1999-08-123914REPS857901999-08-12Mr SPEAKER took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous857985798579Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The following message from the Senate has been received:The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following resolution which was agreed to by the Senate on 10 August 1999:That the Senate calls on the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Senator Macdonald) to declare that the Geelong Road linking Melbourne and Geelong be treated, by reason of its national importance, either as a national highway or as a road of national importance for the purposes of funding under the Australian Land Transport Development Act 1998.The Senate requests the concurrence of the House in this resolution.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Mr Speaker—10000Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Corio.XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—Mr Speaker—10000Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I beg your pardon. The member for Corio was first on his feet, but I don't have anything to deal with so I must call the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation.Motion (by Mr McGauran) put:That the consideration of the message be made an order for the next day of sitting.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Mr Speaker, I wish to move an amendment.XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—Too late. We have voted.10000Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am sorry. The motion has been put.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Division required.10000Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is a division required? Ring the bells.A division having been called and the bells being rung—WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Mr Speaker—10000Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Member for Corio, we are in the process of a division. I am happy to hear the member for Corio at the conclusion of the division.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Call it off.10000Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks has indicated that there is no need to proceed with the division. The division is, therefore, called off.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills8579r7798579Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Mr Ruddock:That the bill be now read a second time.09:34:008579Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I was hoping to continue my contribution, which I started before question time, to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 yesterday afternoon. Instead we were forced to debate the preamble legislation, the bill which gave our nation a preamble to the Constitution for the next 100 years and which was rammed through this chamber between question time and the adjournment debate yesterday. But, as I said yesterday, I am pleased to finally have the opportunity to speak against this amendment bill. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock, said in his second reading speech that the bill corrects an error previously made when the Elliott stockyards and dip were included in schedule 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. It may well have been an error, but this piece of legislation sends a very wrong and very unnecessary message to the Australian electorate and, in particular, to our indigenous communities.In essence, as detailed by our shadow minister, this bill allows the Commonwealth government to take back land which was granted to the Gurungu Land Trust in 1994. Right at this moment the traditional owners hold legal title to the Elliott stockyards land. The shadow minister in the debate yesterday outlined the history associated with this land, and there is no need for me to repeat that. The government claims that the land grant was a mistake, an error. However, the traditional landowners initially resisted all moves to take this land off them. There has been considerable negotiation since then between the affected parties, the major stakeholders, including the Gurungu people, the Commonwealth, the Northern Territory government, the Northern Land Council and the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association.Possible remedies already exist for what many stakeholders see as an untenable and unsustainable situation. It is not necessary at all for the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and his government to compulsorily acquire this land. That is what this amendment bill seeks to do. What this Commonwealth government is doing for the first time since land rights were granted in the Northern Territory is to take them back. It is an appalling situation and it sickens me to the stomach, as it does my colleagues.In 1967, in a revolt against Aboriginal stockmen's appalling wages and conditions, Aboriginal workers challenged the giant British pastoral company Vestey's and walked off Vestey's Wave Hill station. This defiant action was, in effect, the beginning of their struggle for the return of tribal lands, nearly 180 years since indigenous Australians were forced from their traditional lands with the white invasion of 1788. The Labor Party, in our proud tradition of supporting downtrodden and exploited workers, supported the Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. After assuming the prime ministership in 1972, Gough Whitlam pursued justice for our indigenous people, and in 1975 Gough Whitlam formally handed over the land at Wattie Creek to the Gurindji people. One of the most memorable pieces of media footage, as I think will be agreed by all members of this House, was broadcast on that August day when Gough Whitlam picked up the dirt of the land of the Gurindji people and in a symbolic gesture poured it into the hands of Vincent Lingiari.This initial restoration of land to Aboriginal people was the impetus for what we now know as reconciliation. Gough Whitlam's government was sacked in that travesty of 1975 before the land rights legislation he foreshadowed could be passed through the parliament. Fortunately, though, for the cause of reconciliation, Malcolm Fraser and his Aboriginal affairs minister, Ian Viner, introduced the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Minister Viner at that time articulated his belief, his idealism and his commitment to Aboriginal land rights during his speech to the parliament in June 1976 introducing the land rights bill. Minister Viner said:This bill will give traditional Aborigines inalienable freehold title to land on reserves in the Northern Territory and provide the machinery for them to obtain title to traditional land outside reserves. The Coalition parties' policy on aboriginal affairs clearly acknowledges that affinity with the land is fundamental to aborigines' sense of identity—Between the implementation of the land rights act and until the early 1990s we witnessed many momentous steps to further advance the reconciliation process. These events include the introduction of the racial discrimination legislation, the establishment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and many Aboriginal land councils across the nation, and also the introduction of the Native Title Act in 1993 which had its foundations born out of the historic High Court Mabo decision on native title.The Native Title Act introduced by the Keating government set our nation right on track to enable us to rectify the dispossession of all Aboriginal people from their lands all those years ago. Yet another example of this government choosing to weaken, attack and destroy the process of consultation and informed consent, rather than committing to constructive courses and strengthening policy, was the successful passage of the 1997 Native Title Amendment Bill.It really is a tragedy as we head into the new millennium and progress further towards reconciliation that we now have a coalition government which is trying to take back the land. This bill is not the only debate occurring about land rights in this country. The inclusion of the Elliott stockyards and dip in the initial Gurungu land claim was subject to a review commissioned by this government into the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.The Reeves review was completed in 1998 and, since 10 December last year, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has been conducting an inquiry into the recommendations which came from that review. Ian Viner and Malcolm Fraser have recently damned the recommendations of the Reeves report and have said that Reeves is `turning Aboriginal land rights on its head'. I am pleased to be a member of that committee. As the chair of the committee indicated yesterday, we will be presenting our report to the parliament during this spring session.The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill, as well as being subject to the Reeves report and to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Affairs inquiry, has also been subject to an inquiry by the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee which is due to report to parliament today. It is beyond all comprehension why this government has pursued the passage of this bill before either of these committees report to the parliament. Why bother commissioning these inquiries? It must be a farce, the government mouthing platitudes. The member for Indi before me spoke about scarce resources. Well, why not wait for these reports to be presented to the parliament? If the parliament does not wait, it ensures the waste of the resources which have been allocated to conduct the inquiries.I came into this parliament last year with a passion to further assist the ideals of reconciliation and to redress the appalling inequality and imbalances which still exist in our communities between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. So I was most honoured and quite humbled to be elected to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. However, I immediately realised that I did not know half of the culture, the traditions, the law, the sense of community, the sincerity, the friendliness, the pride and the passion of the Aboriginal communities and the integral role that the land plays in Aboriginal culture and spirituality.I was, and still am, largely on a steep, enjoyable and humbling learning curve, but I am well guided and ably educated by my colleagues, our shadow minister the member for Banks and the member for the Northern Territory. Daryl Melham and Warren Snowdon have lived with these issues and have worked with them and brought a wealth of knowledge and experience to our inquiry.The reason I am speaking about this current inquiry is to highlight the passion and also the fear that is out there in remote communities over their land rights. I travelled to Central Australia with the rest of the committee and to many remote communities. The most memorable for me was visiting Daguragu and Kalkarindji to speak with and listen to the traditional owners.Our meeting at Kalkarindji was with traditional owners from various communities, many of whom had travelled hundreds of miles to be there. One of the speakers at that meeting was Jeannie Jungarri Herbert from Lajamanu. She and other members of her community travelled from the edge of the Tanami Desert. She said to our committee:We do not want our rights taken away. You people do not understand the Dreamings and all that but it is really important to us. We care from the heart.Aboriginal people do not change the laws, but we in parliament do, as governments change from one political persuasion to another. This was reiterated and re-emphasised time and time again, meeting after meeting, discussion after discussion. At Kalkarindji, Jampijinpa of the Warlpiri people said to us:Aboriginal people do not change the law. We would never ever change the law until the world ends. Every Aboriginal person in the Northern Territory, whatever tribe they are, we do not change the law. Interpretation is made by lingo, but law and order, Dreaming—the things we do—are the same in the Territory or in Australia.He also said:I have been a spokesman since the land rights began 30 years ago. I walked up from the Wave Hill station. I feel unhappy about the way the Government is trying to change our lives. Why is the Government trying to take our rights away? We fought for our rights and now the Government is trying to take our rights for the second time. Following the meeting at Kalkarindji, Jeannie and other women took me—the only female member of that committee at that meeting—to Daguragu, to the site where, 24 years earlier, Gough Whitlam had handed over that dirt and poured it into Vincent Lingiari's hands. It was one of the most moving and emotional days of my life. While we were at Daguragu, the women—the traditional owners of the various lands around Kalkarindji and Daguragu—performed a women's ceremony for me which portrayed the land and their identity with the land, their affinity with the land and the effect that the land plays on their lives, their spirituality and their whole being. These beads, which Jeannie gave to me, were given as a gift from one group of women to another. They symbolise the trust which Aboriginal women have placed in me while we deliberate on their futures in this white parliament.In every community we visited, we heard the same strong, passionate, emotional plea: `Do not take our land away!' What we are asking in this parliament is to use the process of consultation and informed consent. If we are going to change the laws affecting Aboriginal people, then they must have a say. To finish, I reiterate that everywhere we went they said, `Do not take our land away!'09:48:008582Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 , introduced into the House on 30 March this year, amends the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 to (1) invalidate that part of the land grant made to the Gurungu Land Trust in 1991 which related to about 3.8 hectares known as the Elliott stockyards and dip; (2) with regard to those stockyards, oust the Lands Acquisition Act 1989 and provide for compensation only where the acquisition is found to be unconstitutional by the Federal Court; and (3) add three new circumstances in which a traditional land claim will have been taken to be finally disposed of.The background is that the passage of the land rights act immediately transferred to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory some 258,000 square kilometres of government reserve land set aside for Aboriginal people. It also established a mechanism by which traditional lands could be transferred to land trusts which would hold the title to the land in the interest of the traditional `owners'. Claims are heard before an Aboriginal Land Commissioner who passes on his recommendations to the federal Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, whereupon the minister decides to accept or reject the recommendation.In 1991, a small area known as the Elliott stockyards was mistakenly included in a grant of the Elliott locality during the rewriting of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) (Land Description) Regulations. In 1989, when the locality had been granted to the Gurungu Land Trust as part of a broad agreement between the then Labor government and the government of the Northern Territory over secure title to land for Aboriginal people in pastoral areas of the territory, the Elliott stockyards had been explicitly excluded. However, the area, consisting of public trucking yards and a public dip facility, was mistakenly included during the 1991 changes.The recent Reeves report, which reviewed the act in question, highlighted this obvious mistake and suggested its immediate remedy. However, the Northern Land Council has protested that the remedying of this mistake would, unless certain environmental health and social problems are addressed, amount to the acquisition of property—the 3.8 hectares in question. Although some questions have been raised about the acquisition under this legislation, it is clear that this matter is simply an administrative error—an unintended consequence—that is now being remedied. The attempt to extort other compensation in these circumstances, outside of that which might be found by the Federal Court, does not reflect well on the advocates of that action.Concerning new circumstances in which a land claim will finally be disposed of, this legislation addresses a number of deficiencies experienced with the present act so as to make the act and its operations fairer for all the people of the Northern Territory. The amendments will allow for the disposal of claims in the following circumstances: where the Land Commissioner is unable to determine that there are Aboriginal people who are traditional owners of the land, for at present, where the commissioner cannot make a determination, the claim remains on the books and only a positive finding that there are no such owners can resolve the matter finally; where claims were made after 5 June 1997, for when the 10-year sunset clause was introduced in 1987 it clearly prevented the commissioner from considering claims made after this date, and the fact that claimants can still lodge claims that will never be considered not only is a nuisance to all those involved in the process but threatens to make a mockery of the law—again this matter will be resolved by these amendments—and where claims are made over stock routes or stock reserves and the land commissioner had not commenced a hearing by 1 March 1990, for there was never any intention for the act to apply to stock routes or reserves. However, the confusion created by the deficiencies of the amendments proclaimed in 1990 means that there is still, to this day, doubt about the status of these vital economic lifelines. In fact, in 1995 the previous federal government agreed with the Northern Territory government that these changes should be made in exchange for the expediting of grants of community living areas to Aboriginal people.There has been considerable discussion in recent years about reconciliation. I am one of those who believe that the sooner we actually do it rather than talk about it the better off we will all be. Something like 50 per cent of the Northern Territory is owned by Aboriginal people. For most Australians, particularly those in the Northern Territory, the issue around land rights has well and truly been fought and won and, if not resolved, it is certainly accepted as part of the law of the Commonwealth and the general community. Therefore, the real issue for the future is to do with Aboriginal people and their general wellbeing. I challenge Aboriginal people, as Noel Pearson has in recent months, to think in terms of the damage that welfare is doing. While noting the damage done certainly by past policies, however well-meaning or however destructive they may have been, I think the real issue of reconciliation is to do with moving Aboriginal people forward in terms of employment, health, education and all of those things that I think most Australians would regard as basic rights and tenets of being an Australian citizen.I therefore believe that, in terms of the Aboriginal land rights, rather than focus on these legal issues which have absorbed an enormous amount of resource and time and effort—and that includes, I may say, native title—it is much more important that we should be thinking much more as a nation and as a parliament about how we actually address the practical issues of the Aboriginal people. With the preamble statement yesterday which the Prime Minister was able to very skilfully bring to this parliament, I believe we will see Aboriginal people acknowledged in a practical way and in a very real way for the first time in our preamble to our Constitution. I will keep stressing that reconciliation is not something that you talk about; reconciliation is something that you actually do. Reconciliation is something that has suffered as a word because of being taken in vain to cover a whole range of sins. So let's just do it. As a well-known marketing campaign says: let's just do it.With regard to the wellbeing of Aboriginal people in the health area, just yesterday in the popular press the very difficult circumstances which face Aboriginal people by way of health were well documented once more. If I can focus particularly on health for a minute, these things can only be resolved by a real ownership by Aboriginal people, which is very important, and by a partnership between the Commonwealth and states and community to make sure that we get the most effective programs to get ownership and improvement in health outcomes. But also they must be financed by resources which can come only from a modern, almost 21st century economy. So, while respecting the traditional owner principle, I think the real challenge in land rights is that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot on the one hand say that we have a land ownership system which gives the economic benefits that most people want, including I think most Aboriginal people, at the same time as we restrict economic development. We must all, in the spirit of reconciliation, work to try to do the best for an economic outcome so that we can give the social outcomes.I want to pay tribute to the Northern Territory government, which I believe is much maligned in this area. Australians must recognise that it is all very well to criticise those who have to administer and have to actually do it when the population of their particular territory is, say, 25 per cent Aboriginal. If you come from Sydney or Melbourne—or the `leafy suburbs' as they are so well described from time to time—these issues do not present at your doorstep. It is very important that we acknowledge the effort of those people in the regions, of those states and territories who actually have to deal with these very difficult issues, and that we do not sound too self-righteous in this place, because most Australians do not actually have to deal with the issue in a hand-to-hand practical way that actually delivers a solution.I make the appeal in this place that, in all of the rhetoric and discussion around land rights, we recognise that we do need partnerships, we do need to work together, we do need to have frameworks and proper Public Service and accountability processes which will deliver the outcomes, and that we do not sit in various camps and throw stones at one another. I, for one, put on the record the genuine efforts that have been made by the territories and the states, and particularly by those people in the regions who have to endure the results of policies from this place and this Commonwealth which have had good intent but from time to time have not delivered the outcomes in the most effective way. Certainly, most of the constituents of this place do not have to live with and do not have to experience the practical outcome of what the policies sometimes mean. With those few words, I wish this legislation speedy passage. As to the process of reconciliation, it is time that we just did it.09:59:008584Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—It is my pleasure to speak in this debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 , although I have to disagree with the member for Grey and the previous government speakers, including the member for Indi, over their statements in relation to the politics of land rights. I will come to that in a moment.Our position on this piece of legislation is that it should be opposed for the very good reason that it is simply unnecessary. It is effectively using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In the case of the Elliott stockyards, it has been made very clear that Aboriginal people have no problem with the land remaining as stockyards, and they have no problem with the land being surrendered. They recognise that, although the land may have been made available to them by an error, nevertheless it has been made available to them and, for that purpose, it is now Aboriginal land.The government, effectively, is seeking to compulsorily acquire Aboriginal land which has been validly granted under the Northern Territory Land Rights Act, although we might say in error. This is the first occasion that I am aware of that there has been an attempt by the federal government to override the property rights of indigenous Australians and to compulsorily acquire their land. It is simply unnecessary. It has been done without any consultation with the Northern Land Council—which have a statutory responsibility to administer Aboriginal land in the northern part of the Northern Territory and are responsible to the traditional owners of that land—or with the traditional owners themselves. There has been no consultation with them by the federal government.This is something which has come out of the blue because of the incapacity of the Northern Territory government to come to terms with its responsibilities. This is where I differ markedly from the member for Grey and the member for Indi, who in various ways said that it was time to move on, that really we should be acknowledging that land rights are a reality, that the politics of it should be overlooked and that we should be looking positively towards partnerships. With that I can only agree. The problem is that to have a partnership you need willing partners, and the difficulty in the Northern Territory's case is that, historically, the Northern Territory government has not been a willing partner.The Northern Land Council, on behalf of the traditional owners of the Elliott stock yards, have offered to cede this block of land on the proviso that arrangements are put in place which focus on health, safety and cultural concerns. This is a substantial act of good faith by the indigenous owners of this block of land. I ask the Northern Territory government: why is it that you have failed to respond to initiatives from the Northern Land Council, on behalf of the traditional owners, that were put to you as far back as 1995?There is no question in my mind—and, if you accept the evidence which was given to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, there is no question at all—that there is a solution available which does not require legislation from this parliament to compulsorily acquire a block of land, with all that that entails. Indeed, Justice Olney, who is the Land Commissioner, proposed a resolution to the issue. If my memory serves me correctly, he suggested that one way of dealing with this issue without any compulsory acquisition was for a long-term lease to be granted for the stockyards—an eminently sensible proposition.What is also acknowledged in the evidence given to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee is that the stockyards have continued to be used as stockyards—they have not been taken out of use. So I ask the government: what are you doing here? Why have you been moved to use this very heavy sledgehammer to acquire land that you might regard as having been given erroneously, but nevertheless to require a compulsory acquisition of someone's property rights? I do not think it is good public policy to overcome an error made by someone—I am told, the surveyors—carrying out their official functions as servants of this act in such a manner. After the land had been granted legitimately, despite the error and having recognised that the Aboriginal people who are owners of that country are prepared to cede it by agreement, why the hell do you need to compulsorily acquire it? There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for this piece of legislation in that regard.I say to the government: if your rhetoric about reconciliation and partnerships has any validity, now comes the test. Instead of backing your mates in the Northern Territory government, sit down and talk to those traditional owners about an agreement, which they have offered to do. The Northern Territory government, however, has not been prepared to sit at the table. In fact, evidence was given by one of the Northern Territory government officials that they put this proposition to the Northern Territory government, and the Northern Territory government ministers failed to respond. In that instance, I do not believe that the federal government, as the custodian of the land rights act in the context of land which has now been ceded to Aboriginal people, is acting at all responsibly by seeking to use this sledgehammer, as I have discussed.You have to wonder why it is that, if a group of people are prepared to sit down and negotiate a deal which would give a satisfactory outcome—bearing in mind that use has been guaranteed for those people who have traditionally used the stockyards—we have adopted this course. It is because, unfortunately, the Northern Territory government does not share at least the rhetorical vision of some members of the government. They have not traditionally shared this idea of a partnership.I note that the member for Indi is in this House and I am pleased he is here. Understanding the complex relationship that exists between Aboriginal people and the Northern Territory government and the rest of the Australian community is important, but you need also to be aware of the historical facts and understand that, ever since this land rights act was initially passed through this federal parliament, the battle lines have been drawn. From almost day one, the Northern Territory government has continued to attack and undermine the rights of indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory in relation to this land rights act, and has sought at every moment to diminish them and take away their rights.I was present when Ayers Rock, Uluru, was handed over to indigenous Australians. The Governor-General in a magnificent ceremony transferred the title to the traditional owners and Yami Lester, on behalf of the traditional owners, effectively said, `Look, here it is; we're not going to take it away anywhere.' At the same time, a plane flew overhead tailing a great sign which said, `Ayers Rock for all Australians' or words to that effect. Do you know who promoted that? It was the Northern Territory Chief Minister. He refused to attend the ceremony. And that has happened time and time again.We sit in this House and we hear the rhetorical cries from the government that somehow or another Aboriginal people have to come to terms with the fact that they have to deal with this government—warts and all—and accept the malevolent way that they have been dealt with over so many years, and do it without umbrage. Those members of the government need to very seriously contemplate why Aboriginal people should accept the bona fides of such a government. I say to you: on almost every occasion they have shown their preparedness to.We have recently gone through a debate here about environmental legislation which impacts upon the land rights act. You would recall that Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park and Kakadu National Park have boards of management. At the same time as Uluru was transferred to traditional ownership, the Northern Territory government refused a seat on the board. Now they want a right to sit on the board legislated. They want to be imposed on Aboriginal people. They rejected an offer by Aboriginal people and they have come to this parliament to have their right imposed. What does that say to you about the bona fides of this government?I have lived and worked in the Northern Territory for many years. I have lived and worked with indigenous Australians for many years, and I am scandalised by the unremitting attacks upon individuals and organisations by the CLP government in the Northern Territory and by its members in this federal parliament. I say to the member for Indi and the member for Grey: I accept your interest. I can see you are sincere about your desire to bring about some meaningful reconciliation of interests, but you must understand that there is heavy baggage, and that baggage weighs on the minds of people when they think about the way in which the Northern Territory government deals with them.We had recently—I will make just passing reference to this, but it is important—a court case in the Northern Territory, where I was named, over unfair dismissal. The plaintiff exercised his legitimate right to sue for unfair dismissal. Ultimately, he was successful. It is now under appeal. In the course of evidence a number of things were claimed by that person. Yesterday in the Senate a conservative member of the government did what they have traditionally done. He attacked, smeared and slipped right into the gutter to personalise this particular issue. He made outrageous claims about individuals. It does not worry me in the slightest what he says about me—it is water off a duck's back—but I am very concerned about the absolute abuse of privilege that has been a consistent hallmark of Senator Tambling's representation of the Northern Territory.I can recall the days when Charlie Perkins was demonised by this man. All sorts of nefarious claims were made. Yesterday he went another step. Yesterday he made claims about one of my staff and Mick Dodson. Mick Dodson is a fine Australian; a great Australian. I have to say to that senator that Mick Dodson is someone whose integrity cannot be impugned by him or any judge. Tony Haritos is another fine Australian. He is an honest hard worker, someone with a great deal of integrity. He has far more integrity than this man who masquerades as a representative of the Northern Territory community—someone who has been told to move on by his own party.Would you be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the CLP had a conference in Alice Springs? The retiring Deputy Chief Minister, Barry Coulter, who is no longer a member of parliament, suggested that Grant Tambling had passed his use-by date. He has passed his use-by date, and he continues to use his parliamentary privilege to abuse privilege, denigrate individuals, distort facts and try to smear. The member for Indi said in this chamber that we should take the politics out of land rights. I tell you, comrade, I am happy to. I have never used this House or my position as a federal member to denigrate an individual—never—and I refuse to do so, but I will argue the policy. Yesterday in the federal parliament we saw the unsightly ramifications of what happens when someone loosely uses their position to abuse privilege and attack individuals and organisations. Let me just repeat a couple of things he said.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—No, don't repeat them; they are not worth repeating.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—No. He has challenged the efficacy, the legitimacy and the legality of administrative actions of the Northern Land Council in the distribution of moneys under their act. He used very emotive and descriptive terms about this distribution. What he failed to do was check with the Australian National Audit Office. I have a copy of the National Audit Office report in front of me. This is the basis of this man's asinine attack yesterday. I will read one sentence from paragraph 7.87, page 48 of the Australian National Audit Office report:In advice received by ATSIC on the 10th of December 1992, the Attorney-General's department, the NLC's actions were confirmed as being within the provisions of the act.I do not think we should contemplate the sort of asinine behaviour which is coming from the senator. Frankly, I dismiss it, but I use it as an illustration. We have the member for Grey honestly and sincerely talking about partnerships. We have the member for Indi talking about saving the millions of dollars that have been spent on litigation. I agree with him, but go and look at the records—go and find out who sued whom; go and find out who are the winners in those legal cases. I can tell you. Of the 30 or 40 times it went to the full court of the High Court of Australia, almost invariably—90 to 95 per cent—those cases were taken by the Northern Territory government and they lost. Why were they doing it? They were trying to undermine the legitimate rights that Aboriginal people have been accorded under this land rights act.When the government members come into this place and talk about the importance of partnerships, understand the current baggage, the current attacks. My friend, look at the public record of the head of the Liberal Party—the now President of the Liberal Party. I will send you copies of his speeches. If you want to see someone who has no understanding of or belief in reconciliation or partnership, he is one. He, like his other redneck colleagues continually attack individuals on the basis of their colour. I do not think it is acceptable, and I am sure you do not. But now this person has been elected President of the Australian Liberal Party.To me the issues are very clear. There are processes by which we can deal with errors such as have been identified, which are the cause of the legislation before us today. But the best and most appropriate way to deal with them, as I am sure the member for Indi agrees, is by sitting down and negotiating—not using litigation, not abusing the power of government to take people to court, not using the power and privilege of parliament to attack and denigrate individuals, but by sitting down and working out solutions which all people can agree with. That is the model I am after, and I am sure that the negotiations for the partnership which is being talked about by the member for Indi and the member for Grey should take place. I accept that it should not be about self-righteousness; it should be about the reality of bringing people to terms with one another. They do not require the interference of this sort of legislation by the federal parliament. For that reason I oppose it.10:19:008587Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—This Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 disgusts me. When will governments ever learn? When will this government ever learn? Here we are in 1999 still trying to do over Aboriginal Australians. Today we are not offering them beads for land; instead, we legislate to take it from them. Yesterday the government pushed a preamble through this parliament. It was a preamble that they failed to discuss with our indigenous Australians—for that matter, they failed to discuss it with any Australians. That preamble fails to recognise Aboriginal Australians' custodianship of Australia. It was designed by the Prime Minister, a Prime Minister who cannot even bring himself to say sorry.The legacy the Howard government will leave Aboriginal people will be a sad one. It does not accept that Aboriginal Australians have land rights. It does not accept that native title should be looked at in an equal way. It always tries to get around the issue. It gives only lip service to reconciliation. This legislation demonstrates the contempt John Howard, his ministers and his government have for consultation, Aboriginal Australians, their land rights, their communities, their culture and their wellbeing.The issues associated with this legislation go to the core of the issues that have impinged on Aboriginal Australians since European settlement. Aboriginal Australians' rights to land, the importance of their land and the importance of land to their health and wellbeing are well-known facts. Yet this government continues to try to move away from its responsibilities and to once again sell out Aboriginal Australians.If there is to be any meaningful move on the issue of land rights, Aboriginal Australians must be accepted as equal partners at the negotiating table—not thought of as people that can be done over or whose issues we can get around by doing a deal here or doing a deal there. No, we have to enter a partnership with them and accept them as equal partners and accept that they are equal Australians and equal to each and every one of us, including the Prime Minister.This government does not believe in consultation. At no time does it consult with the Australian people. It does not even consult with the opposition. The only people it consults with in this country are the Democrats. I suggest that it is time it started consulting with Aboriginal people instead of trying to do a deal and get around its responsibilities. It is time for it to attempt to be fair and equitable and to work towards obtaining a fair and equitable outcome for all Australians, particularly Aboriginal Australians.The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 seeks to invalidate the deed of grant that was executed under section 12A of the act in favour of the Gurungu Land Trust—known as Elliott stockyards and dips. It is 3.8 hectares of land. It also allows for the disposal of Aboriginal land claims where the Aboriginal Land Commissioner is unable to find the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land, where the claims are over stock routes or reserves, or where the claims are made before 5 June 1997—a date set for the expiration of the period for making land claims.This is the government's second attempt to get the legislation through parliament. It passed through the House of Representatives back in 1997 but it failed to get through the Senate before the last election was called. At that time the opposition requested that it be deferred until after the Reeves review of the land rights act. Now there is a House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs conducting a review of the Reeves report.Once again, the government is failing to wait for the review to be completed. This government does not believe that due process should take place. What it wants to do is bypass the process, cut it short and just ram through what it believes is the right solution. It is not prepared to listen, to consult or to work for a bipartisan solution, for a partnership or for any result with a different outcome to the one it wants. It does not trust the Australian people in any shape or form. It does not trust indigenous Australians. And it does not trust the House of Representatives standing committee that is looking at this issue. It does not trust them to come up with a fair and equitable answer, or maybe it does not want a fair and equitable outcome. Instead, it says, `This is what we want. We want it now and we are going to legislate to make sure that it happens now.' It pushes through legislation before any consultation process is completed.Elliott stockyards is part of the traditional lands that are next to very important ceremonial grounds. The operation of the stockyards raises serious health and safety issues for the nearby Aboriginal community. As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, which is conducting an inquiry into indigenous health, I find that this is quite an important issue. What I have seen and heard as a member of that committee would make any Australian cry. Indigenous Australians are living in Third World conditions. This is not just in rural and remote areas; it is in the city and urban areas. Everywhere you go, you find the same issues facing these communities. There are environmental issues: housing is in unsafe and unhealthy condition and many communities do not even have fresh, clean water or rubbish removal services. The conditions in these communities are appalling, and every day this government closes its eyes to the issues that are confronting these communities. There is poor infrastructure in the community and the Howard government refuses to act to improve it—and all these issues come together to create a major health problem for Aboriginal people.You only have to look at the very disturbing book review that was in the Australian yesterday. It talks about dying in shame. It is stated that the average household income of indigenous Australians is $540 a week; non-indigenous Australians have an average weekly income of $632. Among indigenous Australians, 15.7 per cent have left school by the age of 14 years, compared to 13.9 per cent of non-indigenous Australians. The unemployment rate—this is a telling figure—for indigenous Australians is 23 per cent. And that does not take into account the number of indigenous Australians on pensions and other Centrelink benefits. This is a disgrace.Now we come to the issue of life expectancy. Indigenous males have a life expectancy of 56 years and nine months and for non-indigenous males it is 75 years and two months. That is nearly 20 years difference, and that is just a disgrace. It is something that a country like Australia should be ashamed of. Indigenous women live on average for 61 years and seven months, but non-indigenous women have a lifespan of 81 years and one month, which is a 20-year difference. This cannot be allowed to continue. Whilst this government continues to push through legislation that is going to the very heart of the indigenous population's culture and wellbeing, we