note), substitute:313 Simplified outline of this DivisionThe following is a simplified outline of this Division:The Commonwealth may submit property for inclusion in the World Heritage List.The Minister must note plans for managing properties on the World Heritage List. The Commonwealth and Commonwealth agencies must not contravene such plans.The Commonwealth can provide assistance for the protection or conservation of declared World Heritage properties.(174) Subdivision B, clause 314, page 315 (lines 1 to 22), omit the subdivision, substitute:Subdivision B—Commonwealth may seek World Heritage listing314 Commonwealth may seek World Heritage listingThe Commonwealth may submit a property to the World Heritage Committee for inclusion in the World Heritage List.(175) Heading to Subdivision D, page 316 (lines 18 and 19), omit "in Commonwealth areas ".(176) Clause 316, page 316 (lines 21 to 27), omit subclause (1), substitute:Minister must make plan(1) The Minister must make a written plan for managing a property that is included in the World Heritage List. The Minister must do so as soon as practicable but, in any event, not later than 3 years after the property is included in the World Heritage List.(177) Clause 316, page 317 (line 5), omit "not be inconsistent", substitute "be consistent".(178) Clause 316, page 317 (after line 10), after subclause (3), insert:Plans for World Heritage properties in States and self-governing Territories(3A) If a property is: (a) in a State; or (b) in a self-governing Territory; or (c) on, over or under the seabed vested in a State by the Coastal Waters (State Title) Act 1980 or in the Northern Territory by the Coastal Areas (Northern Territory Title) Act 1980 ;the Commonwealth must consult with the State or Territory in preparing and implementing a plan for managing the property.(179) Subdivision E, clauses 320 to 322, page 319 (line 1) to page 320 (line 5), omit the Subdivision, substitute:Subdivision E—Managing World Heritage properties320 General obligation to protect World Heritage properties(1) This section applies to: (a) the Commonwealth; (b) an agency of the Commonwealth; (c) a State; (d) an agency of a State; (e) a self-governing Territory; (f) an agency of a self-governing Territory.(2) An entity mentioned in subsection (1) must: (a) take all reasonable steps to ensure it exercises its powers and performs its functions in relation to a declared World Heritage property with due regard to the protection, conservation and presentation (within the meaning of the World Heritage Convention) of the property; and (b) otherwise comply with: (i) the World Heritage Convention; and (ii) any Australian World Heritage management principles; and (iii) any plan for managing the property.(180) Clause 323, page 320 (lines 9 to 11), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) Not later than 1 year after the commencement of this Act, regulations must be made prescribing the Australian World Heritage management principles for management of natural heritage and cultural heritage.(181) Clause 325, page 321 (lines 5 to 22), omit the clause (but not the note), substitute:325 Simplified outline of this Division The following is a simplified outline of this Division:The Commonwealth may designate a wetland for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance kept under the Ramsar Convention. The Minister must make plans for managing wetlands listed under the Ramsar Convention. The Commonwealth and Commonwealth agencies must not contravene such plans.The Commonwealth can provide assistance for the protection or conservation of declared Ramsar wetlands.(182) Subdivision B, clause 326, page 322 (lines 1 to 23), omit the subdivision, substitute:Subdivision B—Commonwealth may seek Ramsar designation326 Commonwealth may seek Ramsar designationThe Commonwealth may designate a wetland for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance kept under the Ramsar Convention.(183) Heading to subdivision D, page 323 (lines 14 and 15), omit "in Commonwealth areas ".(184) Clause 328, page 323 (lines 17 to 24), omit subclause (1), substitute:Minister must make plan(1) The Minister must make a written plan for managing a wetland that is included in the List of Wetlands of International Importance kept under the Ramsar Convention. The Minister must do so as soon as practicable but, in any event, not later than 3 years after the wetland is included in the List.(185) Clause 328, page 324 (line 2), omit "not be inconsistent", substitute "be consistent"(186) Clause 328, page 324 (after line 6), after subclause (3), insert:Plans for listed wetlands in States and self-governing Territories(3A) If a listed wetland is: (a) in a State; or (b) in a self-governing Territory; or (c) on, over or under the seabed vested in a State by the Coastal Waters (State Title) Act 1980 ; or in the Northern Territory by the Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Title) Act 1980 ;the Commonwealth must consult with the State or Territory in preparing and implementing a plan for managing the wetland.(187) Subdivision E, clauses 332 to 334, page 325 (line 20) to page 326 (line 29), omit the Subdivision.(188) Clause 335, page 327 (lines 3 to 6) omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) Not later than 1 year after the commencement of this Act, regulations must be made prescribing the Australian Ramsar management principles for management of wetlands included in the List of Wetlands of International Importance kept under the Ramsar Convention.(189) Clause 338, page 328 (line 10), omit "The Minister may", substitute "Not later than 3 years after the designation of a Biosphere reserve, the Minister must".(190) Clause 338, page 328 (line 12), after "entirely", insert "or partly".(191) Clause 338, page 328 (lines 17 and 18), omit "not be inconsistent", substitute "be consistent".(192) Clause 340, page 329 (lines 2 to 4), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) Not later than 1 year after the commencement of this Act, regulations must be made prescribing the Australian Biosphere reserve management principles for management of Biosphere reserves.(193) Clause 344, page 332 (line 23) to page 333 (line 5), omit subclause (2).(194) Clause 346, page 334 (line 15), after "one", insert "or more".(195) Clause 348, page 336 (lines 18 to 20), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) Not later than 1 year after the commencement of this Act, regulations must be made prescribing the Australian IUCN reserve management principles for each IUCN category.(196) Clause 348, page 336 (after line 24), at the end of the clause, add: (3) Regulations must not be made for the purposes of this section until after the traditional owners of any indigenous people's land in a Commonwealth reserve or zone of a Commonwealth reserve have been consulted about the proposed principles.(197) Clause 351, page 340 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add:Report to be tabled in Parliament(7) As soon as practicable after the Governor-General makes a Proclamation under this Subdivision, the Minister must cause a copy of a report prepared by the Secretary under this section to be laid before each House of the Parliament.(198) Clause 355, page 343 (line 19), before "storage", insert "transportation, handling,".(199) Clause 357, page 347 (line 17), omit "not".(200) Clause 357, page 347 (line 19), omit "inconsistently", substitute "consistently". (201) Clause 357, page 347 (after line 20), before paragraph (2)(a), insert: (aa) Australia's obligations under relevant international agreements; and(202) Clause 368, page 360 (after line 13), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) Not later than the day on which a notice mentioned in subsection (2) is published in the Gazette , the Minister must cause a copy of the notice to be served on the Chair or Chairperson of any land council for indigenous people's land in the Commonwealth reserve.(203) Clause 368, page 362 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add: (6) Not later than the day on which a notice mentioned in subsection (5) is published in the Gazette , the Minister must cause a copy of a draft of a management plan for the Commonwealth reserve to be served on: (a) the Chair or Chairperson of any land council for any indigenous people's land in the reserve; and (b) if the reserve is in a State or self-governing Territory—the agency (if any) of the State or Territory that is responsible for managing national parks established in the State or Territory under a law of the State or Territory.(204) Clause 370, page 363 (line 16), at the end of subclause (1), add "but, in any event, not later than 3 years after the declaration of a reserve".(205) Clause 371 page 365 (line 14), at the end of subclause (3), add "together with copies of any suggestions made by the Minister for alterations to the draft plan and the Secretary's views on the Minister's suggestions".(206) Clause 376, page 367 (after line 2), at the end of the clause, add: (3) The performance of the functions and exercise of the powers of a Board are not affected by a vacancy or vacancies in the membership of the Board.(207) Clause 377, page 367 (lines 6 and 7), omit "and in the way (if any) prescribed by the regulations".(208) Clause 377, page 367 ( page 5) to page 368 (page 3), omit subclause (5) and the note.(209) Clause 378, page 368 (line 23), omit "subsections 377(4) and (5)", substitute "subsection 377(4)". (210) Clause 378, page 368 (lines 28 to 30), omit Note 2.(211) Clause 378, page 369 (lines 1 to 10), omit subclause (3), substitute:Prerequisite to revoking or amending notice(3) The Minister must not revoke or amend a notice under section 377 relating to a Commonwealth reserve unless the land council for indigenous people's land or the traditional owners of the indigenous people's land in the reserve has agreed to the revocation or amendment, as the case requires.(212) Clause 379, page 369 (line 21), omit "on a part-time basis".(213) Clause 382, page 371 (lines 23 to 27), omit subclause (4).(214) Page 373 (after line 2), after clause 382, insert:382A Deputy members(1) Where an appointment to an office of member of a Board established for a reserve is made pursuant to subsection 377(4), those traditional owners of the indigenous people's land may nominate a person who satisfies the relevant qualifications (if any) in relation to that office to be the deputy of the member of the Board holding that office.(2) A member of a Board who was appointed otherwise than pursuant to subsection 377(4) may, with the approval of the Minister, nominate a person who satisfies the relevant qualifications (if any) in relation to the member's office to be the deputy of the member.(3) Where a person is nominated to be the deputy of a member of a Board, the person so nominated may, if the member is absent from a meeting of the Board, attend that meeting and, when so attending, is, subject to subsection (4), deemed to be a member of the Board.(4) A person who is nominated to be the deputy of a member of a Board must not preside at a meeting of the Board.(5) Where the traditional owners of the indigenous people's land situated in the reserve for which a Board is established nominate a person, pursuant to subsection (1), to be the deputy of a member of the Board, those traditional owners may revoke that nomination.(6) A member of a Board who was appointed otherwise than pursuant to subsection 377(4) may, with the approval of the Minister, revoke a nomination made by the member under subsection (2).(7) A deficiency or irregularity in relation to the selection or nomination of the person does not invalidate the person's nomination.(215) Page 373 (after line 2), after clause 382A, insert:382B Presiding members(1) A Board may, by resolution, appoint a member of the Board to be the presiding member of the Board.(2) A member appointed to be presiding member of a Board holds office, subject to subsection (3), for such period as is determined by the Board at the time of the member's appointment to that office.(3) A member of a Board ceases to hold office as presiding member of the Board if: (a) the member resigns that office; (b) the Board revokes the member's appointment to that office; or (c) the member ceases to be a member of the Board.(216) Page 373 (after line 2), after clause 382B, insert:382C Disclosure of interests(1) A member of a Board who has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter being considered or about to be considered by the Board shall, as soon as possible after the relevant facts have come to the member's knowledge, disclose the nature of that interest at a meeting of the Board.(2) A disclosure under subsection (1) shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the Board.(217) Page 373 (after line 2), after clause 382C, insert:382D Meetings(1) Subject to the provisions of this Division, a Board must determine its procedures and determine which persons are to be permitted to attend or participate in meetings of the Board.(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), at a meeting of a Board, a number of members greater than half the number of persons who constitute the Board constitute a quorum.