1999-06-303913REPS785101999-06-30Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills7851r8727851Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.785109:31:007851Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.In December 1997 the Prime Minister made a commitment in his `Investing for Growth' statement to develop a light-handed regulatory framework for the online environment which supports and encourages business and consumer confidence in the use of electronic commerce. The Electronic Transactions Bill 1999 delivers on this commitment, balancing the need for greater certainty against flexibility for business and the community as the prime movers in the information economy. It removes existing impediments to electronic commerce in Commonwealth law and facilitates the development of new opportunities for business and the community in the information economy.The government recognises that it is essential that we have an internationally consistent approach to electronic commerce legislation. The Electronic Transactions Bill is based on the Model Law on Electronic Commerce prepared by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, as modified by the recommendations of the Electronic Commerce Expert Group which reported to me in March 1998. The Model Law is recognised as the leading international template for electronic commerce legislation. Australia has encouraged other jurisdictions to adopt the Model Law through our involvement in a number of international fora, including APEC and the OECD.The government has successfully sought the cooperation of the states and territories to develop a national legal framework for electronic commerce. The bill is the blueprint for national uniform legislation that will remove legal impediments and facilitate the growth of electronic commerce in Australia. At the April meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, all attorneys-general agreed to implement uniform legislation in their jurisdictions.The bill is the result of extensive public consultation. Over 70 submissions were received from government, industry, business and professional organisations in response to the exposure draft of the bill. It is very clear from the submissions that there is strong support for the bill.The bill is based on two fundamental principles. The first is `media neutrality', which means that paper based commerce and electronic commerce should be treated equally by the law. Secondly, the principle of `technology neutrality' ensures that the law does not discriminate between different forms of technology.As current Australian law neither recognises nor denies the validity of electronic communications, the bill establishes the basic rule that a transaction is not invalid because it took place by means of an electronic communication. Following this general rule, the bill sets out specific provisions which state that a requirement or permission under a law of the Commonwealth for a person to provide information in writing, to sign or produce a document or to retain information or a document can be satisfied in electronic form, subject to certain minimum criteria being satisfied.While some jurisdictions overseas have enacted technology specific legislation dealing with digital signatures, we have taken a flexible, technology neutral approach that allows electronic signatures to meet existing requirements for handwritten signatures, subject to certain minimum criteria.The bill also contains clauses that establish rules, which will apply in the absence of any contrary agreement, dealing with the time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic communications and the attribution of electronic communications. The bill has a two- step implementation process. Prior to 1 July 2001, the bill will only apply to laws of the Commonwealth specified in regulations. After that date, the bill will apply to all laws of the Commonwealth unless they have been specifically excluded from the application of the bill. I present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills7852r8947852Bill presented by Mr Reith, and read a first time.785209:36:007852Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.It is a national imperative for there to be progressive, evolutionary change to Australia's workplace relations system. Australian workplaces operate in an ever changing, ever challenging environment.Similarly, as workers we want our living standards and those of our families to improve. The living standards of Australian workers and families depend on workplaces that have the capacity to maintain and improve those standards.Australia may be isolated geographically from the rest of the world, but we must keep pressing to achieve an internationally competitive workplace relations system. The rest of the world is much closer to us than we really think. It has a say in the quality of our pay packets.With the world moving ahead, remaining stationary in our reform effort really means that we fall behind. And if our workplace relations system falls behind, then so do our living standards. And, of course, workplace relations systems affect not only those in jobs but also the chances of unemployed Australians to get jobs.We still have too many unemployed people in Australia. That is why it is the responsibili ty of the Australian government to do what a government is elected to do—to show leadership in the national interest, to make Australia stronger and to implement the improvements to Australia's workplace relations system that we promised at the last federal election.Of course, workplace relations does not just involve economic considerations. It is also about human relationships, about fair dealing between employers and employees and about social considerations, such as getting the relationship between our work and family life better balanced and giving the many unemployed an opportunity to compete in the labour market.That is why workplace relations reform is, under the coalition government, evolutionary change. Real people, real families, real workplaces are involved. But if this parliament considers it right to make change in an evolutionary rather than radical way then it must take up the opportunities for amendment as and when the next stage in the reform cycle comes along.The changes the coalition government will be making to the workplace relations system in the second half of 1999 are the next evolutionary changes to the system, three years after the 1996 reforms. They are what we said we would do when we released our More Jobs, Better Pay policy in September 1998.Our 1996 reforms have helped Australia become much stronger with fewer strikes, low inflation, higher productivity and low interest rates, have helped Australian families improve their living standards with more flexibility and more disposable income, have protected the low paid with real wage increases, have helped create more than 400,000 new jobs in our economy and have helped reduce unemployment to the lowest levels this decade.These outcomes are the product of having been determined enough to do the right thing and take the initial steps in the reform cycle three years ago. It follows that continuing the same type of reforms, and building on their strengths, will allow all of us to reap the same benefits into the future. That is why the government is introducing this bill—not as an abstract policy prescription but to improve the quality of workplace relations in Australia and the outcomes for workers, employers and those seeking work.We may not know the future, but we can make it more secure for our nation, for ourselves and for our families. We have such a good quality of life in Australia that we cannot afford to miss reform opportunities.This next phase of workplace relations reforms build on the objects of the 1996 system that we now know has worked well. They propose important amendments that are necessary in light of experience to improve the operation of the system, entrench its gains and extend its benefits more widely throughout the work force.. They will continue to give workers and employers at their workplace more choice and more opportunities to manage their relationships without forced interference from unwanted parties.. They will continue to end the paternalism of the old system which told workers, their workmates and their employer what was good for them, without any regard to their own circumstances.. They will make intervention by third parties in decisions made by workers or their employers more democratic and more relevant, removing similar centralisation and control eliminated by governments in comparable economies, including measures taken in the United Kingdom in the mid-1980s and not since overturned by the Blair Labour government.. They will continue to devolve powers to the workplace where workers rights to make agreements individually or as a group, to withdraw their labour or not, to join or not join unions and to decide just how they want their industrial disputes resolved should be recognised and respected.. They will continue to remove unnecessary complexity from the system so that workers and employers get a real say, not just lawyers, management consultants and union officials.. They will continue to maintain a safety net of minimum wages and conditions to protect the low paid and disadvantaged in the work force.. They will continue to remove red tape and unjustified cost, especially from small and medium sized businesses, including in the area of unfair dismissals.ObjectsThe objects of the Workplace Relations Act will be amended to reflect and reinforce the reform agenda and to emphasise the proper safety net role of awards. The principal object and the objects of part VI will be amended to make it clear that the safety net is intended to help address the needs of the low paid. The amendments clarify that awards should be primarily for the protection of the low paid (rather than other groups) and that the level of wages and conditions is a factor in meeting their needs. They also indicate (by referring to `appropriate' allowable award matters) that this safety net does not require every allowable award matter to be included in each award made under the act.The principal object is also being amended to recognise the role of mediation as an option available for dispute resolution; articulate the principle underpinning the introduction of secret ballots, and recognise changes to the commission's powers and functions in relation to both voluntary and compulsory conciliation. The amended principal object will also make it clear that industrial action that does not have protected status under division 8 of part VIB of the act is inconsistent with the purposes of the act. The act does not imply any legitimacy for such unprotected industrial action and provisions of the act about stopping or preventing such action should be applied in that context.Workplace agreementsAustralian Workplace Agreements (AWAs), Certified Agreements (CAs) and the `no disadvantage test' are retained. However, agreement approval will be simplified by streamlining some of the current procedural and approval requirements. Agreements based on the corporations power of the Constitution may be lodged with the Workplace Relations Registrar (or commission where there is doubt about the agreement) with appropriate supporting documentation, and will only be tested by the commission in certain circumstances including when a threshold number of em ployees raise objections to the agreement within a 14 day period after lodgement. For other certified agreements, the commission will only conduct public hearings on request, or where it has serious concerns regarding the filed documentation.Unions that have chosen to be bound by agreements made directly with employees will no longer be able to block the extension or variation of those agreements. Provisions currently placing limitations on certified agreements that apply to a part of a single business will be repealed. A certified agreement made after the nominal expiry date of an award made under section 170MX will prevail over the award, and a certified agreement made under the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act will prevail over a CA made under the provisions of the previous Industrial Relations Act.The current filing and approval processes for AWAs will be amalgamated to ensure a much simpler and more streamlined process. AWAs and variation agreements will be able to take effect from the day of signing or the date specified in the agreement or the day employment commences. This will mean that there is a presumption that the AWA meets all the statutory tests and that the parties in agreement require no further action. There are complementary provisions introducing cooling off periods and provisions to fully protect employee interests. AWAs for high salary earners (those whose remuneration is higher than $68,000) will be fast tracked, and identical AWAs will not be required to be offered to all comparable employees.Approval of all AWAs will be by the Employment Advocate. Where agreements are made which raise concerns about the `no disadvantage' test (NDT), the Employment Advocate will retain the right to request that parties modify their agreement if it does not meet the requirements of the NDT, or reject the agreement. The Employment Advocate will also be empowered to approve AWAs on public interest grounds (for example, to meet circumstances where short-term business survival is at issue) but must do so in accordance with principles which may be laid down by the AWRC.In addition to simplifying agreement making processes, the legislation will allow greater scope for use of AWAs, including their operating more effectively in combination with CAs. AWAs will prevail over CAs, either to the extent of any inconsistency or comprehensively. At present, this may only occur in limited circumstances. In addition, certified agreements will not be able to operate to exclude later AWAs, as is the case under current arrangements. Provision is also being made to ensure AWAs are not excluded by those awards, for the term of their duration, made under section 170MX.Consistent with changes to the principal object and the objects of part VI focusing the safety net on the low paid, our amendments make it explicit that maintenance of internal relativities between classification based rates of pay within awards is not a relevant consideration in adjusting the safety net.AwardsAllowable matters provisions will be tightened to clarify the original intent of the legislation and maintain the statutory rigour of the allowable matters provisions and to remove elements which duplicate other legislative entitlements, or are more appropriately decided at the workplace. Our amendments will more clearly require the commission, when simplifying awards, to have regard to the primacy of agreement making, the productivity and efficiency requirements of businesses—including small business—the removal of inefficient work practices and the importance of regulating workplaces to the minimum extent only.The definitions and specifications of the various allowable award matters are also being tightened by reference to the basic elements of the relevant entitlement that is within the award making jurisdiction. For example, redundancy pay will only relate to genuine redundancy, and not to custom and practice that arise in certain industries, and the range of matters referred to by `other like forms of leave' will be more closely specified.The current provisions of section 89A which allow matters that are incidental to the specified allowable award matters and neces sary for the effective operation of the award are amended so that only matters which are essential for the purpose of making a particular provision operate in a practical way can be included. A full bench of the commission will be required to approve all exceptional matters orders, rather than just multi-employer EMOs as is currently the case.To provide a greater incentive to the parties for the award simplification process to be undertaken expeditiously, the current process for dealing with obsolete awards is being amended to require the registrar to identify such awards every three years (rather than the current five) and, once these awards are identified, to require the commission to finalise its dealings within six months. Awards will also be required to be simplified before they can be varied for the purposes of including future safety net adjustments.Interaction of state and federal jurisdictionsThe Workplace Relations Act is being amended to strengthen the presumption in favour of existing forms of regulation of employment relationships to the exclusion of proposed new federal award coverage. It will give greater recognition to cases where an employment relationship has been subject to statutory minimum employment conditions. This stronger presumption will apply to all cases before the commission which have not yet been finally determined on the question of whether a federal award should be made.Roping-inBusinesses, and particularly small businesses, require better notice of proposed hearings of union roping-in logs of claims and broader rights of objection to them. Parties will be given at least 28 days notice prior to the initial listing of logs of claims which include unlawful demands or claims relating to matters outside the commission's jurisdiction. In addition, small business and other employers need to better understand their workplace relations responsibilities. To accommodate this, the act is being amended so that when logs of claims are served the industrial organisation making the demand must serve the other party with an information sheet relating to such claims. Content requirements for the sheet will be detailed in the regulations.Australian Workplace Relations Commission (AWRC)The Australian Industrial Relations Commission is to be renamed the Australian Workplace Relations Commission (AWRC) to reinforce the workplace focus of the system. Consistent with the government's policy statement More Jobs Better Pay, a number of changes are also being made to introduce contemporary management practices into the structure of the commission and provide the president with more responsibility over its work.In order to put in place a more contemporary structure and increase the commission's flexibility to meet the changing mix and volume of its workload, the government is introducing a new three-tier structure to replace the current five-tier structure. The new structure will be comprised of a president, vice-presidents and commissioners, collapsing the current vice-president, deputy president and senior deputy president levels into the one level of vice-president. The remuneration of current members will be protected. Seniority will be removed as a basis for appointment to higher levels and revised tenure arrangements will be introduced for new appointees other than the president, allowing appointments for a fixed term of seven years. Provision will also be made for acting commissioners, on a similar basis to arrangements which currently apply to presidential members. This will allow for the commission to respond more flexibly to changing workloads.In addition, a number of changes are being made in key areas of the commission's operations. The president, in conjunction with the Workplace Relations Registrar, is to be given greater responsibility and powers for managing the work of the commission and the registry, including over the training and professional development of members, also taking into account the needs of the concurrently appointed state members.These changes will underpin the continuing introduction of contemporary management practices to improve access to, and the service delivery of, the commission and registry. They will be complemented by enhanced reporting requirements.ConciliationIn order to assist the parties to achieve better outcomes by taking greater responsibility for their workplace relations arrangements, and also with the formal recognition being given to voluntary mediation, it is necessary to vary current compulsory conciliation requirements. The commission's compulsory conciliation powers will be limited to disputes relating to allowable matters, following termination of a bargaining period on certain grounds, demarcation disputes, unfair dismissal cases and, in exceptional circumstances, other disputes. Conciliation of private disputes in relation to non-allowable matters—that is, matters over which there cannot be arbitration—will be voluntary with a flat fee of $500 per application to be charged by the commission.Complementary measures are being put in place to remove unnecessary procedural requirements in relation to voluntary conciliation in the agreement stream to reinforce the voluntary and informal nature of the proceedings.MediationMore Jobs Better Pay committed the government to giving formal legislative recognition to the provision of voluntary mediation services in industrial disputes as an alternative or supplement to the quasi-legal processes of the commission. While informal mediation has always been available to the parties, a clear role is being articulated for mediation as a substitute for tribunal based involvement. This legislation formally recognises the availability of mediation on a voluntary basis as an option for dispute resolution prior to protected action, during suspension of a bargaining period, following termination of a bargaining period, as a step in dispute resolution procedures and in relation to agreement making generally. The legislation also ensures that federal and state industrial authorities can be restrained from acting in appropriate cases where the parties are undergoing mediation. A facility will be established to accredit mediators and promote the use of mediation. This change is consistent with the progressive development of a less centralised, less structured and more varied system that offers the parties more choice to develop their own workplace relations arrangements and culture. Mediation will provide an opportunity for a less interventionist and more informal alternative to the commission's conciliation processes. The involvement of independent mediators will also extend services for regional and small business, and for parties not wishing to get involved in the commission's formal processes.To support the effective use of mediation, a Mediation Adviser will be established to establish and maintain a list of accredited mediators, approve mediation agencies to carry out assessment and accreditation of mediators, set competency standards in association with approved agencies and promote the use of mediation.Unlawful industrial action and complianceThe act is being amended to improve the efficiency of the making and enforcement of orders against unprotected industrial action and to give better access to common-law remedies. The commission will be required to make an order under section 127 directing industrial action to cease as soon as it is satisfied that such action is unprotected. The legislation is also being amended to require that the AWRC as far as practicable must deal with a section 127 application within 48 hours of the application being received. If the application has not been determined within the 48 hours, the AWRC must issue an interim order to stop the industrial action, unless to do so would be contrary to the public interest. The amendments also clarify that sympathy and political action is unprotected.In addition to directing that unprotected action cease, the AWRC will be able to make an order to prohibit impending or planned industrial action. It will also be able to make an order where there has been industrial action in the past three months and there is a possibility of further industrial action. Applications for orders will be able to be made by a person either directly or indirectly affected (or likely to be affected) by industrial action, and orders will be able to be made in respect of unions and their officials.We are amending the act to clarify that orders may only be made against employers in respect of unprotected lockout action (not, for example, to prevent employers from changing rosters or relocating staff). Orders will be available in situations where work is regulated by an agreement made under the Workplace Relations Act. Our amendments further require the Federal Court to act promptly in dealing with applications for enforcement of section 127 orders. State Supreme Courts are also being given the power to enforce section 127 orders (including by injunction). Current restrictions on access to court (tort) action will be lifted by repeal of section 166A of the WR Act.Protected industrial action and secret ballotsProtected industrial action will be preceded by longer (five-day) notice periods and by a secret ballot process overseen by the AWRC, which will be empowered to determine whether a ballot should or should not proceed. An application for a secret ballot can be refused on the grounds that the applicant is engaged in pattern bargaining or is not genuinely trying to reach agreement.An application for a secret ballot will only be able to be made during a bargaining period and will be required to include a range of information, such as the proposed certified agreement to which a secret ballot relates, the group of employees or members who are to be balloted, and the question or questions to be asked in the ballot. Members of organisations making agreements (or the employees to be covered in the case of non-union agreements) would be eligible to vote in a ballot. The vote would be carried by a majority of valid votes cast with a quorum required of at least 50 per cent of eligible voters. The ballot paper will be required to include information on a range of matters together with a prescribed statement outlining the implications of taking or not taking industrial action. The government will refund 80 per cent of the reasonable and genuinely incurred costs of a ballot. The AWRC will be empowered to suspend a bargaining period on application from a negotiating party if 14 days have passed since the protected industrial action commenced, unless the AWRC considers it is in the public interest for the bargaining period to continue. Suspension or termination of a bargaining period by the AWRC will also be required in the case of a party engaging in unprotected action in relation to a proposed agreement. The amendments will also allow for a bargaining period to be terminated if a party is engaging in pattern bargaining. The commission will still be able to terminate a bargaining period of its own accord in certain circumstances where protected action is threatening the health or welfare of the population or impacting adversely on the economy overall.Where suspension or termination of the bargaining period occurs, the AWRC will be required to inform the parties of the availability of voluntary conciliation and mediation services and of the role of the Mediation Adviser.Strike payIn order to prevent distortion of the statutory intention, the legislation will expressly define the period in relation to which payment of strike pay is prohibited as the whole of each working day upon which any industrial action occurs.Freedom of association Amendments will give wider coverage to the freedom of association provisions of the act by closing loopholes which have emerged in the operation of part XA. There will be greater protection for employers and subcontractors and their employees against indirect pressure or coercion. In particular, conduct which breaches freedom of association under the guise of `site agreements' will be prohibited. It will be unlawful for a person who is in breach of part XA to continue to establish or maintain union closed shops, and parties will be required to take positive steps to overcome them. The current prohibition clauses in agreements which directly require union preference will equally apply to indirect preference provisions such as union encouragement or discouragement clauses. The provisions of the act which allow the Federal Court to set aside or vary contracts made by independent contractors, will be repealed.Right of entryIn order to enter an employer's premises for the purposes of investigation or discussion, a union official will be required to have a written invitation from a union member. Invitations are to be effective for 28 days. To protect the anonymity of individual union members, a system of certificates will be introduced which will require union officials, if so desired by their members, to attain a certificate from the registrar. These certificates will act as a substitute for an invitation for the purpose of entry to premises.Under the proposed changes, there will be a requirement that permit holders provide at least 24 hours written notice to the relevant employer and the occupier of the premises of their intention to enter the workplace. Union officials will only have the right to inspect records which relate to the employment of their members. Where a permit holder has intentionally hindered or obstructed any person or otherwise acted in an improper manner, the commission will have the power to revoke or vary a permit.Termination of employmentThe burden on employers, especially small and medium businesses, of unfair dismissal applications will be further eased through reforms to discourage speculative and unmeritorious claims and introduce greater rigour into their processing. Access to costs will be widened, contingency fees disclosed and the commission will be required, at the conciliation stage, to make a recommendation as to the appropriate settlement or discontinuance of the matter, having regard to the merits of the case. Constructive dismissal claims, where employees resign but claim unfair dismissal, will be tightened.Mr Speaker, the introduction of this bill implements almost all remaining elements of the coalition's More Jobs Better Pay workplace relations policy for which a mandate was obtained at the October 1998 federal election. Already since the election the government has introduced and reintroduced legislation relating to youth wages, unfair dismissals and occupational superannuation. The bill also follows an extensive consultation process over the past 18 months, including the release of six ministerial discussion papers, a detailed election policy, a public implementation paper and stakeholder consultation through the National Labour Consultative Council and its Committee on Industrial Legislation. I thank all those who have constructively participated in these consultations.Australia faces many challenges, some foreseen and some unforeseen as we enter the next millennium. We know that continuing to reform our workplace relations system, especially in relatively strong economic times, will make us stronger for those unforeseen economic and social challenges, and for the protection of the Australian sense of a fair go.I commend the bill to the House and table the explanatory memorandum along with the regulatory impact statement.10:00:007858Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—We look forward to a full and thorough debate on this most vital issue. I move:That the debate be adjourned.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills7858r8797858Bill presented by Dr Kemp, and read a first time.785810:01:007858Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Australia needs a skilled and educated population to meet the challenges and opportunities arising from new technology, changes in the domestic economy and globalisation.Australia has a good higher education system; an achievement recognised by surveys of graduates and the large numbers of overseas students choosing to study here. But we are working in a rapidly changing environment and there is always scope for improvement. The universities must be highly responsive to their students and to the expectations of employers and the general community.The universities must take principal responsibility for increasing their income. They have already made substantial efforts in this direction, with total university revenue increasing by around $700 million since 1995.The government's policies to diversify the mix between public and private funding for universities means that there will be an estimated $8.6 billion available to Australian universities this year.The universities' efforts to expand their own income are on the base of a very substantial investment from the Commonwealth government on behalf of taxpayers. This year universities will, including money collected from students via the HECS system, receive almost $5.6 billion from the government.The government has introduced two major flexibilities for the universities which enable them to increase their income.It now pays around $2,500 for each undergraduate enrolled above the number allocated to each institution. This makes it economic for the universities to utilise any extra capacity they have. On the early estimates for 1999 there are 36,000 undergraduate places that will be funded on this basis.The government has also allowed the universities to offer full fee-paying undergraduate courses. This enables students to do their course of first choice. While it is disappointing that some universities continue to deny students this opportunity, there are now 1,740 of these places.These extra places come in addition to the increase in fully funded undergraduate places.The government has created an extra 12,665 Commonwealth funded places for undergraduate students in the past two years. In 1999 the Commonwealth will fund 364,400 undergraduate student places in universities. No government in Australia's history has provided so many fully funded undergraduate places.The cumulative effect of these policies is that there is now a record number of under graduate places in Australia's universities. The early estimate is that there are 402,372 such places, the first time the number has exceeded 400,000, and an increase of 40,000 places over Labor's last year.The additional funding to James Cook University provided in this bill honours an election commitment for 60 medical places at James Cook University, with the first intake of students expected at the start of the 2001 academic year, following accreditation by the Australian Medical Council. The new medical school will increase the proportion of rural and remote students studying medicine. In each year's intake, five places will be earmarked for indigenous students and 15 for students from rural and remote areas.In line with the government's election commitment to lift funding for research expenditure, the bill provides an additional $36.8 million in each of 2000 and 2001. This will bring total funding for research infrastructure over the next three years 1999, 2000 and 2001 to over $315 million.This bill also enhances university and industry collaboration. It includes provision for $4.9 million in 2000 and $9.8 million in 2001 for science lectureships. The development of graduates with the knowledge and skills to work in emerging industries and technologies is vital for Australia's economic growth.The bill includes savings resulting from the phasing out of the Merit Based Equity Scholarships Scheme. The scheme was reviewed in 1998, with the review finding that the scheme had had little impact on encouraging people who would not otherwise have enrolled to attend university. Students currently holding a scholarship will continue to do so, but no new scholarships will be available from 2000.The bill also provides funding of $4 million for 2001 for the international marketing and promotion of Australian education and training services by Australian Education International. This funding will support the continued growth of Australia's education and training export industry.The measures in this bill continue the government's objectives of fostering a quality higher education sector that is open, accessible and responsive to Australia's future needs.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills7860r8807860Bill presented by Dr Kemp, and read a first time.786010:07:007860Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill amends the Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Act 1989 to give effect to initiatives announced in the 1999-2000 budget. The bill will provide for the continuation of the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program (IESIP) for the 2000 calendar year, including the application of cost supplementation to these new funds.Further, the bill provides for the continuation of the mixed-mode course delivery away-from-base element of the Abstudy scheme which will now operate more effectively under IESIP. This bill specifically contains funding arrangements for education providers delivering Abstudy approved courses during 2000.The bill contains a consequential amendment to the Student Assistance Act 1973, transferring the appropriation of the away-from-base element of the Abstudy scheme to the Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Act 1989.The passage of this bill will enable the Commonwealth to play its part, in concert with the states and territories, in pursuing the goal of educational equity for our indigenous students by 2004. This goal is vital if indigenous people and communities are to enjoy the many opportunities available in Australia.This bill relates specifically to the year 2000. IESIP funding (including the away-from-base element of Abstudy) will continue to the year 2004. Further legislation for indigenous education (supplementary assistance) will be introduced during 2000 with the aim of more closely aligning this with states grants (primary and secondary education assistance) legislation which operates on a quadrennial basis. This is due to commence a new quadrennium in 2001. It is hoped that this will result in consistency between the acts in areas such as educational and financial accountability and other outcomes requirements.This bill proposes changes in the administration of the Abstudy scheme. This follows the review of Abstudy which was undertaken in 1998 in the context of the introduction of the Youth Allowance. The review has informed the government's recent decisions on Abstudy. On 15 December 1998, the government announced that Abstudy would be retained as a separate scheme and that changes to it would be implemented on 1 January 2000. These changes improve opportunities for disadvantaged indigenous people.Specifically, the mixed-mode course delivery away-from-base element is to be transferred from Abstudy to IESIP in the form of block grants to institutions. As IESIP currently provides supplementary assistance to education providers under outcomes focused agreements, away-from-base assistance will build onto these existing agreements and monitoring arrangements.Abstudy away-from-base assistance is designed to help meet travel costs, meals and accommodation for students participating in compulsory course activities such as placements, residential schools and field trips. The `mixed-mode' courses, that are part of the away-from-base activities, are delivered through a combination of distance education and face-to-face teaching. It is generally acknowledged that this method of course delivery is more culturally appropriate than on-campus delivery for many indigenous students from remote areas as it enables the student to remain in the community for much of the time but still receive the support of face-to-face teaching. This is an important aspect that allows indigenous Australians with community obligations to participate and benefit from higher education.The block grant amount paid to each provider in the year 2000 will be determined by a formula which takes into account the number of eligible indigenous students enrolled in 2000 and an education provider unit cost, based on 1998 allocations, which varies from provider to provider.The Abstudy changes will not decrease the government's financial commitment to indigenous education. While there may be some reduction in the forward estimates for Abstudy, the funds will be redirected to other areas of indigenous education.This funding affirms the Commonwealth's commitment to indigenous education in Australia.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills7861r8857861Bill presented by Dr Kemp, and read a first time.786110:12:007861Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill amends the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 1996 to give effect to initiatives announced in the 1999-2000 budget. These initiatives will provide:. $36.3 million in 2000 to increase funding under the Literacy and Numeracy Program to help schools measurably improve the literacy and numeracy skills of students in the early and middle years of schooling. This funding will support two initiatives: Support for the National Literacy and Numeracy Plan, and Strategies to improve literacy and numeracy in the middle years of schooling; and. $26.4 million to extend funding for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) Strategy in 2000.The bill also contains provisions which:. provide an additional $10.1 million for each of the program years 2000 up to, and including, 2003 for the non-government component of the Capital Grants Program to maintain funding at the same real level as for the period 1997 to 1999;. provide an additional $1.9 million for Short Term Emergency Assistance (STEA) in 2000 to allow schools experiencing severe financial hardship or facing problems of viability to apply for STEA during the transitional period to the new socioeconomic status (SES) funding model for non-government schools; and. make a minor technical amendment to the headings in the act to change the name of the literacy program to the Literacy and Numeracy Program.The government's continuing support for improvements in school students' literacy and numeracy skills is a key aspect of the government's overall strategy to improve literacy and numeracy skills of young Australians. The Commonwealth makes a very significant financial contribution to support the work of schools and teachers in improving the literacy and numeracy skills of young Australians. The 1999-2000 budget provides an additional $131 million under the Literacy and Numeracy Program for disadvantaged school students, making a total of almost $869 million for literacy and numeracy in the next four years to 2002-03.Research has shown that, for young Australians, the consequences of poor literacy and numeracy achievement at school include an increased likelihood of leaving school early, poor access to further education and training and a much higher risk of unemployment. If students receive support in acquiring literacy and numeracy skills at school, it will reduce their risk of unemployment by increasing their ability to participate in education and improving their ability to successfully participate in the work force.The Commonwealth is working with states and territories to ensure that all children achieve an acceptable standard of literacy and numeracy skills.The additional funding will help schools measurably improve the literacy and numeracy skills of students in the early and middle years of schooling. Funding will be provided under the Literacy and Numeracy Program and will commence on 1 January 2000.The National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) Strategy is a cooperative initiative between Commonwealth, state and territory governments.The strategy assists government and non-government schools to improve participation and proficiency levels in language learning in four targeted Asian languages—Japanese, Chinese (Mandarin), Indonesian and Korean—and to introduce or increase Asian studies content across the curriculum.The Commonwealth initially agreed to fund the program for four years, with further funding subject to an evaluation of the program. The evaluation informed the discussions which resulted in the continuation of the task force established by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) to monitor the implementation of the NALSAS Strategy.This bill provides $26.4 million to continue funding for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools Strategy in 2000 to support enhanced and expanded Asian languages and Asian studies provision through all school systems in order to improve Australia's capacity and preparedness to interact internationally, particularly with key Asian economies.This extra funding for the NALSAS Strategy will be used to provide continued support to teachers and students.The government's funding policies for schools will assist in ensuring quality educa tional outcomes for students in government and non-government schools. Total direct Commonwealth schools funding will amount to more than $17 billion over the period 1997 to 2000.This funding affirms the Commonwealth's commitment to schooling in Australia.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills7862r8937862Bill presented by Dr Kemp, and read a first time.786210:18:007862Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Vocational Education and Training Funding Act 1992 appropriates funds to support vocational education and training which are provided to the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) for distribution to the states and territories and for national projects.This bill would increase the amount previously appropriated for 1999 by $14.208 million in line with normal price adjustments, taking total funding for 1999 to $918.352 million.The bill would also appropriate the same level of funding for 2000, giving effect to the government's commitment to maintain funding in real terms for the three-year duration of the Australian National Training Authority Agreement 1998 to 2000.This agreement is a recognition by both the Commonwealth, state and territory governments that a strong national vocational education and training system is essential to develop the skills necessary to increase the productivity and competitiveness of Australian industry, and to enable individual Australians to optimise their potential.Under the agreement, the states and territories have also undertaken to achieve growth in their vocational education and training systems through efficiencies.This is already well under way. I am pleased to report that state and territory ministers have estimated that, by the end of 1999, there will be an additional 70,000 training places provided nationally over the 1997 level.This is an excellent outcome, especially for young Australians, who will benefit from additional opportunities to undertake vocational education and training that will help them gain real jobs.It will, of course, also benefit those already in the labour market by enabling them to maintain the competitive advantage that up-to-date skills provide.The Commonwealth funding provided to the states and territories through ANTA will promote higher standards, provide increased training opportunities and encourage greater choice and flexibility in vocational education and training.It is a key element in the government's support of the sector and, like the recent budget, clearly reflects the Commonwealth's continuing commitment to strengthen Australia's vocational education and training system.Overall, this year's budget provides a total of $1.6 billion for vocational education and training. This includes $354 million in 1999-2000 for New Apprenticeships.There is a record number of new apprentices in training; standing at an all-time high of 206,400 as at December 1998.The significant growth in the numbers in training is testament to the government's initiatives to modernise apprenticeships and traineeships. Through the government's reforms, New Apprenticeships have now expanded real work based training into new industries and occupations such as information technology, business services, retailing, tourism and hospitality. In a flexible way, new apprenticeships are delivering training which responds directly to the needs of businesses and are opening up opportunities for unprecedented numbers of Australians in high growth industries as well as in traditional trades.To ensure that people in rural areas can share in these new training opportunities, an extra $51.4 million is being provided under the Rural and Regional New Apprenticeships Program from 1 January 1999. This will help to boost opportunities for employment in emerging industries such as information technology, retail and hospitality for an estimated 30,000 new apprenticeships in rural Australia.The government has also maintained funding of about $13 million per year for the continuation of the Jobs Pathway Program, which is an important way to help the 70 per cent of school leavers who do not go directly on to university to move successfully from school to work.Together with the government's reforms to vocational training, this funding will provide a sound basis to meet the training challenges that the economy and community will face as we move into the next century.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills7863r8717863Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.786310:23:007863Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill proposes to amend the Customs Act 1901 in three separate areas. The first is the introduction of an electronic lodgment and payments system for refunds of customs duty, the second is the introduction of a customs duty deferral facility and the third is an extension to the length of customs agents licences from one to three years.Electronic lodgment of refund applicationsThe electronic lodgment and payments system for refunds of customs duty (ELOR) is an enhancement to the customs import entry computer system (COMPILE). The process of automating the refunds system has been accommodated by this enhancement, and it will be accessible to users of the COMPILE system.In order to finalise refund applications under the present legislation, customs brokers and importers must physically lodge the application at a customs office for processing. Providing no further supporting documentation is required and a refund circumstance exists, it may take anywhere up to 30 days before customs staff are able to manually process this request.In addition, this manual process is very resource intensive, with approximately 60,000 refund applications lodged across Australia in the last two years.The amendments proposed in this bill will provide a head of power for the making of regulations to permit the processing of refund applications electronically. It is proposed that the customs regulations will prescribe the enhanced COMPILE computer system for this purpose as soon as this bill receives parliamentary passage.As with other electronic reporting systems in the customs environment, the new system will provide an electronic option; the existing manual lodgment system for refunds will still be available for any person who chooses to do so.The government acknowledges the support from industry for the ELOR initiative and places on record that the funding for the development, consultation, implementation, testing, training and post-implementation review has been provided by industry through the Cargo Automation Development Fund.Customs duty deferral facilityThe second initiative dealt with in this bill relates to a proposed customs duty deferral facility. At present, customs duty on imported goods is paid before the goods are released into home consumption. However, there are no current provisions in the act specifying the time when customs duty must be paid, nor are there any general provisions in the act allowing the payment of duty to be deferred.The proposed amendments will expressly stipulate the time when payment of customs duty is required, and provide a mechanism for the deferral of payment of customs duty by enabling regulations to prescribe later times for the payment of such duty.These amendments will bring the Customs Act into line with the government's GST legislation in so far as the latter creates a link between the payment of customs duty and GST on imports. The GST legislation makes GST on imports payable at the same time, place and manner that customs duty is payable. Where deferral of GST on imports is to be permitted under that legislation, these amendments to the customs legislation will permit a similar deferral of customs duty to be entertained.Customs brokers licensing systemThe final element of this bill proposes amendments to the customs brokers licensing system resulting from a review of that system undertaken by Customs, the Customs Brokers Council of Australia, and the National Customs Agents Licensing Advisory Committee.The proposed amendments are that customs agents licences be extended from one to three years and that the time when licences be renewed be changed from 31 December to 30 June. It is also proposed to replace the word `agent' with `broker' to accurately reflect current industry usage. These proposed amendments are explained in detail in the explanatory memorandum to this bill, and have the full support of the industry groups mentioned.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned. Bills7865r8487865Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.786510:28:007865Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill amends section 15A of the Crimes Act 1914. Effective and efficient mechanisms to ensure that fines are paid are an essential part of any criminal justice system. This bill is a small but significant step in the Commonwealth's ongoing efforts to ensure that federal fines can be enforced at the least possible enforcement cost to the taxpayer.As a result of the separation of powers requirement in the Commonwealth Constitution, penalties ranging from imprisonment to property seizure can only be imposed on a federal fine defaulter by a court. This requirement has caused some administrative difficulties, because the Commonwealth relies on states and territories to enforce its fines, and many of these states and territories have moved to devolve enforcement powers to administrative agencies or to enforcement units within the court system.The effect of the amendments in this bill will be to allow some corresponding devolution in federal cases. The bill will exempt fine enforcement from the general rule that only a magistrate can exercise federal judicial jurisdiction. Instead, federal judicial jurisdiction to enforce fines will be available to any officer of a summary court with equivalent jurisdiction under state or territory law, subject to one qualification I will outline below.There are three main reasons for allowing court officers to enforce federal fines. Firstly, the `fine enforcement' burden imposed on busy magistrates will be eased. Secondly, many rural and regional areas have a court officer in permanent residence whereas a magistrate may only visit periodically on circuit. In these areas, federal fine enforce ment will be easier and more timely if court officers can impose relevant penalties.Finally, fine enforcement systems in a number of states and territories rely heavily on court officers to impose penalties for fine default. In these states and territories the ability to use court officers in federal cases will allow federal cases to be dealt with more efficiently within the state or territory fine enforcement system.As a matter of federal constitutional law, a state or territory court officer can only exercise federal judicial power if his or her decision can be appealed to or reviewed by a magistrate. States and territories will be notified that their law must allow some scope for appeal or review if they want officers of their courts of summary jurisdiction to be able to impose penalties on federal fine defaulters.The financial impact of the amendments is not quantifiable. The amendments will not require additional funding but will facilitate the use of more efficient fine enforcement procedures. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned.Bills7865r8847865Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.786510:32:007865Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCommunity Services10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This government is committed to the effective delivery of its assistance measures, and part of this involves encouraging more responsible attitudes in the community.As foreshadowed in the 1999 budget, this bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 to introduce improvements to the provisions which prescribe how much a person can dispose of by way of gifts and still remain qualified for assistance from the public purse.Currently, the Social Security Act 1991 allows a person or a couple to give away up to $10,000 per pension year before the gift begins to impact on the level of assistance. This annual $10,000 `free area' is anomalous in that it is greater than the maximum single pension rate—some $9,400 per annum. The result is that under the current rules an income support recipient can give away more than that person is entitled to receive by way of assistance. Needless to say, this loophole has become a favourite tool for many financial planners who exploit it to increase the income support entitlement of their customers.This bill will close this loophole by reducing the annual `free area' to $5,000, with effect from 1 July 1999. However, provision is made in the bill to ensure that any income support paid on the basis of the existing disposal rules before royal assent to the bill is protected from being recovered from the income support recipient insofar as these amendments are concerned.At the same time, the bill will take the opportunity to change the basis of the concession from `pension year' to the more widely understood `financial year'.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Bevis) adjourned.Bills7866r8917866Bill presented by Mr McGauran, and read a first time.786610:36:007866McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1999 will amend the Television Licence Fees Act 1964 to impose a requirement on commercial television broadcasting licensees to pay an additional amount in licence fees of $1.21 million in the 1999-2000 financial year, $1.21 million in the 2000-01 financial year, and, finally, $990,000 in the 2001-02 financial year. The bill gives effect to the government's 1999 budget decision to recover the costs of providing additional resources to enable the Australian Broadcasting Authority to undertake activities related to the conversion from analog to digital television transmission. This bill is accompanied by the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No.2) 1999 which makes complementary amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. The bills will help facilitate the introduction of digital television services in metropolitan licence areas on 1 January 2001 and in regional licence areas between 1 January 2001 and 1 January 2004.Under schedule 4 of the Broadcasting Services Act, the authority is required to develop conversion schemes for commercial and national television broadcasters and deal with digital implementation plans. The legislation also gives the authority the function of assessing the technical feasibility of access to transmission towers and sites by broadcasters for the installation of transmission equipment.In view of the extra resources required by the authority to undertake these additional tasks, the government has decided to recover this cost from the commercial television broadcasters, who after all will be the major beneficiaries of the authority's work in this area.The extra funding of $3.41 million allocated to the authority over the three years to 2001-02 will be recovered through a three-year temporary surcharge on annual licence fees paid by commercial television broadcasters. In 1999-2000, this surcharge will amount to less than 0.7 per cent of the $194.5 million paid in licence fees by the commercial television broadcasters for the 1997-98 financial year.I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Bevis) adjourned.Bills7866r8707866Bill presented by Mr McGauran, and read a first time.786710:39:007867McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNP10—I move: That the bill be now read a second time.The Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to suspend the cost recovery arrangement applying to expenses incurred by the Australian Broadcasting Authority under the Commercial Television Conversion Scheme over the next three years.This bill complements measures contained in the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1999 , which will impose a surcharge on licence fees paid by commercial television broadcasters over the three years from 1999-2000 to 2001-02.These two bills give effect to the government's 1999 budget decision to recover the costs of providing additional resources for the Australian Broadcasting Authority to undertake activities related to digital television conversion.In recognition of the additional financial impost, the surcharge will place on commercial television broadcasting licensees, the government has decided to exempt these broadcasters from the authority's current fee for service regime for the three-year period of the surcharge.I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Bevis) adjourned.Bills7867r8867867Bill presented by Mr Slipper, on behalf of Mr Hockey, and read a first time.786710:41:007867Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Bill 1999 establishes a scheme for ensuring that superannuation members who have lost contact with their fund have a comprehensive register to check where their superannuation is held. The bill will overcome deficiencies in existing provisions relating to unclaimed money and lost members.With the increased superannuation coverage brought about by the superannuation guarantee arrangements introduced in 1992, many casual and itinerant workers, for example, farm and mining labourers, and those with broken employment patterns became `lost' members in that they lost the paperwork associated with their account, were never given the paperwork because they terminated employment before their superannuation guarantee contributions were made or lost contact with their fund in other circumstances.The bill will particularly benefit employees who have changed jobs regularly, who have moved interstate or overseas and who have multiple superannuation accounts.The bill formalises the administration of unclaimed superannuation money and the details of lost members by the Commissioner of Taxation. This recognises the efficiencies and experience that the Australian Taxation Office has in system administration.The bill also has a number of other important objectives. The bill:. provides for greater cooperation between the Commonwealth, states and territories in reuniting members with their superannuation;. extends the use of the tax file numbers to lost members and unclaimed superannuation money held by the states and territories consistent with the use of TFNs in other parts of the superannuation industry, for example, superannuation funds and unclaimed superannuation money held by the Commonwealth; and. ensures consistent taxation treatment of unclaimed superannuation money held by the states and territories.The bill will result in a small unquantifiable increase in revenue due to the application of consistent taxation treatment to unclaimed superannuation money held by the states and territories. The bill will also lead to a substan tial reduction in administration costs for the Commonwealth, states and territories as a consequence of provisions facilitating greater cooperation between stakeholders and by extending the use of TFNs to lost members and unclaimed superannuation money held by the states and territories.The bill has a minimal compliance cost impact.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Bevis) adjourned.Bills7868r8877868Bill presented by Mr Slipper, on behalf of Mr Hockey, and read a first time.786810:45:007868Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Consequential and Transitional Bill 1999 makes consequential and transitional amendments to Commonwealth legislation as a result of the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Bill 1999.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Bevis) adjourned.Bills7868r8887868Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.786810:47:007868Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill makes amendments to the superannuation surcharge legislation. The surcharge has been effective at meeting the government's policy objective of imposing a surcharge on the superannuation contributions of high income earners.The Bill amends the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997 to enhance the overall efficiency of the superannuation surcharge through clarifying and simplifying aspects of the legislation.The operation of the superannuation surcharge will be simplified by the removal of the requirement for superannuation funds to pay an advance instalment. Advance instalments previously determined were credited against assessments issued to superannuation funds in May 1999.The surcharge is imposed on a member's surchargeable contributions. The amendments clarify the definition of `surchargeable contributions' and how they are calculated, so that trustees of superannuation funds can have certainty about what they need to report to the Australian Taxation Office.Enhanced efficiency is achieved by:. introducing a self assessment regime for specified superannuation funds;. removing any doubt that surcharge applies to funds that are on a `contributions holiday';. rationalising superannuation fund reporting requirements to members; and. broadening the objection rights of superannuation funds and members.This Bill amends the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Assessment and Collection Act 1997 to mirror the changes in the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997 as far as they apply.In addition, the amendments allow members of constitutionally protected funds who roll over a benefit to another superannuation fund to direct the new fund to pay the amount in the surcharge debt account from the benefits rolled over.This Bill amends the Termination Payments Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997 to reflect the changes to the other surcharge acts.The Bill amends also the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to ensure that, where a member of a superannuation fund commutes part of a pension to pay a surcharge debt, this commutation is not treated as an eligible termination payment for income tax purposes. This means that members of superannuation funds are treated in the same way as members in a constitutionally protected fund.Full details of the amendments in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Bevis) adjourned.Bills7869r7727869Bill presented by Dr Wooldridge, and read a first time.786910:50:007869Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill addresses the problem of how people in rural and remote Australia can access high quality diagnostic imaging services through doctors who are not specialists, mainly general practitioners. At the same time, it seeks to treat fairly general practitioners across the country who have been supplying diagnostic imaging services to their communities for a number of years.The amendments proposed to the Health Insurance Act 1973 address these two issues by the introduction of a program of continuing medical education and quality assurance for medical practitioners providing diagnostic imaging services. As a condition of their exemption from the requirements placed on diagnostic imaging practices, these medical practitioners will now be required to participate in continuing medical education and quality assurance programs.The design of this program has been jointly agreed between the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine and the Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists. The amendments ensure that communities who are more than 30 kilometres from a radiology practice continue to have access to such services through GPs and that those services are now provided for the first time under a quality assurance program. The amendments also impose the same conditions on GPs operating under pre-existing diagnostic imaging practices exemption. The new arrangements will be implemented in such a way as to ensure maximum continuity of service for the community involved.I commend the bill to the House, and I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Miscellaneous78697869Motion (by Mrs Stone) agreed to: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 the 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.Bills7870r698Billsr701Bills7870r8007870Bills returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX TRANSITION) BILL 1998(1) Clause 7, page 5 (lines 11 to 13), omit subclause (3).(2) Clause 11, page 7 (lines 6 to 10), omit paragraph (1)(a), substitute: (a) you make a supply under an agreement, or an enactment, that provides (expressly or impliedly) that the thing supplied is to be supplied: (i) for a period; or (ii) progressively over a period; whether or not at regular intervals; and(3) Clause 11, page 7 (lines 13 and 14), omit "the services or things are taken to be performed or done", substitute "the supply is taken to be made".(4) Clause 11, page 7 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add: (3) For the purposes of this section, a supply by way of lease, hire or similar arrangement is taken to be a supply for the period of the lease, hire or arrangement.(5) Clause 12, page 8 (lines 8 to 12), omit the definition of review opportunity , substitute: review opportunity , for an agreement to which this section applies, means an opportunity that arises under the agreement: (a) for the supplier under the agreement (acting either alone or with the agreement of one or more of the other parties to the agreement) to change the consideration directly or indirectly because of the imposition of GST; or (b) for the supplier under the agreement (acting either alone or with the agreement of one or more of the other parties to the agreement) to conduct a general review, renegotiation or alteration of the consideration.(6) Clause 15, page 10 (line 12), at the end of paragraph (2)(a), add "(unless you imported them and nobody was entitled to quote under the Sales Tax Assessment Act 1992 for the importation)".(7) Clause 17, page 11 (after line 29), at the end of the clause, add: (2) This section does not apply to second-hand goods in respect of which you are entitled to a special credit under section 15.(8) Page 13 (after line 25), after clause 19, insert:19A Acupuncture, naturopathy and herbal medicine (1) Paragraph 38-10(1)(b) of the GST Act does not apply in relation to a supply of a service of: (a) acupuncture; or (b) naturopathy; or (c) herbal medicine (including traditional Chinese herbal medicine);if the service is performed before 1 July 2003. (2) However, such a service of acupuncture, naturopathy or herbal medicine performed before 1 July 2003 is not GST-free if the supplier of the service does not meet the requirements (if any) in regulations made for the purposes of this subsection in relation to a supplier of an acupuncture, naturopathy or herbal medicine service, as the case requires. (3) The requirements may relate to one or more of the following: (a) educational qualifications; (b) membership of a professional body; (c) any other qualifications.(9) Clause 20, page 13 (after line 29), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) However, if: (a) the claim relates to an insurance policy covering a period that started before 1 July 2000 and ends after that day; and (b) it cannot be ascertained whether the event giving rise to the claim happened before 1 July 2000; subsection (1) does not apply, and the settlement is not a taxable supply if the claim was made before 1 July 2000.(10) Clause 20, page 14 (after line 3), at the end of the clause, add: (3) However, if: (a) the claim relates to an insurance policy covering a period that started before 1 July 2000 and ends after that day; and (b) it cannot be ascertained whether the event giving rise to the claim happened before 1 July 2000; subsection (2) does not apply, and you are not entitled to an input tax credit for the claim you pay if the claim was made before 1 July 2000.(11) Page 14 (after line 3), after clause 20, insert:20A Input tax credits for insurance premiums You are not entitled to an input tax credit for a premium paid on an insurance policy before 1 July 2003 unless you notify the Commissioner, in the approved form, that you are claiming an input tax credit for payment of the premium.(12) Clause 21, page 14 (lines 9 to 12), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) In applying section 126-10 of the GST Act to work out your global GST amount, disregard: (a) all monetary prizes you are liable to pay at any time on the outcome of gambling events that happened before 1 July 2000; and (b) all amounts of money you are liable to pay, of a kind referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition of total monetary prizes in subsection 126-10(1), to the extent that they relate to gambling events that happened before 1 July 2000.(13) Schedule 1, item 2, page 16 (table, column 3), after "sale on", insert "the 21st day after".(14) Schedule 1, item 2, page 16 (table, column 6), before "the day", insert "the 21st day after".(15) Schedule 1, page 16 (after line 12), before item 3, insert:2A At the end of section 15 Add: (3) If goods were, immediately before the 21st day after the day on which the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 received the Royal Assent, covered by any of items 4 to 14 of Schedule 5, those goods are taken not to be covered by any Schedule other than Schedule 4.(16) Schedule 1, item 4, page 16 (line 16), omit "amendment made by item 3 applies", substitute "amendments made by items 2A and 3 apply".(17) Schedule 1, item 4, page 16 (line 17), after "on and after", insert "the 21st day after".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 1999 1 At the end of Schedule 4 Add: 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:10 Qualification for bonus payment A 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 611/2 (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 10 Therefore 4/10 of $2,000 (i.e. $800) needs to be subtracted. This leaves a self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component of $1,200.(6) Clause 38, page 39 (lines 3 to 10), omit the clause, substitute:38 Qualification for bonus payment An 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 10 Therefore 4/10 of $2,000 (i.e. $800) needs to be subtracted. This leaves a self-funded retirees supplementary bonus component of $1,200.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (FAMILY ASSISTANCE) BILL 1999(1) Clause 3, page 5 (line 22), after "rate", insert "for an FTB child who has not turned 18".(2) Schedule 4, clause 2, page 119 (cell at table item 3, column 2), omit "16-20", substitute "16-24".(3) Schedule 4, clause 2, page 119 (cell at table item 3, column 3), omit "item 3", substitute "items 3 and 4".(4) Schedule 4, clause 2, page 119 (cell at table item 6, column 3), omit "subclause 26(2)", substitute "subclause 26(2)—all amounts".(5) Schedule 4, clause 8, page 131 (cell at table item 2, column 2), omit "table", substitute "items 1 to 3 of the table".(6) Schedule 4, clause 8, page 131 (cell at table item 6, column 2), omit "subclause (2)", substitute "paragraph 2(a)".Motion (by Mrs Stone) proposed:That the amendments of the Senate conveyed to the House in Senate messages Nos 154 to 157 be agreed to.10:55:007881Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—With this debate, the government's GST finally makes it over the legislation line. We have all seen the footage of the Treasurer grinning like a cheshire cat, that trademark smirk of his on arrogant display. But have we seen anyone on this side of the House looking glum and downcast? Do we look worried at all? Not at all. Just remember that he who laughs last, laughs best. We know that these bills and the amendments that we are debating now are Labor's ticket to re-election. The polls show that, without a shadow of a doubt, if there were an election held now, we would win. We have every reason to believe that nothing about the government's GST package will change that between now and the next election.Just today, the Financial Review reported on the ongoing disaster that is Canada's GST. Over there they call it the `gouge and screw tax'. The President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said:People still despise the thing. The politicians who think we will go away are wrong.She says that, under their GST, tax evasion has boomed and `the underground economy is an enduring factor of the GST'. In Canada, the Progressive Conservative Party, which introduced the GST, was reduced to just two seats at the following election—just two! Members opposite might like to reflect on that.The first opportunity that voters in Australia will get to pass judgment on this legislation will be in Victoria at the forthcoming state election. I welcome that because Jeff Kennett is the father of the GST. We know that he is now trying busily to disown this bastard child, but if we go back through the record and do the DNA test we will find that he is the father of the GST all right, and Victorian small businesses and retired people in particular should let him know exactly what they think of his GST.83VEMERSONMr Emerson—It seemed like a good idea at the time.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Probably so. We have a bit of trouble suppressing a smile when we discover that the Taxation Office has been left with a $1 billion funding shortfall for GST administration. The Taxation Institute of Australia and the accounting firm Arthur Andersen have said that the tax office is massively underresourced. The fact is that it simply will not be able to cope with this task, just as the ACCC has been massively underresourced and simply will not be able to cope with this task.Then we read about the retailers who say that they should be allowed to increase their percentage on each sale where there is a wholesale sales tax cut. Can anybody in this House seriously believe that there is not going to be GST based profiteering? Can anybody seriously believe that prices are not going to go up by substantially more than the government's claim of 1.9 per cent?Mrs Stone interjecting—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—The parliamentary secretary believes that prices will not go up. We admire her confidence and her bravery. Then we hear from the myriad groups who have not been adequately catered for in the transitional provisions. For example, the jewellers now face going out of business while waiting for the GST and the promised lower prices to arrive.There is one other point I want to make in the limited time available to me. Today is 30 June. From tomorrow, the savings rebate—the centrepiece of the Howard government's 1997 budget—disappears, some 12 months ahead of the income tax cuts which come associated with the GST. This cynical exercise of withdrawing the savings rebate 12 months ahead of the income tax cuts will rob taxpayers of $800 million. The most galling part is that the government claims that it has withdrawn the savings rebate because of the benefits that will flow from the tax reform package. What a nerve!The government lectures us about l-a-w tax cuts. Labor put these into superannuation. An ordinary worker would have stood to benefit by some $100,000 had the government continued with our program of co-contributions. In abandoning co-contributions, it has robbed ordinary workers of $100,000. This money was said to go into the savings rebate. Where is the savings rebate? It has disappeared—gone. The government says it will compensate people for GST in 12 months time. What a fraud this has been on the Australian people, and they should reflect on the fact that the savings rebate has disappeared some 12 months ahead of the GST and the income tax cuts that are associated with it. (Time expired)11:00:007882Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—Clearly, the challenge for the Australian Labor Party now, as they oppose this legislation, is to promise to repeal it and reintroduce the wholesale sales tax. We have heard that they have a problem with broadening the base, with including services in the base, so the only option they would have left is to go back to the old Labor system that they are defending. This is now the defining principle of the Australian Labor Party: they will die in the trenches to defend the wholesale sales tax, they will die in the trenches to defend the differential rates—the 32 per cent tax on television, radios and so on. That is the principle which the Labor Party stand for.The Labor Party is now the party of reaction. The defining principle is that the Australian Labor Party opposes government policy. When was last time we had a new idea come from the Australian Labor Party? Why is the Labor Party opposed to tax reform?We heard the Leader of the Opposition's speech last night. The Leader of the Opposition, the great windbag, came in and said, `I support tax reform,' but he does not support broadening the base. If you do have a problem with broadening the base, you have to ask yourself: what is the Sydney bed tax applied by the New South Wales Labor government? What is that? That is a tax on services, that is broadening the base. It is not a tax on beds; it is a tax on services. If that is the way the Labor Party feel, they should run at the next election with the policy of repealing the government's tax legislation and reintroducing the wholesale sales tax—reintroducing the tax legislation that was implemented in the 1930s, reintroducing the differential rates that Arty Fadden introduced in 1940 as a temporary measure to tax luxury items in a different way during World War II.There has been a bit of talk recently about how young Australians are supporting the coalition government more and more. Young Australians, 18- to 24-year-olds, have traditionally supported Labor much more than the Liberal Party. What you have now is a group which sees that it is only the Liberal and National parties that are actually promoting ideas in the national interest, that are actually promoting economic reform.During the period of the Hawke and Keating governments, there were a number of economic reforms that the Liberal Party supported in the national interest. When Labor came to privatise things like Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank—things that they had not raised in an election campaign; in fact, they had promised not to privatise them—they received the support of the coalition. Things like floating the exchange rate, reforms to industry and so on were supported by the coalition.I pose a question to the Australian Labor Party: in the last three years, what economic reform of the government have you supported? When we turned the budget from a $10 billion budget deficit into a budget surplus, what support did we get from the Australian Labor Party? When we decided to reform the tax system, what support did we get from the Australian Labor Party? The Australian Labor Party have been irrelevant to this debate. In one year's time, the people of Australia will receive $12 billion in income tax cuts. The level of taxation overall is going to be lower. This is going to be the biggest reform of the indirect tax system. It is going to be the biggest reform of Commonwealth-state financial relations since Federation. In all of this, we are cutting $4½ billion from the cost of exporters and we are cutting $10½ billion from business costs.We ran on this policy at the election, and we have now implemented it in legislation. I pose this question to the Labor Party: do you really believe that, for the next two years, people will treat you seriously as an alternative government if all you have to offer is opposition to government policies? That is all you have. (Time expired)11:05:007883Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—I want to quickly outline the principal reasons why I have opposed the Howard government's tax package. The principal reason is probably why the government have introduced it—that is, the tax mix switch they have achieved by this legislation.During the last election campaign, when I was asked at the door why the government was introducing a GST, I carried with me a table that showed the government's estimates of what the tax mix switch would mean to individual Australians. I referred people to two types of families as a good example of what the government was doing.The first family was on an income of $150,000 and had one child. It was a two-income family and the income was earned equally, so it was a couple with a $150,000 income earning $75,000 each. When the government proposed this legislation, that couple stood to gain in excess of $150 a week. By comparison, a family with one child on $20,000 a year where both had part-time jobs and both were contributing half of that family income would receive less than $16 a week. That is the principal unfairness and the reason I oppose this tax.In putting together the compensation package that allowed those tax cuts for the affluent, the government sought to fund part of it by a measure called common treatment of entities, which is effectively the proper tax treatment of trusts as companies. In their ANTS document, the government said that this would raise $1.67 billion in the year that the GST comes into force. We have passed the GST bills in this place. The Labor Party has totally opposed them and for very good reason. We have not seen the legislation to collect that $1.67 billion—largely from the wealthiest Australians, largely from high wealth individuals—presented in this place.Instead, we have seen it referred off to the Ralph review and told that it is not settled policy. It is not settled policy because it has been referred off to the state conference of the Queensland National Party. So we will wait for their adjudication on this further measure, which might have brought some fairness to part of our tax system but which is, in effect, going to be a further demonstration of just how unfair this whole tax deal is going to be.The other issue that is of great concern to me is compliance costs. In 1981 the Prime Minister, after his first tilt at doing this, got up in the old parliament and said that the Fraser government had pretty quickly abandoned the idea of a multilayered VAT, which is the same as a GST, because of the heavy administrative burdens it would place on taxpayers and taxing authorities. The regulatory impact statement that was presented with these bills showed $1.9 billion of compliance costs for Australian business and another $300 million for the Tax Office. That is before the train wreck of a tax deal that was done with the Democrats that is going to greatly increase the compliance costs.This is a double tax on jobs. When John Hewson prepared his GST he proposed to abolish payroll tax. It hasn't happened in this one. A GST is a tax on value added. Most value added comes from labour. A GST is, therefore, a double tax on employment. We are going to see that in our service industries. (Time expired)11:10:007884Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise to support the government on this whole question of tax reform. We have noted the comments from the Senate and the amendments that have been made. This is a significant period to be in government. It is a most significant time to be in this parliament because we have seen the most far-reaching tax reforms in Australia since Federation. It certainly is a great credit to the Prime Minister, who has championed the cause of tax reform for a long period, and also to the very dedicated effort of the Treasurer. The Minister for Workplace Relations has had a significant role as well.