are going to continue to have statistics like those I have just quoted. Indigenous Australians are sicker and they die younger than non-indigenous Australians. They do not have jobs, they do not have hope and they do not have dignity. The one thing that is of utmost importance to them is their land.This situation will not improve until the issue of land rights is dealt with. Land rights and native title go to the core of the cultural soul of indigenous Australians. It is their way of being able to reassert who they are. Their land is their life and is important to them in a way that cannot be expressed by a non-indigenous Australian. Elliott stockyards has been owned by Aboriginal people; it has been their freehold land for 7½ years. Under this proposed legislation the government will just resume the land—`Sorry, we're taking it back.' If the government were to go and resume some land that you or I own, we would be offered just terms compensation. But under this legislation the indigenous Australians who own this land will not be offered just terms compensation. Instead, if they want to seek compensation they must go to the Federal Court. They will be paid compensation only if they commence proceedings in the Federal Court. So we have an entirely different situation. With our land, we are offered just terms compensation; with their land, they must seek compensation by going to court, with legal costs and everything that goes along with any sort of court procedure.I do not think the government really explored all the options that are open to it. A land trust may surrender part or all of its land to the Crown under subsection 19(4) of the act. Did the government consider this or did it just want to finalise it once and for all—`Sorry, we're taking your land back and you do not get any compensation'? The land trust may also grant to an estate or another person a lease, so once again we have got another option. You do not need to take it back; the land trust could lease this portion of land out. But the government did not explore any of these options.There have been negotiations taking place on this piece of land now since 1995. There have been extensive consultations between the Commonwealth government and the Northern Territory government. There have been promises that the Northern Territory government will look after the Aboriginal communities and give them more resources, that they are going to take action in that area, but nothing has happened. The Northern Territory government even refused to plant trees and screens to provide a barrier to improve things in terms of the health and safety issues that surround their land and to protect the ceremonial lands that are nearby.This government will not follow through the consultation process. They are not prepared to consider what the communities are saying. They are not prepared to talk to people and they are not prepared to follow any process through and be inclusive. On every issue you look at, no matter how big or how small, they will go for the quick fix solution. They go for taking away the rights of Australians. In this case it is indigenous Australians. In this case they are attacking the land rights for which our indigenous Australians have fought so hard for so many years and on which they were actually starting to make ground. Now this government is gradually eroding all those moves forward, all the ground that has been gained by our indigenous Australians. You just have to look at any area and you will see the same scenario. We have the workplace relations legislation coming before this parliament, I believe, later today. Once again it is this government moving away from consultation and going in and taking away the rights of workers.I do not think it is good enough, and neither do most Australians. We believe that indigenous Australians have rights. We believe that their land cannot just be taken from them. What is good for all Australians should be good for indigenous Australians. As I mentioned previously, if the government want to take non-indigenous landowner land, they pay them compensation. They have to go through a consultation process. There is a process; they cannot just legislate to take the land. It should be the same for indigenous Australians. It should not matter whether you are an indigenous Australian or a non-indigenous Australian who lives in the middle of Sydney, in Kirribilli House. No matter where you come from, your land and your rights should be respected in the same way as any other Australian.10:37:008590McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I rise to my feet today to raise my concerns about the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 . As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the bill is an attempt to do two things: first, invalidate part of a land grant made to the Gurungu Land Trust in 1991 and, second, to add three new ways in which a traditional land claim can be taken to have been `finally disposed of'. That is the technical effect of the bill. But for a moment let me talk about what the bill stands for morally and socially and what it means for the process of reconciliation that some of us hold dear.As my colleague the shadow minister Daryl Melham has already outlined, the bill, if allowed to proceed, will set a precedent by giving the Commonwealth the power to compulsorily acquire land granted to the Aboriginal people by the Gurungu Land Trust. What does this say about the government? It says that, although government members may speak the words `reconciliation' and `consultation', that is not genuinely in their hearts and minds. Passing the bill means a refusal to consult. How can the government be genuine about consultation if it refuses to consult? How can it say it is genuine about finding ways to work with Aboriginal people to resolve issues if it refuses to negotiate? No, it is easier for this government to legislate. The Australian people entrusted the government with the power of governance with an obligation to use it wisely, fairly and for the good of all, not to impose its view and its desires unfairly on the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory.This is not just about a small parcel of land known as the Elliott stockyards in the Northern Territory; this is also about the message this proposed legislation sends other state governments. From my research into this matter, it is apparent to me that the return of the stockyards has been a matter of some discussion between the Northern Territory government and the Northern Land Council, representing the owners. The Northern Territory government has been unable to get its own way on this matter and has been taking back the land without addressing some of the original environmental health issues which were agreed on at the time of the land grant in 1991.The Northern Territory government wants to take back the valuable land but not comply with its part of the bargain, which was to fund the planting of a screen of trees to address the dust, flies and smell problems coming from the stockyards. So what do the bureaucrats do when they cannot get their own way? They run to their mates in the federal government and ask Big Brother to simply change the laws so that they do not have to participate in the morally appropriate negotiation process, so they do not have to spend any of their precious pieces of silver assisting Aboriginal people to lead a decent and healthy life. And the shame of it is that this federal government has agreed to do the Northern Territory's bidding.Mark my words: if this bill is allowed to proceed, other states will jump on this bandwagon. In Western Australia we have a Liberal Premier who has already spent enormous amounts of taxpayers' dollars trying to make his own native title rules. After he had spent several millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, the High Court effectively told Premier Richard Court to get lost. But that did not stop him and to this day he continues to use scare tactics to try to undermine the public's confidence in the justice of the native title process. These tactics include telling people that their suburban backyards are under threat and that their access to the Swan River may be limited by a successful claim—utter nonsense but political dynamite.I would like to look to the federal government for leadership and for a mature and responsible debate about the right of Aboriginal people to use the processes open to them when the government decides to overturn a legal, designated land claim. But again I am disappointed. Not only will this government not say sorry, it will not even say, `Let's talk. Let's see if between us all we can work things out.' No, instead it just legislates.I want to talk for a moment about the 1997 bill. One of the things that disappoint me most about this bill is that we have essentially seen it all before. The government put forward a bill in 1997 which attempted to introduce three new ways to determine that a traditional land claim had been `finally disposed of'. We in the Labor Party quite rightly took the view then that the introduction of such a bill was inappropriate in light of the government's announcement of a review of the land rights act. It was our view then that the bill should be deferred until the review was complete and debate had taken place about a wide range of other associated issues which needed to be discussed.As some of you know, in October 1997 the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs appointed barrister John Reeves to conduct a review of the existing Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Although that review is now complete—and it does, I believe, contain a vast number of recommendations—there is currently a House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs inquiry into the so-called Reeves report. That committee is drafting its report as I speak. What I fail to understand is why the government seeks to have the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 passed before the processes it put in place to review the issues of land rights and legislation are finished.Why did the government not follow the accepted practice and process of consultation, negotiation and report presentation before drafting this legislation? Is the government afraid it will not like what it hears? So what is John Reeves to make of the government's commitment to his report? What do the MPs who make up the standing committee feel about being pre-empted in this way? Most importantly, how do the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who have participated in these white fella reviews and inquiries with good faith, feel about their treatment by the government of Australia?What are they to make of a government that says, `We are interested in your views and we are listening,' and then passes legislation to enact its own desires anyway? As a communi ty and welfare sector worker for 25 years, I can assure you that people are interested in process. Process provides the ordinary people on the street with their democratic rights—the right to be heard and the right to have a say in the issues that involve them.Increasingly, this Howard led government is undermining people's confidence that they will be heard. This is just one example of how, by pursuing its agenda so ruthlessly, this government is crushing the democratic rights of all its peoples. The irony is blatant. Look at the title of the bill: Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 . You could be forgiven for thinking that this bill was about Aboriginal people having land rights in the Northern Territory. You would think this bill was about Aboriginal people's views, thoughts and feelings on the subject. It is not.Perhaps the bill should be labelled for what it is—`The Howard Government's View of How it Should Decide on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory Bill (No. 2) 1999'. The changing of the names of bills has been a very relevant issue in the House this week. There has been great community outrage about the way that some of these bills are named and what their real intent is. A renaming of this bill would give a more accurate depiction of what this bill is about: what this government's thoughts are rather than what Aboriginal and indigenous people's rights and wishes are.I urge the government to rethink this bill and to do the right and honourable thing and withdraw it and shred it. I ask the responsible minister to ensure that the drafting process be put on hold until three things have been achieved: (1) negotiations with the Northern Land Council are resumed and genuine discussion is entered into regarding a resolution of the issues surrounding the Elliott stockyards; (2) discussions are held on an alternative solution that would see the land council continue to own the land and lease it back to the Cattlemen's Association; (3) the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, which is carrying out extensive interviews and research on these issues and which is consulting widely with Aboriginal people, be allowed to make its findings public. Only when these three things have been achieved should this government look at whether it has a positive role to play legislatively in clarifying the process or the legal status of the parties and situation.While contemplating the ironies apparent in this bill, I cannot help but comment on the fact that, as it stands, it appears that this bill will potentially expose the Commonwealth to a significant compensation payment in respect of the Elliott stockyards land. The Gurungu Land Trust has held that land for 7½ years. Although the bill provides no statutory entitlements to compensation for resumption of the stockyards, it does refer to a constitutional entitlement which would give the Federal Court jurisdiction to determine whether the claimants can establish a constitutional entitlement to compensation and what would constitute `just terms'.The only thing that is clear about all of this is that it is a legal nightmare and that any actions along these lines would be complex, protracted and, ultimately, expensive for all concerned. This government, which will not say sorry in case it opens the way for compensation claims by Aboriginal people who are members of the stolen generation, appears all too happy to expose itself to a compensation claim by enacting this bill to take back land which a federal Labor government granted in 1991. If, as claimed, the small parcel of land containing the stockyards was granted in error, then surely sensible negotiations can provide a better, more sustainable outcome than the enactment of this piece of flawed legislation.I understand that to build a comparable stockyard outside this parcel of land would cost in the vicinity of $1.5 million. It seems to me that this would be a much cheaper option than paying out the money which would be spent on litigation. If the government cannot work out how to come to a compromise win-win solution, then perhaps it should ask the advice of the various mining companies in Western Australia which recently sat down with the traditional landowners and came to an agreement about mining and other exploration activities on the various sites. It can be done if the commitment and desire is there to achieve an outcome which benefits all parties in some way. Perhaps the problem for the federal and Northern Territory governments is that they have discovered that bullyboy tactics do not play a role in mature negotiations.The headline on the front page of the West Australian of 23 June 1999 was `Miners in historic native title deal'. The article said:KIMBERLEY Aborigines and seven big mineral and petroleum exploration companies have signed a deal which will bypass Federal and State native title laws and speed up agreements.The historic memorandum of understanding between the Kimberley Land Council and exploration giants Acacia Resources, BHP, Glengarry Resources, Rio Tinto, Shell Development Australia, Tanami Gold and Western Metals Zinc was signed yesterday in Broome.That was a breakthrough. Despite the constant rhetoric of the Western Australian coalition government that native title is a dreadful thing for Western Australia, those seven large companies were able to sit down with the local Aboriginal people and come to an agreement that would be of economic benefit to the region, of benefit to the Aboriginal people, of benefit to the mining companies and, of course, of benefit to their shareholders and the taxpayers of Australia because of the mining revenue and taxes that would come into the federal coffers. These are the kinds of arrangements that can be worked out between people of goodwill and mature disposition.My final comments are in respect of schedule 1 of the bill, which seeks to add ways in which a land claim can be taken to have been finally disposed of. While I can understand why the Northern Territory government is impatient about having to effectively lock away pieces of land where a claim has yet to be decided, it is, unfortunately, an outcome of due process. By adding items 3 and 4 of the bill, which allow the Land Commissioner to decide that he or she is unable to make a finding about the traditional owners or that the land was claimed after the sunset clause of 5 June 1997, there is a great risk of injustice occurring. While it might be fine for us—coming from a heritage which is documented in great bound publications—to hold the view that evidence of a historical connection either can be found within a given time frame or does not exist, it is not an appropriate way to approach evidence of Aboriginal occupation in connection to particular pieces of land. I am tempted to ask: why the rush? Is there a great profit to be made by determining that a piece of land cannot be subject to claim? Surely it is better to allow time for all to ensure there is no claim over a piece of land than to dictate artificial time lines and impose artificial restrictions on evidence.While the Elliott stockyards and the Northern Territory may physically be some way from my Western Australian electorate of Stirling, I believe the issues raised in this bill should be of concern to all decent Australians, because that is what is at its heart. The questions the coalition should be asking are these: does the bill allow a fair go for all? Does it treat all folk decently? Does it demonstrate moral and political leadership which we can be proud of? I am somewhat saddened to say the answer to all of these questions is no. It is perfectly clear: the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 must not be allowed to proceed.I will read a few points made in the Central Land Council submission to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee about the bill:The particular case of the Elliott stockyards and dip is for the Northern Land Council to comment on—and I comment today in support of their view—but the amendment presents an unacceptable backdoor compulsory acquisition.. . . . . . . . .The Commonwealth should not be enacting legislation to finally disclose of stock route claims until the Territory implements a proper system of granting pastoral land to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition. If . . . the Commonwealth is not prepared to insist on that outcome, it should at least require the Territory to comply with the 1989 and 1995 agreements about living areas on pastoral land before enacting such amendments.Their comments on the legislation review process are:The amendments were all the subject of consideration in the Reeves report. There is no warrant for giving these matters priority consideration before the post-Reeves process has run its course. They are certainly not mere technicalities. They should be the subject of a full parliamentary process, along with the rest of the Reeves recommendations.So the process is flawed. We have the Reeves report process not finalised, the report in the final draft stage not presented, yet we are going to enact legislation in this House which will take away rights granted to Aboriginal people only in the last 7½ years. It is a shame and a disgrace. I can only say again that the bill must not be allowed to proceed.10:55:008594McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I congratulate the previous speaker, the member for Stirling, on an excellent and well researched speech on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 . I think she hit the nail on the head with her quotation of evidence to the Senate committee when she described the acquisition of the Elliott stockyards area of land as an `unacceptable backdoor compulsory acquisition'.As members of parliament we have to think about how we would regard the situation if a constituent came in our front door and said, `Look, some seven years ago'—it is now getting on for eight years—`by regulation made by a minister of the Crown I was given registered title to this piece of land. I have had that land for seven years. I have used it as my own. I have made improvements to the land and now I have been told that, unbeknownst to me, an error was made and the government is taking it back off me.'You would say to them, `Have they offered you any compensation?' They said, `They don't know whether they have to give me compensation. They might be taking it back illegally. If they don't admit that they might have to pay compensation down the track, but I don't know what it is. They have just said, "You've got a right to compensation and such compensation is as determined in the courts."' You would ask, `What do the courts say about your compensation?' They said, `This is a very complex area, my lawyers tell me. I don't know whether I am entitled to compensation or not.' It would be an outrageous situation. Any member of parliament worth his salt would have a feeling of outrage at such a proposition and would come in with all guns blazing.But that is precisely what has happened to the Gurungu Land Trust in respect of a parcel of land known as the Elliott stockyards. Elliott is a small town on the Sturt Highway about 260 kilometres north of Tennant Creek, so it is right out into outback Australia. According to the explanatory memorandum to the bill, the small area of land contains public trucking yards and a public dip facility, which of course relates to the grazing of cattle.The grant of the Elliott locality arose from an agreement between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments in September 1989 to provide secure title to the land for Aboriginal people in these pastoral areas. Consequent to that agreement, legislation was introduced in 1989 to provide for the grant of title of about 2,300 square kilometres of land to the Aboriginal people, under conditions which sought to address the concerns expressed by the pastoral industry, such as preserving access to water and also to transport routes.By and large, that has been operating successfully—as indeed has the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, which after all was as a result of an agreement reached between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments, Aboriginal communities and, where relevant, other interested stakeholders. It has been a piece of legislation that has been developed through a consultative process and through cooperation. It is regrettable indeed that it is now being used in such a heavy-handed and cavalier fashion. That was by way of a diversion.The explanatory memorandum to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 indicates that the purpose of the legislation is to correct an error where the Elliott stockyards were inappropriately or inadvertently included in that parcel of land. While unquestionably the Commonwealth has the power to pass a law to resume land, it is subject to the provisions of our Constitution, and in particular section 51(xxxi), which provides that property cannot be appropriated by the Commonwealth without just compensation. That is certainly the case in respect of Australians living in places other than territories. In respect of territories, it is more complex as to whether the territories power in the Constitution, being a plenary power, overrides that. But it is probably the case, since the Newcrest Mining case in the High Court, that that compensation will now be payable in the Northern Territory. But these are complex issues and would need to be tested by expensive litigation, as the previous speaker indicated. As a result of this legislation, that will now be the inevitable consequence for the Gurungu Land Trust.There has been no suggestion at all that the granting of the title to the Elliott stockyards was in excess of ministerial power or otherwise a nullity. Yet this bill seeks to retrospectively invalidate the grant, as clause 3, paragraph (2), of the bill says, and deem it `never to have been executed'. So it is a retrospective appropriation of that title.Clause 3 of the bill, which affects the acquisition by the Commonwealth, or the assumption of the land, does not specify any compensation at all. There is none specified in the bill itself. The only guide we have as to the appropriate amount of compensation is contained in the financial impact statement to the explanatory memorandum. That reads:It is expected that any compensation which may be payable would be nominal.So we have the Commonwealth making that assertion in respect of a situation involving very complex legal issues. How do they say that this issue is going to be determined? This is ahead for the Gurungu Land Trust. Clause 4 of the bill reads:If:(a) apart from this section, the operation of section 3—which acquires the property—would result in the acquisition of property from a person otherwise than on just terms; and(b) the acquisition would be invalid because of paragraph 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution:the Commonwealth is liable to pay the person such compensation as is necessary to ensure that the acquisition is made on just terms. How is this determined? Paragraph (2) of the clause reads:The Federal Court of Australia has jurisdiction in respect to matters arising under subsection (1) and that jurisdiction is exclusive of the jurisdiction of all other courts except the High Court.So the Commonwealth is saying: `We don't know if we can do this without just compensation. You are free to argue if you like; there is the Federal Court.' So here is the Gurungu Land Trust, not a wealthy organisation, whose beneficiaries are far from wealthy—indeed, some of the most impoverished Australians that exist—being shown the door of the Federal Court to get compensation for what the government is doing to them. That is irresponsible, it is heartless, it is unfair. It is a situation that no other Australian would accept, but it is being done to an Aboriginal community. This is despite the fact that there have been extensive negotiations taking place between those parties that have a direct interest in the area, namely, those Aboriginals living in the area and the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association.In a submission to a Senate inquiry, an admirably fair and balanced submission, the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association expressed real concern as to what was taking place. The members of the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association are pretty rugged Australians, the sorts of Australians who would adopt the term `mateship', as the Prime Minister is wont to describe. They have been regarding the Aboriginal community living up there within that concept of mateship. They have been negotiating bona fide. They have been concerned with the interests of the Aboriginal community, despite the fact that use of that land directly affects their interests, namely the revenue they obtain from the grazing of cattle in and around that area where the Aboriginal communities live. They say in their submission:It should be emphasised that the Elliott Stockyards is Aboriginal land which has been granted under the Land Rights Act for the benefit of the Gurungu people. The land has not been granted for the benefit of the Cattlemen's Association or the Northern Territory government.They freely make that admission. They go on to say:Nevertheless, the Northern Land Council and the traditional Aboriginal owners have always recognised the importance of the pastoral industry to the Elliott region and the territory generally, and have sought common ground which would benefit all interested persons. To that end meetings have been held since 1994 which have examined various issues including safety and environmental health. These issues are crucial to Aboriginal people who reside in the stockyards area.So they are freely admitting that the Aboriginal community has lived in harmony with the necessary industry in the area, namely the grazing of cattle. The submission went on to explain a local agreement to facilitate the return of land in the following terms:The agreement contains covenants and conditions which ensure that the stockyards will be operated in a manner which does not detrimentally affect the health and safety of the Aboriginal people who live on the adjoining land. In particular, these covenants are directed at ensuring that carcasses are buried properly—obviously not doing that would impose a health risk in that hot, dry environment—the opportunities for mosquito breeding are minimised—with all the diseases that they carry—the safety of Aboriginal children who may enter the yards is protected.They are acknowledging that requirement, which common decency would expect all of us here to acknowledge. They go on to acknowledge:The above points reflect the environmental safety and other matters agreed to at meetings between the Commonwealth, the territory, the Cattlemen's Association and the Gurungu Aboriginal Land Trust at meetings during 1995.So here is an agreement that they have reached with the Aboriginal people. They note that:The stockyards continue to be available for pastoral use even though they are now Aboriginal land.So they are noting that, despite these health issues, the Aboriginal people are cooperating with them in their use of the land for commercial purposes. In fact, the Cattlemen's Association expressed their concerns that the land was being taken away from the people without these matters being resolved. In their submission they say:Notwithstanding this agreement, Senator Herron, in correspondence to the NLC dated 28th June 1996 adopted the view expressed by the Northern Territory Minister for Aboriginal Development `that the resolution of the environmental issues should not be a condition precedent to the return of the stockyards to the territory'.Here is the Cattlemen's Association expressing their concern regarding that correspondence. Indeed, they go on and detail their protest at the government's harsh and uncaring approach to these environmental and health consequences. They say:Senator Herron's position is in direct conflict with the arrangement reached between the Commonwealth and the Gurungu Aboriginal Land Trust during the 1995 meetings.That was for the Commonwealth to provide funds for a privacy screen of trees adjacent to the stockyard. As the Cattlemen's Association notes:Senator Herron maintains his position notwithstanding his recognition in correspondence dated 22nd May 1996 that such a screen should assist in relieving some of the potential health impacts from the operation of the stockyard on nearby Aboriginal living areas.To the best of my knowledge—the minister at the table may correct me—none of these things have been addressed, despite this compulsory acquisition, contrary to the concerns of not only the Aboriginal community but also the Cattlemen's Association whose livelihood depends on the effective use of the area. In other words, the Gurungu people have cooperated entirely with the cattle industry in the Northern Territory, and that cooperation has been specifically acknowledged. The industry itself wants to make the area habitable before the land is returned, but it has not been done.I mentioned at the outset some of the controversies in respect to the acquisitions power and in particular whether it applies to the Territory. As I indicated, since the Newcrest Mining case I think it would be conceded that just compensation is payable with respect to this acquisition of the land. But one may ask whether this remedying of the so-called error is in the nature of an acquisition of property, and I think it must be. John Reeves in his report says:. . . stockyards were apparently included, in error, in the land grant made to the Gurungu Aboriginal Land Trust on 12 December 1991. It was always the intention of the authorities, when making this grant, to exclude the Elliott Stockyards.He goes on to recommend `that this obvious error be remedied'. Reeves does not cite any authority for his assertion as to `the intention of the authorities when making this grant', nor does he refer to the relevant legislation. We may be here acting presumptively in attempting to express a view as to the intention of the authorities when making this grant other than to assume that the intention was to make a grant in accordance with the act as the regulation and schedule specified.The relevant provision of the land rights act makes provision for the minister to recommend, and section 12 makes provision for the Governor-General to grant to a land trust an estate in fee simple—that is, total ownership—in respect of land described in schedule 1. The Elliott locality is described in schedule 1. The terms of the grant made to the Gurungu Aboriginal Land Trust are certainly in accordance with that description. A grant made in accordance with the act would not ordinarily be described as having been made in error. Of course it may have been that the legislation itself originally contained the error and did not properly reflect the intention of the minister. But these things have to be determined.Reeves himself did not explain what he had in mind when he proposed that this obvious error be remedied. On that basis, if an error was made, the relevant error occurred, as I have said, in 1991, and it was otherwise a grant made in accordance with the act. That grant was seven years ago, and there can be no suggestion that it is appropriate to use the `slip' rule in any rectification that could be made. Indeed, if any rectification should lawfully occur, it would be under section 19(4) of the land rights act by voluntary surrender or by acquisition. An acquisition would certainly require the provision of compensation. That has not occurred and that has not been negotiated.It should be borne in mind that, when we are talking about section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution, that provision is based on perhaps the most respected foundation, the cornerstone, of our legal system—the Magna Carta. The famous chapter 39 reads:No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.That is the 1215 Magna Carta, and that is the basis of the just terms provision of acquisition in our Constitution. So it is a fundamental principle and a fundamental responsibility of government, as it has been since 1215, to provide appropriate compensation.The Gurungu Land Trust is being treated as no other Australian would responsibly be treated. It is entirely consistent with the cavalier approach that this government has adopted towards the interests of the Aboriginal community. I might say that it was demonstrated in the Prime Minister's comments on the 7.30 Report last night when he said that the only reason he is not including a reference to custodianship in his preamble is that some people have expressed the fear to him that it could affect the land rights area. This is despite the fact that the Attorney-General in his speech emphasised that the proposed section 125A of the Constitution prevents the preamble from having any legal effect.So the Prime Minister is effectively pandering to those Hansonites who espouse points of view from the basis of bigotry rather than reason and rational argument. It is convenient to do so, but it is wrong, it is immoral, it is unprincipled and, in this case, it is unlawful to take over the land of the Gurungu people without appropriate compensation. (Time expired)23:15:008597Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable members for Banks, Indi, Charlton, Grey, Northern Territory, Shortland, Stirling and Barton for their contributions to the debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 . I want to deal with the matters raised in two ways. Many of the speeches that we have had have wanted to deal broadly with issues of Aboriginal disadvantage. It is important to know that this government does have as one of its major priorities the task of addressing disadvantage suffered by Australia's indigenous people. We seek to approach this in a practical, realistic and effective way. We have been generous; we have provided something in the order of $2.2 billion this financial year.People often want to make comparisons with what is done overseas. Recently, I had the opportunity to visit a number of countries with indigenous populations, in many cases larger than ours. It is hard to find governments anywhere in the world that are as generous in specific programs to address indigenous disadvantage. It has been an integral part of our policy to encourage moves to economic self-sufficiency and away from welfare dependence. It is also important to recognise that we have an impressive record in returning to Aboriginal people traditional land in the Northern Territory, with five areas granted since we came to office, without the need for an inquiry by the Land Commissioner.In June, my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs handed over the deeds to Bauhinia Downs and later this month he will hand over the deeds to Urraptyenye. In July the Governor-General handed over the deeds to the Tempe Downs and Middleton Ponds cattle stations and I attended with him the Central Mount Wedge site when the deeds to that property were handed over late last month. This represents one of the highest rates of grants in recent years. It demonstrates what can be achieved through cooperation amongst all parties, including the Northern Territory government. It is important that legislation governing the land rights act is workable and effective. At the moment, we have a number of anomalies and it is in the interests of all parties that these are clarified.I will return to that in a moment, but I want to pick up some of the comments of the member for Shortland on the issue of indigenous disadvantage in particular because it is important to recognise that, in the context of the recent report dealing with the quantification of that disadvantage, the government's focus on health education, employment and housing is affirmed by the record.In the area of health, the government has taken a number of initiatives to improve indigenous health, with an increase in funding of 61 per cent between the year 1996 and the year 2003. Wherever possible, we are seeking to facilitate immediate changes to the health status of Aboriginal people. We know it might take time; we know that in many cases it may even be generational. Our approach is not based upon quick fixes. We are committed to a long-term view involving partnerships and a strategic approach to enhancing access by indigenous people to quality primary health care.In the area of education, we have increased expenditure on indigenous education programs by $16.3 million in 1999-2000 and the new Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program is in place for the next five years. We are working on strategies to improve indigenous numeracy and literacy and school attendance, as well as year 12 retention rates.In the employment area, my colleague Mr Abbott, the Minister for Employment Services, has been very active in relation to issues of low indigenous employment. There are signs of improvement in the last 10 years, but the government's indigenous employment policy, involving an additional $115 million per year, will provide and promote employment and training opportunities for indigenous people.In the area of housing, we have quarantined the expenditure from any forms of budget savings. We have allocated over $350 million annually to support the construction of 1,200 new houses and a similar number of housing upgrades, and we are very anxious to improve health related infrastructure such as power, sewerage and access to clean water. People would be aware that we have embarked upon an initiative using the Australian Army, ATSIC and the Department of Health and Aged Care. They are working together to address the pressing needs of housing and infrastructure in remote Australia.It is important to recognise that, although we have a long way to go in addressing indigenous disadvantage to a point where all Aboriginals live at the same level as all other Australians, the fact is that there have been very significant improvements in Aboriginal conditions in the last 20 years. Twenty years ago, the infant mortality rate was 20 times higher in the non-indigenous population; that rate has since been reduced by 75 per cent. Twenty years ago, up to 20 per cent of indigenous families lived in improvised dwellings; today it is less than three per cent. When discussing these sorts of issues, it is important to recognise what has been achieved over time. If we were not able to boast of those achievements, I think the expenditures of money, which are very large, would obviously be brought into question.Dealing with the substantive issue that we have in this legislation, it is legislation that is designed to cure certain defects in legislation implemented by earlier governments. The most obvious was the accidental inclusion in the schedule to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act of the Elliott cattle yards and dip, despite clear legislative intention on the part of the previous government that they be excluded. Secondly, there are the stock route claims that remain on the books, unable to be dealt with by a land commissioner but causing uncertainty for government, land-holders and pastoralists, which again is against the legislative intention of the previous government, which clearly was to dispose of the claims. What we are now dealing with is the amendment which failed to pass to give effect to that intention. Thirdly, there is a sunset clause provision which requires clarification so that we do not end up with another group of claims which are unable to be heard. Finally, there are those cases where the Land Commissioner is unable to make a finding that there are traditional owners. These cases, too, have been left in legislative limbo and the matters need to be resolved.The amendments that we are proposing to this bill are entirely consistent with the intent of amendments made to the act by earlier Labor governments. The member for Banks maintains that this bill is premature. He wants us to wait for the House of Representatives Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs to release its report into the Reeves inquiry on the land rights act. He maintains that the bill involves fundamental and significant changes and he has been reinforced today in some of these comments by the opposition's legal affairs spokesman, the member for Barton.On the first issue, when this bill was debated in 1997, the opposition wanted to delay consideration until the Reeves report was issued. Well, the Reeves report has been issued and it recommends early passage of this bill, including a recommendation that the Elliott stockyards error be remedied without delay. On the second issue, there are no fundamental matters here. The bill corrects administrative errors or vague drafting that occurred during the term of the previous government.In relation to the Elliott cattle yards, the arguments for invalidating the cattle yards grant are compelling. The member for Banks—and I guess he has briefed his colleagues in this matter—has been somewhat careless with the facts in what has been a highly selective account. He has misinformed the House and his own party. The facts are these. The Northern Land Council, the Northern Territory government and the Cattlemen's Association originally reached agreement that the stockyards were to be excluded from the grant. The then minister, Mr Hand, said in the second reading speech in 1989:In accordance with concerns raised by the Northern Territory, an area used for cattle yards and a dip at Elliott has been excluded from the area to be scheduled.Those words are on record. They are unambiguous, and I think all members of the opposition ought to have been able to well understand them. In the event, as we know, an administrative error occurred in 1991 which resulted in the unintentional scheduling despite Mr Hand's statement. After the error was made, the next Labor Aboriginal affairs minister, Mr Tickner, wrote