(3) Where a Board is established for a reserve that consists wholly or mostly of indigenous people's land held by the Commonwealth under lease, a meeting of the Board must not be held, or must not continue, unless the majority of the members of the Board present at the meeting are members appointed pursuant to subsection 377(4).(4) A meeting of a Board must not be held, or must not continue, unless at least one of the members of the Board present at the meeting is a member appointed otherwise than pursuant to subsection 377(4).(5) Decisions of a Board are to be determined by a majority of the members of the Board present and voting.(6) The member of a Board who is presiding at a meeting of the Board has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, also has a casting vote.(218) Clause 383, page 373 (lines 4 to 18), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) The regulations may provide for matters relating to the operation of a Board or the rights of a deputy of a member of a Board, not otherwise provided for in this Act. (219) Clause 385, page 374 (lines 12 to 18), omit the clause.(220) Clause 388, page 376 (lines 12 and 13), omit subclause (3).(221) Clause 391, page 388 (after table item 1), insert:1A78reconsideration whether an action is a controlled action1B79reconsideration at State or Territory request whether an action is a controlled action1C87about what assessment approach applies to an action(222) Page 389, after Part 16, insert:Part 16A—Commissioner for the EnvironmentDivision 1—Commissioner's functions etc.391A Commissioner for the EnvironmentThere is to be a Commissioner for the Environment. The person holding the office of Auditor- General is to hold the office of Commissioner for the Environment.391B Commissioner's functionsThe Commissioner's functions include the following functions: (a) to audit the extent to which Commonwealth agencies have implemented action plans under their sustainable development strategies and have met objectives under these plans; (b) to audit bilateral agreements made under Part 5 for the following purposes: (i) to assess consultancy with prescribed accreditation criteria; (ii) to assess compliance with the agreements; (iii) to review agreements under section 65; (c) to audit compliance with conservation agreements made under Part 14; (d) to audit compliance by Commonwealth agencies with Part 15 (which deals with the management of protected areas); (e) to audit compliance with management plans made under Part 15; (f) to investigate action by a Commonwealth agency under Part 5, 14 or 15 and in respect of which a complaint has been made to the Commissioner; (g) to prepare state of the environment reports.391C Commissioner's audit and investigation powers(1) The following provisions apply in relation to an audit that is conducted by the Commissioner under paragraphs 391B(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) (with references to the Auditor-General being replaced by references to the Commissioner): (a) sections 32, 33, 34 and 35 of the Auditor-General Act 1997 ; (b) any other provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997 , or of regulations under that Act, that are relevant to the operation of section 32, 33, 34 or 35 of that Act.(2) The following provisions apply in relation to an investigation that is conducted by the Commissioner under paragraph 309B(f) (with references to the Ombudsman being replaced by references to the Commissioner): (a) sections 7A, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 ; (b) any other provisions of the Ombudsman Act 1976 , or of regulations under that Act, that are relevant to the operation of section 7A, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 or 14 of that Act.(3) Where a complaint has been made to the Commissioner with respect to an action taken by a Commonwealth agency under Part 5, 14 or 15, the Commissioner may, in his or her discretions, decide not to investigate the action or, if he or she has commenced to investigate the action, decide not to investigate the action further: (a) if the Commissioner is satisfied that the complainant became aware of the action more than 12 months before the complaint was made to the Commissioner; or (b) if, in the opinion of the Commissioner: (i) the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or was not made in good faith; or (ii) the complainant does not have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the complaint; or (iii) an investigation, or further investigation, of the action is not warranted having regard to all the circumstances.391D ReportsAnnual report(1) After the end of each financial year, the Commissioner must give a report to the Minister, for presentation to the Parliament, on: (a) the activities of the Commissioner during the year; and (b) any matter in relation to environmental or other aspects of sustainable development that the Commissioner believes should be brought to the attention of this Parliament.Audit reports(2) As soon as practicable after completing the report on an audit under paragraphs 390B(a), (b), (c), (d) or (e), the Commissioner must: (a) cause a copy to be laid before each House of the Parliament; and (b) give a copy to the responsible Minister.Investigation reports(3) The following provisions apply in relation to reports relating to investigations conducted by the Commissioner under paragraph 309B(f) (with references to the Ombudsman being replaced by references to the Commissioner and references to the Prime Minister being replaced by references to the Environment Minister): (a) sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 ; (b) any other provisions of the Ombudsman Act 1976 , or of regulations under that Act, that are relevant to the operation of section 15, 16 or 17 of that Act.391E State of the environment reports(1) The Commissioner must prepare a report on the state of the environment after each period of 3 years after the commencement of this act.(2) A report under subsection (1) must include the following matters: (a) an assessment of the status and conditions of the major environmental resources of Australia; (b) an examination of environmental trends, including the implications for the environment and human health; (c) a review of the programs and activities of Commonwealth agencies and Constitutional corporations related to environment protection; (d) an examination of trends in economic analysis of and of the costs and benefits (including economic evaluation) of environment protection; (e) any recommendations for future legislative or other action which the Commissioner considers appropriate to discharge his or her responsibilities under this Part.(3) Subject to subsection (4), each report under this section must be given to the Minister and the Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 10 sitting days after the end of each 3 year period.(4) The first report under this section must be laid before each House of the Parliament not later than 31 December 2001.Division 2—Miscellaneous390L Complaints to the CommissionerA person may complain in writing to the Commissioner about action by a Commonwealth agency under Part 5, 14 or 15 of this Act.(223) Page 393 (after line 22), before clause 400, insert:399A Qualifications and training of wardens, rangers and inspectorsBefore making an appointment or an arrangement under section 392, 393, 396 or 398, the Minister must make a written determination setting out: (a) the qualifications to be held; or (b) the training to be undertaken;by any person performing the duties of a warden, ranger or inspector because of an appointment or arrangement under this Division.(224) Clause 408, page 404 (line 12), at the end of subclause (5), add "and that if consent is given, any hold, container or receptacle may be broken open for inspection and any items or goods seized".(225) Clause 419, page 417 (line 28), at the end of subclause (5), add "However, if the warrant was issued under section 416 and a copy of the warrant is not available at the time of the search, the person must be given the name and telephone number of the magistrate who issued the warrant".(226) Clause 458, page 445 (after line 14), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) The Minister may, by written notice given to the holder of an environmental authority, require the holder to carry out an environmental audit if the Minister believes, or suspects on reasonable grounds, that the impacts of the holder's activities are different from or greater than those predicted by the proponent in the environmental assessment process which took place under Division 5, 6 or 7. (1B) If the Minister believes, or suspects on reasonable grounds, that the impacts on the environment: (a) arising out of a contravention referred to in subsection (1); or (b) referred to in subsection (1A);are significant, the Minister may, by written notice given to the holder of the authority, require the holder to carry out an environmental audit.(227) Clause 464, page 449 (after line 22), at the end of paragraph (a), add: (iii) all declared World Heritage properties; or (iv) specified declared World Heritage properties; or (v) all declared Ramsar wetlands; or (vi) specified declared Ramsar wetlands; or(228) Clause 464, page 449 (after line 25), at the end of paragraph (b), add: (iii) all declared World Heritage properties; or (iv) specified declared World Heritage properties; or (v) all declared Ramsar wetlands; or (vi) specified declared Ramsar wetlands; or(229) Clause 475, page 457 (line 7), after "regulations", insert "or of a permit issued under section 201, 216, 238, 258 or 266J".(230) Clause 475, page 457 (lines 9 to 12), omit paragraph (b) and (c), substitute: (b) any person to whom the Court grants leave to apply;(231) Clause 475, page 457 (after line 13), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) The Court must not grant leave to a person to apply for an injunction unless the Court is satisfied that: (a) the application would not be an abuse of the process of the Court; and (b) the particulars of the offence or other contravention disclose, without any hearing of the evidence, a prima facie case of the commission of the offence or contravention.(232) Clause 475, page 457 (line 17), after "regulations", insert "or of a permit issued under section 201, 216, 238, 258 or 266J".(233) Clause 475, page 457 (line 28), after "regulations", insert "or of a permit issued under section 201, 216, 238, 258 or 266J".(234) Clause 475, page 458 (line 6) to page 459 (line 12), omit subclauses (6) and (7).(235) is an alternative to (234)(235) Clause 475, page 457 (after line 12), after paragraph (c), insert: or (d) an indigenous person whose interests are, or are likely to be, affected by the conduct; Note: See section 363 for the meaning of indigenous person .(236) Clause 489, page 469 (after line 11), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person knowingly provides false or misleading information in response to a requirement or request under Part 7, 8, 9 or 13; and (b) the person is recklessly indifferent to the provision of false or misleading information. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.(237) Clause 489, page 469 (lines 12 to 19), omit subclause (2) (but not the note), substitute: (2) An offence under subsection (1) or (1A) is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a term not more than 2 years, a fine not more than 120 penalty units, or both.(238) Clause 490, page 470 (after line 20), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person is the holder of an environmental authority; and (b) a condition attached to the environmental authority requires the person to provide information; and(c) the person knowingly provides false or misleading information in response (or purportedly in response) to the requirement; and (d) the person is recklessly indifferent to the provision of false or misleading information. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.(239) Clause 490, page 470 (lines 21 to 28), omit subclause (2) (but not the note), substitute: (2) An offence under subsection (1) or (1A) is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a term not more than 2 years, a fine not more than 120 penalty units, or both.(240) Division 2A, clauses 505A and 505B, page 485 (lines 2 to 16), omit the Division, substitute:Division 2A—Establishment and functions of the Indigenous Environmental Advisory Committee505A Establishment(1) The Indigenous Environmental Advisory Committee is established.(2) The Minister is to determine in writing the composition of the committee, including the qualifications of its members.(3) The Minister is to appoint members of the Committee on a part-time basis, and must appoint one of the members to chair the Committee.(4) The Minister must ensure that the membership includes members who are appointed to represent the following: (a) ATSIC; and (b) State and Territory Aboriginal Land Councils; and (c) relevant indigenous environmental organisations; and (d) indigenous people with expertise in biodiversity and environmental issues.