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Which one are you going to vote for?MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—It is very interesting to hear interjections from the opposite side. It is a very sad day for them. Where do they go? They have shown themselves to be economic troglodytes of the first order with no sense of direction, no policy, no idea where to go. I see various members on the other side of the chamber for whom I have some respect. I would be interested to know what their real view is. Where do they stand? Do they want to go back to a wholesale sales tax? Do they want to go back to a situation where we depend on a narrowing tax base? That might have worked some 20 or 30 years ago when we had a very broad-based manufacturing sector, when we depended for our exports predominantly on the rural sector, but today it is a very different economy, a very different Australia. The service sector is now the fastest growing and the most significant sector in Australia. You people have no idea how you can approach this in terms of the service sector.You talk about fairness and equity. This bill is about fairness and equity, and you mentioned that. You feel that it is not appropriate that international visitors who come to this country should pay some contribution to the welfare of people in Australia, to the welfare of older Australians. You talk about fairness and equity. This is exactly what it is about. Unless there are substantial changes made, the older people in the community, the disadvantaged people in the community, will have a shrinking tax base. The honourable member, who I know has economic qualifications, would be aware of the degree to which the indirect tax base continues to shrink year by year. Your former leaders saw the need for a widening of the tax base, moving in the direction of a GST. Political lack of nerves had them move in the other direction. They were about keeping themselves in government, not about tax reform.This legislation provides significant tax cuts. One hundred per cent of Australian taxpayers will be better off and 80 per cent will pay only 30c in the dollar. The legislation contains $2.5 billion of family allowance provisions. Is that unfair? Is that inequitable? Not at all. The wholesale sales tax will be removed, which means that taxes in a whole lot of categories will come down to 10 per cent. They were previously a significant amount more. The legislation will provide incentives for exporters, a wholesale review of federal-state government relationships and the removal of a whole lot of unfair taxes such as the BAD tax, the FID tax and stamp duty on shares.The bed tax is another example. You talk about tourism! The damage done by the bed tax in New South Wales is being felt right across the industry—10 per cent off the top— and they all know that they are going to be a lot better off. That is why the industry said that they supported the GST. The tourism industry are in favour of major tax reform—as the whole of industry is—because this is going to take Australia forward into the new millennium. This government has taken the hard decisions and it has shown the way. It is about reforming the Australian economy and tax system, and we on this side of the House are very proud of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer for the great initiatives taken. (Time expired)11:15:007885Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I can certainly tell the member for Cook that there is nothing to celebrate today in my electorate of Gellibrand. It is fine for us to be talking about economic reform, but what the member does not want to address is the impact it is going to have on my electorate, particularly on the basic issues that run from ones like education right through to the leisure activities of the constituents in my electorate and many others. One of the issues that I would like to raise today in this debate is the issue of private tuition. It has been fine for the government to run around and say that education is going to be GST free. It has certainly been fine that private school fees are going to be GST free. But, if you happen to be in my electorate and are a public school student that needs some remedial maths attention and your parents want to organise private classes for you, I think the members opposite would probably be unhappy to admit that those parents will pay a GST.How is that fair? How is that equitable? How, actually, will that help those families in my electorate who mostly, I might say, are in the socioeconomic groups that will not be receiving the massive tax cuts that some of the high income earners will be receiving? They will be penalised, despite this myth that the government wants to promote by running around and saying, `Private tuition is not really an issue.' We are not talking about tennis classes, flute lessons, piano classes or learning how to play soccer better, although those things actually are still important for our community values; we are talking about remedial maths and adult education. Adult education is another interesting area. The government has backed down a few times on that. It has been forced to make a few changes through its negotiations with its wider coalition partners, the Democrats, but the Democrats have sold out on this issue as well.Adult education will be GST free only if it is actually to further your employment prospects in some way. How is this government going to work out whether community education or adult education is actually for the purposes of improving somebody's job prospects or so that somebody can enjoy their recreational time more or so that somebody can communicate with their neighbours better if perhaps they want to learn a different language? Perhaps some elderly migrant settling in our country might want to learn English. Something that a number of the members opposite, and certainly a lot of people outside this House, have a strong view about is people who come and settle in this country being able to speak English. That is fine, but if those people choose to go and do one of those courses to improve their English to improve their participation in our community as active citizens they will pay a GST. These educational courses should not be penalised just because they do not necessarily lead to some recognised qualification or lead in all circumstances to improved job prospects.One of the things that I find particularly offensive about this package is that not only are we still going to be taxing some basic and important educational areas but also we are going to be taxing leisure. Take a look at the exemptions that have been granted by this government to the high rollers at the Crown Casino in Melbourne and at the amount of money that is spent in my electorate by very large numbers of the community. I think all of us in this House know that when gambling gets serious it actually is a social problem. The many pensioners who want to spend one day or one hour a month down at the local RSL club in Sunshine, the High Point Tavern or the Yarraville Club are not going to get an exemption, are they? But a high roller who comes here from overseas with millions of dollars to spend is going to get a GST exemption under this government's package.What I want to say about this package is that the government must be addressing its priorities. Some of their backbenchers in the House today must be looking at its priorities—are they to the millionaires or to the pensioners? We oppose this package because we are actually concerned about those people who are going to be worse off in the community. We are concerned about their living standards. We are concerned about them having the money to be able to pay for food. We are also concerned about them being able to have some leisure activities.MP6BAIRDMr Baird—Pensioners get a percentage increase. They are going to be better off.83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON—I think that the member for Cook is interjecting that the pensioners are going to receive some sort of compensation. That is true. The government has been forced—through the evidence that was produced in the Senate committee—to actually increase that compensation, but not sufficiently, and for the low income earners who are not on a pension but are still struggling to make ends meet their families will still pay a GST. They will pay it when they take their kids to the movies over these holidays, they will pay it if they want to go to the RSL club and they will pay it on their kids' tuition classes. (Time expired)11:20:007886Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—If my colleague the member for Gellibrand had any real concern about pensioners, she would be today out there welcoming these changes. Certainly under this government our pensioners stand to gain from these changes while under the former Labor government's regime pensioners lost. I go back to the history of tax reform. Under the Hawke government the best brains in the country were brought together to discuss tax reform. We know that after that summit the recommendations were that we go to a goods and services tax regime. However, we know that, for political reasons, the then leader did not have the stomach to really do what was right for Australia, but he did what was right for his political expediency.We went on then to see John Hewson take up the cause and stake his political career on tax reform so that Australia could have a tax system that took it into the next century without having to penalise groups in the community like pensioners, families and small business. I remember that after we lost the 1993 election, when John Hewson had the courage to go to an election on tax reform, and Labor had won, they promised they would not raise taxes. What did they do immediately after that election? They raised sales taxes. I remember the pensioners coming into my office and saying to me, `We would have been better off under John Hewson's GST scheme than having voted this government'—the then Labor government—`back into office and having costs rise without no compensation to pensioners.'This government has not been forced to provide compensation to pensioners. Right from the outset this government has protected pensioners and those on fixed incomes by providing concessions in its tax reform package. That has always been part of the reform package. So we see now that in this package pensioners not only will get their additional benefits from having increased pension payments but also will find the cost of many goods decreasing because of the removal of the sales tax on so many items we buy today—those hidden taxes that many in the public are unaware of and taxes that Labor kept putting up.One of the major reasons I think we need tax reform in Australia today is that we have had a tax system that targets specific groups in the community. Those specific groups have been particularly families trying to raise children and small businesses. Small businesses have been the backbone of this country's economy, providing the most jobs for people in the community. They were particularly targeted under the former Labor government, which had to find creative ways to raise taxes and so targeted the small business sector to achieve that, producing through that a very uneven and very unfair tax system. What is important about this taxation system is that it does try to ensure that the burden of tax is shared evenly and fairly throughout the community. There should not be one particular group in the community that is targeted to pay more tax than other groups in the community.That was what was happening under the Labor government. They targeted particular groups. We saw the introduction under Labor of the fringe benefits tax which targeted businesses. It was one of the worst forms of tax in the sense that the compliance costs almost outstripped the tax that was raised. So we could not keep going the way we were going. We clearly were not raising sufficient taxes and the burden of tax was not spread evenly and fairly throughout the community. That is what this tax system does. It will take this country into the next century. We can be very proud as a country—as a government and the people joining together having recognised the importance of tax reform—for having achieved this. It is a very great day for Australia. It is a personal victory for the Prime Minister who again staked his personal political future on this reform. He has done it not for political expediency but for the national interest—for the good of Australia and Australians—so that we have a system that will take us into the next decade and the next century with confidence and the ability to perform economically and therefore be able to give the Australian people the social benefits that they deserve from having a strong economy. (Time expired)11:25:007887Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—I do not actually share the big excitement of the members opposite at the prospect of the Prime Minister's big tax adventure, as he described it. Of course they are all tied to this big tax adventure, but I wonder who else is going to go with the Prime Minister on this one. We know the Democrats are stuck there with him on it. I think it is going to be an adventure into the wilderness for the Democrats, though, as the effects of this tax, its unfairness and its impact on society and business really come to be seen. Of course big business will go with the Prime Minister on this adventure because they made a massive investment in conning the Australian public in the pre-election advertising and lobbying that went on to get this GST. And of course wealthy Australians will be quite comfortable with this GST. And why would they not be? The tax package is designed to assist them. It is really all about giving them a leg-up and who cares about the rest of us. That is the truth. The majority of Australians will be left behind, struggling with price rises and the insecurity that will come with the squeeze on jobs that will result from the GST.It was very interesting to see in the Australian yesterday the report of some Liberal moderates who were lamenting the growing gap in status and living standards within Australia between the rich and the poor. With the passage of this bill today, with this GST coming onto the Australian scene, they will certainly have their job cut out for them, because there is no question but that this is going to hit lower income Australians, average families and average workers and make life very difficult for them.In 1996, when this government was elected, we saw the government really put this country to sleep with the huge budget cuts, severe cutbacks to services and the backward looking social agenda that this government promoted. It has squashed this country's aspirations and put the country to sleep. That was bad enough, but now we are starting the bad dream—the nightmare of the GST. I hope that it is just a bad dream. It would be great in this particular case to actually be able to go back to my electorate and say, `Listen, we were proved wrong. Sorry, I was wrong. Everything we said about the GST was wrong.' But that is very unlikely, because if you look at the enormous weight of evidence that came out in the Senate inquiry, and also from overseas experience, it tells us very clearly what we can expect when the GST comes in. It tells us that this is going to be a very unfair tax. There have been no great pains taken to hide this. It is very clear that people on incomes of over $100,000 are getting massive benefits to the tune of $75 a week extra under this package, whereas middle income earners are expecting something like 39c to a two-income family on about $45,000.Mr Emerson interjecting—83ALivermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE—Yes, great. Won't that be good? I look around my electorate and talk to the people there about what their concerns are. They might get a TV or video every 10 or 15 years. Rent, a night out at the leagues club, their second-hand cars, the maintenance on their older houses and cars are all going to go up and make life that much more difficult for them. It is an unfair tax. But probably what galls me the most is that it is so unimaginative. This package is a handout to the wealthy and a slug on the poor and average Australians. It is so unimaginative. What is in there for young people?83VEMERSONMr Emerson—Less than a dollar a week.83ALivermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE—Less than a dollar a week? They might be able to spend that on the increased HECS that the government has saddled them with. They might be able to spend that instead of the youth allowance that they will no longer get under this government. Their lives will be so much more difficult and their aspirations further squashed.What has this package got for the growing regional area that I come from? We are looking to a future where we can engage in growing service industries, information technology industries, the education industry and the tourism industry to supplement our traditional base. What do we get? We get a tax that will slug those industries and make our progress, our development, that much more difficult to come by. It is an unfair tax. It has nothing for the people of Capricornia—they have said so once and they will say so again.11:30:007888Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—This is my 22nd speech on the GST since my election on 3 October last year. Never before has the political divide between the coalition and Labor been so sharp, never before have the ideals of Liberal and Labor been so diametrically opposed, and never before have the stakes been so high in this battle of ideals. As Australians awaken to the dawning of the 21st century in the new millennium, they must question what sort of a society we aspire to be. Australians have traditionally embraced the notion of a fair go. We are in grave danger of losing our egalitarian streak, of tolerating ever-widening inequality, and the GST package will accelerate Australia along the road of inequality. This is the Prime Minister's dream, aided and abetted by the Treasurer, who should know better.The government's GST package offers tax cuts of more than $80 a week to high income earners, but it offers less than a dollar a week to many young people. It offers no more than $2.60 a week to age pensioners, and it provides a clear loss to many self-funded retirees—a point that seemed lost on the government when Mr Howard paraded himself as the champion of self-funded retirees and introduced a tax package which will make them clear losers. Lower income earners and pensioners are highly vulnerable to the goods and services tax, and they are highly vulnerable to an increase in the GST rate. This has been the experience of 22 out of 23 countries which have a GST. Lower income earners and pensioners are highly vulnerable to a government cutting holes in the compensation safety net, which was precisely the experience of New Zealand.Let us be clear: the government is not introducing a GST to fund extra social services such as education. From 1 July next year, financial assistance grants, the untied grants to the states, will be abolished entirely. After the so-called transition period with the states, the specific purpose payments—that is, the tied grants—will be available to be cut, and they will be cut. Seventeen billion dollars of those specific purpose payments are at this stage used to fund vital social services, but they will be used by a conservative government to fund further cuts to higher rates of income tax when the specific purpose payments are cut. That is the agenda. This government has no interest in repairing the income tax base. The Leader of the National Party has told his party room on trusts, `We will kill it in cabinet.'We are in the information age, and Australia is divided into two halves. As Professor Bob Gregory has said from his analysis, `One half of Australia does not know how the other half lives.' Never before has the strength of Australian society depended so much on providing a decent education for children in the disadvantaged half of Australia, yet the GST will apply to basic education costs—to school uniforms, to school shoes, to stationery, to public transport. So do not believe the government and do not believe the Democrats when they say education is GST free. It is not. I see that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs is here. He knows very well that education is not GST free.In his speech last night the Prime Minister invoked the memory of his heroine, Margaret Thatcher, who declared, `There is no such thing as society.' The Prime Minister of Australia shares this view. He has the view that equality does not matter because there is no such thing as society. His agenda is to continue to cut higher rates of income tax and to increase consumption taxes. That is what he wants to see happen. This will be associated with cuts in tied grants to the states or vital social services, including support for children in disadvantaged areas. I hope the Prime Minister is not malicious in this, but I am not so confident about that. Perhaps he just does not know how the other half lives. How would he? He has been in parliament for more than 20 years representing a relatively affluent electorate.The battle of ideals does not end here today with the passage of this legislation. The Australian Labor Party will fight for the honour of representing ordinary Australians in government and restoring basic fairness, decency and equality of opportunity for Australian society.11:35:007889Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—When the history of this parliament, this nation and this century is written, 30 June 1999 will be recorded as a day of fundamental injustice—an injustice which is real, an injustice which is not simply conjured up by the fleeting rhetoric of politicians. It will be recorded as the day when the social compact that has governed this nation for the last 100 years was torn up. It will be recorded as the day when the nation's taxation system moved from progressivity to regressivity. It will be recorded as the day when the parliament of the country said to the poor of the country that they could all go and take a running jump. And it will be recorded as the day which marked the beginning of the end of tied grants to the states—grants which have underpinned much of the social development of the nation over the last quarter century. The national tragedy is this: so much of what is being done here today is not able to be undone or, if so, not for a long time.Last night the Prime Minister gave us his exposition of why the government is embarking on this new $33 billion taxation odyssey. He said the GST represented the fifth pillar of national economic reform. He said the first was financial deregulation, which he rightly attributed to the previous Labor government. He said the second was national tariff reform, which he again rightly attributed to the previous Labor government. He said the third was fiscal consolidation, the fourth labour market reform and the fifth the GST. The latter three, of course, he kept for his own legacy.I will leave to one side the absurdity of the claim concerning fiscal consolidation. In fact, it is a bit difficult not to fiscally consolidate when you have a natural turn in the business cycle such as the one we have seen in the last several years. I will also leave to one side his dubious claims concerning the doberman-driven approach to labour market reform pursued by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. But I will not leave to one side his claim concerning the last pillar, the GST, and what is supposed to be achieved by this pillar in genuine, as opposed to rhetorical, national economic reform.Last night the Prime Minister and the Treasurer finally had their big opportunity to argue the logical case for this consumption tax—to argue just how this tax package will boost economic growth, how it will boost employment, how it is supposed to overcome what they claim to be a collapse in the revenue system of the Commonwealth, how it will enhance fairness and how it will advantage small business. But what did they do last night? They squibbed it. Do you know why they squibbed last night, Madam Deputy Speaker Kelly? Because there is not a case to argue on any of these points.Through the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, sitting at the table, we would present to the Treasurer a very simple challenge. Answer us this simple question: if this is so good for the nation, tell us how much the economy will grow by as a consequence of the introduction of this tax package which it would not otherwise grow by. Give us a number in terms of what additional jobs will be generated for the nation as a consequence of the introduction of this package which would not otherwise have been generated. Give us a number in terms of how much the revenue system of the Commonwealth is supposed to be collapsing by which this new tax arrangement will compensate for. Why doesn't the government give us these numbers, despite our repeated requests for it to define and quantify just what it hopes to achieve? Because the government knows that the numbers are all bad. That is why we have such silence from it.The only thing we had from the Treasurer last night—this Treasurer who is almost like a personality permanently in search of sincerity—was his latter-day discovery of the poor. This is new. At five minutes to midnight, we were given a new rationale for the GST: to secure, he said, the social bonus; to look after the poor, he said. This is a most novel approach indeed from the Treasurer. It is doubly novel coming from a party that does not have a social policy or believe in social policy. It is a party that believes it is best to replace social policy by noblesse oblige.There are two fundamental flaws in the logic of what the Treasurer had to say in this place last night. Firstly, he claimed that the revenue system was broken and incapable of delivering sufficient revenues for the future but he adduced no evidence to that effect. Secondly, he said that the Liberal Party's vision was somehow to redress this social imbalance for the future and to be concerned about the nation's social base. But the fact remains that the entire drift of Howard government policy these last three years has been to destroy the social base of the nation and to retreat from the role of government overall.Finally, there is the sincerity of this government in approaching this package altogether. In 1996 the Prime Minister said that we would `never ever' have it. In 1999 the Treasurer said that it could never be food exempt, otherwise the economic rationale for the whole package would collapse. This package is a disaster for the nation. It will deliver only inequity; it will deliver only unfairness. It will not provide any substantial jobs. It will not additionally grow the economy. It should be rejected by the Australian nation. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills7890The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Taxation Laws Amendment (Demutualisation of Non-insurance Mutual Entities) Bill 1999 Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 1999 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1999 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 Taxation Laws Amendment (CPI Indexation) Bill 1999 Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Amendment Bill 1999 Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Amendment Bill 1999 Customs Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel Revenues) Bill 1999 Excise Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel Revenues) Bill 1999 Bills7890s2157890Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills7890r6957890Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 4, item 8, page 90 (line 33) to page 91 (line 9), omit subsection (10), substitute:Deltas of positions to be taken not to have changed in certain circumstances (10) If: (a) a taxpayer acquires shares or interests in shares; and (b) on the day of the acquisition, or on a later day, the taxpayer enters into or has positions in relation to any of the shares or interests; then, so long as the taxpayer continues to hold the shares or interests, continues to have those positions and does not enter into any further positions in relation to the shares or interests: (c) in calculating the delta of a position held by the taxpayer in relation to the shares or interests: (i) for the purposes of this Division other than paragraphs 106APHO(1)(b) and 160APHP(1)(b); or (ii) for the purposes of either of those paragraphs in its application to a related payment under an arrangement entered into before the commencement of this subsection, other than an arrangement that has been varied, renewed or replaced after that commencement; those positions are taken to continue to have the deltas that they had on the later of the following days: (iii) the day on which the shares or interests were acquired; (iv) a day on which any of the positions was entered into; or (d) in calculating the delta of a position held by the taxpayer in relation to the shares or interests for the purposes of paragraph 160APHO(1)(b) or 160APHP(1)(b) in its application to a related payment under an arrangement: (i) entered into after the commencement of this subsection (including an arrangement that renewed or replaced an arrangement entered into before that commencement); or (ii) entered into before that commencement that was varied after that commencement; those positions are taken to continue to have the deltas that they had on the latest of the following days: (iii) the day on which the shares or interests were acquired by the taxpayer; (iv) a day on which any of the positions that the taxpayer has in relation to the shares or interests was entered into; (v) if the secondary qualification period in relation to the taxpayer in relation to the shares or interests is the second, or a subsequent, qualification period since the shares or interests were acquired by the taxpayer—the first day of the secondary qualification period.(2) Schedule 4, item 25, page 124 (line 34) to page 125 (line 4), omit subitem (9), substitute: (9) A reference in a provision inserted in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 by this Schedule to a related payment in respect of a dividend or distribution: (a) is a reference to a related payment under an arrangement entered into after 7.30 pm by legal time in the Australian Capital Territory on 13 May 1997, whether or not the shares or interests in shares in respect of which the dividend was paid or the distribution was made were acquired by the taxpayer before or after that time; but (b) does not include a reference to a related payment made under a contract for the sale of derivatives known as Share Price Index Futures that was made before 2 July 1998.(3) Schedule 7, item 2, page 185 (lines 23 to 26), omit subparagraph (c)(i), substitute: (i) in respect of an interest in the trust or partnership that was created before the commencing time and either was acquired on or after 2 July 1998 or was created or acquired for a term that was extended at or after the commencing time; or (ia) in respect of an interest in the trust or partnership that was created at or after the commencing time; orMotion (by Dr Kemp) proposed:That the amendments be agreed to.11:43:007891Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I indicate that the opposition has no objection to the amendments which the government is putting forward here. This is evidence of our good faith, our sincerity in relation to issues of genuine taxation reform. So, when the government comes before the House—as it has done in relation to this bill and these amendments—with proposals which we believe are worthwhile and do constitute genuine taxation reform, we are only too happy to support them. What we are not willing to support are endeavours by this government, under the guise of taxation reform, to shift the taxation burden towards those who are least able to afford it. This has been occurring in relation to the imposition of a GST. A GST will impact most severely on low income earners; it will impact most severely on those who are retired and for whom it is too late to go back into the work force and earn new money under the lower income tax rates; and it will impact most severely on small business.As the shadow minister for small business at the table and others are aware, it is small business that will be transformed into tax collectors, with the number of tax collection points going from some 75,000 or 80,000 existing wholesale sales tax collection points to some 1.3 million tax collection points. In the process small business will end up with a massive administrative burden—and this from the government which has promised to cut the red tape burden for small business by 50 per cent. What a joke that will turn out to be!Let me indicate that we are not prepared to support the kind of tax reform which shifts the burden onto those who are least able to afford it, in circumstances where the government proposed that $6.6 billion of taxation cuts—over 50 per cent of its original income tax cuts plan—would go to the top 20 per cent of income earners; in other words, shifting the taxation burden in a regressive way. We are not prepared to support that.We see evidence from abroad that the price rises as the result of a GST will be much greater than the government has claimed and that it is in no position to monitor—much less enforce—the rate of price increase. Consequently, all the calculations in its various packages and scenarios about people being better off and worse off will turn out to be inaccurate. As a result, many Australians will be worse off following the introduction of the GST. It will impact most severely on small business, most severely on retired people and most severely on charities and community activities. As we have been indicating today and previously, we will continue to oppose that legislation. But because the amendments that have come back before the House do constitute legitimate tax reform we are happy to support them.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills7892s2027892Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills7892r8417892Debate resumed from 28 June, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.11:48:007892Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 . This bill will form the basis of the question regarding a republic to be put at the referendum that, I understand, will be held on 6 November this year. Before the question can be put to the people, a referendum bill such as this should secure an absolute majority in each of the two houses of the federal parliament, and to become law it will then require a double majority in a sense from the people—a majority of all those voting and majority support in a majority of states.Whilst I will be supporting the bill, I will not be voting for this bipartisan appointment of the president model endorsed by the Constitutional Convention communique, nor do I support Australia moving from a constitutional monarchy to this or any other model. Few things are more difficult or more painful than change. Yet it is change more than anything else which characterises the society and the world in which we are now living. But change for its own sake, change which is unprincipled, has the potential to do enormous damage.John Kenneth Galbraith, the great North American economist, said that, if people are given the choice of change or proving that change is unnecessary, most people start working on the proof. Late in 1997 one of my constituents sent me a book authored by the German physicist and philosopher Bernhard Philberth entitled Revelation, which is a fairly heavy but recommendable theological read on change and how people deal with it. In it Philberth said of change:Progress leads to chaos if not anchored in tradition. Tradition becomes rigid if it does not prepare the way for progress. But a perverted traditionalism and a misguided progressivism propel each other towards a deadly excess, hardly leaving any ground between them.That, in a sense, summarises what in many ways has been happening in our own country over the last three or four years, and nowhere is it more evident than in the debate about constitutional change.We have one group of Australians, whose sacrifices and values really made the country what it is today, who really question why change is necessary and who are deeply concerned that the sorts of values that were so important to them may not be the cornerstone or the foundation of the future that we are now striving to build. Then, at the other end, we have Philberth's progressivists who seemingly want cultural and economic change for its own sake and who neither understand nor respect the values of Philberth's traditionalists.Today in 1999 we stand on the threshold of a new century and also a new millennium. It is a time during which we consider what we will leave in this century and that which we wish to carry into the next. When Sir Henry Parkes delivered his Tenterfield oration in 1889 and called for the establishment of a people's convention to devise the constitution which would be necessary for bringing into existence a federal government, he could not have possibly envisaged the enormous economic, technological, cultural and social changes that would sweep the face and fabric of Australia over the following century. But he and his co-authors of the Australian Constitution could look back on thousands of years of civilisation and hundreds of years of governance to those things of enduring and stable constitutional value in what was still then very much changing times. Perhaps unsurprising for the time, they chose a constitutional monarchy. Yet here we are a century later, with 100 years of experience, free of insurrection and political instability and seemingly free of the political and judicial corruption endemic in other parts of the world.Our GDP per head of population is now four times higher than it was a century ago. But, over the past 20 years, something has happened to young Australians. Confidence in the future is a minority position in almost every survey taken of young people's attitudes to the future over the last five years. When I was 10—I am now 40, so my 12-year-old kids think I am half-dead—you could go from one end of Australia to the other and it was essentially a homogeneous society. We had a common set of values and beliefs that held us together—God, king and country. You knew what it meant to be an Australian and, in a very real sense, you had a sense of belonging to the society in which you lived. Inevitably, these things change, but you have to ask yourself whether, over the last 20 or perhaps 30 years, we have created a country in which many young people feel that the only thing they have to believe in is themselves and that there is perhaps no God, king and country—not as much as there might have been when I was a young boy.There are two principal reasons why I support the constitutional arrangements. I am not a person who hangs portraits of the Queen around my home, and I am one of those people who feel a bit uncomfortable going to Rotary dinners and toasting the Queen—all I can seem to think about is Prince Charles and some of his phone conversations with Camilla. It does not have anything to do with the soap opera antics of the royals.My support for the constitutional monarchy relates to two principal arguments. I know my friend the member for Kooyong will smile and perhaps disagree with me as I say this: the most important things that have happened to me in my life and changed the way I think have happened when I least expected them to. On 24 April 1992, I got on a plane to go from Melbourne to Sydney, and I picked up the Melbourne Age. As you usually do at that time of year, I read a profile piece of a then 99-year-old man who had landed on the beaches of Gallipoli. Even with the push for euthanasia, halfway through this article he said, `I am glad I will be dead soon, because I do not want to be alive when Australia becomes a republic.' It was quite a striking remark for someone to make.About a week later, I turned on the ABC on a television in a Brisbane hotel room. The ABC used to run an excellent program called Attitudes which was an avant-garde approach to youth issues. It was covering the issue of a republic. Young people of 16, 17 or 18 years of age were asked whether they thought Australia should become a republic. All enthusiastically embraced the concept. They were then asked to name one minister in the then federal government. Only half could name one. Then they were asked to name a second minister. Not one could name a second, and then not one knew what the Australian Constitution is, let alone what it does. I thought, as I watched and listened to this, that whatever we have means much more to a generation of Australians than I will certainly understand. If we are to embrace and adopt change, we have a responsibility to say to the next generation in the year 2020, `I'm sorry we got our constitutional arrangements wrong, but we were in a bit of a hurry to see the balloons go up during the Olympic Games.'The second reason will seem ethereal to some members. You can open a newspaper or turn on a television or radio in any part of the country on any day of the week and you confront evidence of a society that is failing in many ways. We have amongst the highest suicide rate of young people in the industrialised world. We have a preoccupation with death also in the form of a euthanasia debate, whatever one's attitude to that is. We have elevated gambling to the status of a religion in many parts of the country. We have a level of drug use, legal and illegal, which has reached unprecedented levels. Each day brings further evidence of the growing divide between the extremes of wealth and poverty. We are not unique in this regard, but I will go back to my earlier remarks about the mesh of values that holds our society together and provides resilience for young people.Many young Australians feel disengaged from the political process. They feel that the institutions—whether it is the political process, the judiciary, the Constitution, churches or whatever you like—have left them behind and they are not expecting any meaningful role in decisions that are taken about their lives. I believe that in marginalising churches and ethics based and philosophical organisations from public policy debate, in diminishing over the last 20 years the importance of parenting as a full-time occupation, in trivialising the importance of voluntary work in holding our society together and in diminishing respect for institutions—as I certainly believe Mr Keating did when he was the Prime Minister—we have created a culture in which young people think, `The only thing I have to believe in is myself.' You get a group of 16-year-olds together and ask them, `What does it mean to be an Australian? Who are your heroes, and why do you have such confidence in them?' We have said to young Australians in so many ways that they, and only they, are the centre of their own moral universe.This debate is critically important, but the destiny of our country will not be determined by the economic indices with which we are so understandably obsessed but by our values and our beliefs, the way we see ourselves and the world, and the way we relate to one another. These are very subtle but powerful forces that influence how we feel about ourselves. Values, as Richard Eckersley has said, matter because they are essentially about how we get along with each other. They also mould our identities, our beliefs and our goals. One of the things that I do not think is appreciated by many people in this place—but I think is quietly understood by many Australians—is that the emerging political battles are not between Labor and Liberal. They are not between the left and the right. They are instead an emerging political divide between those who, on the one hand, have an ethics and values based philosophical approach to life's problems and its solutions and, on the other, those who see nothing other than the primacy of markets as an end unto itself. This, as I know from listening in 1997 to my friend the member for Kooyong, seems to have translated into a deep-seated ache in the community for a king. The wish for a popularly elected head of state reflects, in my opinion, an ill-chosen vehicle for meeting an exasperated, underlying desire among Australians for a leader who is above politics—someone who is not beholden to our political parties and who is seen not to be enmeshed in the Westminster system of political confrontation.I know that some members will be thinking, `Well, what the hell has this got to do with changing to a republic or not?' I would suggest to you that it actually has everything to do with our constitutional arrangements. In terms of the more mundane, the reluctance of Australians to change the Constitution seems to be matched only by their reluctance to read it. A large number seem unaware that Australia has a written Constitution, let alone a bicameral federal parliament. Constitutional monarchies are of course historically most stable. They are free and democratic societies while most of the world's republics are not. I have noted that those who are fondest of pushing a republic seem not to have lived in one. Of the six oldest democratic nations, four have British origins and four are constitutional monarchies.Almost all of the republican push, as the member for Kooyong has said at another time, is based on a fallacy and I think a deliberate distortion. Australia is a totally independent country. I have never owed allegiance to the Queen of England. My loyalty is to the Queen of Australia, which of course is a distinct legal entity. Sovereignty, at least since Charles I was beheaded, has resided here in the parliament. It has resided with the people. The real question is not the one that is frequently put up by republicans: do we want an Australian head of state—which makes you wonder what Sir William Deane is—but how can we as a nation, as a federation, best govern ourselves in a world that is vastly different from what it was 100 years ago?The real constitutional issues that face us are not whether we have a president, nor indeed whether we have a preamble to a Constitution that most Australians have not read. The real question that faces us is the relationship between the three tiers of government. How many politicians do we need in this country? What sort of purpose should they actually serve? How can we best conduct our affairs as a nation in a rapidly shrinking world, economically and culturally, when we have a number of states and territories working under a federation? It continually seems that we are too frightened to address the real questions we need to face as Australians and we are dealing with, in many senses, what I believe to be window dressing.The problem for the republicans, the people who push this model, is that, if you try to give all the power the Governor-General currently has to someone who is elected, you are actually separating status from glory. As the member for Kooyong has said earlier, the royals get status but they have little real power in this country, while the people's representatives—that is, us—have power but, I can assure you, as you know, we have no glory.An elected person, even under this two-thirds majority of parliament model that will be put to the referendum, immediately becomes a politician. As soon as you politicise the powers of the Crown instead of them being used only for the common good, they can be used for party or personal political advantage. Anyone who thinks that you will not have political parties organising the election or promotion of a president, even in a two-thirds parliamentary model, is deceiving themselves. Somebody who is above the political fray frees everybody up to serve Australia without being political in their motives and actions. Executive power, the power to govern, is vested by proposed section 59 in the president. The Federal Executive Council is to advise the president and the president is required to act according to the advice of the council, the Prime Minister or another minister of state. However, proposed section 59 in this bill also recognises that the president may independently use a power which was a reserve power of the Governor-General. It stipulates that any use of such a reserve power must be done in accordance with the constitutional conventions relating to the exercise of that power.If you think about that, that is going to change the fundamental workings of the Australian political system. Governor-Generals are appointed by the monarch on the advice of one person—the Prime Minister. That Governor-General is not supported by any electoral mandate, but the reserve powers of the Governor-General are formidable. Governor-Generals can, and in some circumstances have, as the member for Kooyong said in addressing the John Stuart Mill Society, choose the Prime Minister, and they have on occasions selected the leaders of the minority parties. They can dismiss governments on the grounds of breaching the Constitution and they can refuse the government's advice that parliament be dissolved. The Governor-General can also dismiss a Prime Minister who cannot secure supply.The republicans' proposal would create a presidency that combines the powers of the Governor-General with an unprecedented degree of parliamentary and political legitimacy and national authority. If two-thirds of us in this parliament—and, as those in the gallery know, this is something else that is wrong with this place; no matter what we say here, they disagree or vice versa—vote for a person to become the president of Australia, in the minds of Australians that person will have far more moral and political authority than the Prime Minister of the country. The Prime Minister is elected by the members of his or, hopefully soon, her political party and then leads that party with a policy platform to an election to the Australian people.But imagine a situation where all the people in the Liberal and National parties vote for a person and at least half the people in the Labor Party vote for that same person. That person will be seen to have far more power and authority than will the Prime Minister of the country. The Prime Minister is constantly under attack not only from the media, the opposition and members of the Australian community but also at times from members of his or her own party. But if you have a person who would in many cases have much more support than that Prime Minister, and you gave that person all the powers that are currently possessed by the Governor-General, you will change the balance of power in our country—a country that has, as I said in my opening remarks, enjoyed an enormous amount of stability which is the envy of the rest of the world.In all of the emphasis on symbols there are two things that have been obscured. The first is that changing to a republic and a presidency will, as I said, change our political institutions. It will change the patterns of authority and legitimacy that have evolved since Henry Parkes and his colleagues got the Australian Federation going. The second point which has to be emphasised again is that an appointed Governor-General changing to a president and elected by a parliament possessing the powers of the Governor-General is going to have an enormous and detrimental impact on the political system.In day-to-day political life it would not matter a great deal. But once or twice every decade in our country are great moments in our history, and Australians would look to an elected president—certainly elected by a two-thirds majority of parliament and more so a popularly elected president—to intervene in the affairs of government. Apart from anything else—I go back to my other remarks—it is time we stood up in this country and transmitted a sense of respect and understanding and education of our constitutional arrangements to the next generation of young Australians so they can understand how our country has evolved and why this is so important to us as Australians before we embrace change that most people do not understand. (Time expired)12:08:007897McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I note that the member for Bradfield, prior to me, raised a number of matters which are frequently raised by monarchists and those supporting the retention of our existing constitutional arrangements, and I will endeavour to meet those arguments. The republic referendum bill will be submitted to the people on 6 November. It will require a double majority—that is, it will require a majority of votes from Australians and a majority of Australians in a majority of states supporting the bill. So effectively it has the traditional referendum safeguard.The proposal which is being submitted is a faithful reflection of the outcome of the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention of February 1998 and significantly a recommendation, by and large, that came from Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue, who is an Aboriginal Australian. That is significant in the context that when our Federation was formed Aboriginal Australians were excluded in most states from that vote. So that is of particular historic and noteworthy significance.Fundamentally, as the Leader of the Opposition said, this bill proposes to alter our Constitution so that it will provide for an Australian citizen, chosen from nominations submitted by the people and approved by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of the parliament, to replace the British monarch as Australia's head of state. The Leader of the Opposition argued, and we strongly support, the fact that those three criteria should be included in the long title to the bill, but that is a matter which will run the course of discussion.Compare and contrast the selection of an Australian citizen nominated by the people, selected by a two-thirds majority on a bipartisan basis, with the Leader of the Opposition endorsing the Prime Minister's nomination, with the rules of succession that apply to our current head of state. The rules of succession which arise from the Act of Settlement 1700 and the Bill of Rights in the 17th century provide that succession of the British monarch is limited to the heirs of the body of the Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, granddaughter of James I. So that is the chromosomal, if you like, trail of our hereditary monarch. That has to be a precondition to becoming the monarch.Also, I was alarmed to hear from my adviser that those two acts—the Act of Settlement 1700 and the Bill of Rights 1689—would exclude me from ever becoming our head of state under our present system. Why? Because those bills provide that anyone who should marry a `Papist' or be `reconciled to the Church of Rome' shall be excluded from and incapable of inheriting, possessing or enjoying the Crown. I am married to a Roman Catholic. It is an outrage in this day and age that those rules of succession would include a religious exclusion. Nonetheless, they do and those rules of succession very much apply. They cannot be varied without the consent of the United Kingdom, Ireland and all its dominions.But in order to consider whether change is appropriate it is necessary to have regard to our current Constitution. Just last week, in the case of former Senator-elect Heather Hill, the majority judgment of the court said that, while the text of our Constitution has not changed over the last century, its operation certainly has. It is regrettable that so many Australians are ignorant of our constitutional provisions. It is important to remember that our Constitution was brought into existence by an act of the United Kingdom parliament—the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. It is important to realise that the preamble itself states that our Federation is `one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'.Section 1 provides that the legislative power of the Commonwealth is `vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives'. Under section 2, the Governor-General is formally appointed by the Queen. Under section 58 of the Constitution, proposed laws may be reserved by the Governor-General `for the Queen's pleasure'. Under section 59 of the Constitution, laws may be disallowed by the Queen. Under section 61 of the Constitution, the `executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen'.Australians are substantially ignorant of the extent to which we have been under the influence of the British government throughout this century. For example, the British Nationality Act and Status of Aliens Act 1914 provided that `any person born within His Majesty's dominions and allegiance' was deemed to be a `natural born citizen'. Our Citizenship Act 1948 provided that an Australian citizen was also a British subject. It was not until 1981 that the British Nationality Act was amended so that, for the purpose of British law, reference to Australians as being British subjects was withdrawn. Similarly, it was not until 1 May 1987 that all reference to the `status of British subject' was withdrawn from our Citizenship Act.It is not commonly known that until 1 December 1987 diplomatic appointments were approved by the Queen as part of the royal prerogative. Since December 1987, they have been made through the Governor-General in the exercise of that Crown prerogative, but up until then that was not the case. So it is important to realise that we have had a strong connection with the British Crown; we have literally been under and subject to the British Crown. That has evolved to a stage where we have now developed independence in all but one respect: our head of state.As early as 1904, Professor Corbett wrote in the Commonwealth Law Review that the powers of the Crown under the Australian Constitution were far more extensive than those which existed in England at the turn of the century. He wrote:In Australia, . . . these powers . . . loom here larger than in their country of origin.From Federation, we developed to a stage where, in 1931, the Statute of Westminster was passed, a United Kingdom act, providing that the United Kingdom could not legislate with respect to its dominions, which of course included Australia. That was endorsed with the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 by the Australian government. However, the United Kingdom parliament still had the ability to legislate with respect to states and there were also continuing appeals to the Privy Council, which locked our judicial system very much into that of the Commonwealth.The Australia Act 1986 was passed by the Commonwealth, mirrored by the Australia Act 1986 passed in the United Kingdom, again showing the influence of the United Kingdom parliament. It was with those two acts that we finally obtained independence politically and judicially from the United Kingdom. Now, a century on, we have obtained our political and judicial independence from the United Kingdom.This bill will substantially rectify the inconsistencies that are contained in the actual wording of our Constitution. It retains and respects the current procedures needed to retain our system of federal representative parliamentary democracy while allowing Australia to have one of our own—an Australian—as our head of state.The opponents of change, those who ultimately support the status quo, are divided as to why they support it. Those who favour a monarchy have argued that the bill will endanger our system of government, as the previous speaker did. Those who favour a more radical change argue that it does not go far enough. But, if you look at the main features of what will be our new structure, you can see that an appropriate balance has been achieved.Firstly, there are those who have criticised the bill as not being democratic enough, as not giving Australians a direct say in the identity of our head of state. Compare that to what happens now: the Governor-General is effectively appointed by the Prime Minister. Under the proposed bills, every Australian will have the right to nominate or be nominated to serve as president.Subject to the person satisfying the same qualifications that apply to an Australian seeking election to the federal parliament, the Presidential Nominations Committee will accept and consider all such nominations. The committee will provide independent advice to the Prime Minister as to who the president should be. That committee will be made up of representatives of the state governments and representatives of the community. It will provide a short list to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister in turn will have to obtain the consent of the Leader of the Opposition to the appointment. Then that nomination, which will be made jointly, needs the approval of a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of parliament, including those elected directly from their electorates and those elected by proportional representation in the Senate. So, while that process is not a direct election by the people, it is certainly far superior to one person being chosen by another individual, namely, the Prime Minister. So it is much more sophisticated in the democratic input it receives from the Australian people.If, however, it went to the stage of being a directly popular election, there is no doubt at all that you would see a politician coming through. Both the major political parties, perhaps others, would get in behind one or other of those candidates, and it is likely that that person would be elected only with a 51 per cent majority. The only way you are going to avoid a politician becoming a head of state, yet having input from the Australian people, is through the system proposed in this bill.The second issue of controversy which frequently arises is with respect to the dismissal of the president. The bill has been criticised as leaving too much power to the Prime Minister to dismiss the president. But, again, the Governor-General can effectively be dismissed by the Prime Minister, albeit with the formality of that request being made to the British monarch. In other words, the current arrangements enable the Prime Minister to dismiss a Governor-General without any accountability whatsoever, whereas what is required under the proposed bill is that, while the Prime Minister can issue an instrument of dismissal, the Prime Minister remains accountable to the Australian parliament. He must, unless an election occurs, bring the matter before the parliament for the parliament's deliberation within 30 days.Again, it is a far more democratic, instructive and accountable procedure than currently exists. In none of these respects can it be said that the proposed bill damages or endangers our future constitutional arrangements. It is obviously a manifest improvement on those arrangements to which I have referred. In all respects, the bill will make our Constitution better.For the first time in our constitutional history, the bill will also enshrine in our Constitution the institutions fundamental to the workings of our democracy. For example, there will be reference made to the offices of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, which are currently not recognised in our Constitution. The previous speaker referred to section 59 of the proposed bill, which is a significant section. It provides in one paragraph that:The President shall act on the advice of the Federal Executive Council, the Prime Minister or another Minister of State; but the President may exercise a power that was a reserve power of the Governor-General in accordance with the constitutional conventions relating to the exercise of that power.It firstly expressly recognises the existence of reserve powers but says that, in all but the reserve powers, the president must act on the advice of the executive council. The reserve powers are those powers of dismissal of a prime minister, appointment of a prime minister, acceding to a request to dissolve parliament or refusing a request to dissolve parliament. In all bar those areas, the president, as expressly stated, must act on the advice of the ministers. So it enforces and entrenches a system of accountable democracy.With respect to the Crown prerogatives which have developed—those prerogatives are the Crown prerogative to declare war, to declare peace, to enter into treaties and to make diplomatic appointment, to which I referred earlier—they are, again, expressly recognised in the Constitution. There is currently no recognition of those Crown prerogatives. But, again, insofar as they are not reserve powers, those prerogatives can be exercised only on the advice of the ministerial council—that is, the executive of the government. So we cannot have a situation, which could theoretically exist at present, where the head of state could exercise Crown prerogative to declare war on another state. That cannot happen under these proposed constitutional arrangements because the action must be taken on advice.Equally for the first time the existence of constitutional conventions will be recognised. They have not previously been recognised in our Constitution, and the exercise of reserve powers, to which I have referred, will have to be exercised in light of those constitutional conventions. There is recognition in section 8 of schedule 3 that those constitutional conventions will develop over time. Far from breaking our connection with history, far from breaking our connection with the Westminster system, which I agree with the previous speaker is a fundamentally important system which has been the cornerstone of the successful democracies throughout the world, it specifically preserves the continuity of those fundamental principles, in particular the principle of responsible democracy.The bill specifically provides for and preserves actions performed by the Governor-General, the parliament and its proceedings, the qualification of senators and members, the executive government, the courts and their jurisdiction and proceedings before them. It will enable the states to determine whether or not they themselves want to have a republic system of government. If they do not, they can retain their links to the monarchy.It will also enable and specifically acknowledge our federal system of government, and it will generally recognise the reality of where we are today in Australia—that is, we are an independent, proud and sovereign nation. We are entitled to our own independence not only in substance but in form. Our most important and fundamental document, our Constitution, should reflect that fact. It should reflect the fact that any child born in this nation can aspire to anything they want, including our head of state, which currently they cannot.In this debate there will be others who disagree because they do not think it goes far enough or because they think it damages our system. They should ask themselves these questions, and reasonable Australians will: do they want to see an Australian as our head of state but do not want it to be a politician? Do they want to keep our current system of government, and do they want change, carefully thought through, to be change by evolution and not revolution? Clearly, this bill does that. It is a sensible path between two extremes, and it will give Australians what we so richly deserve: a full and final declaration of our status as an independent and proud nation.12:28:007900Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—The Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 will alter the Constitution by establishing Australia as a republic with a president, if the change is supported at a referendum by a majority of Australians—by a majority of voters in a majority of states. The bill has emerged from a long process of debate that has deep wellsprings in Australia's history and Australia's current circumstances. It is a debate which focused on basic concerns about Australia's nationhood and identity and the balance between our traditions and our future.The bill delivers on the commitments made by the coalition both in opposition and in government. The commitment was to have a Constitutional Convention and to put to the Australian people the consensus that emerged from that convention. That commitment has been kept. The model which attracted the most support at the convention was the model of a president appointed by a two-thirds majority of the Australian parliament.The bill would remove most of the Constitution's references to the monarchy and convert Australia's system of national government from a constitutional monarchy to a republic with a president as a head of state vested with the executive power of the Commonwealth. The constitutional change would entrench a mechanism for choosing the president involving the establishment of a committee to consider and report to the Prime Minister on nominations for the president from the public. Following consideration of the committee's report, the Prime Minister would move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, in a joint sitting of the Commonwealth parliament, that a named Australian citizen be chosen as president. A two-thirds majority of the members of the Common wealth parliament would need to approve the motion.The president's powers would be the same as the Governor-General's, and the constitutional conventions applying to the exercise of the Governor-General's power would apply to the president's power. The president would not be a member of a parliament, or legislature or a political party, and the president may be removed by the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister must seek the approval of the House of Representatives for the removal within 30 days unless an election is held.This is the essence of the bill to establish an Australian republic, but it does need to be said that the attitudes of the Australian population to a republic are complex. The republicans are split. Symbolic change to an Australian head of state will satisfy one group. The other group want to elect the president; deny this and they switch and support the status quo.The monarchists are also divided. A majority is committed to the Crown as an institution. A significant minority, but for a personal attachment to Queen Elizabeth II, would favour a republic. There is undoubtedly a variety of perspectives on what the change would mean. For some people, the success of the referendum would mean a fundamentally important and positive advance in our sense of ourselves as Australians. Many supporters of the so-called minimalist republic model embodied in the bill, such as the member for Melbourne, would probably agree that Paul Keating's equation of a change to a republic would mean a rejuvenation of the Australian national spirit.Mr Tanner interjecting—HM5Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOU—Actually, the Leader of the Opposition said that, if you scratched most members of the Labor Party, they would turn out to be direct electionists as well. So you are full bore?Mr Tanner interjecting—HM5Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOU—So you are voting against the bill?YU5TANNERMr Tanner—No.HM5Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOU—Mr Keating, when Prime Minister, said:. . . the creation of an Australian republic can actually deliver a heightened sense of unity, it can enliven our national spirit and, in our own minds and those of our neighbours, answer beyond doubt the perennial question of Australian identity—the question of who we are and what we stand for.Some of those opposing the republic have championed the constitutional monarchy as the defender and guarantor of the stable, free and tolerant system of government that has evolved in Australia since Federation. Australians for Constitutional Monarchy have, in the past at least, claimed as their mandate, `The defence of the Australian Constitution written and voted for by Australians.' I have to say that monarchists, since the convention, have been joined by radical direct-election republicans, apparently not including the member for Melbourne, who oppose the support of this bill.Underlying the minimalist republicans' views is a belief, embodied in the most substantial sentiment of the convention and in the constitutional alteration bill, that the change to a republic in its minimalist form is purely symbolic bringing with it no real change to the processes of the Australian political system. The fact, however—and here I do agree with my colleague the member for Bradfield—is that there will be a significant impact from a change to a republic, from a Governor-General to a president.As I have outlined before, Governors-General are appointed by the monarch on the advice of a single individual, the Prime Minister of the day. Governors-General are unsupported by any direct democratic or parliamentary electoral mandate. Despite this, the reserve powers of the office, the powers exercised not on the advice of the government but at the personal discretion of the Governor-General, are formidable. These powers are consistently in play and do profoundly affect the politics of our nation.Governors-General can in some circumstances choose the Prime Minister and have on occasions selected leaders of the minority party. Governors-General can dismiss governments on the grounds of breaching the Consti tution. Governors-General can refuse to accept the government's advice that the parliament be dissolved. A Governor-General can, and has, dismissed a Prime Minister who cannot secure supply.The present republican proposal would create a presidency combining the powers of the Governor-General with an unprecedented degree of parliamentary legitimacy and national authority. I think it should be reasonably self-evident that the creation of a presidency, retaining the reserve powers as provided for in this bill and the constitutional conventions that apply to the exercise of those powers, alongside the unprecedented parliamentary support and national authority that such a president would have, would over time significantly change the operation of our political system. I believe that we need to face this fact.I also believe that we need to face another fundamental fact. The indications are that the model proposed by the convention and embodied in this bill to alter the Constitution for a republic with a president elected by politicians is not currently preferred by the majority of Australians. Since the early 1990s, 70 per cent of Australians in all states, from all walks of life, whether male or female, whether Liberal, Labor or Democrat, have expressed the wish that if we are to have an Australian president he or she should be directly elected. In the year since the convention, the minimalist republicans have not persuaded public opinion to change its mind. Over the past few months, polls have indicated that a significant majority of Australians are more likely to support constitutional change if the president was elected by the people rather than by the parliament.I think it is true, as the member for Bradfield said—I did agree with a number of things he said, but I did not agree with his fairly basic, metaphysical pessimism—that the wish for an elected head of state does reflect an underlying desire in the Australian community for a leader above politics not beholden to parties, a leader who is directly chosen and capable of being dismissed by the will of the people. The expectation that an elected president would meet these wishes and desires might seem idealistic, and the cynics' bottom line on anyone wishing to be elected president is probably best summarised by the graffiti: `No matter who you vote for, you always end up with a politician.'However, the public's idealism is a potent political force. Dismissing a public preference that appears to be so clearly expressed and so enduring does have consequences. My overriding concern is that for a debate designed to define Australia's constitutional character into the next millennium the process is in grave danger of being undermined by cynicism, opportunism and, perhaps most corrosively, a systemic failure to address disenfranchised public sentiment.Appearing last week in a panel debate on ABC TV, who was it that introduced and concluded the debate on behalf of all those opposing the current republic referendum proposal? It was Ted Mack, that self-styled radical republican. That such person should oppose the minimalist republic model is not startling in itself, but when radical republicans advocating the direct election of a president speak on behalf of constitutional monarchists, something curious is happening. The Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy convener Kerry Jones explained why Ted Mack was presenting their case by saying:The model—in the bill—will see politicians voting for a president, not the people of Australia. That's why we welcome our colleagues Ted Mack and Phil Cleary, who have stood up throughout the debate and said give people a vote, give the people of Australia a say if you're going to change to a republic.Ms Jones and the monarchists appear to have abandoned their principled defence of a constitutional monarchy, opting instead to tactically support the newly arrived advocates of a direct election of the president. Ted Mack presents the no case on behalf of Ms Jones and Ms Jones extols the virtues of directly electing a president in a republic. The two groups are united, not by ideology or common principles, but by outcomes, by the common objective of defeating the minimalist republic model. The new-found alliance is a variation on the old maxim `the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. But, as with all such alliances, they tend to be uncomfortable and they bring with them disturbing consequences.Earlier this year I argued that there was a strong likelihood that a majority no vote would leave unanswered a fundamental issue—the issue of whether the no vote is a genuine affirmation of a constitutional monarchy or a protest vote by Australians who support a directly elected president but who do not have the option of expressing their view. The newfound alliance between the direct electionists and the monarchists has all but made that likelihood a reality. The alliance of the two groups is made possible because the current referendum process has failed to provide supporters of a direct election with any constructive avenue of expression.Monarchists, alert to the considerable public support for a direct election of the president, have joined forces with the radical republicans, despite their diametrically opposed positions, in order to maximise their numbers to mount a spoiler campaign against the minimalist republican model. The 6 November referendum provides no opportunity for the expression of views by the substantial proportion of the population who would prefer the direct election of a president.We are now faced with the reality of holding a national referendum to determine the future of our system of government that, regardless of the merits of the argument, fails to give expression to the preference indicated by a majority of the nation. A successful no vote at the November referendum will under these circumstances resolve little. It will not reflect the endorsement of our current system of government, nor will it provide a clear indication of community sentiment. It would send out only one message: the minimalist model on offer is not the desired option. A successful no vote will not tell us whether the majority of the country favours the retention of the monarchy or prefers the direct election of the president.The other feature that became apparent in Sunday's debate is that enjoining forces, both the monarchists and the direct electionists, have gone negative. They cannot extol the virtues of their respective cases because that is the one thing that would divide them rather than unite them. Instead, they keep united by repeatedly attacking the minimalist republic model. The focus of the debate has shifted from the relative strengths and weaknesses of both sides and has repositioned itself into a relentless attack on the minimalist republic model.My concern is that, rather than resolve the current debate, the referendum outcome is likely to sow the seeds for disputation and generate a legacy of disillusionment and disenchantment. The irony is that the whole purpose of this exercise has been to provide the community with an opportunity to have a real choice in our head of state, yet at the same time we are failing to give full expression to community sentiment. We seek to unite rather than divide the Australian community, yet at