to the various parties in 1993 and 1994 and he said the traditional owners:. . . should surrender the land in question . . . And:. . . if necessary, through the Commonwealth, it will need to examine other options for rectifying this error if my preferred approach of negotiation does not succeed.Mr Tickner also said:As long as the matter remains unresolved, it provides a basis for critics of the land council to argue that the traditional owners are now acting in bad faith, given the earlier consent for the yards to be excised from the grants.They were words from one of the opposition's ministers who was thought to be one of the most compassionate, understanding and generous in relation to dealing with Aboriginal issues. And yet he said, in relation to this matter, that it left the matter open to be characterised as acting in bad faith if the earlier consent for the exclusion was not honoured.Negotiations between ATSIC and the Northern Land Council and traditional owners of Elliott have resulted in an agreement to surrender the land. ATSIC funded community improvements for the Gurungu people and the title was not surrendered. All attempts since then to have the return by agreement have failed. Before handing back the title to the cattle yards, the Northern Land Council wants a covenant to the cattle yards lease which provides the Northern Land Council with legal right to enforce health and safety requirements and facilitate ceremonial activities. Obviously there are environmental health implications for the Gurungu people because of the proximity of the cattle yards, but the Northern Territory government has undertaken a number of improvements and the Chief Minister has confirmed that his government is committed to resolving health concerns and that ATSIC will assist in this matter. These environmental issues have been raised by members, including the member for Barton. I am informed that the Northern Territory has undertaken work to improve health and safety conditions, that ATSIC has already spent $100,000 on irrigation for a buffer zone of trees, and that the Northern Territory Chief Minister wrote to my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs on 3 June listing improvements including in relation to issues of mosquito control, carcass disposal and control of dust. He said that the Northern Territory remains committed to the resolution of the environmental health concerns.In the time left, I will move on to say that, if the Northern Land Council really wants to demonstrate good faith and achieve a negotiated settlement, it should surrender the land now and avoid the need for this legislation. The opposition members criticised this amendment as an unfortunate precedent of compulsory acquisition of land. It is not a compulsory acquisition. It is invalidating a grant that was made in error. It is a quite clear and distinct situation which the members of the Labor Party when in office well understood.The member for Banks calls for compensation. Compensation is not required because it is not a compulsory acquisition. The Gurungu people have not been disadvantaged by the error, and I am sure they do not expect a windfall profit because of the clerical error. However, the bill provides that the Federal Court can determine whether compensation on just terms is necessary. While this mistake remains, the integrity of the land grants process is compromised; the Northern Land Council and the traditional owners leave themselves vulnerable to criticism on grounds that they have reneged on the original agreement and are attempting to benefit unfairly from an error.The bill seeks to clarify the situation in relation to claims over stock routes. The member for Banks maintains that there was no legislative intent to dispose of these claims. This is at odds with the words of Mr Holding when he was the Labor minister. He said:. . . it has been the Government's position that it would be preferable, as a general rule, that claims to stock routes and reserves not proceed . . . The previous government entered into a memorandum of agreement in 1989 with the Northern Territory government concerning the granting of community living areas to Aboriginal people in pastoral districts of the Northern Territory. As part of that agreement, the Commonwealth undertook to prevent by legislative amendment claims over stock routes and reserves, which in the Northern Territory were called spaghetti claims. They provided little benefit to Aboriginal people but considerable inconvenience to non-Aboriginal pastoralists.The amendment was proclaimed in 1990, but it now appears it was technically deficient. It precluded the Land Commissioner from hearing claims lodged after 1 March 1990; however, it failed to deal with claims already on the books, despite clear legislative intention that they should be disposed of. This creates enormous uncertainty for the Northern Territory government and pastoralists.In 1995 the Northern Territory government undertook to legislate to provide community living areas on pastoral leases for Aboriginal people ineligible to make claims under the land rights act in return for certainty over these stock route claims. The Northern Territory has drafted amendments to its Pastoral Land Act 1992 which meet the Commonwealth's concerns about security for Aboriginal people on community living areas. This bill will allow the Commonwealth to honour its part of the 1995 agreement, thus resolving a long and painful process of achieving an appropriate balance between the rights of Aboriginal people living on pastoral leases and those of the Northern Territory government and pastoralists.The previous government provided a sunset clause so that no claims could be heard after 5 June 1997. The legislation does not, however, preclude new claims being lodged and, although this may be unlikely, if it were to happen, the Northern Territory would be affected in its ability to deal with the land. By making a simple legislative amendment now, we can give clarity and effect to the original intention behind the legislation. It is standard practice of a land commissioner in his report to find that there are traditional owners, or where that is not the case, to state that he is unable to find them. The wording of section 67A of the land rights act prevents any estate or interest being granted for that land. Where no traditional owners can be found, the land enters into a limbo period, I suppose it could best be described: it cannot be granted to Aboriginal people, but it cannot be granted to anyone else. The Labor Party recognised this problem when they were in government, and they entered into an agreement with the Northern Territory to correct this anomaly and allow claims to be finally disposed of. This amendment is consistent with that intention.To sum up, this bill ensures that claims in the following three categories will be disposed of: where the Land Commissioner is unable to make a finding that there are Aboriginals who are traditional owners of the land; where the land claim is over stock routes or stock reserves and the Land Commissioner had not commenced a hearing by 1 March 1990—the relevant amendment was proclaimed by the previous government in that year; and, where the claim has been made on or after 5 June 1997, which is the date of the expiration of the sunset clause for land claims decided by the previous government. It corrects an anomalous and most unsatisfactory position in relation to the Elliott stockyards. The amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in the bill before the House add clarity and certainty to amendments enacted by previous governments. They make it workable and effective and benefit all parties, and for that reason I commend the bill to the House.Question put:That the bill be now read a second time.The House divided. [11.38 a.m.](Madam Deputy Speaker—Mrs J.A. Crosio) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.8601Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Ruddock) read a third time.Miscellaneous8602860211:44:008602O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Corio moving that Senate message No. 171 be bought on for debate forthwith in order that the House(a) endorse the inclusion of the Geelong Road as part of the national highway system and that the Commonwealth government matches the Labor Party's commitment to fund half of the costs of the necessary upgrade to bring the road up to the national highway system standard;(b) notes that the Geelong Road is Victoria's most deadly highway with 87 fatalities since 1990 and that in that same period there have been 6,000 car accidents resulting in 1,000 injuries;(c) recognises that the Geelong Road carries over 100,000 vehicles a day and is a vital economic link servicing the ports of Melbourne and Geelong, which carry 40 per cent of Australia's exports; and(d) concurs with Senate message No. 171.This is Victoria's death highway and I want to know where the Victorian members stand on this particular issue.Motion (by Dr Wooldridge) put:That the member be not further heard.The House divided. [11.50 a.m.](Madam Deputy Speaker—Mrs J.A. Crosio) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.11:54:008602Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—I second the motion. Eighty-seven people are dead, and the Victorian Liberals do not want to debate it. And this minister thinks—Motion (by Dr Wooldridge) put:That the member be not further heard. The House divided. [11.55 a.m.](Madam Deputy Speaker—Mrs J.A. Crosio) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put: That the motion (Mr O'Connor's) be agreed to. The House divided. [12.02 p.m.](Madam Deputy Speaker—Mrs J.A. Crosio) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the negative.Bills8602r8888602Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.12:05:008602Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The government claims that the superannuation surcharge is an equity measure. However, it has proved to be anything but. First, the extraordinary costs of collection fall on all superannuation fund members and hence reduce the retirement incomes of low and middle income earners as well as those who actually have to pay the surcharge. What have those collection costs been? The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia estimates that the cost to the superannuation funds in administration and collection of the super tax is in excess of $190 million. Answers to questions that I have placed on notice confirm that the Australian Taxation Office itself has spent in excess of $23 million and the Department of Finance and Administration and ComSuper have spent $3.4 million. So approximately $27 million has been spent by the government in collecting this tax.Although some of these costs will be start-up costs and can expect to be defrayed over a number of years, many funds, particularly industry funds with many low and middle income earning members, will go on incurring costs when they have few fund members who actually pay the tax. Let me give the House a couple of examples. The Western Australian Fire Brigades Superannuation Board informed me last month that for the year 1996-97 only 11 members from a total membership of over 1,000 were liable for the surcharge tax. In dollar terms, they collected in 1996-97 just over $7,000 in surcharge tax and for the following year some $9,800. This compares with their compliance costs, their start-up costs, of over $40,000 in the first year and ongoing costs of around $10,000 per annum. So it is costing this fund $40,000 in order to send the Taxation Office and the government just over $7,000. It is absolutely absurd.Another example of the surcharge collection farce was provided to me by the AMIST fund. It has 40,000 members, of whom only 19 members were liable for the surcharge. This is not an equitable instrument, if only 0.05 per cent of the membership of a fund pay the surcharge when 100 per cent of the members of the fund have to wear the costs of collection. So much for the government's claim that this is an equity measure. If eight million taxpayers are paying for this tax in one way or another, how can that be equitable?Secondly, those who fail to provide their tax file number pay the surcharge irrespective of income. In February this year the tax office issued over 66,000 surcharge tax assessments to people who had not provided their tax file numbers to either their superannuation fund or the tax office. While the tax office anticipates that these assessments will go to higher income earners, there are bound to be some who are not higher income earners yet will still receive an assessment from the tax office. Those figures suggest that many more people are paying the surcharge tax than the government estimated. This is expected to increase, as employers are now required to supply information on group certificates which will lessen the opportunity for surcharge avoidance. So we had a Senate estimates hearing in May being told that these 66,000 people who did not provide their tax file numbers will get a surcharge tax notice. Mr Morrow said:With those assessments we are including a special enclosure—what we call a `get out of gaol free' letter, if you like—explaining why they have assessments and suggesting that, if they ring and quote their tax file number, we will review those assessments.The tax office has incurred extra expense in providing these `get out of gaol free' cards on top of the estimated $190 million collection costs paid by the super funds. This is world's worst practice tax collection. It dates back to the 1996-97 financial year tax, which has still not been fully collected. It was revealed in those hearings that the tax office deliberately delayed sending out the superannuation tax assessment notices for a year because it would have created an enormous reverse workload for the tax office and super funds and wasted more taxpayers' funds. The figure of 66,000 people whose status is still to be ascertained shows that the surcharge tax will continue to be an administrative nightmare.Thirdly, the surcharge is riddled with anomalies which mean that workers on relatively modest incomes who work overtime or shift work get hit with the surcharge: for example, mine workers employed by Pasminco at Roseberry on Tasmania's West Coast or electricians at the Bridgestone tyre manufacturing plant in Salisbury, South Australia. The mine workers at Pasminco entered into an industrial agreement in 1994 for a 12-hour shift operation, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The composite wage to compensate them for this, which also includes allowances, ranges from $68,000 to $80,000 per annum, yet their superannuation guarantee employer contribution is still based on a base salary of $24,860 per annum. So they receive superannuation contributions based on the lower figure, but when it comes to the sur charge tax they have to pay it on the higher figure.Similarly, electricians at Bridgestone get a base income of $35,900, but through working substantial overtime they can find themselves liable for the surcharge. Once again, they receive superannuation contributions on their modest base income but pay superannuation surcharge tax on the full amount. As one of the electricians has pointed out, they are much worse off than a salaried professional who is paid a superannuation guarantee on the whole of their identical income.We know already that increased fees and charges resulting from the complex administration arrangements that the government imposed to collect the surcharge are eating away, like sulfuric acid, at workers' retirement nest eggs. Indeed, back in August last year I called on the government to change either the way that the surcharge is calculated or the way the superannuation guarantee is calculated—or both—so that ordinary workers are not the victims of a superannuation double standard. However, like many of our good ideas, it fell on deaf ears.Fourthly, some people on lower incomes pay a higher surcharge than work colleagues who are on higher incomes. I was contacted by a female public servant whose situation was that she had been advised by the tax office she would have to pay a surcharge amount of $1,706.50. Her taxable income was $72,625, to which was added a notional employer superannuation contribution of in excess of $12,000. This brought her adjusted taxable income for surcharge purposes to around $84,000. On that imaginary amount, the notional amount, she was then required to pay a total of $29,000 in tax for the 1996-97 financial year.This was hard enough for a sole supporting parent with a nine-year-old daughter but, even worse, she discovered that she was being asked to pay more than two colleagues at her workplace who were on SES packages. As she said to the Commissioner for Superannuation:It cannot be correct that a lower level PAYE employee, whose real taxable income is just over the surcharge threshold, is being required to pay more than a member of the SES.The public servant sought an extension of time because she simply did not have the $1,706 to pay within the time given to her. She also sought an investigation into the basis of the calculation. I wrote to the CSS board to check the application of the surcharge in her case. Towards the end of October I received a response from the CSS board stating, `Yes, she is right: she is paying a greater surcharge than others in her office who are on higher salaries.' The board went on to explain that the reason was that the surcharge amount:. . . is determined by multiplying the member's annual superannuation salary by a notional surchargeable contributions factor—what is known in the industry as an NSCF; and that the factor . . . represents the cost of the employer-financed benefit accruing to the member and is determined by the Australian Government Actuary . . . and that it varies from 9% to 35% according to variables such as a member's age, scheme commencement date, and length of membership.On that basis, it is possible to pay a higher surcharge than is paid by a colleague on a higher salary. I repeat: when the government introduced the surcharge to this parliament, it boasted about it being an equitable measure. How it can defend as an equitable measure something whereby employees on a lower salary pay a higher surcharge than that paid by employees on a higher salary certainly beats me.The crowning glory of the inequity of this supposedly equitable measure must be its handling by the Kennett government of Victoria. It has simply decided that the surcharge will not be passed on to the members of Victorian public sector superannuation schemes on whom it has been levied. The funds have to pay the surcharge tax to the Commonwealth but, if the high income fund members are not being asked to pay it, where does the money come from? The money comes from Victorian taxpayers, of course.It is bad enough that ordinary Victorian taxpayers have to pay the surcharge of senior bureaucrats and public servants of the Kennett government—who get paid ever higher salaries for an ever diminishing workload as they flog off and downsize everything that used to be their area of responsibility—but it gets worse. The surcharge tax is not being paid by Victorian MPs from Premier Kennett down. So if Premier Kennett calls an election soon without recalling the parliament—which it is widely rumoured he intends to do—no fewer than six government ministers will walk away with their surcharge tax being paid for by ordinary taxpayers.Alan Stockdale, Phil Gude, Bill McGrath, Tom Reynolds, Jan Wade, Marie Tehan—five Liberal ministers and one National Party minister—will walk into the sunset with Victorian taxpayers footing the bill for their superannuation surcharge. I can imagine subeditors reaching at this moment for a headline like `MPs dodge super tax', so let me make it clear that Commonwealth MPs in this parliament are being levied the superannuation surcharge.To make it quite clear to the House, I produce correspondence that I have received from the Department of Finance and Administration advising me that I had surchargeable contributions of $44,000 for the period from July 1997 to June 1998. For the previous year my surchargeable contributions were, as I recall, $36,000. Over the course of those two years, I have acquired a surcharge debt in the order of $12,000. Commonwealth members of parliament are being levied the superannuation surcharge. Indeed, as I understand it, so are those in other parliaments. But the Kennett government, having known about the surcharge for three years now, is wilfully refusing to pass it on to the higher income earners in the state superannuation schemes who are liable to pay it. As a result, ordinary Victorian taxpayers have been fitted up with the bill. Once again, the Kennett government has been caught out looking after its mates at the expense of ordinary Victorians.Two things need to happen. The first is that the Kennett government must put a stop to this scandal at once. It should sweep out the dust and cobwebs that have been gathering in Spring Street, where the Victorian Legislative Assembly has sat for just 20 days this year—and it may not sit again for the remainder of the year—and it must pass the legislation that needs to be passed so that those who should be paying the surcharge pay it.The second thing is that the Howard government need to rethink the surcharge completely. It has been a debacle from start to finish. It was trumpeted as an equity measure but, as I have demonstrated, it has been anything but. It is not as if they do not have options. To start with, the government could simply be honest and call the thing a tax and levy it directly on people earning an income of over $76,000 a year or thereabouts—that would be far simpler and far more equitable—or the government could take up Labor's frequent suggestion for an inquiry into the taxation treatment of superannuation.ASFA and the Institute of Actuaries have made a variety of suggestions for the reform of superannuation taxation, such as reducing the taxation on contributions and replacing it with altered taxation arrangements for end benefits. An inquiry might come up with some worthwhile reform for the treatment of contributions and the surcharge could be dealt with as part of that. If the government cannot bring itself to consider these modest proposals and regards that as too hard, it should at least reform the collection mechanism properly, using group certificates and the Australian Taxation Office, and get the superannuation funds out of it.The issue of Victorian government compliance was raised earlier this year in the estimates by Senator Sherry when the Department of the Treasury was being questioned—in particular, in relation to the Taxation Office. Senator Sherry was told by Mr Morrow:I understand that the Victorian government has not passed legislation to enable the surcharge liability to be passed on to members.Senator Sherry then asked about the other states and he was told by Mr Morrow:My understanding is that all the other states have passed legislation or are in the course of passing legislation.Senator Sherry asked the government to follow up the issue. Mr Morrow said that it was a matter for the Victorian government, but Senator Kemp undertook to pursue the issue. As I understand it, there has been no adequate follow-up from the Commonwealth government or from Senator Kemp in relation to this issue, so it simply sits there. The Kennett government is now proposing to call an election without recalling the parliament and without passing the legislation which would enable the surcharge to be paid by those government ministers and by others who ought to pay it.I take the House back to 1996 when the Treasurer's great surcharge tax adventure began, as it is important to remember why, over three years later, we are debating this bill today. In doing so I indicate that, while Labor is not opposing the passage of this bill, we will be moving a second reading amendment and we will seek to have this bill considered in detail by a Senate committee.A number of the provisions in this bill go some way towards reducing some of the complexity and inefficiencies which are inherent in the government's surcharge tax collection method. Where that is the case, the opposition will be supporting these provisions. However, we reserve the right to amend this bill in detail at a later time if the evidence received by the committee during hearings suggests that the bill does not really fix the key problems associated with the superannuation surcharge tax.As a matter of history, the House will recall, particularly those on the government side, that this new tax was announced by the Howard government in its first budget in 1996. It was a direct contradiction of the Prime Minister's pre-election commitment not to introduce any new taxes or to increase any existing taxes. But the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the government wanted to be cute: they called this new tax a surcharge rather than a tax. So we got a list of core and non-core promises from the Prime Minister. I guess the promise not to introduce new taxes fell into that non-core area.The attempt to slip the new tax through the parliament in the guise of a surcharge led to the ridiculous situation of Senator Kemp trying to explain the difference between a tax and a surcharge in the Senate in response to the opposition's questions on this issue. A quick read of the Hansard record of Senator Kemp's answers is enough to keep people amused for quite some time. The truth of the matter is that the superannuation contribution surcharge was just simply a new tax, and the government should have owned up to it instead of trying to hide away and pretend that it had not breached those election commitments.The Senate recognised the fact that it was a new tax and it forced the government to accept amendments to the bills to call them tax bills rather than surcharge bills. At least that initiative by the Senate injected an element of honesty into the surcharge tax debate, something which has been sadly lacking from the government. We hope that the government at some stage will come clean on this tax, start calling a tax a tax and start levying it properly.But, even after the government was exposed on the new tax, even after a detailed inquiry from the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation, it still refused to back away from the farce of calling this tax a surcharge. The bills were passed when the government persuaded the Australian Democrats to accept them in a slightly amended form. The Australian Democrats did not really fully understand what they had done when they accepted the government's surcharge tax bills. This is clearly evident when the first round of surcharge tax amendment bills came around in November 1997, and the Australian Democrats tried to make amends for letting the first surcharge bills go through by moving a range of technical and completely unworkable amendments which were not supported by the Senate. It should never be forgotten that this is the government's tax, not the Australian Democrats' tax.I am sure everyone in the House is aware of the claims made by the Treasurer about how his new tax system, the goods and services tax and all the rest of it, will simplify the income tax system and the tax system as we know it. But the House ought be aware of the Treasurer's form in being able to simplify tax administration in the form of the superannuation surcharge tax. To levy this one new tax, to collect around $500 million of superannuation from around 350,000 taxpayers, the government introduced seven bills. Here are their titles: Superannuation Contributions Surcharge (Assessment and Collection) Bill 1997, Superannuation Contributions Surcharge (Imposition) Bill 1997, Termination Payments Surcharge (Assessment and Collection) Bill 1997, Termination Payments Surcharge Imposition Bill 1997, Superannuation Contributions Surcharge (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1997, Superannuation Contributions Surcharge (Application to the Commonwealth) Bill 1997 and Superannuation Contributions Surcharge (Application to the Commonwealth—Reduction of Benefits) Bill 1997. That is the government's idea of simplifying the tax system—seven bills with titles like that—but that is what the Treasurer did.However, that was not enough. It did not stop there. Upon realising that there were more flaws in his surcharge tax collection method than Peter Reith has had positions on the republic, the government then introduced six new bills trying to fix up the earlier mess. The names of these bills were: the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Assessment and Collection Bill 1997, Superannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Imposition Bill 1997, Superannuation Contributions and Termination Payments Taxes Legislation Amendment Bill 1997, Superannuation Contributions Tax Imposition Amendment Bill 1997, Termination Payments Tax Imposition Amendment Bill 1997 and Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Superannuation Contributions Tax) Bill 1997. So 13 bills back then, and here we are again today with more bills to have another crack at fixing up this mess.This bill sets out to remove the requirement to pay an advance instalment of 50 per cent of the current year surcharge tax liability; to provide a self-assessment regime for certain superannuation providers, essentially the do-it-yourself funds; and to retrospectively clarify and redefine what surchargeable contributions are, mainly to ensure that funds on contributions holidays—where the fund has more liquidity than it needs to meet its liabilities and is not receiving any more contributions— know whether they are liable for the surcharge tax or not.The bill also seeks to change the method of calculating surchargeable contributions to account for various actuarial practices, particularly for defined benefit funds. Let me point out that this change will require some funds to retrospectively recalculate their previous surcharge liabilities. It seeks to clarify exactly who has to pay the surcharge liability of someone who transfers their superannuation to another fund or entity, particularly constitutionally protected superannuation funds.The bill allows superannuation funds to provide certain information to fund members only if it is requested by the fund member. At present under the act, the fund is required to report the surchargeable contributions it receives in a member's name to the tax office. A fund is also required to inform all members for which it has reported to the tax office of the details of what it has reported. This information is considered unnecessary for most fund members and incurs a high cost for super funds. It has been an example of how inefficient the superannuation surcharge tax is as the funds do not know how many members are higher income tax earners and have to report for all fund members, regardless of the size of contributions that they receive. The bill also expands the objection provisions and has a range of technical amendments. The government says that the compliance costs associated with these changes will be low. But I would not want to take too much comfort from the government's claim, as I do not think they believed that the original surcharge compliance costs were going to be very high either. However, there is no question that some measures in this bill improve and simplify the operation of superannuation surcharge tax, and we will be supporting them.A number of the changes, however, are chiefly designed to address the legality of the surcharge tax on defined benefit schemes, particularly those on a contributions holiday and those that are unfunded and make notional contributions. This aspect of the surcharge has been the subject of a High Court chal lenge. I also point out that Kim Beazley's 1998 election `Plan for the Nation' policy statement pledged to review superannuation, including the design and administration of the superannuation surcharge tax. While that is difficult for an opposition to do without the resources and the expertise of government, changes to the superannuation surcharge tax collection mechanism and the nature of the tax itself should remain on the agenda, and there is little point in the government stubbornly refusing to budge on the surcharge tax collection method. This surcharge has been tax reform Howard style. Is it any wonder that people are nervous about the coming GST?I have received correspondence from Noel Davis of Clayton Utz who has had quite a lot of experience of the impact of the superannuation surcharge. He has pointed out a couple of examples of its impact. One involves a client who has received a retrenchment payment of $100,000. Because of superannuation benefits that he had received previously, most of this payment will be taxed at 47½ per cent. So even though his salary level was below the $78,000 threshold for the superannuation surcharge, the effect of the retrenchment payment being added to his salary is that most of the retrenchment payment is subject to the surcharge. The net effect of that is that, of a $100,000 retrenchment pay-out, some $60,000 will be paid in tax, leaving only a net $40,000 from the amount paid to him as compensation for losing his job. So even though he is a low income earner for surcharge purposes, the tax rate that he is experiencing is of the order of 60 per cent.Imposing the surcharge on a retrospective basis, as this bill does, will require trustees of defined benefit funds to recalculate the contributions for the last three years in accordance with a ruling issued by the Taxation Office. This is an enormous amount of work for those defined benefit funds to be required to carry out. Noel Davis also points out that the courts have consistently said that for a tax to be valid it must be certain, whereas there is nothing certain about the calculations required to be made under this ruling. You have a situation where the outcome depends on what assumptions the actuary uses in making the calculation, so that an actuary who uses conservative assumptions will calculate higher contributions than an actuary who does not. The higher the notional contributions calculated by the actuary, the higher will be the surcharge tax that will be paid on the retrospective basis. So this encourages actuary shopping and suggests that, indeed, this bill is not constitutionally valid.Mr Davis also makes the objection that if the collection system was altered so that those whose adjusted taxable income exceeds the threshold are required to include in their tax returns the amount of tax deductible contributions made for them, then assessments could be issued directly to those people and they could either choose to pay the tax themselves or direct the trustees of their superannuation funds to pay it for them and to debit their benefit in the fund. He thinks that that simplified collection system would achieve the government's aims but would avoid the huge cost that is currently imposed on all members of the superannuation funds by the prevailing expensive and problem-ridden collection system. I thank the government for providing us with the comments of the Privacy Commissioner regarding the superannuation surcharge legislation, which we will take into account. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:(1) introducing the superannuation surcharge tax which is the world's worst practice tax legislation and administration; and(2) wasting the time of the House by requiring Members to debate fundamental surcharge tax amending legislation, some 3 years after the flawed policy was announced.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is the amendment seconded?WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—I second the amendment. I reserve my right to reply.12:35:008608Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—There are few things more frustrating to constituents and, indeed to members of parliament, than legislation that produces adverse consequences that are quite unintended. That being said, it is very difficult to write the perfect legislation. The devil is, indeed, in the detail. My office and, I am sure, my colleagues occasionally hear from constituents who have been inadvertently penalised by legislative change. But it is of little consolation to tell them that their situation is unique and that they have merely fallen through the legislative safeguards. One of the reasons I welcome this legislation is that it will help a number of people out from between those cracks and ensure that they are not penalised.This legislation will achieve three things. It will provide for a self-assessment regime for certain superannuation providers, it will make a range of technical changes to clarify and simplify particular aspects of the existing law, and it will remove the requirement for the Commissioner of Taxation to determine an advance instalment of superannuation surcharge when a surcharge assessment is made after 23 March 1999. Overall, the changes represent a victory over inflexible and undue complexity, especially in the matter of the abolition of the advance instalment.Superannuation encourages self-provision for retirement. It is essential to coping with an ageing population and is an important vehicle for national savings. The superannuation surcharge, as most here would remember, was introduced in the 1996-97 budget. Many criticised that surcharge, but it overcame a major deficiency that existed for many years. The tax benefits of superannuation were overwhelmingly loaded for high income earners. For someone paying tax on the top marginal rate, superannuation at 15 per cent represented a 32 per cent tax concession, while a person earning $20,000 only received a five per cent concession. In other words, the high income earners derived the greatest benefit. This advantage to higher income earners was compounded by the potential of high income earners to access salary sacrifice arrangements.Even with the surcharge, superannuation is still a tax-effective investment strategy. But for high income earners, superannuation contributions are now more in line with concessions available to middle and low income earners. However, the surcharge did produce some unforeseen inequity which this bill duly remedies.The need for the changes evidenced in this bill were first drawn to my attention by a Croydon resident, Mr Gavan Harkin, who came to see me before the last election. He highlighted an issue that affected him following his retirement from the work force. It was obvious to us both that thousands of others would also be in a similar position each and every financial year.Mr Harkin has a sharp eye for taxation legislation. He is a former senior officer with the Australian Taxation Office who recalls teaching and assessing a young Michael Carmody in the 1960s. He was concerned that the superannuation laws enacted did not allow enough flexibility in a scenario that is now very common. Even though Mr Harkin had retired from salaried employment, his superannuation provider on his behalf was required to pay an advance of his superannuation surcharge liability for the tax year in which he retired. This requirement would affect people who are retrenched and who do not go back into the work force. With retirees or those being retrenched over recent years having their eligible termination payment added to their salary or wages income to determine taxation income, some may have become liable to pay the surcharge and consequently the instalment advance. This liability has arisen despite the fact that their salary income without an ETP would not have been anywhere near the surcharge threshold.Mr Harkin knew at the time of his retirement that he would not re-enter the work force. Accordingly, it was very unlikely he would be liable to pay the superannuation surcharge for the financial year. Despite his personal knowledge and despite the work that went into drafting the original superannuation contributions tax legislation, the law did not allow the tax commissioner to vary an advance instalment to the surcharge.In simple terms, the Australian Taxation Office was asking for an advance payment of a tax from someone who would never be liable to pay that tax. At the time, Mr Harkin wrote to the tax office as well as to me offering suggestions to overcome this ridiculous situation. He cited the case of those paying provisional tax who can adjust their payments to allow for an alteration in their circumstances, reducing tax payments if their actual income is less than their original estimates. However, for those liable to pay the superannuation surcharge there is no such flexibility to lower the payment.In responding to the issues raised by organisations and people such as Mr Harkin and others, the government chose an option that is a win-win outcome for all. Revenue to the Commonwealth is not reduced but merely deferred—$120 million in 2000-01, with smaller deferrals in subsequent years. By repealing the advance provisions there will be administrative savings for the ATO. The superannuation funds will benefit via a reduced compliance burden as well as benefiting from an improved cash position, estimated to be $13 million. Importantly, fund members previously liable to pay the advance will now have a higher superannuation account balance and accordingly will generate increased earnings on that higher balance.The superannuation industry has been supportive of the changes contained in this bill. These reforms mean greater certainty and should instil a greater level of confidence in superannuation. Many Australians are now aware of the need for preparing for their non-working years. Our ageing population and our desire to live in relative comfort are two important reasons why we should be investing in the future.Superannuation continues to be a key part of the government's retirement incomes policy, and with the number of assets that are in these super funds one can well understand that. Superannuation assets at the end of March 1999 totalled $387 billion. That figure represents a doubling since December 1994—in five years. We can see that superannuation is a good deal, firstly, and, secondly, the Australian people know that it is a good deal. The coalition recognises the importance of superannuation and, importantly, the need for long-term confidence in the system.The member for Wills in his address referred to the number of bills that have been introduced by the coalition. However, had the member for Wills scanned the parliamentary database, it would have shown that there have been some 68 acts with superannuation in the title since 1983. Between 1983 and 1996, the ALP was in government. How many of those 68 acts were introduced by the former ALP government? I say to the member for Wills that, if he is going to be objective with his criticism, he should also include those acts between 1983 and 1996.This of course highlights that there are many changes out there which have taken place and which create a bit of uncertainty in the minds of people. However, change affecting big picture issues such as the rates of taxation, concession levels and the preservation ages have been minimal or non-existent. The only major alteration in the last couple of years has been the superannuation surcharge. During this time technical details have been worked through and improved—for example, the self-assessment provisions contained within this bill. As the Treasurer oversees reforms to our tax system, including business tax laws, it is important that the government also responds to the challenge of continuing to improve our superannuation laws. Changes to personal income tax rates, entity taxation and capital gains will all require the government to seriously examine superannuation in these contexts.In the brief time that I have available—I have been asked by my whip to speak for only 10 minutes—I would like to refer to a comment made by the member for Wills which needs to be responded to. In his speech the member for Wills demonstrated his concern about the Kennett government and its failure to introduce legislation to force members of the state parliament to pay the superannuation surcharge. It seems to me that every time the member for Wills gets up here he has a propensity to talk about the Kennett government and state politics. If he hankers so much to get involved in Victorian state politics, then he has the opportunity to return to the Victorian parliament and stand for a marginal ALP seat—if they give him one. If the member for Wills wants to talk about the burden being carried by Victorian taxpayers, then he needs to be truthful and state how much Victorian taxpayers were burdened with under the Cain-Kirner regime, of which he was a proud member.The member for Wills also read into Hansard the names of Victorian members who will be retiring and benefiting from not paying the superannuation