(5) The Minister must ensure that, as far as practicable, each one of the members has: (a) the support of his or her particular communities; and (b) relevant expertise in environmental issues and biodiversity.505B Functions of the CommitteeThe functions of the Committee are to advise the Minister at his or her request on all matters covered in this Act relating to indigenous peoples including: (a) matters relating to indigenous rights in relation to conservation and ecological sustainable use of biological diversity; (b) the implementation of Article 8(j), 10(c) and related Articles of the Biodiversity Convention; (c) indigenous rights in relation to access to biological resources; (d) protection of Traditional Ecological Knowledge; (e) subject to Part 15 of Division 4—on indigenous interests in relation to the establishment of reserves; (f) bilateral arrangements with States.(241) Clause 523, page 512 (line 7) after "Subdivision", insert "and without limiting its ordinary meaning".(242) Clause 523, page 512 (after line 17), at the end of the clause, add: (3) For the avoidance of doubt, but subject to subsection (2), an action includes any action to which the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 previously applied.(243) Clause 524, page 513 (lines 2 and 3), omit "an action" (first occurring), substitute "a controlled action".(244) Clause 524, page 513 (after line 3), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) To avoid doubt, a decision taken by a government body to grant a governmental authorisation (however described) for another person to take an action is itself an action .(245) Clause 524, page 513 (lines 4 to 15), omit subclause (3).(246) Clause 524B, page 513 (lines 26 to 30), omit the clause, substitute:524B What is a significant impact ?(1) If a provision of this Act refers to an action that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact , it is the intention of the Parliament that this phrase be interpreted with reference to the: (a) context; and (b) intensity;of the impact of the action.(2) The context of an action means the biophysical, economic and social circumstances that surround a particular action, on a scale that provides for the effects of the action to be taken into account. Example 1: An action specific to a particular site may, depending on the nature of the action, have a limited impact on the surrounding physical environment and human activity for a short period of time. Example 2: An action of a particular kind may have a global impact over an indefinite period of time.(3) The intensity of the impact of an action includes, but is not limited to, consideration of: (a) the degree to which the proposed action affects: (i) public health or safety; or (ii) unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, parklands, farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers or ecologically critical areas; or (b) the degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment: (i) are, or are likely to be, controversial; or (ii) are, or are likely to be, uncertain; or (iii) involve, or are likely to involve, known or unknown risks; or (c) the degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions; (d) whether the action is related to other actions which, individually, may be insignificant but which, when taken together, may have a significant impact; (e) whether the action is likely to result in a breach of any law of the Commonwealth, of a State or Territory or of a local government authority for the protection of the environment.(247) Clause 528, page 518 (line 21), omit the definition of bilateral agreement .(248) Clause 528, page 526 (after line 17), after the definition of interested person , insert: internationally threatened species has the meaning given by subsection 179(7).The reason for our now having to move 248 amendments is that the government has completely failed the House; it has failed to give proper consideration to this environment legislation. Indeed, a great deal of its consideration of this legislation has been done in secret in a deal with the Democrats, who refused to invite the Australian Conservation Foundation—one of this nation's premier conservation bodies—to participate in the drafting process of that legislation. As a result, this legislation is so poor that we need 248 amendments. The Australian Democrats—those fairies at the bottom of the garden turned chainsaw wielding hobgoblins—failed to consult with the Australian Conservation Foundation and the other relevant environment bodies in the drafting of this bill and, as a result, it is fundamentally flawed.It was not just the Australian Conservation Foundation with whom they failed to consult. We have in our possession a letter from a number of senior environmental experts: Professor Rob Fowler from the Australian Centre for Environmental Law; Professor Neil Gunningham also from the Australian Centre for Environmental Law; Associate Professor Donna Craig from the Law Division of the University of Sydney; David Hayes, Senior Lecturer in Law at James Cook University; Professor for Environmental Law from the Australian Centre for Environmental Law, Ben Boare; and Jan Macdonald, Associate Professor of Law at Bond University, together with Brian Hayes QC. Those senior environmental lawyers point out that the legislation before the House contains a number of substantial flaws.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—It's not green; it's gangrene.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Indeed, gangrene. First, that it has a limited range of matters which may trigger Commonwealth involvement in environmental impact assessment; secondly, that, even where that limited range of matters arise, they can be exempted through the execution of bilateral agreements between the Commonwealth and the states; and, thirdly, that amendments to the bill have not eliminated this possibility but rather have simply provided an extra layer, an extra procedural hoop to the already complex process for producing bilateral agreements.Those important concerns are added to by the fact that this bill should have received adequate parliamentary consideration and, in the words of the authors, `should not have been pushed through for political expediency as this process will not lead to good law'. Those legal experts are absolutely right. For those reasons, we have moved our 248 amendments.21:44:007813Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—I am pleased to stand and speak in support of this landmark legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1999 and the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1999 . This legislation represents the Howard coalition government's commitment to the better protection of Australia's unique environment and splendid biodiversity through proper management standards and transparent assessment processes. In historical terms, the earliest significant environmental legislation by the Commonwealth government was the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, which was enacted by the Whitlam government and represented a nascent stirring of awareness of the fragility and value of the natural environment of Australia. This legislation represents extensive consultation between the Commonwealth, the states, industry representatives, community groups and indigenous communities. It also reflects the government's determined and comprehensive effort to define environment responsibilities at Commonwealth level. This enactment is the most fundamental reform of Commonwealth environmental statutes for nearly 25 years. This is comprehensive reform because it also reflects a maturity in Commonwealth-state relations whereby areas of respective responsibility in environment assessment processes are defined. This bill will also provide for the first time an important national leverage to ensure the highest standards of environmental accreditation processes across the country.Since the coalition government was elected in 1996, the federal government has enjoyed a sound cooperative working relationship with state governments. Both federal and state governments have sought to identify better means of delivering efficient and effective environmental management for Australia as a whole, which will effectively balance the needs of the environment with the needs of industry. In 1997, the Council of Australian Governments reached an agreement by which the Commonwealth's role in environmental management would be defined by matters of national environmental significance. COAG also agreed that part of the reform process should include an innovative relationship between state and Commonwealth laws through an effective mechanism of accreditation by the Commonwealth of state assessment and approval processes. This bill puts the COAG agreement into effect. The Commonwealth's role is confined to those areas identified as being of national environmental significance. These areas are the Commonwealth marine area, world heritage properties, Ramsar wetlands of international importance, nationally threatened species and ecological communities, internationally protected migratory species, and nuclear actions by the Commonwealth or Commonwealth agencies. As a major part of the reform process, this legislation will also replace five existing statutes on environment and conservation. These are the Environment Protection (Impact of proposals) Act 1974, the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, the Whale Protection Act 1980 and the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. These new bills reflect the changing attitudes and rapid advances in environmental and biodiversity management which aim to employ world's best practice in line with contemporary community expectations.One of the main aims of the legislation is to promote ecologically sustainable development and to conserve our precious biodiversity. The structure of the main bill will allow the Commonwealth to respond to emerging environment concerns and environ mental planning and assessment practice. An important aspect of the challenge of this reform bill is to balance the needs of industry and development with the needs of the conservation of the environment. This reform bill seeks to establish that balance. Benefits for Australian industry will include statutory time frames in which decisions must be made. This in turn will also provide a considerable measure of certainty to proponents, which has not always been available under the existing act. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill relies on direct, specifically defined environmental criteria.The proponents of a development will know from the outset whether or not a project or an activity will trigger Commonwealth involvement. Should the proponent be in any doubt as to whether this legislation is applicable, they may apply to the minister and the minister must make a binding decision within 20 days on whether or not the legislation is triggered. It is important for industry to note that, once the minister has given this decision, the proponent may rely on this decision with certainty. There are strict limitations on the possibility for this decision to be reconsidered, thus minimising the opportunity for any late intervention by the Commonwealth. This is an important aspect of this bill which ensures greater certainty and efficiency for industry. (Time expired)21:49:007814Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—We have just heard another coalition speaker in this debate tell us what a landmark piece of legislation this is. If it is such a landmark piece of legislation, why the completely shameful haste in getting it through the Senate before 30 June and then returning it to this House and gagging the debate so quickly? Why wouldn't you put the bill out for consultation with the environment groups in its radically amended form and get some feedback? I will tell you what the answer to that is: despite all the claims of `landmark', everybody participating in this debate knows this is about rolling back Commonwealth responsibility and rolling back environmental standards. If you put it out there in the com munity, if you give it to the environment groups, that is what they are going to tell you. It is a very sensitive issue in my electorate, because we have Ramsar wetlands, we have the petrochemical industry making some of the most noxious and dangerous substances on earth—that is, if they are not properly dealt with—and we had the Kennett government proposal for a toxic dump in Werribee. 