the same time we are providing no opportunity for a substantial majority of the population to express their preferred option. Any victory from the process is likely to be a hollow one if it is merely tactical rather than a positive endorsement of the merits of one side of the debate or the other. There is a very real danger that the republic referendum risks being overwhelmed by unsustainable contradictions, not grasped by either side of the debate as each strives for what is at best a momentary and, ultimately, a possibly Pyrrhic victory.We need a considered, full and frank debate over the very real consequences of constitutional change and the changes that will arise from the proposed reforms. Minimalist republicans should not pretend that their proposal would not mean significant change in our political system. Monarchists should dispense with the mythology that we will return to normal after a successful no vote. This will only happen if a no vote is a genuine endorsement of the current system, rather than a protest vote against a republican alternative that a majority finds unacceptable.The radical republicans must spell out more fully the very serious and complicated constitutional implications of a directly elected president. They need to provide an adequate explanation, detail the serious constitutional concerns over the role and division of powers between the office of president and the Prime Minister and address the creation of alternate sources of authority and legitimacy and the possibility of a directly elected president emerging as a politicised extension of our political parties. They need to face up to the fact that an elected president's democratic legitimacy, flowing directly from the people's choice and the people's vote, would be unsurpassed. Once elected, the president would become a key symbol of national unity and, unlike a Prime Minister from either side who faces consistent, corrosive attacks from Her Majesty's opposition, the president would have no competitors.The electors would, at a minimum, expect a popularly elected president to express his or her views on national issues and voice their concerns. The president's impact on public opinion would be substantial. Government, opposition, the public and organised interest groups would seek presidential support, and the president's own views would of course find public expression. A new authority and a new influence would be created, and this would impact on public policy and shape political manoeuvres in novel ways. Tensions would undoubtedly emerge between the president, the Prime Minister and the other political institutions that currently dominate the field.The president that the Australian people currently indicate they want would not just have a new democratic mandate because of direct election; he or she would also have the reserve powers of the Governor-General. In times of crisis, many—and not just the public at large—would look to the president not just for speeches but for actions. It is impossible to anticipate in detail how Australia's political system would evolve under elected presidents with real powers. One thing is certain: there would be frictions, uncertainties and new accommodations that, over time, would profoundly change our system of government.Australia has an opportunity to deal with the issue of the republic and our head of state in a thoughtful and deliberate way. If we do not grasp this opportunity, the likelihood is that, at some future point, we will find our selves in a position where fundamental structural decisions are driven by political momentum and passion, which will minimise the chances of achieving outcomes that the nation would intend and desire. This referendum debate is about the future of our Constitution. Since 1996, I have argued that it deserves a proper, open, free and honest hearing. It is not about winning at all costs. It is about what we set out to resolve: coming to national consensus, which reflects the informed wishes of the Australian people. Ultimately, the Australian Constitution belongs to the Australian people. Only they can and should decide what form of government we should have. We should maximise their opportunity to choose wisely. But I am afraid that, unless the character of the debate changes, the chances of this are receding. I commend the bill to the House.12:48:007904Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I am very pleased to be speaking on this historic bill, the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 . I first raised issues of the need for constitutional reform and a republic—that is, an Australian head of state—in my university lectures in the 1970s. In my book of 1980, entitled Australian Democracy in Crisis , published by Oxford University Press, I devoted a whole section to what I considered then to be the drastic need for reform of the Australian Constitution. Nineteen years later, the Australian Constitution is still in need of drastic reform. As L.F. Crisp pointed out long ago:The essential nature of the Commonwealth's working system of executive government comes then, not from the words of the Constitution but rather from a whole set of constitutional conventions of responsible governments.This is the critical point—that the democratic features of the Constitution are based on conventions. However, conventions are open to interpretation and such interpretations do not necessarily refer back to the principles of democracy. Furthermore, it is not clear in Australia, as it is in the United Kingdom, that such constitutional conventions will be considered binding by all persons in the struggle for power.Allan Patience has argued that Australia's Constitution pays scant attention to the principles of parliamentary democracy. He said:Rather than liberal constitutional principles, it has been the politics of a narrow pragmatism and parochialism, tempered by an obsequious deference to an outmoded colonial authority, that has guided constitution making in this country.It is not widely known that according to the constitutional document itself:The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives . . . And I emphasise the words `the Queen'. Furthermore, this constitutional document gives a very substantive veto power to the Governor-General. Again, let me quote something here which I said in 1980:The powers given to the Governor-General under these provisions are enormous and do not derive from any democratic requirement.The provisions that I am referring to are worth repeating. They are in section 58, which says:When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure.These are very important provisions in the constitutional document. And, of course, it continues:The Governor-General may return to the House in which it originated any proposed law so presented to him, and may transmit therewith any amendments which he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with the recommendation.Whatever democratic features exist arise from a faith or a trust that the Queen's representative shall act in accordance with the conventions of democracy. It is on this trust and not on the constitutional document itself that the legitimacy of the Australian state as democratic is based.The question arises: how powerful are these constitutional understandings? What is to prevent a Governor-General acting in an undemocratic fashion and frustrating the majority's will by refusing to sign important draft legislation and then make it law? It is simply the reliance on the conventions. But, as I have said, how reliable are these conven tions? The difficulty with the reliance on conventions is dramatically highlighted when conventions are broken—an issue which arose during the sacking of the Whitlam government and the constitutional crisis of 1975. From the beginning of the Australian Federation, the general view has been that the Queen and her representative must always act on the advice of the ministers of the government. Edmund Barton stated this point very clearly when he spoke about this matter. I do not have the quote here. Barton's view, which is that the Queen's representative must always act in accordance with the wishes of the ministers, has been challenged. Indeed, it was challenged during the 1995 crisis by constitutional expert Bob Ellicott, who said in terms of that crisis:It is apparent from a reading of the Constitution that some powers are given to the Governor-General in Council and others simply to the Governor-General. It is, I think, significant, that the powers of dissolution conferred by Ss. 5 and 57 are given to the Governor-General . . . meaning to the Governor-General without it being necessarily in council. This refers to the powers for the dismissal of the executive. If one takes a literal reading of the constitutional document, in section 62 it says:There shall be an Federal Executive Council to advise the Governor-General in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the Governor-General and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure.That is very important. In general, we have had a situation where this has been the case. In general, the Governor-General has acted on the advice of his ministers. That has been the practice in Australia. But it should be clear from this that the constitutional document has in fact been a compromise between those who thought of the Governor-General as having significant reserve powers which he exercises on behalf of the Queen and those who have wanted a real commitment to democracy made clear.This brings us to the current debate. I believe that, rather than the current limited proposals, it would have been better to have addressed the issues that I have mentioned here today—that is, to have had a thorough constitutional overhaul, especially of chapter 2 of the constitutional document. Many specialists believe that the constitutional document contains many outdated provisions which are grossly inadequate for a modern democracy. However, it became clear during the Constitutional Convention—and I recognise it here—that it would have been very difficult to get a community consensus on this matter at this time, especially given the general propensity of the Australian people to be very conservative on constitutional change issues.This leads me to the central reason why I am supporting this legislation. Under the current constitutional practice, the Queen of England appoints the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister of the day. This practice can become very difficult in a democratic nation in at least two circumstances that we might refer to. The first would be when the appointed Governor-General, who is appointed by the Prime Minister, is too partisan or too biased towards one side of politics and exercises his status, position and even his powers in that way. A second problem is when the appointed Governor-General seeks to exercise direct reserve powers in contradiction to the advice of the democratically elected government and Prime Minister, as happened in the 1975 crisis.I believe that the current bill achieves a very important result in constitutional terms—that is, to address this issue. We can look at two positive features of the current bill, in terms of this referendum and these changes. Firstly, as many speakers have already said, it provides the opportunity, finally, to have an Australian as our head of state. The real and symbolic significance of this change is huge, especially in our modern multicultural society, where people from many countries no longer perceive any need for a formal association with Great Britain. In saying this I do not in any way wish to take away from the enormous contribution which British culture and especially political and legal traditions have made to our society. However, my second point, which I want to emphasis in light of the comments that I have already made, is that, under the proposal before the parliament the head of state or the president will no longer be appointed by the Prime Minister. Rather, as the Parliamentary Library has said in its Digest, in terms of these constitutional provisions:The constitutional provisions would simply require the Prime Minister to consider the report of a committee regarding nominations for appointment before putting forward a nomination for President. In order to effect the selection of the President, proposed s. 60 would then require the leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives to second the Prime Minister's nomination and would require the President's nomination to be passed by a two-thirds majority of members and senators at a joint sitting. There are additional constitutional criteria imposed on the aspirant to the Presidency, who should be qualified and capable of being chosen as a member of the House of Representatives, and must not be a member of an Australian parliament or a member of a political party.A very important change to our Constitution is involved here. This approach is intended to guarantee that the office holder is a person of political independence who can objectively perform his or her duties without fear or favour and is not excessively beholden to the government of the day or the Prime Minister of the day. In theory, it should help overcome many of the difficulties encountered in the 1975 crisis. It should ensure that the President of Australia will be a person of objectivity and substance.This change in the appointment is very significant. Those who insist on a president directly elected by the people do have a point, but their argument is much weakened by the new arrangements, in my opinion. Indeed, the original proponents of the direct election approach at the time of Federation were concerned precisely because of the excessive powers vested in the British monarchy and because of the huge potential problems involved in the process of the appointment of the Governor-General. In fact, at that time Alfred Deakin said:. . . the ambition of the democracy of this country is an ambition to shape its laws, to guide its destinies, to widen its opportunities, to make life in this country better worth living than it has been hitherto. For this purpose, the position of a representative in any of these colonies is infinitely superior to that of governor-general . . . If he (the governor-general) becomes a personage in the political life of the country, his office must be elective. We cannot afford to have in our constitution any man exercising authority, unless he derives it from the people of Australia.However, the proposals in this bill, I would maintain, overcome the concerns which Alfred Deakin had. They also avoid some of the pitfalls—which, for example, the member for Kooyong referred to—which can occur when we have a directly elected presidency, especially when we are going to retain the basic structure of a Westminster style system.So I believe that the bill before us, to provide for a republic with an Australian head of state and for the selection process involved, in general terms is a significant progression in constitutional terms. It will help us to overcome some of the causes of the 1975 crisis. It will also help us to unite as a people because this person will have been selected—on the basis of a committee of expert, eminent Australians—as a recommendation to the Prime Minister, approved by the Leader of the Opposition and then approved by a two-thirds majority of parliament, which is of course the vast majority of the representatives. It means that there will have to be approval from more than one political party—from both the government and the opposition. I believe these safeguards are significantly different from the situation we have been in all these years.It is sad that it has taken so many years—24 years since the 1975 constitutional crisis—for us to come up with these provisions, but I suppose one can only say better late than never. There is, however, one provision in the bill which I, having said all this, have some concerns about. It is a provision which has the potential to create some serious difficulties for us in the future. I refer to proposed section 62, about which the Parliamentary Library says:Proposed section 62 is likely to be the most controversial of all the proposed changes. This proposed section allows the Prime Minister to remove the President with instant effect by an instrument signed by the Prime Minister. While the proposed section goes on to require that the Prime Minister seek the approval of the House of Representatives for this action there is no sanction should this requirement not be satisfied. Furthermore the failure of the House of Representatives to approve the removal of the President does not operate to reinstate the President . . .This provision does have some very serious difficulties and has created some genuine discussion in the community and amongst experts. The library says:There has been disquiet . . . regarding the differences between the recommendations made by the Constitutional Convention on the question of how the Prime Minister can remove the President and the Bill's implementation of these provisions. The Convention specified that `[t]he vote of the House would constitute a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister' whereas the Government—that is, the current government—has chosen not to include provisions enshrining this consequence for the Prime Minister who dismisses a President—an action which could conceivably not have the support of the majority in the House of Representatives.This is a very important comment and of concern. It means that there could be a situation in which, for example, a Prime Minister loses the majority support of his own party and, in order to defend himself in this situation, simply sacks the president and creates a constitutional crisis of some sort.Even if the House of Representatives then says, `This is not a legitimate action,' because the Prime Minister is not forced to put that proposal to the House of Representatives, we could get into all sorts of difficulties. So I really think that those who have expressed this concern have a point. Nevertheless, I believe this can be overcome in future legislation. I do not believe that this small point should be allowed to hold us back from the huge achievement which this legislation involves—that is, to achieve at the turn of this century an Australian republic that we can all be proud of, with a president chosen through an open process and a president who can be independent of the government of the day. I support the bill. (Time expired)13:08:007907Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I want to say how much pleasure I have in speaking in this House today on the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 . I did not find my earlier experience in this House yesterday, and even indeed this morning, listening to the debate on the GST nearly as pleasurable. On the one hand we had yesterday a day which will be marked down as one of the sadder days in the history of this parliament. But I think today and this debate mark a very important day in our history.The eloquent words which have been used already by other members speaking in this debate have indicated how strongly bipartisan the view that we should change the Constitution really is. Despite the fact that the Prime Minister and some other members of the coalition are clearly opposed to the idea of a republic, my own feeling is that we are on a journey which will not be stopped by the obduracy of a few recalcitrants on the government benches.I want to raise a couple of issues today, one of which relates to the importance of seeing this as the first stage of a longer process. I noted the comments of the Leader of the Opposition in relation to a number of matters to do with this legislation. They are important enough to bear at least some recapitulation. The first of those is the issue of the title of the bill. You will recall that the Leader of the Opposition suggested that a more appropriate title of the bill would be: `A bill for an act to alter the Constitution to provide for an Australian citizen, chosen from nominations submitted by the people and approved by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of the Commonwealth parliament, to replace the British monarch as Australia's head of state.' As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, that is not a radically different set of words to those which form the title of this bill, but they do identify exactly what we are on about—that is, replacing our current head of state, who is a British monarch and, as we heard from the High Court recently, not only Queen of Australia but also now the queen of a foreign power.As we go into the next millenium and the centenary of our federation, we contemplate bringing the Constitution to where it ought to be: in an Australian document which reflects the aspirations of Australia now—not of the British Commonwealth necessarily. It should reflect the importance of Australia as a nation that is asserting itself within world fora as an independent republic devoid of any extraneous ties to another nation as we currently have with the Crown. We need to exercise our rights as a nation to finally cut the cord and ensure that our nation's head of state is an Australian. That, it seems to me, is a fairly simple proposition which I know to have very widespread support amongst the Australian community, despite the best efforts of those who would claim to want a continuation of the monarchy.I will refer again to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. In the context of changes in our governance and our relationship with England and the Commonwealth in terms of the original document—our current Constitution—I understand that, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, there has been a radical change in the way in which Australia has developed its democratic institutions over the last 150 years. To illustrate this point, the Leader of the Opposition gave the example of the history of the franchise in this country and how we were the first nation to give women the vote. Despite the actions of the suffragettes, as important as they were in the context of England, South Australia first gave women the vote in 1894. That was, in the context of the time, a fairly radical thing to do.It is of interest to see that, if we look at the referenda proposals which have been put to the people since Federation, we have not been very successful in marketing to the community the importance of changing the Constitution. It is noteworthy that perhaps one of the more notable successes was the 1967 referendum, which recognised for the first time Aboriginal people as part of this nation. The importance of that referendum was that it exposed some significant flaws in the current Constitution which yet need to be addressed. It should come as no surprise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am someone who advocates that, when we are contemplating future change as we inevitably will, we need to think about how we will address some of these significant flaws.There is a debate about the preamble, as we know, and the recognition of the role of indigenous Australians and their relationship to this country prior to it being occupied by the British and annexed by the Crown. This was done in a way which has obviously caused a great deal of distress and hurt to indigenous Australians in terms of where they are in Australian society today, and that is without commenting on the acts of murder which were part of a deliberate process of genocide throughout much of our history until the middle of this century.But now, at the turn of the century and the centenary of our federation, it is time to revisit some of these issues—not, as the Prime Minister would have it, with a black armband view of history, but with a realistic view of what this nation is, where it came from, what its future holds, and what we are as a community. It is not by dint of looking backwards that we need to understand these things. We only have to understand the contemporary debates and the contemporary views which are being expressed by people from all walks of life in this country to see that there is a need to change the way in which we view ourselves in terms of this Constitution.It is important, therefore, that when we take this question to the people—the question being the title of this bill, whether they approve of altering `the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with a President chosen by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth parliament'—we ensure that, given the way in which the debate will unfold, those of us who are strongly supportive of the idea of changing the Constitution to ensure that it expresses what contemporary Australia is and how we view ourselves in the world do not throw the baby out with the bathwater by confusing the debate over that crucial issue as expressed in the question, although, as I pointed out earlier, we would like to see that amended to make it more explicit.Nevertheless, on the basis that this becomes a question, we do not want to have that question confused by the elements of disharmony which have been fostered by some in the community who say they in fact support a republic. Those are, of course, the people who say they support a direct election of the president, who oppose this view and say they will combine with the monarchists to white ant the process which is now under way. They will try to get a no vote so that the majority of people in a majority of the states vote against this. That seems to me to be fairly stupid. Any reasonable person understanding the nature of our history and the success rate of our referenda proposals as they have been put to the people would not contemplate on the one hand expressing strong support for Australia becoming a republic and then deliberately set on a course to white ant the very question that will bring about that republic. It seems to suggest to the Australian community that they are not serious about constitutional change.If we want constitutional change, we need to ensure that we have those dissident elements at least sublimating their views to some extent for the broader value of having a republic—never mind the fact that they may have some particular attitudes about the way in which the president is chosen. The fact is that we want an Australian president as head of state. We want to become a republic. It is fairly simple, I would have thought.I want to point out to those people who would be advocates of this course that, coming from the Northern Territory, as I do, I experienced last year a similar sort of exercise, which was the question of whether or not the Northern Territory should become a state. I need to point out that the person responsible for advocating the position and setting the question was the then Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, who is to be elected unopposed as the President of the Liberal Party of Australia I understand this week—even as soon as Friday. You do not have to particularly be enamoured of the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to understand that he made an enormous error when he put the question to the people. The way that error came about was the way he put the question to the people and its hidden motives.The question we have in front of us in this constitutional debate—the current debate—is a fairly simple question, as I have pointed out, which asks whether or not we should have a head of state and how that head of state should be selected, not on broader issues of constitutional change. It is worth repeating the question that the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly decided they would put to the Northern Territory community for the Northern Territory to become a state:Now that a constitution for a state of the Northern Territory has been recommended by the statehood convention and endorsed by the Northern Territory Parliament, do you agree that we should become a state?Had the question been, `Do you agree that we should become a state?' there would have been overwhelming support for that position in the community. But, because the Northern Territory government, under the leadership of Shane Stone, chose to say there was a constitution which had been agreed to by the assembly without reference to the broader community, people became very suspicious. That suspicion was well founded and resulted in the defeat of this proposal.If we want to ensure the success of the current proposal, then in my mind it is very important that we keep the debate as simple as possible and the question as simple as possible. I know there are those who, like me, believe that we need to do a fairly radical overhaul of the Constitution at some point, but that needs to be done in the context of gradual change. It will not happen if the advocates of change say that we should put all these cards on the table at once, and invite the community, and those people who would oppose the development of a republic for this nation and successful change of the Constitution in other areas, to vote on the question. It will not happen if we invite division.I say to those people who are advocates of direct election that, if they really want to have a republic, they must accept in the first instance that the proposal being put to the people later this year will deliver that republic to them. Then, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out earlier this week, we will have to contemplate what other changes we need to bring about to the Constitution. They need to be thought through and debated in a considered way and in much the same way as the Constitutional Convention operated to bring about this particular question that we are currently debating in the form of this bill. That needs to happen, too.Just because some person believes that they are the fount of all wisdom, and if their view does not prevail they will not support the proposition that is going to be put—even though their general direction is to support the idea of a republic—and they will take their bat and ball and go home, is inviting defeat of this question. What they will endeavour to do in the context of the debate is engender suspicion about the motives for change and, by so doing, support the monarchists' representation of why we should not have the referendum question supported.That seems to me not only to be head in the sand stuff but also that these guys have not learnt or understood the way in which this nation has operated for over 100 years and the difficulty we have had as a community to change our Constitution. It will only happen through an educative process. We have a consensus position, effectively, and we need to understand that, if that consensus is strong enough in this parliament and we are prepared to advocate the position, we will walk out of this place in the full knowledge that there is every likelihood we can bring the Australian people to a point where they will support this referendum.I say again that there is a need for important changes to other parts of the Constitution. Not least of these is the need to acknowledge those demands made by indigenous Australians for a recognition of their place in the Constitution—a properly recognised place. There has also been an argument, which has a lot of merit, about the recognition of women in the Constitution. There were arguments previously about a bill of rights. There are all sorts of things that we should be contemplating in terms of modernising the Constitution.We are a strong, stable, democratic nation. We have the ability to bring about change without throwing a spanner in the works in terms of the way in which our Constitution is administered, the way in which this parliament operates, the way the will of the people is represented through the parliament, or the way in which the political processes operate generally. We have a very stable democracy in this country. It can countenance and handle change. This particular piece of legislation is important in that regard.As we reach the centenary of Federation and go into the next millennium, a fitting and just reward for the work of all of those people who have been participants in our democratic processes over the last 100 years would be to bring this Constitution to a position where it recognises us as an Australian republic with an Australian head of state. I commend the bill to the House.13:28:007911Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—It is always nice to have a staunch republican presiding over the House at a time when we are discussing the establishment of a republic. I understand the emotional timbre in your voice as you make your pronouncements in this House, Mr Deputy Speaker.Every time I meet school students from my electorate I always make the point that perhaps amongst one of them there will be a councillor on Blacktown or Penrith city councils, or even a mayor or a state member. But if they aspire to my position, I ask if they could leave me a little bit of time to negotiate with my bank manager. I notice in the House today, and it is not unusual, that we have two groups of school students in two of the galleries. What a thought it might be if one of those students might one day aspire to be, and in fact become, a president of the republic.When I came into this place in 1984 I had no thought that, in my term as a member of parliament, this parliament would be discussing a bill to give effect to the verdict of people, should they vote in a referendum for a republic, to alter the Constitution to give effect to the people's will. I am delighted that it should be so.It is my privilege to serve on the joint select committee that has been proposed to examine this bill and consult with the Australian people to see how adequately this bill reflects the views and the resolutions of the Constitutional Convention. The bill we are discussing provides for various alterations to the Constitution which would replace the role of the Governor-General with that of a president and provide a method for choosing and dismissing the president.As a member of parliament, I have only ever had one other opportunity to be involved in a constitutional change and that was when our Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General, Lionel Bowen, put four propositions in 1988. These are not in any particular order, but they were that there should be freedom of religion, that local government should be recognised, that people whose land was acquired by governments should be fairly compensated, and, of course, a four-year term. The failure of that referendum is an object lesson for us.Given your detailed knowledge of these matters, Mr Deputy Speaker, you may recall that it was Peter Reith who championed opposition to these referendums. In regard to the four-year term, I always thought it was unfortunate that we were not prepared to accept the coalition's view that, if we were given a four-year term, senators should be given an eight-year term. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you are a New South Welshman, you will recall that at the time the upper house of the New South Wales parliament then enjoyed a 12-year term. But we rejected that and, as history goes on to show, the referendums were lost.The point I want to make is that it is a desire of the Labor Party and others to update our Constitution and make it relevant to the men and women of Australia. We cannot do it on our own. The coalition cannot do it on its own and we cannot do it. We really do need to have a consensus. So it is with the republic. Having both sides of parliament supporting this proposition is of the utmost importance, given all the difficulties that can occur with constitutional change.The Leader of the Opposition in his contribution to the debate suspected that there may have been some direct election republicans sitting behind him. I am not sure whether it is good to confess, but I must say that, having listened to the Australian people, my inclination would be for there to be a direct election. But I accept that this is not what the process of the Constitutional Convention delivered. What did the process of the Constitutional Convention deliver? It was that the people of Australia should have the right to nominate prominent people—as we have enjoyed with Governors-General, who are not necessarily political people, and in fact they seem to be avoided—to be considered as president of the republic. Then it will require a two-thirds majority in a joint sitting of both the Senate and the House to elect such a person. This really means that either party who is in government cannot afford—and I do not know that they have necessarily done it in the past—to nominate a partisan figure who would not enjoy the support of others.The outcome of the Constitutional Convention was to say that, as near as possible, we want to replicate the system that with one exception has served Australia so well. This bill that we are currently debating tries to do that. But, as the honourable member for the Northern Territory pointed out, the people of Australia have the right to actually contact the committee. They can write to us or telephone, and communicate via the Internet or by any other means they wish, to let us know how adequately in their minds this bill and these provisions reflect the Constitutional Convention.There are those in the community who say, `Why support this? This has not been a big enough change. We want to go a lot further.' There are even those within this side of the parliament who may have that view. My response is that, given the difficulties of achieving success at referendums, we need to move slowly. It would be nice on our side of the parliament if we had a commitment that in government we would regularly seek to give people the opportunity to update the Constitution, perhaps once every term and coinciding with every election.How ridiculous it is that in our state of New South Wales we have a fixed four-year term for local government—everyone knows when that election will be—and a fixed four-year term for the legislative assembly in New South Wales but, when it comes to the national parliament, we have three-year terms. How silly. It would be one of the changes that I would be keen to see happen. Another might be a constitutional amendment to try to overturn the High Court's Brandy decision which would allow us to more adequately develop federal tribunals in our justice system. It is a good thing to take these issues on a regular basis to the people and listen to their will but, if we are going to be successful we do need to put aside our party differences, act in a bipartisan way in the national interest and take these issues to the people.One of the things that this referendum is not about is a judgment on the Queen. In fact, of all women we have on the international stage, overwhelmingly the majority of Australians have a high regard for her and for the role that she has performed. But, as we go into the next century, as we go into the next millennium, it is all about whether it is appropriate that someone who is not an Australian should be our head of state. Some people, I am sure, were upset with the recent decision of the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, about Senator-elect Heather Hill, who had British nationality. The High Court—the highest court in our land—decided that the UK was a foreign power. So irrespective of what you think of that judgment—I happen to think it was the correct one—here you have the highest judges of the land saying that our head of state is the head of a foreign power. What other country would tolerate that situation?So, as I was saying, isn't it going to be great when members, including members of the coalition, can go around their electorates and can say—if this referendum is carried—to the young people of Australia, `One of the things that you can aspire to is to be our head of state; you could become the first person from this area or from this state to be the President of Australia'? I think that is a marvellous thing. I would be absolutely delighted if one of the students in the 55 schools in my electorate of Chifley went on to be the President of Australia—a marvellous thing.I would like to draw to the attention of the House—indeed, the Leader of the Opposition already has done it—the title of the bill, which of course will be there on the ballot paper, and that is:A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with a President chosen by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.There is nothing that is untrue in any of that, but I think for republicans a better title would be, `A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for an Australian citizen, chosen from nominations submitted by the people and approved by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of the Commonwealth Parliament, to replace the British monarch as Australia's head of state.' I think that more accurately reflects the sentiments that surround the issue of Australia becoming a republic. It is one of the things that the committee will need to consider as it goes around Australia. Interestingly enough, I think it will be of value to find out what the people think about those two titles or about any other title.I can say, without in any way wanting to invoke challenges of breach of privilege, that the committee did meet yesterday for the first time. It was a public meeting. One of the issues people have raised about Australia becoming a republic is: what does it mean for the President, like the Governor-General, to be the Commander-in-Chief? Is there some secret provision in this bill that would allow the President to assume to himself or herself some dictatorial power by use of this title? It made me think: what does it mean when we say, `The Governor-General is the Commander-in-Chief'? I know that at one time he had to personally sign every officer's commission. No-one could be appointed as an officer of the ADF without a signed commission from the Commander-in-Chief, nor could you dismiss an officer without his express approval. That requirement has subsequently been removed or delegated.Of course, the point needs to be made that under our current system the Governor-General has few powers to himself, but in all of these things, including being Commander-in-Chief, he acts on the advice of ministers. He may question the advice, he may delay responding to the advice, but he acts on and consistent with that advice. I think that is very, very important to understand. I guess this bill is about wanting the best of both worlds; that is, the current constitutional arrangements—which, as I say, with one exception have served this country particular well—to be replicated with our president. If there is an issue about the need to change that further down the track, there is always the opportunity, but there is only one group of people who actually have the final say about those changes—just as they do with this—and that is the people of Australia.As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is the double provision in referendums for changing the Constitution. That is, we need not only a majority of people to support a constitutional change but also a majority of states. I again offer my humble suggestion to improve the number of states issue by leading a secession movement in Western Sydney and creating a state—but I cannot see that happening for some time—although I need to reiterate that by the year 2017 we will be more than 2½ million people and will be the majority of Sydney. That is, people in Western Sydney will outnumber all of those on the North Shore and in the eastern and southern suburbs.So I speak for a 10 per cent slice of all Australians at the moment when I say that I am a Western Sydney member. But I am confident, Mr Deputy Speaker, because in my part of the world we have one of the great benefits—as I know you do in the Illawarra—of being a very multicultural society. We have people from different countries who, at some point or other, have chosen to make Western Sydney their own. Whilst, for some people, contemplating a change in the Constitution to become a republic is difficult, many of those already come from a republic. Indeed, I will get in a plug for my Filipino community, of which I have the largest concentration in Australia; they are marvellous people. This year, the Filipinos are celebrating 101 years since becoming a republic. They seem to have been able to survive it. It is not a life-threatening condition, you might say.I, along with all my other colleagues, get particular joy from being able to speak on bills like this. We sincerely hope that there can be a consensus that rises above mere politics to embrace this important change and enter more appropriately the next century and the next millennium. I look forward to the bill being enacted, and I look forward to the referendum.Debate (on motion by Mrs Sullivan) adjourned.Bills7914s2137914Debate resumed from 21 June, on motion by Mr Entsch:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Martyn Evans moved by way of amendment:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House:(1) expresses its concern that: (a) the legislation is being dealt with in indecent haste and with inadequate consideration; (b) the Government's claim that the legislation will `solve the problem' of unacceptable content is not supported by the reality that the vast bulk of internet content is generated outside Australia; (c) the proposals, including the idea of mandatory internet service provider filters, are unworkable and easily by-passed; (d) the application of the narrowcasting classification regime to the regulation of internet content has not been thoroughly analysed and may well require revisiting in the future, in view of rapidly changing and converging technology; and (e) the legislation does not include a sunset clause, or provision for review, given the speed of technological change in this area; and(2) recommends that: (a) efforts should be made by the Government to pursue international agreements on the regulation of internet content; and (b) substantially more emphasis should be placed on end-user empowerment through information and education campaigns for parents, schools and guardians about the use of the internet and of end-user filter devices". 13:47:007914Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I am continuing my earlier contribution to the second reading debate on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 . This is the bill that the coalition government has introduced to protect Australian children from some of the offensive and septic material that is on the Internet and to try to make sure that this extremely valuable information and educational tool is something we can all be confident and proud of as being a resource available to younger generations. It is an enormously powerful tool, bringing to households around the world, free of any tyranny of distance, access to material, insights, culture and information that should make a very positive contribution to the future for the young people who take the time to look through it.In my previous contribution, I highlighted that, in amongst that enormous capacity that exists with that tool, there was something that I described as `cyber-septic'. I was drawing attention to the contribution by the member for Bonython and the position of the Labor Party, where glib remarks and words of concern were not backed up by any action. There was hand-wringing. People over there were saying, `We don't condone the sort of nonsense and filth that is on the Internet.'Mr Lee interjecting—1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—The member who is interjecting is reinforcing that position by saying that the Labor Party, again, on this issue, has no view. But the thing that has been missed by many, and particularly by those opposite, is what it is that we are trying to achieve. I went through some examples of my 18-month-old boy who, some time down the track, may have wanted to see what a giraffe looked like—an innocuous inquiry. We do not have giraffes in the electorate which I represent, on Melbourne's Mornington Peninsula. But, if you put an inquiry into any search engine, what do you find? You get pictures of young people engaged in sexual acts with animals. I cannot quite see how the vision of an information or educational tool is met by that test.I notice that, when the facts are put on the table, Labor Party members opposite become silent, because this is the reality. In the information technology world, there are a lot of people who talk about the virtual this and the virtual that. These are the facts: when you put something into a search engine like Alta Vista—you make some inquiries about some activities you could engage in at school where there are some very reputable companies offering the sorts of games and educational things that I hope a lot of young people spend the time to get involved with—you come across all sorts of activity that I cannot even begin to describe in this place out of courtesy to those in this chamber and to those who are listening.What sort of capacity for good, for education and for the development of young minds does this tool represent when an innocuous inquiry puts you smack bang—inadvertently—in amongst filth and smut? What confidence can parents have when their sons and daughters are at home in the study doing research and come across this sort of material? In this country, 20 per cent of households have access to the Internet. I would put it to you that many more households would more willingly get involved in the Internet if they could be more confident about its application and its benefits for the family.I can give other examples—and I will not spend too much time on this. If you were in the devastating situation of being caught in an incident of sexual abuse or something of that kind and you did not know who to turn to because the people whom you trusted and relied on and whom you turned to for advice may have been involved, you think, `I will make an inquiry on the Internet to maybe get some advice about how to handle such a devastating incident.' What do you come up against? You are in a fragile frame of mind. Your whole world has been turned on its head because of some episode. You put in an inquiry to a search engine. What do you come up with? Do you get something helpful? Do you get some support for the trauma that is in your life? No. You get page after page about naked children, porno, rape, photos about things that have gone on, and snuff incidents in other parts of the world. I will not go into the specifics, but it is just disgusting. At a time when you need help and you turn to this information tool, that is what you get.The bill which is before the parliament is trying to give the tool a chance. If you are faced with a situation of workplace harassment and you are trying to find out who you need to talk to, what people could be there to support you, if you put in an innocuous inquiry like `workplace harassment' to Alta Vista, a search engine that is available on the Internet, you struggle to find your way through some things about electronic devices and what you can do with them, about bosses that perpetuate harassment in their workplaces. And this is put forward as entertainment at a time when you are looking for advice and information.What a waste of a resource that has an enormous capacity to bring good to this world. The bill before the parliament today is trying to give the resource a chance and to give Australian families and young people the confidence that this tool that is available, that can bring the whole world to your home, no matter where you live, can actually be used for some good things.I will not give any more examples, but let me assure you that there are bucketloads of them. As I pointed out in my earlier contribution, these are nothing other than innocuous inquiries put into the search engine. It is not like people are going out to find this sort of smut. It is something that comes towards you through innocuous inquiries about legitimate concerns when you are searching for information or looking for some guidance. You might even be looking for some help. And that is what you are faced with.Those who oppose what the government is doing do not like talking about that. They would rather live in this virtual world where they talk only about the capacity and the potential of the Internet. I do not doubt the capacity and the potential of the Internet. I do not doubt that it is there to deliver good for people around the world and for the citizens of Australia. That is its potential. Its reality falls some way short of that. For Australian families around the country, this government is trying to make sure that we are doing what we can as a nation to enable the Internet to get a bit closer to fulfilling that potential.We do that in a number of ways. First, we do that by recognising that the Internet has a great capacity to improve people's lives and give them access to information which they may never otherwise have been able to obtain, in a time frame that eliminates the tyranny of distance and other access to information problems. It opens a whole new world of opportunity for far-flung communities throughout our country. It enables people to be put in cities around other parts of the world, to offer their product, to share their insights, to put their experience in front of others and to put an educational resource at the fingertips of young Australian boys and girls.This bill, though, seeks to recognise the fact that the Internet can also be used to disseminate illegal and/or highly offensive material. I have just given you a sample of what the reality is at the moment. The bill establishes a mechanism to regulate the carriage of content over the Internet, keeping in mind that the government regulation can never, on its own, completely provide the perfect solution. I am not standing here before you today and saying that this will solve the problem entirely. It will not.Mr Stephen Smith interjecting—1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—Perhaps those opposite are saying that it will not solve it at all. I say to the ALP spokesman who is at the table: why don't you try to type in a very innocuous search inquiry and see what you come up with?Mr Stephen Smith interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Perth!1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—There is nothing clever about the way in which an innocuous inquiry can inadvertently put you in that situation. The member for Perth is having to resort to interjection and cyber babble to try to mask the fact that the Labor Party is without a policy on this subject. Everybody agrees with the fact that something needs to be done. But our AWOL ALP—absent without leadership ALP—again cannot come up with anything other than to say that whatever anybody else says is wrong.The computer industry is now starting to recognise that something has to happen. That is from a position where the computer industry was saying, `Leave it to us, we'll sort it out. We'll self-regulate.' But for those members in this place who have taken a keen interest in this subject, what did we get in the last few months of this campaign? We have had the computer industry telling us about all the things they can do to get around any useful step forward the government puts. So when you look to the industry itself, which is saying, `Give us a chance to self-regulate,' some within the industry do not want to know about it. They do not share the conviction and the view of those on this side of the parliament and the vast majority of Australians that something needs to be done, even if it is only to save this tool from itself.When you look to the computer industry itself as a way of maybe providing part of the solution, some within the industry are not prepared to take up the challenge. But there are some who are. Those who are receive encouragement under this bill. You will hear some members opposite saying, `Look, it failed in the United States of America.' What they are misleading you about is that the US proposition was entirely different from what the Australian government is trying to do. In the United States, the Communications Decency Act was struck down by the United States Supreme Court. It was struck down for a reason: it was pre-emptive. It sought to prescribe in advance what was good and bad content. That is a hazardous task. Someone seeing me jogging might well describe that as bad content because I cannot keep up with the member for Curtin. The fact is that community standards change and evolve over time, and the US act tried to put in place a mechanism to prescribe what is good and what is bad.Our act does not do that. Our proposal says, `You, the Australian people, signal what you find offensive.' We will apply the same sort of rules that we apply to what is on television, what is in movies and what is in magazines. It will be a complaint based situation where we then look at the individual circum stance against what are acceptable standards at that time and then take action. So this is entirely different from the United States proposition. Again, those opposite, AWOL Labor—absent without leadership Labor—do not want to confront the fact that this is a different proposition from that of the United States. They stand there hand-wringing on content contortions, basically saying, `We know that something needs to be done, we're not condoning the filth that's there.' Let me remind people in the parliament that this is filth generated out of innocuous inquiries. This is not somebody who is into peek and perve experiences on the Internet. This is an innocuous inquiry where you get page after page of content described in a way that would be unparliamentary. I cannot even go into the details of it. But that is what this proposition is.I ask everyone in this House, as we enter question time, to again hear about how the coalition government is planning for the future and is implementing policy. It is such a vivid contrast to AWOL Labor—absent without leadership. This government is getting on with the job of addressing what is of concern to the community. We are doing what we can to support those in the Internet industry who want to make sure that this tool has the capacity to fulfil its potential. That potential is something that those opposite want to talk about in ignorance of the reality of the sort of content that is there at the moment. Clearly, there are some complicated issues. The tool here gives the Internet industry and consumers a chance to decide how they can deal with this problem. There is encouragement for everybody; it is a light-handed regulatory regime. But it is in vivid contrast to the mealy-mouthed words of the ALP, AWOL Labor—absent without leadership—who do not have a position on this subject at all.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Dunkley will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Ministerial Arrangements791714:00:007917Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs will be absent from question time today. He is travelling to the United States, Canada, South America and New Zealand to participate in discussions relevant to his portfolio responsibilities. The Attorney-General will answer questions on his behalf.Questions Without Notice791779177917Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, did you read the foreword to your `Research Green Paper' before signing it? Do you stand by your claim in the foreword that `Australia's public investment in research is large by world standards and private investment is growing'? Isn't it a fact that you have misled the Australian public, because you know that in 1998 the Australian Bureau of Statistics said:For the first time since the ABS surveys of R&D commenced, estimates for business expenditure on R&D have fallen.As you know, in 1999 the ABS said:For the second consecutive year estimates of business expenditure on R&D have fallen . . . a decrease of 4% on 1996-7 and 7% on 1995-6.Minister, did you deliberately mislead or are you in denial about the damage your government has already done to Australia's research and development effort?7917Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—This question comes from the representative of a party which proposed to actually cut research expenditure in the last election campaign! The Labor Party went to the last election with a proposal to reduce expenditure on research in universities. Its own forward estimates petered out and it did not commit enough money to sustain research expenditure. I not only read that foreword to the green paper before I signed it but wrote the foreword to the green paper, and the statements in the foreword are absolutely correct.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Oh, dear me! Many have had these problems with you before.BT4Dr KEMP—It might be worth reminding the opposition and the House about this government's commitment to research. Let us just look at what the government has put into university research since 1995-96. In 1995-96—the last year of your government, the last year of the Labor Party government—the federal government committed $346.4 million to research. This coming year, 1999-00, the government will be committing $437.6 million.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—What have you done about funding grants?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition!BT4Dr KEMP—The question was about research. Let us just focus on the question you have asked.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—No, tell us about the $840 million in cuts and why—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will exercise more restraint.BT4Dr KEMP—They do not like the answer, Mr Speaker. They do not like the answer because they have been misinformed by the spokesman for the policy vacuum over there, the member for Dobell. Government expenditure on research has gone up very substantially.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. My question was about his misleading claim that business expenditure had increased. He knows it has decreased and he should come back to the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will resume his seat. The minister is being relevant to the question. The minister will respond.BT4Dr KEMP—I was asked about whether or not research expenditure was growing, and I am putting before the House the figures that demonstrate that it has grown very substantially. It is also worth making the point that taxpayers put more money into R&D in Australia as a proportion of GDP than do all but two of the OECD countries. Our public expenditure on research is exceptionally high. Not only that, business expenditure on research has grown very substantially over the last decade, and the research paper will encourage further investment in research. It will encourage an entrepreneurial culture in Australian universities.This question demonstrates that the Labor Party is totally out of touch with what is happening in university research, it is totally out of touch with what is happening in education and, until it replaces the member for Dobell as the spokesperson for education on its side, it will remain out of touch.79187918Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen any reports that there has been an increase in productivity growth in Australia? What policies have contributed to this increase?7918Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Many members will have seen in today's Financial Review an article by a member of the Productivity Commission following up on the Productivity Commission report released recently entitled The New Economy ? A New Look at Australia's Productivity Performance . In that report the Productivity Commission—which of course the Labor Party opposed setting up—found that Australia's productivity performance is now at an all-time high and that productivity has accelerated over recent years. Productivity growth has averaged 2.9 per cent under a coalition government, double that of the average under Labor of 1.5 per cent.DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, come on!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Paul Krugman, the world famous economist from MIT, said recently:I would like to see more Australias around the world.And, at the meeting of trade ministers in Auckland recently, US trade representative Richard Fisher—no relation to one of Australia's great trade ministers, Mr Tim Fischer—said this:Australia of course has been a great grower and it is rather miraculous what Australia has been able to achieve, but if you look around the rest of the world you don't see that kind of dynamic growth.That again emphasises the lift in productivity, the lift in growth in the Australian economy, as we have put in place a macro-economic framework with which to conduct the Australian economy. We have put in place a charter of budget honesty to lock in good fiscal policy—and it was opposed by Labor. We put in place a surplus budget—and it was opposed by Labor. We entered into an agreement on monetary policy with the Governor of the Reserve Bank—and it was opposed by Labor, saying that it was going to sue the government over such an agreement.We put in place privatisation in relation to Telstra—and it was opposed by Labor. With the proceeds of the privatisation of Telstra, we have been able to pay down Commonwealth debt. And, if Labor would get out of the way and cease its opposition and Telstra were fully privatised, Australia could eliminate Commonwealth debt in 2002-03.83UCOXMr Cox—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It goes to relevance. None of this has anything to do with productivity. That Productivity Commission report referred to Labor's productivity.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer's answer was entirely relevant to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Apparently running a budget surplus and retiring Commonwealth debt has nothing to do with a productive economy. Oh, the thinkers on the Labor back bench! Some of us wonder how the Labor Party gets the people it does on the front bench—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will come to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—and the answer lies with the people it has on the back bench. Now that the US has finally got its budget into surplus, President Clinton in talking of America—UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—Give Louise a go!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Wills.CT4Mr COSTELLO—was quoted in the paper today as saying:By 2015 this country can be entirely out of debt if we do not squander the surplus by choosing short-term gain over long-term national goals. If you pay this debt off, it means interest rates will be lower. It means there will be more investment, more new jobs, more money left over for higher wages. There we have President Clinton holding out to the US people the prospect of eliminating US debt by 2015. If Labor got out of the way, Australia could beat the US by 13 years; we could accomplish in 2002 what President Clinton has set as a goal for US economic policy in 2015. It turns on one vote in the Australian Senate. The Labor Party can either prevent Australia eliminating debt and beating the US by 13 years, or it can continue its policy of useless negative oppositionism. The choice stands squarely with the Leader of the Opposition.We on this side of the House believe that Australia can keep its performance up, we can lift productivity, we can beat the US—and we call upon the Labor Party for once in its life to do something for the national interest.79197919Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you refuse to accept that the ABS survey simply measures the impact of your government's $840 million cuts to university operating and research grants and the reduction in private sector R&D incentives? How can you claim to have a vision for Australian research, when the ABS proves private investment in research has been declining over your two years in office as opposed to the eight years prior to that that your spokesperson chose to use in his answer to the question directed to him? Your own budget papers show that total Commonwealth support for research and innovation has declined by 18 per cent since your government was elected, and your green paper on research does not provide one extra dollar to undo the damage that you have already done.7919Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As I am sure all honourable members will be aware, research investment in this country takes a number of forms. It not only comes from the public sector but it also comes from the private sector.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Oh, the private sector! Wow!ZD4Mr HOWARD—Just listen. It is not only directed to the sorts of things that were the subject of the question asked by the member for Dobell but also it reaches into areas such as health and medical research.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Oh, that's irrelevant to this question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—They do not want to talk about that because we, in fact, in the last budget have committed ourselves to double the amount. We are going to double the amount of money going into health and medical research. It is not surprising therefore that, since the budget, I have been absolutely inundated with letters from people involved in health and medical research all around this country, applauding the vision and the commitment of the government I lead to health and medical research.As to the interpretation placed by the Leader of the Opposition upon an ABS survey, I have a longstanding practice in this parliament, verified by bitter experience: I never accept an interpretation placed on a public document by the Leader of the Opposition. I do not have anything to add to the very fine answer given by my colleague the minister for education.79207920Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and the best Minister for Trade this country has ever had.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Cowper will come to his question.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members on my left will come to order. The member for Cowper has the call and will proceed directly to his question.AE4Mr NEHL—Thank you, Mr Speaker, I certainly will, but I am obliged to tell the truth. Could the minister advise the House of the outcomes of the recent APEC trade ministers' meeting in New Zealand, including APEC's continuing role in pressing for trade and economic reform in the Asia-Pacific region?7920Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—I thank the member for Cowper for his timely question. The APEC meeting has just finished in Auckland this day. I was privileged to attend on behalf of the Australian government not only at Auckland but also at Christchurch where we had a very successful joint lamb rally and public meeting—with my counterpart and with the farm leader, Ian Donges, and his counterpart, Malcolm Bailey—which added weight to our case to persuade the US not to proceed down the path of barriers against our legitimate lamb exports.On APEC, I am delighted that further steps were taken to lock in the launch of a WTO millennium round at the Seattle ministerial scheduled for November of this year. In addition to agriculture and services which are part of the built-in agenda, there was a very clear-cut decision to add industrials to that in a way which was unanimously adopted by APEC trade ministers—a very pleasant change from some of our difficulties in recent times.On the APEC only activity, the individual action plans are back in business. They are the engine room of APEC. A number of steps were taken to further build momentum with those individual action plans as well as practical proposals, such as the APEC food system, which is seeing a boost to two-way trade and more jobs—newer and better jobs—as a consequence of that additional trade.I might add there was also consideration of aspects of financial transparency and work which the Treasurer and others have done and which the Prime Minister, from his task force, launched. I am delighted that, in reviewing all of APEC at this time as it heads to the leaders meeting in September in Auckland, it has to be said that the management of the Asian meltdown was conducted a whole lot better as a consequence of the existence of APEC. The bringing forward of a recovery, most notably in places like Korea, was facilitated by the additional confidence, contact and networking conferred by APEC when some very hard decisions had to be made, including by the Australian government.There is a bonus for Darwin out of the deliberations in New Zealand these last three or four days, and that is that Brunei has invited Australia to be the host for this trade ministers meeting this time next year—mid-year 2000—and the good news is that, on my recommendation, Darwin has been selected for that. It will be a very good boost for the Brunei year of APEC that Darwin will host the trade ministers meeting, especially as Brunei is seeking to develop the theme of service industries and tourism for its APEC year. All in all, a very constructive, successful meeting. But I sadly have to report to the House there is still no such thing as a level playing field.79217921Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. What is your response to the letter sent to you on 2 June by the President of the Liberal Party, Tony Staley, warning that the GST has `the potential to adversely affect the operations of all cooperative research centres'? Did you tell Mr Staley that he was wrong when he suggested that a cooperative research centre with a cash income of $2½ million per annum could be liable to a GST of $700,000? Did you tell Mr Staley he was wrong to suggest that grants from industrial parties to cooperative research centres and in-kind contributions from businesses could be subject to a GST?7921Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I am aware that the honourable member released a report of a letter from Mr Staley to me dated 2 June 1999. I thank her for doing so, because it certainly brought it to my attention and it means that her attempt to mislead the House can be refuted. I have the letter from Mr Staley. In it he posed a number of questions and asked for answers in relation to them.The answers to Mr Staley's questions are that the GST will not adversely impact on government grants to cooperative research centres and, where a grant is a payment by a government that constitutes a consideration for a supply of services, they will be subject to GST only when the CRC is a registered entity. This means that if it is a registered entity—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—They are.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Just wait for it—it can claim the full amount of the GST as an input tax credit.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Yes, it is.CT4Mr COSTELLO—They say it is, and the consequence of it is that they get all of it back. One of the things that has amazed me in this whole debate as it has gone through the House of Representatives is that not one person in the Labor Party has been able to do the work to actually understand how tax applies—not one of them. A registered entity is entitled to claim back as an input tax credit all of the GST paid. That is the whole idea. Businesses do not pay tax on inputs. It is only under Labor's tax system that business pays tax under inputs.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—And what about passing it on?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Because Labor's tax, the wholesale sales tax, when you buy something with wholesale sales tax on it, you are not entitled to claim it back. That is the difference. They have always brought with them the fatal weakness of their own flawed taxation system and sought to objectify it onto tax reform.UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—But you didn't say that when you—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Wills is warned.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The provider of the grant will therefore be able to claim an input tax credit in relation to the grant, and the grant recipient will be able to remit the GST to the Australian Taxation Office. Because the transaction is one between two GST registered entities, it will have no net GST effect on either the CRC or the provider of the grant. And that being the case, the CRCs are in a protected position.DT4CREANMr Crean—It is a tax on knowledge!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!CT4Mr COSTELLO—The CRCs will benefit from tax reform because they will be able to give all of their input tax credits back. I welcome the interest of Mr Staley in writing to me and I am very pleased to be able to have this opportunity to give him the answers in relation to that.79227922Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, could you inform the House of the many benefits which have accrued to the Australian community from the introduction of the Workplace Relations Act? Has this act measured up to the expectations of various parties?7922Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Moreton for his question. In April 1997 the Labor Party actually set the benchmark, the criteria, by which the 1996 Workplace Relations Act reforms should be assessed and I think—2½ years on since the commencement of those reforms—it is only fair enough to judge ourselves against the test which the Labor Party set for us. The then shadow minister, the member for Fraser, said there were five questions to be asked about the government's reforms. The first one was: will there be fewer industrial disputes over this three-year term under this regime than there were in the last three years under the old regime? As members of the House know, we got the lowest level of industrial disputes since 1913 in both 1997 and 1998—one out of one we passed that test.The second Labor test was: will there be more jobs created in this term under this regime than there were in the last parliament? In particular, will there be more jobs created in small business? Of course unemployment is not good enough but it is the lowest basically for this decade. Youth unemployment is about the lowest since the early 1980s. Importantly, we have created more jobs than Labor destroyed during `the recession that we had to have'. In Labor's last six years there were 24,300 full-time jobs created; under the coalition, 407,000. Half of those were full time and about half of them were created in small business. So that is two questions out of two.The third one was: will the distribution of wage outcomes and benefits be fairer after this act than it was before? That is an easy one to answer. If you are a low income person, real wages have increased by 7½ per cent in the time that we have been in; they declined by five per cent under Labor's 13 years—so that is three out of three. His fourth test was: will labour productivity increase faster after this act than the current trend rate of 1.75 per cent per annum? The Treasurer has already answered that question. Productivity rates are at a very high level, certainly significantly better than they were when Labor was in. That is four out of four.Lastly: will the overall wage and salary outcomes be more consistent with a low inflation, low interest rate environment than the outcomes of the present system? Interest rates are at the lowest since the bloke walked on the moon. As for interest rates: not only do you get an increase in your wage packet but $330 a month in the average reduction in mortgage rates and of course low inflation. And who is helped by low inflation? None other than the low income folk, those people who are otherwise disadvantaged in the labour market. Those are the tests that the Labor Party set. The official statistics show we have met five out of five. The importance of that fact is that we are now proceeding to the second set of reforms, building on what we have done in 1996, confident in the knowledge that the runs are on the board—more jobs, more employment, higher wages—and that is a good deal for the Australian economy.79227922Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, will you confirm that a bus company in Sydney operating a daily minibus service to Mittagong will get a diesel fuel grant for all of the 108-kilometre journey but another bus company in Sydney operating a daily minibus service to Wollongong—a similar 100 kilometres—will not get a grant for any of the journey? Isn't this inequity going to provide a competitive disadvantage—something that you claim to care about—to bus companies servicing areas like Wollongong, Newcastle and outer metropolitan Sydney? As transport minister, do you believe that these areas deserve a lesser service than non-metropolitan areas?7922Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPTransport and Regional Services10—My response to the honourable member for Dickson's question is to say to her that the package is not quite as we originally designed it.DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, ha, ha!4K4Mr ANDERSON—That is apparently hilariously funny. But I would have thought that that was quite apparent.DT4CREANMr Crean—You promised to resign!XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—Resign! Where is your resignation?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the member for Dickson!4K4Mr ANDERSON—It delivers overwhelmingly the benefits that we promised to rural and regional Australia. In fact, the package as a whole may offer better benefits to rural and regional Australia. There are some changes to the arrangements as a result of what we successfully negotiated with the Democrats. I regret, I have to say to the member for Dickson, that she dealt herself—and her party—out of the opportunity to perhaps have smoothed over, to have streamlined, some of these areas for which she now professes great concern about. But that was not possible and the responsibility for that decision lies not with us, not with the Democrats but with you.79237923Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. What will be done to ensure Australian consumers gain the full benefit of price reductions during the introduction of the new tax system?7923Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I would like to thank the member for Fadden for his question; he has long been a strong advocate for consumer interests. Twenty-one days after the royal assent is given for the bills that passed through the parliament yesterday, tax cuts begin. The wholesale sales tax applying to luxury goods will be brought down from 32 per cent to 22 per cent. These goods, as the Treasurer said in the House yesterday, include clocks, television sets, hi-fi systems, cameras, watches, radios, cufflinks and tie-pins. For the information of the Labor Party, they also include amusement machines, which should ensure that membership fees for the Labor Party come down as well.Fines will be put in place—of $10 million for companies and up to half a million dollars for individuals—for those who do not bring down the prices. I can advise the House that the ACCC has advised me that it has also surveyed retailers in over 100 cities and towns across Australia, specifically focusing on rural and regional Australia. They have a basket of goods from individual stores in those cities and towns as a price guide and a comparison with the price that should be applied after the wholesale sales tax comes down.As an indication of the broad range of basket that the ACCC has gathered, it covers, interestingly enough, representatives from both sides of the House and towns ranging from Alice Springs in the Northern Territory, from the seat of the member for Northern Territory through to the Gold Coast, Charters Towers, Longreach, Maitland, Bega, Orange, Glen Innes, Canberra, Bendigo, Hamilton, Bairnsdale, Launceston, Whyalla, Broome and a number of other centres. We can also advise the House that the ACCC has a new commissioner dealing with GST prices surveillance, that being Dr David Cousins. That was announced earlier today.Mr Tanner interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne will have time to reflect if he does not exercise some more restraint.DK6Mr HOCKEY—The ACCC will be working closely with the Australian Taxation Office to ensure that, to the satisfaction of the member for Fadden, consumers are better off through the GST application. I can advise the House that if consumers do have any complaints about that process then they should ring the ACCC on 1300 302 502 to ensure that retailers are bringing down the prices, which is good news for Australian consumers.79237923Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, will you confirm that a transport company in Coolangatta operating a fleet of 10-tonne trucks will not get a diesel fuel grant for any journeys to metropolitan areas, includ ing to Brisbane, whereas a business competitor in Murwillumbah—just 29 kilometres away—will get a grant for all journeys, especially to Brisbane? Why are you requiring these businesses to compete on such an unlevel playing field? Wouldn't any sensible transport company in an outer metropolitan area like Coolangatta or Ipswich in my electorate of Oxley simply up and move to the nearest non-metropolitan area?4K6CAUSLEYMr Causley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 146, which clearly states that a question, once fully answered, cannot be reviewed.VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—He never answered it, you idiot.