surcharge. This benefit of course exists for those ALP members in the state parliament—members such as Caroline Hogg, Barry Pullen, Ian Baker, who are ex-ministers; Doug Walpole, Jean McLean and Pat Power, the current deputy leader in the upper house; and, in the lower house, Eddie Micallef. All these ALP members will be retiring at the next state election. Every one of them will be treated in the same manner that other MPs in the Victorian parliament are being treated. So let us be objective about this. Let us state clearly for the record who benefits and who does not. As I say, if the member for Wills really hankers for it, then he can certainly return there in the foreseeable future.I end by saying that the work that I embarked on with Mr Harkin is a good example of the community having a real voice through their local MP. After many months of discussion and persuasion, we now have one less prescriptive superannuation law, and it is very appropriate for me to continue to dub this amendment the Harkin amendment. I take this opportunity to thank the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, for his help on this issue and also Australian Taxation Office officers for making themselves available. I am glad to say that we now have a commonsense approach to legislation and that the ATO is displaying some flexibility where it is able to. The taxpayers of Australia are the beneficiaries, and that is a very good thing.12:46:008611Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I want to place on record my position on the amendments proposed to the Superannuation Contributions and Termination Payments Taxes Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . When the original legislation was passed through this place in 1997, I opposed the bill outright. As I said then, the surcharge was, despite the constant arguments to the contrary by the government, nothing more or less than a new tax—and a pretty ill-conceived one at that. When originally determined, the bill was widely criticised by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce, peak accounting bodies and various state governments—to name but a few—and quite a few submissions to me from private individuals and accountants in my own electorate. All of these groups and individuals took the view, like I did, that the bill was a knee-jerk money grab that would place enormous administrative costs on funds, as the collectors, and would deter people from investing in superannuation—that is, from investing in their own retirements. A significant factor in my rejection of the original bill was the administrative burden it would be placing on the funds, and a similar burden will be placed on small business once the GST is introduced.My position has not changed from that basic point of view. I take the view that this legislation remains flawed and continues to send the wrong message to Australians about superannuation, as do some of this government's policies in regard to the treatment of superannuation, by the department of social security in particular. However, while my preference would be to see the act repealed, to the extent that this amending bill improves a piece of law and makes it more efficient and workable, logically I can only support it. It is no good hoping that the law was not out there, that it was properly structured, that it did not contain inequities. But it is out there and these reforms should at least be welcomed as a necessary start. I certainly expect the need for more amendments to be forthcoming in the months and years ahead.12:48:008611Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—At the outset, I would like to thank all participants in this debate for their contributions and their support. The superannuation surcharge was introduced in the 1996-97 budget as an equity measure to make the level of superannuation taxation concessions available to high income earners more comparable to those available to middle and lower income earners. It took effect from 20 August 1996 and introduced greater fairness and equity into the taxation and superannuation system.On 23 March 1999, the Assistant Treasurer announced initiatives designed to simplify the operation of the superannuation surcharge package of legislation. The Superannuation Contributions and Termination Payments Taxes Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , currently before the chamber, gives effect to this announcement by removing the advance instalment of surcharge, introducing self-assessment regimes for specified funds and clarifying and simplifying the legislation. These measures will improve the operation and overall efficiency of the superannuation surcharge. They will also significantly reduce the compliance costs on superannuation funds and provide greater certainty.The honourable member for Deakin, in his contribution, flagged the importance of superannuation and the need to preserve retirement savings. The government certainly concurs with what he actually said with respect to that. Not unexpectedly, the government rejects the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wills. We believe that the amendment is entirely unsuitable, entirely inappropriate, entirely hypocritical, particularly given the fact that the Labor Party was in office for 13 years and it simply failed to properly address matters relating to superannuation.The government regards the introduction of the package of legislation which introduced the superannuation contribution surcharge for high income earners as a major superannuation reform initiative, and we do not resile from that. Two point five per cent of the population, including politicians, are high income earners. They were benefiting from tax concessions for superannuation to a greater extent than lower income earners. The surcharge measure makes the superannuation system more equitable for all Australians while also ensuring that superannuation remains an attractive savings option.Removing the surcharge measure, as has been suggested by some opposite, would recreate the identified inequity and effectively would give high income earners, like politicians and others, a 15 per cent pay rise. It is very interesting that the Labor Party could well, in some areas, be pursuing those lines. The Labor Party have also been hypocritical with respect to the superannuation surcharge. Following the 1996 initiative, they said that they would support the surcharge. However, they opposed the surcharge in the Senate and voted against the third reading of the bill. What absolute and complete hypocrisy, but the Australian people have become quite accustomed to the Labor Party being hypocritical in this area.If Labor had succeeded in blocking the surcharge, there would not be one dollar of the surcharge being collected and the equity that we as a coalition have brought about would simply not have been achieved. If Labor had succeeded, then high income earners, including parliamentarians, would continue to benefit from the superannuation tax concessions to a much greater extent than ordinary Australians. Labor really have an appalling record, and their record in relation to superannuation is the same as their policies in relation to so many other areas—irresponsible, irrelevant and hard to find. Walk down the main street of towns in Australia and you will find that people consider the Labor Party led by the Leader of the Opposition to be a policy vacuum. It is fairly sad. We are a very good government but it is sad that the country does not have any realistic opposition.The honourable member for Wills also referred to the collection mechanism. If the Labor Party and the member for Wills had their way, the mechanism would greatly increase employer compliance costs and superannuation funds would still have to report contributions to employers instead of to the Taxation Office. The government also rejects any suggestion that the legislation before the chamber includes any elements of retrospectivity. The Labor Party suggested that there is retrospectivity. The simple fact is that that is quite wrong. This government does not support retrospectivity and in fact we have always been of the view that the super annuation surcharge legislation is clear and unambiguous. However, in this bill the government has decided to simplify and clarify particular aspects of the law to remove uncertainty and confusion created by conflicting legal advice to the effect that there is no Australian actuarial practice to support the calculation of notional factors, that the law does not state what is being taxed in defined benefit funds and that there are no surchargeable contributions for funds on contributions holidays.It ought to be recognised and noted that the overwhelming majority of funds that have reported surchargeable contributions, in line with approved methods that would include a method approved in writing by the Commissioner of Taxation or the Australian Government Actuary on behalf of the commissioner, do not have to resubmit reports. There are a few funds which have reported surchargeable contributions using factors other than those calculated in accordance with approved methods or that have reported other than in line with the legislation, and these few funds will indeed have to submit new reports. Regulations that are likely to result in a change to the method of calculating notional factors will have a prospective and not a retrospective application to full financial years.The member for Wills, in his half-hour contribution—which was fairly sad because he spent most of the time criticising this government's record when this government has an excellent record; we are quite happy to stand up and defend it and we are very proud of it—suggested that there could indeed be additional costs to superannuation funds following the implementation of this bill amending the superannuation surcharge. I want to place on record before the House that the government believes that superannuation funds will benefit significantly as a result of the clarification and simplification of various aspects of the superannuation surcharge legislation. Superannuation funds will have greater certainty and reduced compliance costs when dealing with the surcharge. That has to be of benefit to both the funds and their members. In particular, the development of proposals to provide a self-assessment regime for self-managed superannuation funds, many of which are operated by small business owners, should reduce small business superannuation compliance costs.The honourable member for Wills also referred to the situation where people who fail to provide their tax file numbers could pay the surcharge even if people who fail to provide their tax file numbers are not high income earners. The situation here is that, if people who fail to provide their tax file numbers subsequently do so and it can be shown that they do not have surchargeable levels of salary and income, there is a provision for them to be recompensed. The requirement for the provision of the tax file number has been very advantageous insofar as it has ensured that there has been a very high level of compliance with the tax file numbers so that we have been able to work out who should receive the surcharge and who should not.The honourable member for Wills claimed that the superannuation surcharge legislation is riddled with anomalies. He says that the legislation adversely affects shift workers such as miners who have a large differential between base salary and salary for surcharge purposes. Many miners are indeed high income earners and it is equitable that they should pay the surcharge to reflect that fact. The fact that they are miners does not mean that they are not necessarily on high incomes. We believe that all high income earners, whether they are miners or those in other occupations, if they have the income which attracts the surcharge, should pay the surcharge.The honourable member for Wills also suggested that the government has not adequately consulted with industry. That is simply not the case. One thing that this government does do well is that it consults widely in relation to important changes such as those which it is introducing in relation to superannuation. We have consulted with the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, the Investment and Financial Services Association, the Australian Institution of Superannuation Trustees, the Austral ian Society of Certified Practising Accountants, the Australian Taxpayers Association, the Institute of Actuaries of Australia, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Investment Funds Association, National Mutual, Norwich Union and AMP, and there are other bodies with whom we have also consulted. The removal of the advance instalment of surcharge has been welcomed by industry groups. That is not at all surprising, because this is a very important, a very necessary and a very sensible change. The Investment and Financial Services Association have welcomed the changes to the surcharge. In their media release of 23 March 1999, they say:The decision signals that the government is prepared to make good public policy for superannuation.It is obvious that the member for Wills simply does not look at what some of these organisations are saying about the government's outstanding record in relation to the administration of superannuation. The Institute of Actuaries of Australia, in their press release of 23 March 1999, said they were `particularly pleased' about the announcement. They praised it for simplifying the future operation of the superannuation surcharge.The member for Wills also referred to ASFA, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia Ltd. They are a group who absolutely nobody could accuse of being lavish in their praise of the government. But this organisation greatly welcomed the government's action on the surcharge in their media release of 23 March by describing the abolition of advance instalments as a `significant' and `important step towards a simpler and more cost effective tax arrangement for superannuation'.The coalition is, as I said, very proud of its record in relation to superannuation. Let us just look at some of the things that we have been able to achieve as a government. We are strongly supportive of improving the living standards of older Australians through an effective retirement incomes policy. One has to contrast that with the inactivity we have seen during 13 years of Labor. The coalition is also committed to giving all Australians greater choice in superannuation. We are committed to expanding opportunities for Australians to contribute to superannuation. We will continue to encourage Australians to save for the future and enjoy higher living standards in retirement. We ought to note that the superannuation contributions and assets have grown very strongly under the coalition government. There are now many billions of dollars involved in the superannuation assets of Australia.The coalition has also made superannuation more equitable through the surcharge. I have spent a considerable amount of time stressing how fair and equitable that proposal is. We will press ahead with reforms that will give Australians choice of a superannuation fund. In a democracy, it is only fair that people should be able to choose which superannuation fund to entrust their money with. We also want to facilitate the portability of members' balances between and among funds.It is really incredible that the Labor Party—those irrelevant people who sit opposite—oppose this policy. They oppose choice of superannuation fund and they oppose portability. They claim that they are an opposition in a democratic society. They are just so irrelevant. They are so out of touch with what the Australian people want. They say to Australians that they ought not to be able to choose their superannuation fund. They also say that there ought not to be portability of members' balances. That really is appalling. It is simply unacceptable and one would hope that the Labor Party would change its mind in this particular area.The coalition government is also the first government to legislate that the age pension will not fall below 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. This will ensure that the age pension remains adequate as a safety net for those unable to save sufficiently for their retirement. The coalition will also continue to improve the treatment of superannuation assets in the event of marriage breakdown. The coalition has achieved very many more matters in the area of retirement savings and superannuation. For instance, we have introduced retirement savings accounts as a simple alternative, as a superannuation savings vehicle, to engender greater competi tion in the industry. We will maintain the superannuation guarantee at the legislated levels and time frame. We provide contributing spouses with an 18 per cent rebate for contributions made on behalf of a low income spouse, capped at $540. This will particularly benefit women who are out of the work force by permitting them to build up their own superannuation savings.We have provided small business operators with capital gains tax relief on the sale of a small business where the proceeds are used for retirement. This recognises that, for many small business people, their retirement savings are tied up in their business. We will allow people aged over 65 to contribute in a continuing way to superannuation. This benefits those with broken work patterns—for example, women—by providing a longer period in which to accumulate retirement savings.They are just some of the things that, as a government, we have been able to do in relation to this area. We are very proud of our achievements. We were elected with an enormous majority in March 1996. We went back to the Australian people at the election in 1998 and again received a resounding mandate. One of the Labor members opposite referred to the new tax system which will come in on 1 July 2000. We stood up prior to the election. We said at that time that, if you vote for us, you will get a new tax system as we approach the next century. It will be a new tax system that will see dramatic reductions in personal income tax, the scrapping of Labor's wholesale sale tax, eight other taxes absolutely abolished, and boosts in pensions and benefits prior to the new system coming in.The Australian people very strongly supported this government and we were pleased to receive this mandate. The new tax system will come in on 1 July, following the negotiations between the government and the Australian Democrats. The people of Australia will be getting what they voted for, which is a new tax system. This is unlike when the Labor Party was in office. They used to say one thing prior to an election and, when they got into office, the exact opposite occurred.Let us look for a moment at Labor's record on superannuation. Labor is against greater choice in superannuation arrangements. Labor is opposed to employees controlling their financial futures, just as it is opposed to freedom in their other workplace arrangements. Labor never satisfactorily addressed the challenge of savings and superannuation. Labor's policies meant that many employees had little or no choice in their superannuation arrangements. Isn't that incredible! It is 1999 and yet the Labor Party—those opposite—want to deny workers in Australia choice of superannuation fund. They used to be the worker's party once, before they became the party of the chardonnay belt.The Labor Party still wants to deny choice to workers in their superannuation arrangements. Labor broke its infamous promise to give the second tranche of its l-a-w tax cuts. That was one of the things that the Labor Party suffered from greatly in the 1996 and 1998 elections. The people of Australia simply knew that their promises could not be trusted. Labor's 1995-96 budget proposal to match compulsory superannuation contributions by employees could not be implemented as it was too complex and inequitable. This co-contribution scheme also provided no assistance to those who were retired or otherwise ineligible to contribute to superannuation. Labor left these people out in the cold. Since losing government, Labor has consistently opposed laws which have made tax concessions for superannuation fairer for all Australians.The honourable member for Wills has the absolute hide to come into the chamber for a half-hour contribution and criticise the very important and necessary changes that this government is bringing in. Certainly, the Labor opposition are not opposing the bill before the chamber, but they do have a pious amendment whereby they try to hide from their 13 years of inactivity. (Extension of time granted)I would like to thank my friend the honourable member for Barton for granting that extension of time for me. I must say this summing up has been somewhat of a moveable feast. Initially, I was told by the Chief Government Whip that I might not have the opportunity to sum up at all because we were waiting for the republic legislation to return from the other place. Then I was told that my contribution might have to be rather more fulsome than it would otherwise have been. In any event, this government has an outstanding record in relation to superannuation. I am always pleased to have the opportunity to reiterate what this government has done. This government has done a very good job, and the bill which is before the chamber will be strongly supported by the Australian people.Let us just go back again over a couple of the matters which the honourable member for Wills saw fit to raise. He even suggested that there could be a successful High Court challenge to the treatment of defined benefits funds. The government is not aware of any new challenge. The amendments clarify and simplify the law to avoid any need for a court challenge. We gratefully acknowledge his admission that there are measures in the bill which will improve and simplify the superannuation and surcharge arrangements.When you look at what the honourable member for Wills said in relation to this, you would think that he simply would have got up and made this statement but, regrettably, the honourable member for Wills did not support the government as completely as he should have. He then blotted his copybook by going on and criticising the general administration of the area of the superannuation surcharge.The element of retrospectivity was raised by him. I have certainly said that we are opposed to retrospectivity, and there is no retrospectivity in this legislation. We have always been of the view that the surcharge legislation is unambiguous in setting out what is to be reported. What we are doing is removing any residual uncertainty and confusion that have been created by conflicting legal advice.Most of the funds who have complied with the arrangements will not be forced to complete any additional paperwork. They will not have to re-report. A tiny proportion of funds might well have to do so because they have acted on the legal advice which we as a government believe is not correct. Those minorities of funds will be required to submit new reports with surchargeable contributions calculated in line with the legislation. To do otherwise would be an inequitable result for the majority of funds that have already reported correctly. Over 95 per cent of funds have indeed carried out their reporting requirements calculated in line with the approved methods. Those are methods approved by the Commissioner of Taxation or the Australian Government Actuary on behalf of the commissioner. They certainly will not have to submit new reports.The bill before the House is an important change. It is a change which does enjoy the support of both sides, although regrettably the Labor Party has sought to play petty and partisan politics with elements of the discussion on superannuation charges. I have also listened carefully to the contribution made by the honourable member for Calare. He did oppose the legislation originally but has come in here and said that he will support the government in this bill because, while he still opposes the concept of a surcharge for the reasons that he outlined, he certainly sees this legislation as a substantial improvement.We believe that the original legislation was fair and equitable. Unfortunately, the Labor Party are being hypocritical; in 13 years of office they have very little to show for what they have done. The honourable member for Wills also sought to fight the Victorian election. We just have to treat that contribution with absolute contempt. The Victorian parliament will have an election whenever the Victorian government chooses to go to the people. The honourable member for Wills was a member of that parliament and if he wants to go back he can nominate.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a point of order on relevance. We have had some 40 minutes of discussion by the parliamentary secretary on the bill. As we know, he has gone into the minutiae and fine detail of it. We do appreciate his contribution to the debate, but I think when he strays to the issue of the Victorian election, which has not been called, and to the position of Victorian members, he is out of order and you should bring him back to the question.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—There is no point of order, but I remind the honourable parliamentary secretary that we are talking about a superannuation bill and not the Victorian election.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Mr Deputy Speaker, you were obviously not in the chair when the honourable member for Wills made his contribution. I was just commenting on what he said.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I would ask the honourable member to get back to the point.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I am. This is my summing up. The honourable member for Wills, for a very substantial period of time, spoke about the Victorian situation and the Victorian election. He, in effect, came in here and fought the Victorian election. My advice to him—and that is the advice that was also given by the honourable member for Deakin—is that if he wants to be a member of the Victorian parliament then whenever the writs are issued for that election he is perfectly entitled to stand up and seek to return to that place.There has also been some suggestion that maybe there has been some delay in this legislation. That is simply not the case. The government is committed to having a tax system that is fairer, more effective and less complex. The superannuation contribution surcharge was introduced as an equity measure to reduce the level of superannuation taxation concessions available to high income earners. The initiatives set out in this bill introduced by the government improve the operation and efficiency of the surcharge. They substantially reduce the administrative burden on superannuation and they clarify and simplify various aspects of the legislation.I was also queried by a person outside the parliament in relation to how the advance instalments will be credited in the case of people who have died or for people who have left the work force and will not receive assessments for 1997-98. I just want to place on record, from the government's point of view, the facts in relation to this. Advance instalments have been credited, including against assessments issued in respect of contributions for the 1998 financial year. The proposed amendments in the bill introduced to simplify and clarify the surcharge legislation protect the provisions in the current legislation to refund the advance. Where a provider notifies the Australian Taxation Office that the member has exited the superannuation system—he has been paid a lump sum, is in receipt of a pension or has died—the advance will be applied or refunded to the appropriate entity or person when the Australian Taxation Office is in a position to determine the extent of any 1998 liability.The other question that has been put to me is: will funds that have paid the advance instalment be financially worse off than funds that have not paid their 1996-97 surcharge assessments? It ought to be noted that no advance instalment has been determined by the Australian Taxation Office since the Assistant Treasurer's announcement of the proposal to amend the surcharge legislation to remove the requirement for advance instalments. In all cases, advance instalments determined previously will be credited when the Australian Taxation Office is in a position to determine the extent of the 1998 liability. Funds which have not paid the advance determined previously are liable to pay the advance and a late payment penalty and the Australian Taxation Office will have discretion to reduce or remit the late payment penalty.In the time remaining to me, I just want to reiterate the key elements of this bill and how we arrived at this situation. The superannuation surcharge has been around since the government's first budget, following the outstanding and resounding election victory which we gained in 1996, which saw the coalition having 94 members and the Labor Party reduced to a rump of simply 49. We did, however, take the action of introducing the superannuation surcharge because we considered that it was inappropriate that high income earners should receive taxation concessions more generous than those available to lower and middle income earners. The surcharge took effect from 1996.I commend the bill to the chamber, but I do understand that I may be going to get another extension. (Extension of time granted) What a wonderful opportunity I have been given to reiterate the appalling Labor record on superannuation arrangements. The Labor Party were in office from 1983 through until 1996—a period of 13 years for anyone who can count. What did the Labor Party do in relation to superannuation? They sat on their hands, as they have in so many other areas.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. We granted this extension of time to give the parliamentary secretary at the table the opportunity to go even further into the minutiae of this bill and justify the government's position. We certainly did not expect the full frontal assault on Labor's great superannuation achievements over 13 years in office. I think it is time that the honourable member was brought back to the point.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I remind the honourable parliamentary secretary that the amount of time spent on this bill has been rather lengthy, and I would ask him to return to the provisions of the bill.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Speaking to the point of order, I just want to point out that the long title of the bill is `A Bill for an Act to amend various Acts in relation to superannuation contribution taxes and termination payment taxes and for Related Purposes'. That means that we are able to have a wide-ranging debate in relation to superannuation. The honourable member for Wills, in his half-hour speech, barely touched on the provisions included in the legislation. He criticised the government in regard to superannuation. I would prefer to see the short titles of bills restricted so that we could have a debate just on the actual points in the bill. Because of the way in which bills these days are drafted, the addition of the words `for related purposes' means that, for better or worse, we have a wide-ranging debate.The Labor Party approach to superannuation was very ordinary. They have been opposed to employees controlling their financial future, just as they have been opposed to the very important changes that this government introduced in the area of workplace relations. Labor was never prepared to grasp the nettle in the area of savings and superannuation, and that is why it is eminently regrettable—it is a tragedy—that the honourable member for Wills came in here and tried to pretend that he was not part of a party that, for 13 years, had such a comprehensive failure in the area of superannuation policy. Labor policies meant that many employees had no choice in their superannuation arrangements, and they thought that it was appropriate that people should be able to be conscripted into certain superannuation funds.JK6McCLELLANDMr McClelland—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is the parliamentary secretary still speaking to his point of order or has he concluded his point of order and is now resuming his summing up? If he has not moved to his summing up, then he is debating the point of order in an overly long fashion, and if he has moved to the summing up he is being grossly irrelevant.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. I assumed that the parliamentary speaker had ceased speaking to the point of order and was winding up his rather lengthy summation of this bill.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Your perception is very accurate, Mr Deputy Speaker. Because of the shortage of time available, I was moving from one part of my contribution to another. Obviously, the Labor Party are pretty concerned about their superannuation record. I can understand their embarrassment; I can understand why they are taking points of order to try to stop me talking about some of the appalling things that they did and their complete and total inactivity.I am, however, very pleased to stress again that this legislation is widely supported in the community. We have received very strong backing from those people involved with superannuation funds. It is seen as being a very important initiative. We have received letters from a whole range of bodies who are very complimentary of the government's approach to superannuation and, in particular, to this legislation. The Labor Party, I believe, ought to express regret for what it has failed to do over the last 13 years.This bill, as I said, does improve the equity of the superannuation surcharge arrangements. If the Labor Party had had its way in the parliament, we would not have a superannuation surcharge and higher income earners would have received treatment in a way that we consider to be entirely inequitable. The Labor Party, therefore, comes into the parliament and sheds crocodile tears, because the Labor Party in the Senate voted at the third reading stage against the superannuation changes. We believe that that is not an appropriate way for a party which used to proclaim itself to be the party of the worker to behave. In many respects, this government has been very much more involved in the pursuit of equity than its Labor predecessor, which had 13 years to fix many problems, but those 13 years were in fact 13 wasted years.The amendments which are before the chamber are fair and equitable. As I said, they remove the advance instalment of a surcharge, they introduce a self-assessment regime for specified funds and they clarify and simplify the legislation. On all three counts, on any objective measure, this is a positive change, a necessary change and an equitable change. Yet the Labor Party comes in and moves this pious amendment which seeks to mask the fact that it was absolutely inactive.Let us look, in the time remaining to me, at an overview of the particular amendments. With respect to advance instalments, an assessment of surcharge to certain superannuation providers is accompanied by a determination of an advance instalment. The advance instalment is a flat 50 per cent of the surcharge payable under the assessment. No new advance instalment determinations will be made after the Assistant Treasurer's announcement on 23 March 1999. With respect to specified funds, a self-assessment regime will be introduced. These will be for small funds known as excluded funds, and they will have fewer than five members. Currently, there is legislation before the parliament which will provide for self-managed funds, and in the future these small funds may become self-assessing funds.These specified funds will be permitted to report to the Commissioner of Taxation not later than 31 October, the current reporting date for funds. This measure will achieve efficiency gains for funds where the same professional adviser prepares the fund's superannuation return, income tax return and surcharge statement. A self-assessing contribution fund must self-assess its surcharge liability in respect of each and every member's surchargeable contributions and pay that liability at the time of reporting to the Australian Taxation Office. No payment will be required in the first year. A fund cannot self-assess unless it has access to relevant details of each member's taxable income and surchargeable contributions. Members cannot be compelled to provide any such information.With respect to surchargeable contributions, a surcharge applies in relation to a member's surchargeable contribution. The amendments remove any doubt about what superannuation amounts are subject to surcharge and how those amounts are to be calculated. The amendments also calculate who is liable to pay the surcharge.The legislation before the chamber is a very positive government initiative. It deserves the strong support of all members of the House of Representatives, and I am pleased that there will be no opposition to the bill. However, the Labor Party stands condemned, firstly, for its inactivity and, secondly, for its hypocrisy in coming in here to criticise the important, equitable reforms that the government has implemented. I commend the bill to the chamber.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.8619Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Bills8619r8418619Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Title, page 1 (lines 13 to 16), omit " with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament ".(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (lines 6 to 12), omit the paragraph, substitute:The person named in the Prime Minister's motion is qualified to be chosen as President if, when the motion is moved and affirmed: (i) the person is qualified to be, and capable of being chosen as, a member of the House of Representatives; and (ii) the person is not a member of the Commonwealth Parliament or a State Parliament or Territory legislature, or a member of a political party.(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 30), at the end of the paragraph, add "or until the expiration of thirty days after the end of the term, whichever first occurs".(4) Schedule 2, item 41, page 13 (after line 14), after the definition of The original States , insert: The President means the President for the time being.(5) Schedule 3, item 1, page 15 (after line 24), at the end of clause 4, add:Despite the alteration of section 117 of this Constitution made by the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 , that section continues to apply for the benefit of subjects of the Queen who were resident in a State immediately before the alteration took effect.(6) Schedule 3, item 1, page 16 (lines 1 to 11), omit clause 7.(7) Schedule 3, item 1, page 16 (line 15), after "conventions", insert ", including those".(8)Schedule 3, item 1, page 16 (after line 16), after clause 8, insert:8A JusticiabilityThe enactment of the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 does not make justiciable the exercise by the President of a reserve power referred to in section 59 of this Constitution if the exercise by the Governor-General of that power was not justiciable.13:31:008620Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I indicate to the House that the government proposes that amendments Nos 1 and 3 be disagreed to and that amendments Nos 2 and 4 to 8, be agreed to. I suggest, therefore, that it may suit the convenience of the House first to consider amendments Nos 1 and 3 and when those amendments have been disposed of to consider amendments Nos 2 and 4 to 8.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There being agreement with that course of action, I will allow that course to be followed.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS—I move:That amendments Nos 1 and 3 be disagreed to.Amendment No. 3 would limit the extension of an incumbent President's term under proposed section 60 of the Constitution to 30 days. However, the government's position is that section 60 should not be so limited. Section 60 was intended to cover the possibility that a new appointment would not be finalised before the end of the incumbent's term. This reflects the reality of the appointment process. It is not a process which can necessarily be regulated by means of strict schedules and deadlines.Section 60 should allow for the continuation of the incumbent President, who would previously have been appointed with the support of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, beyond 30 days. This is a better option than the more cumbersome acting arrangements contemplated by recommendation 3. The arrangements contemplated in amendment No. 3 would be unnecessarily cumbersome in the case of a short extension. Further, it would be inappropriate to rely on a state governor to act in the event that circumstances should force a longer extension—for example, if it proved impossible to find a mutually agreed nominee. For these reasons, the government opposes recommendation No. 3.Amendment No. 1 relates to the long title of the bill, which will, of course, form the basis of the question. The government stands firmly by the question as passed by the House of Representatives. That title indicates both the nature of the change to a republic to replace the Queen and Governor-General with a President and the proposed method of appointment. It distinguishes the proposed model from other models.The wording suggested in the amendment gives no indication of the particular republic model or the nature of change. It does nothing to help voters to identify clearly what they are voting on. Research clearly shows there is a need to provide that help to dispel misconceptions. However successful the public information activities in the lead-up to the referendum are, it is a fantasy to suggest that all voters will be well informed at the time of the vote. For these reasons, the government opposes recommendation 1 and, if this motion is passed by the House, I will table a statement of reasons in these terms.For convenience, it may be appropriate if I indicate the situation in relation to the amendments which the government supports. There are a number of those that have been made in the Senate. The Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 was passed by the House on Monday, 9 August 1999. As the advisory report on the legislation by the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum had only been tabled earlier that day, the government's response to that report had not been finalised when the bill was passed. The government's response was subsequently tabled in the Senate on 11 August 1999.The government indicated in that response that a number of the committee's recommendations would be supported and that some of these required government amendments to the bill. These government amendments were subsequently moved in the Senate and passed with broad support. Amendments Nos 2, 5 and 8 fall into this group. Amendment No. 2 makes completely clear that a candidate for the office of President must be qualified to be chosen when the Prime Minister moves the person's name and the joint sitting votes on the Prime Minister's motion but need not necessarily be qualified at the earlier public nomination stage.Amendment No. 8 puts beyond doubt that the exercise of a reserve power by the President would be no more justiciable than the exercise of those powers by the Governor-General. Amendment No. 5 ensures that the protection currently available under section 117 of the Constitution to residents who are not citizens but are subjects of the Queen would be grandfathered.Since the tabling of the response, the government has also been persuaded to accept another amendment arising from the committee's report. Amendment No. 7 makes it clear that all the constitutional conventions, including those relating to the exercise of the reserve powers, will be continued and may evolve over time. This amendment simply puts the intended operation of the constitutional amendments beyond doubt. The government sees this group of amendments as representing a genuine improvement of the legislation. I again wish to acknowledge the contribution of the joint select committee and its constructive approach to its work and recommendations.In addition to the amendments which adopt recommendations of the committee, there are two government amendments relating to minor technical matters. Amendment No. 4, by defining the term `President' to mean the President from time to time, puts beyond doubt that persons holding office during the pleasure of the President under the Constitution do not cease to hold office on the expiration of a President's or an Acting President's term. Amendment No. 6 would remove the limited constitutional mechanism for amendment of section 7 of the Australia Acts. As all states have now passed request acts which permit the Commonwealth parliament to amend section 7, the alternative mechanism which had been included as a fall-back is no longer necessary. I will shortly move a motion that the House accept these amendments.Debate (on motion by Ms Worth) adjourned.Business86218621Motion (by Ms Worth)—by leave—proposed:That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent question time today commencing immediately after the House completes its consideration of Senate message No. 172 concerning Senate amendments to the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 . 