15,000 members of my electorate went out on a winter night—which was as cold as it can be in Canberra—to the Werribee racecourse to protest against that decision. Because I think it is very important to the final position that the Democrats have taken in this debate, let me take you to what the Democrats said to the 15,000 people who were at the Werribee racecourse protesting about the Werribee toxic dump when they were looking for votes in the run-up to the last federal election.Did the Democrats come out to Werribee and say during that campaign, `Once we are in parliament, we will do a dirty deal with the coalition to ensure that the Commonwealth government washes its hands of protecting Ramsar wetlands and hands the whole thing—the whole issue it cannot be bothered with—back to the states'? No, they did not come out to Werribee and say that; in fact, the Democrats came out to Werribee and said quite the opposite. Democrat Senator Lyn Allison said:The Howard government needs to get moving with the states on establishing national, enforceable guidelines for storing toxic waste.Not content with that, she went on to give the following Democrat commitment to the people of my electorates: residents should have the right of veto against projects like the toxic dump via a residential ballot and activated by a petition of 1,000 or more. That was the commitment she made to the electors in Lalor. One notes that the Democrats are very big on petitions: big on having rules about them, but not so good on acting on them when they get them—otherwise they would be in the middle of a leadership ballot. They are pretty big on making promises to constituents when they are in the run-up to a federal election. They came out to Werribee in the electorate of Lalor and said to people who had been campaigning for two years, `This is what we will do if we are returned to the federal parliament.'They also promised to introduce a bill in the Senate to stop the Werribee toxic dump. Fortunately, no-one had to rely on the Democrats to deliver. If we had had to rely on the Democrats to deliver, we would see the Werribee toxic dump already in the construction stage. Instead of relying on the Democrats to deliver, the people of Werribee kept campaigning. Ultimately it was not a political party—not the Liberal Party, the National Party or the Democrats—that came to their rescue. Because the people of Werribee campaigned so hard, ultimately CSR, the project developer that wanted to make money out of putting toxic waste in Werribee, decided that it had had enough and that it would not proceed with the project.It is important to recognise that, despite those commitments from the Democrats, in this legislation they have enabled the states and the Commonwealth to now go through a process where, through a bilateral agreement, in future the Commonwealth could say to Victoria—and states with track records of environmental vandalism like Victoria—`Here, you have the responsibility for the Ramsar wetlands. Here, you have the responsibility for the environmental impacts of a toxic dump,' and just let it happen. Despite all their brave rhetoric that is where the Democrats have led us to by entering into this agreement with the government—an agreement that they did not need to enter into and did not need to deal with in this time frame. They could have had the decency to come back to the people that they had made grandiose promises to and work them through the issues, if they thought this was the right course. Instead, here we have legislation gagged and the Democrats not abiding by their word. I am sure they will be harshly judged by my electors when it comes to the next election. We know one thing in Werribee—that the coalition does not care about the environment. After all, they are the party that wanted to put a toxic dump on top of us. Today, through this bill, we have proof positive that, despite their campaigning rhetoric, the Democrats are exactly the same. (Time expired)21:54:007816Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—We have heard a lot of nonsense from every one of the speakers from the opposition tonight.Mr Snowdon interjecting—EM6Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONE—In particular, just recently we have heard references to Victoria and its conservation record. It is quite extraordinary. We hear a lot about something like a toxic waste dump and of course that is a very significant issue.Mr Snowdon interjecting—EM6Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONE—But let us look at Victoria's record in terms of its water reform and its vegetation management. It is in fact leading the country.Over the other side of the House there is such a narrow view of what constitutes environmental conservation. Because our environmental legislators are working with interest groups who in fact have supported the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1999 , they have been denigrated. The member for Wills referred to the `teenage behaviour and silliness' of those who were working with us. With the Democrats' support, we put through some very significant amendments to this bill in the Senate. It is not a very smart move to denigrate those who understand that we do not have forever to work out better ways to deal with the environment through legislative reform.Mr Snowdon interjecting—EM6Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONE—This legislation had a very long period of gestation.Mr Snowdon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for the Northern Territory.Mr Snowdon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for the Northern Territory is warned.IJ4SNOWDONMr Snowdon—Might I ask why?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I allowed the member for the Northern Territory to interject, which I ought not to have done. He persisted and then I called him. When I called him he said, `Yes, what do you want?' No response to the chair is ever acceptable and for that reason he is warned.EM6Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONE—Both the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1999 and this bill, but in particular the significant bill in front of us, were developed after a long period of discussion and gestation. We have already heard about the relationship with COAG. This legislation revision was foreshadowed in 1996, when the environmental election policy statement, `Saving our natural heritage', and the `Investing in our natural heritage' budget statement quite clearly identified the need for major legislative reform of environmental law. We also have had public consultation, which went on for some time. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, released a public consultation paper on 23 February 1998 for one month of public consultation. That picked up on the COAG review. Some of you might dismiss the COAG review, but it is a most significant body comprising all states and territories, the Commonwealth and local government together deciding on what is best for the nation.It is amazing that you tend to denigrate the states' involvement in the future sharing of environmental consideration and enactment of proper due process and laws in this country. Since we are about to celebrate 100 years of Federation, it is a little sad that you still seem to think that you do not need to work in cooperation on issues like biodiversity protection. The realities are that you need to work not only with the states but with local government, with stakeholders and with non-government organisations. This Commonwealth government understands only too well that the complexity of the issues that now face us—with our environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity, inappropriate vegetation management and, in some cases, inappropriate introduction of animals which have disturbed our biodiversity—requires, on every front, cooperation between the states and Commonwealth. The member for Dunkley made the point that it is not just coalition governments in the states. There are also some three Labor held states in this period of our federation and we are working just as closely with them. It is to denigrate your own side of politics to say that the states cannot be trusted, and it is not right to deride what they consider a most significant set of amendments to legislation, legislation which has been crying out to be improved for a very long time.Let me say, too, and I will address it later on, that this legislation has been developed in consultation with the indigenous leadership of this country and they, too, are welcoming it as a major landmark—a step forward to understanding how we must address 200 years of, in many cases, inappropriate actions that have left our natural resources depleted and degraded.21:59:007817Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I hope that, in summing up, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage was not regarding my contribution as insignificant, but I doubt that she was. I want to make some general comments on the thrust of the environment bills, concerned as I am for our national environmental program post-Telstra, funded, as much of it is, from the Natural Heritage Trust. I also find it appalling that this so-called landmark legislation is again being rammed through the House—another example of executive contempt for representative democracy.I remember so well speaking in the House on the bill providing for the sale of the first third of Telstra and pointing out how the Murray-Darling 2001 Program was in fact a 2101 project, so vast are the environmental problems we are confronted with. The former member for Barker, once the shadow minister for the environment, backed up my assessment immediately after that speech. We have heard again in recent days how desperate is the salination problem, particularly in Western Australia, and notably throughout the western parts of New South Wales. In his second reading speech, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage said the Howard government is dealing with issues such as land degradation and the retention of remnant bushland through the Natural Heritage Trust. As I said in the Telstra speech, once we have sold the silverware we can only make the money go so far, and the land degradation problems we face will not be solved by the Natural Heritage Trust. So much for environmental restoration. How about environment protection?These bills, based on a COAG agreement, seek to ensure the seamless integration of Commonwealth and state laws through what the minister calls a `transparent mechanism for Commonwealth accreditation of state processes'. It is efficient to combine five acts into one. It is efficient to remove the uncertainty surrounding Commonwealth involvement in environmental matters. It appears efficient to provide accreditation of state processes and agreed management plans, assuming these are uniform across all the states. It is important to clarify those areas of pre-eminent national importance such as the Commonwealth marine area. Having worked on the committee of this parliament looking into Australia's fisheries, I must say it is one area requiring constant supervision and research. Similarly, I trust the approval process for actions having an impact on notionally threatened or internationally protected migratory species will include places like the Macquarie Marshes in New South Wales, which are subjected to ongoing and growing pressures from a variety of water users, including wildlife.I have grave doubts about the ability of state governments and local governments to act in the best national environmental interests, and hence my nervousness about certain aspects of these bills. Queensland, for instance, is accommodating 80 per cent of our land clearance at the moment, and we are tipped to increase by 25 per cent our carbon emissions, not the eight per cent we negotiated at Kyoto. The political pressure on state governments to approve developments, whether on the coast or inland, whether tourism or mining, can and do cloud environmental judgments. Fraser Island, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the Franklin Dam, Lake Pedder, water management, land clearing and forestry management—all these areas leave one wondering if the states are ready for any new responsibilities. All too often those questioning a development do not have the resources to challenge the contentions of environmental consultants hired to prepare impact studies. There needs to be an independent national environmental impact assessment for projects meeting certain impact criteria. I wonder how we determine, as these bills proscribe, `an activity which does not have a significant impact on one of the matters of national significance'? A mine or a quarry on the headwaters of any stream in the Murray-Darling has the potential to cause an impact of national significance. On balance, I must accept the work that has gone into these environment bills and the assurances from many sides involved that they will work, or at least work better than the disparate processes we have in place now. But I have no other means of judging, except those comments. I have not had time to study these bills. I have not had time to look at the amendments. The bills have been steamrollered through in the same disgraceful fashion as the so-called Democrats set that rolling gag in motion in the Senate. So much for the term `Democrats' applied to that particular group. I have had insufficient time to get the feedback or study I would like. I would like to support elements of this legislation, but I am ill-prepared to assess these bills in the allotted time. I will therefore be abstaining from recording a vote because I have certainly not had the time to look at the bills in the detail that my constituents demand.22:04:007818Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—Under the current environment legislation, once the Commonwealth government is involved in the assessment process it assesses all the environmental issues involved in the project, including those issues which are really the responsibility and the province of state governments. These bills will permit the Commonwealth to be involved only in the assessment of an activity which relates to those matters specified as `a matter of national environmental significance'. The state governments will be responsible for assessing other environmental issues.