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Bruce. If members on my left imagine that either the Speaker or the general public are going to put up with that sort of derision, they are sorely mistaken. The member for Page has the call and is entitled, under standing order 55, to be heard without interruption.4K6CAUSLEYMr Causley—Mr Speaker, I put to you that this question has been answered fully on several occasions.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: the most profound problem with the point of order is that this question could not have been answered because it is distinctly different from all those which have been asked before. The second point is that those questions which were asked before were not fully answered.83UCOXMr Cox—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The patience of the chair is being sorely tested by points of order. I trust this one is not frivolous and call the member for Kingston.83UCOXMr Cox—On the point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not think any of these questions have been answered at all.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Kingston. I will rule on the point of order of the member for Page. The question asked earlier today of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services referred to bus journeys between two destinations. This is a question that refers to truck journeys between two destinations and, as such, is in order. I call the minister.7924Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPTransport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for the question. The first point I would make is that, if the truck operating in a conurbation is over 20 tonnes when it is loaded, it gets the full benefit of all the transportation tax relief measures. The second point I would make is that, if it is between 4½ tonnes and 20 tonnes and operating in a conurbation like that, no, it does not get the full benefit. That is known. There is no new fresh revelation in that. The third point I would make is this: all of those truck operators benefit from the abolition of something that, as the Treasurer suggested yesterday, you are evidently going to argue that we ought to bring back at the next election—the WST. It all goes. It is one of the major cost imposts on the transport industry, and it goes. What is more, they get the GST on their fuel back.The next point I would make is in relation to where they might choose to locate. The relief or the taxation concessions are not based around where the truck is registered; it is based around where the fuel is used and what it is used for. The final point I would make is that what needs to be recognised is that, on this issue, you are opposing a valuable set of reforms for rural and regional Australia. You are against them. I want to quote some remarks made in Queensland the other day by an interviewer talking to United Graziers Association President, Noel Kennedy. The interviewer comments that Noel Kennedy believes that the cut to diesel fuel is the most significant part of the GST package for regional and remote Queensland.He says that it will benefit all people who live in remote areas and not just the people who operate a business—a grazing or a mining business. He said that it will benefit the people who live there and the actual cost of living in these remote areas. Freight is a big component of their costs, and of course this will be reduced. He also said that it will either do one of two things: it will reduce the cost of their living or it will improve the quality of life. I suggest it will do both. The bottom line is quite simply that you do not want people in rural and regional Australia to have the massive benefits that flow out of this very worthwhile reform.79257925Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can the minister advise the House how the government's research discussion paper seeks to improve our nation's research efforts? How does the minister respond to comments which have been made regarding the government's efforts to boost Australia's role in the ideas economy?DT4CREANMr Crean—He just counts the first eight years of Labor in his 10.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—It's called shifting deckchairs on the Titanic .7925Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for his question. The interjections are coming from a party which, as I said, intended to actually cut research funding in the course of its last announced education policy. The discussion paper on research and research training issued by the government is an expression of the government's determination to strengthen Australia's research base and to make sure that the brilliant ideas of Australian researchers have the best possible chance of being developed in Australia.Australia as a nation has shown that it is very strong in producing outstanding research and brilliant ideas. Too often those ideas have been developed overseas where the jobs have been located overseas when they could have been in Australia. This research paper aims to create a more entrepreneurial climate in Australian research and in the scientific community. Nor can Australia afford to keep losing the best and brightest of its young researchers. Its young scientists are going overseas as a result of the restrictive policies that the Labor Party supported for 13 years. This paper and the proposals in this paper will start to bring back to Australia the best and brightest of our young researchers.The comparative advantage of Australia in the 21st century will be because its economy is an ideas economy. Australia is going to find that its comparative advantage is in its knowledge and ideas, and the policies proposed in this green paper will help to position Australian research so that it is world class across the board. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that Professor Vicki Sara, the Chair of the Australian Research Council, has said that the paper is `an important step forward for the development of Australia's innovation system'.This government has invested in research. It has put far more money into university research than the Labor Party ever put into university research. Australia is already making a very big investment in scientific research and research in other areas. What this paper is concerned with is getting the national strategy right. We have to make sure that there is an entrepreneurial climate in that research, that there are incentives to commercialise their research, that there are incentives to critical mass so young researchers can feel that they can continue their careers and work in Australia in an environment which will enable them to give it their best.One of the interesting proposals in this paper is $2 million for the Prime Minister's scholarships. The Prime Minister's scholarships will provide assistance to the most promising honours graduates in Australia's universities who are proposing to go on to doctoral research. This is a recognition of the fact that this paper is all about excellence: it is about encouraging the best that Australia can do so that the best ideas and the best knowledge can support prosperity and jobs in this country into the 21st century.79257925Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Has the minister seen claims by FCL Interstate Transport Services that the 10 per cent GST on rail related goods and services will far outweigh the savings on excise from the rail industry and put rail at a further competitive disadvantage to road? Does the minister agree with the calculations of Mr Gibbins, FCL's managing director, that post GST road compared with rail will be at least six per cent more cost efficient than rail? If not, has the minister or the government carried out any assessment of how the GST and the savings on excise will ultimately impact on the rail industry?7926Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPTransport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for her question. The first thing that comes to mind is that I suspect again what we are seeing here is a failure to understand that all business costs are rebatable.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—In full.4K4Mr ANDERSON—In full. But there is a serious national issue here and I want to touch on it briefly.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Ah, this is the vision thing!4K4Mr ANDERSON—The vision thing. Well, there you go. We see a lot of that from the ALP. It is a vision called oppose absolutely everything, whatever it is, and if it is good for the country oppose it even more vigorously.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will respond to the question.4K4Mr ANDERSON—The fact of the matter is that we are removing all excise on rail. That is not something you have put up as a proposal. I believe that will assist the long-term competitiveness for rail. The short answer to your question about long-term prospects for rail is that, yes, we have done quite a bit of work on it and what we have established is that rail will continue to enjoy the advantage—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—He has his trainers on, Tim.4K4Mr ANDERSON—Mr Speaker, they are apparently not interested in the answer. But I thought it was quite an interesting point that the long-term advantages rail enjoys in long distance heavy freight haulage not only will be maintained but also are likely to be increased because our GST package will promote growth. More growth means a greater task for transport. That means more opportunity for both road and rail, and in the area where rail has an advantage it is our belief, based on research that we have done, that rail can look forward to a very bright future, particularly if we can gain a competitive regulatory environment across the jurisdiction of this country and if we can undo some of the damage that was done to rail in the years when you were in power.79267926Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is also addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Can the minister advise the House what progress has been made in implementing higher mass limits for the transport industry?7926Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPTransport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question. He is a man who holds the largest electorate in the world, let alone in Australia.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—He knows a bit about transport.4K4Mr ANDERSON—He knows a bit about transport and he knows how important it is.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—He knows a bit about campaigning, too.4K4Mr ANDERSON—Yes, he knows a bit about campaigning. The parliament yesterday passed some bills which means that collectively transport has had a great week in Australia. It is the lifeblood of the economy, particularly in rural and regional areas. So I want to announce that there is another big win which will commence unrolling tomorrow—that is, what is known as higher mass limits will begin to unroll.For the layman, this means that trucks will now be allowed to carry more freight per load—less trucks delivering more economical usage of our fuel. It will mean, in short, that a semitrailer, which at the moment is legally limited to carry 42½ tonnes, will be able to carry 45½ tonnes. To the layman again, I reassure people that it does not mean more trucks; it means fewer trucks because they can load more effectively. It is worth, believe it or not, something in the order of an $840 million a year boost to gross domestic product—benefits to consumers, the farm sector, the mining sector, fuel distribution, logging, food manufacturing, in short, to all Australians.I would like to say that my ministerial counterparts in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory showed early and strong support for this. South Australia has had higher mass limits since January of this year. Western Australia and the Northern Territory have had them in part for several years. Tasmania has also agreed. Yesterday Queensland agreed, which is a great outcome. We await a reply from the ACT. But I heard somebody opposite say, `Where is Mr Carr on this?' Mr Carr is dragging his heels. Mr Carr claims to be at the forefront of transport reform, but his minister Carl Scully is saying that they are not going to allow for the unrolling of higher mass limits in this country.Mass limits are a very major reform for transport in this country, with trucks loading more effectively, fewer trucks and lower fuel usage. We are putting in real resources to upgrade bridges across the nation to help the unrolling. It is time that New South Wales came on side with this very important reform, that they stop resisting the sorts of reforms that we see also in the area of the waterfront.I note in closing that the member who asked this question will be interested to learn that among the 13 new enterprise agreements signed recently by P&O is one for Port Hedland. It will make a real difference again to the transport efficiency in his electorate.79277927O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, do you recall announcing on 2 December last year that you had commissioned an expert consultant to conduct an independent investigation into the vibration and stability of Kenworth and certain other heavy trucks? Will you confirm that you and the Federal Office of Road Safety now have the report? Can you confirm that the report finds that design faults on the suspension mean that certain heavy vehicles are inherently unsafe and that it recommends that these vehicles should be recalled immediately? When do you propose to release these findings, get off your seat, take these unstable and dangerous vehicles off our roads and help prevent more death and injury on our major highways?7927Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPTransport and Regional Services10—In response to the honourable member's question I really think that, ahead of the report, which has not been completed, he does himself, the Labor Party, the transport industry and, in particular, the manufacturers of certain trucks in this country a great disservice by making assumptions that should not yet be made. It is true that, entirely appropriately and responsibly for a transport minister in this country, in response to various allegations being made, I have indeed initiated an inquiry. That is under way. But for a number of reasons, including a very interesting set of attitudes by some of the legal people in this country, it has taken much longer than anticipated to complete that review. Due to the complexity of the issues involved, the investigation has been extended. I expect a draft report soon. But I would suggest that, in the interests of fair play and common decency, we not make these sorts of assumptions about people who may prove to have been unfairly and grossly maligned.79277927Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Employment Services. Is the minister aware of any recent public statements regarding the Work for the Dole scheme, which is strongly supported by people in the electorate of Blair? What is the government's response to such statements?7927Mr ABBOTTMr ABBOTTUNKNOWNUNKNOWNUNKNOWNUNKNOWN00—I thank the member for Blair for his question and for his interest in this great program and for recently visiting the Work for the Dole team that was doing environmental restoration on the banks of the Bremer River in his electorate. I am aware of recent public statements about the Work for the Dole program, particularly an adjournment speech last night by the member for Batman, which he described as a fairly significant statement from the Australian Labor Party, presumably to distinguish it from statements from the Leader of the Opposition, whose net satisfaction rating has dropped by 13 points in just six weeks.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question.UNKNOWNMr ABBOTT—The statement of the member for Batman last night was in fact a significant challenge to the authority of the Leader of the Opposition, who has consistently called—YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Tell us about the polls.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne is warned.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on repetition. I think this is the 28th occasion that the minister has answered a question on the supposed positive statements about Work for the Dole. He simply varies the electorate. Now he goes into a criticism of a member of this side. He ignores the question. I ask you to draw him back to it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the member for Paterson had been listening, he would have heard the chair interrupt the minister when he made what I felt was a less than constructive observation. And I was in the chair last night when the member for Batman made his constructive speech about the Work for the Dole scheme. Given the fact that this was referenced to the electorate of Blair, I was presuming that the question had not been answered in full; that is why I called the minister. I invite him to come back to the question.UNKNOWNMr ABBOTT—The Leader of the Opposition has consistently called Work for the Dole social punishment. He has called it a disgracefully shoddy piece of public policy. Yet last night in the chamber we had the member for Batman calling for community organisations to become involved in what his leader thinks is a disgracefully shabby piece of public policy. The member for Batman gave the game away a few moments later when he called for a return to Working Nation style training programs, even though he knows—because the member for Melbourne has told him—that these lead to perverse outcomes and inappropriate and even demoralising training. That is even though he knows—because the Leader of the Opposition has told him:It is true that out of a lot of our training programs people didn't get a job at the end of it. But . . . they weren't around the streets bothering anybody.So that is the kind of shabby, shoddy training that the member for Batman is calling for in replacement of Work for the Dole. The real question is: has the ALP dropped its opposition to Work for the Dole? The answer is: of course it has not. What the member for Batman was doing last night was simply acknowledging the great public support for this great program. If the ALP were serious about supporting Work for the Dole, it would not give lectures to community organisations, it would tell the union movement to drop its opposition to this program, it would tell the New South Wales AWU to drop its veto on Work for the Dole programs in New South Wales national parks. That is the real test of whether the ALP is serious about for Work for the Dole: is it prepared to take on the unions? That is a test the Labor Party always flunks.79287928McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, what action do you propose to take in response to the World Trade Organisation directive that, by 6 July, Australia must agree to allow Canadian uncooked salmon into Australia? If you intend to allow the salmon imports, what is your assessment of the consequences for the salmon industry and for the Australian recreational fishing industry and what is your plan to cope with these consequences? If you do not intend to follow the directive, what support will you provide to the 52 primary products, including sheep, fruit, fish and flowers, which the Canadian government has listed for retaliatory action, including an import tax of up to 100 per cent?Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There will be no exchange across the parliament. The member for Melbourne seems to have a very short memory, and the member for Jagajaga isn't a lot better.7928Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for his question. From the outset, I think that we should acknowledge that we take our obligations as far as international trade very seriously. We, through the Minister for Trade and Deputy Prime Minister, have become a major player on the world stage in terms of trade negotiations and progressing the ideals of the Cairns Group. We have achieved a great deal in that regard.As far as the position that Canada have taken in advance of Australia fulfilling its obligations under this WTO decision, which is the issue that the member asked about, Canada are probably being a little bit provocative in identifying what retaliatory action they are taking and indeed going to the WTO when the WTO decision was about Australia completing an import risk analysis process by a particular date. That date has not arrived yet. We have announced that AQIS is undertaking that import risk analysis process.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—You have to do that before it does happen.SU5Mr VAILE—No. It is undertaking that analysis, and we will meet our obligations under the WTO. An interesting point to make is that earlier this year on 1 March, the shadow spokespersons, I suppose, for trade and agriculture, Senator Cook and the member for Corio, put out a joint statement, `Salmon decision: the government must act'. It says:One possibility would be to accelerate the Import Risk Assessment on fresh salmon, currently due to report early next year. As long as it is careful to preserve the integrity of Australia's Risk Assessment process the government would be wise to investigate whether this process can be completed before 6 July 1999.For once, the Labor Party agrees with the position the government has taken.DT4CREANMr Crean—But what are you going to do?SU5Mr VAILE—We have taken that position. The truncated import risk analysis process is under way right now. We will stand by the integrity of the scientific basis of that process, and we will meet our WTO obligations.79297929Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the government's response to the violent attack on the United Nations office in the town of Maliana, East Timor? What action has the Australian government taken following the attack?7929Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Hindmarsh for her question and her concern about the attack in the town of Maliana on a number of United Nations personnel. The Australian government is seriously concerned about the attack on United Nations personnel in Maliana. We understand that somewhere in the vicinity of 12 United Nations personnel were injured, although I have been advised that no Australians were injured.The United Nations, Australia and the international community as a whole will not, of course, be bullied by thugs. We will not be bullied out of this United Nations process and we will not be bullied into abandoning the United Nations supervised ballot in East Timor. The Indonesian authorities are, as members are no doubt aware, investigating this incident.Last night I took the opportunity of speaking to the Indonesian ambassador about this incident, and I made it clear that the Australian government deplores this kind of violence directed against the United Nations. On my instructions, our ambassador in Jakarta, John McCarthy, also made representations at the highest level in the Indonesian department of foreign affairs. He was not able to speak to the foreign minister because Mr Alatas was absent in Burkina Faso.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—Why didn't you ring Alatas?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingsford-Smith!4G4Mr DOWNER—Mr McCarthy took the opportunity of reiterating our grave concern, and the ambassador did make the point that the Indonesian police had failed in their duty to provide protection.The incident in Maliana should underline without any doubt to Indonesia that the concerns that we and others have, in particular that the United Nations have, about security in East Timor are real. The international community does expect Indonesia to fulfil its obligations under the tripartite agreement agreed in New York to protect UNAMET personnel. We have, of course, consistently made our concerns known to the Indonesians.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—Argued against peacekeeping: that is what you have done.4G4Mr DOWNER—I hear the member for Kingsford-Smith, back on his cheap party political points. You had 13 years to fix up the East Timor problem. You did not bother in 13 years.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question and the member for Kingsford-Smith will exercise more restraint.4G4Mr DOWNER—I do not recall the Labor Party organising a summit with President Suharto to discuss the issue of East Timor ever. You never had the courage to do that.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—And they didn't go to East Timor to discuss it either.4G4Mr DOWNER—The Prime Minister makes a rather significant point. You certainly did not travel up to Indonesia to lobby on the issue of East Timor. The Prime Minister did. The Prime Minister met with President Habibie in order to discuss Australia's concerns about the security environment in East Timor. We have made something like 50 representations since March on the issue of the security environment in East Timor.In conclusion, I was only going to give the House an update on the situation and what we had done. The constant cackling of the Labor Party reminds us of what could be described as sickening hypocrisy. You had 13 years to address the issue of East Timor and you cry crocodile tears now. If it was such a big issue, why did you do nothing about it for 13 years? You hypocrites!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.4G4Mr DOWNER—I have finished.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order. The minister was asked a specific question relating to a problem now.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am hearing the Leader of the Opposition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—He was asked a specific question on that. The simple fact of the matter is that he and his Prime Minister have failed miserably at a moment of great opportunity.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition cannot argue the case and will resume his seat.4G4DOWNERMr Downer—You are a pathetic Leader of the Opposition.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Foreign Affairs! The Leader of the Opposition cannot expect recognition from the chair, which is rightly extended to him, if he abuses the recognition when it is extended.79307930Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation.4G4DOWNERMr Downer—You didn't even have the courage to ask a question about it! You are absolutely pathetic!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Foreign Affairs is warned.8T4Mr LAURIE FERGUSON—Is the minister aware that the Deputy Premier of Western Australia yesterday told the Western Australian parliament that the National Party had identified a list of blocks which have `high conservation value but which fall outside the reservation processes'? Will you permit the Western Australian government to include these blocks in the reserve system? If not, why not?7930Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The first thing I noticed reported in the press today was that the Leader of the National Party told the state parliament that the Western Australian Premier did tell me that there would be no change to the regional forest agreement which the Premier and the Prime Minister signed some weeks ago. That is a matter of record in the parliamentary Hansard in Western Australia.We are well aware that certain people from time to time identify other blocks that might be included in the reserve system. I went and had a look at one of them through my department. I think it might have been Jane Block, but I will stand corrected on its title. It was about 5,000 hectares and represented 15,000 cubic meters of saw logs. If that one single block was added to the reserve system negotiated under the JANIS criteria and the national forest policy statement—which was once written by the Labor government; and once written oft forgotten is their practice—if that one block was transferred from production to reservation, 70 to 80 direct jobs would be lost. That seems to be what this minister cautions about. All he wants to do is try to raise a situation here where there would be further job losses in the forest industries.When the Prime Minister signed that agreement, I was so proud to be able to stand up and say to a town that is extremely vulnerable to this process, the town of Nannup, that the people of Nannup could sleep tonight. It is only due to the fact that the Labor Party will not support the regional forest agreement legislation in the Senate that we are not able to stand here now adding that reassurance to the people of the forest industries around Australia who are extremely worried. The major party—the now party of total irrelevance—is unable to bring itself to support this. We have got the Oxford scholars faction now running the Labor Party on forest issues. They do not care about working people. They wake up every morning and think there is some new party that is not called the Labor Party. The Labor Party used to be committed—as the spokesman on industrial relations has reminded his own side—to putting jobs first.The regional forest agreement is a process that addresses environmental issues under a strict criteria and, in Western Australia, that criteria was met. It also addresses the social impact on people and, for the benefit of the people opposite, that social impact means whether or not they are going to lose their house.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order on relevance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—I have finished.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.79317931Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Can the minister inform the House of recent opportunities that exist for Australia to become a world financial centre?7931Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Menzies for his pertinent question. Yesterday was an historic step forward in our ambitions to become a global financial centre. It was a historic day forward because the parliament passed two very important pieces of legislation that make us world competitive and, in many ways, ahead of much of the world.In the first place, we have got something to boast about in Australia that other parts of the region have not. We have got the second largest stock market in the Asia-Pacific region. We have got the largest futures market in the Asia-Pacific region. We have got the sixth largest funds under management of any nation in the world. As of reports this morning, the Australian dollar is now the fifth most traded currency in the world after the euro, the US, the sterling and the yen. That is an indication of just how successful Australia is in getting its message across to the world that we are a good place to do business in. Much of the credit goes to the work already done by the government and, in particular, by the Minister for Trade, who has gone to Asia and sent a great message to Asia—to Thailand, Hong Kong and Singapore—about our ambitions and successes and the great strength of the Australian economy.Yesterday two very important pieces of legislation passed the parliament. The first one was Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2). That provides a number of tax initiatives, announced some time ago by the government but implemented now, that encourage foreign financial institutions to provide services to Australian consumers, particularly in terms of funds management. Another initiative in that piece of legislation takes the shackles off foreign investors who want to invest in Australian corporate bonds. All of the people in this House should be aware that the Aussie Home Loans and the RAMS of this world issue bonds on the Australian market. If money is cheaper for Aussie, money is cheaper for all Aussies. The benefit of that comes down to lower interest rates for mums and dads. That is what we want.Other initiatives in that bill are a significant step forward, but no initiative is more significant than the billions of dollars we have provided as an incentive for Australian mums and dads to invest in the stock market. The best way to do that is to abolish stamp duty on the transfer of shares. Why does the Labor Party oppose these initiatives? Why does the Labor Party oppose greater access for Australian mums and dads to the stock market?UU5HORNEMr Horne—They do not have the money to be able to invest on the stock market.DK6Mr HOCKEY—The member for Paterson interrupts. The member for Paterson has obviously had his mojo stolen in the last 24 hours. The member for Paterson, who models himself on Austin Powers—VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—You are no Felicity Shagwell.7932Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I wouldn't be talking about shagging.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The House will come to order. What was clearly a matter of levity across the House has now degenerated somewhat. I bring the minister back to the question.DK6Mr HOCKEY—Well, Mr Speaker, they might be encouraged that the price of studs has come down from 32 per cent to 22 per cent.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question.DK6Mr HOCKEY—The bottom line is this. The government is doing everything it can to facilitate greater share ownership in Australia. That means that more foreign investors are coming to Australia. It means that more of the world's capital is coming to Australia. The good news is that that means more jobs for Australians.79327932Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Are you aware that the Premier of Western Australia refused yesterday in state parliament to confirm your story to this House that he had told you on Saturday that the state government had no plans to change the RFA and add more reserves? Did the Premier refuse to confirm your story because you didn't accurately reflect either the tenor or outcome of the meeting, or did he refuse because he won't fess up in his own state to his failure to achieve what he promised the people of Western Australia—to change the RFA and add more reserves?7932Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The press reporting, of course, is slightly misrepresented in the question, and that is not an unusual event. My reading of the press reporting was that the Premier made no comment, but the Deputy Premier then announced to the parliament that the Premier had told him that they were not changing the arrangements. All the evidence I note in the media is that the Western Australian coalition has resolved an issue that represented some difficulty for them. There was clearly very vigorous debate within their party room and their cabinet on the issue. It is pretty clear from today's press reporting, I am pleased to say, that the Western Australian government did what people of honour would always have done, and stuck to their agreements and stuck to their policy. In this House that is easy to differentiate. There is our side and there is their side. This is the side that can be identified as sticking to policy and promoting policy in a way that creates both jobs and conservation, in this case according to the national forest policy statement.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the extract from the Hansard that will give the accurate picture of the circumstances.Leave not granted.79327932Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—Has the Prime Minister seen recent comments by political leaders concerning the need to adopt positive attitudes to important public issues? What is the Prime Minister's response to these comments?7932Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, could I say in reply to the member for Ballarat, and an outstanding Chief Government Whip, that as it transpires I have seen a comment on that very issue. That comment came from none other than a successful Labor leader, and that successful Labor leader is the Premier of New South Wales. He had this to say:I think the electorate is telling political leaders these days to come up with positive approaches.This is the really relevant bit:Don't waste your time just attacking the other side. We are sick of that.That could well be a piece of political advice that the Leader of the Opposition could take on his travels around Australia over the next five or six weeks because if there is one thing that distinguishes our side from the other side, particularly over the eight months that have gone by since the last election, it is that the Liberal and National parties have got on with the job. They have delivered on what they promised to do. One of the most conspicuous features of a very conspicuous budget delivered by the Treasurer in May was that we were able to announce in that budget the implementation in full of all of the promises we took to the Australian people in October of last year. Not one of those promises was left out. The Treasurer was able to put a document on the table demonstrating conclusively that we had implemented all of our promises.Lest anybody in this House imagine for a moment that in my comments I am adopting a partisan stance, can I refer to an editorial in the Melbourne Herald Sun today. It is under the headline of `The sidelined ALP'. I think it really deserves very, very careful study. This is what it had to say:Having contributed nothing positive to tax reform, Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has the cheek to criticise the government's deal with the Democrats. His own lack of leadership on this issue saw the ALP sidelined in the negotiations which were critical to the nation's future.Yesterday, in a deplorable exercise in negativism, Mr Beazley described the new tax system as "a complete mess". He also mocked the government's attempt to achieve a 100 per cent Telstra sale.. . . . . . . . .Instead of responding to reality by isolating the minority senators, they allowed Labor to be reduced to a rump.The outcomes on both tax reform and Telstra are far from ideal. But Mr Beazley cannot credibly denigrate the Howard Government's compromise.What you have there is a very accurate analysis. On one side of politics in Australia at the moment you have two political parties that are prepared to put the national interest ahead of the sectional interest. You have two political parties—the Liberal and National parties—which are prepared to take risks for the long-term benefit of this country. You have two political parties—the Liberal Party and the National Party—which are committed to long-term benefits for the people of Australia. On the other side you have a political party that is wallowing in negativism, a political party that lives by saying no and shaking its head, a political party that is led by a man who has given no political leadership over the last three years. It is also led by a man who is now losing any touch with political reality. I turned on my radio this morning to hear him being interviewed by Fran Kelly of the ABC, and his very first answer in response to a question from Fran Kelly was:Look, we have mounted a full-blown assault on this GST, and we have won the debate.All I can say is that I tremble to think of what he would say if he had thought he had lost the debate. It has been a very satisfying first eight months, satisfying because we have been able to do good things for the people of Australia. Governments are elected and political parties come into this place to stand for principles, to fight for programs to achieve goals, to achieve objectives—not to feed their egos, but to deliver long-term benefits for the people of Australia. I am very pleased and proud that we have done that. We will go on doing that. I thank my colleagues for the contributions that they have made to that.Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions to the Speaker793379337933Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Mr Speaker, can you confirm to the parliament that the personnel working at the parliamentary switchboard are no longer being provided by Telstra but by the Kelly Services employment agency? Could you also confirm that there are some very experienced personnel who had worked with the parliamentary switch for many years who had wished to continue working but who were not offered positions by Kelly and were instead replaced by new inexperienced staff? Can you investigate why those former experienced employees who have served this parliament and all members and senators so well were not kept on by Kelly? Finally, have you received any complaints about the level of service being provided by Kelly?7934Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will respond to the question. I cannot confirm what the member for Cunningham has said. I have not received any complaints but, yes, I will investigate the questions he has asked and, at a convenient time, report back to the parliament.Miscellaneous793415:19:007934Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—by leave—I have had personal and particular cause to change my mind and bring forward a decision which I now present to the House as a matter of courtesy and to avoid any misleading. I announce that, as a consequence of the convergence of certain political factors and certain personal factors, I have decided to step down as federal Leader of the National Party, as Deputy Prime Minister of Australia and, not without a degree of particular regret, as Minister for Trade. I propose to do so on or about 20 July.I plan to continue as the member for Farrer. I plan to continue a deep interest in issues such as trade, transport and tourism, within and without the political realm. I plan to activate a personal tourism industry project. I plan also to do something quaint, perhaps over this next couple of weeks—that is, to travel around to some places, large and small, to say thank you to the people of Australia for the assistance, help and support they have given me over the period that I have had the privilege of serving in these positions.After 30 years directly involved in politics, after a period in the Army, after 28 years in state and federal politics and some 20 years on the front bench, let me say that the timing is about right. The timing is about right in that the government is well established in its second term—the Prime Minister showing strong leadership, right through to question time a moment ago, and getting the job done. The taxation legislation is through; the diesel fuel excise abolition on rail—something we could have only dreamt about years ago—is now in legislation coming in on 1 July next year.The timing is about right on the trade front inasmuch as the WTO China negotiations so far as Australia is concerned have now been completed. The preparations for the launch of a millennium trade round in the WTO are a given. It is perhaps best that the minister who will carry forward the burden of those detailed negotiations be at Seattle for the launch. There is also the extension of the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 that went through the Senate last night. That comes back later this afternoon for the final sign-off in this House. I must say I have enjoyed working with many international interlocutors on a raft of trade issues, and I express my thanks in respect of them.The timing is not right in another sense in that there is always unfinished business. But I plan to craft this changeover date taking into account consultations and also to be on deck for any Washington decision on the lamb issue. But I guess there will always be decisions. We have done every single thing, and will continue to do every single thing, right down to the wire in relation to that particular decision—and each and every other trade decision whilst I have the privilege to be in this position. In any event, I say to those who have urged that I might stay that I ask for your understanding and your forbearance, but I guess in another sense it is better to go while there are some urging you to stay than might otherwise be the case.It is for others to judge my contribution to state or federal politics. I would simply want to thank a number of people, particularly, on this occasion, my wife Judy, without whose support I could not have done this. I thank you, Judy.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHER—I would like to thank my family. I would like to thank electors in the electorates of Sturt and Murray in the state parliament and Farrer in the federal parliament these last 15 years. I would like to thank the National Party organisation and members, officials of the Boree Creek branch through to the Farrer electorate council through to federal presidents such as John Paterson, now Mayor of Nedlands, and Don McDonald, Mayor arguably of the Diamantina and Devoncourt. They have given me great help and guidance. I would like to thank members of the parliamentary National Party—my Deputy Leader, John Anderson, and the Senate leader of all these years, Ron Boswell, who has been a great help and guide. We have not agreed on everything, I will confess, but we have got the job done. I want to thank my Senate team—I am pleased to see them on the floor of the House—and all my National Party colleagues I have worked with previously and during this parliamentary term.I would like to thank my cabinet colleagues. I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his very good help and guidance with his years of experience, and commend one other decision you do not read much about. That is his decision to set up a national security committee, about which I can say no more because of security reasons other than to say it is one of the most focused units of government, serving this country well. I commend all my cabinet colleagues. I regret that because I flew back from this Auckland conference late this morning I did not have an opportunity to speak with you earlier. I apologise to you and others for that. I particularly enjoyed working with my portfolio colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, and with all my colleagues.I would like to thank the parliamentary Liberal Party, and you, Mr Speaker. You gave me great guidance to and from Antarctica and also on the citrus industry issue, with former and current members for Mallee and Riverina—David Brownhill, Larry Anthony and others—to get that right. I very much enjoyed our contact over the years.I would like to acknowledge and say I respect many of those opposite and in the Senate for the work that we have done in committees such as transport committees and the like over the years. This is a great parliament and it is a great privilege to be a member of this place.Let me salute the officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade at all levels, led by Philip Flood and Ashton Calvert—a delight to work with and very professional—right through to people like Chris Lamb risking his life in Belgrade to try and bring about the release of Peter Wallace and Stephen Pratt. Bit by bit, let us hope that that will happen sooner rather than later. I salute the determination and dedication of officers of Austrade, led by Charles Jamieson and Peter Langhorne and chair Alan Jackson, as they help diversify our trading effort. Trade figures today are slightly better but there is a lot more work to be done. There can be no complacency. Likewise in respect of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation—Graeme Lawless and Ian Payne—and every other aspect of my portfolio. It has been a joy to work closely with some very professional public servants going about their work and facilitating our trade.Finally, I would like to thank my own personal staff. My former chief of staff Craig Symon, my current chief of staff Jenelle Bonnor, the members of my staff present and, in the electorate office, Nina, Glenda and Lyn here today and so many others over the years who have helped me work through. I am very proud of my staff. I thank you sincerely. What I have done has been greatly helped and brought about by a team effort. Yes, I confess we have had our arguments, particularly with the Praetorian Guard who are my schedule staff, but that has been more my cause than theirs, I confess.That leaves the media and one other grouping. To the media I would say this. It was about 12 months ago that you stopped calling me `idiosyncratic'. I knew then it was time to start thinking about getting out of politics. It is something wonderful about our democracy that you can be the boy from Boree Creek and get a fair hearing—as you can be 101 other people—in the course of our robust parliamentary democracy. I thank the media for our contact and liaison over the years. I guess in one form or another it will continue as I happily take a seat in the new session up on the back bench and work away on a range of issues.Last and most importantly, to the people of Australia I would say this. As we approach a new century, a new millennium, and more particularly the 100 years of the Federation of Australia, let us be proud of our robust democracy and its diverse composition of the very membership of this House of Representatives. Back bench, middle bench, front bench, both sides, there is a great diversity in the composition of this House of Representatives. That factor alone contributes well to the robust nature of Australian democracy. Long may it continue.Let me also say that we ought to be proud of the 100 years of achievement of Australia as it comes up next year—the efforts and achievements of the people of Australia, the parliament of Australia and the governments at the federal and other levels over that tremendous 100 years. Let us be proud Australians as, arguably, we have the most cohesive and economically capable continent and the most diverse and democratic continent anywhere in the world. Good luck, my colleagues. Good luck to you all and God bless you all.(Whereupon honourable members applauded the member for Farrer.)15:29:007936Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—by leave—Today is a day of very mixed emotions. It is a very sad day, in a sense, for the coalition and for many of your very close friends, Tim, among whom I am very proud to number myself. We are going to miss you, and miss you an enormous amount, in the higher councils of the government. I cannot let this opportunity go by without saying a few words of genuine affection towards you and recording my personal thanks to you for the tremendous loyalty that you have displayed towards me, the Liberal Party and the coalition government that we have had the honour of leading together over the last 3¼ years.I think we can all set aside our political differences on an occasion like this and recognise that government in modern Australia is difficult. No matter who is in office it is hard, and the bonds that exist between the senior people who lead a government are tremendously important. If those bonds are built on trust, respect and an understanding of each other's strengths as well as an understanding of each other's weaknesses, then the government will be successful and it will be conducted in an atmosphere of goodwill. I have to say to you, Tim, that no Prime Minister, no coalition leader, could have had a better friend, a firmer ally or a more dependable colleague in difficult times than I have had in you. You have been the epitome of loyalty and decency towards my prime ministership and my leadership of the coalition. You were in the 12 months leading up to our election in May 1996, and you have been ever since.You have led the National Party now for over nine years. Although I am not a member of the National Party, I have been a bit of a student of it in different ways over the years; sometimes I have studied it a little more closely than on other occasions. I think it is fair to say that the last decade has probably been the most challenging period in the existence of the National Party because, as a party that still primarily draws its support from rural and regional Australia, it has had to deal with the incredible change that has gone on in rural and regional Australia as the consequences of globalisation bite deep in many of the regions. It has been very difficult for communities, no matter who has been in government, to come to terms with some of the consequences of that.I think you have displayed tremendous courage in, on the one hand, empathising with the concerns of people in rural Australia but at the same time always lifting their horizons towards the need for us to be part of the global scene. Never once did you drop the ball on populism. Never once did you give up arguing what we all know in the long term is right—that is, that if this nation is not competitive around the world it will not survive; that the future of this nation lies in it being competitive. The great things that have been done on both sides of politics over the last 20 years in the cause of a more competitive Australia have been those things done in the belief that we are part of a global community. I have always admired your commitment to those things and I have always admired your willingness to go out and fight for them.I know that as the leader of the minority party in the coalition you sometimes have difficult decisions to explain to your constituencies. I am very conscious of how difficult the gun decision was for many people in the National Party. It was the right decision for Australia—unqualifiedly the right decision for Australia—and no member of my government has ever regretted that. I acknowledge the support received from the Australian Labor Party at the time. But it did cause difficulty in some of your ranks, just as some of the speculation over budget decisions relating to the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme in 1996 caused difficulty. But you held the line, you argued the cause, you kept the faith on all occasions—sometimes against fierce opposition from your state colleagues who do not always see the endgame so far as the national interest is concerned. I think that tends to apply in all political parties at particular times.I want to thank you, Tim, for your loyalty. I want to thank you and place on record my admiration for your being such a well-loved and well-respected Deputy Prime Minister. You are a very highly respected public figure in this country. Nowhere I go in Australia or around the world do I not find people who speak affectionately of Tim Fischer. I say that very sincerely and very genuinely. You are held in high esteem amongst foreign leaders, and you deserve all of that.I know the stresses and strains that political life places on families, and I want to record my good wishes to Judy, to Harrison and to Dominic. I also know how much your family means to you, and I know that the welfare of your family has been uppermost in your mind in making the decision that you have made. In that, you have our great and undiminished respect, understanding and affection. It is this sort of decision that wins the full-blooded response and positive support of all Australians because you demonstrate that those personal things and those personal associations and relationships are, in the end, infinitely more important than any sort of glory, prestige, power or notoriety that might come our way, however fleetingly, in public life.You have indicated to me and to the nation that you will be handing over as Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister of Australia on 20 July. As it happens, I will be going overseas next Monday for a period of 2½ weeks, and I think it is entirely appropriate and fitting that Tim end his ministerial career, his time as Leader of the National Party, as the Acting Prime Minister of our nation. I think it will give to many Australians in all walks of life, of all shades of political opinion, the opportunity to express to him as he goes around our country the tremendous esteem and regard in which he is held and the affection which he will always retain in the hearts of many. Thank you, mate, for your tremendous support and loyalty. I will miss you, but I will always remember what a tremendous political ally and warrior you have been.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!15:37:007937Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—by leave—Tim, welcome to the club of ex-deputy prime ministers; you will have an honoured place in it, I can assure you. On behalf of my party, I would like to express our thanks and good regards for you, and our best regards to Judy and your family, in the decision that you have taken. You are one of the very genuinely loved people in this place. Even though I have been vigorously partisan on occasion, as with the release of our trade policy a couple of weeks ago, nevertheless I have to say that I am delighted to pay tribute to you and your avuncular style in the way in which you have conducted trade policy in the course of the last three years. We too on this side of the House appreciate your courage in a number of areas.The Prime Minister mentioned your standing up for the national interest in relation to the changes that were put in place on gun laws. We do comprehend, because in many ways the experiences that you had in struggling with an exceptionally difficult issue in your constituency we had to a much lesser degree in ours. Blokes are collectors—there are no two ways about it. We collect things, and one of the things that many of us collect are guns. It is responsible for a great deal of enjoyment and a great deal of personal satisfaction amongst many working-class men in this country who support both the Labor and the National parties in different areas of the nation—people who felt that they were most grievously put upon by those decisions.It was in parts of Australia a difficult decision for us, but it was as nothing compared with the problems that you confronted in your political organisation at the time you took the decisions that you did. You stayed the course. It would have been an opportunity for you to differentiate yourself, or to allow large numbers of your members to differentiate themselves, from your coalition partners. There was no risk in that, none at all. We were going to vote for it. It would have passed this House very easily without the support of your National Party members. But you chose not that easy road out; you chose to lay your leadership on the line and persist in a course of action which was right for the country.We have another area of deep appreciation for the role you have played, and that is the confrontation with those attitudes in this community that sought a racially selective approach to immigration and a racial outlook, both to internal affairs in relation to the Aboriginal community and to those migrants of a non-European background who had come to this country. At different points of time, it looked as though your political party was to be destroyed. You had an exceptionally difficult task of it to lead your political party in those circumstances where naturally—and I do not make this as a mocking point—there was flat panic in your ranks. There is, I think, a reward in honour for you for the role that you played then. That applies not just domestically but also to your role externally.Frankly, in that period of time, the external reputation of Australia plummeted—absolutely plummeted. There is no sense in mincing words about that. That happens to be true. Because of your position, you were out there constantly having to argue the point that Australia was indeed a decent, tolerant society; that Australia was indeed an exemplar nation as far as both multiculturalism and multiracialism was concerned; and that an argument taking place did not eliminate those essential facts about Australian society. But the task of conveying that point was extraordinarily difficult. For a person who is, shall we say, `inventive' with his use of the English language, to have to carry that argument was indeed a challenge. I think you were obliged effectively on most occasions to carry it uniquely—and did you it very well.You are also an excellent trade minister, being always well prepared. We had a disagreement over strategy with you in that regard. But any of us going overseas would always be there either slightly in advance of you or slightly in your wake. I do remember one occasion when we were jointly in India. A gentleman from the Indian political process asked me for an explanation. He had apparently been at a cricket match with you, and he asked me why the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia at 10 o'clock at night inside would be wearing a hat. I said that it was an ancient Australian religious custom and that you should not be mocked for it—and I notice that on occasions it seemed to be replicated in another way in India. We had our feelings too. But that Akubra has done you well in many countries on this planet, and you have defended the interests of this nation most effectively as you have gone through those various trade negotiations.I do note that, when you have had the opportunity to speak on these occasions—occasions of a valedictory nature as opposed to the nature of a eulogy, because you will be around for a very long time to come, and you have probably taken a decision which will ensure that you stay around for a very long time to come for your family—you have never failed to recognise somebody's war service, if they have had it. You first came to our notice here when, as shadow minister for veterans' affairs, you were a most diligent exponent of the needs and concerns of Vietnam veterans, of which you are one. You gained a very affectionate place in our hearts at the time of your advocating their needs and concerns.You have been 28 years in politics, and you are rightly proud of the fact that a boy from Boree Creek can enjoy such a lengthy period of service to the Australian people. Twenty-eight years is four times the average length of service in a parliament—and, indeed, that is no mean achievement.I know you will go out with very great personal satisfaction about your career. You will go to the arms of a terrific family and a terrific wife. If I could use the word `idiosyncratic' again in this regard, one of your idiosyncrasies is that none of us expected to see you in that situation, as year on year we considered you a natural bachelor. When I was Minister for Defence—and I have had occasion to remark on this before—I used to struggle to provide you with new locations for Christmas dinner, as we sent peacekeepers around the world to prepare a table for you. Then all of a sudden you were missing, and that was because you then had a family. It is a terrific family indeed and you have a terrific wife. You are going to be very much missed by us. I see you are going to hang around for a bit in parliament. I notice that your farewell trip is going to substantially feature rail within it. You will have an opportunity to look over a system which you have loved and advocated in this place for a lengthy period of time. But I also know that you will not be a stranger to this place. No matter how long you are actually formally a member of it, you love the various institutions you have served at different points of time and we would expect to see you around here for many years to come.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!15:46:007939Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPTransport and Regional Services10—by leave—In my capacity as Deputy Leader of the National Party, I feel it is appropriate to say a few words on behalf of the parliamentary National Party. Tim, there will be plenty of opportunities—indeed, I suspect a great number of them over the next little while—for us in the National Party to pay you tribute for the work that you have done for the party. But I know, too, that our colleagues here would want me to record in this place on this occasion our very deep appreciation of the work you have put in over the best part of 10 years in often very difficult circumstances—none more difficult than the time at which you became leader immediately following that very difficult—for us—1990 election. On behalf of the party, and I know on behalf of many others as well, can I record our profound appreciation of your dedication, your leadership and your sheer hard work over the best part of that 10 years. I have been beside you for 6½ years of that period. I say to all who are present and to those listening that the public image is right: in all of that time I have never known Tim to be anything other than utterly straight and utterly decent. The only thing that is more legendary than your decency, Tim, is your sheer energy. Can I say to you that we salute—to use a Timism, if I may—you and Judy very much, because there is no doubt that Australia is a better place for the service that you have rendered here.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!7939Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I observe that the Prime Minister has frequently said in this place—and everyone has endorsed his remarks—that the things that unite us as parliamentarians are much more significant than the things that divide us, and this afternoon we have seen a classic illustration of the truth of that remark.Mr Deputy Prime Minister, this House is united in saying thank you to you for the service you have rendered to the people of Australia and for the service you will go on rendering to the people of Farrer—thank you, we appreciate that. We are also united in extending to you, Judy and the family our very best wishes.The electorate of Wakefield and the electorate of Farrer are adjoining electorates. We have many similar profiles. But it will not be the experience with the citrus industry or a trip to Antarctica that determines the association that Carolyn and Neil have with Judy and Tim. It will be the friendship that we have experienced that will—in common with almost everyone in this House—go well beyond your occupancy of either the present office or the seat of Farrer. We thank you.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Privilege79397939Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Yesterday the honourable member for Calwell raised as a matter of privilege actions taken by the National Crime Authority in an investigation pertaining to the honourable member. The nub of the honourable member's complaint, as I understand it, is that the NCA's officers have improperly used information obtained from tapped telephone conversations and that the confidentiality of his communications with constituents has been breached. The member also said that some of the cases relate to his duties in the area of policy development and that he has referred to them in debates.The House has the power to punish as contempts actions which constitute improper interference with the free performance by a member of the member's duties as a member. As the honourable member for Calwell noted yesterday, the Committee of Privileges has recognised that, as well as participating in proceedings in parliament, members perform other tasks, such as providing assistance and advice to constituents. I have examined the honourable member's comments yesterday, as well as the papers he provided to me. I have no hesitation in saying that I recognise the sorts of effects that this matter must be having on the honourable member's ability to perform his duties as a member. It does appear that information obtained from tapped telephone calls has been used in the questioning of people and that alleged actions of, or statements by, the honourable member have been referred to in interviews. As I comprehend it, however, the information provided to this point does not reveal evidence that the NCA was acting other than in accordance with lawful authority or evidence of an improper purpose on the part of those involved. In the circumstances known to me, I do not believe I would be justified in allowing precedence to a motion. I note that this conclusion is consistent with that of Speaker Snedden in respect of a complaint raised by a former member for Fraser, who had alleged that his phone was being tapped.I assure the honourable member that I would be very happy to consider any additional information he may wish to provide. The course of providing either written or oral material, or both, to the Committee of Privileges in connection with its current inquiry into the status of members' records is also available to the honourable member.Documents79407940Reith, 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 .Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers:Budget Papers No. 1 CorrigendumBudget Papers No. 2 CorrigendumAuditor's Report of the supplement to Draft Environmental Impact Statement—Second Sydney Airport Proposal.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Special Adjournment7940Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Monday, 9 August 1999, at 12.30 p.m., unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting.Leave of Absence7940Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.Committees79407940794010000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received advice from the Government Whip and the Chief Opposition Whip nominating members to be supplementary members of the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into primary producer access to gene technology.Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That Dr Washer and Mr Griffin be appointed supplementary members of the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into primary producer access to gene technology.794110000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—For the information of honourable members, I present a schedule of outstanding government responses to reports of House of Representatives and joint committees, incorporating reports tabled and details of government responses made in the period between 10 February 1999, the date of the last schedule, and 29 June 1999. Copies of the schedule are being made available to honourable members and it will be incorporated in Hansard.The schedule read as follows—On 29 June 1999, the Government presented its response to a schedule of outstanding Government responses to parliamentary committee reports tabled in the House of Representatives on 11 February 1999. The Government had earlier in the Parliament affirmed its commitment to respond to relevant parliamentary committee reports presented during the present Parliament within three months of their presentation and to clear, as soon as possible, the backlog of reports arising from previous Parliaments.The Government's commitment follows the undertaking by successive Governments to respond to parliamentary committee reports in a timely fashion. In 1978 the Fraser Government implemented a policy of responding in the House by ministerial statement within six months of the tabling of a committee report. In 1983, the Hawke Government reduced this response time to three months but continued the practice of responding by ministerial statement. The Keating Government generally responded by means of a letter to a committee chair, with the letter being tabled in the House at the earliest opportunity.The attached schedule lists committee reports tabled and Government responses to House and joint committee reports made since the last schedule was presented on 11 February 1999. It also lists reports for which the House has received no Government response. A schedule of outstanding responses will continue to be presented at approximately six monthly intervals, in the last sitting weeks of the winter and spring sittings.The schedule does not include advisory reports on bills introduced into the House of Representatives unless the reports make recommendations which are wider than the provisions of the bills and which could be the subject of a government response. The Government's responses to these reports is apparent in the resumption of consideration of the relevant legislation by the House. Also not included are reports from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the House of Representatives Committee of Members' Interests, the Committee of Privileges, the Publications Committee and the Selection Committee. Responses to reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit are usually made in the form of Finance Minutes, which are tabled by the Committee. Government responses to reports of the Public Works Committee are normally reflected in motions for the approval of works after the relevant report has been presented and considered.9 JUNE 1999 Description of Report Date Tabled or Published1 Date of Government Response2Responded in Period Specified3 Australian Security Intelligence Organization (Joint, Statutory)Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Bill 199913-05-99Period has not expired4- Banking, Finance and Public Administration (House, Standing)Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia's 1993-94 annual report and the Insurance and Superannuation Commission's 1993-94 annual report25-09-9522-06-99No Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform (House, Standing)Ship safe: An inquiry into the Australian Maritime Safety Authority Annual Report 1996-9726-08-985No response to date6NoTracking Australia: An inquiry into the role of rail in the national transport network12-08-985No response to date7NoPlanning not Patching—An inquiry into federal road funding24-11-97No response to date8No Economics, Finance and Public Administration (House, Standing)Regional banking: Money too far away22-03-99No response to dateNoReview of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report for 1997-98: Interim Report08-03-99No response to dateNo Employment, Education and Training (House, Standing)Today's training. Tomorrow's skills28-07-985No response to date9NoYouth employment: A working solution 29-09-9703-06-99No Environment and Heritage (House, Standing)Review of the Department of the Environment's annual report for 1997-9821-06-99Period has not expired4- Environment, Recreation and the Arts (House, Standing)Regulatory arrangements for trading in greenhouse gas emissions—Interim report25-08-98511-05-9910NoReview of Auditor-General's audit report No 31 of 1995-96—Performance audit—Environmental management of Commonwealth land: Site contamination and pollution prevention24-03-9711-05-99NoFamily and Community Affairs (House, Standing)What price competition? Report on the competitive tendering of welfare service delivery29-06-98No response to date11NoConcessions—who benefits? Report on concession card availability and eligibility for concessions17-11-9718-02-99No Financial Institutions and Public Administration (House, Standing)Review of the National Competition Council annual report for 1996-9729-06-98No response to date12NoReview of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 1996-97—Interim Report and Final Report23-03-98No response to date13NoReview of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission annual report 1996-9709-03-9809-03-99NoReviews of the 1995-96 annual reports of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Australian Securities Commission and the Insurance and Superannuation Commission29-09-9722-06-99No Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (Joint, Standing)Military justice procedures in the Australian Defence Force21-06-99Period has not expired4-Visit to Bougainville, 15-18 March 1999—Interim Report31-03-99Period has not expired4-Report on the loss of HMAS Sydney22-03-99No response to dateNoAustralia's trade relationship with India29-06-98No response to date14NoImproving but. . . : Australia's regional dialogue on human rights29-06-9829-06-99NoFunding Australia's Defence08-05-9815No response to date16NoAustralia and ASEAN: Managing Change06-04-98No response to date14NoDefence Subcommittee visit to Sydney Harbour foreshores Defence properties23-03-98No response to date16No Industry, Science and Technology (House, Standing)A sea of indifference: Australian industry participation in the North West Shelf project30-03-98No response to date16No Legal and Constitutional Affairs (House, Standing)To have and to hold: Strategies to strengthen marriage and relationships22-06-9823-06-99NoDon't stop the music: A report of the inquiry into copyright, music and small business01-06-98No response to date17NoSaving our census and preserving our history25-05-98No response to date18NoThe third paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution30-11-95No response to date18NoIn Confidence: the protection of confidential personal and commercial information held by the Commonwealth26-06-95No response to date19No Long Term Strategies (House, Standing)Australia's population carrying capacity—one nation—two ecologies05-12-94No response to date20No Migration (Joint, Standing)Review of Migration Regulation 4.31B31-05-99Period has not expired4-Immigration detention centres—Inspection Report27-08-9821No response to date20NoDeportation of non-citizen criminals29-06-98No response to date17NoWorking holiday makers: More than tourists01-09-97No response to date22NoAustralia's visa system for visitors27-01-96No response to date16No National Capital and External Territories (Joint, Standing)Island to islands: Communications with Australia's external territories22-03-99No response to dateNo National Crime Authority (Joint, Statutory)Third evaluation of the National Crime Authority06-04-98No response to date23NoPrimary Industries, Resources and Rural and Regional Affairs (House, Standing)Adjusting to Agricultural Trade Reform: Australia no longer down under22-06-98No response to date17NoDevelopments in New Zealand Agriculture—Report of a visit to New Zealand, 16-19 June 199701-12-97No response to date24NoManaging Commonwealth Fisheries: The last frontier23-06-97No response to date24No Treaties (Joint, Standing)Twenty-Second Report—Five treaties tabled on 11 May 199928-06-99Period has not expired4-Twenty-First Report—Five treaties tabled on 16 February 199907-06-99Period has not expired4-Twentieth Report—Two treaties tabled on 26 May 1998, the Bougainville Peace Monitoring Group Protocol and treaties tabled on 11 November 199829-03-99No response to dateNoNineteenth Report—The Fifth Protocol to the General Agreement on Trade in Services and five treaties tabled on 30 June 199823-03-99No response to dateNoEighteenth Report—Multilateral agreement on Investment: Final Report22-03-99No response to dateNoSeventeenth Report—UN Convention on the Rights of the Child28-08-9821No response to date17NoSixteenth Report—OECD Convention on combating bribery and draft implementing legislation02-07-9811-03-99NoFifteenth Report02-07-98No response to date25NoFourteenth Report—Multilateral Agreement on Investment—Interim Report01-06-9811-03-99NoTwelfth Report—Australia-Indonesia Maritime Delimitation Treaty01-12-97No response to date26NoEleventh Report24-11-97No response to date14NoEighth Report23-06-97No response to date14NoNotes:1. The date of tabling is the date the report was presented to the House of Representatives. In the case of joint committees, the date shown is the date of first presentation to either the House or the Senate. Reports published when the House (or Houses) are not sitting are tabled at a later date.2. If the source for the date is not the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives or the Journals of the Senate , the source is shown in an endnote.3. The time specified is three months from the date of tabling.4. The three month period had not expired as at 29 June 1999.5. This is the date the report was presented to the Speaker and, by resolution of the House, published when the House or Houses were not sitting. It was tabled in the House of Representatives on 23 November 1998.6. In its paper presented to the House on 29 June 1999 (referred to hereafter as the 29 June 1999 paper) the Government indicated that a `response is being finalised and will be tabled as soon as possible after relevant consultations have been completed'.7. The Government indicated in its 29 June 1999 paper that it `will respond to this report at the same time it responds to the Productivity Commission's final report on rail. The Government does not intend to table a separate formal response'.8. In its 29 June 1999 paper the Government said that a `response is being developed and will be tabled as soon as possible after relevant consultations have been completed'.9. `The Government response will be tabled in the near future.' (29 June 1999 paper)10. `An interim Government response was tabled on 11 May 1999. The interim response was intended to allow the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) to consider the findings of the report, and to consult with interested parties on the Committee's recommendations and the issues raised in the report. The AGO is to do this as part of its feasibility study into the introduction of a national greenhouse gas emissions trading system. At the end of the AGO study, the Government will consider both the recommendations and the AGO report as the feasibility and design of a national emissions trading system.' (29 June 1999 paper)11. In its 29 June 1999 paper the Government stated that a `response will be tabled once all relevant consultations have been completed'.12. The 29 June 1999 paper said that a `response is awaiting finalisation due to recent developments and will be tabled as soon as possible'.13. `As the Reserve Bank has directly responded to the Committee's recommendations, the Government does not intend responding further to this report.14. The Committee's review of the Reserve Bank of Australia's 1996-97 Annual Report drew attention to the follow-up response by the Reserve Bank to these outstanding recommendations.' (29 June 1999 paper)15. The Government indicated in its 29 June 1999 paper that a `response is being prepared'. 16. This is the date the report was presented to the Speaker and, by resolution of the House, published when the House or Houses were not sitting. It was tabled in the House of Representatives on 12 May 1998.17. In its 29 June 1999 paper, the Government stated that a `response is expected to be tabled shortly'.18. The Government stated in its 29 June 1999 paper that a response is `expected to be tabled in the 1999 spring sittings'. `The Government response will be tabled as soon as possible.' (29 June 1999 paper)19. `The Government response is being prepared, however, the Government is reconsidering the report in light of its decision to introduce privacy legislation for the private sector. The Government response will be tabled as soon as possible.' (29 June 1999 paper)20. In its 29 June 1999 paper, the Government indicated that a response `is expected to be tabled in the near future'.21. This is the date the report was presented to the President and, by resolution of the House, published when the House or Houses were not sitting. It was tabled in the Senate on 10 November 1998.22. The Government indicated it its 29 June 1999 paper that a `response is close to completion and it is expected it will be tabled during the 1999 spring sittings'.23. `After consultation with a number of agencies and with the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) on the National Crime Authority, further work was necessary on a number of the most significant and complex issues raised by the report. Subject to consultation with the IGC at its June meeting, the Government now expects to table its response in the 1999 spring sittings.' (29 June 1999 paper)24. In the 29 June 1999 paper, the Government said that `consideration is continuing in the light of recent developments.'25. The Government indicated in its 29 June 1999 paper that `Consultations have been concluded and the Government response is being formulated'.26. In its 29 June 1999 paper the Government stated that its `response is in the final stages of preparation'.Matters of Public Importance7948794810000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Dobell proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The Howard Government's lack of vision and commitment to Australia's future in research and development.