13:37:008622McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—The opposition will not be opposing this motion because we do appreciate that the House and the Senate, the parliament jointly, need to process the republican issue. But I have to say that this is a monumental display of incompetent management, which is significantly disadvantaging the capacity of the opposition to pursue its interests in question time and to have them effectively communicated. We all know that the timing of question time is important and we all know that, when this government was the opposition, it used to make great play of the importance, to the interests of the opposition, of the timing of question time. It is just another disastrous piece of mismanagement with which we are learning to cope. But we will not oppose the motion.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills8622r8418622Consideration resumed.13:39:008622McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition opposes the Attorney-General's motion. We support the Senate amendments as a sensible, balanced and fair compromise which takes any controversy out of the question. It is fair and reasonable. Effectively, it reduces the question to one of whether Australians support a bill to amend the Constitution to establish Australia as a republic, and it removes the controversial issues.It is quite misleading, with respect to the Attorney-General, to say that this question results from research showing that the Australian people need more assistance in understanding the issues. The question as proposed by the government, if this motion is successful, will certainly mislead them. The reason it will mislead them is that it gives only one aspect of a four-part process. It is, if you like, the Prime Minister asking Australians to back a one-legged, distorted horse. This is a full-bodied proposition with, indeed, four legs.For the first time, the candidate for President must be an Australian citizen. That is not currently the case with our head of state, the Queen not being an Australia citizen and the Governor-General not having to be an Australian citizen. For the first time, any of our children, any of our grandchildren, will be able to become the President. That is the first requirement.The second requirement is that it is mandatory for the Prime Minister to consider the report of a community nominations committee, nominating a short-list of notable Australians that it has put forward after calling for community nominations and considering the merits of the respective candidates. That is the second step. It is mandatory for the Prime Minister to consider that.The third step is also a mandatory step: for the nomination of the Prime Minister to be seconded by the Leader of the Opposition. It is important that the public understands that, because it ensures that the presidential candidate is a person who is above party politics—a person who has not been sullied by the mud-slinging and opportunism of an election campaign, a person who will be acceptable to both sides of the political fence and a person who can unify the nation. That is a third, mandatory precondition to the fourth condition occurring.The fourth and final step will be the only one reflected in the bill and even then, in the long title, it is misleading. That is, the wording of the proposed section 60 is that the nomination is `affirmed' by a two-thirds majority of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Only then, only after that occurs, does the bill say that the President is chosen. The President is chosen by that four-part process, not by a one-part process, namely, the parliamentary part.Australians have a healthy cynicism generally, and certainly they have a healthy cynicism for figures of authority—it is part of our heritage—and in particular they have a healthy cynicism for politicians. That cynicism is being exploited by those who would seek to destroy the referendum proposal this year. They are picking up every loose stone, every loose stick and throwing it under the wheels and tracks of the referendum proposal, to distort it, to appeal to that cynicism. While Australians are healthy in their cynicism, they can smell a con a mile off and they can see trickery, and they view that with even more contempt. What is proposed here is trickery.The Prime Minister has been smoked out of one hole with his first question, with the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum saying specifically that to refer to only one part would be to mislead voters, but he has dug another hole as part of this trickery to try and distort the process, to say, incorrectly, that this person will be a politician's president. This will be anything but a politician's president—a person who is an Australian citizen, who is nominated by the community, who is of the community, who will be above politics, who will unify Australia and who will represent Australia on the international stage as someone we can be proud of. That is what the Australian people are entitled to know. That is the argument that will be presented to them in the yes and no cases and also through the respective education campaigns. What this question does, by removing words and adding one element which is controversial, is to distort the whole process from a fair process to one which is biased. (Time expired)13:44:008623Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—I rise to express my extreme disappointment with the course of the constitutional debate over the last few days, not least on this question of the title of the referendum bill now before us. I acknowledge that I have not given myself much opportunity to influence the course of events over the last few days by virtue of being in Honduras, Haiti and miscellaneous other exotic locations, but, nonetheless, I do express that disappointment notwithstanding.I express it not least because what has been happening is so much at odds with the kind of picture of Australia that I have been trying to promote around the world in 20-odd different countries in the last few weeks while I have been campaigning for this UNESCO position—a picture of an Australia as sophisticated, mature, proudly independent and capable of wrestling with these issues in a way that is not squalidly partisan but actually rises to the occasion. We have not seen the Prime Minister rising to the occasion on this question of the title of the bill, nor, of course, on the preamble, nor on anything else to do with this debate.Once we all focused a few weeks ago on the particular form of the question in this bill it was obvious that it was flawed and needed attention. It was flawed because one essential element in the whole process—the replacement of the Queen by an Australian President—was missing altogether from the formulation of the title.The other crucial component of it, the method by which the President is to be determined or elected, was incompletely stated in the form of the title, so incompletely as to be misleading. It was incomplete in that it left out the question of the nomination process being participated in by the Australian public at large, and incomplete in particular in that it left out the reference to the nomination having to be simultaneously agreed to by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.That is far more significant as a constraint on this being a political appointment than the requirement even of a two-thirds majority. That is the critical point. It is missing from the formulation and it makes the formulation misleading as a result. In the context of a debate about this referendum proposal, which is being much influenced by arguments about things being left too much to politicians, it is crucial that the question be stated with absolute clarity in this respect.The all-party committee that was formulated to look at this issue wrestled with the issue and came up with an almost unanimous recommendation requiring or proposing that the essential issue of the replacement of the Queen be explicitly stated, and also suggesting that the detail of the process be omitted altogether because the alternative was to express something of such nauseous length as to be unworkable in a referendum context.It was an extremely sensible proposal that emerged from the all-party committee, and if the Prime Minister had any shred of decency about him, any sense of high-mindedness about him, any sense of public spirit about him, he would have actually embraced this. But no, he has been playing politics on this as we all know from day one, much reinforced by that opinion poll earlier in the week making it clear that the form of the question will indeed do much to influence the outcome. He has acted accordingly.Faced with the Prime Minister and the government's intransigence on this, we have now got the Senate voting to strip the question back to its really most basic form of all, its absolutely bare essentials, leaving the whole of the detail, in effect, to be filled in in debate.I do not think that is necessarily the best outcome. I personally very much believe that a better outcome would have been to embrace the language of the all-party committee that was put together on a high-minded basis and which had regard to the larger interests of the nation that are involved here. That has not happened in the way the Prime Minister has approached it. The Senate has, as a result, gone for a formula that strips it right back.The question now, of course, is what will happen in this House, and what will happen in the Senate when the resolution goes back there later today. The Attorney-General has already made it clear that the government will stick intransigently to its position. Everything now depends on what the Democrats do when this issue goes back to them.Can I just urge the Democrats on this, even if they have abandoned ship on the preamble, to stick to their guns and get us a question that really will matter. The Democrats' leader is becoming known as the Oklahoma girl of Australian politics at the moment, the girl who just can't say no. You remember the one who is in such a terrible fix all the time because she always says, `Come on, let's go,' when what she ought to be saying is, `Nix.'My submission, and that of the Labor Party, is that instead of saying, `Come on, let's go,' on the preamble, and instead of saying, `Come on, let's go,' with this lousy version, this politically partisan version that the Prime Minister is insisting he shove down our throats, the Democrats ought to get up and say nix to this, just as they should be saying nix to this preamble proposal that is also coming forward later in the day.13:49:008624Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I oppose the government's proposition and urge this House to accept the suggestions that have been made by the Senate, the members of which having had the opportunity, unlike in the case of the preamble, to deliberate on this matter at some length and to arrive at what I think is a very sound conclusion indeed.It is not, of course, the conclusion that we advocated from here when this matter was discussed in the House earlier in the week. We then went for a title that was recommended by the all-party committee. It was a better description of what was actually at stake than what was being offered by the Prime Minister in the spirit, not of accuracy of presentation to the Australian people, but trickery, to ensure—he hopes—the referendum's defeat.The all-party committee also considered a number of other propositions, and this was one of them. It has the virtue of stating with absolute accuracy exactly what is at stake. If we accept the Senate's proposition we are inviting people to declare themselves for or against a republic. That is the seminal issue in this referendum. That is the most important issue in this referendum. It is the threshold issue in this referendum. It is the thing which, if passed by the Australian people, produces what will, in effect, be a permanent change in the Constitution.While it would be thinkable, I suppose, at least theoretically for us to decide at another point of time to reinstate the monarchy, in practical terms that would be a very unlikely outcome. On the other hand, any particular set of arrangements that we put in place in association with the republic will, like any other aspect of the Constitution, be tested over time on the basis of whether or not practical experience reveals them to be all that the public would desire. If the practical experience indicates that it is not, then the opportunity will be there for subsequent amendments to be put before the Australian people. So this is the priority question; this is the fundamental question; this is the honest presentation of that question.Rather than focus on outcomes, the Prime Minister has sought instead to focus on what he calls the process, and he says that if you do not expose the process to public view in the question, then you place yourself in a situation where, somehow or other, you are trying to mislead the Australian people. The problem is this: if you then go down that road and do not expose the whole process, you are misleading the people. That is precisely what the government's preferred title does. If you are going to go talking about process, you have to establish a distinction between the national status of the head of state now and the head of state to come. The fact of the matter is you do not. The Queen of Australia is not in fact an Australian. The Governor-General need not be an Australian. The Australian President must be an Australian. Therefore, if you are going to do a question based around process, a minimum point would be to start with the description of `Australian' in front of President.Then you go on to the focus on the two-thirds majority of members of the Commonwealth parliament. Is that an adequate description of a further process? No, it is not. It is one aspect of it, to be preceded by a consultation process with the community, reporting into a committee which ultimately makes representations to the Prime Minister and, in fact, the opposition leader as to who the President ought to be. There is a popular process associated with this. Not in the question. Then there is a bipartisan process associated with this. Not in the question. If it were to be an honest presentation of process in this title, all the things I have discussed would be there in the title, but they are not. What we have instead is a piece of trickery. That is what is engaged in here—a piece of trickery: an effort to suppress the fact that there is a distinctive change in the national character of the person holding the position of head of state. That is suppressed in this title.Suppressed, also, is the fact that there is a bipartisan element to this process. Why is it important to state that? It is important to state that because one of the concerns in the public mind is that there will be, through a process of appointment, the possibility of a politician emerging of a highly partisan character; and, if you have a concern about that, it may run further to the possibility of a substantial clash. By pointing out the bipartisan nature of it, you virtually exclude the possibility. It is a strength, if you like, an argument to address some popular notions out there about what could be potential problems with the changes that we are talking about.It is also important to stress an element of public consultation. That is vital as well because there is a concern that somehow or other this process will be, prior to its consideration by parliament, totally closeted away, with no form of public participation at all. But we are writing into the Constitution that form of public participation. So an honest presentation of process, as far as the Prime Minister's preferred option of the question is concerned, would have to include at least three amendments. Of course, then you start to write an essay as a question; and then you start to get yourself into some difficulty in terms of the public being able to follow exactly what is intended by the question they are being asked to adjudicate upon. The proposition that has emerged from the Senate following all-party consideration of it—and it was one of the all-party committee's preferred options—avoids all of that and gets back to the threshold question.Irrespective of what this House or the Senate ultimately does, I want to say in the few minutes that are remaining to me that, whatever question emerges, I and my party are going to be out there proudly advocating, on a united basis, the need to change our constitutional arrangements for a head of state. This is the opportunity that we have as a generation to put our stamp on the political institutions of this nation. This is our chance to walk in the shoes of our forebears who thought so creatively about democracy in the 1890s, who thought so creatively about the structure of a federal state in the 1890s. If they had been as timid as we have subsequently been shown to have been timid towards our Constitution in the last 100 years, there never would have been an Australian nation and there probably would not have been a surviving people in the last world war. Great things were done for us as a people by the foresight of our forebears in that regard. We owe no less a legacy to those who follow us.We have the opportunity now to bring the Australian Constitution home completely. We have that opportunity now to make a statement that we, as Australians, believe that every one of our institutions can have reflected in it the very best of our people, the very best of our community. Every young Australian will be able to aspire to be Australia's head of state. Australia's head of state will be able to be the national image of Australia externally, will be able to present our case without the potential taint of some degree of partisan political involvement—wonderful attributes used, I might say, so well by the head of state of the United Kingdom on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom and entirely appropriately for the people of the United Kingdom.We should find ourselves in that position. We should have our head of state opening the Olympic Games. We should not be seeking unique privileges because we wish to conceal the real nature of our Constitution. We have concealment of the real nature of our Constitution next year. We have an opportunity to change that nature of our Constitution in a way in which we all profoundly believe needs to take place or will take place at some point of time. We can all do it now.14:00:008626Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The principal issue now before the House is not whether or not Australia should become a republic. The government is sponsoring the holding of a referendum.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The same courtesy that was extended to the Leader of the Opposition will be extended to the Prime Minister, as the standing orders oblige.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—For the first time since Federation, under this government and under this Prime Minister the Australian people will be given an opportunity to decide whether or not this country should become a republic—whether or not the constitutional arrangements that have operated since Federation will continue. It is important to understand that what we are debating now is not whether or not Australia should become republic but the question that should appear on the ballot paper.I want to go through the various claims that have been made by the Labor Party and other critics of the position that has been adopted by the government. I will start by saying that there was nothing intellectually wrong with the original proposition that was put forward by the government. That proposition simply said that people would be asked to say yes or no to the proposition that the Commonwealth of Australia should be established as a republic, with a President appointed or chosen by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth parliament. Nobody could argue for a moment that there was anything factually or intellectually or literally wrong, misleading or inaccurate in that proposition.After all, when you change a constitution, you are being asked to say yes, you are in favour of change, or no, you are in favour of the status quo. The proposition that the people are being asked to vote for on 6 November is whether they want change, and they will express their reaction to that by voting yes or no to the proposition. Therefore, the original proposition was in every sense a totally sound, accurate and intellectually defensible proposition. I recognise, as every member of this House recognises, that in the debate that lies ahead of us over the next few weeks not only will we be debating the core proposition but also we will be debating the character of the change that is being sought to the Australian Constitution.There are essentially three propositions in this debate. The first proposition is that we should change to what is described as the minimalist republic, and that is the republic being proposed for a vote on 6 November. The second proposition is that we should not change it and we should preserve our current arrangements. The third proposition is that we should change, but that what we should be changing to is a republic where the President is elected by a direct vote of the Australian people. Essentially, they are the three proposi tions that are around, and it is worth traversing the history of this.It is worth reminding all of those on both sides of the House who participated in or watched the Constitutional Convention that, at the beginning of that convention, I stated my own personal view. I gave an assurance on behalf of the government that, if a clear view emerged from the convention, that clear view would be put to the Australian people. I do not remember any of those people who are now lining up to criticise the government's handling of this issue saying that it was wrong of me to put the proposition that clearly emerged from that convention.I now see in some of the writing on this subject an attempt to construct the proposition that in some way, by agreeing to put the so-called Turnbull model to the Australian people, I was ignoring the alternatives that might have been available. That fact is that I have said all along a number of things about this: that, whatever my personal view might be, I would facilitate a vote by the Australian people; and, that I would hand over to the Australian people a decision on this issue. That is why, before the 1996 election, we committed ourselves to holding a Constitutional Convention. That is why I said that, if a clear view emerged from that Constitutional Convention, that clear view would be put to the Australian people. And a clear view certainly emerged from that Constitutional Convention, and that clear view is the proposition that will be put to the Australia people on 6 November.It is absolutely beyond argument that, if you are a person who wants an Australian republic but you do not want the republic that is on offer, you would oppose the proposition that is going to be put up for the vote on 6 November. However, as much as it may displease many of those who sit opposite, that remains a matter of elementary logic.Mr Sidebottom interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Braddon!ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—The government's proposition is a question that I believe delivers immaculate, impeccable balance not only because it is literally and intellectually an honest exposition of what is being put to the Australian people but also because it takes into account not only the argument of those who propound a yes vote on 6 November—namely, that there should be a reference to the Queen and the Governor-General being replaced by a President—but also the views of many in the Australian community who believe that the method of choosing the President is something that will influence how they vote on 6 November. In those circumstances, to choose one without the other would give the appearance of trying to tilt the argument one way or the other.Whilst I was perfectly happy to rest with the original proposition and I was perfectly happy to defend that proposition, I and the government came to the view that we did not want a situation to arise that, if this referendum were defeated, those disappointed at the outcome would then seek to construct the proposition that, in some way, the outcome was influenced, tainted or intimidated by the phrasing of the question. I can well imagine that if the referendum is defeated—and, as I have said publicly on a number of occasions, I have no idea at this stage as to what the outcome of the referendum will be—I think the course of the debate over the next few weeks will be a matter of great fascination, great intensity and great interest.Any person who makes a bold prediction at the present time as to what the outcome of the referendum is going to be is possessed of a foresight as to the voting patterns of the Australian public that I do not think many people really have. But I do not want a situation arising where it could be said with any degree of credibility—whatever the facts and the circumstances—that this question was in some way loaded against one or other side of the proposition.Ms Roxon interjecting—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—That is why the government decided, despite its preference for the original question contained in the legislation—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Gellibrand is a persistent interjector.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—That is why the government decided that we would include reference to the replacement of the Queen and the Governor-General by a President. We have quite deliberately retained reference to the method of election of the President because we believe that is an issue which is very material to the debate. It is an honest statement of what is being proposed. It would be an extraordinary proposition indeed that we would be invited to vote for a proposition that talked only about the replacement of the existing arrangement without making any reference at all to the method by which the President in a newly established republic would be installed in that office.It is for those reasons—regarding the form of the question, which is all that this legislation is concerned with—that the government rejects the amendment inserted by the Senate. The government will stand by the words that were included when the legislation was before the House a few days ago. Therefore, the government will be voting against the recommendation made by the Senate.Question put: That amendments Nos 1 and 3 be disagreed to. The House divided. [2.14 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.14:18:008628Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to certain Senate amendments. I move:That the House adopt the reasons.Question resolved in the affirmative.14:18:008628Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That Senate amendments Nos 2 and 4 to 8 be agreed to. I have previously explained the nature of the amendments.Question put. The House divided. [2.23 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and ProceedingsQuestion so resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority.Distinguished Visitors862810000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the New Zealand Minister for International Trade, the Hon. Dr Lockwood Smith. On behalf of all members of the House, I extend to him a very warm welcome.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice862886288628Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how can you take millions of dollars from the sale of a great national asset like Telstra and shovel them into a fund to help re-elect Liberal Party candidates but you cannot find one cent to help the miners of Oakdale who have been denied their legally accrued entitlements? Prime Minister, have you and the Minister for Finance and Administration decided what this Oakdale miner's vote is worth?8628Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The Leader of the Opposition raises two issues. One issue he raises is the privatisation of Telstra and the other issue he raises is the security of accrued benefits for employees when companies go out of business without having paid those accrued benefits. Against the test of both the national interest and fair treatment of people, I would like to address each of those propositions.Can I say that the partial privatisation of Telstra has been enormously to the interest of ordinary Australians. The partial privatisation of Telstra has enabled hundreds of thousands of average Australians with great zeal and glee to buy shares in this great Australian enterprise. The privatisation of Telstra has extended the gift of private share ownership way beyond the narrow-minded attitude of the Leader of the Opposition—Ms Hoare interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Charlton is warned!ZD4Mr HOWARD—and the members of the Australian Labor Party. I am proud of what we have done in relation to Telstra. I am proud of the fact that we have been able to involve directly hundreds of thousands of Australians in the ownership of this great Australian enterprise. I might say that it is very interesting that the Leader of the Opposition raises this question in the context of employees. I remind him that 92 per cent—not 82 per cent or 72 per cent but 92 per cent—of the employees of Telstra took up their entitlement in the last offer of share ownership in that company. That is what the employees of Telstra have done.As far as the second issue is concerned, the Leader of the Opposition will be aware, from the answer that was given yesterday by my colleague the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, that the government is considering certain proposals. There will be proposals to deal with the Oakdale situation and there will be proposals to deal with the problem more generally if it arises in the future. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition, as we are entitled to remind him on all of these issues, that you had 13 years to address this problem and you did a big fat zero.86298629Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is also addressed to the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister: can he inform the House of the latest labour force statistics as released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics this morning?8629Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am delighted to inform the House that unemployment has now fallen to a 10-year low and is now at seven per cent. Even better than that is that the youth unemployment rate has now fallen to 21.4 per cent. This is 5.8 percentage points lower than in March 1996. I repeat that it is 5.8 percentage points lower than it was in March 1996, and it is the lowest level for youth unemployment since October 1990. Moreover, the number of unemployed Australians between the ages of 15 and 19 looking for full-time work is the lowest ever recorded. After less than 3½ years, this is dramatic evidence of not only the success of the government's economic policy but also the success of the government's labour market policies.But I am entitled—and those who were still left unemployed are entitled—to say that, if only the Labor Party had let our unfair dismissal legislation through the Senate, if only the Labor Party had done something about protecting people who enjoy the benefit of youth wages, if only the Labor Party had agreed in the Senate to further changes to make the labour market more flexible, I would be standing at the dispatch box today and announcing an infinitely better figure than the magnificent figure that I have announced. This figure has been achieved despite the obstruction of the Australian Labor Party. This result has been achieved despite the negative attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. This has been achieved in the face of every attempt by the Labor Party to frustrate the coalition's drive to strengthen the Australian economy. Because we have been successful, because we have had a single-minded and determined Treasurer, because we have had single-minded ministers determined to get on with their job and determined to create opportunities, particularly in the labour market, we have been able to achieve this outcome.Well may the Australian parliament, and indeed the Australian people, ask where the Leader of the Opposition was when we were trying to do these things. Indeed, where was the Leader of the Opposition this morning when these magnificent figures were announced? I understand that the Leader of the Opposition was in Melbourne, and I am indebted for that bit of intelligence to a report from Australian Associated Press. This is how it reads:Police on horseback were brought in as a major union rally fell apart in central Melbourne today when rival factions held separate protests.It goes on to say this:Union leaders, including the ACTU President Jennie George and Opposition Leader Kim Beazley, were left standing embarrassed on a street corner as the second arm of the march blocked their official protest.One officer of the very praiseworthy and estimable Victoria Police was heard to announce as follows:`We have no idea where they are going and we are attempting to control them.'It sounded like a magnificently eloquent description of the policy making processes of the Australian Labor Party.86308630Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—You have got some `fantasist' on the wire service. There are 100,000 people in Melbourne after you.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will either come to his question or resume his seat.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, did you say last night on the 7.30 Report that you did not have `a difficulty with that word'—that is, custodianship—in the preamble? Isn't it a fact that you admitted last night that the only reason why you will not include that word is that `some of the people on the Centre Right of politics' take the view that custodianship could imply notions of continuing ownership? But isn't it a fact, as you acknowledged last night, that proposed section 125A of the Constitution will ensure that the preamble will have no legal effect?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Prime Minister, who are these faceless people on the Centre Right of politics? In light of the support for the word `custodianship' coming from the opposition, indigenous groups and now even you, why won't you stand up to these faceless people who are mounting, as you know, a false legal argument? 8630Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—It is interesting that he does not ask any questions about unemployment. You have all the time in the world—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I take a point of order on relevance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, the Leader of the Opposition—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I asked—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The first question I asked—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition was granted more tolerance than he should have been in the preamble to his question, as he is aware, and it was hardly unreasonable for the Prime Minister to be given some tolerance in the preamble to his answer.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The argument that I addressed last night and the words I used last night are very similar to arguments and words that I have used on a number of occasions in this debate. There are a range of views on both sides of politics in relation to this issue. Just as the Leader of the Opposition, in relation to the various elements of the broad political constituency that he represents, articulates a point of view in relation to some elements of those constituents as well as his own point of view, so it is with somebody who is charged with the great privilege and responsibility of leading the coalition of political forces in this country.Our position on the preamble is well known. May I say it is well settled and may I also say it is well supported. We have been able to achieve through constructive discussion with the Australian Democrats—not through a torrent of personal abuse but through constructive discussion—an agreement on a form of words relating to the indigenous people which are more generous, more proactive, more noble and more gracious than any references that have been made in a formal instrument embraced by the Australian people at any time in our history. We have an opportunity to vote those words into a preamble to our Constitution.Of course there are some people who would like it expressed differently; I understand that. There are a lot of things that have been embraced by the parliament in the various years that I have been here that I would have liked expressed differently, but in the end the question that people have to ask themselves on 6 November in relation to the constitutional preamble, is: are they really so mean-minded that they are going to vote against such a gracious, noble and proactive proposition? I hope that in the end no member of this House will do so.86318631St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House how economic reform has improved the living standards and prospects of Australian wage earners and salary earners?8631Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for New England for his question. I think all members of the House will be pleased to have seen today that the unemployment rate fell to seven per cent, the lowest unemployment record in a decade. Not only in the last month were 17,000 new jobs created but the 62,000 new jobs of the month before were retained, and that means that since this government came to office some 487,000 new jobs have been created in Australia—nearly half a million new jobs.This is, of course, on the back of extremely strong economic growth. We have had eight consecutive quarters of growth over four per cent, and the last time the Australian economy did that was in 1968. Over the last six quarters we have had growth over one per cent, and the last time the Australian economy did that was never. It is has never been done in Australia before. This has been done on the back of a surplus budget. Labor opposed the surplus budget. This has been done on the back of a new monetary policy. Labor opposed the new monetary policy. This has been done on the back of debt retirement. Labor opposed the debt retirement. This has been done on the back of labour market reform. Labor opposed labour market reform.In all of these great changes to the Australian economy, the Labor Party opposed the changes and then sought to distance itself from the result. Australia's economic growth leads the world faster than the OECD, the G7, the UK, France, Canada and the US economy. Perhaps the best indication of our prospects for the future is that productivity growth has averaged 2.9 per cent under this government, double that of the 1.5 per cent of Labor during their past term of office.This is a good result. To have unemployment at seven per cent is a good result, but we have a way to go. We should aim to create jobs for all Australians that want to work and we will not stop until we get there. But you will not get there by marching in union protests in the streets of Melbourne. Here we are on the day when unemployment is at a decade low and the Leader of the Opposition is down in Melbourne standing embarrassed on a street corner! There used to be an old war-time song—`There was I standing on the corner'. He is standing on the corner with Jennie George in a street in Melbourne while this demonstration splits in two.Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Forrest Gump of Australian politics! There he was in the Defence portfolio but the submarine contract had nothing to do with him—oh no! He was the employment minister when employment—QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are a number of standing orders that have been breached, as no doubt you are aware, including at the very least referring to members by their correct title, if not scorn and derision.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the Treasurer and remind him that his comments about the Leader of the Opposition were less charitable than should be acceptable.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Sure. I was talking about the Leader of the Opposition who accidentally flitted across Australian political life but was responsible for nothing. He was defence minister but he bore no responsibility for the submarine contract. He was employment minister when unemployment was 11.2 per cent but he had no responsibility. He was finance minister—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—If you want question time to be a debate, you can have one, and it would be lovely to join it, but—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the Leader of the Opposition have a point of order?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—In the meantime, there are a few things called rules of relevance and they might be enforced.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the Treasurer and remind him that the standard of debate in the House is not being enhanced by his references to the Leader of the Opposition. He will come back to the question of unemployment.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The standard of debate is not enhanced by referring to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Speaker. We will accept that ruling if that is your ruling.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will come to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—We are talking about unemployment which, at the beginning of the decade, under the then employment minister was 11.2 per cent. It is now seven per cent. When he was finance minister he was not responsible for $23 billion of Commonwealth government deficit in two years! In all these areas, a minister who had complete responsibility—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order which goes to relevance: I would enjoy an opportunity to debate these points with Mr Costello—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, the Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—He sits in coward's castle at question time and never—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Treasurer knows what is expected of him.CT4Mr COSTELLO—It was the decision of this government in 1996 to turn away from the Beazley deficit path and to put this budget in surplus. The last time the Leader of the Opposition addressed a rally it was a riot outside Parliament House to protest against a surplus budget and all the economic changes which have given Australia the opportunity for employment growth.Paul Volker, the former head of the US Federal Reserve, said in July this year, `There are not many other countries that can match the Australian performance in the past year or so.' In every one of those changes, Labor took the cheap, populist, opportunistic road. And now that the economic changes are producing benefits for Australia, it illustrates the importance of disciplined economic policy—the kind of policy that this government is determined to implement.86328632Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Are you aware of the Auditor-General's Administration of grants better practice guide , which states that all stages of any grants assessment process `should be documented, with reasons for decision accessible under freedom of information provisions'? Do you recall the Treasurer's statement on the PM program on 1 March 1994, `Well, look, if we were in government we would have proper audits, and material that should be available under freedom of information would be available'? If this commitment was good enough to give from opposition, why isn't it good enough to give now? Why are you refusing to release the reasons for the decisions in the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program?8632Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Can I say in reply to the Leader of the Opposition that I do not precisely recall the exact words that the now Treasurer said. I listen very carefully to what the Treasurer says now and I also did in his previous manifestations, and I have a very good recall of radio and television interviews, but I do not remember every word and I am certainly not going to rely on your rendition of it. I will go away and check whether he actually said that. But can I generally say that I am sure the Treasurer, in his then capacity as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, would have been committing a future coalition government to standards of disclosure in relation to the public accounts of this country the like of which had not been seen before. And, of course, under the rules of the Charter of Budget Honesty, that has been delivered on in full. I am particularly proud of that.