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am loath to do it to the member for Hughes, but we are debating the 248 amendments which are before the House. The government did move the gag on the previous bill, and the member for Hughes is referring to the bill.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Yes, the member for Prospect is right with her point of order. In fact, I was granting some leniency because I understood that there had been some compression of the time for speeches during the second reading stage.Mr Melham interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am indicating why some leniency was granted. `Theys' and `us' do not exist in the eyes of the Speaker, as the member for Banks should be aware. The member for Hughes will refer to the amendments before the chair.VK6Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALE—Mr Speaker, I have not had the benefit of seeing the amendments that are before the chair—all 300 or 500 of them. I am sorry, but my problem is going to be that I cannot refer to the amendments as I do not have any knowledge of them.Government member interjecting—VK6Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALE—Can I? All right. I have to be honest. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hughes will be guided in her participation more by the Speaker than by the whip, I trust. But I will listen closely to what she has to say.VK6Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. It behoves me to point out, with regret, that I do understand the comments that were initially made by the member for Lalor in her concern about a toxic waste dump that was going to be imposed upon her electorate. The people of my electorate actually had a nuclear waste dump imposed upon them during the 13 years of the previous Labor government. For the last eight of those 13 years a minister of the Crown actually represented the people of my electorate. I think the people in this country really do have a concern for the environment. The community consultation process that I believe is made available in this current legislation is most important. It is proper and right for the community to have that kind of input. The nuclear waste dump that was allowed to accrue in my electorate during the 13 years of the previous government is of great concern inasmuch as the people were not allowed any input into what the government was about to do and that the government did not have any will to remove the nuclear waste. Of course, in the last three years since we have been in government we have actually made great progress with the ARPANSA legislation and also with looking for a nuclear waste repository of national importance in South Australia.I do think that, more than anything else, in its consultation with the state governments and with Aboriginal communities, particularly the people in the Northern Territory, on the legislation we are considering today, the government has had a great deal of respect for the knowledge and the renowned affection that the Aboriginal communities have for the land. Under this legislation they will be invited to participate in the committees advising the minister in relation to biodiversity. (Time expired)22:09:007819Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I want to respond specifically to the suggestions made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, at the table, about indigenous involvement in the development of these amendments and of the legislation. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1999 and the amendments will have a significant effect on the legal and social interests of indigenous communities and traditional owners throughout Australia. This legislation was developed with negligible consultation with indigenous communities, even in areas where traditional owners hold freehold title over large areas of land affected by the bills. I name in particular Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park and Kakadu National Park, both of which of course are in the Northern Territory.Consequently, in relation to both their general structure and specific provisions, the bills and the amendments fail to appropriately reflect the interests, aspirations and legal rights of indigenous peoples. The bills fail to provide structures for appropriate consultation with indigenous peoples in a range of decision making processes, including bilateral agreements. They may impair or extinguish aspects of title, although I note that these amendments before the House tonight seek to impact upon that by claiming that they will not affect native title rights. They will significantly undermine, however, world respect for joint management practises in Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta national parks, threatening public access to these parks through traditional owners' possible termination of these leases.The overarching concerns of indigenous peoples relate to the bills' disregard for the principles of joint management. Joint management is a central part of the contractual arrangements that leases back to the Commonwealth the indigenous people's own land in Kakadu National Park, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park and Wreck Bay. It has been indicated that such contractual arrangements would not have been entered into without the legal guarantee of the principles of joint management. The Kakadu Board of Management has stated that the key aspect of joint management is a process of negotiation and empowerment.The Uluru-Kata Tjuta Board of Management has stated that, although the current act is not really strong for traditional owners because at the end of the day the minister can direct the board, joint management has worked reasonably well. The reason for this is goodwill and honesty. Given the centrality of these contractual principles, the Central Land Council and the Northern Land Council have stated that the lack of negotiation on key aspects of the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1999 is `coercive and pre-emptive of the existing rights of traditional owners'.I want to refer to an article in the Australian of 25 June 1999 headed `Act of convenience threatens ecology'. What we need to comprehend in this legislation and in the amendments which are before the House is that there has been no adequate consultation with the community. What we have here is an unholy alliance between the Democrats and the government, a marriage of convenience which will not assist environmental protection in this country. I am concerned that we have people in this chamber who actually believe that there has been adequate consultation. I might say that I have had representations from indigenous peoples in the Northern Territory, which is the seat I represent, who have been outspoken about the lack of consultation, lack of involvement and lack of notice taken of them by this government. They have been particularly condemnatory of the way in which the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, has involved himself in these discussions.This is not a debate about clarifying the responsibilities of each level of government for the protection of the environment; this debate is about the Howard government's determination to revisit history and to remake it. There is no doubt that this day represents a sad culmination of the unholy alliance between the Democrats and the government over the issue of the environment. What we are about today is the determination of the coalition partners and the Democrats to bend over backwards to facilitate this return of the Howard government to the past. This article I referred to makes some cogent points about what this bill will mean. It says in its conclusion:The end result is likely to be greater uncertainty and heightened conflict across Australia in relation to environmental decisions—precisely what the Act was supposed to avoid. There certainly is little prospect of either the Government or the Democrats being accorded any environmental kudos for having adopted what will prove to be fundamentally flawed legislation.Motion (by Mrs Stone) agreed to:That the question be now put.Original question put:That the amendments (Mr Kelvin Thomson's ) be agreed to.The House divided. [10.15 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the negative.Bill agreed to.7820Bill (on motion by Mrs Stone)—by leave—read a third time.Bills7820s1977820Consideration resumed from 29 June, on motion by Mrs Stone:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.7820Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mrs Stone) read a third time. Bills7820The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999 Bills7820r8617820Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendment—(1) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 14 to 18), omit subparagraph (i), substitute:(i) Regulation 83 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, relating to uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the emission of pollutants according to engine fuel requirements, incorporating all amendments up to and including the 04 Series of Amendments; 22:27:007821Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I move:That the amendment be agreed to.It is a good opportunity at this late hour while we await some further material from the Senate to make some remarks about the value of this diesel grants scheme package to rural and regional Australia. All members would be aware that the 24 per cent of Australians who do not live in urban Australia have been experiencing very real difficulties in recent years. Terms of trade have moved against us very considerably as a number of global factors have come into play, one of which is that population growth has plateaued earlier than people might have expected. Another is that, to an extent that could not have been foreseen in times gone by, we have enormously enhanced our capacity to produce food and fibre. This means that, in a situation where once the world lined up to buy almost anything that we could produce in bulk in this country—food, fibre, the lot—we now find that global markets are highly competitive. Argentina, for example, now every year seeks to place a very considerable amount of wheat on global markets. We never would have anticipated that. India not only is self-sufficient in grains but has a surplus to export. These sorts of factors have led to a situation of very significant deterioration in the terms of trade of the Australian agriculture sector and the attendant rural communities.A similar pattern has been emerging in relation to commodities—iron ore, coal and the other extractive industries. These factors have led to a situation where we need to do everything we can in this country to contain those areas that have been damaging our terms of trade—where we have some say over them. Mr Speaker, as you will be well aware, the terms of trade are a function of domestic input costs as well as prices received mainly on export markets for a country like ours where the vast bulk of what we produce is exported. Therefore, it makes a great deal of sense to do everything that you can to reduce transport costs. I believe that, for some years in this country, transport costs have been very seriously inflated. They have been very unwisely inflated, in the broader national interest, by the taxes and charges on transport. It is never a sound principle to tax productive inputs where you can avoid it, but the level of taxation inputs in this country—Consideration interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—I think it is very important indeed that we do what we can to remove the impost of taxes on production in this country. Broadly speaking of course, the move to a broad based, rebatable indirect tax system in this country in fact reduces taxes and charges on our export sector by some $4½ billion—that is, $4,500 million—a year. I believe that that is a very worthwhile objective for the Australian economy. In that sense, as we celebrate today the dawning of a very significant new set of opportunities for the broader economy, we do so for rural and regional economies as well. A large part of that taxation reform involves the measures that we are putting in place through the extension of the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme and the introduction of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme 1999. A large part of the benefits that flow to rural and regional Australia do indeed derive from those two measures.There has been some speculation, I think it is fair to say, on compliance issues. It is not at all unusual for a government—in fact, it is the norm—to introduce an act which clearly sets out its objectives and clearly outlines where it