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—15:55:007948Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—We have seen some of the best that the House of Representatives can offer in the debate this afternoon on the announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister and, unfortunately, I have to say that we saw some of the worst that the House of Representatives can offer earlier in question time when the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs misled this House.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—He wasn't telling the truth.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—That is probably true, I can say to the member for Hunter, but let me make it absolutely certain that the minister misled the House. The reason why we can say that is that, as often happens at question time, the opposition went to some effort to see if we could set up a little trap. Our hope was to see if there would be some way we could encourage the minister to put a foot into this little trap that we set. You often go to a lot of trouble to ensnare a minister into misleading the parliament but in some ways we had the minister for education come in and say, `Where's the noose? Let me put my head into the noose.' The reason I say that is that the minister released his long-promised green paper on research today, and we cannot even get past the foreword for the green paper before we come across a statement that is clearly untrue. The statement that is untrue in the foreword, the first page of printed text in this paper, is the following:Australia's public investment in research is large by world standards and private investment is growing.That is a statement over the signature of the minister for education, Dr David Kemp.We tried to give the minister the benefit of the doubt. We thought he might have read the cover and signed the cover but not read the document, and we tried to give him that out. But instead he rushes in, puts the noose around his neck and not only says that he failed to understand what he was saying but he actually claimed authorship of the foreword—and he nods his head again now. He actually said in question time, `I wrote it. I wrote this misleading statement. I wrote this falsehood.' The point we make is that, if the minister makes that statement, he has to answer for that statement. We refer the minister to the 1996-97 and 1997-98 Australian Bureau of Statistics studies on the level of private investment research. In the foreword he said that private investment in research is growing. That was his claim in the letter; that was the falsehood in the foreword signed by the minister. But in fact this is what the Australian Bureau of Statistics said in their 1996-97 study:For the first time since the ABS surveys of R&D commenced, estimates for business expenditure on R&D have fallen.That is what they said for 1996-97. For 1997-98 they said:For the second consecutive year, estimates of business expenditure on R&D have fallen.They go on to say there has been a decrease of four per cent on 1996-97 and seven per cent on 1995-96. So there has been a seven per cent decline in business expenditure on research since the change of government.Here we have the minister prattling away on ABC radio at lunchtime saying, `What we need is an ideas economy. What we need is to encourage research in Australia. What we need to do is to try to encourage business investment in research.' Yet the minister is so out of touch he does not understand that his government has presided over a reduction of seven per cent in business expenditure. It is no wonder there has been that reduction when you realise that this government has reduced the 150 per cent tax deduction for business research and development and wound it back to 125 per cent. It has made decisions on funding for universities that have basically meant that universities have had to cut back their research effort. This government has taken a whole series of other decisions that have made it more difficult for the private sector to carry out research.BT4KEMPDr Kemp—Utter rubbish!MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The minister interjects `rubbish'. It just goes to show that he is in denial. He says that it is a total falsehood. I challenge the minister: tell us where the Bureau of Statistics is wrong in this year's report and last year's report? You tell us where the ABS figures are wrong, Minister. You say in your foreword that private business investment and research is growing. When we challenged you at question time today, you said that the statements were absolutely correct. That was his statement in parliament today, and that is a statement that was misleading. If the minister made that as a deliberate statement, then he may have deliberately misled this House. That is what we say. When that minister for education said that the statements were absolutely correct, he misled this House. We are entitled to ask whether he has deliberately misled the House. Our contention would be that he needs to think very carefully before he makes statements like this.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—You are choosing your words very carefully.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—I am, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you realise. The point we make is that this minister has misled the House. This minister misled researchers and the public when he signed this foreword, when he wrote this foreword, when he made the false claim that private investment in research is growing. They are all false. The point is that this minister is in such a state of denial that he will not accept the damage his own decisions have caused. He will not accept the damage that has been done to universities right across the country because of cutbacks that have been made. He does not accept the damage that has been done to private sector investment in research.The proof that he is so out of touch is this: how many times have we seen this minister actually out at a campus of a university? How many times have we seen him visiting Monash University or Sydney University or Curtin University or Wollongong University? I challenge the minister to release a table that demonstrates on how many occasions he has actually stepped foot on a university campus during daylight hours. I use the words `daylight hours' very carefully because we all know that there has been some speculation about this minister being seen only at night and being able to be seen when rays of sunlight hit his flesh. I have to make it clear. The important point to make here is that we challenge the minister to visit a few universities and find out what is happening on the campuses in daylight or at night. We will be there. We challenge the minister to debate these issues about how much Australia is spending on research and development.This minister has been working on this green paper for quite a while. The green paper was foreshadowed in the May budget last year. There was a leak to the Australian's higher education supplement saying that it was coming on 11 November last year. The interesting thing is that the leak to the Australian supplement said that the plan was to wind back the role of the Australian Research Council, to cut back the awarding of research scholarships and to increase the funding that was awarded in block grants directly to universities. It is now some 14 months later—a very long gestation period. In fact, the gestation period for this green paper has been longer than the gestation period for the black rhino. It has been 14 months.The black rhino might have conceived this. It has taken 14 months—the black rhino's gestation period—for it to appear. What has appeared is not a black rhino; it is actually a white poodle, because the white poodle is the complete opposite to what we were told was going to happen last November. Last November the minister's office showed a few copies of the draft green paper to his friends in the higher education sector, he leaked it to the higher education supplement—Honourable member interjecting—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—I will leave that for others to speculate upon, but what he promised was the exact opposite to what has appeared today. Some people in the media say that the Labor Party does nothing but oppose.1K6BILLSONMr Billson—Hear, hear!MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The member for Dunkley interjects and says, `Hear, hear.' Let me make the point that in opposing the original draft of the green paper we have done something very constructive. We have stopped this minister cutting back the role of the Australian Research Council. It is by the Labor Party joining with vice-chancellors, with researchers and with people who were concerned about his original direction that has forced the minister to do a backflip, that has forced this minister not to proceed along the path that was outlined in that leak in the higher education supplement on 11 November last year.The point we make is that the government have to first of all realise the damage that has been done before they can develop the right sort of plan for the future. As long as they continue to refuse to accept the damage that has been done to universities by their $840 million cutback in funding for universities and as long as they refuse to accept the massive cutbacks that have been made in private sector investment in research and development, then they will not be able to develop a plan that is suitable for Australia to encourage research and development.The point we make is that the first thing that has to be done is that Australia needs to invest more in research and development. We need to invest more if we are to make sure that Australia is ready for the new millennium, if we are to be there encouraging investment in intellectual property that will develop licence fees, royalty payments and better knowledge in Australia.Dr Kemp interjecting—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The minister is showing by his interjection that he just does not understand what he is talking about. I make it quite clear. Let me show to the minister a graph that is based on his own budget papers. This is not anyone's commitments, Minister. This is what the Commonwealth of Australia has actually spent. It is entitled `Total Commonwealth support for research and innovation'. I do not want to help the minister by doing his research for him, but he should look at his own budget papers, because they show quite clearly that the peak of total Commonwealth support for research and innovation was in the Labor years.What have we seen since this minister has been minister for education and since John Winston Howard, the member for Bennelong, has been the Prime Minister? We have seen a steady decline in the Commonwealth's effort for total Commonwealth support for research and innovation. Minister, do you challenge that? Do you challenge this graph? Do you challenge your own budget figures? Minister, it is quite clear that you are in such a state of denial, you are so out of touch with what is happening out there on university campuses, you are so out of touch with the good work that is being done by researchers across the country that you just do not understand the damage that you have done.So what is Labor's plan? Our plan is, first of all, to increase the Commonwealth effort on research, to increase the Commonwealth effort in encouraging innovation. We have made that very clear. We say that there should be an increase in fellowships for young researchers. We believe that this government's cuts in university operating grants and in university research grants have actually made it harder for those young researchers who finish their PhDs, who finish their postgraduate research scholarships, to become a lecturer, to become a tutor. That is the reason why, in a climate when the Howard government has cut back funding for universities, we have to provide more money for research fellowships, to help the smartest and cleverest of our young people who are out there doing postgraduate degrees to stay in Australia, to keep researchers in Australia, to keep them here working for our country rather than going to the United States or Europe or somewhere else to help them. That is Labor's plan—an increase in funding for research and an increase in fellowships.Our third item is that we believe there has to be additional support for research infrastructure at the universities. If the minister would get out of Parliament House, go out to the campuses and talk to the vice-chancellors, talk to the supervisors for those research projects, visit some of the research institutes, talk to some of the students, even meet an undergraduate or two, he would realise that there is a need for additional support for infrastructure. They need more money to make sure they can purchase the latest equipment so we can carry out world-class research in Australia. That is the third point of Labor's plan.The fourth point, as the shadow Treasurer and the shadow minister for industry have made clear, is that Labor believe that there needs to be some changes to the capital gains tax regime to encourage research and development. At the last election we made it clear that we were prepared to come up with ways to encourage more venture capital investment in Australian research and development. We were prepared to offer 150 per cent R&D tax concessions for small and medium sized businesses and for large businesses that carried out a heavy amount of R&D. That was our plan at the last election and we are making it clear today that Labor believe that more needs to be done.In contrast, this government cuts back funding for universities. That has to have an effect on the research that universities can do. They have less money to buy the latest equipment. They have less money to offer for scholarships for postgraduate students. They have less money to keep the best of our researchers and teachers at university. Those cutbacks at university have done enormous damage to our higher education sector.We also believe that, in cutting back the funding for TAFE training, they have done damage. In cutting back the R&D tax concessions they have done enormous damage to the work that has been done by the private sector. You have only to look at decisions that are made by companies like BHP. BHP has virtually halved the investment it is making in research and development. This is going to have a devastating effect on the work that BHP and its employees do in years to come.These are the reasons that we argue that our country needs to do better than this green paper. Lots of words in this green paper, but not $1 more. It is like their statements on literacy—lots of words but not $1 more to help train young people who need more assistance to help read and write. There are lots of words in the green paper but not $1 more to help the researchers have an extra scholarship and help the universities buy more equipment to try to make sure people are doing the research that Australia needs. This is the biggest fault in this green paper. It is a government that is big on words, small on funding and does not understand that Australia needs to invest more and not less in Australia's high-tech research and development. (Time expired)16:10:007952Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—We have just seen and heard why the Labor Party has no credibility whatever in education policy. The member for Dobell has got absolutely nothing to contribute. In fact, I doubt if he has even read the paper, because he did not refer to anything beyond the foreword. He got to the foreword; he did not get to chapter 1. There was no comment on any of the substantive proposals in the green paper. When the science community in Australia looks to see what the Labor Party's response is to the green paper, they will find that the shadow minister has not even read the green paper. That is the first thing that will become obvious.The shadow minister did not refer to the Labor Party's election policy, which was a policy that resulted in cuts to research funding for universities over three years. The Labor Party's forward commitments came to an end during the budget period following the election, and the Labor Party made no commitments to bring research funding up to a satisfactory level. Labor promised only $57 million over three years, and that was a policy that would have left the Australian Research Council $91 million short over three years, as that was the amount that would have been needed to maintain research funding.By contrast, during the election campaign the coalition provided an additional $93.3 million over three years for research infrastructure and $59.8 million over three years for the SPIRT program, the program which has been highly successful in encouraging collaborative research between industry and universities and in leveraging very substantial industry funds for that collaborative research. The Labor Party's policy, as we know, was so bad that the member for Werriwa simply retreated to the back bench—one very obvious example, one has to say, of a brain drain on the other side of the House, the brain power draining away from the Labor Party front bench on to the back bench.The member for Dobell has suggested that the comment in the foreword that private investment in research in Australia is growing is incorrect. The fact is that Australia traditionally for a long time has had very low levels of private investment in research and development. We have seen over the last decade or so a very significant rise in industry interest, in research and development, particularly as Australian industry responds to the greater openness in the Australian economy. The member for Dobell is troubled by this trend. He thinks that, because there has been a fluctuation downwards in the last two years, that somehow or other this invalidates the claim that private research investment in R&D in Australia is actually growing. When we look closely at the reasons for the rapid increase in the years before the last two years, we find that there was very systematic abuse of the syndication provisions under the rules laid down by the Labor Party.The Labor Party has always defended that abuse very substantially. In fact, the syndication component of the R&D tax concession used up some $1.8 billion of taxpayers' funds through elaborate financing schemes, while generating only $400 million in actual sales. When this government came to office we said that it was essential to crack down on this rorting of the R&D tax concession. Inevitably, this has had an impact in recent years as an appropriate level and a properly based level of research and development is established. If you look at the trend over the last decade, there is no doubt whatever that that trend is a rising trend in private investment in research and development.Mr Lee interjecting—BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—The member for Dobell does not understand trends. He understands very little in this area, and he has very little to say in this area. So there is absolutely no invalidity whatever in the claim that is made in the foreword to the green paper that private investment in research is rising. Nor is there any invalidity at all in the observation that Australia invests very highly in research and the level of public investment in research and development in Australia is exceptionally high. Indeed, by international statistics, the level of public investment in research is amongst the very highest in the industrialised world.All the Labor Party can come up with on the green paper is: why doesn't it promise more money? I will tell you what this green paper is about. That sort of query shows the enormous lack of understanding by the Labor Party on what is necessary to achieve the sorts of objectives in research and development that I have been talking about during question time and that I have noticed the member for Dobell has picked up and started to parrot in the course of this matter of public importance debate.The effect of the way in which the Labor Party went about structuring funding for research over its 13 years in office was that, first of all, there was a massive brain drain from Australia of the best and brightest researchers. The Labor Party had 13 years to get this right. Over the period from the early 1980s to the early 1990s, we found that tens of thousands of professionally trained Australians left Australia because they could not find the research environments in Australia that matched the research environments and the rewards that they could get overseas. This was due in very large measure to a quite deliberate Labor Party policy of spreading funding thinly across the whole of the Dawkins national unified system. As a result of that butter thin spread of research funds, we had someone doing research on an area in Perth, someone else doing it in Queensland and someone else doing it in Melbourne and no critical mass whereby the country's best researchers could come together and develop world-class research and research environments.The research green paper, for the first time, addresses that problem. Through the funding arrangements that we have made in the green paper, including the very imaginative portable research scholarships scheme, for the first time we will see critical mass developing. If the member for Dobell cared to talk to any of the leading scientists and researchers in Australia, he would hear that that was an absolutely critical objective—to give Australia a world-class research environment. He had nothing to say about this in his speech, probably because he had not read the paper. But if he had read the paper I am sure that he would not have had any alternative to put forward because this problem is a result of the way in which the Labor Party has funded research for the last decade and half in Australia.It has taken the coalition government to address this issue. We will see, as a result of the policy proposals in this paper, young Australians—the best and brightest—coming back to this country, because this government will have created the sort of research environment that they are looking for. Indeed, we are already hearing anecdotal stories of Australians in the biotechnology and medical research area responding to the government's initiative in the budget and telephoning Australian research centres and saying, `What are the chances of me getting a position back here in Australia?' This is already happening. It is already happening because of the results of the government's policies. Nothing is more important than to get the overall framework for Australian research right. That is what the proposals in this green paper do. The Labor Party has nothing whatever to say about that.One of the other concerns that I have expressed, and which this green paper addresses, is the failure, so often, of Australia to capitalise on the brilliant ideas and results of research. Our researchers are second to none in the world in their capacity in the right environment and with the right support to come up with outstanding research findings. Australia does not have any problem in producing ideas. But we have demonstrated a significant national problem in commercialising those ideas, in bringing those ideas to development.I have been a member of the Prime Minister's science council since the time I have been a minister and I have had the opportunity to hear Australia's top researchers talking about why this happens. That discussion always comes back to one fundamental point. It was not a point which was addressed by the member for Dobell, because he does not have an understanding of this issue. The point is that there is not an entrepreneurial culture in Australia's research community. The funding mechanisms that have been used to support research, the formulas that were put in place by the Labor Party, encouraged our researchers to think that, provided they produced a paper and got a publication, that was the end of the story. That was what the research policy of the government was.There were no incentives within the system to commercialise that research. There was no incentive for the researchers to get on top of the issues of how intellectual property could be used, could be licensed, could be put out to generate start-up companies, spin-offs from the research effort. There are good examples of that which Australians have undertaken but, unfortunately, they are too few and far between. That is because the research funding framework that the Labor Party had in place during its time in office offered no incentives for the development of that entrepreneurial climate. This government has received a very clear message: we have to generate an understanding in the Australian science and research community that there are further steps to be taken if this country is going to get the real benefits of the research which it has done.There is a huge potential for this country to generate new businesses and new jobs not just in areas like biotechnology and information technology—the great technology revolutions that will be supported and strengthened by the proposals in this green paper—but across the whole many fields of research. This green paper proposes for the first time the mechanisms that will achieve that.It does that, first of all, through an enormous enhancement that is proposed of the investigator initiated, peer reviewed competitive grants process through the Australian Research Council. What will come out of this is an Australian Research Council which has a greatly enhanced capacity to fund collaborative research with industry and to develop the strategic vision for Australian research which will help Australian researchers see the entrepreneurial opportunities which stand before them as a result of their intellectual achievements. It provides also for a new structure for the Australian Research Council so that, through a series of program directors, we will have people who can see the huge opportunities there are for interdisciplinary research.One of the limitations that the Australian Research Council has had has been that the peer review process has focused very heavily on discipline based peer review. That means that people working within a single discipline found it much easier to get research support than people proposing really innovative cross-disciplinary research. Again, if you ask anybody who knows about Australian research at the moment, you will find that there is a tremendously widespread recognition that it is cross-disciplinary research that is actually going to deliver the great benefits in the future.Mr Lee interjecting—BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—Of course, we heard not a word about that from the member for Dobell because he has not read the paper. Even if he had, he would not have had any ideas about it because the Labor Party has not thought about this. The government is about building an ideas economy, about making sure that Australia's comparative advantage in its intellectual strength is converted into businesses, jobs and opportunities for the future. (Time expired)16:25:007954Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—As we have learnt from the newspapers today, the government has released a green paper on Australian research. It is clear the government is marching towards a market driven, fully accountable higher education system—so sad for Aristotle and Plato. The minister's foreword to his paper states:The Government believes that a broad ranging discussion within the research and wider community on the policy framework for research and research training is the best way to develop this framework.Again, he obviously has not remembered what he has written in his foreword because he just stated quite clearly, `This is it. Here it is. Like it or lump it.' It is not about consultation, as a green paper is meant to be.If this consultative approach is the best way forward, how come the paper was sent to journalists yesterday with an embargo? Why was it not sent to the people who should be consulted on this brave new world of research? Is the minister trying to hide his defeat by his own colleagues over the VSU legislation by grabbing headlines over changes to research and research training as opposed to putting forward that legislation in the Senate? Or is he merely putting his foot down yet again and giving the appearance of consultation, which this government is very well known for?This paper is another indication of the government's lack of vision and commitment to Australia's future in research and development. This paper does not propose one cent extra for research funding, nor does it replace the funding already taken away from the Commonwealth's expenditure on education, research and training. The Prime Minister painted his 1999 budget as the education budget. If he thinks that it was, it is fairies at the bottom of the garden stuff if he expects the Australian public to believe he is committed to education through budget reductions. This is a farcical way to go forward. Also, if the government is committed to research, why are we sending no minister to the UNESCO sponsored world conference on science? A hundred other ministers from around the world are going. Again, it is all sound and fury but nothing of substance from this government.Research and research training are the keys to our future. Without them, we will not be able to provide the employment prospects for today, let alone for tomorrow. In my electorate of Chisholm, there has been a massive decline in traditional manufacturing jobs, and there is little on the horizon to replace them. Where will jobs emerge in an economy reducing its expenditure on R&D? Where is the hope for the generation X that the Prime Minister has said he now represents?As the member for Dobell has rightly pointed out, the minister's foreword to the green paper boasts, rather amazingly, that there has been an increase in private investment. The minister must be too busy trying to get into the papers to read them or he would have noticed the article on BHP in the Financial Review on 27 April which is completely at odds with the assumption he has made in his foreword. The article states:BHP's research and development effort—the single largest of any Australian corporation—is to be cut by half and its research centre in Melbourne will close. About half of the four research staff employed in Australia and the United States are expected to lose their jobs as the corporation's R&D spending will be reduced by about $100 million a year.Shame. One of the other points it makes is:BHP was one of the few training grounds where people could put into practice what they could learn at a university.So much for saying that the private sector is out there putting in money. In my electorate there are over 6,778 registered businesses. They are companies that manufacture construction steel, plastic, ducted heating, power tools, trucks and drilling equipment just to name a few. In addition to these, there are many companies within my electorate that are at the cutting edge of new growth industries. I also have leading industries such as Bosch and Lockwood.These industries would be far more greatly assisted by a return to the 150 per cent R&D tax concession they enjoyed under the Labor government. Recent ABS figures show that research and development funding was down another four per cent, or $157 million, in the last financial year—the second consecutive fall. This is a damning indictment of this government's policies of neglect. Even the Industry Commission recognised there was a net benefit to the Australian economy provided by the 150 per cent concession.There are two other facilities in my electorate I would like to talk about—Monash University, which I do not believe the minister has been to since he was last employed there, and CSIRO. Flicking through the university's strategic research objectives, one sees all the positive things that the university is seeking: to improve efficiency, to promote public awareness of the university's research achievement and to encourage strategic collaborations and maximise research spin-offs on outside earnings. Certainly the university appears acutely aware of its responsibility to contribute to advancing and applying knowledge through basic and applied research, and collaborating with other institutions in order to better the products and services that touch both industry and human lives. Moreover, Monash is aware that commercialisation of research has the potential to lead to the establishment of joint ventures and that jobs flow from this.One would presume that these principles espoused by the universities are ones that the government would applaud. However, the government does not back up its words with funds. Successive Commonwealth budgets have confirmed that operating grants will be cut by a cumulative 5.9 per cent over the period 1997 to 2000, resulting in a reduction in funding of $11.5 million per year by 2000 for Monash alone. So much for the minister's claim that his government is doing so much more for this sector. Within Victoria, this situation is compounded by the cessation of the Making Places initiative and the absence of underlying growth in student numbers funded by the Commonwealth. In the Monash plan, the university gives a telling insight into how it sees its future:There are, nevertheless, reasons to be confident that the University can continue to achieve overall growth in income from fee-paying students and from other sources. Overall the resource outlook is tight and achieving the objectives of the Monash Plan will require an imaginative approach to new sources of funding, careful management of re sources and a disciplined approach to financial responsibilities.So, sadly, as the government vacates the field, it will be students who pick up the slack through fee hikes. Monash have an established overseas student program that will be rapidly expanded in order to chase the export dollars. Many universities have also moved away from the more academic disciplines such as those in the arts faculty, which I believe will leave a significant hole. At Monash, there has been a significant reduction in the number of places within the arts faculty because they cannot chase the business dollars nor attract overseas students. Whilst much of the research dollar will now be focused on commercially viable projects—and this is commendable—we must make sure that we do recognise the importance of research in the fields of history, literature and economics, which all contribute to the intellectual health of this country.The other facility within my electorate is CSIRO. It is a facility that I recently visited, and I do not believe anyone from the government has been there for a while. It is at the cutting edge of research and business—1K6BILLSONMr Billson—There are CSIRO facilities all around the place.83SBurke, Anna, MPMs BURKE—I was talking about CSIRO at Clayton. I said no-one had been there for a while. CSIRO is at the cutting edge of technology—from producing plastic banknotes to the protection of old-growth forests and producing more accurate X-rays.CSIRO, like Monash, is acutely aware of its role in generating products and new technologies in conjunction with the business community. However, the CSIRO conducts a lot of research that has no financial incentive but is nevertheless important to our advancement as a nation. Having met some of the dedicated scientists there, I believe it is absolutely critical that researchers maintain strong input into assessing the merits of research proposals.Australia needs reform that encourages further funding of our research industry in order to harness our natural resources, skills, innovation, education and creative strengths—not this narrow vision of this government's green paper. This green paper does not herald a way forward on new knowledge and new opportunities; it is rather backward looking in some respects. It opens up the way for the government to do the following: to introduce by stealth a voucher system by starting with vouchers for postgraduate students; to exacerbate the situation of new disadvantaged universities in research funding and, in turn, reduce opportunities for kids from poorer backgrounds who attend these facilities; to exacerbate the crisis in the humanities area; to create chaos, confusion and the loss of some existing schemes, especially large grants schemes and the CRC program—where we have had significant success; and to move away from a commitment to basic research by allowing a greater say for industries and others outside universities and the research field in assessing the merits of research proposals.What hope for the future with a government which is more interested in shifting chairs on the Titanic than actually seriously looking at research and development and the future of our country.16:35:007957Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—The attack today on the government is an attack by the member for Dobell on the government for having some ideas. It is an attempt to mask the fact that the ALP are a policy free zone, that the leadership is AWOL, that they are absent without leadership. The attack today is on the government not only for the ideas it has put forward in the past but for daring to propose new policy innovations and inviting the sector and those with an interest in it to have a contribution.Mr Lee interjecting—1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—The member for Dobell is probably struck by the embarrassment of the revelation that he is trying to hide the ALP's lack of policy with an attack on the government for having one. What an amazing MPI! It is a dark day for the ALP today. They are not only trying to argue that governments should not have ideas; they are actually suggesting that because they do not have any they somehow have the high moral ground. It is a fascinating time in Australian politics and is probably why this has been such a good week for the coalition.Nowhere is there such a genuine commitment to developing an ideas economy than here in Australia. You have heard the minister talk about the plethora of ideas and the integrated strategy that the government is pursuing to create and commercialise knowledge and ideas in this country. It is not just a single idea; it is not just the member for Dobell actually picking up the government's ideas, mucking around with semantics and then offering them as something new. This is actually an integrated, multiprong strategy by the Howard government to inject new vitality and to support excellence in research and development in this country.Let us run through the comprehensive program. We have talked about a supportive economic and entrepreneurial climate. Nothing happens unless there is a prospect of return. The government has made sure that those foundations are in place. You look further into the government's program and you see strategic financial support for R&D—support where there is an idea, support where there is homework and a business plan for commercialisation, or where there is a need for a bit of extra work just to complete the idea so it can go to the marketplace.The member for Dobell holds up a card saying that the ALP wants to bring back tax rorts—150 per cent R&D tax concessions, where the goal is not the commercialisation of ideas but getting a tax break. So the whole motive of the ALP's proposal is driven by a tax break, whereas the government is putting forward serious financial support for genuine ideas at a number of stages in the process of design, development and commercialisation.We move on to the next prong of the government's strategy, renovation of research infrastructure—another commendable initiative of the minister at the table, and again something the member for Dobell is trying to pick up. The legacy that Labor left us pointed to an urgent need for investment in research infrastructure. I will come to that point in a minute.Another prong of the government's strategy is talent development—having the people with the skills exercise their skills and their gifts and their knowledge in this country, trying to make sure that there is a place for them, a fertile environment in this nation for our best minds to excel. You have heard some examples of that from the minister at the table.But there is more. We have another prong to the strategy, a focus on commercialisation. It is about having business and the idea generators work closer together so that the innovations and the insights that bring us hope for opportunities into the future become a reality. That is the great contrast between what this government is doing and what the ALP is talking about. This is research reality that the coalition government is trying to prove, where the outcome matters, where benefits for the Australian community matter, where making a difference in our lives matters, where opening up new opportunities and new solutions for future generations matters. That is the basis of our policy. What does the ALP offer? It offers a tax rort, a tax incentive so you can chase a tax outcome. An idea? Oh, you mean there has to be an idea in it? Well, we had better whip around and talk to somebody if the tax break actually has to have an idea attached to it. The coalition starts with the idea and we work on making it happen.But there is more to the strategy: improving the links between the idea generators and business. There is a suggestion from those opposite that having research people, having universities, having some of our best minds working with business is somehow bad. What an amazing proposition!CU4GALLUSMrs Gallus—Crazy.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—It is absolutely crazy. It is an extraordinary contribution from the member for Dobell.Mr Lee interjecting—1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—He is saying it is hardly a new idea. It is a new idea to you, member for Dobell, because that wasn't even in your rebadge of the good things the coalition is doing, calling them an ALP policy. You didn't even get to that point. You might be able to pick that up and call that a policy, although I think there might be some intellectual property problems with your policy. You might need to talk to the minister at the table about ownership of ideas, otherwise you might have a real problem. So even that is on the table from the coalition strategy.But it goes further. There are specific initiatives in the areas of biotech, medical research, marine research, greenhouse and global warming areas and alternative energy. It is not just a single, narrow portfolio driven by a union constituency approach to R&D; it goes across many portfolios in this government. This whole-of-government strategy is about making sure research effort delivers outcomes for the country. There are a number of portfolios within government that can make a contribution. The government recognises that. The member for Dobell should read more of the material the minister at the table makes available and he would get a sense of that as well.Then we get to the point of this MPI today. The ALP are criticising the government's vision and commitment, but everything the shadow minister, the member for Dobell, said disproves his claim. Everything that he said highlights the fact that the ALP only has shallow allegations and close to idea theft from the coalition. The member for Dobell has problems with intellectual property ownership as he shops around for an idea someone else has generated, and then offers nothing to replace what we are doing. It is retro research. He wants to go back to tax rorts, where tax concessions are the goals of research. Forget the ideas, just go to the tax concessions. That is the only new thing he offered compared to things the government is already doing. What a great endorsement of the government's program by the member for Dobell!His attack is on our latest instalment. The minister has released a paper with some more suggestions about how to drive this further. The latest paper is a discussion paper: New knowledge, new opportunities. It is about promoting excellence in research training. There is support out there from those who should know. The Australian Research Council's Professor Vicki Sara says:The paper is an important step forward for the development of Australia's innovation system. Importantly it recognises that basic research contributes to the innovation system in a fundamental and long-term way. It recognises the link between research and economic growth and jobs and also the social and cultural benefits research brings to our society.An endorsement from those who know, an endorsement from those who are interested in joining the government in its effort to renovate and restore and revitalise R&D in this country. But why do we need to renovate it? Look at Labor's record. After 13 years of Labor what did the government inherit? It inherited an R&D situation in this country riddled with problems. Business expenditure was heading south. GDP was 25 per cent lower than the OECD average in terms of share of GDP on business R&D. Let us look at where our position was on the league ladder of R&D. Australia slipped from 18th to 24th under Labor in regard to business expenditure on R&D among OECD nations alone. We inherited this problem. This decay that we inherited the member for Dobell seeks to defend, wants to go back to. What is it, member for Dobell? Have you worked out a way to go backwards even more quickly? Have you got a new way of sending us down the tube even faster than before? Is that the only innovation you can offer us?Then we look further. The ability of the CSIRO to effectively undertake research was compromised by Labor's $60 million cut to its triennium funding. Under Labor the research infrastructure at Australia's universities was cut to the extent that the Boston Consulting Group estimated that we needed a $125 million injection just to get the infrastructure in our universities.That is the legacy Labor left us, and the member for Dobell wants to go back there. Why? So he can ruin it completely? Is that your goal? Is this a greenfields approach to R&D—wipe out everything that we have in our R&D effort in this country so you can start again on ideas that have been proven to fail? But the big crime of this, which the member for Dobell seems to forget, is that more than half of the postgraduate students who started their course in 1992 did not finish it in six years. What a waste of resources. The ALP is trying to defend that. That is like building half a road and saying you are done; that is like getting halfway through an operation and saying, `Six years on, we might finish it if it is stimulating.' What a funny way to run policy. So we have inherited that situation.There have been constructive steps across portfolios to make a real difference, and this is the latest instalment that the coalition government has to offer. There is something that the member for Dobell can do, and that is get on the train towards a better future for this country. He can think about what needs to be done to support the R&D effort in this country and also about what we can do to make sure our nation in the future hits above its weight in terms of R&D success and commercialisation so we can enjoy the prosperity that this nation rightly has at its feet. But you have to do something constructive and productive to do that: you have to put the policies in place to make a difference. Labor are AWOL—absent without leadership. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The discussion is now concluded.Bills7959r8347959Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.7959Bill (on motion by Mr McGauran)—by leave—read a third time.Bills7959The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1999-2000 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1999-2000 Bills7960r8737960Bill presented by Mr Anthony, and read a first time.796016:48:007960Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this bill is to apply aspects of the Commonwealth's competitive neutrality policy to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, EFIC, which is a key Commonwealth statutory authority in the government's integrated approach to promoting and supporting Australian exporters.EFIC does this by providing a range of insurance and finance facilities where these are not normally provided by the private sector. It has had an important part to play in the government's strong commitment to assisting Australian exporters during the Asian economic crisis, most notably through the national interest account facilities agreed to by cabinet for Korea and Indonesia. More generally, EFIC support over the past five years has underpinned some $34.5 billion worth of exports to more than 150 countries and involved some 1,200 exporters, many of whom have been small and medium sized businesses.As the Prime Minister announced in the government's `Investing for Growth' statement in 1997, the government has reviewed its ownership of EFIC and concluded that the interests of exporters are best served by a strong EFIC under existing ownership arrangements. EFIC's role during the Asian economic crisis has amply demonstrated the merits of this decision.At the same time, the Commonwealth's competitive neutrality policy requires that government business activities do not have a net competitive advantage over their private sector competitors simply as a result of their public ownership. EFIC's activities in the short-term insurance area potentially overlap with those of private insurers, although such an overlap does not occur in respect of EFIC's medium- to long-term activities. The government is concerned to ensure that, to the extent possible, consistent with operating a viable business, EFIC does not enjoy a net competitive advantage. This accords with the government's desire to foster the development of private sector insurers.This bill therefore applies a debt neutrality charge, guarantee fee and tax equivalent payments to EFIC's operations in the area of short-term insurance contracts.Opposition members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! Those on my left are not assisting the House. The parliamentary secretary should proceed.Opposition member interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, the honourable member knows he is not. Order!XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—This is a most serious bill. I hope the members of the House will take this on board. The bill also removes EFIC's current exemptions from the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984 and Insurance Contracts Act 1984 in relation to such operations. These changes will assist in providing a more even competitive situation for the development of the private market.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills7960r7387960Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendment—(1) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 17), after item 26, insert:26A After section 106Insert:106A Review of the scheme(1) Not later than 1 January 2000, the Minister must cause Austrade to conduct a review of the export market development grants scheme for the purpose of making recommendations about the continuation of the scheme for an indefinite period.(2) In conducting the review, Austrade must call for submissions from the public and may conduct public hearings.(3) Austrade must complete the review and provide a written report to the Minister not later than 30 June 2000.(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days after receiving it.16:53:007961Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—From this position, I move my last motion ever at the dispatch box. I move:That the amendment be agreed to.The government welcomes the timely passage by the Senate of the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 and acknowledges the bipartisan support for the Export Market Development Grants Scheme that has been expressed in both Houses. Passage of this legislation ensures that Australia's small and medium sized exporters can embark on further export promotional activities in the knowledge that the government will continue to support their effort. Support from all parties for this legislation reflects yet again that the EMDG Scheme is an effective and efficient program delivering concrete assistance to Australia's export sector. The effectiveness of the scheme continues to be reflected in the export impact and job creation that it helps to generate. The government agrees to the amendment as proposed in the Senate and commits to undertaking a review of the Export Market Development Grants Scheme provided for in the amendment in the first six months of the year 2000. The Export Market Development Grants Scheme has been and will continue to be a vital ingredient in developing a strong and vibrant export culture in Australia. I commend this bill, as amended, to the House.16:54:007961Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—I am pleased to speak briefly on the Export Market Development Grants Legisla tion Amendment Bill 1999 . As the House will be aware, when this legislation was previously debated, I moved on behalf of the opposition several amendments which related to the continuity of the EMDG Scheme: the $150 million annual funding cap and the public disclosure of information concerning the award of grants.These issues, we are now aware, were further debated when the bill was considered in the Senate and, in response, the government gave its assurances that there would be a thorough review of the EMDG Scheme to be completed by 30 June in the year 2000 and that the review will address the issues relating to the continuity of the scheme, the public disclosure of information and areas for future improvement in the targeting and administration of the scheme. The government, I am pleased to say, also undertook to table annually the full list of grant recipients, together with statistical information on grant trends to specific markets. Provision for the review by 30 June 2000 has been made in the amendment to section 106 of the legislation which is being reported back to the House today. On this basis, the opposition is pleased to support the bill.With the indulgence of the House, I would like to add a couple of comments to those that have already been made today in respect of Mr Fischer's announcement. I want to add our congratulations on the manner in which, with such vigour and energy, he has pursued a number of vital relationships around the world. I think his efforts to build understanding and an agenda between Australia and the countries of Latin America and between Australia and the Middle East must be considered amongst the most outstanding achievements of the last administration, the last 3½ years.In acknowledging that, can I say in a personal sense today that, for the first time, I am feeling just a twinge of envy about Tim moving on. I would like, on behalf of myself and my wife, to wish him and his family every happiness in their life after politics.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills7962r8677962Bill presented by Mr Vaile, and read a first time.796216:58:007962Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.In presenting this bill, I would like to make some short comments. The purpose of the amendments to the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 is to: provide temporary relief for applications made ineligible when the PBR Act was introduced; improve public accessibility of information; clarify aspects of prior sale and the payment of fees; and to correct minor transcription errors.The amendments are of a minor technical nature and are aimed at improving the efficient operation of the PBR Scheme. They have wide industry support and have been endorsed by the Plant Breeders Rights Advisory Committee.As well as being part of this amending legislation, the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 has, as its main purpose, measures that allow cost-effective and efficient levy and charge collection techniques. It provides a single act to deal with all levy and charge collection. It allows for uniformity of collection methods and permits a consistency of approach to procedural matters.Many of the amendments clarify and update customs used in rural industries, such as the use of settlement agents and solicitors in arranging property sales incorporating the sale of livestock.Anomalies have been highlighted as to who is legally the proprietor or operator of a processing establishment, particularly an abattoir. A person who holds a licence under state or territories' law will, for levy collection purposes, be deemed to be the proprietor. If a licence is not mandatory, the proprietor is to be the person carrying on the business of operating the processing establishment.The powers for authorised persons are being upgraded to bring them into line with those used by inspectors under the Export Control Act 1982. For example, new offences for non-cooperation or obstructing an authorised person in performing those duties are to be included.The remaining amendments merely expand and clarify existing provisions.The purpose of the amendments to the Natural Resources Management (Financial Assistance) Act 1992 is to change the name of the National Landcare Advisory Committee established under the act to the Australian Landcare Council.In July 1997 the then Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, the Hon. John Anderson MP, announced that the National Landcare Advisory Committee was to be called the Australian Landcare Council. The amendment has the support of those involved with the Australian Landcare Council and the new name has been in use since the announcement of the intended change.The schedule in the Primary Industry Councils Act 1991, which provides for the establishment of a Grains Industry Council, is to be repealed. The need for a forum to advise the government on the strategic direction of the grains industry is no longer relevant following privatisation of the Australian Wheat Board and ongoing reforms to state grain marketing arrangements.The purpose of the amendments to the Rural Adjustment Act 1992 is to change the role, functions and name of the advisory body currently known as the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council.The Rural Adjustment Act 1992 provides for the Rural Adjustment Scheme, RAS, and the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council, RASAC. As the RAS effectively ceased to operate as at 30 June 1998, being replaced by the government's Agriculture— Advancing Australia package, the title and functions of RASAC have been reconsidered.The amendments propose that the new advisory council will provide the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry with advice on the following matters:. rural adjustment generally;. regional issues, particularly matters regarding entering into agreements with states relating to rural adjustment;. matters relating to declarations of exceptional circumstances;. training issues, and in particular the Farm Business Improvement Program; and. any other matter that the minister requests advice or information about.As I said, the amendment to the Rural Adjustment Act will see the name of that body changed from RASAC, the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council, to the National Rural Advisory Council.The amendments to the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 expand and clarify a number of definitions under the act as well as performing a few housekeeping functions to ensure the provisions of the act are consistent.Key changes are to the definitions of `examinable document' and `wine premises', and to section 39W, which sets out the records required to be kept. These amendments are designed to ensure that all relevant details of a wine's transformation from grape to retail sale are duly recorded and that all documents and records relevant to the claims made on wine labels can be inspected. These changes do not seek to add extra regulation on wine businesses but simply to reinforce the requirements already set out in the act.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills7963r8927963Bill presented by Mr Bruce Scott, and read a first time.796317:04:007963Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The initiatives foreshadowed for the Veterans' Affairs portfolio in this year's budget build on our commitment to provide generous compensation and assistance recognising the special standing of the veteran community.My portfolio is responsible for providing income support and health care to one in four Australians over the age of 75. This government has given priority to programs designed to help ageing veterans live independently in their own homes, if this is their wish. This year the government has also focused the National Healthy Ageing Strategy on the International Year of Older Persons.My department's main initiative during the International Year of Older Persons is Homefront—an initiative designed to reduce falls and accidents in and around veterans' homes.This initiative provides eligible veterans and war widows with a free home assessment and up to $150 in financial assistance towards recommended aids and minor home modifications per year.Homefront also provides a range of information and helps link veterans and war widows to other support programs and services for which they may be eligible.Homefront is currently available to all gold health care card holders. This bill will allow Homefront to be available to all white health care card holders as well—bringing the total eligible to approximately 340,000 members of the veteran community.Complementing this extension, the bill will allow the government to introduce the Home Support Loan Scheme, which was foreshadowed in the budget. It will provide low interest loans of up to $10,000 for home modifications and essential maintenance.Loans under the scheme will be available to certain persons eligible under the Defence Service Homes Act who have an outstanding loan of less than $10,000. Eligibility for the loan scheme will be extended beyond those eligible for a defence service home advance. This new loan will be available to Australian veterans, members of the Defence Force and members of a peacekeeping force covered by the Veterans' Entitlements Act, and to their widows or widowers.The student children of older veterans who receive an extreme disablement adjustment will also benefit under this bill.Currently only children of deceased, extreme disablement adjustment veterans are entitled to assistance under the Veterans' Children Education Scheme. This bill will ensure that the children of living extreme disablement adjustment veterans become eligible for such assistance as well, providing these student children with full access to all of the benefits available under the scheme—including financial assistance, educational guidance and counselling.Further, this bill provides a mechanism for setting out the specific circumstances and criteria for determining whether a person is permanently incapacitated for work for the purposes of an invalidity service pension and income support supplement on the grounds of invalidity.Currently the criterion for permanent incapacity for work purposes does not specify the assessment methodology to be used in determining the degree of incapacity. The current test lacks reference to objective criteria and is susceptible to subjectivity in its application.From 1 January 2000, there will be three measures of permanent incapacity for service pension purposes:. blindness;. the receipt of the special rate disability pension for total and permanent incapacity; and. an objective assessment of the person's impairment, combined with the person's capacity to work.The impairment assessment will be made by reference to the Guide to the Assessment of Rates of Veterans' Pensions , so bringing consistency with an existing test that is widely known and accepted within the veteran community.I assure the House that veterans found not to be permanently incapacitated as measured by these new criteria will continue to have access to Australia's extensive income support safety net, including disability support pension, sickness allowance and Newstart allowance.A further provision of this bill will allow the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to declare, by gazettal, the deployment of non-Australian Defence Force personnel as a peacekeeping force for the purposes of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills7964r8757964Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.796417:09:007964Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.I rise today to introduce a bill that represents further refinement of financial system regulatory reform that was initiated in response to the Final Report of the Financial System Inquiry, chaired by Mr Stan Wallis.Honourable members will be aware that last year the Treasurer introduced into the House a package of legislation to complete the first stage of the government's financial sector reform program. These reforms introduced a new organisational framework for the regulation of the financial system from 1 July 1998 and a variety of measures to improve the efficiency and contestability in financial markets and the payments system.The second stage of reforms transfers regulatory responsibility for state and territory based financial institutions to the Commonwealth. I presented legislation providing for the transfer on 11 March this year. These bills passed through the parliament in May and received royal assent on 17 June 1999.I now introduce a bill with a number of miscellaneous additional amendments and transitional provisions that continue the reform process and help enhance the operation of existing financial sector legislation.The more significant amendments will:. bring the superannuation legislation up to date for the electronic age;. clarify the availability of financial assistance to superannuation funds in cases of fraud;. allow certain foreign deposit-taking institutions more time to consider the future structure of their operations in Australia without incurring taxes, fees and charges;. better protect members of deposit-taking mutuals in the event of a proposed demutualisation; and. include amendments which assist the functioning of the Reserve Bank of Australia.I also propose to remove part IV of the Financial Corporations Act 1974, which provided the government with powers to regulate registered financial corporations but was never proclaimed.Over the last 18 months or more, the power and importance of the financial sector in the world economy has been fully recognised. Countries all over the world have been given good cause to reconsider the effectiveness of their financial sector regulatory framework.In Australia, our regulatory system has proven to be efficient and robust.The main package of financial sector reforms already introduced by the government helped to establish a forward looking, flexible and sophisticated regulatory regime. Today's package of amendments and transitional provisions, while modest in the context of the overall reform process, are important in refining and developing the regulatory frame work and elevating it towards `world's best practice'. These reforms will update, enhance and streamline Australia's existing financial sector regulatory procedures and operations.They further assist the development of the financial sector as a key driver in the economy that is strongly contributing to our record economic growth; they help consolidate Australia's position at the leading edge of financial sector reform; and, finally, they contribute to our continued efforts to secure Australia's place as a centre for global financial services.I will now turn to the bill in more detail.Amendment to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998The bill amends the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 to exempt APRA from paying sales tax on the goods it purchases. This is consistent with the government's intention when this legislation was originally passed. In addition, the bill proposes some largely technical amendments to the secrecy provisions of the APRA Act to enable them to operate more effectively.Amendments to the Banking Act 1959In response to requests from industry, the bill amends section 63 of the Banking Act 1959 to enable the Treasurer to issue disclosure guidelines to ensure that all authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADI) seeking to demutualise give proper regard to members' interests and disclose adequate information for members to make an informed decision.Amendments to the Financial Corporations Act 1974The bill amends the Financial Corporations Act 1974 to reduce compliance costs on business, ensures the information collection provisions are more flexible and removes superseded provisions. In addition, the proposed amendments will enable the Reserve Bank of Australia to delegate the majority of its functions under the act to APRA, the Australian Statistician, a staff member of APRA, or the Australian Bureau of Statistics.Amendments to the Financial Corporations (Transfer of Assets and Liabilities) Act 1993 The bill amends the Financial Corporations (Transfer of Assets and Liabilities) Act 1993. It will extend the deadline for foreign ADIs operating in Australia since 18 June 1993 to obtain a banking authority until 30 June 2000, in order for them to be eligible for concessional tax treatment for transferring assets and liabilities. This will provide ADIs with more time to decide on the structure of their operations given the government's great tax reform package. In addition, the legislation will apply even if there has been a change in ownership of the foreign institution.Amendment of the Financial Laws Amendment Act 1997The bill amends the Financial Laws Amendment Act 1997 to correct an error in the definition of `newly established foreign banks' and makes the necessary consequential amendments.Amendment to the Life Insurance Act 1995The bill will amend the Life Insurance Act 1995 to expand the requirements for the assignment of an interest in an approved benefit fund of a friendly society. This will bring the requirements for assignment into line with those of the Friendly Societies Code.Amendment of the Reserve Bank Act 1959The bill amends the Reserve Bank Act 1959 to extend the conflict of interest provisions to all ADIs rather than just banks when considering eligibility for Reserve Bank board membership.Amendment of superannuation legislation relating to financial assistance to fundsThe bill amends certain superannuation legislation to clarify the circumstances in which funds, which suffer losses due to fraud or theft, will be eligible to apply for a grant of financial assistance.Amendment of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993The bill amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to extend the range of material and information required under the act that may be submitted in elec tronic form. Consequential amendments are also being made to the act to improve the efficiency of arrangements for the lodgment of information required under the act, including by electronic means. To complement these changes, additional amendments will apply to strengthen safeguards against misuse or fraud in relation to electronic lodgment, including penalty provisions and the removal of the requirement for a common or official seal on election notices.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills7966r8687966Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.796617:18:007966Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.I am introducing a package of bills to validate a series of determinations made by the Treasurer. These determinations relate to levies imposed on certain industries within the financial sector. Subsection 48(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 provides that determinations have no effect if they are due to take effect before the date of notification. In this case, the determinations were to take effect from 1 July 1998 but did not appear in the Gazette until 13 August 1998.That said, there is some ambiguity as to whether these determinations do impose a retrospective requirement as levy payments were in practice not payable until at least 1 October 1998. However, on balance, there is sufficient uncertainty to warrant legislation to ensure that these determinations are valid. As the determinations relate to the imposition of taxation, they require separate validating legislation for each determination.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memoranda to this bill and to General Insurance Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999 , Life Insurance Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999 , Retirement Savings Account Providers Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999 and Superannuation Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999 . I note that they are the short form titles.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills7967r8767967Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.796717:20:007967Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill is complementary to the Authorised Non-operating Holding Companies Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999 . I commend the bill to the House. I have already presented the explanatory memorandum with the second bill in this package of bills.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills7967r8817967Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.796717:21:007967Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill is complementary to the Authorised Non-operating Holding Companies Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999 . I commend the bill to the House and have already presented the explanatory memorandum with the third bill in this package of bills.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills7967r8827967Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.796717:22:007967Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill is complementary to the Authorised Non-operating Holding Companies Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999.I commend the bill to the House. I have already presented the explanatory memorandum with the second bill in this package.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills7967r8897967Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.796717:23:007967Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill is complementary to the Authorised Non-operating Holding Companies Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999.I commend the bill to the House. I have already presented the explanatory memorandum with the second bill of this package of bills. Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills7968r8907968Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.796817:24:007968Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill makes amendments to the income tax law and other laws to give effect to the following measures:CFCs and capital gains tax The bill will amend the controlled foreign company (CFC) rules in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to give effect to the Treasurer's announcement in the 1997-98 budget to rectify a number of anomalies in the interaction of the CFC measures and the capital gains tax (CGT) provisions. These amendments ensure that capital gains made on tainted assets, deemed to be disposed of after the amendment of the measures on 13 May 1997 when a company leaves a wholly owned company group, are included in the attributable income of the Australian resident controllers.The amendments also enable those tainted capital gains to be taken into account when applying the active income test. In addition, the amendments will prevent taxpayers deliberately avoiding taxation of those capital gains by using schemes or arrangements intended to dilute the Australian taxpayer's attribution percentage in the CFC holding tainted assets that have previously received CGT rollover relief.Amendments to exempt certain post-judgment interestThis bill will amend the income tax law to exempt post-judgment interest in personal injury compensation cases from income tax, where the interest accrues from the time a judgment debt arises until all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. The amendments will apply from the 1992-93 year of income. This will allow taxpayers who have already paid tax on post-judgment interest in recent years to obtain a refund.Franking of dividendsThe bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to make a number of corrections to the franking credit trading and dividend streaming rules. These changes will apply from the commencement of the measures. Non-deductibility of bribesThis bill amends the income tax law to deny tax deductions for bribes paid to foreign public officials. The government is introducing this measure to support global moves to discourage bribery in international business transactions. The amendments are in response to the recommendation by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development that member countries deny tax deductibility for bribes paid to foreign public officials. The amendments will apply to the 1999-2000 year of income and later years of income. The gain to the revenue from the amendments is estimated to be insignificant.PhilanthropyThe bill will provide taxation incentives for personal and corporate philanthropy in Australia.These measures arise as a response to the report on philanthropy in Australia by the Business and Community Partnerships Working Group on Taxation Reform. The measures were announced on 26 March 1999 by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Family and Community Services.Rate of tax for friendly societiesIn Tax reform: not a new tax, a new tax system: the Howard government's plan for a new tax system the government announced changes to the taxation treatment of life insurers that are proposed to commence from the 2000-01 income year. The details of the changes to the taxation of life insurers are being developed as part of the Review of Business Taxation.As the law currently stands, the rate of tax on the eligible insurance business of friendly societies is scheduled to increase from 33 per cent to 39 per cent for the 1999-2000 and subsequent income years. However, pending the results of the Review of Business Taxation, this bill will retain the rate of tax for the eligible insurance business of friendly societies at 33 per cent for the 1999-2000 income year.Company law review amendmentsThe bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and associated tax laws to ensure that distributions of share premiums are within the ambit of certain anti-avoidance rules known as the capital streaming and dividend substitution rules. The bill also makes some minor technical changes and other changes that will clarify particular provisions to ensure they operate as intended.The amendment to include distributions of share premiums within the ambit of the anti-avoidance rules will apply from the date of introduction of this bill. The other amendments will apply from 1 July 1998, the date of commencement of the Taxation Laws Amendment (Company Law Review) Act 1998.Technical amendmentsThere are minor technical amendments in the bill that improve the signposting to provisions in the income tax law dealing with excess tax offsets.Concessional tracing rules for company lossThis bill gives effect to the government's 1996-97 budget announcements that the prior and current year loss, bad debt and debt/equity swap deduction rules for companies will be amended so that two concessional tracing rules that are available to trusts under the trust loss measures will also be available to companies. These amendments will apply to losses and debts incurred in the 1996-97 income year and later income years.These rules were previously included in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1997, which was introduced into parliament in October 1997 but lapsed because of the election.