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—And which you opposed.ZD4Mr HOWARD—And, as the Treasurer reminds me, that was opposed by the Leader of the Opposition—the very person who has asked me the question. In relation to the issue that has been raised relating to the Federation programs, as stated yesterday by the minister responsible, all of those programs were worthy programs. All of them, according to the advice that was given to me by the relevant ministers before I signed off on them late in August, were done in accordance with the guidelines which were developed at my request by the Auditor-General.I asked the two ministers to ensure that the guidelines reflected current best practice for the management of discretionary grants programs and that the senators' departments consulted with the National Audit Office. I am informed that representatives of the then Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts met with the Australian National Audit Office on 27 May 1998. The senators wrote to me on 27 August outlining their recommendations and, in choosing the projects, the senators noted that they had carefully followed the guidelines endorsed by me and which reflected the Auditor-General's guidelines.I am satisfied, on the advice that has been given to me, that all proper procedures have been followed. There seems to be a strange notion in relation to this issue that the ministers had absolutely no ministerial discretion of any kind. There seems to be a notion coming from the Leader of the Opposition that, in relation to these sorts of programs, ministers have no legitimate capacity, no legitimate authority and no right to in any way impose a judgment of their own, separately and apart from a judgment that may be put to them.DT4CREANMr Crean—Release the details.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Why are you covering it up?ZD4Mr HOWARD—We live in a situation in this country where ministers take advice but, in the end, ministers make decisions and ministers stand by those decisions and are accountable for those decisions. That is exactly what has happened. I hear calls from the opposition about material being made available. I remember that when we were in opposition every question time we were buried in disclosures of documents from the then government! You had to wade your way away from the dispatch box if you were the Leader of the Opposition.Mr Tanner interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne is warned.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Every question time my predecessor used to put document after document, disclosure after disclosure, one piece of information after the other! It was quite extraordinary how transparent the former Prime Minister of Australia really was in the processes of his government. I will follow the right and correct practices in relation to the tabling of documents. But, in relation to this program, I think all of the decisions that were made by the ministers were good decisions, they were done in accordance with guidelines and they made a very significant contribution to the cultural heritage of this country.Distinguished Visitors863310000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a delegation from the National Assembly of the Lao People's Democratic Republic led by Dr Thongloun Sisoulith. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice863386338633Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Could you inform the House of what today's ABS statistics reveal about jobs growth in this country and what measures need to be taken to further improve employment growth?8633Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Dunkley for his question.Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Reid is warned! WI4Mr REITH—I am pleased that he adds in his question what else needs to be done. Whilst clearly the figures that have been released today are the best figures for the 1990s, there should also be no diminution in our determination to get on and do more which will provide real jobs for people in the Australian community.The honourable member asking the question has put his support behind Job Journey, which is an expo being held in Frankston on 18 August, and hopefully that is going to help a lot of young people particularly to get apprenticeships. That is a very practical thing which I invite all honourable members, whichever side of the House they are on, to be taking up as perhaps a lead relevant to their area.If you look at the numbers, you see that we have more Australians in jobs than ever before, with 8.792 million Australians now in jobs. We have seen 487,900 jobs created in the first three years and four months of the coalition government. It makes an interesting contrast to compare what we have done in just three and a bit years to Labor's effort when they were in office, particularly their last six years. We have created, for example, 226,700 jobs. In Labor's last six years they were only able to achieve a growth of 24,300 full-time jobs.If you look at the number of people who are unemployed, the number out today is the lowest since October 1990—a figure of 661,100. The highest that Labor recorded in their last six years was 959,200—basically a 300,000 difference between their high and our low. On the unemployment rate, as all members will know, Labor's highest number in their last six years was 11.2 per cent in December 1992. Today's figure is the lowest figure since July 1990, a very encouraging outcome. The Prime Minister mentioned young people. Again, it is worth making the comparison. The figure today after our three years and a bit has been a full-time unemployment number of 65,500. That is a 25 per cent improvement in the last year. It is a historically low level and makes an interesting contrast to Labor's record. Again, looking at their last six years, in July 1992 they reached a high of pretty close to double that figure—134,800 young people unemployed as a result of Labor's economic mismanagement. The unemployment rate for young people: the figure today is the lowest unemployment rate since October 1990. Again the comparison with Labor: in July 1992 it reached a high of 34.8 per cent.The other number—again referred to by the Prime Minister—goes to the number of young people who are looking for full-time employment, realising a lot of young people are in education. Today's number was the lowest since 1978, which was when these particular figures were first collected. It is a historically low level at 4.9 per cent. We have broken through the five per cent barrier, and that is a very encouraging outcome. Labor's record when they were in office was an unemployment to population ratio high of double that number at 10.2 per cent in July 1992.They are excellent numbers, but no-one should be in any doubt that this is but one month's figures. The fact is the numbers have jumped around a bit; there is a bit of volatility there. But it should also be clear that the reforms that we have introduced really have made a difference. They really have given young people the chance of a job.It is a real irony that the Leader of the Opposition was in Melbourne today opposing the very reforms which actually have given us the rate that we have today. Not only was he deceiving people about the package that we have in front of us in the parliament but he was declaring that basically he is going to vote no to every last bit of it, except the amendments that he is going to put up which will be written for him by the ACTU. I suppose what that means is there will be two lots of amendments because, as we have seen in Melbourne this morning, he does not have one faction behind him—he has two.86348634Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister and it follows the previous question that I asked. Given that you have just said everything was above board, why will you not release the reasons for the deci sions in the Federation Cultural and Heritage Program?8635Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I said a number of things, including that. I also said that, in relation to the release of documents, I would follow the normal procedures.86358635Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Can the minister inform the House of the key role Australian exporters are playing in generating jobs across the nation?8635Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for Groom for his question. He is very interested in the jobs that are generated by Australia's exporters, as he has a number of critical exporters that are developing their capacity within his electorate. Some of those are involved in increasing pork exports out of Australia, and I commend the member for the work he has done in that area.It should be noted on a day when Australia's unemployment level has gone to a record low of seven per cent over the last 10 years—we should keep reminding Australians of that—that our export industries play a vital role in providing those jobs and, increasingly, Australia's exporters are doing their bit to create new jobs particularly for young Australians. Our government is committed to working with those export industries not only in developing new markets, opening up new markets and in market facilitation but also in providing a very strong economic foundation within Australia.The reforms that we have introduced in the short period in which we have been in government have certainly done that in terms of lower interest rates, workplace relations reforms, eliminating Labor's budget deficit, and low inflation. The basic foundation of the economy is being strengthened as a platform for Australia's exporting industries. Those exporting industries generate 1.7 million jobs in Australia; that is, the jobs of one in five in the work force rely on Australia's exports and their importance within our economy. In the mining sector it is much higher: 90 per cent of all jobs in the mining sector rely on Australia's exports. So it is absolutely essential that we maintain a focus on those industries. Our growing tourism industry is another one of Australia's great export earners. There are 250,000 jobs in Australia's tourism industry that rely on that industry and on export earnings.It is important to note some of the programs that the government runs as well as the central reform program in strengthening Australia's economy to make it much more competitive in the international scene—programs such as the export market development grants scheme. More than 3,000 exporters, including close to 2,000 small businesses with a turnover of less than $5 million, received EMDG grants in 1998-99. They generated nearly $5 billion worth of exports out of that government assistance and facilitation—a very important program.I would like to identify to the House that one of the most successful recipients of an EMDG grant is in a Labor electorate, in the electorate, I think, of Blaxland. It is a company called Fabquip at Bankstown in Sydney, a construction manufacturer. It received a grant of $114,000. Its export sales to Singapore increased sixfold in the last year with the assistance of that facilitation.We are supporting Australia's exporting industries to market to the world. In the face of difficult economic circumstances in the region our exporters are getting out there and finding new markets. We are going to continue to provide the solid foundation economically within Australia and work with them as they drive for greater market access across the world.86358635Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I will go to the question again that I asked the Prime Minister, when he said that normal procedures had been followed. I ask you, Prime Minister: are you aware of the Auditor-General's `Administration of Grants—Better Practice Guide', which states that all stages of any grants assessment process `should be documented with reasons for decision accessible under freedom of information provisions'? Prime Minister, why have you not made those reasons accessible under freedom of information of provisions, as required by your guidelines?8636Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I repeat what I said previously. The programs that were selected by the ministers were selected by the ministers as a result of a process, firstly, of getting—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The point of order is relevance. It was not a question—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am sorry; I do not need any explanation. I can rule on the point of order. It can hardly be claimed that the answer is not relevant to the question.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I will then invoke standing orders, Mr Speaker, which permit me to raise the substance of a point of order. The point of order of relevance here is this: I did not ask a question about whether the ministers had adhered to the guidelines; I asked a question about why the Auditor-General's proposition—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Obviously, as with all questions, I wrote the question down as it was being asked. I was listening to the Prime Minister's reply. He had already referred to the guidelines. I hardly thought it could be deemed to be irrelevant to the question asked. So I call him.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, if I could start again. As I have indicated previously to the Leader of the Opposition, the ministers got advice. Part of the charge that I gave the ministers earlier this year was that they should consult the Auditor-General. They certainly—on the advice given to me—did consult the Auditor-General. They also, quite properly, consulted the Centenary of Federation Council and took advice. In the final analysis, the decisions they took, which according to the advice I received were proper decisions, reflected both the advice they had received from their departments, the advice that they had received—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Oh, really! Well, I'm bowing out.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. On the same point of order, of relevance, given that the Prime Minister has now gone on for quite some time and is still not referring by one word to the question of the release of the decisions and why he would not release the decisions—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The chair is besieged by questions of relevance. The chair writes down every question in order to determine whether or not the answer is being relevant. The Prime Minister has not been going for one minute, contrary to the assertions of the Manager of Opposition Business. I could not deem his answer to be anything other than relevant, and I call him.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I have finished, Mr Speaker.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will hear the Manager of Opposition Business.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—My point of order relates to your ruling, Mr Speaker, and to the fact that both with regard to my point of order and that of the Leader of the Opposition you chose to rule before we had finished making the point of order. Standing orders make it very clear that we have the right to make our point of order before you rule upon it. It is clear in the standing orders; it is even more crystal clear in House of Representatives Practice . It is a practice which you have been developing and which we on this side strongly object to.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business was granted some latitude because the Prime Minister has concluded his answer, but I make the point—Honourable member interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—With just a little courtesy extended to me, I will make the point to the Manager of Opposition Business that, in my history in this parliament, the rulings I have made on relevance and the time that I have spent listening to points made about the relevance of a particular answer have been more generous than most. I am happy to take up with you the question of the standing orders but I have no doubt about the fact that I can easily rule on whether an answer is relevant to a question without a lengthy explanation.86378637Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney inform the House of the progress of his examination of the allegations concerning former Prime Minister the Hon. Paul Keating made on the 30 Minutes program on 21 March 1999?Opposition members interjecting—3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—You have only asked half the question!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I appreciate there is a good deal of levity in the chamber, but it would be helpful to the Attorney-General and to all listening if the House would come to order.8637Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The House is aware that I have been asked to advise on how to deal with the matters raised regarding former Prime Minister Paul Keating in the 60 Minutes program broadcast on 21 March this year. I have examined the transcript of this program and the 60 Minutes program of 28 March, together with other material provided to me and material on the public record. I have had the benefit of advice and assistance from senior officers of my department.This examination has been against a background of serious allegations of criminal or other unlawful conduct and allegations of impropriety and possible misconduct in relation to the parliament. The material does not enable a full reconstruction of events, but it has been possible for me to reach conclusions about the main issues of concern from a public interest viewpoint. As to the possibility of criminal conduct, I have not seen anything in the material available that shows any need for a criminal investigation.In relation to other possible unlawful conduct, the material available does not enable me to draw conclusions as to the extent, if any, that there may have been a failure by anyone to meet such obligations. In both of these areas, it is, of course, open to any person who believes there has been a breach of some law to refer these matters to the relevant authorities.In relation to allegations of impropriety, both as Treasurer and as Prime Minister Mr Keating was in a position where his public responsibilities and his private interests were potentially in conflict. He could not reasonably be surprised that the perception of actual conflict has been raised. However, the only kind of inquiry that the government could establish to examine these issues that would have the necessary powers and protections would be a royal commission. Given the time that has passed since the relevant events, and the fact that Mr Keating is no longer a holder of public office, the commissioning by this government—Mr Kerr interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison is warned.7V5Mr WILLIAMS—of a potentially long and divisive examination into what happened under the most recent Labor governments would not be in the public interest. Mr Keating knows all the material facts. If he wishes in defence of his reputation to seek to justify his past conduct in office to the Australian public, that course is open to him, as it always has been.Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter is warned.7V5Mr WILLIAMS—If he chooses not to do so, the public will be entitled to draw its own conclusions. Another issue is the allegation that Mr Keating misled the parliament when he stated, in March 1994, that he had disposed of his interests in the piggery business. In light of the available material, it is reasonably open to conclude that Mr Keating was less than completely frank in his statement to the parliament and could in fact have been in breach of his obligations to the House of Representatives. However, determination of that issue is properly a matter for the parliament. Since Mr Keating is no longer a member of the parliament, there is now little point in such an inquiry. I have advised the government to the effect outlined in the statement, and the government has accepted that advice. I will table the advice.Opposition members interjecting—Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter has been warned.86388638Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Very fast you are on other people's accountability, so now I will ask you a question about yours. Prime Minister, will you now provide this House with an answer on why you have not insisted that your ministers conform with the requirements of the Auditor-General's Administration of grants better practice guide when it says that every grants assessment `should be documented with reasons for decision and then accessible under freedom of information provisions'? Does the Prime Minister know that the documents in question have been sought under those provisions and have not been provided? When are you going to provide them?8638Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As the Leader of the Opposition knows, I do not accept unchallenged the summations you make about what somebody has said or about what the law states. As far as I am aware, on all the information available to me, correct procedures were followed by both ministers. Correct procedures—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Could I take a point of order, Mr Speaker?Miss Jackie Kelly interjecting—Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Sport and Tourism is warned. The member for Batman is warned.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—My point of order goes to relevance, Mr Speaker. Not one word in my question dealt with the issue of whether or not the ministers had approved these things appropriately. Every word in my question went to why there has not been a release of the reasons under this matter. The Prime Minister still is not addressing it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well that the chair has no control over answers, and that the Prime Minister has thus far been relevant.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I repeat that I do not accept an analysis of any part of the law made by the Leader of the Opposition in question time without the benefit of my own analysis and advice on that law. I have taken that attitude repeatedly and I take it in relation to this question as well. To the rest of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition I reply by saying, as I have said before, that on the advice available to me the ministers have followed correct procedures. They have affirmed to me that the audit guidelines were followed. I am satisfied on the advice available to me that all of the projects were good projects, all of the projects were beneficial to our culture, environment and heritage, and I stand by all of the projects.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table, for the benefit of the Prime Minister, his better practice guidelines for the Auditor-General.Leave not granted.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I issue a general warning to all members on my left.86388638Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware of the proportion of Australians who hold private health insurance and can therefore take advantage of the federal government's 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance? Minister, can you inform the House of any other proposals to address the costs of private health insurance premiums?8638Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. There is some good news. Earlier today, the Private Health Insurance Administration Council released data which shows that private health insurance has risen again last quarter. There are now over a quarter of a million Australians who have private health insurance who would not have it had we done nothing.Ms Macklin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga will excuse herself from the House under the provisions of standing order 304A.The honourable member for Jagajaga thereupon withdrew from the chamber.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—Participation has increased in every state and it is up across age groups. It is the second quarter in a row to have shown an increase and this is the best result since 1980, before Medicare started. We certainly do not say that this is the end of the road and that this is all we have to do. There is still a lot of work to be done on the gap, although there are good early signs there. The fact is that our hard work and effort on this is now starting to pay off.86398639Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation. Minister, are you aware of the unsuccessful application for federation cultural and heritage funding by the City of Port Phillip for the historic Emerald Hill precinct? What was the ranking given to this project? Did any of the 16 projects chosen by ministers Hill and Alston rank lower?8639McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I thank the honourable member for his question. There were 741 applications under this program, so bear with me if I do not know that particular one. I would simply say that in the handling of that application, as with all others, there were two lists—those that were eligible and those that were not eligible. The 60 projects finally settled on came from the eligible list. Every one of the 60 projects was eligible. The process for funding those projects under the program was explained at some length yesterday in this House, and many times previously in the Senate, and was reiterated by the Prime Minister today. It is an excellent program. A number of electorates, regions and districts throughout Australia have benefited. The government is very proud of a program which the Commonwealth has never previously undertaken. 86398639Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Minister, can you inform the House how Australians have responded to the opportunity to invest in the Telstra 2 share offer?8639Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I am sure that all members would be pleased to be informed further in relation to the share offer in Telstra. I did inform the House earlier this week that pre-registration had opened and that there was a Telstra share offer on the table. I also informed the House that there is a guaranteed right to purchase 400 shares which could be obtained by pre-registration and that that could be done by phone, by post and by Internet. Over the last two weeks since pre-registration commenced, the response has been very encouraging. Today I am pleased to inform the House that the one millionth Australian has pre-registered for the offer. More than half of those have pre-registered by way of post. Approximately 100,000 of those who have pre-registered have done so over the web site and the balance have done so by phone.This is a strong response. If one bears in mind that existing shareholders are not required to pre-register and that all existing shareholders, some 1.4 million of them, will receive the prospectus and an application form, that brings the total who will receive an application form and prospectus to approximately 2½ million Australians. While that response is strong, as I have indicated, it is not too late to pre-register to get that guarantee of a minimum of 400 shares. The deadline is Monday, 16 August at midnight. If anyone still wants to pre-register, the phone number is 1800 18 18 18.Mr Horne interjecting—HQ5Mr FAHEY—I note that the honourable member for Paterson indicated, `We don't want it!' Some of your colleagues did last time in another place, so I will continue for their benefit. The Internet address is www.t2.telstra.com.au. The offer has been accessible and popular. It is an offer for all Australians. 86408640McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation. Minister, further to your answer to the question from the member for Melbourne Ports, I ask you: will you obtain the details of the answer to the question of the member for Melbourne Ports—that is, with regard to the ranking of his particular project and its ranking relative to those chosen by ministers Hill and Alston? Will you obtain the details of that matter and return and advise the House of the details before it rises today?8640McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—Again, I thank the honourable member for his question. I remind him of the 741 applications. To what extent this is a practical or normal procedure I will take advice on. I will not make procedural policy decisions on the run.86408640Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. In light of the strong growth in Australia's inbound tourism sector, what is the minister doing to ensure that indigenous communities in this country have an opportunity to share in the resulting commercial and employment benefits?8640Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I thank the member for Robertson for his question. I am immensely proud of the progress that this government is making in ensuring that the immense wealth that is being generated in the tourism industry—which is one of our biggest industries; it is a $60 billion industry—is being shared amongst all Australians. We have recently seen the appointment of an indigenous liaison officer at the Australian Tourist Commission which is designed to maximise the benefits to indigenous tourism operators from the ATC's international marketing efforts. We know from surveys that 80 per cent of travellers from Europe seek some sort of indigenous tourism experience. With that, we have allocated significant funding from our $16 million regional tourism program to develop and assist indigenous tourism products. We have also adopted a national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tourism industry strategy. We are slowly ticking off on the items from that, such as a code of conduct for visitors to indigenous communities, and working through a number of cultural issues so that our indigenous communities feel comfortable about accessing this marvellous industry which is bringing so many jobs and such wealth potential to the regional areas of Australia. We will continue to work closely with Aboriginal and other organisations to ensure the effective and targeted delivery of assistance programs to advance indigenous tourism.86408640Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. It follows the many we have asked in an attempt to get the Prime Minister to provide us with a reasonable answer on these matters. I ask the Prime Minister this question, because last time he cast doubt on the veracity of what I had to say about the Auditor-General's guidelines. Prime Minister, are you aware that 138 of the Auditor-General's guidelines, Administration of grants better practice guide , says:The criteria and basis for recommendations and decisions at all stages of the grant process, including appraisal and approval, must be effectively documented. Appraisal forms should provide for the recording of reasons for decisions and recommendations. They should be maintained consistently as part of the official record and be accessible under freedom of information provisions.Prime Minister, why have you not made them accessible?8640Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In the quiet spirit in which the Leader of the Opposition asks the question, can I, equally, reply quietly. I will have a look at what he has put to me. I will read the act. I will get some advice, like any other Prime Minister or minister would do in a situation like this, and if there is anything further I should add I will. I have been in this place a long time and when questions of that kind have been asked in the past of prime ministers and ministers on both sides of the parliament they have given precisely that kind of answer. The proposition that I should just accept on the run the interpretation, the embellishment, the context—Mr Danby interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—the description, or whatever, that is put on it by the Leader of the Opposition is palpably absurd.Mr Danby interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—No matter how many questions he asks me in that vein, I have absolutely no intention of playing that game.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne Ports will excuse himself from the House under the provisions of standing order 304A.The honourable member for Melbourne Ports thereupon withdrew from the chamber.Censure Motion8641864115:27:008641Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving forthwith:That this House censures the Prime Minister for his failure to uphold the requirements of the Auditor-General's `Administration of grants better practice guidelines' and his blatant use of Telstra funds to provide a war chest for coalition candidates.I move that these sessional orders be suspended so we can make an effort at getting at the truth in this House about what has been a blatant piece of chicanery with the funds from the sale of one of Australia's great national assets. We need a suspension of standing orders on this to enable us to fully scrutinise and debate in this place a shameful little episode of which the Prime Minister has no reason to be proud. If we get those standing orders suspended, we will, for example, be able to discuss the fact that on the day he called the election he—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Makin is warned.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—signed off public expenditures specifically to benefit Liberal candidates in seat after seat. Indeed, if this had been the New South Wales parliament and not the federal parliament we would not be discussing it in this place. It would have been referred to another body, which has already had a deal to say on these matters. It would have been referred to ICAC. Instead, the place where scrutiny takes place here is in this chamber and in the Auditor-General's office. As for the Auditor-General's capacity to do his business effectively, the Auditor-General has been nobbled by the Prime Minister's decision. Let us understand what is going on here. Thousands of applications may well have been made for these particular grants around the country. They were widely advertised. Many of them will not have met the guidelines and would have been assessed at zero. Many others would have been assessed at between zero and 16, and many others would have been assessed at between 16 and 25.What we know is this: there were more than adequate numbers that met the optimal result. All above nought happened to qualify. In the slip-sliding around in answers in question time, the assertion is made repeatedly that they all qualified—yes, anything with one qualified; if you got better than nought you qualified—but if you were reasonably expecting to receive that grant, you can reasonably expect to be required to meet some assessment of between about 15 points and 24 points—it is either 24 or 25. You can reasonably expect to find yourself in that layer.Indeed, 70 projects that found themselves in that layer also did not receive grants from this government. But there were a lucky 16 that appeared between nought and 15 which received those grants. We would like to know who those lucky 16 were, why they received them and how much they received so that we can make a judgment and the Australian people can make a judgment as to whether or not those Auditor-General's guidelines were conformed with. When a newspaper sought to obtain that information, using the Auditor-General's guidelines, it found itself stymied; it did not receive it. I think we are entitled to surmise from the actions of the government to this point that they are entering a plea of guilty and, having entered a plea of guilty, they now wish to shut the trial down. That is what you can surmise from the government's position to this point.Let us go back and remember some of the origins. I have occasion to remember the unction of the Treasurer, the unction of the Prime Minister and the unction of assorted other low-rent players—then in opposition who now find themselves in government—when dealing with Labor Party community grants given out under the aegis of the then federal government. Did they not wax lyrical! We have a quote from that time from the now Treasurer, `When we get into office, we will have that Auditor-General's better practice guidelines, and we will be conforming to them to the letter.' In the same way that the ministerial code of conduct has collapsed completely with the foul handling of this Prime Minister, so it is that this area of government accountability has collapsed completely.But what gives this a particular poignancy? What drives the ordinary Australian citizen mad about this sort of behaviour is the origin of these funds. These funds came from the sale of Telstra. I get lectured here in question time day in day out about what a dreadful fellow I am for inhibiting the opportunity for large numbers of Australians to take up shares in Telstra, when every Australian owns a share in Telstra. The government are moving to a situation where some Australians own shares in Telstra, but we get that unction from them. Are they a little surprised that we would not take a bit of umbrage at it when we find that this great asset owned by all Australians—that is being sold to some Australians and some foreigners—is being sold not for decent projects or even necessarily for retirement of debt but to fund Liberal Party election slush funds? That is what Telstra is being sold for; for your Liberal Party election slush fund.That is an extraordinary thing for you to have to fess up to, and that is another reason why, against the Auditor-General's guidelines, you suppress knowledge of how those decisions are arrived at—the Auditor-General's conclusions will come later.The Prime Minister in question time today accused me of not talking about unemployment. My very first question dealt with the unemployment of Oakdale miners, for whom this government will not find $6 million from their own money to provide them with an entitlement. An Oakdale miner is not entitled to his $58,000 of owed leave and the rest of his entitlements, but a Liberal candidate in the last election was entitled to $600,000 or $1 million—you name it—to pork-barrel his constituency and then have it concealed and covered up by the Prime Minister of this country. Honestly, quizzing the Prime Minister about it in question time today was like drawing teeth from a hen—actually, finding teeth in the hen or finding teeth in the duck's bill in this particular case—when attempting to get even a smidgen of a confession that he knew we were asking him a question at all. Every time we asked him a question on this matter, we got an answer to a different question. Every single time, we got an answer to a different question.We finally got an answer from the Prime Minister when he realised the game was up. It took seven blinking questions to get him to answer. We had a whole range of other things that we wanted to raise in this question time. This is the only forum in which the government is to be held accountable in this country, so we had to go, one after the other. We finally got the Prime Minister to say, `Now that you have read to me the entirety of the Auditor-General's requirement and I cannot in any way, shape or form look, for one instance, intellectually creditable, I will not say to you or to the people who put in the freedom of information request that I will conform with the guidelines; I will go away and look at the guidelines.' That is why we need a suspension of standing orders in this place. We are the part of the parliament that holds the government and the Prime Minister accountable on this. The waste of people's funds—the waste of Telstra funds—is an issue which quintessentially requires parliamentary scrutiny. If we cannot get it in question time via a censure motion, we will keep on going on this until we get every single question answered. The Prime Minister may as well come clean now.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?YU5TANNERMr Tanner—I second the motion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the member for Melbourne, I remind all members of the general warning that exists. I clearly was not going to take action when they were supportive of their leader, but a general warning still exists for the duration of the debate.8I4MARTINMr Martin—It is only on this side, though, isn't it? Is it only on the left side?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have warned some people on the other side as well.8I4MARTINMr Martin—No, you have warned them individually, but—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I do not need a one-to-one exchange with the member for Cunningham—8I4MARTINMr Martin—I just want to get it straight, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—as he is well aware.15:38:008643Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The parliament should debate the motion that has been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition because the government and the Prime Minister today have been completely and utterly exposed for refusing to answer one simple, core question: why are they refusing to table the reasons for decisions with respect to these grants that were made purely for electoral purposes?The facts are very clear-cut. One hundred and fourteen applications passed the minimum hurdle of 15 points. Seventy of those missed out. Sixteen applications that did not meet those criteria—that did not meet the 15-point minimum according to the departmental criteria—were lifted up above the bar and, as a result, the 70 missed out. It is not just a case of those that were eligible; they were all eligible. They all met minimum criteria. They all got to the starting blocks. That is correct. But what the government is not saying is that then there was a race and there was a set of criteria that would determine who were the winners and who were the losers. After the race they then said, `We've now changed our mind. Forget the criteria; you lot who were losers are now in the winners pile and those of you who were winners, sorry,'—and possibly using the example quoted by the member for Melbourne Ports today—`You've now missed out.'According to the department, those under 15 points did not compare well in terms of significance or community benefit to the highest ranked projects or were unable to answer concerns about the ability of the organisation to deliver the project on time or within the budget or had ongoing doubts about the viability. The two ministers concerned, the minister in the House today—the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation—and now the Prime Minister have consistently refused to release the documentation. They have consistently refused to tell the opposition, the parliament or the Australian people why these decisions were made.The end result is a travesty like this: pages and pages full of thick black lines where all you have is the detail of the actual grant. The reasons why that organisation was favoured are removed. The reasons why that organisation was given money have been deleted. That is accountability, transparency and integrity of government John Howard style. That is why we need to debate this issue in the parliament today.The Auditor-General had something to say about this in his better practice guide, as the Leader of the Opposition indicated. The Prime Minister, as part of his shifting and wriggling this afternoon—as part of his attempt to shift ground at every question that was asked—said, `We've complied with the Auditor-General's requirements.' I am terribly sorry, Prime Minister, but that is simply not true. That is a lie.XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne will withdraw the reference to the Prime Minister.