intends to go with something like the diesel rebate scheme, which is quite straightforward in terms of compliance and so forth, but more particularly the alternative fuels grants scheme. It needs to be acknowledged and it is a reality that, as we have started serious negotiations in relation to administration and compliance, the difficulties are a little more than we had initially anticipated.It also needs to be acknowledged that that is, in effect, Labor's fault. They could have chosen to have entered into meaningful negotiations with us. They chose not to. So we had to negotiate with the Democrats. I have said in this place, and I repeat, that we entered into negotiations with them and found them to be absolutely fair, reasonable and constructive. As noted in an editorial in a very important rural paper today, the fact of the matter is that the Daily Liberal from Dubbo in the electorate of the member for Parkes has observed:The rebate is worth the small cost of extra paperwork. Not surprisingly the opposition is having a field day on certain aspects of the federal government's amended reform tax package.It goes on to say that the benefits are going to be enormous and that this will be a very good package for rural and regional Australia and well worth the effort. I sincerely believe that to be the case. I commend it to the House.22:32:007822Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—I just remind the Minister for Transport and Regional Services that we did in fact vote for these bills once they were disentangled from the whole tax package. We voted for them. We have said to you that we do support reduced transport costs, but we do think that we could do it a little better. We think we could go about it in a more pro-active and positive way for government. We would like to put to you the challenge of achieving greater environmental benefits than you have so far.The problem for you is that you signed up for a deal without either of the parties having a single clue about how it would work. You had transport fuel goals—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I remind the member for Dickson that it is not a problem for the chair.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—Sorry, Mr Speaker. The minister on behalf of the government had some transport fuel goals. The Democrats had some alternative energy environmental goals. So we got this botched, hybrid solution. The minister and those who helped put the deal in place—and we saw this demonstrated in question time yesterday and today—do not seem to have a clue how it was going to work. We heard Senator Allison's first version. We had the mark I version which said, `Oh, well, it might be where the trucks go; it might be the kind; it might be the distance they travel.' When the minister was put on the spot over that, he said, `No, it won't be about that at all.'We are told that the compliance legislation is coming in the spring sitting. We are told that the definition of metropolitan boundaries is coming some time later by way of regulation. We are told that the details of the new alternative energy programs are coming some time later. We are told that the penalties for non-compliance are coming—again, some time later. I said in the second reading debate, and I say it again now: it is a bit rich to ask us to keep signing up to things when governments cannot tell us how the implementation will work. That is why we have asked so many questions. Even today the minister flick passed a fundamental question on the regional wine industry to the Treasurer. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services could not answer a question on regional industry.We have not been able to have any satisfactory answers to the fundamental questions of capacity for rorting, to the fundamental questions of where you will place the arbitrary lines and what that will mean for businesses. We have not had any answers to the possible inequities in the competitive balance between businesses depending upon whether they are just inside or just outside the metropolitan area. The whole thing has been exposed as a huge problem for you in the same way as has compliance on what food is going to have the GST applied and what is not. Just as the food issue will come back to haunt the Treasurer, I think the compliance aspects of this diesel package—they may have some positive aspects—will come back to haunt the minister. It is fundamentally flawed. So far it has been demonstrated to be unworkable. Nothing the minister has said or, more correctly, has not said has changed or can alter that fact.Amendment agreed to.Adjournment7822Motion (by Mr Tuckey) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.782222:37:007822Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—Information is the currency of humanity, and humanity is the catalyst for change. In the age of information, change is inevitable and the possible now becomes the probable. The use of information technology has brought much change, even to this place. I address the House tonight, speaking not from written notes or from memory but with my words and thoughts stored on a portable hand-held device, a PDA. In fact, I believe I may be the first member to do this.This PDA allows me to deliver a prepared speech that has never been set to paper. The paperless office may yet become a reality one day. I also store in this device all of my tasks, my complete diary and my phone book. It also has the ability to fax and access the World Wide Web. But, more importantly, this device synchronises completely with my electorate office. Technology such as this is having a huge impact on the way this House operates and the way that we govern in Australia. While such technologies continue to reduce demand on our use of physical resources, the real advantage of information technology is in the limitless interaction of people and ideas.This parliament should not be constrained in the way that information technologies are used in the business of the House. This parliament is already one of the most, if not the most, technologically sophisticated legislatures in the world. From our parliamentary offices we have electronic connections that enable the transfer of data from one member to another or to our constituents and for the downloading of Hansard, press releases, Bills Digests, legislation and other documents and information from parliamentary sources.This building is one of largest in the world to be built around an electronic backbone of fibre optics. Previous governments deserve congratulations for their commitment to new technology and the efficiency it can bring to the day-to-day operations of government. In fact, at least to some extent, the overwhelming enthusiasm of the Australian people towards new technologies stems from the enthusiasm shown by Australian governments to utilise technology.However, just as the development of information technology has grown exponentially, so too government must commit resources and infrastructure at a faster pace. All of this has given elected representatives a greater ability to access information and services and greater access to our constituents and a greater ability to do more for our community. But current technology could allow us to achieve even more, as is often required.Since the invention of the printing press, technological advancement has accelerated and broadened the spread of human knowledge, thoughts and beliefs. Current technologies give to billions the voice that once belonged only to the few, so we must listen to these many voices. The challenge for us now is our commitment to foster the enthusiasm of the community towards new technologies. While many government departments use the Internet as a primary resource for providing information to the community and the parliament and the parliamentary library conducts research through the Internet, there remains a frustrating delay in providing electorate offices with a permanent connection to these same resources.Current technologies should also be employed to fully integrate the offices in our community with our offices here in Canberra. The single office concept needs to move beyond concept and into reality. The current system of operating two separate networks is totally inefficient. Through technology we can minimise the impact of our absence from our electorates. Anything that allows us to do more and better work in our community must be utilised. In the new age of telecommuting, e-commerce, and being on-line, Canberra to my electorate of Oxley need no longer be such a distance away.As a nation we have always recognised the tyranny of distance, in particular the isolation of low population density. Today we have further conquered that distance. This is why rural Australia has always embraced new technology, as have our business community and education sectors. The challenge for us is to do the same in this House. With today's technology we can create the parliament of tomorrow. The need for mobile equipment and access should go beyond trial and also become a reality. The thought of conducting elections over the Internet may seem radical today, but our colleagues overseas are conducting such ventures as we speak and there are legislatures already using computerised voting to avoid time consuming counts during debates. I envisage the day when interactive terminals at our seats in the House will keep members and the Speaker up to date. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—May I be permitted to observe that when the electronic machine that the member for Oxley was using responds to voice activation we will have come full circle.782422:42:007824Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—This evening I would like to take a few minutes to share some thoughts on some of the most admirable people I have come across in my travels around the electorate. I am not referring to mayors or shire councillors; I am not referring to doctors or sporting geniuses or academic marvels. I am talking about two groups of people whom I have had the pleasure of meeting recently. They are the young people associated with the Green Corps program.I had the absolute honour some weeks ago to be involved in the presentation to the Green Corps group from Broken Hill, who had just finished their six months on a Green Corps project. I do not need to point out to those members in the House that the people who participate in the Green Corps project are volunteers. They are young people who have been on the dole who have decided that there is more to life for them and have decided, of their own volition, to join the Green Corps project.Gerard Bennett, Matthew Chandler, Rachel Daley, Carl Krelle (otherwise known as Rainbow), Calvin Lee, Scott Nilson, Leah McWaters and Darren Thomas: these eight people—seven of them from my electorate and residents of Broken Hill and one from Rainbow in Victoria—were working during the six months leading up to about April. One of the tasks that was undertaken, under the supervision of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, was something that I would say many adult Australians who spend time berating the young people of today would not even consider doing. These young people, amongst other things, performed jobs such as installing Environet, creating signs for National Parks, revegetating areas, digging holes for fence posts, et cetera. But the thing that I marvelled at when I met these people was the job that they did without a word of complaint in the 40 degree plus heat of a Broken Hill summer in January, rolling up about 120 kilometres of barbed wire.The dedication and commitment that these people showed to perform these tasks, after starting off a somewhat disparate group of people—some of whom knew each other, many who did not—were remarkable. They formed a team, they learned a lot about life, they learned a lot about relationships. They certainly learned a lot about hard work and, most importantly, they learned about the pleasure and the satisfaction gained from getting stuck into a job, whether it is hard or not, and seeing it through.These young people had a great time in the Green Corps. It is probably not the type of work that many people would choose, but these young Australians were motivated and excited when they were finished. Many of them were going to take the opportunity to get hold of some further funds to continue with study. It will look terrific on their CVs—the fact that they have contributed to society in this way. They probably did not care whether or not I was there for their presentation, or the mayor or whoever else. The highlight at the end of their Green Corps time was to sit down and chat about the experience and what they had achieved for themselves.It was a privilege and an honour for me to meet these people, and I hold them up as representatives to anyone who questions the work of Green Corps. More importantly, I hold them up as an example to anyone who gets on a soapbox and talks about the youth today in a disparaging way. These people face challenges that, as young people, we never had to face. They have risen above these challenges and met them and punched them in the eye.I recently also had