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned.Bills7969s2137969Debate resumed.17:31:007969Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—In my third instalment on this bill, I conclude my comments by saying that what the government is proposing is nothing like the Communications Decency Act in the US which set out to establish what was and was not acceptable content on the Internet. The bill sets up a mechanism to enable the ABA to classify online content using the same RC, X and R classification system that is used for film, television and video sold or broadcast within this country. The bill does not set up the government as a new, pre-broadcast, up-front Internet censor. It merely plugs Internet content into the same existing and accepted classification system that applies in those other mediums.I, along with other MPs, have received hundreds of email messages about this bill, some not terribly creative. I think that out of those hundreds there might have been five that had any individual contribution to make, but some of them did make some valid points. I would have to say, though, that many were heavy on emotion and prophecies of an apocalyptic end to the Internet. But then there were others saying that nothing will stop the Internet. The opponents of this bill before the House cannot have it both ways. They cannot in one breath claim that the Internet is going to come to a grinding halt and in the next breath say that the Net is so powerful, so above anything governments within jurisdictions can do to improve the quality of the content it carries, that it will just ride over the top. You cannot have it both ways.You cannot also say that it is a waste of time and yet at the same time have these dire prophecies of ISPs being brought to their knees. You cannot have it both ways there either. You cannot say that it is overly interventionist and yet at the same time claim that because there is support for the development of the technology there are too many easy ways out. You cannot also say that the Net performance is going to come to its knees when the hardware that is produced to drive the Net is developing at 60 per cent to 70 per cent improvement in performance year on year on year. We all know that where there is a performance problem with the Net it has more to do with the network over which it is delivered and the lines that come into people's homes than it has with processing capacity. To those in the ISP industry, guys, you cannot have it both ways. There is obviously a need to do something.There is an enormously positive influence for the future of civilisation with the Internet, but at the moment it is damaged goods. It carries filth. It carries swill. It stands in the road of some of the information and educational opportunities it presents for all Australians. If we allowed ourselves to be brought to our knees by those who oppose this bill by saying that it will not solve all the problems with the Internet, we would never do anything as a government. We would never seek to improve the employment situation. We would never seek to address poverty. We would never seek to do anything worth while that we know is hard unless we could get the absolute response we were after.Let us bury that absolutism. Let us get behind a way of making the Internet not damaged goods. There are new opportunities for ISPs, family-friendly Net access, cyberspace without swill and a whole lot of ways in which the industry can use its creativity and work with this legislation. I commend it to the House.17:34:007970Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The government's legislative framework is the equivalent of the lone postie in the Sydney mail exchange in the middle of the night individually steaming open the letters. As he comes across something that he thinks might be a bit sus, he gets on the phone, rings the local police officer and says, `I've got something here I'm a bit worried about. It's come from offshore. Would you mind faxing the Bermuda police and telling them we've got a problem.' Meanwhile, outside the post office, you have Minister Alston, the minister for communications, and his toady, the member for Dunkley, holding up the placard saying, `It's all solved. The problem's all solved. You don't need to worry. And if anyone takes a contrary view, please understand, they support paedophilia.' That is the government's framework and that is the government's presentation.The legislation will not work. The biggest crime the government has committed in public policy terms with the presentation of this legislation is to pretend to the Australian people, to pretend to the mums and dads, that it is going to solve the problem. It will not. There is deceit here, and a golden opportunity has been lost. The golden opportunity that has been lost is that this was the perfect chance, the perfect opportunity, for the government to say, `This is an opportunity for us to start to educate end users, to start to educate those users of the Internet and their families, to start to educate parents, grandparents, guardians, teachers and school principals as to how you can use the Internet and how to ensure that it is safe and appropriate for children and people in your care by end-use filtering, by empowering the end user to determine that which you want to regulate.'The government's effort to regulate the Internet content will not work. It will not work because over 90 per cent of content comes from offshore. The fact that the government's legislation is unworkable is reflected by the legislation's framework itself. When you look at the legislation's framework, you find that the government has established a framework which, for onshore content or onshore material, uses the current classification regime of refused classification and X classification and effects a take-down notice system through the ABA and seeks to impose a restricted access regime for R-classified material.For offshore content, for overseas content, you have a take-down procedure for refused classification and X classification, but R is not mentioned. R is not mentioned because the government knows that it simply cannot control that volume of content. The government's legislative regime is unworkable because the vast bulk of Internet content is offshore, and the government's own framework acknowledges that it is simply unable to deal or grapple with that by the processes and mechanisms that it puts in place.So what public policy crimes do we have here? We have the government presenting legislation which is unworkable. At the same time, we have the government through Minister Alston, the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, essentially pretending to mums and dads in the suburbs that without more this solves the problem, that once this legislation is passed by the Senate and the House you don't need to worry. The truth could not be further from that particular position. Rather than trying to have the lone postie sitting in the mail exchange individually steaming open the letters, if you want to seek to regulate content on the Internet, you have to do it in a thoughtful and sensitive way, in a way which is appropriate to that medium.On this side of the House we say, yes, we do believe there should be a system of regulation for the Internet and the Internet industry and we say that should be a combination of legislation and industry code of practice. But if you are going to legislate for Internet content, then try to be smart about it. It is not just us who say this; it is the government's own premier scientific research agency, the CSIRO. In the context of the introduction of this legislation by the government, the CSIRO in April of this year in a press release entitled `Content blocking on the Internet' stated:Blocking access to certain Internet material by Internet service providers or `backbone' providers will be largely ineffective, a recent CSIRO report has concluded.Instead, CSIRO recommends the use of filtering software by Internet users, enabling them to choose whether to filter Internet content, and to what extent.. . . . . . . . .The report found that blocking schemes implemented by ISPs (Internet service providers) can easily be bypassed.The release goes on to say:CSIRO recommended the Government work with the Internet industry to promote the use of volun tary user-initiated content filtering, and that filtering software be made available to users free of charge.That particular report predates April of this year. The CSIRO put out a press release releasing that report in April this year because that was after the government had announced its proposals and CSIRO was sending the government a message: what you are doing is wrong, what you are doing won't work, there is a more effective way in which you can address this problem.The United States Senate has in recent weeks addressed this problem and addressed this problem in a very sensible way. I noticed when I was surfing CNET news.com on 13 May that the US Senate passed a resolution or an amendment to one of its bills. It was passed 100 to nil—it was unanimous. The report on CNET news.com says:U.S. Internet service providers such as America Online would be forced to help parents protect children from objectionable material online by giving subscribers content-filtering software under a measure unanimously approved by the Senate.The legislation would require all Internet providers with more than 50,000 subscribers to offer such software free or at cost within three years. AOL already provides filters to its more than 17 million subscribers, as do other Internet access providers such as MindSpring.So the approach that the US Senate has taken is to say: if you are interested in regulating content, you are best seeking to regulate that content by end-use filtering, by empowering the end user, by educating the end user and providing that end user with assistance so far as filtering devices are concerned. So if you want to regulate Internet content, then you need to do it in a thoughtful and appropriate manner. You have to understand the unique characteristics of the Internet as an information and communications medium and you have to understand the adverse implications that heavy-handed, inappropriate mechanisms can have for the Internet industry and for Australia's attractiveness as an e-commerce jurisdiction.It is important to remember some of the history of this legislation. The government was in long-standing conversation with the Internet industry over a long period of time in respect of an industry code of practice to regulate this particular area, and the industry was into draft No. 4—or it might each have been draft No. 4A—of their code. What happened? One day the minister announced they were going to legislate and tipped out the legislation. The legislation contained things which the industry had never been consulted about in respect of regulation of offshore content and a whole range of other matters. The government did it for one reason and one reason only.It is very appropriate that today is 30 June. It is very appropriate that today is the expiration of the terms of current senators because tomorrow, as you well know, Madam Deputy Speaker Crosio, Senators Harradine and Colston no longer control the Senate. So this was—and I do not reflect on Senator Harradine in any way in this respect—the government's effort to drag Senator Harradine across the line on legislation not related to this industry. This was part of the government's device, the government's edifice, the government's attempts to drag Senator Harradine across the line on the privatisation of Telstra.So the government may think they have had a victory out there by blackguarding the industry and blackguarding opponents to their legislation by saying, `You should ignore them. They are the supporters of paedophilia. They are the supporters of criminal pornography.' I suspect that, if you asked the community what have the government done in respect of the Internet and its content, out there in the suburbs they would say, `We think they have done something, but we know in our heart of hearts it is related to dragging the Tasmanian senator across the line.' That is why the government's attempts to blackguard the industry and blackguard the opposition and blackguard other people in the community who have said that this is unworkable legislation have effectively failed.So this legislation was introduced in some immodest haste for the purposes of dragging Senator Harradine across the line. What was the industry's response to the legislation and its introduction? The industry's response was effectively to go into a pink fit. It made the point that it regarded the legislation as un workable, that it would give Australia a reputation of being an unattractive destination or jurisdiction for e-commerce, that the burdens you would place on Internet service providers would essentially grind the system to a halt, that it would bring the country in terms of attractiveness as an Internet destination into ill repute and put off investors, and that, in any event, the legislation would not work because the mechanisms were easily bypassable and, on the government's own framework, ignoring an R classification for offshore material would not deal with over 90 per cent of the content on the Internet.So what is the structure of this unworkable piece of legislation? As I indicated very briefly earlier, with respect to onshore content—content put on the Internet within Australia—the government adopts the current classification regime of refuse classification, X classification and R classification. It says in respect of refuse classification and X classification that there is a take-down mechanism courtesy of complaint to the ABA, and that in respect of R material, you need to put in place a restricted access regime by way of age, identity, PIN and the like. With respect to offshore material, refuse classification and X material is subject to a take-down notice and an ISP must undertake or go through reasonable steps to ensure that that is effected.So those opposite who seek to blackguard our position as being supporters of pornography or paedophilia should all understand that on not one occasion has the opposition queried or questioned the classification regime which the government has put in place, other than to say, `You are adopting the classification regime for films and for computer and video games; you are using the same regime for the Internet. This is a very fast moving area. You actually want to think at some point in the cycle as to whether that is the most appropriate vehicle, but we are happy to have that conversation or discussion at a different time.' So no-one on our side has queried the adoption or the take-up of those particular classifications.I have noticed that those on the other side are always up there saying things such as, `I have got an 18½-month-old son and at some stage he will want to see a giraffe.' We are all in our own way sons and daughters and mothers and fathers. I have a young son and a young daughter. When I go to open days at high schools and I see the computer room, one of the first questions I ask is, `What are your end-user filter arrangements?' So those opposite do themselves and the community a disservice by seeking to pretend that they are the only ones concerned about ensuring that young people in our charge and care are not the subject of access to inappropriate material. That is under the classification regime that, for the purpose of this exercise, we do not quibble with. It was we on this side, when in government, who introduced the comparable classification regime to video and computer games. Why did we do that? One reason was that very much of the material that you find in video and computer games and on the Internet relates to violence.I frankly think that the question of young people having access to violent material—whether it is on free-to-air broadcast TV, subscription TV, computer games, video games or the Internet—is a matter of serious concern. Those opposite do themselves and the community a disservice by seeking to pretend that they are the only ones who have that concern or that interest at heart. The great crime is that the government seeks to pull the wool over the community's eyes by pretending that its regime will in any way have any effect whatsoever with respect to those matters.The further general framework of the legislation is that, in respect of the take-down mechanisms for that content that I have described, an ISP has to take reasonable steps to ensure that, once being the subject of a take-down measure, a reasonable step is gone through. And the reasonable steps can either be agreed through an industry code approved by the ABA or, in default of the industry code, be agreed by the ABA itself. So the heart of this legislation very much goes to: what can you regard as reasonable steps on the part of an Internet service provider, an ISP, to respond to a take-down notice by the ABA? The bill was released by Minister Alston. It was the subject of consideration by the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies. That was the subject of a majority report by government senators and a minority report by opposition senators and Democrat senators. The opposition senators' minority report formed the basis of amendments which the opposition moved in the Senate, all but one of which were defeated and which it is proposed, by way of amendments circulated in my name, to move again in this House. The government itself moved a range of amendments, some of which I will detail but, as you would suspect, if you thought the bill was bad, their amendments were worse—but I will come to that shortly.The Senate report and the public hearings saw a whole range of submissions from the industry. They repeated very many of the things that I have referred to previously. In the industry's view, the legislation was unworkable, the mechanisms would be easily bypassed, the offshore content would ensure that the regime proposed by the government was unworkable, the penalty regime suggested by the government for continuing offences in response to take-down notices were very harsh when compared with other penalties, and the government had failed to take into account a whole range of important matters so far as what reasonable steps might be.Aided by those submissions, the Labor senators effected a minority report, as I have indicated, and that formed the basis of the amendments moved in this place. When debate on this legislation started, I was unable to attend the House and the amendments circulated in my name were formally moved by the member for Bonython. I take the opportunity to quickly go through the second reading amendment and the points made there and some of the amendments which we will go to in more detail in the consideration in detail stage which reflect the substance of the Labor minority report in the Senate and which, in very many respects, reflect the submissions made by industry when the matter went before the select committee. The second reading amendment circulated in my name but formally moved by the member for Bonython reads:. . . the House:(1) express its concern that: (a) the legislation is being dealt with in indecent haste and with inadequate consideration;That largely reflects the fact that the minister dropped this on the table with the view to getting legislation through the Senate before 30 June, with nothing other than Senator Harradine and Telstra in mind. He did not have the concern of Australian young people or Australian families in mind when he dropped this on the table, he had 16.6 per cent of Telstra in mind when he did it.Secondly, the government's claim that the legislation will solve the problem of unacceptable content is not supported by the reality that the vast bulk of Internet content is generated outside Australia. The government's own framework just ignores R-rated material that comes from offshore. Why? Because 90 per cent of Internet content comes from offshore and the volume is simply too much for the proposed regime to cope with.Thirdly, the proposals, including the idea of mandatory Internet service provider filters, are unworkable and easily bypassed. It is not just the opposition who says that, it is not just the industry who says that, it is not just the Internet service providers who say that; it is also the government's own premier scientific adviser, the CSIRO, who says that. The application of the narrowcasting classification regime's regulation of Internet content has not been thoroughly analysed and may well require revisiting in the future in view of rapidly changing and converging technology, which is the point I made earlier. There is no quibble with the classification regime. We are quite happy for the purpose of this exercise to adopt it, but the government might have borne in mind that this is one of the fastest developing areas of industry, and it might just have had a thought for the future.Fourthly, the legislation does not include a sunset clause or provision for review, given the speed of change in this area. It recommends that efforts should be made by the government to pursue international agree ments on the regulation of Internet content, and substantially more emphasis should be placed on end user empowerment through information and education campaigns for parents, schools and guardians about the use of the Internet and the end-use filter devices. That goes very much to the heart of our approach to this matter. If you are genuinely concerned about seeking to solve this problem, take a leaf out of the book of the US Senate—unanimous resolution of 100 to nil—and empower end users of the Internet and provide assistance by way of end-use filtering devices.The amendments that are circulated in my name will be formally dealt with in the consideration in detail stage, and some are worthy of comment at this point in the cycle. I indicated that at the heart of the bill are the reasonable steps that an ISP must take to comply with a take-down notice of the ABA. It is suggested by way of amendments moved in the Senate and defeated by the government that the ABA ought to take into account:. . . public interest considerations to be addressed in a way that does not:(i) impose unnecessary financial and administrative burdens on Internet content hosts and Internet service providers; and(ii) degrade the technical performance of the Internet in Australia to a material degree; and(iii) inhibit the development of Australia as an attractive jurisdiction for the conduct of electronic commerce and for investment in that industry;The point here is that you are dealing with an industry which has very vast economic and social potential for Australia and the world. If we are to have our role in that, we do not want to do things which in the event will not work but which have the effect of making our nation, or our jurisdiction, a less attractive place for investment in that industry. Secondly, in terms of reasonable steps, it is suggested by our amendments that those steps include:. . . whether the particular steps are technically feasible, commercially viable and cost effective; and . . . whether the particular steps enable end users to be better informed about the use of, or assisted in the actual use of, filter devices for self-regulation of Internet content.This goes right to the heart of what might be regarded as reasonable steps. The phrases `technically feasible', `commercially viable' and `cost effective' are taken from the press release, second reading speech or explanatory memorandum of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, yet he finds himself incapable of adopting these by way of amendment to the legislation. I would have thought they were incorporated by the interpretations act anyway, but the fact that the minister has been effectively negligent in this area is reflected by the fact that he cannot even find his way clear to adopt his own words by way of amendment.Finally, a substantive amendment moved by us provides for a review of the operation of the act. We suggested that a review be undertaken of the operation of the act and that the act itself be subject to a sunset clause, to take effect at the end of three years, on the basis that we are in such a fast-moving area, and the parliament ought to be required to revisit this particular area of activity.There are a couple of amendments that the government moved in the Senate which I think are worthy of some brief commentary. By way of amendment in the Senate, in what is now clause 95 of the legislation, the government suggested its own review clause. Clause 95 says, in part:. . . Before 1 January 2003, the Minister must cause to be conducted a review of the operation of this Schedule.(2) The following matters are to be taken into account in conducting a review under subsection (1):(a) the general development of Internet content filtering technologies;(b) whether Internet content filtering technologies have developed to a point where it is practicable to use those technologies to prevent end-users from accessing R-rated information hosted outside Australia that is not subject to a restricted access system;Subclause (5) of clause 95 goes on to say:The Parliament acknowledges the Government's policy intention that, in the event that Internet content filtering technologies develop to a point where it is practicable to use those technologies to prevent end-users from accessing R-rated information hosted outside Australia that is not subject to a restricted access system, legislation will be introduced into the Parliament to:(a) extend subclause 10(1) to Internet content hosted outside Australia; and(b) repeal subclause 10(2).What the government is saying is, `We're going to have a review before 2003. Before we have that review, we will let you know that, firstly, we have pre-empted it and, secondly, it is our policy intention to pass legislation to extend the regulatory regime to Internet content hosted outside Australia.' All the advice currently is that that is unworkable.So you have the ludicrous situation where the government puts a review clause in the legislation which predetermines its result and which effectively states what government policy of the day will be when we know, all things being equal and all things being happy, the current government will not be the government on 1 January 2003. The minister got himself into a most embarrassing pickle in the Senate. The legislation defines Internet content as:. . . information that:(a) is kept on a data storage device; and(b) is accessed, or available for access, using an Internet carriage service;but does not include:(c) ordinary electronic mail; or(d) information that is transmitted in the form of a broadcasting service.So this legislation does not seek to deal with ordinary electronic mail. In other words, it does not seek to deal with live communication; it seeks only to deal with data which is stored to which the public have access.The minister then went on in an amendment to the bill to define ordinary email as email that does not include a posting to a newsgroup. So an email is an email unless it is an email to a newsgroup. The minister seems to have some unusual fetish in respect of newsgroups and sets in the framework of the legislation a quite illusory distinction between an email to a source and an email to a source other than a newsgroup. The key point here is that, on the government's own admission, you cannot deal with the offshore content. On the government's own definition, it does not deal with live Internet content; it only deals with stored content to which the public have access. So if anyone stores some content on a newsgroup to which the public have access, it is caught by the government's regime, however ineffective that might be.On the passing of the legislation through the Senate, there were a range of reactions. Firstly, the industry reacted adversely and suggested—I think anecdotal evidence will no doubt, in the fullness of time, seek to be scientific evidence—that this would cause a range of industry to move offshore. Secondly, there was grave concern that this would bring about adverse international publicity so far as Australia was concerned. Unfortunately, the passage of the legislation through the Senate coincided with the communications minister's trip to Silicon Valley, where he was attempting to curry favour by way of investor attraction to Australia. The Sydney Morning Herald story on 7 June under the headline `Net bill an investor turn-off' was an appropriate rendition of the response that was received there. On 4 June in wired.com, I noticed that Yahoo denied Minister Alston's assertions that Yahoo had supported the online services legislation when he had a conversation with them in the States. So there was adverse international commentary there.I also noted the editorial in the Australian on 3 June under the heading `Internet laws only window-dressing'. The editorial in part says that the legislation:. . . simply will not achieve its aim of barring access to classified and otherwise "offensive" material on the Internet. The Communications Minister knows this and indeed has conceded as much. But the legislation will not realise Senator Alston's goal of protecting children (and worryingly, adults) from material deemed dangerous; paradoxically it threatens both the information technology industry and Australian mores of privacy and freedom.The editorial goes on to say:. . . the Government's de facto censorship of the Internet which has conveniently helped to appease Senator Harradine might have been both more successful and less discernible.And then:. . . it should be employed by parents, not governments. If used in the home, such software will invest power where it belongs—in the hands of parents shielding children rather than governments protecting themselves from puritan powerbrokers.So the same point is made by the CSIRO, the same point is made by the opposition, and the same point is made by the editorial in the Australian .The government's legislation is unworkable. It is bad law. It will not meet the mischief or the evil which the government seeks to identify. The parliament will certainly need to revisit this area in the future. It is a deceit, which the government seeks to perpetrate on the Australian community, that this legislation will be effective. It is a great lost opportunity to educate mums and dads, school principals and teachers, parents and guardians of the great power and capacity of the Internet as a useful social, educational and economic tool. It is bad law. If the government rejects our amendments in this place as it did in the Senate, we will oppose the bill's third reading.Debate (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly) adjourned.Bills7976r8667976Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.797618:04:007976Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill will replace the outdated income tax collection systems with one comprehensive modern collection system called pay as you go, or PAYG.The bill, together with another I will introduce in August, will also implement a number of administrative reforms announced by the government before the last election. One important reform is the introduction of a single activity statement reducing the number of interactions businesses have with the Australian Taxation Office. For many this will mean only four statements and payments each year.The new PAYG will replace provisional tax, company instalments, pay as you earn, prescribed payments and reportable payments. It also draws together into one system all of the other withholding arrangements, like non-resident withholding, tax file number (TFN) withholding and withholding from mining and natural resource payments.Under PAYG, payment dates will be aligned. Businesses in GST will pay their income tax instalments at the same time, quarterly, after their income is earned.Currently most taxpayers pay a percentage of last year's tax and individuals also pay an uplift factor. PAYG instalments will be based on actual income. This will mean that the payments will fluctuate with trading conditions. Taxpayers will pay less when they earn less and more when their income increases. Taxpayers will be able to vary the amount of their instalments, for example, in the event of an unforeseen downturn in trading conditions. In certain circumstances this could lead to a refund.Individuals not in the GST system will be in the PAYG system for investment income. Where they are large payers, they will pay quarterly. There will be an option to pay quarterly notional amounts if they prefer not to make quarterly instalment calculations.PAYG takes advantage of the opportunities provided by the GST and the single activity statement. Businesses in GST will calculate their quarterly income tax instalment based on the GST sales they report.The new integrated PAYG withholding system will reduce compliance costs by removing uncertainty and reducing the amount of paperwork and the number of payment dates. In line with the government's earlier announcement, withholding will be required from payments to employees and other office holders, payments to workers by labour hire firms, payments under voluntary agreements and payments where the payee's Australian business number, or ABN, is not quoted. The new withholding arrangements do not try to make contractors employees. PAYG does not fall back on generic descriptions and deeming provisions. It describes the payments that are subject to withholding.The new arrangements will provide more flexibility. It will be possible to add additional categories of withholding if it is desirable to do so. This will ensure that the withholding rules are able to evolve and stay relevant over time. Withholding rules should not be an obstacle to more efficient ways of doing business.It will also be possible for businesses and their contractors to choose to enter into a voluntary agreement. Under these agreements, the business will withhold and, in most cases, the contractor will not have to charge GST. Finally, the new `no-ABN' withholding will impact on the cash economy by making it harder for unscrupulous operators to evade their fair share of tax.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum and the regulation impact statement to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.Bills7977s2137977Debate resumed.18:09:007977Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—The purpose of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 is to establish a framework for the regulation of the content of online services, as indeed the bill says. The legislation has three major objectives: to provide a means for addressing complaints about certain Internet content, to restrict access to certain Internet content that is likely to cause offence to any reasonable adult and to protect children from exposure to Internet content that is unsuitable for children.Twenty-one per cent of Australian homes are currently accessing the Internet. The number is expected to climb significantly as the medium becomes the mainstay of home entertainment systems. As I looked at these figures, I noticed that 27.3 per cent of that 21 per cent—over a quarter—are couples with children. Even in this early stage of the development of the medium we have a lot of children exposed to the Internet. We also know that in schools computer technology, including in many instances the Internet, is becoming a way of life.It is not as though it is something that children are ignorant of and learn on the knees of their parents, as they might have in the old days. They probably come home more adept at handling the home computer and the Internet than some of their parents. Another indication of this is that for the previous 12 months to November 1998, 62 per cent of young people between 18 and 24 accessed the Internet. We can extrapolate from that, and from this educational trend I was just talking about, that there is a large group of technically adept young people who have access to the Internet. For any government to step away from regulating it on the basis that it is too hard or that some overseas R-rated material might slip through is just too dreadful to contemplate.The introduction of digital television and technological conversion means that in the not too distant future people will be able to access the Internet on their television using their remote control unit and their set top box. So a medium that is already accessible will become even more so. I point out that if it is on the television screen itself it will be less easy to regulate it in the home environment, especially if the children are more adept than their parents in handling the medium. Therefore, there is a need for a gatekeeper.There has been some rather loud clamouring against this rather intelligent and far-sighted government measure by members opposite, who shamelessly, once again, take the elitist minority position. It is very easy to become superior and say that it is a new medium and that we do not need all these controls. However, it is another thing to try to pull it back once it is rampantly out there in the community.The member for Batman criticised a number of aspects of this legislation in a publication that he churned out as part of his party's litany of books. There has been criticism on the grounds that the government seeks to kill the Net because the legislation is somehow technically impossible to implement. We willingly acknowledge that there are technical difficulties with blocking all material hosted on overseas sites. However, where it is feasible, it should be done. Just because no other country has tackled this issue does not mean that we should sit back and allow the Internet to become a conduit into our homes for the filth of the world.That may sound like a strange, fairly extreme statement. However, I remember listening one night to David Hill, the then general manager of the ABC, describing how Australia had accepted various forms of electronic technology. He mentioned black and white television; colour television, where we were better than most of the world; video recorders; and mobile phones. He went through all the technologies. There is no doubt that we will probably embrace the Internet more readily than most other countries.Also, as a nation continent, Australia has some abilities that may not be available to other countries which are side by side in Europe, America and so on. We have a unique opportunity to set a standard for the world rather than to step away from our responsibilities. In effect, we are taking an international leadership position, and the success of this endeavour could see other countries follow our lead. I went just the other day to a meeting of the Singapore-Australia Friendship Group, and it was interesting to see politicians from the Singapore parliament come here to see how we run this parliament and its various activities, how we electronically keep in touch with each other and how we use the various systems within the building. So we are recognised as being a leader in these sorts of things. There is every possibility that we will be looked to as a leader—if not throughout the world then certainly in our region—to set a standard in such matters.It is not acceptable to make no attempt at all. That is the easy option, the option that all too often we have tended to take in the past. The bill is not designed to censor the Net, to restrict freedom of speech, to force web sites offshore or to kill the Net, as some of the critics and some elements of the media have claimed in recent weeks. Nor is it designed to invade the rights of citizens. In fact, in many respects it enhances the rights of citizens. The bill does not seek to extend Australian community standards to other countries, nor does it seek to remove the responsibility of parents or guardians to monitor their children's use of the Net to the extent that they can.The Australian community has never accepted the proposition that, because parents have a primary responsibility for their children, government should step aside from the responsibility to create a safer physical and social environment for them. We have never stepped away from that responsibility. For example, we do not accept dangerous toys. From time to time we hear about dangerous toys slipping through the barriers. Kids get hurt by toys. We seek to eliminate those and to use the information we get at that stage to make sure, as more toys come into the country, that there are fewer and fewer dangerous ones.We do not accept, for example, because some flammable clothing sometimes sneaks into Australia that it is all too hard, that we should allow everyone to sell flammable clothing and that we should not examine imports for flammable clothing. No doubt some things do get past. How horrified we all are when a child's nightdress or something goes up beside a heater. But it is not as if the government has not made some intelligent efforts to make sure that they do not get in.We do not let our kids read unsavoury material. We do not just take it for granted. Some kids get access to pornographic material or to adult magazines—albeit ones that are quite legitimate. We know that for a fact, and I made a point of this when we had the so-called Cleo safe sex guide in the previous parliament. We did not accept the proposition then that it was necessarily safe. We knew that young girls of 12, 13 and 14 read Cleo and would be exposed to that material. It was interesting that the minister at the time, even though a review said that they did not see anything terribly wrong with it, on reflection decided to have the remaining copies of that guide destroyed.We do not accept that our kids should have access to adult films. In fact, I was the supervisor of a chain of theatres once, and we did not ever accept that you should let kids under 18 into adult films in the theatre. But some of them got past us. Of course they did. I remember one day I pulled up this girl. She had beautiful little pigtails and blonde hair, and she looked every bit of 15 or 16. I said, `You are not seriously expecting me admit you to this film.' `Oh,' she said, `Mr Neville, my name is Mary-Lou so-and-so. I am 24 years of age. I have a Bachelor of Arts and I am studying for my doctorate.' So sometimes they fool you. In the same way that I thought she was underage, I am sure there are other more sophisticated kids who would have been 15 or 16 who were getting in. But that does not mean we did not make the effort to stop it. The same goes for R-certificated videos. We do not allow kids to take them out of video stores; we insist that they are taken by adults. No doubt some of those kids send their mates in and look at those videos, but we do not abrogate our position because it is difficult.The fact that some aspects of the bill are, in the opinion of some in the industry, unlikely to succeed is not argument enough for the government to ignore this issue and to allow the Internet to go unchecked as a conduit to the world's unsavoury material for our children. The member for Moreton gave us a very interesting example—I think it was in the House; if not, it was certainly in the confines of the building—of where his eight- or nine-year-old daughter was using the Internet and looked up `spice girls'. Three of the four pages that she looked up on `spice girls' were perfectly acceptable. The fourth one outraged even the member for Moreton. So there are instances where the stuff needs checking. I do not think we should resile from it just because it is difficult.The Internet is quite unlike any previous medium insofar as children are being introduced to computer skills at a very early age and accessing the electronic media in a way never before available. As I said before, most kids are probably more adept at using the medium than their parents. As an educative tool it is unsurpassed. It is also, if unchecked, an open gateway to exploitation of the young. That is the point I really want to make. That in itself, even if we forget every other aspect of this whole debate, should be a motivation for us to do something about it.The bill does not completely clean the Net. The government has never claimed that it would. No law can be 100 per cent effective, whether it is preventing road deaths, workplace accidents, drug taking or, as I illustrated before, allowing flammable clothing or something like that into this country. It will never be totally effective. But the fact that you make an effort and that you do remove dangerous material in whatever field you are dealing makes the environment both socially and physically safer. The bill is a new law for the new problems of a new age in a new industry, and the government will remain vigilant to ensure that the law is as effective as possible.We have three measures that we intend to implement that are sensible and are not draconian. We propose appropriate procedures for this industry to prevent access to objectionable material or illegal sites. Filtering technologies and education form part of the government's response. We take seriously our responsibility to prevent illegal and offensive material on television. Material rated X is not permitted on television. Material rated R can be shown on television only by subscription if there are strict adult verification procedures. That being the case, why should we not be looking to apply similar methods with similar rigour to the Internet?The bill ensures that the content classification system used and accepted by Australians for decades, albeit that the system that rates movies and videos has been slightly modified over recent times—for example: G, PG, MA or R—is extended to include content on Internet sites. The government does not invent these standards or ratings. They are the products of an extensive process of community consultation, and I am at a loss to understand why anyone would be horrified at an extension of this logic to the Internet system. That is the first reason.The second reason is that the bill sets up a system so that Australians can complain to the Australian Broadcasting Authority about any illegal or highly offensive material that is on an Australian site and establishes a system to ensure that material is removed. I would have thought that, if the ABA were responding to a complaint made by an Australian citizen, it would not be unreasonable for the material to be removed—that is, assuming a prima facie case has been established.Thirdly, the bill requires that the Internet industry should develop its own code of practice which, in part, will set out the technically feasible and commercially viable steps that the industry can take to prevent or restrict access to illegal or highly offensive material on overseas sites. Frankly, I believe that, if the Australian industry is serious, these measures in themselves may well be sufficient.In short, the bill forms a comprehensive package to protect children that involves parents, which is their time-honoured responsibility; the community, by not denying them the right to object; the industry, by exercising their own standards of conduct and practice; and the legislation, the responsibility of government to a new form of media in a new age. The government is not coming from some position of knee-jerk reaction but from a consistent position of responsibility.Motion (by Miss Jackie Kelly) agreed to:That the question be now put.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Martyn Evans's amendment) stand part of the question.The House divided. [6.31 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr F.W. Mossfield) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.7981Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.18:36:007981Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 to 12:(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (lines 25 to 28), omit paragraph (a), substitute:enables public interest considerations to be addressed in a way that does not: (i) impose unnecessary financial and administrative burdens on Internet content hosts and Internet service providers; and (ii) degrade the technical performance of the Internet in Australia to a material degree; and (iii) inhibit the development of Australia as an attractive jurisdiction for the conduct of electronic commerce and for investment in that industry; and(2) Schedule 1, item 10, page 30 (line 5), after "day," insert "provided that the period allowed for compliance is not less than 48 hours".(3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 30 (line 10), after "day," insert "provided that the period allowed for compliance is not less than 48 hours".(4) Schedule 1, item 10, page 30 (line 15), after "day," insert "provided that the period allowed for compliance is not less than 48 hours".(5) Schedule 1, item 10, page 31 after paragraph 2(b) after (line 35) add:(c) whether the particular steps are technically feasible, commercially viable and cost effective; and(d) whether the particular steps enable end users to be better informed about the use of, or assisted in the actual use of, filter devices for self-regulation of Internet content.(6) Schedule 1, item 10, page 37 after paragraph 2(b) after (line 33) add:(c) whether the particular steps are technically feasible, commercially viable and cost effective; and(d) whether the particular steps enable end users to be better informed about the use of, or assisted in the actual use of, filter devices for self-regulation of Internet content. (7) Schedule1, item 10, page 38 (line 11) after "day," insert "provided that the period allowed for compliance is not less than 48 hours".(8) Schedule 1, item 10, page 38 (line 16) after "day," insert "provided that the period allowed for compliance is not less than 48 hours".(9) Schedule 1, item 10, page 60 (line 25), after "subclause 83(4)", insert "without reasonable excuse".(10) Schedule 1, item 10, page 68 (line 13), to page 69 (line 5), delete proposed section 95.(11) Page 2 (after line 2), after clause 3, add:4 Review of operation of Act (1) The Minister must cause a review to be undertaken of the operation of this Act. (2) A person who undertakes such a review must give the Minister a written report of the review. (3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after its receipt by the Minister.(12) Page 2 (after line 2), after proposed clause 4, add:5 Expiration of Act The amendments to the principal Act made by this Act cease to be in force at the end of 3 years after the day on which they commence.Given that the government has gagged debate on the second reading and prevented a range of my colleagues from having the opportunity to speak on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 at the second reading stage, I propose to briefly outline the process which the opposition will adopt in the consideration in detail stage. The opposition does not propose to divide on any of the amendments—which we are expecting the government will oppose on the voices—but, on the failure of the opposition's amendments, it is proposed to divide at the third reading stage. So I put the House on notice about that division.As I thought the government might be minded to gag debate, I took the opportunity in my speech in the second reading debate to outline the major thrust of the opposition's amendments, and I will not retail that ground. The amendments to which I referred in that speech were amendments Nos 1, 5, 6, 11 and 12, which go to the heart of the operation of the bill.Amendments Nos 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 go to the timetable provided by the government's regime—that is, the time allowed to enable an ISP to comply with a take-down notice of the ABA. In the Senate, the government moved an amendment which would have the effect of giving an ISP two clear business days. The amendment that we moved in the Senate was to provide an ISP provider with 48 hours rather than the 24 hours originally provided by the government's legislation. The government sensibly amended its own legislation to increase that provision from 24 hours to 6 p.m. on the next business day.The amendments circulated in this place have the effect of ensuring that that period for compliance is not less than 48 hours, which seems to be a sensible compromise so far as that particular timetable or period of time is concerned. Despite the government's failure to adopt any of the other sensible amendments of the opposition, that seems to be one amendment which is not contentious and one which the government ought be able to find itself adopting. It meets the same mischief identified in the Senate select committee hearings and report. The opposition came at it from a slightly different angle than the government did. We are happy to agree to the government's approach in the Senate. The amendment circulated in my name would have the effect of ensuring that that period is not less than 24 hours.For the rest of the consideration in detail stage, now having had two goes myself, I will give my colleagues the opportunity of making their own contributions. But I would just make the point that there were those on the other side who feigned some concern about the government's proposal. A report in the Sydney Morning Herald on 4 June, headed `Coalition MPs list Net bill concerns', details how three coalition MPs have told the Prime Minister how concerned they are about the online regulation plan—the member for Parramatta, Mr Cameron; the member for Bradfield, Dr Nelson; and the member for Robertson, Mr Lloyd.I would just like the public and the industry to know that, in the division we have just had over the opposition's amendment moved during the second reading debate, the member for Parramatta, the member for Robertson and the member for Bradfield all voted in the negative—that is, against an amendment which the industry supports. I assume they will toadylike do likewise on the third reading.Then there are all those members who have indicated privately to the industry how deeply concerned and sympathetic they are—the member for Kennedy, Mr Katter; the member for Boothby, Dr Southcott; the member for Adelaide, Ms Worth; the member for Hindmarsh, Mrs Gallus; the Attorney-General, Mr Williams; the member for Herbert, Mr Lindsay; and the member for Sturt, Mr Pyne. I would just like the industry to know that, despite all the comments being made behind closed doors by the soft-sounding voices of those people, they all to a man and woman voted in favour of the government's regime and voted against the opposition's amendment, and they will no doubt do so on the third reading. So, sprung as you are!18:41:007982Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—We are used to the Labor opposition in this place exercising opposition for opposition's sake in its speeches. We also acknowledge some in the industry saying all of this is all too hard. It is amazing—a can-do industry saying clearly it cannot. Tonight, in the abridged version of the contribution I get to make on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 , I want to note a sector of the industry which is saying, `It can be done.' In Queensland the Asia-Pacific International IT&T Awards people are all saying this bill should be seen as a call to action to our innovative young Australian developers to once again lead the world and set new standards with regard to the Internet. This is the sort of positive can-do approach which we on this side of the chamber like to hear more of.Even if Australia spends hundreds of millions of dollars today in trying to overcome the censorship issue with regard to the Internet, there is no doubt this amount would be just a fraction of the cost to be levied on the community into the future if our society is allowed to evolve and become censorship free. What we have at the heart of this issue is a broadcasting system; it is not private correspondence. The Internet is not private. Mr Deputy Speaker Mossfield, if it were just you communicating with me and sending images which you and I might consider fine, it would be an another matter. But the fact of the matter is: people can trip across matters to which they do not want to have access.The member for Hinkler highlighted my nine-year-old daughter's search of the web on the words `Spice Girls'. I want to update the House because, after typing in the words `Spice Girls' on the Yahoo search engine, about 10 or 20 different sites turn up; out of the first eight of those sites, six are totally unpalatable for a nine-year-old girl. So maybe with today's technology we are not going to wipe those things out. But if you say `we can't', do you mean `we won't'; and are we therefore protecting those who are deliberately trying to prey on people like my nine-year-old daughter?I want to celebrate the fact that Paul Phillips, the founder and the international Deputy Chairman of the Asia-Pacific International IT&T Awards for Excellence—an organisation which is celebrating the growth of a $1.6 billion industry in Queensland, a 60 per cent growth rate industry in the past 12 months, with all sorts of awards and prizes for innovation in the past—is tonight saying, `We should look at some sort of incentive prize.' Mr Phillips has promoted the idea of a prize of $1 million being offered to any individual home based business, SME or corporation which successfully develops an Internet censorship solution which proves to be workable and reliable—again, a can-do approach. An assessment committee could be made up of all stakeholders of the Internet industry, government and community. In fact, the Asia-Pacific IT&T Awards people are well suited to perhaps run this sort of award scheme. They are a reputable entity, and they are already an application based entity, incorporating all industry sectors. Such a competition would completely turn around the parlous debate we are getting opposite on Internet censorship.Those opposite are now standing up for freedom of individuals but they are the great controllers. The Australian Labor Party are by tradition the great controllers of individuals, but today they say that they are championing a further relaxation of censorship.All in the IT&T sector would rush to be the first to make a `previously touted to be impossible' innovation very much a reality, and I believe more than one workable solution would emerge. Australia would then automatically attract worldwide attention from such a competition. International IT companies would focus their attention on Australia asking if they, too, could enter. International multinational corporations would be seeking to secure the rights to the winner's application. International governments would be visiting Australia to investigate how they, too, could introduce the application to their home environment.This bill could be seen as an opportunity to once again demonstrate the capabilities and innovation of our world-class IT sector. Those who say it cannot be done should go on record as saying this—the member for Perth is one. Then, when it is all achieved, they can be revealed as the sort of Luddite types that have lost faith in the innovative youth of Australia, our new natural resource.This bill is all about ensuring that pornography does not kill off the Internet, because parents, schools and responsible institutions right around this country are as concerned as I am that, without the sorts of safeguards this bill is encouraging out of the IT sector and the Internet service providers sector, the providers of pornography in this world who are preying on young children will kill the Net. (Time expired)18:46:007983Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—The members for Hinkler and Moreton have given us a couple of horror stories about the sorts of things that people encounter occasionally on the Internet. The trouble with the examples they gave is that the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 will do absolutely nothing to address the sorts of sites that they are talking about. These sites are by and large based overseas and this legislation will not prevent people accessing them.Much as the legislation on the social bonus from the sale of Telstra has been about courting Senator Harradine's vote, this legislation has also been only about courting Senator Harradine's vote. It is not about real policy making on this issue. It is bad law because it cannot be properly implemented. It has been developed by legislators who obviously have little or no understanding of how the Internet works.It is bad public policy because it will have unintended consequences for Australian businesses as compared with overseas businesses; it will restrict access to legitimate and important information without having real effect on reducing access to pornography; and it will make a laughing stock of the Australian parliament both in terms of how we are seen internationally and in terms of how technologically literate people—and I mean young people especially—will view a parliament which cynically or in ignorance passes legislation which is impossible to implement and is discriminatory.The Internet is an increasingly popular and important way for Australians to do business, to communicate with one another and to gather information. ABS statistics show that the number of Australian households using the Internet rose 280 per cent between 1996 and 1998 and that 5.7 million Australians aged five years and over used the Internet regularly. This bill is bad law because it ignores what many millions of Australians could tell you in a second: it will not curb access to pornography, which is the stated intention.Mr Hardgrave interjecting—83MPlibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK—The member interjects but, if you have a look at the experience overseas and at Malaysia in particular, you will notice that they are actually going the other way because they have realised that it is not a solution to that problem.The essential problem with the regulation of material is that it fundamentally misunderstands how the Internet works. The main problem seems to be that while highly blocking mechanisms can easily be applied to specific addresses—and that is called application level blocking—they are easily circumvented. An alternative method of blocking is based on content where packets of information are examined for potentially offensive content. The problem with that method is that it is very time consuming. It slows down the communication lines to a point where our capacity to participate in the Internet is seriously compromised, it disrupts e-commerce and it can easily be avoided by tunnelling where packets of information are hidden within other packets of information. It is difficult to identify which parts of the information are a problem and therefore difficult to exclude information which is not a problem. There is the potential to affect information which is travelling through Australia but has, as its destination, some other country.While I have no particular problem with makers of pornography—wherever they are—having their businesses under threat, the problem with this approach is that it does nothing to address the issue of pornography, while it may well prevent access to safe sex material. It is important to note that one of the main reasons Australia's response to the HIV-AIDS epidemic has been so successful is the large amount of explicit material that has been easily available on this. That material would very much be endangered by the legislation as it is proposed. The Australian Council for Lesbian and Gay Rights believes that the application of those proposals will result in the improper blocking and deletion of information of interest and assistance to the lesbian and gay community. They are concerned about access to information which is health related. The proposed censorship only regulates Australian sites. It will not have any impact on the 90 per cent of pornographic material that is coming in from overseas. The best course of action is to empower Net users, particularly empower parents, to make sure that they are using filtering software that is available now. I think we should leave the last words to Lien Henderson of Pendle Hill who has said:What I'd really like to see is some person in the Government who actually uses the Net on a regular basis and knows what they're talking about. I'd like to see a 17 year old person there talking about things, not all the old, not-knowing, ignorant people. Is it just to get votes?She says this because this legislation suggests to the Australian public that this parliament knows nothing about how the Internet works, knows nothing about how e-commerce works and knows nothing even about how email works. (Time expired)18:51:007985Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I cannot provide the member opposite with a 17-year-old who uses the Internet on a regular basis but with a slightly older person who uses the Internet, does know what e-commerce is about and does know what ISPs are about. I support the efforts of the government in providing legislation in an attempt to ensure that unsuitable material is not available on the Internet, particularly to children, but I do believe that there are some difficulties with the implementation of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 . Right at the beginning of my comments on Internet service providers in relation to this bill, I would like to make it very clear to the parliament and to the people of Australia that I wish to declare an interest in the ISP industry, in an environment where some members of the Labor Party seem to think it is a crime for anyone to be involved in small business or to come from a small business background and still have some interest in that business when entering parliament. I wish to make it very clear that I am a joint proprietor with my wife and adult son in a small home based ISP business. This fact was recorded in my 1996 register of interests and again in 1998.I think at this point it is worth describing what an ISP is: an ISP is a business which you subscribe to and dial in to, enabling you to be hooked up to the main Internet connections throughout the world. Many, if not most, of these ISPs are home based or garage based facilities which take up one room consisting of maybe 10 or 15 incoming phone lines with modems connected and one, usually an ISDN line, going out as a connection to the main Internet. They are not normally large businesses, although there are a number that have grown substantially in recent times.The only reason my wife and I have our names connected with an ISP business is the fact that it was actually started by my son when he was a minor, and it grew out of a hobby of operating bulletin boards before the Internet was in widespread use. Particularly in rural and regional areas, small home based ISPs are a vital part of the link to the Internet and enable them to become part of the Internet community. In fact, there are still towns in Australia that have the ability and the technology to gain access to the Internet yet cannot afford to attract an ISP to their towns. So it is important that these ISPs remain economically viable to provide this service to their communities.One of the unintended consequences of this bill might be to drive undesirable and offensive material further into cyberspace, making it even more difficult for filters to detect and increasing the likelihood of accidental access by children or others through site names that have no obvious connection to pornographic or other unsuitable material designed to escape filters. I have consulted extensively with the industry, particularly on the Central Coast of New South Wales in my electorate of Robertson, and have been provided with some practical difficulties, which I believe need to be addressed by the government.The Central Coast is growing rapidly and has a large commuter population. Governments—federal, state and local—are working very hard at attracting more businesses to the Central Coast to provide more local jobs and are also promoting telecommuting to help reduce the number of commuters travelling to Sydney and Newcastle each day. This has put a great deal of pressure on the available bandwidth for the delivery of data on the lines that we have between Sydney and the Central Coast. Putting filters in place, if they are to be established, will take up more bandwidth—space which is urgently needed to allow the transfer of important data. As I said, this will place more pressure on the available bandwidth. Another important difficulty that needs to be addressed is that, if there is a perception throughout the rest of the world that the Internet service within Australia is slower or more restrictive than in other places, it may in some way be a restriction on our export dollar or our position within the global Internet market. For example, a local ISP in my electorate hosts a number of business pages for overseas businesses, particularly from New Zealand. These companies could choose to host their pages in any country throughout the world but they have made the decision to host within Australia and to have them managed by Australian companies. If they feel that service through Australia is slower or in any way different or less available than in other countries, they may in fact decide to have their webpages hosted elsewhere. This is something that I believe needs to be addressed.The Internet and IT industries are growing at a frightening pace, with developments happening by the day. Only a few years ago there were only a handful of entry ports into Australia for Internet services. Back then, it would have been feasible to put filters or restrictions on the types of materials coming through four or five entry points. It is now possible, with the development of satellite technology, for the cost of a $500 satellite modem, to get a direct link to the Internet via a satellite—in fact, even individual subscribers can now get a direct link to the Internet without having to go through a local ISP. Mr Deputy Speaker, unfortunately, time has beaten me. (Time expired)18:56:007986Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I must say from the outset that I do not oppose protecting children from Internet content that is unsuitable for them or trying to keep provocative information out of dangerous hands or minds. My views on that are on the record over many years in the television and radio industry. In fact, when I first was made aware of the government's proposals, my initial reaction was to support them. However, as I have come to learn more about the nature of the Internet and the role of Internet service providers in the system from Joshua, my 17-year-old son, and Greg, at university, I have formed the view that the proposed legislation not only is doomed to failure but threatens to inhibit one of our real growth industries.I doubt the feasibility of controlling anything on the web in the way the government proposes. By imposing an onerous regulatory regime and limiting user choice, the bill highlights the contradiction of a government that prides itself on freedom of choice, freedom of association and worship of the free market. The only way to protect children from illegal and offensive material on the Net, and at the same time ensure the integrity of the Internet as a source of information and entertainment, is to give end users the responsibility of regulating the material their children access. The proposed legislation will apply only to Internet activities within our national boundaries, when the vast majority of information comes from overseas. While it may reduce the production and distribution of pornographic material within our boundaries, the bill will never effectively censor the Internet and will not reduce access to pornographic and other undesirable sites because it ignores the global nature of the Internet.Australian proprietors of such sites have already started relocating operations overseas. The government need only look at what happened in 1996 when the German government tried to censor the Internet through its ISPs for the likely consequences of this proposed legislation. There the targeted material was an electronic version of a left wing political magazine. German ISPs were required to block access to the offending web server, which hosted some 3,000 other web sites. But the magazine simply `mirrored' its site on 60 other servers around the world, with the result that the site became better known and more widely distributed and used than its publishers could ever have hoped. Let me read briefly from an email, one of almost 100 I have received on this issue, from a local constituent:I'm writing as a father of 3 young children. I don't believe for a moment that the government's legislation is going to protect my children from anything.Protection from the awful stuff on the internet is my responsibility. . . . . . . . . .We all know that this came about as a form of cowtailing—I think he means `kowtowing'—to Brian Harradine.Parental supervision and regulation should be encouraged by funding education programs, by requiring filtering software to be included with purchases of computers for Internet access and by directly supplying such software to families or encouraging its purchase through subsidies or tax exemption—yes, even GST exemption. I note this is the path that the world leader in the Internet, the US, has taken—but not of course with a GST. Instead, we are going to be stuck with a bureaucratic, interventionist scheme which will fail and which will damage one of Australia's growth industries. I would like to support the sentiments expressed by the opposition's second reading amendments; they mirror my concerns.I will be supporting the opposition's detailed amendments on the grounds that, given the certainty of the bill passing, they will lessen its impact on Internet service providers—one of our thriving small business areas—and compel the government of the day in three years time, to not only review the scheme but revisit this legislation. I hope the government can, at the very least, see the need for the amendments, given the weight of information they have received from genuine people who know the Internet and the way it works.I will correct an impression I may have given earlier when I said that my 17- and 20-year-old sons have given me a lot of education on the Internet. I may have suggested that they are Internet service providers. They are not. They are still at school and still at university, but they are big users of the Internet. They are the ones we really should listen to for some commonsense views on what this legislation is all about.19:00:007987Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—There is an old and very apt saying that it is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness. This legislation represents that candle, and it gives parents and all responsible, caring adults very real hope that the fantasies of paedophiles, the obscene ravings of racists and the dangerous and seductive messages of bomb makers and drug pushers will be stopped on the Internet.Objections to this legislation have come from the same drearily predictable sources which, ironically, do not even recognise the inherent, fundamental contradictions in their own arguments. On the one hand it is argued that this legislation simply will not work because of the very nature of the Internet. On the other hand it is argued that when the legislation becomes law it will impose a stultifying censorship, drastically restrict Internet access for adults and lead ultimately to job losses and business failures among Internet service providers.What is of critical importance is the principle that all Australians, particularly children, should be protected from illegal and highly offensive material. The member for Sydney spoke about 17-year-olds coming in here to give advice. I like to listen to advice from young people; in fact, my Internet surfer is my 11-year-old son. Some of the material he has accessed on the Internet has given me cause to quickly change the web site, I can assure you. I do not want to think that in families where the children may have less supervision, or even perhaps where mum and dad are at home, that they have access to material that is, frankly, unacceptable for young people. The Labor Party, the Democrats and the Greens in the Senate all indicated that they agreed with this principle, which is noteworthy; yet, in their opposition to this legislation, they have failed to give any realistic alternative.Opposition to the bill but acceptance of the basic principle demands the obligation to provide a workable alternative. Governments of all political persuasions have accepted that community standards should be applied in the regulation of the type of material which can be screened in cinemas, broadcast on television, released as videos and published as books and magazines. What the opposition have to explain to Australian parents is why they do not believe that the same principle should apply to the use of the Internet.The government accepts and acknowledges that there are likely to be ongoing technical difficulties in preventing access to illegal and offensive material hosted overseas, particularly given the pace of technological change. But that is no reason to just put the issue in the too-hard basket. What the government proposes is that, where it is technically feasible and commercially viable to do so, the industry should develop codes of practice to put the necessary safeguards in place. In the first instance, the industry will be asked to develop procedures that will prevent access to sites regarded as RC or X under Australian classification standards, having regard to technical limitations and cost considerations. This is clearly an industry responsibility and the government sees its backup enforcement role as a last resort.It has never been the intention of the government to impose strict liability on service providers for material of which they are not aware. Accordingly, service providers will be required only to take steps to prevent access to material once a complaint has been lodged and the material has been examined and found to be offensive by the ABA. In addition, service providers will be indemnified from litigation by customers affected by an ABA notice.This legislation does not provide cast-iron guarantees—no legislation could, given the nature of the Internet. While parents are being given real assistance and real hope, they still have a responsibility to manage and monitor their children's use of the Internet. This bill says to parents that the government, unlike the opposition, accepts its clear responsibility and duty. It lights a candle.19:05:007988Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—This has been an interesting debate. It has being going on in the community for some years and in the parliament for some weeks. It has generated interest around the world, and I think part of our perception of the world may well be affected by the government's actions this evening.Having been involved with computers for 30 years, I find life down here quite difficult because I find that many parliamentarians make a virtue of being troglodytes, and they boast about it. They boast that they cannot even turn their computer on and, if they could turn it on, they could not use it. It is supposed to be some kind of virtue—to be ignorant. In a sense, what we have here is reminiscent of the censorship mentality of the government back in the 1950s and 1960s. I suppose it is the reverse of the candle idea in the sense that, just to be safe, you ban everything—because who knows what might sneak through? So everything is blocked unless you actually read it closely and know it is okay. That mentality saw books like Ulysses, Tropic of Cancer and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest banned in Australia. We were the laughing-stock of the world. Any book that was at all risque was automatically banned—for decades and decades—by conservative governments. The government are applying the same mind-set to computers and the Internet. They are saying, `We'll do the same thing we did 30 years ago'—and remember that this is a 30-year-old government, so that is a logical step.What they are going to do is to ban everything which has code words in it. Mind you, they will have trouble banning pictures, but anything with words in it that can perhaps be identified as pornographic will get censored in some form. That censorship may simply mean that it will take a lot longer to access material or that you have to actually filter through. It may still finally be accessible, but in the process it will slow systems down, and we will find that the industry will respond to that.The people the government is trying to catch will not be caught because it is such a blunt instrument, in the same way as the books that were banned were still readily available in Australia because the instrument the government used was so blunt and so unsophisticated. We are all concerned about the access of young people to inappropriate material, whether it be violence, pornography or whatever. You will not do it by saying to the parents, `We've fixed the problem. The government has come riding in on its white horse and with its shining armour and fixed the problem.' That is what it is doing. This is a hoax.This legislation pretends to the public at large that the government can fix it. Members opposite are admitting tonight that they cannot fix it. Their logical rationale is to say, `If we can't fix all of it, we'll fix some of it,' hence the lighted candle approach of the member for Dawson. In other words, by fixing a bit of it, in her mind that helps the problem. On the contrary. It is a bit like a virus: you get a bit sick and your body becomes immune. This little candle you are putting up here now will be very easy to avoid for those who want to avoid it, it will have very little effect, but it will make those ones who are trying to purvey this material much more sophisticated.Rather than putting the responsibility for what young children have access to on parents and guardians, where it should belong, it takes it away from them. This disempowers families. It puts the filter in at the wrong level, in the wrong way and in a form that will not work but, in the process, pretends it does work and therefore parents do not need to be concerned. It also tells the industry that Big Brother is going to monitor and censor all the material floating around.We know that that will not work, and it will not happen. The demand for speed will be so great as to make sure it will not be used, and the filters that will eventually operate will be so minimal as to be pointless. But in the process we have avoided the real solutions. The Senate inquiry was a joke. No-one who looks at this bill could take it particularly seriously. What the government is going to do tonight, despite our best endeavours, will make us a laughing stock.The member for Calare mentioned some emails. We have had something like 500 or more emails on our side; I suspect there have been a lot more on your side. The whole world is watching this debate—and this is the world of people who are computer literate and who are networked. You are making a joke of this parliament, you are making a joke of this country, where it really counts—with those people who know what they are doing in the electronics world and the communications world. All the speeches will eventually be relayed and understood. This bill should be opposed. (Time expired)19:10:007989Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—It is in the IT sector's best interests to cooperate with the matters before us tonight. The government is proposing to provide a greater sense of life and possibility for a growth sector than the possibilities that could come if pornography does start to kill the Net off. The Internet is not as attractive to a lot of average parents and schools as a lot of members opposite may suspect because of concern over matters such as those being dealt with by the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 .With regard to overseas content, this is a trigger for action so that people can complain about some material. It can be viewed and it can be determined that that material may be suitable or otherwise. For content that is hosted overseas, the ABA, in conjunction with state, territory or federal police, are able to work with police officers in jurisdictions of the source. I think that is a fairly simple and straightforward prospect.In my earlier contribution I noted a can-do approach. Technologists are getting lost in focusing their arguments against this bill on the impossibility of the development of required Internet censorship applications and forgetting that this is a bill to bring the Internet—which, after all, is just another media—in line with existing community standards on media censorship. Technologists that argue the impossibility of developing required censorship applications here in Australia have perhaps lost sight of the fact that Australians are noted for their ingenuity, innovation and ability to achieve the so-called `impossible'.We are all promoting our IT community as part of intelligent Australia. Whichever country develops a workable Internet censorship application will have control of one of the most valuable and sought after Internet applications. If Australia is as successful as I believe it could be, which is what this bill is all about trying to trigger—and I have great faith in our innovative youth—then we will leap-frog into becoming a leading Internet-mature country. It is as simple as that; the prospects are there. The challenge to the industry, as well as to those opposite and to those who care to comment on these matters, is: are they part of a can-do industry, or are they part of a can't-do industry, or are they part of a won't-do industry? With apologies to my colleagues, I move:That the question be now put.Question resolved in the affirmative.Amendments negatived.Bill agreed to.7990Motion (by Mr McGauran)—by leave—proposed:That the bill be now read a third time.19:13:007990Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I will speak very briefly on the third reading to review the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 in its final form. I make three very simple points. Firstly, all the examples mentioned by members of the coalition in the course of debate will not be changed in any way by the passage of this legislation. They will all still be there in a year's time. That is the first point. Secondly, all our amendments have been defeated and, accordingly, we will vote against the bill on the third reading on division. Thirdly, primary amongst our decision to vote against the bill on its third reading is the defeat of our sunset and review clause in the face of the government's own review clause in proposed section 95 of the bill which seeks to predetermine the outcome of a review before it is held, states the government policy now to apply in 2003 and seeks to extend the regime to further offshore content when everyone knows—from the CSIRO to the US Senate—that the proposed regime of the government which it seeks to extend by its review is unworkable. We oppose the bill.Question put:That the bill be now read a third time.The House divided. [7.19 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Committees79907990799019:22:007990Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—On behalf of the Joint Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the fourth report of the committee for 1999 relating to the proposed Australian Embassy, Berlin—refurbishment of heritage buildings as a chancery and apartments .Ordered that the report be printed.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—by leave—The report which I have just tabled concerns the proposal for the refurbishment of heritage buildings as a chancery and apartments for the new Australian embassy in Berlin. The estimated limit of cost for the project is $37.277 million. The committee has approved the renovation and refurbishment works. For this inquiry, the committee held a public hearing into the proposal in Canberra but was unable to inspect the proposed site due to provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 which does not allow the committee to meet overseas. One member of the committee did inspect the site in a private capacity when in Berlin on other parliamentary business and was therefore able to make more practical contributions to the inquiry. However, lack of first-hand knowledge on the site makes the task of assessing the merits of the proposal a difficult one for the rest of the committee.In 1991 the Bundestag of the Federal Republic of Germany resolved to relocate the German capital from Bonn to Berlin. Relocation of the German government and the Bundestag is planned for mid to late 1999. The diplomatic corps is also in the process of relocating to Berlin. In 1995 the Australian government purchased two adjoining heritage buildings in the Mitte district of Berlin following an extensive search for suitable premises and sites for the new embassy. These are the Wallstrasse 76-79 and Markisches Ufer 8 buildings.The decision to purchase and refurbish the buildings was intended in part to be Australia's contribution toward the rebuilding of East Berlin. The buildings are 85 years old and are heritage listed. Although structurally sound, they are past their useful operational ages and have inadequate building services and layouts for their intended use. They do not meet current Australian and German building standards and lack amenities, building services and provisions for technology, safety features and occupational health and safety. Heritage elements of the building also require restoration. There is, therefore, a need for complete refurbishment of the buildings.The proposal examined by the committee involves the demolition of much of the interior of the buildings and some elements of the facade, roof, basement and courtyard; conversion of the basement for use as a car park; refurbishment of the heritage elements of the building; replacement of all building engineering services; installation of two new lifts; fit-out of the chancery; landscaping of the courtyard; and fit-out of two apartments in the Wallstrasse building and four apartments in the Markisches Ufer building.The total number of Australia based and locally engaged staff to be located at the new embassy will be approximately 55. This number includes representatives from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Department of Defence and the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.The committee had a number of concerns with the proposal. In particular, the written evidence presented by the Department of Finance and Administration was insufficiently detailed. The cost breakdowns presented to the committee made it difficult to make an informed decision on whether the moneys allocated to the work would be utilised in the most effective way possible.The provision of apartments in the proposal also concerned the committee. The rent for each apartment per annum is around $210,000, which is high in comparison with similar accommodation in Berlin. But the department which occupies the apartments will pay rental, which will be supplemented to the Department of Finance and Administration. Although DOFA advised the committee that they believed that the level of rent charged was reasonable, there was no documented rental comparisons for the committee to conclude that the rent was a reasonable comparable rate.The committee questioned the value of restoring the building to provide all four-bedroom apartments. However, the committee heard evidence that the configuration and structural condition of the buildings limited the design and the mix of accommodation. The committee also received evidence which indicates that some Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade staff do not favour collocation of accommodation and workplace, preferring independent private accommodation. The committee agrees that there is a need for greater flexibility in locations where security concerns do not warrant collocation. However, in this case, the committee acknowledges that there appears to be few alternatives other than to use the extra space in the building for apartments.The committee also expressed concern that some of the fees for the project appeared to be unreasonably high. The Department of Finance and Administration advised that this is due to the high costs associated with the establishment of an Australian project director and the fact that fee scales for professionals in Germany are very high. The committee also questioned DOFA on the use of German contractors rather than Australians. DOFA advised that, due to the heritage listing and the extensive restoration work required, engaging contractors with local knowledge was the most viable option in Berlin for a one-off project such as this. I commend the report to the House.Bills7992s1947992Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.799219:29:007992Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this bill is to amend the Migration Act to clarify the rights of certain people who are held in immigration detention.The area of government administration dealing with unauthorised arrivals and detention has been the subject of protracted litigation over recent years. It is, therefore, important that we have clearly understood processes supported by clear and unambiguous legislation in order to avoid confusion of the government's intent in this area.Certain interest groups have always argued that all unlawful non-citizens should, on arrival in Australia, immediately be offered access to legal advice, even where they do not request it. Such an approach would, however, have the effect of ensuring that all unlawful non-citizens, regardless of their reason for coming to Australia, could invoke lengthy and expensive processing. This is especially of concern given the large numbers of unauthorised arrivals in recent years.Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—This bill ensures that parliament's intention in relation to the management of unauthorised arrivals in immigration detention, as reflected by section 256 of the Migration Act, cannot be subverted through the use of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 or the Ombudsman Act 1976.The bill is largely the same as one that was before the Senate in the last parliament.The Senate has, however, amended the bill to strengthen offence provisions in the Migration Act dealing with the increasing problem of people trafficking.The bill brings the penalty for single instances of people trafficking into line with the criminal sanctions imposed for similar forms of migration fraud and introduce a more severe penalty of 20 years imprisonment or 2,000 penalty units, or both, for the trafficking of groups of five or more people. This penalty recognises that organised crime groups are involved in people trafficking, and the penalty reflects the seriousness of the offence.These new provisions are primarily aimed at those who profit from people trafficking—those who, for a fee, organise individuals or groups to enter Australia illegally.Refugees are not at risk from these provisions. As a signatory to the refugees convention, the Australian government will ensure that refugees are not subjected to penalties on account of illegal entry or presence in Australia as first refuge.Further to the increase in penalties proposed by the bill, on 27 June the Prime Minister announced a commitment of $124 million to a four-year program of comprehensive improvement to coastal surveillance which will strengthen Australia's capacity to detect and deter illegal arrivals.The government is committed to protecting the integrity of the nation's borders and to stopping the work of people traffickers who think nothing of exploiting people with the false promise of entry into Australia.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.19:33:007992Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—In speaking about the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 before the House today and the amendments to the Migration Act 1958 to cater for public smugglers, let me first of all reaffirm the bipartisan spirit that the Labor Party have committed themselves to in this portfolio. When the Labor Party recognise that a piece of legislation is valid, just and for the common good of the Australian people, we will always support and champion it. However, when a bill is unfair, narrow in its purpose and application and ideologically unsound, we will fight it and fight those who promote it. I refer, of course, to the judicial review legislation.Fortunately, this bill before us today falls into the former category. Both the principal bill for discussion today, the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999, and the amendments to the principal act to deter people smuggling operations will go at least some way towards rectifying problems which over time have become more and more serious and have threatened the integrity of our judicial appeals system and the integrity of our national border. The Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) has been now around for some three years and its intent is to impose specific limits to the operation of sections of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act 1986 and Ombudsman Act 1976.More specifically, the intended effect of the legislation is to ensure that, while the right to confidential access to legal advice is maintained for those who are detained in the various immigration centres around the country, it is nevertheless strictly regulated to prevent unsolicited legal representation from third parties. In lay terms, the Labor Party is showing the Australian public that it is neither irresponsible nor weak when it comes to the question of illegal immigrants, despite what the government might from time to time try to assert.This bill will go some way towards preventing greedy lawyers from touting for business and initiating vexatious class actions amongst those who are in detention centres. Yes, these people need legal advice and, yes, they need proper representation but only if they are in fact genuine asylum seekers fearful of an uncertain future in their own country. To this small but very active group of lawyers, each detainee represents a few hundred dollars. Once you multiply this by a few thousand detainees and illegal immigrants, they represent millions of dollars, dollars which are duped out of these poor people and end up in the coffers of a few law firms. We want to put a stop to that as much as the government. As I have said publicly in this chamber before, we do not agree or condone any action on the part of people who, if you like, ambulance chase—the equivalent of injury claims—in the immigration area.The passage of this bill will hopefully close a notorious loophole and will facilitate the speedier turnaround and deportation of non-genuine refugees and unauthorised arrivals, thus maintaining the integrity of Australia's humanitarian program. The passage of this bill will not hinder other agencies such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission following up new arrivals to determine their claim for status and it will retain the genuine refugees' right to confidentiality and access to legal representatives.I would like to speak briefly about the second part of the bill that is before us today—that is, the amendments to the Migration Act 1958 to cater for the increasing problem of people smugglers. Firstly, I would like to commend the government for implementing these new measures, although belatedly, to combat this disgraceful trade in human misery. I would like to bring to the attention of the chamber that all of the measures, at least nearly all of the measures, that are to be implemented are those which the opposition have been calling for repeatedly and publicly over the last several months. They are good measures, and I am very pleased that the government took up the suggestions that we have been making, and it is about time that action, not bureaucratic inquiries, took place.Over the past 18 months Australia has increasingly been seen as a soft target to gangs of people traffickers in a number of countries. Overall in 1997-98 some 157 illegal immigrants arrived by sea on our shores. In 1998-99 this figure increased eightfold to 859, and more are coming every day. This increase in people smuggling, in the operation of the so-called `snakeheads', signifies that Australia's penalties for these offences do not go far enough to deter those who assist these criminal warlords on our shores. The amendments put forward today reflect the seriousness of these crimes and their cost to the government and to the Australian community.Having said that, and having stated the opposition's support for this bill, we will monitor these new tougher penalties very closely to ensure that they are applied only to those for whom they are intended—those who gain financially or materially from people trafficking. We have given the government a lot of leeway with these provisions, a lot of rope perhaps even to hang themselves on, given that we have reluctantly agreed to such measures as the electronic interception of communications between people smugglers. That was something which did cause us some concern, but we are satisfied, on the undertakings and the briefings that we have received, that these warrants will not be something that will be given over lightly and that there will have to be appropriate proof given.Yesterday in the House, the Prime Minister, in answer to a question from the shadow minister for customs, Duncan Kerr, did say that he was prepared to consider releasing publicly the report of Max Moore-Wilton, except of course for the operational parts that might be in there. I hope he does that, because I think that everyone in this chamber—certainly the opposition—would like to see what is in that report. We accept that he may not be able to show us everything in the report because of matters of an operational nature.The opposition will monitor these provisions to ensure that genuine refugees escaping their country of origin, often illegally, and in fear of lives, will not be prosecuted for doing so under these new penalties. We have made it clear that we will not tolerate any breaches to any of the international conventions on refugees. To do so would be to tarnish Australia's hard-won reputation as a generous, humanitarian nation. With these considerations in mind, the opposition gives its full support to this bill.19:40:007994Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—in reply—I would like to thank the honourable member for Bowman for his contribution and the opposition for their support. The Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1), as it was originally introduced in the Senate, was intended to clarify the rights of certain people held in immigration detention. It still does that—by ensuring that there is no obligation on the minister or any officer to provide certain persons held in immigration detention with an application form for a visa or access to legal advice unless that person has requested it. However, the bill was amended in the Senate and now appears before the House in a significantly changed form.The Prime Minister announced last Sunday that the government would be taking action to strengthen Australia's capacity to detect and deter illegal arrivals. The amendments made in the Senate are just the first of several steps the government is taking to implement the Prime Minister's announcements and combat people traffickers. Passage of the bill will send a clear message to would-be perpetrators and the Australian community that the Australian government takes people trafficking offences seriously. I want to make clear that this legislation is primarily aimed at the profiteers from people trafficking who organise individuals or groups to enter Australia illegally for a fee.Although the law will apply equally to everyone, I stress that refugees are not at risk from these provisions. This is because the refugees convention, to which Australia is a party, provides that refugees are not to be subjected to penalties on account of their illegal entry or presence in the country of first refuge. That should allay the concern of the honourable member for Bowman. I commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.7994Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Miscellaneous79947994Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—As required by resolutions of the House, I table copies of notifications of alterations of interests received during the period 1 April 1999 to 29 June 1999.Committees79957995799519:42:007995Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—I present the report from the Committee of Privileges in connection with the matter referred to the committee by the House on 25 March 1999—unauthorised disclosure of the report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, together with the minutes of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.ZT4Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAY—by leave—On 22 March the member for Cunningham, Mr Martin, raised in the House a matter of privilege under standing order 346. He stated that, in a newspaper published that morning and in a radio program broadcast that morning, recommendations of the report of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration entitled Regional banking services: money too far away were given fairly accurate and extensive coverage before the report was presented to the House later that day.The Speaker asked the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration in the first instance to, firstly, consider whether in its opinion the matter had caused or was likely to cause substantial interference with its work, with the committee system or with the functioning of the House; and, secondly, to take whatever steps it could to ascertain the source or sources of any disclosure.On 24 March 1999, the Chair of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, Mr Hawker, reported to the House that his committee had not been able to identify the source of the disclosure. However, he advised that the committee had resolved that, while the disclosure did not constitute a substantial interference with its work, it did constitute a substantial interference with the committee system.On 25 March 1999, precedence was given to a motion to refer this matter to the committee. The committee received submissions from Mr Hawker and from Mr Martin and a memorandum from the Clerk of the House of Representatives. The committee determined not to investigate the matter any further as, in the circumstances, it did not consider any further investigations would have altered the Economics, Finance and Public Administration Committee's assessment of the seriousness of the matter or have revealed the source of the disclosure.The committee found that a person or persons with access disclosed information concerning the report of the standing committee without authorisation. If such a person or persons acted deliberately, he or she, or they, were guilty of a serious breach of the prohibitions in the standing orders. The committee views such unauthorised disclosures very seriously as they display an offensive disregard for the particular committee itself and, ultimately, a disregard for the rules and conventions of the House. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to ascertain the identity of the person or persons responsible on this occasion.While the committee is unable to make any recommendation on the particular matter complained of, it reiterates proposals made by a predecessor committee for the consideration of the House. Firstly, the proposals would introduce procedures and practices which would tend to discourage unauthorised disclosure. Secondly, the proposals would involve the House adopting procedures that would place the initial onus to assess an unauthorised disclosure or publication concerning a committee on the committee itself. The procedures also would give the Speaker discretion to determine whether precedence should be given to a motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.Again, the case highlights the damage that can be done to the committee system by unauthorised disclosures. However, it also indicates the difficulties of resolving matters surrounding the unauthorised disclosure and publication of committee material and demonstrates that these matters are best assessed in the first instance by the committee concerned.Business79967996Motion (by Mr Slipper) agreed to:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent debate on the question that the House do now adjourn continuing for a period not exceeding 30 minutes after the motion is moved.Committees7996799679967996Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I present the sixth report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber.Report—by leave—adopted.7996799619:48:007996Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Pubic Accounts and Audit, I present the following committee report entitled Report 369—Australian government procurement .Ordered that the report be printed.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—by leave—In 1994, a parliamentary inquiry found that the opportunities which Commonwealth government procurement ought to provide for Australian industry were not being fully grasped. The committee, therefore, sought to examine whether Commonwealth entities during the last five years have achieved effective outcomes in the way purchasing policies are implemented and whether Australian business has achieved more equitable outcomes arising from these policies.In 1997-98, the value of purchasing by Commonwealth budget funded agencies was $8.8 billion, excluding purchases made by government business enterprises. Telstra, for example, spent $8.5 billion on goods and services in 1997-98. It is estimated that the three tiers of government—local, state and Commonwealth—between them spend around $45 billion a year on goods and services. Therefore, decisions to purchase from Australian suppliers can impact on the Australian economy by influencing employment, taxation revenue, technological development and, ultimately, Australia's balance of trade.The committee's overall assessment was that Commonwealth government procurement has improved since 1994. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the culture and attitude of purchasing officers has improved, but there are still areas of government procurement that need further improvement. The issues that the committee focused its investigations on, and which I will briefly discuss, include the implications of devolution and decentralisation of the purchasing function, aspects of the Commonwealth purchasing framework, opportunities for Australian industry development and electronic commerce and the statistical database.In 1997, an internal review of Commonwealth purchasing rejected the existing purchasing arrangements and recommended that a devolved system be introduced where individual departments and agencies assume greater control and responsibility for purchasing decisions. At the whole of government level, the purchasing arrangements have been devolved to individual agencies. Some of the criticisms that were raised with this approach focused on the need for more consistency, oversight and coordination, and monitoring of the impact on purchasing officers.While these problems are noted, the committee supports the devolution of purchasing authority and responsibility to individual agencies. At a whole of government level, devolution of responsibilities and greater accountability are consistent with the objectives of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. There are merits in allowing agencies to tailor their services and to provide a flexible response free of central bureaucracy.However, it is clear that the scale and speed of devolution in the Commonwealth context has resulted in some inefficiencies and a lack of opportunities for some SMEs. In part, this is because there was never a management framework or system of accreditation to ensure that agencies were in a position to take up their purchasing responsibilities.The committee, therefore, recommends that the Department of Finance and Administration develop and administer an accreditation system for assessing the purchasing performance of individual agencies. Agencies should be encouraged to attain standards of accreditation that best meet their needs. Agencies that do not meet suitable standards will need to develop a strategy to improve performance.At the agency level, the committee received evidence relating to the merits or otherwise of decentralisation. It became clear that there was greater efficiency and effectiveness created from having certain purchasing functions centralised within agencies. Telstra, for example, has moved to a centralised purchasing model which Telstra claims has resulted in greater control and information at the management level, and with reduced complexity for suppliers.Evidence from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Telstra and the Australian National Audit Office confirmed that there was a move towards centralised processing arrangements in the private sector. The ANAO, through its examination of centralised processing of payments, reported that significant economies of scale had been achieved by United States firms in conjunction with other better practices. The committee, therefore, concludes that all agencies should review their purchasing arrangements with a focus on evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of the distribution of functions or tasks within the agency.The committee examined: aspects of the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations; chief executive officer accountability and performance; interpretation and application of value for money; the culture, training and education of government purchasing officers; contract management; and endorsed supplier arrangements.One of the critical issues is the accountability and performance of chief executive officers. In raising the prominence of purchasing, the committee has called for CEOs of departments and agencies to take a greater role in managing their purchasing responsi bilities. In addition, the committee will seek a higher level of accountability from CEOs. The committee, therefore, has recommended that measurement of the performance of the senior management, including chief executive officers, of Commonwealth agencies should include reference to how efficiently and effectively the purchasing function is administered, and whether agreed objectives are being met, such as ANZ content and the commitment to maximise opportunities for SMEs.One of the most important objectives of the committee was an examination of the impact of Commonwealth government procurement policies on Australian industry. The committee sought to determine whether opportunities for Australian industry have improved since 1994. Government agencies, in managing their industry development objectives, should seek to balance the often competing principles of value for money, open and effective competition, and Australian industry development. The JCPAA does not support preferential treatment but advises agencies that, where Australian-New Zealand products are equal to overseas items in terms of value for money and other principles in the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines, then the ANZ products should be purchased.The Office of Small Business advised the committee that more could be done to ensure that government purchasing helps to drive Australian industry development. OSB raised a number of concerns made by small business. These relate to the perception amongst government purchasing officers that there is more risk associated with using small business, concerns by small business about the cost of tendering, and difficulties for small business when vying for Commonwealth business.At the whole of government level, there is no specific organisation or agency that has a monitoring or oversight role in relation to the impact of government purchasing policies on small business. The ORB should take on additional responsibility and fill this gap. The committee would support the expenditure of additional resources so that OSB could fulfil this role.An effective, efficient and user-friendly electronic commerce system is an essential part of the modern government procurement process. If the system is developed correctly, in consultation with buyers and suppliers, then major benefits will accrue. The lesson of Transigo should be put to good use in developing the next generation electronic commerce model.Transigo was first released in March 1997. Its key objectives included helping the private sector identify opportunities within the government marketplace, access tender documents and match their goods and services to business opportunities. Transigo was also designed to provide a statistical collection function. Transigo was introduced in a rapidly changing environment and has been plagued by an insufficient take-up rate by suppliers. This led the government in January 1999 to announce that agencies would no longer be limited to using Transigo. The Office for Government Online is currently responsible for the electronic purchasing and payment framework, including development of an implementation strategy.Throughout the inquiry, the quality and timeliness of purchasing statistics were heavily criticised. Most agencies, for example, could not report independently on the proportion of their purchasing that was awarded to Australian and New Zealand small and medium enterprises. A key commitment in the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines requires agencies and departments to source at least 10 per cent of their purchasing from SMEs. This objective was reported in an aggregate way across government.The committee expects that the new electronic commerce model will be able to provide each agency with this type of purchasing data at an on-call basis. Therefore, OGO should ensure that the statistical data collection system has sufficient data entry fields to record a range of industry development criteria by agency.The committee maintains that the current state of departmental reporting of purchasing activities is not acceptable. The committee's examination of a selection of annual reports indicated that reporting of this function rated a low priority. Some agencies stated their acknowledgment of certain parts of the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines but, in the majority of cases, there was no reporting of performance against objectives. The committee, therefore, recommends that all Commonwealth agencies under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and government business enterprises report on an annual basis in their annual reports their performance against key purchasing objectives.In conclusion, I would like to express the committee's appreciation to those people who contributed to the inquiry by preparing submissions and giving evidence at public hearings. Finally, I wish to thank the members of the sectional committee for their time and dedication in conducting this inquiry. I also thank the secretariat staff who were involved in the inquiry: the secretary to the committee, Margot Kerley; sectional committee secretary, Stephen Boyd; and administrative officer, Tiana Gray. I commend the report to the House.19:59:007998Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I support the comments of the member for La Trobe about report No. 369 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on Australian government procurement. It was a very interesting and rewarding experience for me to be involved in this sectional committee. I congratulate the member for La Trobe for the cooperative and consultative way that he chaired the committee. I also thank the staff of the secretariat of the sectional committee, the other members of the committee and the witnesses who appeared before us, sent us information, provided us with documents and participated in the round tables that we held on this very important matter.Some indication of the magnitude of the importance of this inquiry is shown when we look at the total value of purchases by Commonwealth budget funded agencies. From 1997 to 1998, they were about $8.8 billion, and that excludes purchases made by government business enterprises, such as Telstra, for example, which spent $8.5 billion on goods and services in that same year, 1997-98. With that magnitude of taxpayers' money being spent, value for money is a very important consideration indeed. We did examine quite carefully the various definitions of `value for money' that some witnesses who appeared before us took. They did not all have the same definition of `value for money'. One issue this report raises and addresses is the idea that with purchasing we should be looking at whole of life value for money and not just the lowest purchase price.The other task that the committee set itself was to look at the issue of Australian input within the purchasing framework and to maximise opportunities for small and medium enterprises. I was very pleased to wake up this morning to a report that the Australian National Museum, which is being built right here in Canberra on the Acton Peninsula, has engaged the services of the New South Wales Industrial Supplies Office Network, or Isonet. That in itself is a very positive attempt to ensure the maximisation of Australian and New Zealand content in the building of the Australian National Museum. I certainly congratulate the people building the museum on that decision.One issue we looked at quite carefully was the level of professionalism and training of purchasing officers. The move to decentralise purchasing had some serious consequences for some of the agencies we looked at. We noticed evidence that skills were in fact lost with decentralising. Some agencies reported a higher error rate because of the decentralisation. Our response to that was not to recommend the recentralising of purchasing but to make sure that purchasing officers are accredited and to encourage the proper accreditation of purchasing officers.We also suggested that there be the stronger enforcement of Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines, that managers be judged on an organisation's purchasing performance and that we have an agreed definition of small and medium enterprises. The committee was quite surprised that many of the organisations that appeared before us had quite different ideas about what small and medium enterprises were.We also suggested that 20 per cent of government department purchases be sourced from small and medium enterprises. That is up from 10 per cent, and will certainly be welcomed by the small and medium enterprises. Where value for money and other principles are equal, we recommend a preference for Australian and New Zealand goods. As the member for La Trobe pointed out, this is not about preferential treatment; it is about reversing a cultural cringe that has occasionally operated in the past, where government departments have not felt confident to buy Australian and New Zealand sourced products. This measure certainly goes some of the way towards addressing that.We have suggested that model industry criteria for major projects apply to projects of greater than $5 million. There were various views on that. Certainly where $5 million of taxpayers' money is spent, it is legitimate to expect that additional benefits will flow from that money for businesses in the area, such as Australian and New Zealand businesses. It is not an unreasonable expectation for industry development.We have also suggested that the Office of Small Business and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources obtain further information on government buying trends and the impacts that they are having on Australian and New Zealand small and medium enterprises. We have suggested that agencies sign memoranda of understanding with Isonets and actually use them. Signing memoranda of understanding are not much use if they are not actually used. We did find that some departments had those memoranda but were not using them.We also suggested that government departments publish electronically why they have gone offshore to purchase goods valued over $100,000. This is another attempt to make sure that small and medium enterprises are able to participate properly in winning those larger government contracts. We have also suggested that Commonwealth agencies report their performance against those key purchasing objectives in their annual reports.In conclusion, this was a very rewarding experience. This is my first report with the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and my first sectional committee. Indeed, I was very pleased to be able to participate in a report that had broad support across the parties. I commend the report to the House.8000Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—by leave—As is our normal practice, the JCPAA has tabled a unanimous report. I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.8000800020:06:008000Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Australian Embassy Berlin—Refurbishment of heritage building as a chancery and apartments.As part of the process of the reunification of Germany, the seat of the German government is relocating from Bonn to Berlin. Relocation has already commenced and is programmed to be completed in 1999. In 1995 the former Australian government purchased two adjoining heritage buildings in the Mitte district of Berlin. This area is the historic centre of Berlin. The decision to purchase and refurbish these buildings was intended in part to be Australia's contribution to the rebuilding of Berlin. Both buildings are heritage listed and have certain heritage characteristics which must be managed in the refurbishment program. The Wallstrasse building will provide six stories of office accommodation for the embassy and two apartments. The Markisches Ufer building will provide four apartments. Car parking will be provided in the basement to serve both buildings.The Public Works Committee, in tabling its report, recommended that this project proceed. However, the committee recommended also that in future inquiries it must be provided with more detailed cost breakdowns of the proposed expenditure. The Department of Finance and Administration will meet this requirement with future submissions. During the committee's inquiry into the Berlin project additional details were provided in line with the committee's request. The committee recommended that actual comparisons between the rent charged by the Department of Finance and Administration and the rent charged for similar buildings on the private rental market should also be made available. Future submissions to the committee will include the necessary comparisons. In its inquiry into the Berlin project the committee was satisfied with the additional information provided by the department in this regard.The committee also recommended that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade develop a set of guidelines on the standard of overseas accommodation, that those guidelines include consideration of the appropriateness of collocation of departmental officers with their workplace, taking into account staff attitudes on this matter, and that relevant parties should be consulted. Existing guidelines for accommodation were reviewed by the then Department of Administrative Services in 1997 in consultation with the relevant agencies. In addition, a consultants' report was commissioned in 1996 to survey staff attitudes to overseas accommodation, including the appropriateness of collocation of residential and office accommodation. This report was based on a survey of all overseas staff from all relevant agencies. The existing accommodation guidelines and the consultants' report continue to be used in the design and acquisition of residential accommodation.In their final recommendation, the committee approved the provision of a new chancery at an outturn cost of $37.277 million at May 1999 prices. This motion is moved on the basis that the committee recommends the renovation and refurbishment to provide a new Australian chancery and apartments at an estimated outturn cost of $37.277 million at May 1999 prices. Subject to parliamentary approval, it is expected that the project would be completed in the latter half of the year 2001. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.8001800120:10:008001Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—by leave—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: CSIRO Division of Building Construction and Engineering Development Works at Riverside Corporate Park, North Ryde, NSW.CSIRO proposes to construct new facilities for its Division of Building Construction and Engineering at Riverside Corporate Park, North Ryde, New South Wales. The proposed works will replace predominantly old and substandard facilities with new state-of-the-art accommodation for the division's construction materials laboratory and fire technology complex. These new facilities will be consolidated with other recently constructed facilities within a discrete divisional precinct at Riverside Corporate Park. These works are a further stage in the major redevelopment of Riverside Corporate Park as a high technology business which will incorporate both CSIRO research and development facilities and compatible private industry occupants.The proposed facilities will accommodate the construction materials laboratory, which will house groups undertaking research and testing of concrete masonry materials, and the fire technology complex, which will conduct fire related research activities, including the behaviour of structures and materials subjected to fire and advanced fire protection technologies. The new facilities will replace accommodation on one site scheduled for sale and fire research structures erected on another site in the early 1950s which are inadequate for current activities and substandard in terms of structure and materials. The existing structures are constructed of materials containing asbestos, and will be demolished. The land will be decontaminated in preparation for future use by CSIRO.The project has a budget of $10 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, tenders are to be called in late 1999, with completion scheduled for the first quarter of the year 2001. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.800110000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that:(a) Senator McGauran has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories and that, from 1 July 1999, Senator Watson has been appointed a member of the committee;(b) from 1 July 1999, Senators Brownhill, Calvert and Payne have been appointed members of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade;(c) Senator Lightfoot has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and that, from 1 July 1999, Senators Boswell and Mason have been appointed members of the committee;(d) from 1 July 1999, Senators Boswell and Calvert have been appointed members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation; and(e) Senator Brownhill has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and that, from 1 July 1999, Senators Mason and Tchen have been appointed members of the committee.Adjournment8001Motion (by Mr Slipper) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.800120:14:008001Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—It has been a bit of a wait, but I am pleased to be speaking this evening about an event which is something of a celebration for indigenous Australia. Tomorrow will formally mark a new tertiary institution—the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, formerly known as Batchelor College. The college will take its new title tomorrow when it becomes independent from the Northern Territory Public Service. It is the first independent, Aboriginal-governed tertiary education institution in Australia—and that is a landmark occurrence.It is something I am very proud of as a person coming from the Northern Territory and as someone who has been an advocate of this course for a number of years. Indeed, as Parliamentary Secretary for Employment, Education and Training in this place in the mid-1990s, I initiated discussions for this to happen with the Batchelor College and the Northern Territory government through the Department of Education, Employment and Training. So this separation comes as something which I believe is very important for indigenous Australia, indeed very important for Australia.The institute will provide opportunities for indigenous people to gain recognised qualifications while maintaining and supporting their culture and languages. It has an Aboriginal board, the chair of which is Gatjil Djerkurra, who, as you all know, is also the chair of ATSIC.Mr Speaker, I want on this occasion to recognise the importance of the decisions made by the board, the history of the organisation, the struggles it has gone through and the commitment of its staff and the communities which support it. They have in my view provided an exemplar for other institutions around Australia who seek to provide indigenous Australians with an opportunity they might not otherwise get. It has provided unique opportunities for indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory and across the borders into Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. It has done so with a great deal of proficiency. I think there are many challenges which it will confront in its new enterprise. I am sure it will meet these challenges and provide a great example for all of Australia.I want to pay particular tribute to the person who is resigning as CEO to make way for an Aboriginal CEO, Veronica Arbon. The CEO I am talking about is John Ingram. John first took up his duties as principal at Batchelor College in 1985. He is a person who committed himself to the cause of indigenous education in Australia by way, initially, of setting up the Aboriginal Community College which is now Tauondi College in Adelaide. Prior to that, in the late sixties, he worked in Papua New Guinea and Malaysia as an Australian Volunteer Abroad under the auspices of the Overseas Services Bureau, now renamed Australian Volunteers International; and he remains on its board.Batchelor College is a specialist institution and it requires people with a great deal of awareness and understanding of the important educational opportunities that Aboriginal people properly demand. As well as intensely working for the college to achieve independence from the NTPS, John Ingram's last two years, in particular, have been spent trying to resolve the Abstudy debacle which arose in the 1997 federal budget and which still has not been resolved satisfactorily. One of John's goals was to hand over control of the college to an Aboriginal person, and this he has done with Veronica Arbon, a strong Aboriginal woman who will take on the role as Director from tomorrow.John is married to Paia, with whom he has four children. His children have grown up during the 14 years John has been at Batchelor and they now form the main core of the percussion group Drum Drum and the group The Siale Dancers which perform traditional and contemporary Papua New Guinea and Southern Pacific cultural music. The family are active members of the multicultural society of the Top End. As Chairman of the Asia Pacific Cultural Village Association, John has been a leading force in the establishment of a permanent village to function as a multicultural education facility in Darwin.John is to be commended, as are all of those who have committed themselves to the cause of Batchelor College and now the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education. I want to thank John on behalf of the Northern Territory community for the commitment he has shown to the interests, not only of the Northern Territory but of Australia generally; and the commitment he has shown, particularly, to indigenous education in Australia where his performance has been exemplary. (Time expired)800220:19:008002Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I would like to draw the attention of the House to an issue which continues to be of critical importance to the constituents of the city of Redcliffe, and that is the issue of law and order. A recent front-page story in the Courier-Mail exposed Labor's user-pays system to charge Redcliffe businesses $50 for a street patrol policeman on Friday and Saturday nights. Such a proposal clearly highlights the uninterest of the state Labor government in both the needs of small business and the importance of law and order in Queensland. It continues to amaze me that Queensland's Peter Beattie, along with his Labor mates, police minister Barton and state member Hollis, continue to ignore the obvious lack of resources available to police officers, particularly in the Redcliffe region.Mr Rudd interjecting—9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—I wish to state for the record that I have enormous faith in the police officers of Queensland. I hear the member opposite continuing to interject.Mr Rudd interjecting—9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—I know it is a very touchy subject, and I am glad that you are paying attention.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Griffith, who will be seeking the call, will exercise some restraint; the member for Petrie has the call and will address her remarks through the chair.9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—I want to put on the record that I do have enormous faith in the police officers in Queensland, particularly those hardworking members in the Redcliffe police station; however, those good people continue to have major constraints put on them by the local member who continues to flagrantly disregard public calls for much more resources for the area. Such ignorance of a most important issue has led to constituents calling my office on state government policing issues because they are getting a great deal of uninterest from their local member, Mr Ray Hollis, and continuing frustration from the Queensland police force.I would particularly like to draw to the attention of the House an incident that I was only recently made aware of by a constituent. This true story personifies the critical state of current policing levels on the peninsula. It also illustrates the complete lack of interest of the local member, who is continuing to ignore the safety of his constituents. This particular gentleman rang to say that his car had been stolen two weekends ago from his driveway. Not only was his car stolen but also his first aid training kit. They are the tools of his trade and his livelihood. A week or so following the theft while the gentleman and his wife were walking to the shops—because, of course, they did not have a car—they clearly identified a person driving their car as it passed them by. They then contacted the local police, believing rightly that a car would be dispatched and the offender would be arrested. But the gentleman was told that there was only one car on duty and it was currently tied up. When the couple stated that they could positively identify the suspect and that they could come down to the station straight away and offer a description, the answer was, `No, because we don't have the resources to accommodate this.'I wrote some four months ago to the local state member asking him what he was going to do about the spate of robberies in the CBD area of Redcliffe. One particular incident a few months ago saw the National Australia Bank flexiteller petrol bombed and burnt out. I understand that to replace that flexiteller would cost $360,000, and that the technology in them is enormous, so I do not think we should ever take for granted the facilities that we have. That incident meant a considerable lack of resources for the people in the area. The complete ignorance and arrogance shown by the local member in regard to the policing levels in the constituency does not stop here. After filing a complaint with the police service and, as any reasonable citizen would do, attempting to bring this incident to the attention of the local member, the local member did not even have the decency to call him. Clearly the resources on the peninsula are totally inadequate. When is the state government going to do something about recognising the concerns of local constituents who clearly are demanding safety?I do not believe that this will ever happen because the reaction of this current Labor government is to meander along on its current path of doing nothing. There will be total inaction until the next election is called, and that does not help the people of Redcliffe City one iota.800420:24:008004Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I listened with interest to the speech just delivered by the member for Petrie in relation to the state member for Redcliffe, Mr Ray Hollis, who is not only a fine member of parliament but also Speaker of the Queensland state parliament. What I found most interesting was that the member for Petrie was not able to provide us with any statistics about the level of police resources on the Redcliffe peninsula during the period of the coalition government. I think she would find upon closer inspection that those resources in both Redcliffe and elsewhere across south-east Queensland have been enhanced since the election of the Beattie government. Mind you, mere facts, figures and detail sometimes simply escape the attention of federal members of parliament in adjournment debates when they are seeking to make a political point for consumption in their local newspaper. Indeed, it is a double offence when the victim of such a scurrilous attack is the Speaker of another parliament. But I digress from the subject of my own speech this evening, which will not scurrilously attack anyone.Mr Hardgrave interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Griffith is entitled to be heard in silence.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—I rise this evening on the question of Brisbane airport, in particular the possibility of a curfew at Brisbane airport, and most particularly since this week the government in this parliament supported a piece of legislation, the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill 1999 , initiated by a member of parliament from South Australia, which has the effect of introducing a curfew for Adelaide airport. At the outset I pose a very simple question for the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services, and it is this: if it is good for the goose, is it also good for the gander? If it is good enough for Adelaide airport, surely it is good enough for Brisbane as well. I would think, given the impact of the airport on parts of the seat of Moreton, that the honourable member sitting opposite, the member for Moreton, might seek concurrence of views on this question.When we look at Brisbane airport and the impact which the current runway, 0119, has on a range of suburbs in Brisbane, we can see why a curfew at Brisbane airport would be appropriate. There are already in the order of 160,000 annual movements at Brisbane airport. In fact, that figure is considerably in excess of the movements occurring each year at Adelaide airport. When we look at night movements in particular, we find that freight movements into and out of Brisbane airport are increasing year by year. And there are not just freight movements: large passenger aircraft find themselves, for one reason or another, in the skies over suburban Brisbane at 11 p.m, 12 midnight and 1 o'clock in the morning. We also find that the number of southern suburbs of Brisbane affected by night movements is increasing. Suburbs like Morningside, Cannon Hill, Murarrie, Bulimba, Hawthorne, Norman Park, Carina, Carina Heights, Carindale and Belmont are increasingly affected by night movements.This situation would deteriorate considerably if the current proposal for a further runway, a parallel runway, at Brisbane airport becomes a reality. If that runway became a reality, by the time it was constructed annual aircraft movements through Brisbane airport in, say, 2006 would be equivalent to the total number of aircraft currently operating into and out of Sydney airport. I ask the question again: if it is good enough to have a curfew at Sydney airport now, then surely we should plan to have one at Brisbane airport for the future. If there is one which is suitable for Adelaide airport today, then surely there is one appropriate for Brisbane airport today, given that the volume of traffic at Brisbane airport is much more significant. We can project what will happen if this new parallel runway is constructed: the number of night movements will increase. The Brisbane Airport Corporation master plan projects that a large part of its expansion strategy for Brisbane airport is to use Brisbane increasingly as a freight hub for greater Queensland, the South-West Pacific and South-East Asia. That being the case, there would be a far greater intensity of aircraft movements over the suburbs of Brisbane of an evening. It is not only the southern suburbs of Brisbane which would be affected at night; the northern suburbs would be affected as well.Brisbane is a much larger airport than Adelaide. In terms of total annual aircraft movements, it is about twice the size of Adelaide. So why has the government in this place seen fit to pass a piece of legislation which grants a curfew for Adelaide airport but not for airports which are of greater size—airports such as Brisbane airport? My direct challenge to the minister tonight is: will he provide to the people of Brisbane a simple explanation as to why a curfew is appropriate for Adelaide airport—which is a much smaller airport than Brisbane airport—but is not appropriate for Brisbane airport? I have in the past collected petitions from local residents on this question, and there is considerable support for it. It is time for the government to act. (Time expired)800520:29:008005Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I rise tonight to congratulate everyone involved in this year's Beaudesert Country and Horse Festival. The festival, which took place during June in my electorate of Forde, is now in its third great year and continues to go from strength to strength. It is a wonderful way to celebrate our country's heritage and showcase all that the Beaudesert shire has to offer. Economically, socially and culturally, the festival adds enormously to the development of Beaudesert. The aim is that eventually we will become as big as Tamworth, and I can assure honourable members that we are well on our way towards this goal. I strongly support calls for even more planning and community commitment to capitalise on our success to date and ensure that the festival becomes a national event.This year there were 10 full days of events such as the Bush Poets Breakfast, the Quilts in the Country display, and the Canvas, Clay and Chardonnay arts, craft and pottery exhibition. There were even pig races, toad races and historic displays, just to name a few. The festival culminated on Saturday with the incredible `Parade of 1,000 Hooves' through Beaudesert and the bull ride spectacular at the showgrounds that evening. Thousands of people lined the streets of Beaudesert for the parade, and there was an electric, carnival atmosphere that was an absolute credit to the festival's organisers.I want to publicly thank and acknowledge those people who work so hard each year to make the festival a reality. They include all the hardworking members of the festival committee, especially President Justin Lemberg, the Beaudesert Shire Council, the Beaudesert Chamber of Commerce, John Bartlett and his team at the Beaudesert Times, the Beaudesert Rodeo Club and the countless other community groups and volunteers who helped organise events throughout the shire. For those listening who are unacquainted with the Beaudesert region, I can assure you that it is a unique and beautiful part of south-east Queensland. I enjoy getting out to Beaudesert so much that I take my office there regularly, holding open days specifically to meet local residents.The country and horse festival is the perfect showcase for the friendly, country atmosphere of Beaudesert, and I urge people throughout Queensland and the nation to come to next year's festival. It is a great celebration of Australian culture and it is a lot of fun. I am certainly proud to support and sponsor the Beaudesert Country and Horse Festival and look forward to watching it grow even bigger and better in the future. Congratulations again to all of those involved.In the few minutes left to me, I would like to acknowledge the wonderful work done by Rotary clubs throughout Australia, but specifically the one in my electorate, the Jimboomba Rotary Club. Each year this club has an exchange student program. I had the pleasure today of seeing one of the dedicated members of the Jimboomba Rotary Club bring his student all the way to this wonderful place today to show her how our national capital is run. She was very suitably impressed. She is a lovely lady: 18-year-old Sara Wheeler who comes from Hancock, Michigan in the United States of America.I would like to congratulate each and every one of those Rotary clubs that have these exchange programs that showcase Australia to wonderful visitors such as Sara. It also gives Australian students the opportunity of seeing the cultures of overseas countries. I sincerely thank Geoff and Cassie Stone for their commitment to the program and for bringing their student to this wonderful place today.800620:33:008006Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—For some 20 years in different capacities I have been involved in politics in Western Sydney. In that time there has been just one burning issue that people have been concerned about: how in Western Sydney do we move the jobs and services to where the people have moved? How do we move jobs and services to where the population has shifted from Eastern to Western Sydney?By that test, the EIS on Badgerys Creek airport that was released today passes with flying colours. It has four main conclusions. The first is that Badgerys Creek is required to meet Sydney's future airport needs. It is the only site that is truly feasible. Also, if Sydney does not provide internationally competitive airport infrastructure, it will lose jobs and investment to other cities, states and countries.The second conclusion is that the full operation of the new airport would generate 19,000 new jobs in the region, plus some 26,000 jobs in the construction phase. The third conclusion is that the predicted air quality impacts do not exceed national Environment Protection Council goals, other than on the airport boundary and one isolated ozone level problem, mostly in non-residential areas to the west of the airport site. The final conclusion is that the new airport may even have beneficial impacts on the Badgerys Creek, South Creek and Hawkesbury-Nepean River system.So the overall picture at Badgerys Creek is the creation of 45,000 new jobs in Western Sydney, with minimal environmental impacts. How can anyone who represents public housing estates with 50 per cent unemployment rates, as I do in Western Sydney, turn down 45,000 new jobs, when on the flip side only minimal environmental impacts have been identified in this document? I take my first responsibility in this place to be job creation. For anyone representing suburbs with 50 per cent to 80 per cent rates of unemployment, their first and overriding responsibility as an elected person is to create jobs for those most disadvantaged in our society.After 20 years of debate in Western Sydney on the need to move jobs and services to where the people have moved, I cannot believe that anyone would turn down the opportunity for 45,000 new jobs when, on every objective test, on every objective criterion assessed in this EIS, there is only a minimal environmental impact. I have seen some notices put on the Notice Paper by various members; they have raised a concern about the impacts of noise. I ask them to do nothing more than analyse the noise contours produced in the EIS today.Let me provide some statistics to the parliament. If you take the minimum noise level—that is the 15 ANEC contour—and you look at where these members of parliament are located and where they have situated their electorate office, it reveals the following interesting facts. The member for Macarthur, Mr Fahey, has his electorate office in Camden. It is some 10 kilometres from the minimum noise contour—not the airport itself but the minimum 15 ANEC noise contour. The member for Parramatta, Mr Cameron, has his electorate office in Parramatta, which is 15 kilometres away—in fact, that far from the noise affected areas immediately surrounding the Badgerys Creek site that it is off the map. Mr Bartlett, the member for Macquarie, has his electorate office in Springwood—another member off the map—some 15 kilometres from the minimum noise contour. Ms Kelly, the member for Lindsay, has her electorate office in Penrith, which is nine kilometres away.Mr Murphy interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lowe is not in his seat.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—I turn to some of those who have listed the notices of motion: Mr Ferguson, the member for Reid, has his electorate office in Granville—off the map—20 kilometres away from the minimum noise contour.Mr Albanese interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Neither is the member for Grayndler.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Mrs Irwin, the member for Fowler, has an electorate office in Liverpool, 10 kilometres from the noise affected area at the very minimum; Mrs Crosio, the member for Prospect, has an electorate office in Fairfield—a seven-kilometre buffer before her electorate office would be affected by the minimum noise level; Mr Price has his electorate office in Mount Druitt, five kilometres away; and Mr Mossfield has his electorate office in Blacktown, some seven kilometres away. By an objective assessment—the independent scientific assessment of this EIS—there is no doubt that Badgerys Creek passes all the tests. If you are serious about creating jobs for unemployed people in Western Sydney, if you are serious about moving jobs and services to where the people have moved in the 50 years since World War II, if you are serious about a decent and objective environmental assessment instead of crass political opportunism, this document would be supported. At various times people have said, `Build Badgerys Creek tomorrow.' The time has come to build it as soon as possible and put paid to some of the nonsense we hear in these debates. (Time expired)800720:38:008007Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—Again we see where the real intelligence in the opposition ranks lies. The member for Werriwa has shown that he is prepared to put a bit of thought into public policy and to come up with some real positives and some real objective thought on an important matter before us. I contrast that with the contribution from the member for Griffith who has been running around with nothing else to do—both in his time in this place and before he came here—protesting about what may or may not be happening at Brisbane airport. It is extra ordinary that the member for Griffith, in his contribution yet again tonight, is keeping alive his big scare campaign. I know that over time he may find another issue, but to date he has not. I actually have one for him. He could probably talk to his friend the Lord Mayor of Brisbane and join with me in demanding that the Brisbane City Council embrace the government's successful Work for the Dole program.Findings for the Work for the Dole pilot projects show that over 30 per cent of people actually went into full jobs and over 10 per cent went on to education and training. So that is well over a 40 per cent success rate for those who participated in Work for the Dole. Is it any wonder the government fulfilled its obligation offered at the last election—and delivered on afterwards; that is the hallmark of the Howard-Fischer government—to bring about an increase in the numbers of people able to access Work for the Dole.The sad fact is that one of the largest employers of people in the city of Brisbane, the Labor Soorley administration of the Brisbane City Council, refused to cooperate with the government's efforts in this regard and for a philosophical reason. What they are doing for this party political philosophical reason is turning their back on the unemployed, particularly the young unemployed, who need an opportunity to get the dignity that comes from working for the dole. The concept of mutual obligation has given a lot of Australians who have not had the chance to get full-time work the opportunity to hold their heads high. But the Soorley administration in the City Hall, Brisbane, has turned their backs on that. What a hypocritical situation this is!During the period 1992 to 1996 the Brisbane City Council was contracted to manage 19 Jobskills, Landcare and Environment Action Program—LEAP—and New Work Opportunities projects in Brisbane. That was under the Labor Party. Brisbane City Council actively sought to sponsor broker programs. They were contracted to provide 3,323 job seekers with work experience and training at a total cost to the Commonwealth of $28,488,095 under the Jobskills, New Work Opportunities and LEAP programs. The average cost per placement for these three broker programs conducted by the BCC was $8,573—that was per person. That was the sort of opportunity that the Brisbane City Council took when the Labor Party were in power here in Canberra.But, again for party political and pathetic political reasons, the Brisbane City Council turns its back on the young people in my electorate and refuses to cooperate with worthy organisations like the Salvation Army who have gone to them with sound proposals to place people in Work for the Dole projects. I have to tell the House that, out of seven projects under LEAP between 1993 and 1996 in which 1,291 people participated, the council took a brokerage fee of over $5 million. In fact, for the New Work Opportunities Program—the failed New Work Opportunities Program—the Brisbane City Council took a brokerage fee of $332,394. That is a lot of money that the council took in brokerage fees.If the Brisbane City Council will not do the right thing by the young unemployed in my electorate, then I will continue to do what I have said in my promise to bring more Work for the Dole opportunities to people in my electorate of Moreton, and that is find other community groups—and there are other community groups—who are going to turn their backs on the Brisbane City Council in the way it has turned its back particularly on the young unemployed in my electorate. The chambers of commerce are keen to do it and a lot of other responsible community groups in my electorate are committed to it. The government stands ready to provide the finance to make these projects happen. The only thing standing in the way of potentially thousands of young people across the southern suburbs of Brisbane obtaining Work for the Dole opportunities—hence the reason I invite the member for Griffith to join me in my efforts—is the Brisbane City Council. It should stand condemned. In the closing few seconds of this debate, Mr Speaker, I wish you well in the long parliamentary break to come, and thank you for your stewardship from the chair.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In the absence of any other honourable member rising, I will allow the parliamentary secretary to close the debate.800820:43:008008Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNP10—Today has been a very significant day for the National Party; today in less than three hours and 15 minutes we will lose two of our senators—Senator Bill O'Chee and Senator Sandy Macdonald, one from New South Wales and one from Queensland—who have served with distinction their states and indeed our party. We wish them well, as they took up the fight in one of our darkest hours prior to the 1998 general election.Of course, today is also the day that Tim Fischer announced that he would be stepping down as Leader of the National Party, as Deputy Prime Minister and as Minister for Trade. I would like personally to pay a tribute to Tim—to the courage and strength that he has shown in his stewardship as leader of our party and particularly in his role as Minister for Trade.Tim is a thoroughly decent individual and I think the acclamation today by both sides of the House, which is rare, demonstrates the respect in which he is held. He has an unorthodox style. He certainly can be easily underestimated, and I think he was in earlier days. His is a canny ability to cut through messages, particularly in his very effective way as trade minister. There was the courage he showed in our darkest hours in the National Party when, after the budget deficit that we had to rein in, we had very low commodity prices and areas of drought and flood. Of course he was also under pressure subsequently as a result of the issues that came out of left field, particularly the guns issue, Wik and the onslaught of One Nation. It was during that period, which was very divisive for our party, that Tim stood up and held firm, and he is to be commended for that.Question resolved in the affirmative.20:46:008008House adjourned at 8.46 p.m. until Monday, 9 August 1999, at 12.30 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to at this sitting.Notices8009The following notices were given:Mr Kelvin Thomson to move:That the House:(1) following the findings of the Dawson Royal Commission into the Longford gas explosion, condemns the Kennett Government for its failure to give legislative backing to the National Standard for Control of Major Hazard Facilities;(2) notes that if the Kennett Government had passed legislation as the federal and Western Australian Governments have done the disaster may well have been averted;(3) notes that the Oil and Gas platforms in Bass Strait are the subject of the national standard but not Longford, which is only 120 kilometres away, because it is under State jurisdiction; and(4) condemns the Kennett Government for contributing to the Longford tragedy by failing to implement workplace safety reform.Mr Pyne to move:That this House directs the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to specifically inquire into and report on the question of religious persecution in Iran, including the prosecution of the thirteen imprisoned Jews, as part of the committee's present inquiry into Australia's efforts to protect and promote freedom of religion and belief.Mrs Gash to move:That the House:(1) understands the need to work towards addressing the needs of people with disabilities and their carers throughout Australia;(2) recognises the particular difficulties for people with disabilities and their carers and the need for respite care services and facilities in regions such as Gilmore and Macquarie;(3) welcomes the federal Government's specific commitment of over $1.7 billion to the Commonwealth/State Disability Agreement to assist them in their primary areas of responsibility and to increase the support for carers of people with disabilities; and(4) calls on governments at all levels to cooperate with one another to identify, fund and maintain services and facilities for respite care for people with disabilities and their carers.Mrs Gash to move:That the House:(1) recognises the very high risk of homelessness amongst young people in several areas of regional Australia;(2) recognises that this is a problem amongst young people in regions such as Gilmore and Macquarie;(3) welcomes the federal Government's specific commitment of over $45 million towards reducing that risk and providing appropriate accommodation services; and(4) calls on governments at all levels to cooperate with one another to identify, fund and implement programs of assistance for our young people.1999-06-30Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members801080108010Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—My interest today is drawn to the current inquiry being undertaken by the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector. I have been hearing a lot about how retailers operate in Australia and have come to the conclusion that we have a very different and difficult problem here than is experienced by any other country which is similar to ours. We are a huge island continent with very few people. There is only so much room for so much trade, and the main premises of healthy competition are missing. This is particularly true of rural and isolated areas where the population is spread even more thinly and there is little ability to build economies of scale easily.The groupings of supermarket chains tend to concentrate their efforts in competing for their market share where the local population is over 5,000. According to the Franklins chain, this is the size below which the local population cannot fall if they are to be able to afford to establish one of their stores.In my area of Tasmania, I do not have a major town in my electorate with a population of 5,000. The biggest has a population of about 3,000, and the smallest are settlements of 10 or 20. Some of these settlements are more than an hour's drive from major towns and most of the time they rely on the local store in the smaller centres for their purchases.From my activities with opposition committees, and as a member of the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services, I know that there are many similar situations all over Australia. Customers in these isolated areas do not have the same opportunities to save money by shopping in stores that are able to exceed the critical mass for bulk buying of goods at the lowest prices, as laid down by wholesalers' requirements. However, despite this, stores in rural and remote areas do a good job in providing a service.I believe that the present inquiry is too narrow and that it does not cover the many issues which affect retailers who are trying to compete under the terms of the national competition policy but who are unable to do so because such an uneven market situation exists in Australia. I believe there is a need for a complete review of the competition policy and the deregulation of the market so that some adjustment can be made for our town and country areas. I believe that a cap should be placed on the share of the market by Australia's three supermarket chains.We also need to find ways to help small business learn about their rights and responsibilities when dealing with competition. That means more access by small business to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and more funds to help rural and regional communities. I believe this would be one way to even up the playing field a little.80108010Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNP10—I would like to speak about the parlous state of health services on the north coast of New South Wales. Before I do so, I acknowledge the significant legislation which was passed by the House of Representatives yesterday—the new tax system. Certainly, the proposals that have been put forward, which have been put in legislation and which will be endorsed on 1 July next year, are substantial. The most important thing about the new tax system, particularly the GST, is that the bulk of the revenue will go back to the states. It is in this context, with the bulk of the revenue going back to the states, that there does need to be further priority placed on health, particularly health services, in New South Wales—and, indeed, on the North Coast. The state budget this year is $6.9 billion, and still we have a deteriorating situation where there are hospital cutbacks, staff cutbacks and a reduction in services in many of our local hospitals. I refer to the Byron area—particularly to Byron Bay and Brunswick Heads.Byron Bay now has a 30-bed hospital, but there are some proposals to reduce it to 14 beds and to move obstetrics. The surgery capacity at Brunswick hospital has already been depleted, and that sends a very bad signal to an area which has a very high population of young people and a very high elderly population. Indeed, on the North Coast we have the second highest elderly population out of 148 seats in the House of Representatives, and there is a high dependency on and a high need for health care. In the whole North Coast rivers region, particularly in the Tweed, there is a waiting list of 1,500. That represents 60 per cent of the whole North Coast. Some funding has been brought forward for the required expansion of Tweed Heads District Hospital, which is stage 3, but it is not enough, and more funding needs to be urged for there. I do hope that, when Craig Knowles visits our area next week, priority can be given to that. As well, priority should be given to the hospital at Murwillumbah, since there is talk of the closure of another 10 beds there. I hope that this does not occur. This certainly is an opportunity for Minister Knowles when he comes to Murwillumbah, since the hospital there is terrific. It is where my children were born and where my next child will be born—probably next week. It is a terrific opportunity for him to come and endorse the view that there should not be any further reductions in services to the hospital at Murwillumbah or, indeed, to the hospital at Tweed Heads.This is a very critical issue; it is an issue which falls under the responsibilities of the states. I will work in partnership with them, but it is important that they give priority to areas outside the Sydney-Wollongong-Newcastle triangle. It is important that they give priority to the North Coast in particular, as we have a very high aged population and a very high young population. So, at this stage, it is hoped that the minister will make some positive announcements for Murwillumbah District Hospital.80118011Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in the Main Committee today to talk about Parkinson's Disease. I have spoken on this once before in the committee. It is a disease which afflicts tens of thousands of Australians. One of its principal treatment drugs is a drug called Tasmar, which has been the subject of considerable controversy across Australia in the last 12 months. Specifically, a decision was taken by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, advised by the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee, to ban this drug as of January this year. Unfortunately, there are many Parkinson's sufferers across Australia who had become dependent on this drug, given its enormous impact in restoring to them their quality of life—a quality of life taken from them by a disease which is thoroughly debilitating. It is particularly applied in the case of Parkinsonians who are in the later stages of the disease.The decision to ban this drug was taken as a consequence of the TGA's view of excessive mortality rates from the drug, judged by international experience. They looked particularly at data from the United States where three people had died out of 90,000 users. The view of neurologists across this country is that that represents an acceptable level of risk, given the enormous benefit which this drug represents to the bulk of users of it in terms of the restoration of quality of life.I wrote to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Wooldridge, about this matter recently and asked whether he would look at ways in which we could again open up access to this most useful drug for Parkinson's treatment. The minister kindly made available to me officers of the TGA, with whom I had a useful discussion in Canberra last week. The officers were able to advise me that, in response to my request that the government look at new ways of improving access to this drug, there was a possibility of further refining a special access regime for Tasmar and that guidelines would need to be developed between neurologists, the TGA itself and the manufacturers—in this case, Roche, the company.If these guidelines were to be developed, they said that it could provide access for Parkinsonian sufferers for up to 12 months, based on the recommendation of their treating neurologists. Were we to achieve this, it would represent a significant breakthrough for Parkinson's sufferers across the country. In response to my further question about how long it would take for these guidelines to appear, I was advised that somewhere in the order of two to three months was a likely time frame.My wish and hope is that commonsense prevails in this matter. I have seen an expression of goodwill so far on the part of the officers of the TGA. I hope that we can move towards a practical solution. I hope that we can make this drug available to Parkinson's sufferers across Australia, many thousands of whom are now dependent on it for their quality of life, and I will continue to raise this matter in this place until we have a satisfactory solution.80128012Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—Getting Canberra to listen to the needs of Townsville and Thuringowa is a core role that I have as the federal member for Herbert. I certainly rise to that challenge in many ways. I am pleased to report to the Main Committee that the federal government has recently announced a boost in home and community care funding in Townsville and Thuringowa of more than a quarter of a million dollars in recognition of the pressing care needs that exist in my home city.The big federal government funding injection has paved the way for St Lukes Nursing Service to establish a new home nursing service in Townsville and Thuringowa. It is the second service—the original service being provided by the Blue Nurses in a very competent way—to service the needs of the elderly in my region. The establishment of a new local home nursing service will significantly boost the availability of domiciliary nursing services in Townsville and Thuringowa, an outcome that will be welcomed by all twin city residents and families.The coalition has backed the establishment of a second home nursing care service, with a commitment of just over $100,000 in recurrent ongoing funding and an additional $46,650 in capital funding, enabling the service to purchase the two new vehicles that will allow them to deliver the domiciliary nursing and respite care services. St Lukes Nursing Service has been established for about two years now, and it has given a solid commitment to Townsville concerning the delivery of care and assistance to many of our frail aged and sick residents. It is a commitment that the government is happy to support not only in principle but, more importantly, also financially.The coalition has also increased funding for other local home and community care providers in the Townsville region, and this has been absolutely critical. Without funding for services like community nursing, respite care and home modification programs, many frail older people and people with disabilities would have no choice other than to move into residential nursing home care. People who need nursing care and assistance clearly prefer to stay at home if they can access the assistance they need, rather than enter into nursing or institutional home care. I think all of us, as members, know and understand that.The government's recent announcement has also helped with the Townsville City Council's home modification project, which received a $60,000 funding boost. Palm Island home and community care, Lifeline North Queensland and so on have also received help. These initiatives are very welcome in the electorate, because the HACC program is a key part of the Howard government's commitment to assist both frail older persons and younger persons with disabilities. Those recent funding announcements are great news and go a long way to addressing the home care needs of people in Townsville and Thuringowa.80138013Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—I rise today to raise an aspect of immigration policy. Clearly the question of immigration policy is a complex one, raising, as it does, the need to balance the national interest, the rights and expectations of individuals and the value, that I hope we all hold, of compassion. There is a question as to whether or not we have the balance right in the area of reuniting aged parents with families resident in Australia, technically defined as applications for visas in subclass 103.Numbers have been consistently cut in this area. In 1995-96, 8,900 visas were issued under this category. By 1997-98, that had been slashed to 1,000 visas. It should be noted that in late 1998 the government introduced a new class of parental reunion visa known as subclass 113. Application could be made under this subclass provided additional fees were paid, including fees of $4,000 for a single application, $6,000 for an application in respect of a couple, a medical bond of $5,000, plus an assurance of support compulsory bond of $4,000 per main applicant and $2,000 per additional adult. In total, the cost of sponsoring parents to Australia under this subclass became $17,060 plus air fares.On 31 March of this year the Senate disallowed this regulation on the basis that it believed it was inappropriate that a special subclass be established which could effectively be accessed dependent on capacity to pay. In response to this disallowance, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs further cut the number of parental reunion visas to 500. Given that the current estimate of numbers in the queue is up to 20,000, the mathematics do not really add up when you are necessarily dealing with aged people who quite literally might die waiting in the queue.This is a matter consistently raised with me in my electorate, and it has been specifically raised on behalf of an application for a visa by a Mrs Roghaieh Kouhbor. The constituent who raised it with me is Ms Shahnaz Kouhbor, who seeks to have her aged mother reunite with her family—with Ms Shahnaz Kouhbor and Ms Shahnaz Kouhbor's three brothers and sisters, all of whom are resident in Victoria. Her mother is 72 years old, lives in Iran, is widowed and is a member of the Baha'i Faith, which has had a long history of discrimination in Iran.Consequently, in respect of the discrimination against members of the Baha'i Faith, the United Nations General Assembly Human Rights Committee has passed resolutions every year dealing with matters like unjustified detention, discrimination in educational institutions and the like. In these circumstances, I think there is generally a need for compassion and specifically in this case. (Time expired)80148014Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN3E4MoncrieffLP10—The sheer magnificence of Australia gives us a competitive advantage in the realm of international tourism. In this field Queensland is a leader, and Gold Coast city—within which my electorate of Moncrieff is located—has long been Australia's number one tourist destination.Inbound tourism accounts for 20 per cent of visitors to Queensland, and is expected to double by 2005. It is growing at more than five times the rate of domestic tourism, with the majority of these tourists coming from Asian countries. Despite the boundless development potential this offers, there is also a factor with the potential to severely curtail—and even reverse—the benefits we should expect to enjoy from our efforts to gain our share of growing world tourism. This factor is the subject of my speech today, brief as it must be because of time constraints.In summary, my concern is about opportunistic tour operators and guides who surreptitiously get control of tourists' travel documents thereby limiting their spending to preferred traders who pay secret commissions, and who in turn increase their prices to those tourists to maintain their profit margins. Many Asian tourists choose `package tour' visits. Inbound tour operators assemble packages consisting of travel, accommodation, tours and activities on behalf of—or for sale to—overseas wholesalers. Tour guides provide escort and interpreter services for inbound tour groups, and are the groups trusted companions.The first priority of unscrupulous tour guides—frequently at the behest of tour operators—is to get control of the tourists' passports and other travel documents, using the pretext of safety. Asian groups comply because their tour guide is a fellow national who is familiar with the local system. This misplaced trust particularly exploits Koreans, Taiwanese and—to a lesser extent—Thais and Malaysians. For tax or duty-free purchases, Australian customs regulations mandate a shop to photocopy either customers' visas or photo ID pages, as well as airline tickets showing departure details. Alternatively, a store can make tax or duty-free sales if it holds a passenger list on company letterhead which provides these details.Without their travel documents, tourists are denied the freedom of choosing where to shop. The guides permit them to shop only in those stores which have purchased their passenger lists for either a fixed price per customer, or a percentage of the value of the tourists' purchases. Tour groups are told that other shops—in truth, those not paying commissions to the guides—are selling false or unauthorised merchandise that will be confiscated by Australian Customs on departure. Their access to retail outlets is further controlled by being transported to and from preferred stores.This deplorable behaviour is seriously affecting our tourism resorts and retailers, as well as our image and reputation. These avaricious tour guides and operators are a blight on our tourism industry. They create adverse perceptions—which tourists take back to their home country and relay to other would-be visitors—that Gold Coast city is unsafe, has many dishonest traders, and is very costly. This image is an injustice not only to the Gold Coast but also to Australia, and damages our efforts to promote our country as a desirable international destination. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A the time for members' statements has concluded. The Main Committee will now consider government business.Bills8015r8348015Debate resumed from 2 June, on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly:That the bill be now read a second time.09:58:008015Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—The Australian Sports Commission Amendment Bill 1999 represents complementary legislation to the Australian Sports Drug Agency Bill, which this parliament debated earlier this year and which the opposition of course supported. The Australian Labor Party is proud to have introduced the original legislation in 1990 that resulted in the establishment of the Australian Sports Drug Agency and is very proud to have been the mover of that initiative.The move was a world first. It was the first time an agency as such had been underpinned by government legislation. Labor's goal in establishing the ASDA was to ensure that Australian athletes are able to perform and compete in an environment untainted by banned substances. The use of illegal performance enhancing drugs has serious repercussions, as we have witnessed in both international and domestic sporting competition. When Labor established the ASDA, one of the key aims was to implement it as a deterrent to any athlete who might consider using prohibited substances. To achieve this goal, the ASDA implemented a variety of strategies based on policy advice, education, advocacy and deterrents.In 1996 and 1997, the ASDA performed a record number of anti-doping tests. Its success in preventing the use of illegal substances in sport is such that the ASDA estimates that 99 per cent of athletes have been deterred from participating in banned doping practices since its programs began. In fact, the ASDA has not had a single legal challenge against its testing program. Since Labor created the ASDA, it has proven itself to be worthy of the exceptional international reputation it has gained. The ASDA's stated vision of being the leading drug testing agency in the world is commendable and totally supported by the opposition. So, too, is the ASDA's strategy to make its anti-doping programs available to both elite and non-elite athletes. The role of the ASDA in education and policy advocacy is having a positive influence on young sports participants, who can now compete in the knowledge that every avenue is being pursued in the war against doping in sport.The opposition is committed to seeing the ASDA maintain its enviable reputation, and we will therefore be supporting this legislation as we did the earlier legislation it builds upon. However we do have a few concerns, which I raised in debate on the earlier bill. I do not think I need go over them again. As usual, they go to funding and some of the core principles lying behind the bill that seem to be being dealt with in an administrative rather than a policy way.It is very true to say that sport is an area of public policy that has always enjoyed bipartisan support, and so it should. Our leading sports people in particular are great role models for our children, and Australia has a proud history of performance in both national and international sport. This is a bill worthy of bipartisan support. The Labor opposition is giving that today, and we implore the minister to give sport the highest possible recognition within the ministry. With the year 2000 Olympics coming to Australia in the not too distant future, that is more important than ever.10:02:008016Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I am pleased to rise today and also to follow the member for Hunter, Mr Fitzgibbon. It is interesting to be involved with him in various bipartisan exercises of recent days. Sport is one, tourism is another and being involved in the retail committee is certainly a challenge for both of us.I would also like to congratulate the Minister for Sport and Tourism on her involvement in the development of this particular bill, the Australian Sports Commission Amendment Bill 1999 . Obviously, work has gone on for some time in this general area but it has taken the leadership of the minister to bring together various elements. Her own experience as an elite athlete, as a rower, has obviously shown her first hand the need to keep sport clean within Australia.Having been involved in Sydney's Olympic bid, I am aware that the Olympics in Australia need to have an image that is free of drugs. The Sydney games provide us with the opportunity to turn around some of the perceptions that linger at the moment. I was actually in Atlanta at the time Michelle Smith-de Bruin, the Irish swimmer, managed to collect several gold medals. As has been proven in recent days, she got there purely by cheating. Everyone at the Atlanta Olympics said, `This woman must be cheating.' She improved her times over a period of one year to a level that no-one had ever seen. She was suddenly breaking world records, and people said, `This is not possible.' She did it as a cheat. She cheated other athletes: Janet Evans, the great American swimmer; and some of our own, for instance, Samantha Riley. She cheated out of medals people who had done it the honest way. They were cheated of their opportunity to get the gold and silver medals because of someone's use of drugs. This is what this bill is about: eliminating the cheats in sport so that the Olympics in Sydney can be about being `faster, higher, stronger' without drugs.Certainly this bill is similar to the one that came through the House several weeks ago that involved Customs providing information to the Australian Sports Drug Agency. It is a bit of a pity that the two bills did not come through together.It is very good to see the minister in the chamber and to congratulate her on her leadership in bringing this bill together. Before the last election, she brought out a policy document called A winning advantage which was about trying to eliminate, as best we could, drug cheats from the sporting arena. Minister Kelly's own background in elite sport as a rower has provided leadership within the department.When I spoke to Bill Rowe, who is the director of the National Office of Sport and Recreation Policy, it was clear that work has been going on but that it took the leadership of this minister to bring it to a conclusion, and we appreciate that. It is good to see someone in this portfolio with experience in sport, and it is certainly unique. We have seen that, in other places, the ability to win marginal seats has been important. Minister Kelly has shown the combination of someone who not only wins marginal seats but also has a sporting background, which is somewhat radical. So well done, Minister, and well done to the department and to the people who brought this together.Basically this bill is about the customs department, which previously had this information, sharing that information with the Sports Commission. The last bill dealt with information sharing between Customs and the ASDA. This bill deals with the Sports Commission. There are two parts to it: we want to eliminate drug cheats, but we also do not want to be in a situation where any information the customs department has is provided to everyone at will—spread around or in the media—so that people are suddenly exposed in headlines on account of information given. I am sure no-one wants that. By all means let us catch the drug cheats, but let us also protect people's privacy.We have in this bill the requirement that only the executive director of the Sports Commission has the information on an issue and that any other group provided with that information, such as the heads of the various sporting organisations, must provide written agreement that they will release it to no-one else. By all means take action, but I think it is most important that we protect people's privacy.We have discussed the aspect of privacy; another aspect is how it is going to work. The customs department has a list of prohibited substances, so that when products—illicit drugs, whether they be for recreational purposes or for re-sale—are brought into the country, Customs can apprehend them. Of course, there are some recreational drugs that are not on the list of sports prohibited drugs because they are not seen as impacting in a positive way on the performance of athletes. Cannabis and cocaine are certainly two that are on the Sports Commission prohibited list. There are 140 substances on this list. They are not one and the same. There are also some drugs that are sport specific. If you are a weight-lifter, the types of drugs that will enhance your performance are quite different from the drugs that will be performance enhancing to a shooter. A shooter may need relaxants to go out there and shoot accurately. So a shooter has a different requirement from a weight-lifter. That does not mean that you allow one athlete to bring a drug in and provide it to an athlete in another code.What happens is that Customs receive this information and they apprehend someone, when it is observed that the person is bringing in illicit drugs. They take action on one level. The information is then provided to the Executive Director of the Sports Commission where it is reviewed; they look at whether the drug is on their prohibited list. The executive director himself looks at it and if it is on the prohibited list, they advise the appropriate sporting association of what has happened. It is up to that sporting group to implement anti-doping policies, so they undertake the test program, et cetera.I think this is fantastic. It is important and it has been a long time coming. I said to Bill Rowe beforehand, `Why has it taken until 1999 to get this bill through?' His advice was that it had been thought about for some time. The impetus of having the Olympics coming to Australia, the fact that there has been a whole lot of exposure of drug cheats over recent times and the arrival of the minister to take the leadership in this area have been important; the commitment was made before the election.This legislation is worth while. It is a significant step forward. We are not only protecting the individual's privacy—and that is important—but also identifying through Customs where there has been apprehension about the use of performance enhancing drugs. We have then been passing that information on to the appropriate agency.Also, there is the vice versa effect. If there is a strong rumour that an individual is taking a particular drug, sporting groups and particular associations pass this information on to Customs so that they are alerted. When that individual then goes through Customs they can check whether they are bringing in drugs.Some might think this is a little hard. I personally do not. It is about being fair. Sport is not only about `higher, faster, stronger' but also about fairness—and this goes right to the heart of it. In the administration of the sports portfolio, you can have no higher priority in entering the new millennium than that of catching drug cheats. Well done to the minister. Congratulations to the government. I commend the bill to the House.Also, congratulations to the people who work in the Department of Sport and Tourism and in the Sports Commission. I thank them for their cooperation and for bringing the whole process together so that we can have the bill in this form. We look forward to an era which is going to do much to eliminate drug cheating in Australian sport.10:13:008018Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—in reply—It is great to have heard the contributions from the member for Hunter and the member for Cook. The member for Cook has ably summed up the intent and will of the Australian Sports Commission Amendment Bill 1999 . In summing up, I will just briefly allude to the fact that these amendments are to enhance the overall effectiveness of Australia's anti-doping regime and to help us stay at the forefront of the international fight against the use of banned drugs in sport.The bill will facilitate the exchange of very necessary information—as the member for Cook mentioned—between two key Australian agencies and that is improving the whole of government effort to rid sport of drug cheats. The provisions in this bill, in concert with provisions in the Australian Sports Drug Agency Amendment Act 1999, will allow Customs to pass certain drugs related information to the Australian Sports Drug Agency.These amendments have been developed in close consultation with, and agreed to by, the Attorney-General's Department and the Privacy Commission to ensure the rights to privacy are protected and maintained, as the member for Cook mentioned. I join with the member for Cook in thanking my department and the ASC for their contribution to this bill. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Adjournment801810000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The Main Committee having completed all matters referred to it, I propose the question:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.801810:15:008018Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—One aspect of the budget that I have been very disappointed in is the RONI funding that has gone to South Australia. You would think that there were nine Labor members in South Australia and only three Liberal, instead of the other way around, in terms of the influence that those members have on this government for infrastructure spending in South Australia.About 12 months ago I mentioned in the House, with great disappointment, the lack of money and encouragement for infrastructure spending in South Australia. In particular, I referred to the Gillman highway and the third river crossing in my electorate of Port Adelaide. When you examine the RONI funding throughout Australia, you cannot help feeling very cynical. I know that there are many safe Liberal seats—and I have heard members say it with great disappointment—where there is no funding whatsoever. There were some safe Labor seats—nothing. When you look at marginal seats and the RONI funding, whether you look at Queensland, New South Wales or Victoria, you see Liberal marginal seats—not National Party seats, but Liberal. That is a great disappointment. The one exception for the National Party was probably Hinkler, with the road funding going around the city of Gladstone.South Australia, like Tasmania, needs particular attention to encouraging its economy. The Port of Adelaide is the most efficient port in Australia. It is continuing to be the most efficient port but it lacks part of the jigsaw puzzle. When Labor was in, we duplicated the Port Wakefield highway, we built the South Road connector, we built the Salisbury interchange bridge, and, as in a jigsaw puzzle, all the bits started to come together to build what I would think is one of the best transport hubs in the world.Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you have been to Antwerp or Amsterdam, which are probably two of the greatest ports in the world. We are talking about a third river crossing: there must be 50 or 60 in Antwerp. We cannot build one in South Australia—not one. It is a great disappointment because it would give South Australia, in terms of niche importing and exporting, a real boost in the sense of increased traffic into an efficient port; it would give a rail link, with direct access to all cities in Australia and to the Northern Territory. Yet, for the second time running, in this budget we have not been able to gain any funding whatsoever.I have to say that the Liberal Minister for Transport in South Australia, Di Laidlaw, has tried to encourage the building of the third river crossing and to get money for that. I give her credit for that. It just seems a great pity that this is a government that fails to recognise the national interest or a way of dealing with the national interest other than by short-term political opportunism and the pork-barrelling of seats. I heard Mr Anthony speak earlier about a form of thinking—referring to the Newcastle-Wollongong-Sydney-Canberra triangle—which excludes anyone outside of that. How do you think South Australians, Western Australians, Northern Territorians and Tasmanians feel? We have, basically, a feeling that when it comes to any infrastructure matter outside of Brisbane-Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne there is no consideration given whatsoever. I think it is a great disappointment to the people of South Australia, in that they have nine Liberal members out of 12. One of them, the member for Sturt, must be very disappointed because Port Rush Road, a major arterial road in his electorate, is now going to be part of the route for semi-trailers, semi-B-doubles and goodness knows what else. His constituents will be very alarmed that this is going to be the major transport route from the eastern states to the Port of Adelaide, right through the middle of his electorate.What are the other eight members doing? What influence do they play in the preliminary discussions on budget in terms of infrastructure spending in South Australia? I suspect very little indeed. This is a grave disappointment. I hope Di Laidlaw and the Premier of South Australia—perhaps along with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rann—can get the government to reconsider substantive funding for South Australia.In my closing moments, I would like to acknowledge a good friend of mine, Mr Ralph Clarke, a member of the state parliament of South Australia, who is here today. I welcome him to the Main Committee.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The chair also welcomes Mr Clarke.802010:20:008020Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise today to speak on the issue of air deregulation. This has been considered recently by the cabinet; policy announcements were made just two weeks ago. I commend the government for their decisions in this area. The decisions that they made will do much to assist the development of tourism and aviation within the country.As you may recall, the basic tenets of the policy decision were that foreign airlines would not be allowed to operate domestically within Australia, but there would be greater deregulation of air services coming into Australia. Obviously, when the Minister for Transport and Regional Services announced that a greater deregulation of services would be allowed, encouraging foreign airlines to come into the airports, it was a great fillip to some airports such as Adelaide, Darwin and Cairns.According to the advice from Qantas, in the electorate of Cook we have more airline employees than any other electorate in Australia. There are two grounds on which I wish to speak today: firstly, to represent the people of my electorate; and, secondly, in terms of my own interest in the area of tourism.It is true to say that Qantas and Ansett are both very fine airlines with excellent management and leadership. I believe the changes that have been made at Ansett—they have a new managing director—have shifted them in a direction that will make them a competitive force not only domestically but also internationally. James Strong, who has been heading Qantas for some years, has provided the type of leadership which not only achieves excellent shareholding returns for individual shareholders but also provides a strong competitive position internationally. This will allow a number of international airlines which previously had been unable to travel to Australia to come into those ports. They may prefer to go directly to Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, which has some 67 per cent of all international flights; nevertheless, it allows them to come into Australia and obviously provides link-ons through domestic services.The debate has been raging for some time about whether we should have a full open skies policy. One side of the debate says to the world, `Look, you can fly to Australia. We won't worry about whether we've got rights to your country. Just come here because we think it is so important for international tourism.' And there are many people in the tourism industry who would say, `Yes, let's do that.'On the other side of the debate, if we open up our skies to international carriers, it is also important that it should be on a reciprocal basis so that the same thing would apply to our national carriers, with assistance provided to open up traffic rights to both Qantas and Ansett into other ports. To deny that would be clearly wrong. I think it is appropriate to open up our skies on a more limited basis than was originally proposed.There is no doubt that Adelaide needs a stimulus in terms of international travel. It has only four per cent of the international market at this point in time. Cairns has experienced a downturn because of the slowdown of international visitors from Korea and Japan. And, of course, Darwin and the Top End experienced some downturns because of the reduction in flights into Darwin by Qantas, especially directly from Singapore. There are more flights that overfly it.In conclusion, it should be borne in mind in the domestic discussions that go on that basically there is no country in the world that allows foreign airlines to fly in their country domestically. So if we open it up we would find Air Botswana and Air Zimbabwe creaming off the market. I believe it is appropriate the government took this decision. I commend them for it.802110:25:008021McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I stand here today to protest at this government's destruction by stealth of the social security safety net. I understand better than most people the role the social security safety net plays in people's lives. For the last 25 years I have worked in the community and welfare sector, assisting people who were struggling to find their feet when affected by accident, illness or other unexpected circumstance. At these times, people need to call on the social security safety net, a safety net that Labor governments worked to ensure was relevant, responsive and comprehensive. People are now battling a system which is renowned for being complex and unforgiving. It is getting worse.I would like to take some time to highlight some of the cuts which are affecting people in my electorate now, and others which will shortly impact on their lives. There are the staff cuts affecting efficiency. The government's economic rationalist knife will cut 5,000 staff positions from Centrelink over a three-year period; 2,400 staff positions alone were lost last year. What does this mean for people and for staff of Centrelink? It means long waits and mistakes with processing benefits and taking on subsequent information. It means sometimes two to three weeks to get an appointment for an interview to be assessed for a Centrelink benefit.There are other problems with the system. Several instances in Western Australia in the last couple of weeks bear this out. A special telephone service for the hearing impaired was launched. There are long waits to get through. I and my staff tried the line to see what the wait time was. It was quite lengthy, as it has been with the other teleservice information lines or service lines. As my colleague in the other chamber Chris Evans found out, it was almost impossible to get through on the help lines. In fact, Senator Evans revealed that during 1998 the majority of calls to help lines went unanswered. Somewhere in the vicinity of 81 per cent of callers did not get through. There were simply not enough staff to take the calls. Since then, further `efficiency cuts' have been forced on the organisation in the name of bringing in a balanced budget. But at what cost, I ask the Treasurer? What are these efficiency cuts?The government have given themselves an efficiency dividend for being efficient. This means that all government departments and programs get a one per cent funding cut. In Centrelink's case, they get a 10 per cent funding cut, which means $1 billion less for income support programs, staff and administrative budgets for running their services. People are always impressed at the thought of government cutting budgets and staff, but they become very disillusioned when they experience and they understand that these cuts affect their income support, their Centrelink services and their lives.I am sick of investigating complaints from my constituents to be told in many instances by Centrelink that the file shows, apparently, that Centrelink did do all the right things. There is never an explanation for the mail that goes astray, the letter that arrives two weeks after the date it was written and the phone call to notify change of circumstances that is not recorded on the file. In some of these cases, the client literally pays the penalty of resultant mistakes by having an overpayment raised against them. These are the stories I hear every day. And don't just take it from me. That reliable paper of record, the West Australian, ran a story in its page 2 `Inside cover' segment on little stories which are usually too silly or too awful to be true. It told of an emeritus professor who took papers, including his passport, to his Centrelink office. He got the papers back but not the passport. That turned up five weeks later in a phone box in Fremantle.That one published story led to a flood of calls to the paper—so much so that they printed another story about the array of problems that people had reported, and then effectively begged people to stop calling them with their Centrelink stories. So just for a week, the West Australian got a taste of what it is like to be a federal MP. They are the lucky ones, though. They get to tell the story and walk away. We are the ones left to try to deal with the results. Finally, just in case you thought there might be a happy ending to my speech, let me sound a note of caution about some of the announcements made in the recent budget. Not content with announcing cuts which will see a further 872 staff cut from the agency, the government has also slashed the amount which people can give their families from $10,000 to $5,000 a year—a situation which will impact on people's cultural and family values and which is to be deplored. (Time expired)802210:30:008022May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—Today, I would like to inform the chamber of the success of an important unit within my electorate which provides a positive force for youth. The 133 Regional Cadet Unit Gold Coast, run under the Australian Services Cadet Scheme, provides structured training to encourage the development of practical life skills, teamwork and leadership qualities in youth. I commend the band of active volunteers who have supported the group since it was raised in 1992 and who are providing tremendous opportunities for young people on the Gold Coast.The vision for the 133 Regional Cadet Unit Gold Coast was conceptualised by the principal of Palm Beach-Currumbin State High School, Mr Bill Bondfield, and Major Bob Jordan, who leads the unit. Mr Bondfield provided the unit with a secure home base and has supported the growth of the unit in numerous other ways over the years. Today, 127 cadets, both young men and women, participate in the unit, which has expanded to incorporate a second cadet group training at Southport.Participants in the program come from all over the Gold Coast, with many travelling some distance to attend training once a week. It is admirable that, after a school day, these cadets spend further time in the classroom, learning about the defence forces and skills in planning, leadership and teamwork. Cadets take part in several bivouacs each year, which teaches them a tremendous amount about self-discipline and hard work.Involvement in the cadet training unit provides a link between school and the military forces. While during my school days it was relatively easy to enter the forces, today it is much more difficult. There are stringent entry guidelines. Involvement in a cadet training unit provides young people with invaluable life skills, self-discipline, teamwork, leadership and decision making—skills which assist greatly in later life, regardless of what career path they choose. Participating in such a unit can open doors and provide a springboard for entry into the military, a business or politics, for that matter.To people such as Major Jordan and Captain Sylvia McMillen, who give up hundreds of hours of their time freely each year, I say: you are doing a wonderful job in shaping the youth of today into the leaders of tomorrow. Unfortunately, all too frequently in our local media, young people are portrayed in a negative way. Schemes such as this dispel the myth that young people do not contribute in a positive way to the community. Teamwork is a cooperative effort by the members of a team to achieve a common goal. The key words in this definition are `cooperative effort'. Without the support of the entire group, no team can survive. It is indeed admirable that many of the volunteers who now assist with training have been cadets in past years and return to advise younger students.By providing a hands-on focus as well as theoretical training, cadets are developing some valuable skills for the future. In fact, it was a goal of those who formed the group to have senior members lead the unit under supervision when out in the field to instil leadership qualities in the senior members of the training unit. I am pleased to know that of the 127 cadets in this training unit, one-third are women. I passionately believe that it is important that women are represented in all areas of life.There are 388 units existing under the Australian Services Cadet Scheme. Such units provide young people with a solid foundation for the future. I commend this program and the government's further support in ensuring that these programs continue, to the benefit of our youth of tomorrow.802310:35:008023Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—Right at the moment here in parliament we are witnessing a very serious double blow to workers in Australia. First of all, they are going to cop the hit of the GST and then when they are down on the mat, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, is preparing to sink the boot in with his second wave of industrial relations changes. We can only wonder, as the minister makes his speech, when the dogs and thugs in balaclavas will be on their way in.As he extols the virtues of his second wave of industrial relations reforms, I am sure to much applause from the multinationals and big business around Australia, I would ask when he is going to clean up the mess of the first wave that we saw in 1996. The first wave has left workers sacked in my electorate and families without breadwinners and without security.If you look first at the mining industry, which is very important to the electorate of Capricornia, we have seen increased insecurity in the work force and the kind of intimidation and culture of union bashing that the minister is encouraging over and over in his statements to the parliament and in his legislation. This has led to the increased use of contractors in the mines and the redundancy and retrenchment, often under very unfair circumstances, of long-term and experienced miners. This has led to an increase in the number of accidents in our mines. You may be aware of some very serious accidents such as the young bloke at Oakey Creek who lost both his legs in a mining accident. It has also led to enormous insecurity in the towns and this is impacting very seriously on the families, the businesses and the services such as schools and hospitals in the towns.The meatworkers in my town of Rockhampton are not looking forward to this second wave because they have already seen the same kind of culture of intimidation and this obsession not with productivity but with the new benchmark. The new game in town for both the mining industry and the meat industry in my electorate is not how much productivity we are achieving at the workplace, but how many union members we have got rid of and how many we can keep getting rid of by intimidating them and making their lives at work impossible. That sort of game playing is not about productivity; it is about an ideological obsession.That is the general view, but in particular, I want to talk about what is happening at two mines, Gordonstone and Blair Athol, both of which are owned by Rio Tinto and are Peter Reith's—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The honourable member should refer to the minister by his correct title.83ALivermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE—the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business's henchmen in this obsession with union busting. I was out at the picket line at Gordonstone on Saturday last weekend and was very pleased to see that the sacked miners who are fighting for their jobs back were in very good spirits because the effect of the Federal Court ruling last Friday was basically to say, `Yes, you're in the right and justice is on your side, but unfortunately the law is not on your side because, due to a technicality in the law, the Federal Court was not able to overturn the decision of the Full Bench of the Industrial Relations Commission.' Even though from the comments of the judges in the case, it was very clear where they saw justice lie.The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is down there saying all these wonderful things; he can write all the laws he likes and actually bring on all the dogs and thugs he likes, but he will not be able to destroy the Aussie notion of a fair go.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—Oh, come on!Government members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order!83ALivermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE—Dogs and thugs, mate, they are on the tape. Now is the chance for Rio Tinto, the employer in this case, to show its commitment to the workers' families and residents of central Queensland by coming to the party in the face of the Federal Court's decision on Friday. Look past the technicality and look at what both Commissioner Hodder said in his first decision and what the Federal Court has said. It was wrong to sack a work force of 312 workers for no reason other than that they were union members. It was wrong for the company to set up an agreement with a non-union work force before the mine was even operating and it is wrong to continue to keep these workers out of the jobs that they are rightfully entitled to, as the unfair dismissal case established last year. It is wrong for the region of central Queensland to have to suffer loss of jobs and loss of services as a result of this ideological obsession by these companies supported by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business.802410:40:008024Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—Australians are accustomed to their sporting heroes receiving recognition for achievement, particularly when competing in the international arena. We have ticker tape parades, receptions and the presentation of Australian team blazers—a level of recognition that is richly deserved. Last Monday, for example, parliament welcomed home the Hockeyroos and the victorious Australian cricket team, resplendent in their team blazers.Last Friday I was delighted to be involved in a team blazer presentation of a vastly different kind. This week 19 young Australians are heading overseas to represent Australia in the International Science Olympiads, sponsored by Rio Tinto. Like our sporting heroes, these young Australians will bring great credit to our country, but in the field of science.I am very pleased to say that of the 19 young science students selected as members of the 1999 Rio Tinto Australian Science Olympiad team from around the country, five students were selected from schools within my electorate of Curtin. I believe that is a first. The five students are Andrew Mackinlay of Scotch College, Anthony Phillips and Peter McNamara of Hale School, and David Solomon and James Andrewartha of Christ Church Grammar. Together with the other members of the squad of 19, they arguably represent the nation's best and brightest secondary students in science.The Rio Tinto Australian Science Olympiad, supported by the federal government, conducts the Australian biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics Olympiad programs which create and provide high quality programs for senior high school students with a keen interest and ability in science. It selects and trains the students from that program to represent Australia at the annual international biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics Olympiads. I congratulate Rio Tinto on its far-sighted commitment and vision for this country.This year the competitions will be held in Sweden, Thailand, Romania and Italy over a period of about a week commencing 4 July. Competitors undertake up to eight hours of examinations in a single day, with some exams being as long as five hours. At each Olympiad there are both theoretical and practical examinations testing the knowledge of the competitors in all aspects of the relevant disciplines.In 1997-98, all Australian science Olympiad team members returned to Australia with a medal or an award representing Australia's best ever performance. I am confident that our team of 19, including the five from the Curtin electorate in Western Australia, will achieve great results. These Olympiads serve several very important roles, including the provision of high quality educational opportunities and the encouragement of the nation's top science students to further their interest and skill and reward them for such. They also promote science and technology to the broader community in a positive manner.There is no doubt that science, scientists and researchers will have significant roles to play in the future of our country in ways just not imagined or contemplated during this century. Scientists can contribute to a broader understanding and greater respect among the community for advances in science and technology, so that controversial issues which will face us in the future, such as the challenges in genetic engineering and biotechnology and the like, can be dealt with in an objective and responsible way.Australia owes much to its scientists. Without advances in science and technology, our economy would suffer through inefficient manufacturing, agricultural and industrial techniques. Without scientific innovation, our agricultural sector and the Australian resources industry would suffer. This industry, which is so important to the Australian as well as the Western Australian economy, is constantly having to refine and devise better techniques to extract ores, refine them and present them for use in the world market. Scientists here have cutting edge ability in that regard.The nation's health would suffer. We have among our health and medical researchers some of the finest scientists in the world. The next generation of scientists and researchers will be making enormous advances in health and medical research, which will promote the cause of preventive medicines and allow for cheaper and better medical treatment and techniques.As the science Olympiads evidence, scientific knowledge transcends national boundaries. Scientific knowledge speaks a universal language. It is non-partisan and is the possession not of a single nation, nor of a single ideology, but of an entire global community.I remarked to the five students to whom I presented the team blazers last Friday at the University of Western Australia that perhaps among this group of young science students will be the Nobel Prize winners of the future. I wish the Australian team all the best. I am sure they have the full support and congratulations of the nation in their participation in the 1999 International Science Olympiad. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allowed for debate has expired. The committee stands adjourned until a day and hour to be fixed by the Deputy Speaker.Main Committee adjourned at 10.45 a.m.Answers to Questions in Writing8027The following answers to questions were circulated:8027(Question No. 181)1818027McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) What processes were established to ensure that organisations tendering for round 13 of Home and Community Care (HACC) funding had consulted with other HACC and similar providers.(2) How do tenderers demonstrate that they have consulted other providers.(3) What checks does the Department of Family and Community Services make to ensure the requirement has been met.(4) Is the Commonwealth reducing HACC funding to New South Wales by $3 million in 1 998-99.(5) Is the Commonwealth insisting HACC client user-pay levels be raised to 20 per cent of the total program budget; is so, how will the client fee be collected from dementia sufferers.8027Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Background—Questions 1 to 3In New South Wales, to which "Round 13" applies, the Home and Community Care Program is administered by the Ageing and Disability Department of the New South Wales Government.(1) The New South Wales Ageing and Disability Department has indicated that it ran a series of industry briefing sessions for organisations interested in tendering for HACC growth funds in Round 13. There were 16 sessions, one for each of the 16 HACC regions, and a further 7 Aboriginal specific sessions.Organisations tendering for HACC growth funds in Round 13 were required in their application form to indicate how their service cooperated and coordinated with other HACC and HACC-like funded services. Knowledge of the HACC and HACC-like service system was also required.(2) Individual providers are required to demonstrate in their tender submissions how they have coordinated with the rest of the community service system. (3) Applications are considered by a number of panels each consisting of three members with representation from the Ageing and Disability Department, the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care and an independent member drawn from the service provider sector to encourage objectivity and diversity in the selection process Selection panel members meet to discuss the selection process. In Round 14, benchmarks against which the quality of the applications can be measured were agreed In this way all panels apply consistent values when considering applications.(4) The Commonwealth has not reduced the level of HACC funding provided for New South Wales in the 1998-99 Budget by $3 million. Indeed Commonwealth HACC funding for New South Wales in 1998-99 has increased by $5.7 million to a total of $155.9 million, representing 60% of HACC funding for New South Wales(5) The Commonwealth has allocated funding in the expectation that revenue to HACC funded services amounting to 20% of governments' funding would be achieved by the end of the year 1999-2000. Any changes to fees policy and their implementation are matters for the States and Territories.8027(Question No. 414)4148027Wilkie, Kim, MPMr Wilkie84GSwanALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 15 February 1999:(1) Have the daily subsidies paid to aged care providers to cover the cost of providing care to residents been increased since the introduction of the Resident Classification Scale (RCS); if so, (a) what increases have been made and (b) what percentage of the initial subsidy under the RCS do the increases represent.(2) Have the increases referred to in part (1) been provided uniformly across States and RCS levels; if not, what increases have been made in respect of each State and RCS level.(3) What was the cumulative percentage increase in (a) the CPI, (b) average weekly earnings and (c) nursing salaries in each State public hospital system since the introduction of the RCS. (4) What is the difference between nursing wage rates in the acute and aged care sectors in each State.(5) Has she received representations from the private nursing home industry in Western Australia about the increases in subsidies paid to providers; if so, (a) what was the basis of the representations and (b) will the Government change existing funding levels for providers in Western Australia or the overall funding mechanism following the representations.(6) Does the funding mechanism for aged care providers recognise increased costs incurred by providers in order to comply with (a) Commonwealth and State legislative changes and (b) arbitrated decisions of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in terminating a bargaining period and making an order under section 170MX of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.(7) Is it a fact that residential aged care providers are finding it increasingly difficult to attract and retain qualified nursing staff because of a lack of Commonwealth funding and the difference between wage rates in the acute and aged care sectors.(8) Is it a fact that aged care providers are not being provided sufficient resources to enable them to achieve accreditation; if not, why not.8028Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) When Labor left office they were spending $2.5 billion on residential care. In the 1999/2000 budget this Government is spending $3.5 billion. This is an increase of $1 billion or 42%.(3) The coalesced indexation increases expressed as a percentage are set out in the schedule below. Such increases are those made on 1 July 1998.A further increase will of course be made in accordance with the Aged Care Act 1997 on 1 July 1999.(b) NSWPercentage IncreaseRCS 11.9%RCS 21.9%RCS 32.0%RCS 42.3%RCS 53.0%RCS 63.3%RCS 73.9%RCS 80.0%VicPercentage IncreaseRCS 11.8%RCS 21.8%RCS 31.9%RCS 42.2%RCS 53.0%RCS 63.3%RCS 73.9%RCS 80.0%QldPercentage IncreaseRCS 12.3%RCS 22.3%RCS 32.5%RCS 42.8%RCS 53.0%RCS 63.3%RCS 73.9% RCS 80.0%WAPercentage IncreaseRCS 12.0%RCS 22.0%RCS 32.1%RCS 42.4%RCS 53.0%RCS 63.3%RCS 73.9%RCS 80.0%SAPercentage IncreaseRCS 12.0%RCS 22.1%RCS 32.2%RCS 42.4%RCS 53.0%RCS 63.3%RCS 73.9%RCS 80.0%TasPercentage IncreaseRCS 11.7%RCS 21.8%RCS 31.8%RCS 42.1%RCS 53.0%RCS 63.3%RCS 73.9%RCS 80.0%ACTPercentage IncreaseRCS 12.0%RCS 22.0%RCS 32.1%RCS 42.3%RCS 53.0%RCS 63.3%RCS 73.9%RCS 80.0%NTPercentage IncreaseRCS 11.8% RCS 21.9%RCS 32.0%RCS 42.2%RCS 53.0%RCS 63.3%RCS 73.9%RCS 80.0%(2) Low level care subsidies are paid on a uniform national rate. High level care subsidies are paid in accordance with the tables set out above.The coalescence adjustment was 2% of the difference between the relevant State rate and the national average. This has meant that some States have been indexed faster and some States have been indexed slower but all states received indexation increases in accordance with coalescence.(3) The CPI and average weekly earnings are available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the CPI is catalogue number 6401.0 and average weekly earnings is catalogue 6301.0. In the 1995 Budget, new wage cost indexation arrangements for Commonwealth Own Purpose Outlays (COPO) and Specific Purpose Payments to the States were introduced. These arrangements are known as COPO indexation and apply to programs with substantial wage costs. The residential care subsidies are indexed under this arrangement and therefore the Department of Health and Aged Care no longer maintains information on nursing salaries in the States.(4) See (3).(5) I receive representations on various aged care issues on a regular basis. The Productivity Commission report on Nursing Home Subsidies tabled in Parliament on 31 March 1999 investigated the issue of subsidy levels in each State and agreed with the Government's policy of moving to a single national subsidy for high level (nursing home) care. The Government is undertaking a series of consultations with industry and other stakeholders before a whole of government response is made.(6) The system of cost reimbursement that applied under the previous nursing home arrangements has ceased. The rates for residential care subsidies are indexed on 1 July each year to reflect increases in the underlying rate of inflation and to provide funding for Safety Net Decisions made by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. These arrangements date to a decision made by the Labor Government in the 1995-96 Budget and apply to all Government programs with significant wage costs.(7) See (1).Federal Government funding for residential aged care has been increased by this Government by 42%. The subsidy paid for residential care since the Coalition came to office has risen from $2.5 billion to $3.5 billion. Increases have been made to ensure individuals in need of residential care receive quality care in accordance with the Aged Care Principles.(8) Residential Aged Care Facilities are being provided with a substantially increased income stream for capital expenditure from accommodation charges plus increased recurrent funding through the RCS and supplements such as the Concessional Resident Supplement. The Government also made available $28m to assist with industry restructuring.For example, the graph below shows the increased capital stream provided for nursing homes by this government.8031(Question No. 609)6098031Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 12 May 1999:(1) Did he refer in a speech on 20 April 1999 to the Area Consultative Committees Chairs National Forum to an employer organisation which is acting with the Office of the Employment Advocate (OEA) to develop a series of seminars and build a template Australian Workplace Agreement; if so, to which employer organisation did he refer.(2) What sum has the OEA spent on the exercise to the date of answering this question.(3) Will the OEA provide funds for a series of seminars to be conducted in rural and regional New South Wales in conjunction with the OEA; if so, what sum.8031Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) In the speech delivered at the Area Consultative Committees Chairs National Forum, the industry organisation to which reference was made was the "Registered Clubs Association of NSW". The OEA has in conjunction with the association, conducted a number of seminars in Sydney and NSW regional centres. The OEA and the association have also developed two publications that promote the benefits of Australian Workplace Agreements in the club industry.The OEA continues to work with a number of industry organisations in developing a range of strategies aimed at informing their respective members of the opportunities available through AWAs.(2) To date, the OEA has participated in the delivery of seven (7) information sessions with the "Registered Clubs Association of NSW". In addition, it has been party to the development of two publications—"A guide to Australian Workplace Agreements for Registered Clubs" and "Why have employees chosen Australian Workplace Agreements?".A number of OEA officers have been involved in this exercise—some assisting in the delivery of information sessions, others in preparing the publications.Costs associated with salary and travel incurred by OEA staff relating to the information sessions and the development of the two publications amount to approximately $6,500.To date, $8,065 has been spent by the OEA in producing the publications. These costs relate to design, artwork and printing.In total, an amount of approximately $14,565 has been spent on this exercise.(3) The OEA has been conducting seminars in regional and rural New South Wales for some time now either independently, in conjunction with the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business or with industry associations such as the "Registered Clubs Association of NSW".The OEA has not committed to providing funds additional to salary and travel costs for the delivery of seminars conducted in conjunction with any other organisations, nor have any formal requests to do so been made by any such organisations to date.8032(Question No. 622)6228032Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 31 May 1999:(1) What is the Government's official position on the issue of third world debt highlighted by groups like the Jubilee 2000 Coalition International.(2) Are third world countries in debt to Australia; if so, in each case, (a) which country is indebted, (b) what sum is involved, (c) when was the debt incurred and (d) on what terms was it incurred.(3) Will the Government consider cancelling debts of third world countries; if not, why not; if so, which debts.8032Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Government acknowledges the good intentions behind the campaign by the Jubilee 2000 Coalition. The devastating effects on very poor countries of unmanageable debt are well known. The Government does not support the call by Jubilee 2000 for cancellation of debt, free of conditions by creditors. A key part of the solution to the debt problem—and, indeed, to achieving long term sustainable growth—is the pursuit of sound economic and social policies. Debt write-off has the potential to shield governments from their responsibilities to pursue sound policies, and to send confusing signals to those poor countries managing their economies (and debts) well and in a sustainable fashion. It is important therefore that debt relief is provided in a way which supports the pursuit of sound policies and good governance—especially if the accumulation of unsustainable debts in the future is to be avoided.Australia has supported strongly the World Bank-IMF Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative both financially and by encouraging the World Bank and IMF to continue progress on its effective implementation. The Initiative aims to reduce the debt of the world's poorest countries to sustainable levels, subject to the pursuit of sound economic and social policies. The Government believes that it is the most credible way to provide sustainable debt relief because it seeks to achieve a lasting solution to the debt problem.Unlike previous mechanisms, the HIPC Initiative deals with debt in a comprehensive way by involving all creditors, including multilateral development institutions.The Initiative has so far committed US$6.1 billion in nominal debt service relief.In June 1998 the Treasurer, the Hon Peter Costello MP, announced Australia's contribution of A$30.5 million.Australia also supports the comprehensive review of the Initiative being undertaken by the World Bank and IMF with significant input from governments, civil society and international organisations. At the April meetings of the Bank and IMF, Ministers reiterated the importance of ensuring a clear link between debt relief and sustainable development and poverty reduction, and endorsed the examination of options to provide broader, deeper and faster debt relief. Ministers also supported the continuing link between debt relief and sound economic and social policies and good governance to ensure that debt relief is not wasted. The review's conclusions and recommendations are expected to be considered at the 1999 Bank and IMF annual meetings in September.(2) (a) (b) (c) (d) Debt owed by developing countries to Australia (as at 31 March 1999), the date debts were first incurred and terms are described in the table below. Only four of these countries, Ethiopia, Laos, Nicaragua and Vietnam, are Heavily Indebted Poor Countries. This does not include non-government guaranteed private debt.CountryA$ MillionsDate IncurredFacility1TypeBangladesh24.81989Medium-Term (M-T) loanConcessionalBhutan0.91992M-T loanConcessionalBotswana0.11990M-T loanConcessionalChina655.61989M-T loanMixedCook Is1.21991M-T loanConcessionalCuba9.71984M-T loanCommercialEgypt351.91989-90InsuranceCommercialEthiopia14.01991M-T loanConcessionalIndia159.01989M-T loanConcessionalIndonesia1404.21987M-T loanMixedIraq610.01989-90InsuranceCommercialLaos0.61993M-T loanCommercialMalaysia16.41993M-T loanConcessionalNepal11.61992M-T loanConcessionalNicaragua5.51993M-T loanCommercialPapua New Guinea19.31990M-T loanMixedPhilippines152.81988M-T loanConcessionalRussia549.61990-91InsuranceCommercialSolomon Is9.61992M-T loanConcessionalSouth Africa2.81996M-T loanCommercialSri Lanka55.81989M-T loanMixedThailand29.51990M-T loanConcessionalVietnam62.01990M-T loanCommercialTotal4,146.61 Debt owed by Russia, Egypt and Iraq arises as a result of defaults on repayments insured by EFIC. In each case, EFIC ha payed out an insurance claim (for example, in the case of Egypt, to the Australian Wheat Board) and has assumed responsibility for pursuing the debt.(3) Australia does not support the cancellation of debts as called for by Jubilee 2000. Australia does, however, strongly support the negotiation of debt rescheduling and, in some cases, write-downs on government-to-government debts within established multilateral frameworks such as the Paris Club and the HIPC Initiative. Australia encourages debt relief to be undertaken within these frameworks. The HIPC Initiative particularly deals with debt in a comprehensive way by involving all creditors, including multilateral development institutions.8033(Question No. 630)6308033Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources upon notice, on 31 May 1999:Has the Commonwealth provided financial support to Pacific Dunlop since 1989; if so, (a) what sum and (b) for what purpose.8033Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Commonwealth financial support to Pacific Dunlop through the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, since 1989, is detailed in the following table.Type of financial supportPurpose$ AmountGeneric Technology Scheme GrantReverse Rubber Composites Project701,275National Teaching Company Scheme GrantDevelopment of small diameter arterial prothesis45,000Generic Technologies Scheme GrantDevelopment of bioceramics with controlled pore size154,787Generic Technologies Scheme GrantImproved polymetric materials for medical implants747,537Generic Technologies Scheme GrantCeramic capacitors for high energy-density applications514,500Generic Technologies Scheme GrantMolecular design of bioactive surfaces649,650Generic Technologies Scheme GrantTools for constructing verified software995,459Generic Technologies Scheme GrantDevelop applications for Australian sensing technology in the area of deterring substances and drugs511,531National Procurement Development Scheme GrantSuppression of tinnitus with electrical stimulation460,645National Teaching Company Scheme GrantA new electrical material for neural stimulus54,000Graduate Based Project GrantImproved musical perception for cochlear implant patients44,125Textiles, Clothing and Footware PlanIncentives for international Competitiveness9,691,000Textiles, Clothing and Footware PlanCapitalisation Grants7,418,000Textiles, Clothing and Footware PlanNational Industry Extension Service213,000Textiles, Clothing and Footware 200 Development PackageQuality Business Improvement/Supply Development53,000Textiles, Clothing and Footware 200 Development PackageBest Practice378,000Duty ConcessionsImport Credit Scheme23,110,000Duty ConcessionsOverseas Assembly Provisions39,551,000Passenger Motor Vehicle ProgramExport Facilitation Scheme/15% Duty Free Allowance20,438,8808034(Question No. 637)6378034Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 31 May 1999:(1) What is the filing fee for an unfair dismissal application in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC).(2) Is the AIRC collecting a filing fee for unfair dismissal applications; if not, (a) on what date did it cease collecting the fee and (b) what total sum was collected in filing fees for unfair dismissal claims between 16 February 1999 and the date the fee ceased to be collected. 8034Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) $50.(2) Yes.8034(Question No. 675)6758034Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Sport and Tourism upon notice, on 1 June 1999:(1) Has the Minister or a department or agency administered by the Minister provided grants to the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) or bodies related to the NFF since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) in each case, (i) what was the nature of the grant and (ii) for what purpose was it provided and (b) what total sum was provided.(2) To what boards, committees or other bodies for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility have (a) Mr Donald McGauchie (b) Dr Wendy Craik or (c) other officers or staff of the NFF been appointed since 2 March 1996.(3) What sums has the Commonwealth paid in (a) sitting fees, (b) board fees, (c) travel costs and (d) related expenses with respect to each appointment referred to in part (2).Miss Jackie Kelly —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) None.(3) None.8035(Question No. 680)6808035Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 2 June 1999:(1) Who conducted the pilot study, referred to in his Department's discussion paper entitled "The hidden workforce: Illegal workers in Australia and those that would join them", which led to Centrelink finding a small number of a sample group, whose visitor visas had expired, drawing social welfare payments.(2) How many persons were included in the sample group.(3) How many of the sample group were found to be drawing social welfare payments.(4) What total sum in welfare payments had the persons referred to in part (3) obtained fraudulently.(5) Does the Crime Act provide penalties for employers employing persons without work rights; if so, (a) what is the nature of the penalties and (b) when were the penalties last reviewed.(6) Is he able to say what civil and criminal penalties may be imposed on employers in the USA who knowingly recruit persons without work rights and continue to employ them.(7) Is the possession of a tax file number satisfactory evidence of the right to work in Australia; if not, why not.(8) How often is an employer required to notify the Australian Taxation Office of the tax file numbers of new employees.(9) Is the requirement referred to in part (8) adequate to prevent unscrupulous employers and illegal workers being detected. (10) Has his Department considered removing the right of Australian relatives to sponsor migration or visits from overseas if the relatives have previously sponsored persons who failed to depart Australia lawfully.Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Some of the questions asked by the Honourable Member touch upon matters that are the responsibility of the Australian Taxation Office and Centrelink. The following answers draw upon information provided by those two authorities.(1) The study to which the Honourable Member refers was jointly conducted by the then Department of Social Security (DSS) and my department in 1996-97. The study involved matching overstayers data, which is generated by the movement records kept by my department, against records held by DSS.(2) The data match identified 555 persons who were both recorded as overstayers and in receipt of social security benefits. Subsequent checks carried out by my department revealed that most of the persons identified by the data match had either been granted visas or were eligible for visas, or were Australian citizens, New Zealand citizens or permanent residents.(3) Fourteen cases were selected for further investigation. Seven of these cases were found to have social security overpayments. Of these, four persons, two married couples, were prosecuted by the DSS and convicted for social security fraud.(4) The overpayment totalled $189,000.(5) Prosecution of employers who knowingly employ people with no work rights is possible under section 5 of the Crimes Act. That section stipulates that it is an offence to aid, abet, procure or be directly or indirectly concerned with commission of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth.(a) The penalty for offences concerning unauthorised employment is prescribed in section 235 of the Migration Act, which imposes a maximum penalty of $10,000. By way of operation of the Crimes Act, this penalty can also apply to employers convicted of an offence under section 5 of that Act for employing non-citizens with no work rights.(b) Section 5 of the Crimes Act was amended in 1926, 1960 and 1987.(6) Since 1986, it has been illegal in the USA for employers to knowingly employ, or continue to employ, unauthorised aliens. The penalties prescribed by USA legislation range from fines between US$250 and US$10,000, to criminal penalties. The latter are applicable to repeat offenders. Further fines from US$100 to US$1000 can be imposed for not abiding by processing require ments, depending on whether it is a first or subsequent offence.(7) The possession of a tax file number does not necessarily indicate that the owner has the right to work in Australia. The entitlement to work is determined by the citizenship or immigration status of the individual. As a general rule, only Australian and New Zealand citizens and permanent residents have an automatic right to work in Australia. All other foreign nationals are not authorised to work unless they have a visa that allows employment. A foreign national on a temporary visa in Australia may require a tax file number to meet an Australian taxation obligation, such as lodging a return to reveal rental income from an investment property, but may not be authorised to engage in employment.The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is assisting my department in ensuring that non resident foreign citizens comply with conditions of their visas by requiring them to show evidence of permission to work when they apply for a tax file number for employment purposes.A foreign national to whom a tax file number has been issued must show an employer a current visa showing permission to work. Work authorised on a visa may be limited to a particular employer or for a limited period. These details are not shown on the tax file number record. As a result a person may have a tax file number, but this does not indicate that he/she has unlimited or unrestricted access to the labour market. Foreign citizens who have been issued tax file numbers and who, at the expiry of their visas, remain unlawfully in Australia have no right to employment, but they still have a tax file number. It is essential, therefore, that visa details are checked to ensure work rights.(8) Under current legislation, employers are required to notify ATO of the TFN of an employee:(a) within 28 days from the time the employee provides the completed employment declaration(b) at the end of each financial year in the form of a copy of the employee's group certificate.(9) The primary function of the employment declaration is to provide information that will enable employers to calculate the appropriate rate of tax to be withheld from the employee's salary or wages, not to deter illegal workers or to identify unscrupulous employers. The declaration form enables the ATO to monitor compliance with the TFN legislation and to assist Centrelink to verify the statements regarding employment made by benefit recipients.The data captured by the ATO from employment declarations is currently utilised for the data-matching program that has been operating between my department and the Australian Taxation Office since 1994. Under this program the list of foreign citizens unlawfully in Australia is matched against taxation records to identify and locate unlawful non-citizens from their employment records.(10) There is no sponsorship requirement for visitors and consequently no mechanism to prevent Australian citizens or permanent residents from sponsoring visitors from overseas. Foreign citizens who apply overseas for visitor visas are assessed on their own merits against visitor visa regulations. Letters supporting visit applications from Australian citizens or permanent residents are sometimes received and considered along with other information on the individual cases.The External Reference group currently working on the Review of Illegal Workers in Australia, of which the Honourable Member is aware from my answer to a previous question, will examine, among other things, the issue of whether it would be feasible or practical to introduce a bond system for visitors considered `a high risk'.The migration regulations for the current sponsored migrant visa classes do not contain a clause precluding further sponsorships by persons who may have previously sponsored someone who had been unlawfully in Australia. Sponsored migrant visa applicants on arrival become permanent residents of Australia. The issue of overstaying the validity of a visa and remaining in Australia unlawfully for this category of people does not arise.8036(Question No. 683)6838036McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for the Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 June 1999:(1) Which states have signed the Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted in Rome on 17 July 1998.(2) When and where did each state sign the Statute.(3) Which signatory states have ratified, accepted or approved the Statute.(4) When did each state deposit its instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval.(5) Which states have acceded to the Statute.(6) When did each state deposit its instrument of accession.8036Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1)—(6) The information sought is made publicly available by the United Nations Secretariat, New York, on its website at <http://www.un.org/Depts/ Treaty> 8037(Question No. 687)6878037Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June 1999:(1) Has the Australian Government taken steps to (a) prevent the Indonesian military arming para militias in East Timor and (b) disarm para military groups in East Timor; if so, what steps.(2) Is he satisfied that the undertakings on disarming militia given by the Indonesians at the recent Bali meeting are being honoured; if not, why not.8037Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Australian Government has repeatedly registered its concern with the Indonesian Government about the security situation in East Timor, including at Head of Government level, most notably during the Prime Minister's meeting with President Habibie in Bali in April. Since the paramilitary groups emerged as a prominent feature of the security environment in East Timor in early 1999, Australian officials have made over 50 representations to Indonesian Government representatives in Jakarta and East Timor, ranging from the Chief of the Armed Forces and the Foreign Minister to local government officials and military commanders in the field. Our representations have routinely included references the matter of the Indonesian Government's support for paramilitary groups, the need to rein in paramilitaries, and the need for disarmament.(2) At the Bali Summit, the Indonesian Government did not make specific undertakings on the matter of disarming militia. President Habibie did announce publicly that Indonesia was prepared to commit itself to the agreements then under negotiation in New York. These agreements include in the Agreement Regarding Security a paragraph that states ". . . (the Commission on Peace and Stability), in cooperation with the United Nations, will elaborate a code of conduct, by which all parties should abide, for a period prior to and following the consultation, ensure the laying down of arms and take the necessary steps to achieve disarmament". It is disappointing to note that so far the Commission on Peace and Stability has had difficulty becoming fully operational, and has not made progress on the question of disarmament. We are further concerned that not enough has been done by the Indonesian Government to address the question of disarmament, and that the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) has not been playing the neutral role called for by the 5 May agreement. 8037(Question No. 718)7188037Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 8 June 1999:(1) Has his attention been drawn to recent allegations in Senate Estimates hearings concerning the deportation of an eight and a half month pregnant woman to China; if so, is he able to say what (a) are her whereabouts and (b) is her condition.(2) Has the woman had contact with officers of his Department since her deportation; and if so, (a) what was the nature of the contact, (b) when did the contact occur and (c) are there letters, notes, memoranda or other correspondence concerning the contact; if so, will he provide copies of the correspondence; and if he will not, why not.(3) Has he or his Department had contact with the relevant officials of the People's Republic of China concerning the matter before and since the deportation; if so, (a) what was the nature of the contact, (b) when did the contact occur and (c) are there letters, notes, memoranda or other correspondence concerning the contact; if so, will he provide copies of the correspondence; if he will not, why not.(4) Did the Government undertake to protect and preserve the woman's physical safety before she was deported; if so, what measures has his department taken to fulfil the undertaking.(5) Was the woman sedated at or about the time she was deported; if so (a) by whom, (b) with what medication, (c) what dose was administered, (d) did officers of his department forcibly restrain her to enable sedation to be administered; if so, who were they and (e) will he take steps to prevent a recurrence; if so, what steps.8037Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1)—(5) I am aware of the allegations concerning the woman, which are the subject of an independent Inquiry which I announced on 10 May 1999. This Inquiry is being undertaken by Mr Tony Ayers AC, a distinguished former public servant. Under the Inquiry's terms of reference, Mr Ayers will "examine, assess, and make findings and recommendations as appropriate, on all processes and procedures of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) relating to (the woman's) case;". The allegations will also be examined by the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee inquiry into Australia's refugee and humanitarian program. I understand that the woman in question has returned to Beihai where she has relatives, and that she and her small daughter are in good health. However, it would not be appropriate for me to pre-empt the findings of either inquiry by responding on other matters raised.