the pleasure of launching another Green Corps group who are just starting on their learning journey in Parkes—another fine, motivated group of people really looking forward to getting stuck into the work at hand. All of them are appreciative of the opportunity that they were given and I am sure that, like their Broken Hill counterparts, they will also benefit enormously and the community will benefit enormously in turn from their valuable input.I look forward to finding out, at the completion of this Parkes Green Corps project, just how many of them finish and what their hopes and aspirations will be then. After what I have seen already, I will be most surprised if the number finishing are any fewer than the number that started.782522:46:007825Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I speak on behalf of at least 3,000 retirees who have invested at least $300 million, many of whom have lost their entire life savings in an out of control pooled investment scheme. I appeal to the federal Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman, to establish a team within Centrelink to set in place guidelines so that the devastated investors can access their legal entitlements without delay. At the moment the devastated investors, with no income and frozen assets, are trudging into Centrelink offices around the country and being told that they are ineligible for income assistance. As a consequence many are without any form of income even though many should be eligible for special benefit. It is not the fault of staff behind the counter in Centrelink, rather the failure of this government to appreciate the nature of the disaster and the predicament these individuals find themselves in. Currently two finance brokers, Global Finance and Grubb Finance, are in liquidation. Three more firms are in difficulty. In the Western Australian parliament, the Minister for Fair Trading, Mr Doug Shave, has confirmed that up to 5,000 investors may lose their money and up to $500 million may be involved.On Saturday 19 June I attended a meeting in Perth with approximately 100 of these investors who have been disgracefully let down by the regulatory framework nationally and in the state of Western Australia. There are many more right across Australia, includ ing many in my home state of Queensland. The Western Australian authorities are yet to appoint a supervisor to liquidate the trust funds, and in the meantime what remains of the investors' assets are frozen and the amount that remains is unknown. With their nest eggs frozen, many of these people are without any income. They are told by Centrelink that they have too much equity to receive temporary support from the federal government. It is my understanding that many of these people may be eligible for special benefit—a discretionary payment that can be paid to a person who meets certain conditions and is unable to provide a sufficient livelihood for themselves or their dependents. Income testing of special benefit is also discretionary and usually involves a deduction of $1 for each dollar of income.With respect to the assets test, the Social Security Act provides that where a person's social security entitlement has been reduced under that test and the asset in question is unrealisable, and if the application of the test puts the person in severe financial hardship, the unrealisable asset can be disregarded under the ordinary income and assets test. However, where such an asset has been disregarded in this way, the pension rate will be reduced under a fairly complex formula that takes account of income from other sources, assets other than those that have been disregarded and the value of the disregarded assets themselves. As a matter of urgency, Senator Newman should establish a team to assess the overall situation and put in place guidelines for behind-the-counter staff in Centrelink to use when they are approached by these retirees, many of whom have been defrauded of their life savings.The activities of those running these pooled investment schemes are not unlike the recent business failures—take, for example, the Oakdale colliery—that have left many workers short-changed. Just before Christmas 1998 the Austral Pacific bus plant at Geebung in the electorate of Lilley closed as a result of the failure of the Clifford group of companies. In total about 240 jobs were lost. According to the figures from the receiver, an amount exceeding $6.5 million was due to employees, and that is now unlikely to be returned to those employees. Employee entitlements included at least five months of employer funded superannuation instalments and three months of voluntary superannuation payments deducted from employees' wages. The last deficiency is particularly appalling. The directors of the failed company included John Barrie Loiterton and Ian Hall. These two directors were also the directors of Globane, which had a liquidator appointed in 1996—the same year in which Gilba Holdings failed. Loiterton was also involved in an early company failure in 1974 when Vanbro Corporation went to the wall. The receiver estimates that the total deficiency for the group will be in excess of $79 million. In January of this year I referred this matter to the government and I wait with interest the results of an ASIC inquiry into this gross business failure.I simply cannot imagine just how I would react if I lost everything, especially if it were someone else's doing. For retirees whose life savings are now frozen, with no source of income, and the workers in my electorate who have lost their jobs and thousands in entitlements and superannuation, words would be of little comfort. What they desperately need is some action from this government, via all possible means to assist them in their time of hardship and to make sure they are not hung out to dry by the dodgy characters that have ripped them off.782622:51:007826Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—I would like to take this opportunity to support comments made last week by Senator Nick Minchin, Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, regarding the serious situation we face in Western Australia with the continuing downturn in mineral exploration. According to ABS statistics, exploration expenditure in WA dropped by $15 million in the March quarter, down 11 per cent from December 1998. This is part of a continuing trend that is threatening the mining and resource sector as well as the overall economy in my state. Apart from employing more than 45,000 people, the mining sector in WA is responsible for 65 per cent of the state's total invest ment, which equates to 58 per cent of the total mining investment in Australia.The three main causes of the downturn in exploration expenditure identified by the WA Chamber of Minerals and Energy are lower commodity prices, access to venture capital and uncertainty created by native title legislation being blocked in the WA state parliament. There is little we can do other than ride out the storm of falling commodity prices and the current economic downturn being experienced around the world, but the state upper house in WA is in a position to help turn around the fall in mining exploration.They can do this by allowing the Court government to proceed with the native title legislation that complements the Commonwealth's Native Title Act. Although the Titles Validation Amendment Bill was passed in April, albeit seven months after it was introduced, the Native Title (State Provisions) Bill is still to be passed by non-government members in the upper house.Mr Melham interjecting—84FWasher, Mal, MPDr WASHER—It is true, Daryl. It is time these members in the upper house realised just how important the mining sector is to the WA economy. While bearing in mind around 78 per cent of the state is currently the subject of native title claims, it is time they had a look around the state and noticed that vital exploration work is rapidly disappearing because of the uncertainty their actions have created. The only positive news is that mining companies, most likely out of frustration with the upper house, have signed a deal with the Kimberley Land Council to cover the issue of exploration across the north-west of WA. They are probably fed up with the delays caused by parliamentarians and want to get on with the job.Mining companies are also looking offshore for mineral exploration projects because of the problems they face here, which means Australia is missing out on important export dollars. I call on the upper house to take their responsibility to the people of Western Australia seriously and, for the sake of future generations of our wonderful state, end the uncertainty the mining industry is facing by passing the remainder of the native title legislation.782722:54:007827Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise this evening to talk about what I regard as a major failure of the GST package. In doing so, I refer to a conspicuous absence from negotiations, as pursued by the Democrats, of any focus at all on the question of jobs. If anything, I also suggest to the House this evening that there is no excuse for the Democrats totally ignoring the jobs issue. I also suggest that, to retain any credibility with the public, the Democrats had to ensure that the package would not cost jobs—in this endeavour the Democrats have failed dismally.At the last election, and confirmed again since the election, the Democrats made a number of non-negotiable commitments on how they would improve the employment impact of the package. The minimum jobs hurdle they set themselves called on the government to replace $2.5 billion of petrol and diesel tax cuts with cuts to payroll tax, address the job damaging effects of the tax mix, reduce the maximum taper rate on unemployment benefits, replace the proposed First Home Buyers Scheme with a GST rebate and zero rate inbound tourism packages.Not one of these commitments has been fully satisfied. How then do the Democrats reconcile this with their understandable desire to be as far removed from a GST as possible, as they initially stated to the Australian public? Beyond their minimum benchmark on jobs, the Democrats also wanted the government to explain the issues that were not resolved to their satisfaction in the Senate committee process. I again suggest that, in doing their deal, they failed to fulfil that undertaking.I raise these issues because I consider at the moment that we should have a major debate on the issue of jobs. I consider that the government actually failed Australia's young unemployed last Thursday afternoon in their hasty endeavour to bring before the parliament their youth employment bill going to the question of junior rates. I consider that we should step back, properly consider the Australian Industrial Relations Commission report and basically pursue a case by case approach on the basis of any applicant having to prove the merits of their case. This is exceptionally important in the light of the GST package—the consideration of which has today been completed—and the fact that, beyond the GST package which will in actual fact destroy jobs, we have a government that is, in essence, failing on the jobs front.All we get from the government when it comes to a debate about jobs is an endeavour to shift blame and an endeavour to suggest that there is yet another excuse. Initially we had the question of junior rates. The question of junior rates can now be properly resolved with the assistance of the Australian Labor Party and, more importantly, with the help of a constructive report from the Industrial Relations Commission.Also consider that, when you look at the plight of the long-term unemployed today, they are entitled to more than suggestions by the Minister for Employment Services that they are job snobs. They are entitled to more than mere suggestions by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, assisted by the Minister for Employment Services, that the solution to unemployment in this country is Work for the Dole.I want to clearly state this evening that, from the Labor Party's point of view, we understand that in the Australian community there is a range of organisations, including local councils and community organisations and members of the Job Network, that desire to use Work for the Dole because, in essence, it is the only scheme available at the moment to offer any form of assistance at all to the unemployed. In indicating that I am not attacking those organisations, I also clearly indicate to the House this evening that I would hope that, in embracing Work for the Dole, those organisations actually endeavour to add to Work for the Dole by trying, from their own limited local resources, to ensure that a form of accredited training is given to the unemployed who are obligated to undertake Work for the Dole activity.I raise the question of accredited training because I consider that, in any activity, we should be about giving the unemployed skills that are relevant to a job in the local community. That represents a fairly significant statement from the Australian Labor Party to the House this evening. We were the first to bring in the reciprocal obligation. We do not think Work for the Dole is adequate, but we understand it is the only existing scheme at the moment. All we ask is that those organisations who embrace it actually try to add to the endeavours of the government by incorporating into the scheme some decent training which actually rewards the unemployed for facing up to their responsibilities and, in doing so, assists them in endeavouring to get job ready and to be more attractive to employers in the Australian community. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.Notices7828The following notices were given:Mr Reith to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to workplace relations, and for related purposes.Dr Kemp to present a bill for an act to amend the Higher Education Funding Act 1988, and for related purposes.Dr Kemp to present a bill for an act to amend the Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Act 1989 and the Student Assistance Act 1973.Dr Kemp to present a bill for an act to amend the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 1996, and for related purposes.Dr Kemp to present a bill for an act to amend the Vocational Education and Training Funding Act 1992.Mr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend legislation relating to Customs, and for related purposes. Mr Williams to present a bill for an act to facilitate electronic transactions, and for other purposes.Mr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the Crimes Act 1914, and for related purposes.Mr Truss to present a bill for an Act to amend the Social Security Act 1991 in relation to the effect on social security benefits of the disposal of assets, and for related purposes.Mr McGauran to present a bill for an act to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, and for related purposes.Mr Hockey to present a bill for an act to provide for a register of unclaimed money and a register of lost members for superannuation funds, and for related purposes.Mr Hockey to present a bill for an act to deal with consequential and transitional matters arising from the enactment of the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act 1999, and for other purposes.Dr Wooldridge to present a bill for an act to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 in relation to diagnostic imaging services, and for related purposes.Mr Downer to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, and for related purposes.Mr Scott to present a bill for an act to amend the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and other legislation, and for related purposes.Mr Hockey to present a bill for an act to amend laws, and deal with transitional matters, in connection with the reform of the financial sector, and for other purposes.Mr Tuckey to move—That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:(1) consideration together forthwith of the Senate's amendments to A New Tax System bills conveyed to the House in Senate messages Nos. 154 to 157; and(2) a Minister then moving one motion—That the amendments of the Senate conveyed to the House in Senate messages Nos. 154 to 157 be agreed to. Answers to Questions in Writing7829The following answers to questions were circulated:7829(Question No. 571)5717829Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 31 March 1999:(1) During the Migration Agents Regulation Authority's (MARA) first three months of operation, (a) against which migration agents were complaints made, (b) what was the name of each agent whose registration was suspended and (c) what was the period of suspension in each case.(2) What penalties can MARA apply to agents who breach MARA's code of conduct, other that suspension of registration.(3) Is there a need to improve migration agents' conduct, especially because many agents are lodging applications which they know have no chance of success and which are designed to delay their clients being made to leave Australia; if so, does his Department record for each migration agent (a) how many applications did they lodge (b) their success rate and (c) the fees charged for the service they perform.(4) Who will the Government consult, other than MARA, on ways to further improve migration agents' conduct.7829Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—In my answer to part (1)(b) of the honourable member's question (Hansard , 13 May 1999, page 4459) incorrect information was provided. The amended answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) It is not possible to provide to the honourable Member the names of agents against whom complaints were made. Unless the name of an agent has been published because of a decision by the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA) to cancel of suspend the agent's registration, the names of agents who are subject to complaints are not made publicly available. To do so may prejudice the agent, especially where the complaint has been resolved in the agent's favour or has not been resolved.(b) One agent, Mr Jun Yuan, had his registration suspended in the period.(c) The period of suspension was for six months. (2) Under section 303 of the Migration Act 1958, MARA may cancel the agent's registration by removing his or her name from the Register of Migration Agents, or caution the agent. When an agent has been cautioned, that fact is included on the Register for the period of the caution.(3) Yes. MARA was established to undertake this function and has taken firm action to discipline agents who have been involved in unethical conduct.Regarding visa applications with "no chance of success", my Department in consultation with the Migration Institute of Australia is examining ways of further strengthening the Code of Conduct to address this matter.(a) The Departmental data base records whether a visa applicant has been assisted by a migration agent.(b) The Department does not collect information relating to the number of applications lodged by a particular agent or on the success rate.(c) Agents are not required to inform the Department about fees charged for services.(4) The Government will consider constructive proposals from any source to improve migration agents' conduct.The Code of Conduct will be examined by the review of statutory self-regulation which is being conducted by officers of my Department and guided by a Reference Group of independent experts.7829(Question No. 633)6337829Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 31 May 1999:(1) Does his Department acknowledge that unacceptable noise levels affect a number of residential properties on Nelson Bay Road, Williamtown, NSW, in direct line with the flight path of the runway at RAAF Williamtown.(2) Will he (a) authorise a survey of the area to determine how many properties are affected and (b) consider the acquisition of properties identified by the survey as adversely affected. 7830Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) techniques were developed in 1982 and forecasts of the area adjacent to RAAF Williamtown have been produced. The forecasts indicate that some properties in Nelson Bay Road, in direct alignment with the flight path, experience high noise levels.(2) (a) The last endorsed ANEF for RAAF Williamtown was produced in 1992 and forecasts the level of noise exposure until 2002. Defence is developing a new model incorporating the Hawk Lead In Fighter aircraft which will replace the Macchi aircraft currently operating from RAAF Williamtown. The forecast will indicate those properties subjected to high noise levels and local authorities will need to implement appropriate land management planning for the relevant areas surrounding the airfield.(b) Defence property acquisition is generally only undertaken in support of endorsed operational or training requirements. The Department does not acquire noise-affected property unless there are exceptional circumstances.7830(Question No. 634)6347830Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 31 May 1999:(1) Will his Department pay `solatium' to all residents of Slades Road, Williamtown, NSW, whose homes have been compulsorily acquired by his Department because of excessive noise levels.(2) Does his Department accept that the quality of life of the residents, who are mostly aged, has been diminished by the forced acquisition and subsequent relocation.7830Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The properties in Slades Road have not been compulsorily acquired. The acquisition program is voluntary which is subject to the requirements of the Lands Acquisition Act 1989. Notwithstanding the voluntary nature of these acquisitions, the Act ensures that the property owners are treated equitably and fairly in dealing with the Commonwealth.(2) Fourteen properties have been acquired on a voluntary basis and agreement has been reached with a further four owners. Negotiations are continuing on three properties and owners of three other properties have indicated they do not wish to sell.The Department engaged the Australian Valuation Office to value each property that was identified by owners as potentially for sale. Each property was assessed on the basis of its worth, ignoring the fact that it adjoined the airfield. The Department also agreed to pay:(a) costs for a second private valuation appointed by the vendor,(b) the vendors legal costs associated with the sale and the purchase of another property of a similar value,(c) stamp duty charges associated with the purchase of a property of similar value,(d) removal costs, and(e) payment of incidental costs such as telephone reconnection fees.Defence indicated from the outset that it would not pay solatium. If the properties were valued and purchased at their true value, that is, `as is, where is', then a solatium payment may have been appropriate. Given the circumstances of these properties, the Commonwealth determined that the best approach for the owners was to purchase their properties as outlined above.(2) No. This was a voluntary program and nobody has been forced to relocate. The approach taken by the Commonwealth has provided the opportunity for residents to move away from the airfield and receive fair recompense for their properties, including relocation costs, that might not otherwise have been achievable.7830(Question No. 635)6357830Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 31 May 1999:(1) Is it a fact that (a) a heritage study is being conducted on the Stockton Rifle Range and (b) agents have been commissioned to dispose of assets at the site before the heritage study has been completed; if so, will he ensure that (i) the appointment of agents to dispose of assets is terminated and no disposals occur until the results of the study have been fully and fairly considered and (ii) the site will be preserved in its entirety if the study finds that the site and its appointments have heritage significance.(2) Did the Government undertake before the 1998 general election to give the site to a trust and have it returned to its former use as an active rifle range; if so, will he ensure that the undertaking is delivered.7830Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Yes, a heritage assessment of the Stockton Rifle Range property has been carried out and a draft report received by Defence. (b) An agent has been commissioned to sell the caretaker's residence that has been assessed as being of low heritage significance in the draft report and could be removed from the site. This action was taken as there is a risk of vandalism to the residence.(i) It is intended to retain the agent until the residence is sold or it is concluded that there is no market interest. There is no intention to dispose of any other assets before the final report of the heritage assessment is completed.(ii) The draft report of the heritage assessment indicates that only a limited number of features and improvements on the property are of any heritage significance, rather than the entire site.(2) The Federal Government did not make any commitment in regard to the retention of the Stockton Rifle Range and there is no intention of gifting the site. The property is surplus to Defence requirements and disposal action is under way.7831(Question No. 644)6447831Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 June 1999:(1) On what dates since his answer to question No. 2409 (Hansard, 14 May 1998, page 3500) has he written to the Premier of New South Wales or has the Premier written to him concerning the nomination of the Sydney Opera House for inscription on the World Heritage List.(2) Will the nomination be lodged in time to be considered at the next session of the World Heritage Bureau.7831Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Premier of New South Wales, the Hon Bob Carr MP, wrote to the Prime Minister concerning nomination of the Sydney Opera House for inscription on the World Heritage List on 3 May 1999. The Prime Minister wrote to the Premier of New South Wales on the same topic on 8 June 1999.(2) No. The next meeting of the World Heritage Bureau is scheduled for 5-10 July 1999. Under the Operational Guidelines for the World Heritage Convention, a nomination submitted by 1 July in one year would be considered at the Bureau meeting in June/July of the following year.