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—I will withdraw the word `lie'. That is an untruth, Mr Speaker. As the Leader of the Opposition read out, 138 of the Auditor-General's guidelines says that the criteria and basis for recommendations and decisions at all stages of the grants process, including appraisal and approval, must be effectively documented and that they must be accessible under freedom of information provisions. This document is John Howard's idea of what `accessible under freedom of information' means. That is what we are debating today.We would do well to recall the unctuous, slimy, hypocritical words of the Treasurer back when he was shadow minister for finance. On 1 March 1994 he said:If we were in government we would have proper audits, and material that should be available under freedom of information would be available.Those words sound pretty hollow now. Twenty-seven per cent of these grants were not in accordance with the criteria—16 out of 60—and the two ministers are telling us now that commercial-in-confidence is the reason why they cannot actually release the details.Details of an extension to the Commonwealth Rail Museum—that well-known purveyor of services to the general public, that well-known private sector competitor, that well-known supplier of all sorts of goods and services that are subject to secret confidential contracts—are not able to be released. The reasons why they have been given some government money are not able to be released because it is commercial-in-confidence. The Prime Minister did not have the gall to use that one, but perhaps we should ask him and see what his line on commercial-in-confidence is. The other classic line, of course, is, `These are only bureaucrats. Ministers are entitled to do whatever they like; these are only bureaucrats.' That is a very different sort of line from that we heard from the government when they were in opposition.This program was a rort from the outset. These ministers have been caught out rorting their own rort. They have rorted their own rort. They have misused their own procedures. They have not been satisfied with what has been set up, and they have misused their own procedures in order to further bias the program towards their own supporters. They are refusing to release the reasons for these decisions for these reasons only: it will expose the truly political nature—the truly electorally biased nature—of this program and it will expose them for the hypocrites that they are. These people who came into government announcing that they would be purveyors of fine new standards, of a new level of integrity and accountability in government, have taken integrity and accountability in government in this place to new low levels that have never been seen before in the history of this federation. The House should debate this motion. (Time expired)15:43:008644McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—This is not a new matter; this has been exhaustively discussed and examined in Senate estimates. But for the benefit of the House I will very calmly and rationally—and for the factual basis on which this debate can take place—restate just what the timetable was for the Federation, Cultural and Heritage Projects Program.Applications were due on 30 June 1998. A task force was formed between the Department of Communications and the Arts and the Department of the Environment. That task force assessment process began on 13 July 1998 and was completed on 13 August 1998. The National Council for the Centenary of Federation was involved. Its advice was sought and it provided its advice to ministers on 7 August 1998. This is crucial: it was not just the task force's assessments that decided the matter; it was other sources of advice as well as other bases upon which the two ministers, Senators Hill and Alston, reached their conclusions.The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts sent a minute to the ministers on 14 August 1998, along with copies of all applications and the task force evaluation of each project. The ministers then forwarded a list of their recommended projects to the Prime Minister for approval on 27 August. A letter dated 30 August 1998 was sent to the ministers advising them of the Prime Minister's approval.As I have already said, 741 applications were received. The task force that I have mentioned evaluated those applications against six criteria: significance, lasting nature, appropriateness for the Centenary of Federation, benefits to the broader community, good management, capability and partnerships in funding. Each of those criteria were to be assessed by the task force. There was a score of four for each of those six criteria, leading to a score out of a total of 24. There were also specific criteria that had to be met, such as heritage had to comply with all relevant approvals. A number of applications were deemed ineligible, because they did not meet the basic conditions of the program. Everything that you would expect was there.Remember that the National Council for the Centenary of Federation made its own evaluation on each project and forwarded it to the ministers for them to consider in conjunction with the task force evaluation. On top of that, the ministers had to take into account further issues in reaching a decision on which projects to fund, such as a balance of cultural and heritage projects, a balance of projects in each state and territory and a balance of projects in inner metropolitan, outer metropolitan and regional areas—as you would expect. Ministers after all do not automatically accept the advice of their departments. It is not a practice adopted by this government nor any previous government, to the best of my knowledge, nor is it a practice the electorate would want us to adopt. We take heed and careful consideration of advice from public officials, but they do not determine the issue. We seek other sources of advice as well as our own criteria. Consequently, you cannot approach this issue looking at it only from the evaluation of the task force.After all, the ministers were not provided with recommendations—there was no such list. Rather, they were given all of the information possible upon which they could make a judgment as to which of the projects were worth while and deserving of funding. I believe, and it is obvious from the opposition's silence on this issue, that all 60 projects deserve funding. All of them are worthy projects. Consequently, I believe the process worked well.The opposition has made much of some suggestion of a breach of Australian National Audit Office guidelines. We have repeated on a number of occasions in this House that the approach—the whole process—used by the ministers to determine the grants was developed based on those exact guidelines, and the reasons for decisions were fully documented. Bear in mind that the Auditor-General would be known to most, if not all, members of the House as an independent officer of the parliament. He or she is not subject to a direction from the Minister for Finance and Administration or any other minister. Consequently, the National Audit Office was consulted in the preparation of the specific approach that was used to determine the approval or refusal of grant applications under this program. It was developed on the basis of that office's better practice guide for the administration of grants. The specific guidelines were circulated with the application form.There has been some suggestion of political bias in all of this. I repeat the figures I gave yesterday: 52 per cent of the projects are in the 50 per cent of electorates held by the Liberal Party; 12 per cent of the projects are in the 12 per cent of the electorates held by the National Party; 30 per cent of the projects are in the 33 per cent of electorates held by the Labor Party; five per cent of the projects are in the five per cent of electorates that are held by the Independents; and one project went across a number of electorates. That is close to an exactness of successful projects according to the political flavour of an electorate at any given time. I believe that the fairness and balance of the process has been borne out by those exact figures, so much so that the government are proud of the contribution they have been able to make to funding the 60 projects under the Federation Fund.This is a worthwhile program, and who amongst the opposition would dispute that? Would it be the member for Melbourne? His electorate received a total of $4.1 million. The seat of Melbourne received funding for two projects: the restoration of the Polly Woodside and Federation tapestry—both worth while, both deserving, and both within a Labor seat. I have to confess that my own electorate received no project funding and that I look with envy at the seat of Melbourne with $4.1 million.You can go through them all: the restoration of the Great Synagogue, where the then sitting member in the seat of Sydney, Peter Baldwin, was the nominee; Corio received funding for the National Wool Museum; Canberra for the development of the Tuggera nong Homestead. The member for Reid was the nominee for funding for the Rookwood Cemetery restoration. Prospect received funding for St Bartholomew's Church conservation; Denison will be funded for the historic female factory site. The opposition claimed that these are shonks. Which of those are shonks? None of the 60 projects are shonks. All are worth while. All have been processed according to guidelines.The government believes that the opposition should be up-front and say which of the 60 they suggest should not have been funded. We believe they should all have been funded. Consequently, this is a program which has substantially and materially benefited our cultural and artistic heritage and moreover has given a great deal of infrastructure to otherwise deprived areas. The opposition has falsely claimed that the criteria were not met for some funded projects. That is simply wrong. As we have said ad nauseam, all 60 funded projects were eligible. We have explained the process at length in this place and in the other place. Quite frankly, the opposition has responsibility to point out which of these were shonks, because they have benefited enormously, as is right and proper. As local members, most if not all of them supported the applications in their electorates. To name some more projects: Port Adelaide—Commonwealth Railways Museum; Perth—Meerilinga House restoration; Lyons—Clarendon Homestead and Woolmers Heritage and Cultural Estate. That is a total of almost $2 million.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired.Question put:That the motion ( Mr Beazley's ) be agreed to.The House divided. [3.56 p.m.](Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the negative.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Documents86468646Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—A paper is tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the paper will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Special Adjournment8646Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Monday, 23 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.Miscellaneous86468646Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Yesterday I was asked a number of questions about the presence in the gallery of a film crew and a still photographer. I undertook to investigate these matters and report back to the House. The guidelines for filming in Parliament House are determined by the Presiding Officers and contain very strict and specific requirements and safeguards. The current guidelines were approved by the Presiding Officers in 1988. Requests for filming are considered on a case by case basis. As a general rule, footage of parliamentary proceedings is provided by the Sound and Vision Office. However, in this case permission was given for filming in the chamber as it was thought the file footage available from SAVO would be insufficient.Although permission for some limited filming had been given, the use of the boom microphone was unauthorised and unexpected. Immediately the microphone was observed, the Serjeant-at-Arms acted to ensure that it was no longer used. Therefore, although the microphone remained evident, it was no longer activated. Because of the unauthorised activities of the film crew, their tape was retrieved and a copy made of the footage taken in the chamber. I have viewed the footage and I am satisfied that it complies with the guidelines in regard to content. I have also invited the whips to view the tape if they so desire. The same invitation is extended to the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business.Although the appropriate approvals had been sought and obtained in regard to both instances in question, unfortunately the whips were not advised that filming would be taking place. I have since spoken to both the chief whips and explained to them the circumstances of this oversight and the background to the requests for the presence of the film crew and the official Auspic photographer. I want to assure honourable members that in considering requests for filming in Parliament House the first consideration is always to protect the privacy of all members, staff and visitors to the building and to ensure that the dignity and standing of the parliament is maintained.16:05:008647Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Mr Speaker, thank you for that response on that particular issue, on which you will recall that I, the Chief Opposition Whip and the Treasurer raised concerns with you. In a brief response yesterday before coming back with that fuller response, you indicated that the camera which was behind the opposition was focused on a government member. Your statement does not say for what purpose the camera was here and the reasons which were considered appropriate to allow that to happen. I wonder whether you might expand on that for the benefit of other members who might have a similar opportunity, because I think most of us are under the apprehension that, as you mentioned in your comments today, it is Sound and Vision supplied footage and if we want it we go and ask them for the appropriate thing. If others are thinking about filming, they can be guided by that particular procedure.8647Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—That is a perfectly reasonable request from the member for Cunningham, and I had considered it in preparing my statement. I had not nominated the member—I have not consulted the member either, I should add, about this nomination—out of deference for his privacy, the same sort of deference as I would extend to all other members. But I would indicate that, as I said in the statement, I am very happy to have the whips, the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business come to the office and view the tape. They can then use the information as they think fit.Matters of Public Importance8647864710000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Jagajaga proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The Government's attack on Medicare demonstrated by its undermining of bulk billing and its failure to support a public inquiry into the future funding needs of public hospitals.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—Motion (by Mr Reith) put:That the business of the day be called on.The House divided. [4.11 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ——Voting lists are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Committees8647864710000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated members to be members of certain committees.Motion (by Dr Stone)—by leave—agreed to:That Mr L.D.T. Ferguson be appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; Mr L.T.D. Ferguson be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and that, in his place, Mr Wilkie be appointed a member of the committee; and Mr Adams be appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration.Miscellaneous86488648Motion (by Dr Stone)—by leave—agreed to:That, in accordance with the provisions of the National Library Act 1960, this House elects Mr M.J. Ferguson to be a member of the Council of the National Library of Australia and to continue as a member for a period of 3 years from this day.Bills8648s2158648Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.8648Bill (on motion by Dr Stone)—by leave—read a third time.Bills8648s2028648Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.8648Bill (on motion by Dr Stone)—by leave—read a third time.Bills8648r8868648Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.8648Bill (on motion by Dr Stone)—by leave—read a third time.Bills8648r8878648Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.8648Bill (on motion by Dr Stone)—by leave—read a third time.Bills8648r8558648Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.8648Bill (on motion by Dr Stone)—by leave—read a third time.Bills8648r8468648Bill returned from Main Committee with an amendment; certified copy of bill and schedule of amendment presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Main Committee's amendment—(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 10) after "Trust "insert "of Australia " Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.8649Bill (on motion by Dr Stone)—by leave—read a third time.Bills8649r7548649Consideration resumed from 29 June.Senate's requested amendments—(1) Clause 5, page 6 (after line 6), after paragraph (c), insert: (ca) the amount, determined in a manner agreed by the Commonwealth and all of the States, that represents amounts of voluntary GST payments that should have, but have not, been paid by local government bodies; and(2) Page 14 (after line 4), at the end of Division 2, add:14A Revenue replacement payments—2000-01(1) Each State is to be paid by way of financial assistance, for the 2000-01 GST year, a revenue replacement payment.(2) The revenue replacement payment for a State for the 2000-01 GST year is: [Alcohol base amountxAlcohol share]+[Tobacco base amountxTobacco share]+[Petroleum base amountxPetroleum share]where: alcohol base amount means the sum of: (a) the amounts determined by the Commissioner of Taxation, before 15 June 2001, to be the additional amount of sales tax on taxable dealings that occurred before 1 July 2000 to which the Sales Tax (Surcharge) Acts relate that was, or is likely to be, collected in the GST year because of a Commonwealth surcharge; and (b) if the June 2000 alcohol base amount exceeds the June 2000 alcohol base amount estimate—the amount of the excess;less the sum of: (c) if the June 2000 alcohol base amount estimate exceeds the June 2000 alcohol base amount—the amount of the excess; and (d) the amount determined by the Commissioner of Taxation to be the additional administrative costs incurred by the Commonwealth in the GST year because of that surcharge or those surcharges, to the extent that the administrative costs relate to taxable dealings that occurred before 1 July 2000. alcohol share for a State means: (a) if paragraph (b) does not apply—the number set out opposite the name of the State in the table at the end of this definition; or (b) if the regulations prescribe a number as the alcohol share for each State for the purposes of this definition—the number so prescribed for the State.Revenue replacement payments—alcohol shareItemStateAlcohol share1New South Wales0.337962Victoria0.223323Queensland0.193144Western Australia0.111475South Australia0.078576Tasmania0.024157Australian Capital Territory0.015698Northern Territory0.01569 petroleum base amount means the sum of: (a) the amount determined by the Chief Executive Officer of Customs, before 15 June 2001, to be the additional amount of customs duty on goods, imported before 1 July 2000, falling to subheadings of Chapter 27 of Schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 that was, or is likely to be, collected during the GST year because of a Commonwealth surcharge; andNote: Chapter 27 of Schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 deals with petroleum products. (b) the amount determined by the Commissioner of Taxation to be the additional amount of excise duty on goods, manufactured or produced before 1 July 2000, falling to items 11 and 12 of the Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 that was, or is likely to be, collected during the GST year because of a Commonwealth surcharge; andNote: Items 11 and 12 of the Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 deal with petroleum products. (c) if the June 2000 petroleum base amount exceeds the June 2000 petroleum base amount estimate—the amount of the excess;less the sum of: (d) if the June 2000 petroleum base amount estimate exceeds the June 2000 petroleum base amount—the amount of the excess; and (e) the amount determined by the Chief Executive Officer of Customs to be the additional administrative costs incurred by the Commonwealth in the GST year because of surcharges mentioned in paragraph (a), to the extent that the administrative costs relate to goods that were imported before 1 July 2000; and (f) the amount determined by the Commissioner of Taxation to be the additional administrative costs incurred by the Commonwealth in the GST year because of surcharges mentioned in paragraph (b), to the extent that the administrative costs relate to goods that were manufactured or produced before 1 July 2000. petroleum share for a State means: (a) if paragraph (b) does not apply—the number set out opposite the name of the State in the table at the end of this definition; or (b) if the regulations prescribe a number as the petroleum share for each State for the purposes of this definition—the number so prescribed for the State.Revenue replacement payments—petroleum shareItemStatePetroleum share1New South Wales0.300392Victoria0.201533Queensland0.195934Western Australia0.171185South Australia0.075496Tasmania0.024537Australian Capital Territory0.012918Northern Territory0.01804 tobacco base amount means the sum of: (a) the amount determined by the Chief Executive Officer of Customs, before 15 June 2001, to be the additional amount of customs duty on goods, imported before 1 July 2000, falling to subheadings of Chapter 24 of Schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 that was, or is likely to be, collected during the GST year because of a Commonwealth surcharge; andNote: Chapter 24 of Schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 deals with tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes. (b) the amount determined by the Commissioner of Taxation to be the additional amount of excise duty on goods, manufactured or produced before 1 July 2000, falling to items 6, 7 and 8 of the Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 that was, or is likely to be, collected during the GST year because of a Commonwealth surcharge; and Note: Items 6, 7 and 8 of the Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 deal with tobacco, cigars and cigarettes. (c) if the June 2000 tobacco base amount exceeds the June 2000 tobacco base amount estimate—the amount of the excess;less the sum of: (d) if the June 2000 tobacco base amount estimate exceeds the June 2000 tobacco base amount—the amount of the excess; and (e) the amount determined by the Chief Executive Officer of Customs to be the additional administrative costs incurred by the Commonwealth in the GST year because of surcharges mentioned in paragraph (a), to the extent that the administrative costs relate to goods that were imported before 1 July 2000; and (f) the amount determined by the Commissioner of Taxation to be the additional administrative costs incurred by the Commonwealth in the GST year because of surcharges mentioned in paragraph (b), to the extent that the administrative costs relate to goods that were manufactured or produced before 1 July 2000. tobacco share for a State means: (a) if paragraph (b) does not apply—the number set out opposite the name of the State in the table at the end of this definition; or (b) if the regulations prescribe a number as the tobacco share for each State for the purposes of this definition—the number so prescribed for the State.Revenue replacement payments—tobacco shareItemStateTobacco share1New South Wales0.324922Victoria0.218033Queensland0.190654Western Australia0.111005South Australia0.089886Tasmania0.032267Australian Capital Territory0.014568Northern Territory0.01870(3) In determining, for the purposes of subsection (2), the additional amount of customs duty or excise duty that was collected, or is likely to be collected, during a particular period because of a Commonwealth surcharge: (a) the Chief Executive Officer of Customs is to take into account the impact of the operation of section 19 of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 ; and (b) the Commissioner of Taxation is to take into account the impact of the operation of section 6A of the Excise Tariff Act 1921 . Note: Section 19 of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 and section 6A of the Excise Tariff Act 1921 provide for the automatic indexation of certain rates of duty which include rates payable on tobacco etc. and petroleum products.(4) If, after the commencement of this Act, the Customs Tariff Act 1995 or the Excise Tariff Act 1921 is amended to vary the method of calculating duty on goods falling to: (a) subheadings of Chapter 24 of Schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 ; or (b) items 6, 7 and 8 of the Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 ;then, for the purposes of subsection (2), the additional amount of customs duty or excise duty that was collected, or is likely to be collected, during a particular period is to be determined on the basis that the amendment had not been made.(5) For the purpose of subsection (4): (a) a Customs Tariff or Customs Tariff alteration proposed in the Parliament is taken to be an amendment of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 ; and (b) an excise tariff alteration proposed in the Parliament is taken to be an amendment of the Excise Tariff Act 1921 .(6) In this section: Commonwealth surcharge means the variation effected by a Surcharge Act in the rate of duty of customs or excise payable on specified goods or in the rate of sales tax applicable to specified taxable dealings (as the case may be). June 2000 alcohol base amount means the amount determined by the Commissioner of Taxation, before 15 June 2001, to be the additional amount of sales tax on taxable dealings to which the Sales Tax (Surcharge) Acts relate that was collected during the month of June 2000 because of a Commonwealth surcharge. June 2000 alcohol base amount estimate means the amount determined by the Commissioner of Taxation to be the June 2000 alcohol base amount estimate for the purposes of Schedule 6 to the States Grants (General Purposes) Act 1994 (as in force immediately before its repeal). June 2000 petroleum base amount means the sum of the amounts determined by the Chief Executive Officer of Customs, before 15 June 2001, to be: (a) the additional amount of customs duty falling to subheadings of Chapter 27 of Schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 that was collected during the month of June 2000 because of a Commonwealth surcharge; and (b) the additional amount of excise duty falling to items 11 and 12 of the Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 that was collected during the month of June 2000 because of a Commonwealth surcharge. June 2000 petroleum base amount estimate has the same meaning as in Schedule 6 to the States Grants (General Purposes) Act 1994 (as in force immediately before its repeal). June 2000 tobacco base amount means the sum of: (a) the amount determined by the Chief Executive Officer of Customs, before 15 June 2001, to be the additional amount of customs duty falling to subheadings of Chapter 24 of Schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 that was collected during the month of June 2000 because of a Commonwealth surcharge; and (b) the amount determined by the Commissioner of Taxation, before 15 June 2001, to be the additional amount of excise duty falling to items 6, 7 and 8 of the Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 that was collected during the month of June 2000 because of a Commonwealth surcharge. June 2000 tobacco base amount estimate has the same meaning as in Schedule 6 to the States Grants (General Purposes) Act 1994 (as in force immediately before its repeal). Sales Tax (Surcharge) Acts means the following Acts: (a) the Sales Tax (Customs) (Alcoholic Beverages) Act 1997 ; (b) the Sales Tax (Excise) (Alcoholic Beverages) Act 1997 ; (c) the Sales Tax (General) (Alcoholic Beverages) Act 1997 .Note: These Acts increase the rates of tax that apply to taxable dealings with the following goods: (a) goods covered by Item 1 of Schedule 7 to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1992 ; (b) beer, spirits, liqueurs or spirituous liquors; (c) beverages that contain beer, spirits (other than spirits for fortifying wine or other beverages), liqueurs or spirituous liquors. Surcharge Acts means the following Acts: (a) the Customs Tariff Amendment Act (No. 3) 1997 ; (b) the Excise Tariff Amendment Act (No. 3) 1997 ; (c) the Sales Tax (Surcharge) Acts; (d) any Act that varies: (i) the rate of the duty of customs payable on goods falling to subheadings of Chapter 24 or 27 of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 ; or (ii) the rate of the duty of excise payable on goods falling to item 6, 7, 8 or 11 of the Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 ; or (iii) the rate of sales tax applicable to any of the taxable dealings to which the Sales Tax (Surcharge) Acts relate;and is prescribed for the purposes of this definition.Note 1: The Customs Tariff Amendment Act (No. 3) 1997 increases the rate of the duty of customs payable on goods falling to certain subheadings of Chapters 24 and 27 of Schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 . The relevant subheadings of Chapter 24 deal with tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes. The relevant subheadings of Chapter 27 deal with petroleum products.Note 2: The Excise Tariff Amendment Act (No. 3) 1997 increases the rate of the duty of excise payable on goods falling to items 6, 7, 8 and 11 in the Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 . Items 6, 7 and 8 in that Schedule deal with tobacco, cigars and cigarettes. Item 11 deals with petroleum products.(3) Schedule 1, clause 4, page 18 (line 25), omit "or 2002-03".(4) Schedule 1, clause 5, page 19 (lines 28 and 29), omit ", 2001-02 or 2002-03", substitute "or 2001-02".(5) Schedule 1, clause 6, page 20 (lines 27 to 29), omit subclause (1), substitute:(1) This clause applies for: (a) the 2002-03 GST year; and (b) any GST year that is prescribed to be a transitional GST year for the purpose of paragraph (b) of the definition of transitional GST year in section 4.Motion (by Mr Slipper)—by leave—agreed to:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration moving amendments to A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 during the consideration of the Senate's requests for amendments.16:26:008653Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the requested amendments be made.The amendments I introduce today to A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 give effect to commitments undertaken by the government in the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations. At the end of June 1999, the Commonwealth, the states and the territories revised their historic agreement to reform Commonwealth-state financial arrangements in light of the changes to the tax reform package announced by the Prime Minister on 28 May.The government's reforms to the Commonwealth-state financial relations bill provide state and territory governments with revenue from a more robust tax base which can be expected to grow over time. The resulting improvement in the financial position of state and territory governments over time will assist them to provide a higher level of services, while at the same time facilitate the elimination of a number of existing inefficient taxes which are impeding economic activity. The amendments to the bill currently before the House will include the revised intergovernmental agreement as a schedule to Commonwealth legislation. They also record the Commonwealth's intention to comply with the agreement. In addition, these amendments provide greater certainty over the terms governing the changes to the GST base by spelling out the requirement to consult with states and territories when Commonwealth ministers issue determinations which affect the GST base.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members. This bill demonstrates the government's commitment to genuine Commonwealth-state financial reform and will ensure a stronger and more productive federal system for the new millennium. I commend the amendments to the House.16:28:008653Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I am a bit unsure about the next stage, but I think it appropriate to rise at this point in the debate. This is the last part of this stage of the parliamentary process concerning the original GST legislation of this government. I say `this stage of the parliamentary process' because this legislation will need to be amended many more times in the future.We have already had hundreds of government amendments as well as the changes due to the deal with the Australian Democrats. But one thing is for sure: we will be getting many more amendments back in this House. We will see a lot more of the dog's breakfast coming back in here in an attempt to patch it up. Incredibly, the government is having to amend its own Senate amendments because it has completely botched the process on this legislation. This legislation will now have to go back to the Senate again to fix up the earlier mistakes made in the Senate. This is probably not unprecedented, but it is sadly indicative of the unseemly haste with which the Democrat deal was implemented.But these amendments will soon be followed by all the new ones which are on the way. Only yesterday the Financial Review reported that Treasury has already advised finance sector executives that the GST is to be changed significantly in respect of financial products. Apparently, a discussion paper may be released in the next week concerning this matter. The only guaranteed result of these proposals will be added complexity. Of course, complexity is exactly what business does not need. The dirty deal with the Democrats has already delivered complexity and anomalies by the bucket load, and many more will emerge over time.Business needs certainties and answers to the questions that they are raising. Slick advertising is no substitute. Business groups have raised the issue of business not being prepared—both in private meetings with the opposition and increasingly in public—but the Treasurer simply ignores these issues. There are countless examples of people getting conflicting advice from the tax office hotline, sometimes even on the same day. We have already had many of the accounting groups and specialists who have had to advise small business on their obligations coming out and saying that the implementation is too slow. We still have no idea how the compensation, which is enormously inadequate, is to be distributed. How can small business plan effectively in such an environment? The answer is that they cannot. The GST imposes an unfair burden on both small business and families for the benefits of a few.This GST package is not tax reform. It is an unfair tax change, where families will face a new tax on almost everything they buy. We are told by the government that one of the key objectives of the package was to remove state taxes. That objective is now in tatters. What Australians will now face is a GST, and most of the state taxes will remain as well. The financial institutions duty will remain for the first year of the GST. In addition, the debits tax on bank accounts will remain for at least five years, and in reality this could mean forever. Many other taxes have been confined to the never-never.The Australian people know that the GST is not tax reform, and now even the commentators admit that this package is not tax reform either. Terry McCrann on 9 June in the Herald-Sun said:Remember how this reform was going to sweep away a whole raft of supposedly inefficient state taxes? Well apart from the taxes directly related to the GST, they mostly now stay.His conclusion was:The package is actually anti-reform.So not only is the package not tax reform, but it is also anti-reform. The major amendments in this package of amendments, that is, Nos 1, 2, 5 and 11, concern the appending of the intergovernmental agreement to the legislation. Labor does not oppose these or any other proposal circulated by the government. But I will reflect on the history of this agreement. There was an agreement and that agreement was reneged upon by the Prime Minister. (Extension of time granted) He deliberately sold out the states when he made the infamous agreement with Senator Lees. The states were then forced to sign up to a third-rate deal. There was no consultation, simply an ultimatum from the Prime Minister. We do not have the time to discuss the agreement in detail but I want to make this point: the agreement will only last as long as the Commonwealth decides it will. The Prime Minister's actions demonstrate that the GST can be varied without the involvement of the states, despite the government's rhetoric to the contrary.The other matter that I want to raise concerning the amendments is amendment No. 7. The hypocrisy of this measure is breathtaking. This proposes, firstly, that the GST base can be changed in order to maintain the integrity of the GST base and, secondly, to prevent tax avoidance. That is pretty rich coming from a government which only six weeks ago massively wrecked the integrity of the tax base in their deal with the Democrats and simultaneously watered down the anti-avoidance provisions in the GST legislation. So they have already done exactly the opposite of what they say they want to do now.On the question of business tax reform, Labor has consistently said that an important part of tax reform is business tax reform. Labor continues to support a bipartisan approach to genuine business tax reform. If the government wants bipartisanship, then it must provide the approach and the means for obtaining that bipartisanship as well. Without the GST, Labor said that business tax reform did not have to be measured against the test of revenue neutrality.The government's obsession with the GST has ensured that the straightjacket applies—fairness and equity demand it. An outrageous outcome from business tax reform would be the community being foisted with a 10 per cent new tax on just about everything, with the tax cuts unfairly skewed to the few at the top, and then the business tax reform process providing further relief to those on high incomes. It is against that background that I have written to the Treasurer on this issue and in the following terms:I am writing in relation to the final report of the Review of Business Taxation.As I have signalled on a number of occasions, it is essential that we continue the process of business tax reform undertaken by Labor in order to increase our competitiveness and generate further job growth. I therefore believe there is considerable scope for agreement on many elements of the current round of business tax reform. If there is a genuine willingness on the part of the government to engage in open debate on the merits of the Ralph Committee's options for business tax reform, it should be possible to produce a more coherent result than that achieved by the government's GST process.In this regard I note the Prime Minister's recent comments welcoming Labor's approach on business tax.The best way for the government to foster such a debate and sensible policy outcome is to release the key document in that debate, the final report of the Ralph Committee, and to engage in constructive dialogue on its recommendations. For its part, Labor is willing to work to identify the common ground, commit to genuine negotiation on areas of disagreement and support rapid passage of legislation through the Parliament on all items where there is agreement.As a first step, I have written to John Ralph seeking a copy of his report, if necessary on an in-confidence basis, and a briefing on his findings.It should then be possible for you and me to meet to identify areas of agreement and commence negotiation on the more contentious issues.This process should also involve making available the key Treasury officials involved in producing the report, in order to test the assumptions and clarify points of detail as they arise.I look forward to your cooperation on this matter.I signed that letter off to the Treasurer.The lesson from the GST debate was that the government's obsessive secrecy, its failure to consult and failure to test the arguments led to a second-rate outcome. What is needed this time around is an open debate on the merits of the Ralph committee's options for business tax reform. (Extension of time granted) This is a debate that Labor has always approached in a positive and pragmatic manner in the context of developing a bipartisan approach. Even the Prime Minister has acknowledged Labor's bipartisan approach on business tax reform. We do not want to see this opportunity wasted with botched legislation, policy backed by nothing but lightweight rhetoric and unworkable Senate deals that only increase the burden faced by Australian businesses.The Ralph committee process was relatively transparent and supported by industry stakeholders, yet now the business community is being treated with contempt by the govern ment. It has repeatedly called for the Ralph review to be released, yet to date that call has fallen on deaf ears. Labor has consistently said that we support business tax reform. Our assessment of the Ralph proposals will be based around the following principles: fairness, building stronger economic growth through net exports and creating jobs. We have offered bipartisan support in advancing measures which reflect that. There is considerable scope for agreement on business tax reform, and Labor is prepared to be part of the process to achieve it.The ball is in the government's court. The extent to which it cooperates will determine the extent of, if any inquiry process is needed in the other chamber, and the speed with which we can move to sensible tax reform for business in this community to make us more competitive, to drive net exports and to create job opportunities in the economy.16:38:008656Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I listened carefully to the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I certainly do not want to revisit all of the debate in relation to the introduction of our new tax system which will come in on 1 July in the year 2000. I must say that I felt that he was a little cynical with respect to the amendments which he claims would be necessary to the legislation.I also want to place on record our thanks to Senator Lees and the Australian Democrats for the very constructive way in which they have negotiated. Whilst we as a government did not get all of the new tax system the Australian people voted for, we certainly got 90 to 95 per cent of it, so we will be broadly able to implement our mandate.The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to a lack of understanding of the new tax system and what is indeed happening. I just want to assure the parliament that there will be a wide-ranging public education campaign so that, come 1 July 2000, people will fully understand all of the implications and the benefits of our new tax system.I must say that the amendments to the legislation were necessary as a result of the agreements with the Australian Democrats. We certainly do not apologise for that. The amended tax package will also be very good. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also referred to difficulties that small business may or may not be experiencing with respect to the implementation of the GST. I just want to assure him and the opposition that the government has established a board for a new tax system which will act as a conduit between the government on the one hand and business on the other on GST implementation issues. We will also set up a GST assistance office to administer the $500 million in assistance to small business which the government has provided.The small business area will also be able to access information from the many avenues made available by the government. There will be a tax information line, the wide-ranging public education program I mentioned a moment ago, and Australian Taxation Office officers will be on the ground meeting with small businesses prior to 1 July. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition quite wrongly suggested that the taxation reform process has, to use his words, been botched. We have consulted widely with the Australian community. We stood up prior to the last election and announced what our policy was going to be. We sought a mandate, gained a mandate and we have now delivered on that mandate.He also referred to the lack of consultation, as he termed it, with the premiers and chief ministers of the states and territories with respect to the intergovernmental agreement. Clearly, following amendments made with the Australian Democrats, it was necessary to revisit that agreement. There were discussions, and all state and territory ministers signed up to the new tax deal, including those state and territory leaders representing the Australian Labor Party.The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also said that state taxes would not necessarily be abolished. The intergovernmental agreement does provide for bed taxes to be abolished next year. State taxes on financial transactions—that is, FID, debits tax and stamp duty on marketable securities—will be abolished progressively from next year, and the ministerial council comprising representatives of the states and Commonwealth will review the abolition of a range of stamp duties on business transactions in 2005. So, clearly, contrary to what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, the intergovernmental agreement does deliver on the abolition of those state taxes.Question resolved in the affirmative.Amendments (by Mr Slipper) agreed to:(1) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 20), insert: Part 1A deals with the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations.(2) Clause 3, page 3 (after line 5), at the end of the clause, add: Schedule 2 contains a copy of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations.(3) Clause 5, page 6 (line 6), omit "; and", substitute ".".(4) Clause 5, page 6 (lines 7 and 8), omit paragraph (d).(5) Page 9 (after line 6), after Part 1, insert:Part 1A,Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations9A Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations (1) A copy of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations is set out in Schedule 2. (2) It is the intention of the Commonwealth to comply with, and give effect to, the agreement.(6) Clause 10, page 10 (after line 10), after subclause (1), insert:(1A) In particular, but without limiting subsection (1), a Minister may only make a determination under the GST Act, or the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Act 1999 , that affects the GST base if the determination is made in accordance with a procedure to which all of the States have agreed.(7) Clause 11, page 10 (after line 24), at the end of the clause, add: (2) A change is of an administrative nature only if the change is necessary to: (a) maintain the integrity of the GST base; or (b) prevent tax avoidance. (8) Schedule 1, page 18 (line 1), omit "a loan", substitute "an amount".(9) Schedule 1, page 18 (line 14), omit "of the loan".(10) Schedule 1, page 18 (after line 18), insert: (5A) The Treasurer may determine, in writing, that the whole or a part of the amount to which a State is entitled under subclause (5) is a grant. If the Treasurer makes such a determination, the remainder of the amount (if any) is a loan. If the Treasurer does not make a determination, the whole of the amount is a loan.(11) Page 21 (after line 3), at the end of the Bill, add:Schedule 2,Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial RelationsNote: See section 9A.THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIATHE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALESTHE STATE OF VICTORIATHE STATE OF QUEENSLANDTHE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIATHE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIATHE STATE OF TASMANIATHE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY, ANDTHE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIAWHEREAS(1) the Special Premiers' Conference on 13 November 1998 developed principles for the reform of Commonwealth-State financial relations;(2) the Commonwealth, States and Territories are in agreement that the current financial relationship between levels of government must be reformed to facilitate a stronger and more productive federal system for the new millennium;(3) while a majority of the States and Territories support the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), the agreement of New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania to the reform of Commonwealth-State financial relations does not imply their in-principle endorsement of the GST;(4) an Agreement was reached between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories on the reform of Commonwealth-State financial relations on 9 April 1999; (5) this revised Agreement was made necessary by the changes to the Commonwealth Government's A New Tax System (ANTS) package announced by the Prime Minister on 28 May 1999; and(6) this revised Agreement supersedes the previous Agreement of 9 April 1999:IT IS HEREBY AGREED:PART 1,PRELIMINARYCommencement Clause1. This Agreement will commence between the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories on 1 July 1999 unless otherwise agreed by the Parties.Objectives2. The objectives of the reforms set down in this agreement include: (i) the achievement of a new national tax system, including the elimination of a number of existing inefficient taxes which are impeding economic activity; (ii) the provision to State and Territory Governments of revenue from a more robust tax base that can be expected to grow over time; and (iii) an improvement in the financial position of all State and Territory Governments, once the transitional changes have been completed, relative to that which would have existed had the current arrangements continued.3. All Parties to the Agreement acknowledge the need to pursue on-going reform of Commonwealth-State financial relations.Acknowledgement of Agreement 4. The Commonwealth will attach the Agreement as a schedule to the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Act 1999 . The Commonwealth will use its best endeavours to ensure the Act will require compliance with the Agreement. The States and Territories will attach the Agreement as a schedule to relevant State and Territory legislation. The States and Territories will use their best endeavours to ensure their legislation will require compliance with the Agreement.PART 2, COMMONWEALTH-STATE FINANCIAL REFORMReform Measures5. The Parties will undertake all necessary steps to have appropriate legislation enacted to give effect to the following reform measures. (i) The Commonwealth will legislate to provide all of the revenue from the GST to the States and Territories and will legislate to maintain the rate and base of the GST in accordance with this Agreement. (ii) The Commonwealth will cease to apply the Wholesale Sales Tax from 1 July 2000 and will not reintroduce it or a similar tax in the future. (iii) The temporary arrangements for the taxation of petrol, liquor and tobacco under the safety net arrangements announced by the Commonwealth on 6 August 1997 will cease on 1 July 2000. (iv) The payment of Financial Assistance Grants will cease on 1 July 2000. (v) The Commonwealth will continue to provide Specific Purpose Payments (SPPs) to the States and Territories and has no intention of cutting aggregate SPPs as part of the reform process set out in this Agreement, consistent with the objective of the State and Territory Governments being financially better off under the new arrangements. (vi) The States and Territories will cease to apply the taxes referred to in Appendix A from the dates outlined below and will not reintroduce them or similar taxes in the future. . Bed taxes, from 1 July 2000; . Financial Institutions Duty, from 1 July 2001; . Stamp duties on quoted marketable securities from 1 July 2001; . Debits tax by 1 July 2005, subject to review by the Ministerial Council; (vii) The Ministerial Council will by 2005 review the need for retention of stamp duty on non-residential conveyances; leases; mortgages, debentures, bonds and other loan securities; credit arrangements, installment purchase arrangements and rental arrangements; and on cheques, bills of exchange, promissory notes; and unquoted marketable securities. (viii) The States and Territories will adjust their gambling tax arrangements to take account of the impact of the GST on gambling operators. (ix) Following negotiations under the CSHA, the States and Territories will ensure that increases in pensions and allowances specified in the tax reform package will not flow through to increased public housing rents where these rents are linked to the level of pensions. (x) Nothing in this clause will prevent any Party from introducing anti-avoidance measures that are reasonably necessary to protect its remaining tax base or liabilities accrued prior to the date the tax ceases to apply.GST LegislationAll Parties agree to reconsider this Agreement should the Commonwealth Parliament pass the GST legislation in a way that significantly affects this Agreement.Distribution of GST Revenue7. The Commonwealth will make GST revenue grants to the States and Territories equivalent to the revenue from the GST subject to the arrangements in this Agreement. GST revenue grants will be freely available for use by the States and Territories for any purpose.8. The Commonwealth will distribute GST revenue grants among the States and Territories in accordance with horizontal fiscal equalisation (HFE) principles subject to the transitional arrangements set out below and other relevant provisions of this Agreement.9. Details of the payment arrangements are contained in Appendix B to this Agreement.Transitional Arrangements10. In each of the transitional years following the introduction of the GST, the Commonwealth guarantees that the budgetary position of each individual State and Territory will be no worse off than it would have been had the reforms set out in this Agreement not been implemented.11. The Commonwealth will extend the transitional period by Regulation (as provided for in the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Act 1999 ) to give effect to the commitments in clause 10 in the event that transitional assistance is required by any State or Territory after 30 June 2003.12. To meet this guarantee, the Commonwealth will make transitional assistance payments to each State and Territory, as necessary, over this period. These payments will take the form of interest free loans and grants in July 2000-01 and grants paid quarterly in subsequent years and will be freely available for use by the States and Territories for any purpose. Any payments or repayments made by way of loans or grants under the Commonwealth's guarantee will be excluded from assessments of per capita relativities recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC).13. The amounts of any additional assistance under the guarantee will be determined in accordance with the processes set out in Appendix C to this Agreement.14. After the second year following the introduction of the GST, GST revenue grants will be determined on the basis of HFE principles. That is, after the first two years, any State or Territory which is receiving more than would have been received under the current arrangements will retain that excess.First Home Owners Scheme15. To offset the impact of the introduction of a GST, the States and Territories will assist first homebuyers through the funding and administration of a new uniform First Home Owners Scheme.16. This assistance will be provided to first home owners consistent with Appendix D to this Agreement.Application of the GST to Government17. The Parties intend that the Commonwealth, States, Territories and local government and their statutory corporations and authorities will operate as if they were subject to the GST legislation. They will be entitled to register, will pay GST or make voluntary or notional payments where necessary and will be entitled to claim input tax credits in the same way as non-Government organisations. All such payments will be included in GST revenue.18. The Commonwealth will legislate to require the States and the Northern Territory to withhold from any local government authority being in breach of clause 17 a sum representing the amount of unpaid voluntary or notional GST payments. Amounts withheld will form part of the GST revenue pool. Detailed arrangements will be agreed by the Ministerial Council on advice from Heads of Treasuries.Government Taxes and Charges19. The Commonwealth, States and Territories agree that the GST does not apply to the payment of some taxes and compulsory charges.20. The Parties will agree a list of taxes and compulsory charges that are outside the scope of the GST. This list will be promulgated by a determination by the Common wealth Treasurer as set out in Division 81-5 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (the GST Act).21. In agreeing the list, the Commonwealth, States and Territories will have regard to the following principles: (i) taxes that are in the nature of a compulsory impost for general purposes and compulsory charges by the way of fines or penalties should not be subject to GST as these will not relate to any specific supply of goods or services; (ii) similarly, those regulatory charges that do not relate to particular goods or services should be outside the scope of the GST; and (iii) the inclusion of any other charge in the Commonwealth Treasurer's determination notwithstanding that it may relate to the supply of a particular good or service will require the unanimous agreement of the Commonwealth, States and Territories.22. The agreed list of taxes and other compulsory charges that are outside the scope of the GST will be subject to on-going review and adjustment as necessary in consultation with the Ministerial Council. The Parties will notify any objections to changes to the list within a period to be specified by the Ministerial Council.Reciprocal Taxation23. Reciprocal taxation will be progressed on a revenue neutral basis, through the negotiation of a Reciprocal Taxation Agreement with the objectives of: (i) improving the transparency of tax arrangements between all levels of government; (ii) ensuring tax neutrality; and (iii) replacing the Statement of Policy Intent (SOPI) for the taxation treatment of Government Business Enterprises with tax arrangements which are broader in scope.24. It is the intention of the Parties to this Agreement that a National Tax Equivalent Regime (NTER) for income tax will be operational for State and Territory government business enterprises from 1 July 2000. It is also intended that the reciprocal application of other Commonwealth, State and Territory taxes will be subsequently implemented as soon as practicable.25. Local government organisations will be consulted with a view to making the NTER for income tax operational for wholly owned local government business enterprises from 1 July 2000 and including local government in the Reciprocal Tax Agreement at a later date.26. Where the application of full indirect reciprocal tax arrangements is prevented by the Constitution, jurisdictions have agreed to work cooperatively to introduce voluntary payment arrangements in these circumstances.27. All governments have agreed that no further compensation payments will be payable by any jurisdiction under the SOPI.Monitoring of Prices28. In accordance with the Trade Practices Act 1974 , as amended, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will formally monitor prices and take action against businesses that take pricing decisions in a manner inconsistent with tax reform.29. In order to ensure that these measures apply to the whole economy, the States and Territories will adopt the Schedule version of Part VB of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Part XIAA of The New Tax System Price Exploitation Code ) to extend the measures in Part VB to cover those areas outside the Commonwealth's constitutional power. All Parties will work towards having any necessary legislation in place by 1 July 1999.30. The monitoring and prohibition on unreasonable pricing decisions will commence on 1 July 1999 and continue until 30 June 2002.PART 3,ADMINISTRATION OF THE GSTManagement of the GST Rate31. After the introduction of the GST, a proposal to vary the 10 per cent rate of the GST will require: (i) the unanimous support of the State and Territory Governments; (ii) the endorsement by the Commonwealth Government of the day; and (iii) the passage of relevant legislation by both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament.Management of the GST Base32. Subject to clauses 34, 35 and 36 of this Agreement, after the introduction of the GST, any proposal to vary the GST base will require: (i) the unanimous support of the State and Territory Governments; (ii) the endorsement by the Commonwealth Government of the day; and (iii) the passage of relevant legislation by both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament.33. All future changes to the GST base should be consistent with: (i) the maintenance of the integrity of the tax base; (ii) simplicity of administration; and (iii) minimising compliance costs for taxpayers.34. A proposal to vary the GST base by way of a Ministerial determination under the GST Act and the GST Transition Act will require the unanimous agreement of the Ministerial Council established under clause 40. The Ministerial Council will develop practical arrangements to ensure timely consideration of proposed Ministerial determinations.35. During the first 12 months following the implementation of the GST, the Commonwealth Government will retain the discretion to make changes unilaterally to the GST base where such changes: (i) are of an administrative nature (as defined in Appendix E to this Agreement); (ii) are necessary to facilitate the implementation of the new tax; and (iii) have regard to the need to protect the revenue of the States and Territories.36. From July 2001, changes to the GST base of an administrative nature (as defined in Appendix E) would require the majority support of the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories.Australian Taxation Office 37. The States and Territories will compensate the Commonwealth for the agreed costs incurred by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) in administering the GST.38. Accountability and performance arrangements will be established between the ATO and the State and Territory Governments consistent with Appendix F to this Agreement. These arrangements will include maximising compliance, cost efficiency, simplicity for taxpayers and administrative transparency.39. The ATO and State and Territory Governments will collaborate to explore options for the States and Territories to benefit from the use of the Australian Business Number system. PART 4,INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS Establishment of Ministerial Council40. A Ministerial Council comprising the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories will be established from 1 July 1999 to oversee the operation of this Agreement.41. The membership of the Ministerial Council will comprise the Treasurer of the Commonwealth and the Treasurers of the States and Territories (or designated representatives).42. The functions of the Ministerial Council will include: (i) the oversight of the operation of the GST; (ii) the oversight and coordination of the implementation of this Agreement; (iii) the review of matters of operational significance raised through the GST Administration Sub-Committee; (iv) discussion of CGC recommendations regarding relativities prior to the Commonwealth Treasurer making a determination; (v) monitoring compliance with the conditions governing the provision of assistance to first home owners set out in Appendix D to this Agreement; (vi) monitoring compliance with the Commonwealth's undertaking with respect to SPPs; (vii) considering reports of the GST Administration Sub-Committee on the performance of the ATO in GST administration; (viii) reviewing the operation of the Agreement over time and considering any amendments which may be proposed as a consequence of such review; (ix) making recommendations to the Commonwealth Treasurer on the Guaranteed Minimum Amount applying to each State and Territory under the Transitional Arrangements; (x) approving changes to the GST base which require the support of a majority of Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments; (xi) considering on-going reform of Commonwealth-State financial relations; and (xii) considering other matters covered in this Agreement. 43. The Treasurer of the Commonwealth will convene the Ministerial Council in consultation with the other members of the Council not less than once each financial year. If the Commonwealth Treasurer receives a request from a member of the Council, he will consult with the other members concerning convening a meeting. The Treasurer of the Commonwealth will be the chair of the Council. The Council may also conduct its business by correspondence. 44. All questions arising in the Ministerial Council will be determined by unanimous agreement unless otherwise specified in this Agreement.45. While it is envisaged that the Ministerial Council will take decisions on most business arising from the operation of this Agreement, major issues will be referred by the Ministerial Council to Heads of Government for consideration, including under the auspices of the Council of Australian Governments.46. The Ministerial Council will establish a GST Administration Sub-Committee comprised of Commonwealth, State and Territory officials to monitor the operation of the GST, make recommendations regarding possible changes to the GST base and rate and to monitor the ATO's performance in GST administration. The GST Administration Sub-Committee will function in accordance with the arrangements set out in Appendix E to this Agreement.SIGNED for and on behalf of the Parties by:The Honourable John Winston Howard,Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia,on the 20th day of June 1999The Honourable Robert John Carr,Premier of the State of New South Wales,on the 24th day of June 1999The Honourable Jeffrey Gibb Kennett,Premier of the State of Victoria,on the 26th day of June 1999The Honourable Peter Douglas Beattie,Premier of the State of Queensland,on the 25th day of June 1999The Honourable Richard Fairfax Court,Premier of the State of Western Australia,on the 29th day of June 1999 The Honourable John Wayne Olsen,Premier of the State of South Australia,on the 25th day of June 1999The Honourable James Alexander Bacon,Premier of the State of Tasmania,on the 25th day of June 1999Kate Carnell,Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory,on the 22nd day of June 1999The Honourable Denis Gabriel Burke,Chief Minister of the Northern Territory of Australia,on the 22nd day of June 1999APPENDICESA: Taxes Subject to ReformB: Payment of GST Revenues to the States and TerritoriesC: Transitional ArrangementsD: First Home Owners SchemeE: GST AdministrationF: GST Administration Performance Agreement,Guiding Principles APPENDIX ATAXES SUBJECT TO REFORM The taxes which will cease to apply in accordance with paragraph 5 of this Agreement are set out below and in the relevant Commonwealth, State and Territory statutes as at 13 November 1998.A1. The following taxes will cease to apply from 1 July 2000:(i) Wholesale Sales Tax Sales tax levied on the value of the last wholesale sale of goods sold or otherwise dealt with as imposed by the Commonwealth's Sales Tax (Imposition) Acts .(ii) Bed Taxes Accommodation taxes levied on the cost of temporary residential accommodation.A2. The following State and Territory taxes will cease to apply from 1 July 2001:(i) Financial Institutions Duty Financial Institutions Duty levied on the value of receipts (credits) at financial institutions and on the average daily liabilities and/or investments of short term money market dealers. (ii) Stamp Duty on Marketable Securities Stamp duty levied on turnover (ie sale price times quantity traded) on the transfer of marketable securities quoted on the ASX or another recognised stock exchange. This excludes transfers of marketable securities in private companies and trusts, and in public companies and trusts where the securities are not quoted on the ASX or another recognised stock exchange.A3. The following State and Territory tax will cease to apply by 1 July 2005, subject to review by the Ministerial Council:(i) Debits Tax Debits tax levied on the value of withdrawals (debits) from accounts with financial institutions with cheque drawing facilities. Debits duty levied on transactions, including credit card transactions. This does not include stamp duty on electronic debits (refer A4 (v) below).A4. The Ministerial Council will by 2005 review the need for retention of stamp duties on the following:(i) Stamp Duty on Non-residential Conveyances Stamp duty levied on the value of conveyances other than residential property conveyances.(ii) Stamp Duty on Non-quotable Marketable Securities Stamp duty levied on transfers of marketable securities in private companies and trusts, and in public companies and trusts where the securities are not quoted on the ASX or another recognised stock exchange.(iii) Stamp Duty on Leases Stamp duty levied on the rental payable under tenancy agreements.(vi) Stamp Duty on Mortgages, Bonds, Debentures and Other Loan Securities Stamp duty levied on the value of a secured loan property.(v) Stamp Duty on Credit Arrangements, Installment Purchase Arrangements and Rental Arrangements Stamp duty levied on the value of the loan under credit arrangements. Stamp duty levied on credit business in respect of loans made, discount transactions and credit arrangements. Stamp duty levied on the price of goods purchased under installment purchase arrangements. Stamp duty levied on the rent paid in respect of the hire of goods, including consumer and producer goods.(vi) Stamp Duty on Cheques, Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Stamp duty levied on cheques, bills of exchange, promissory notes, or other types of payment orders, promises to pay or acknowledgment of debts, including duty on electronic debits.APPENDIX BPAYMENT OF GST REVENUES TO THE STATES AND TERRITORIESB1. Subject to the transitional arrangements and other relevant provisions in this Agreement, the Commonwealth will distribute GST revenue grants among the States and Territories in accordance with horizontal fiscal equalisation (HFE) principles.B2. The pool of funding to be distributed according to HFE principles in a financial year will comprise GST revenue grants and health care grants as defined under an Australian Health Care Agreement between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories. A State or Territory's share of the pool will be based on its population share, adjusted by a relativity factor which embodies per capita financial needs based on recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The relativity factor for a State or Territory will be determined by the Commonwealth Treasurer after he has consulted with each State and Territory.B3. The total amount of GST revenue to be provided to the States and Territories in a financial year will be defined as: (i) the sum of GST collections, voluntary and notional payments made by government bodies, and amounts withheld pursuant to clause 18; reduced by (ii) the amounts paid or applied under Division 35 of the GST Act and under section 39 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953.B4. The total amount of GST revenue in a financial year will be determined by the Commissioner of Taxation in the following way: (i) actual outcomes for the items listed in paragraph B3 for the period 1 July to 31 May; plus (ii) estimated outcomes for the items listed in paragraph B3 for the month of June; plus (iii) an adjustment amount (which may be positive or negative) to account for any difference between the estimated and actual outcome for the items listed in paragraph B3 for the month of June in the previous year.B5. GST revenue grants will be paid by the Commonwealth on the twenty-seventh day of each month. Where the scheduled payment day is a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday in Canberra, the payment will be made on the next business day of the Reserve Bank of Australia in Canberra.B6. The States and Territories shall be informed of the quantum of each monthly payment by close of business Canberra time on the twenty sixth day of each month. Where the day is a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday in Canberra, the States and Territories shall be informed of the quantum of the payment on the last business day of the Reserve Bank of Australia in Canberra prior to payment day.B7. The distribution between the States and Territories of the payments of GST revenue grants up to 15 June in each year will be based on: (i) the Treasurer's determination of per capita relativities; (ii) the latest available Australian Bureau of Statistics' projections, or estimates, of State and Territory populations as at 31 December; (iii) the latest available Department of Health and Aged Care estimates of health care grants to be provided to a State or Territory; and (iv) the latest available estimates of the guaranteed minimum amount for each State and Territory to be calculated under Appendix C of this Agreement. The Commonwealth will inform the States and Territories of any changes to the estimates as part of the advice to be provided to the States and Territories under paragraph B6.B8. The payments of GST revenue grants after 15 June in each year will take into account the determinations of: (i) per capita relativities and Guaranteed Minimum Amounts by the Treasurer; (ii) populations by the Statistician; (iii) health care grants by the Minister administering the National Health Act 1953; and (iv) GST revenues by the Commissioner of Taxation. For this purpose, the final payment will be made no later than the seventeenth day of June in each year. Where the seventeenth day of June is a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday in Canberra, the payment will be made on the next business day of the Reserve Bank of Australia in Canberra.B9. States shall be informed of the quantum of the final monthly payment of GST revenues grants by close of business Canberra time on the sixteenth day of June. Where the sixteenth day of June is a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday in Canberra, the Commonwealth shall inform the States of the quantum of the final payment on the last business day of the Reserve Bank of Australia in Canberra prior to the thirteenth.B10. The timing of payments of GST revenue grants may be varied by agreement between the Parties to this Agreement.APPENDIX CTRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTSGuarantee in LegislationC1. Commonwealth legislation will provide a State or Territory with an entitlement to an additional amount of funding from the Commonwealth to offset any shortfall between its entitlement to GST revenue grants and the total amount of funding which would ensure that the budgetary position of a State or Territory is not worse off during the transition period. (i) In 2000-01, transitional assistance will be provided to a State or Territory as a grant or an interest free loan to be repaid to the Commonwealth in full in 2001-02. (ii) In subsequent transitional years, transitional assistance will be provided to a State or Territory as a grant.Guaranteed Minimum AmountC2. The amount of a State or Territory's entitlement to transitional assistance in a financial year will be calculated by subtracting its entitlement to GST revenue grants from a "Guaranteed Minimum Amount" constructed in the following way: State revenues forgone: financial assistance grants, revenue replacement payments and State and Territory taxes as defined in Appen dix A of this Agreement with the exception of stamp duties on marketable securities which will be the amount as if fully abolished. plus Reduced revenues: the amount by which States and Territories adjust gambling taxation arrangements to take account of the impact of the GST on gambling operators. plus Interest costs on cash flow shortfalls: the interest cost incurred by States and Territories as a result of the change to cash flows arising from the replacement of weekly financial assistance grants, revenue replacements and State and Territory taxes with monthly GST revenue grants. plus Loan Repayments: in 2001-02 only, the repayment of a guarantee loan by a State or Territory. plus Additional expenditures: payments to first home owners in accordance with Appendix D of this Agreement and the amount of the agreed GST administration costs payable to the ATO by a State or Territory. plus Other items: $338 million spread evenly over three years starting in 2000-01 in respect of the claim by States and Territories in relation to revenue forgone from the abolition of the Wholesale Sales Tax (WST) Tax Equivalent Regimes (with the distribution to be agreed among the States and Territories). minus Reduced expenditures: off-road diesel subsidies and reduced costs from the removal of embedded WST and excises on purchases by a State or Territory government. minus Growth dividend: the increase in revenue to a State or Territory (not including GST revenue payments) that is attributable to the impact of the Commonwealth's taxation reform measures on economic growth. plus Adjustments: from 2001-02, the net difference between preliminary estimates and outcomes or final estimates for items that were taken into account in the previous year's Guaranteed Minimum Amount.In addition, $269 million in total, spread evenly over three years, will be included in the new Commonwealth State Housing Agreement starting in 2000-01 in respect of the net increased public housing costs as a result of tax reform (with the distribution to be agreed among the States and Territories).Heads of Treasuries' Advice to Ministerial CouncilC3. The Guaranteed Minimum Amount for a State or Territory will be determined by the Commonwealth Treasurer by 10 June of each year of the transition period. The Ministerial Council will make recommendations to the Treasurer on the Guaranteed Minimum Amount for each State and Territory.C4. The Heads of Treasuries will provide written advice to the Ministerial Council on the following issues by the indicated dates. (i) By 1 March 2000, advice on the estimated loans and grants to be provided to each State and Territory in 2000-01 and the amounts which the Commonwealth should provide to each State and Territory on Tuesday 4 July 2000. (ii) By 1 November 2000 advice on the most recent estimates of transitional assistance for the year and any adjustment that may need to be made to the amount of the loans and grants made to each State and Territory. (iii) By 1 September of each subsequent year of the transition period, advice on the most recent estimates of the transitional assistance to be provided to each State and Territory in the financial year and the installment amounts which the Commonwealth should provide to each State and Territory on the first Tuesday of the following October and January. This advice should identify the adjustments for the net difference between preliminary estimates and outcomes or final estimates for items that were taken into account in the previous year's Guaranteed Minimum Amount for a State or Territory. (iv) By 1 March of each subsequent year of the transition period, advice on the most recent estimates of the transitional assistance to be provided to each State and Territory in both the current financial year and the next financial year, and the installment amounts which the Commonwealth should provide to each State and Territory on the first Tuesday of the following April and July. (v) By 1 June of each year of the transition period, advice on the Guaranteed Minimum Amount for each State and Territory in the current financial year. Frequency and Amounts of Payments and RepaymentsC5. In each year of the transitional period after 2000-01, the Commonwealth will provide an installment of the guarantee payment to a State or Territory on the first Tuesday (or the first business day thereafter) of January, April, July and October. The installment amounts will reflect the advice to be provided to the Ministerial Council by the Heads of Treasuries under paragraph C4.C6. Adjustments to the total amount of additional assistance to a State or Territory in light of actual GST collections and the Treasurer's determination of the Guaranteed Minimum Amount will be made in conjunction with the payments of GST revenue grants after 10 June in each year.C7. A State or Territory will repay a loan which it receives from the Commonwealth in 2000-01 in quarterly installments in 2001-02. These installments will be paid to the Commonwealth on the same day on which a State or Territory receives an amount of GST revenue grants in the months of July, October, January and April.C8. The methodology for calculating the amounts of particular components of the Guaranteed Minimum Amount for a State or Territory has been agreed by the Heads of Treasuries and is set out in the document titled Methodology for Estimation of Components of the Guaranteed Minimum Amount.APPENDIX DFIRST HOME OWNERS SCHEMEPrinciplesD1. The States and Territories will make legislative provision for the First Home Owners Scheme (FHOS) from 1 July 2000 which will incorporate programme criteria consistent with the following principles: (i) Eligible applicants will be entitled to $7,000 assistance (per application) on eligible homes under the FHOS. (ii) Assistance will be available directly as a one off payment. If the recipient expressly consents, it may be available as an offset against statutory levies and charges or some combination of these. (iii) Eligible applicants must be natural persons who are Australian citizens or permanent residents who are buying or building their first home in Australia. An applicant's spouse (or de facto) must be included on the application. (iv) To qualify for assistance, neither the applicant or the applicant's spouse (or de facto) must have previously owned a home, either jointly, separately or with some other person. (v) Entering into a binding contract or commencement of building in the case of owner builders, must have occurred on or after 1 July 2000. (vi) An eligible home will be a new or established house, home unit, flat or other type of self contained fixed dwelling that meets local planning standards. Fixed dwellings will include demountable dwellings where these meet local planning standards. (vii) An eligible home must be intended to be a principal place of residence and occupied within a reasonable period. The home must be located in the State or Territory in which the application is made. Applicants who have entered into a financing mechanism which involves a shared equity arrangement will be eligible. (viii) Assistance will not be means tested. (ix) The relevant State and Territory legislation will contain adequate administrative review and appeal mechanisms, along with provision to prevent abuse of the FHOS. The States and Territories will cooperate in the exchange of information to identify eligible first home owners.Other mattersD2. Funding of grants under the FHOS may not be drawn from Home Purchase Assistance (HPA) funds provided through the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement, including the pool of existing HPA revenues.D3. Further details concerning eligibility criteria consistent with the above principles are to be agreed between the Commonwealth and each State and Territory.D4. The States and Territories will not introduce or vary any taxes or charges associated with home purchase with the intention of offsetting the benefits of the FHOS for recipients.APPENDIX EGST ADMINISTRATIONE1. The Commissioner of Taxation has the general administration of the GST law.E2. The ATO will arrange for the Australian Customs Service to assist with the collection of the GST on imports. E3. During the first 12 months following the implementation of the GST, the Commonwealth will retain the discretion to make changes to the GST base of an administrative nature. For this purpose, changes of an administrative nature involves legislation necessary to: (i) protect the integrity of the GST base; or (ii) prevent tax avoidance.E4. The Commonwealth will include the definition of change of an administrative nature in the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999.E5. From July 2001, changes of an administrative nature as defined in E3 will require the majority support of the Commonwealth, States and Territories.E6. The GST Administration Sub-Committee, which will commence operation from 1 July 1999, will monitor the operation and administration of the GST and make recommendations regarding modifications to the GST and the administration of the GST.E7. The GST Administration Sub-Committee will comprise officials from each Party to the Agreement including representatives from the ATO as required. The Commonwealth Treasury will chair the GST Administration Sub-Committee.E8. The Chair will convene the GST Administration Sub-Committee in consultation with other members of the Sub-Committee as often as may be necessary to conduct its business. If the Chair receives a request from a member of the Sub-Committee, the Chair will consult with the other members concerning convening a meeting.E9. The functions of the Sub-Committee will include: (i) monitoring the performance of the ATO in the administration of the GST (Appendix F of this Agreement); (ii) the assessment of policy proposals for the modification of the GST rate and base; (iii) making recommendations to the Ministerial Council on the need for legislation which might significantly affect the GST base; and (iv) requesting the ATO to produce draft Public Rulings in specified areas.E10. The States and Territories will be consulted on draft Public Rulings prior to consideration by the ATO Rulings Panel and before public consultation. There will be a representative from the States and Territories on the ATO Rulings Panel in relation to GST matters.E11. Public rulings will not be referred to the Ministerial Council. However, the GST Administration Sub-Committee will refer a proposed GST change to the Ministerial Council for consideration if the Sub-Committee is of the view that the change could have a significant impact on GST revenues and so warrants Ministerial review.E12. Draft legislation which might significantly affect the GST base will be forwarded through the GST Administrative Sub-Committee to the Ministerial Council for consideration.APPENDIX FGST ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT,GUIDING PRINCIPLESPreambleF1. This Appendix outlines the principles that will guide the subsequent development of a GST Administration Performance Agreement (the Performance Agreement) between the ATO and its agents, and the States and Territories (the Parties).Objectives and Context of the Performance AgreementF2. The purpose of the Performance Agreement is to provide accountability between the ATO and the States and Territories on behalf of whom the GST revenue is being collected. It also provides an agreed basis for the GST Administration Sub-Committee to monitor the administration of the GST by the ATO and its agents in return for the agreed GST administration costs being paid by the States and Territories.F3. The Performance Agreement will reflect the commitment by the Parties to: (i) achieving world's best practice for GST administration in Australia; (ii) a cost-effective and transparent GST administration; and (iii) a cooperative relationship between the Parties.F4. The Performance Agreement will recognise that achievement of world's best practice GST administration, including cost-effectiveness, is dependent on the GST policy framework and integrated administrative design.F5. The Performance Agreement will be consistent with the arrangements set out in this Intergovernmental Agreement. Components of AgreementF6. The Performance Agreement will include outcomes to be achieved, budgeting arrangements and monitoring and review arrangements for the purposes of maintaining accountability and transparency of operations. The Performance Agreement will also include the process for raising matters of operational significance with the Ministerial Council.OutcomesF7. The Performance Agreement will stipulate performance outcomes and appropriate benchmarks to be achieved by the ATO. These outcomes may include, but are not limited to: revenue, taxpayer registration, compliance, reporting, education and legislative review. Consistent with the objectives of the Agreement, the benchmarks are to reflect world best practice in GST administration.Cost of AdministrationF8. The Performance Agreement will outline the Commonwealth administration activities that are GST related for the purposes of agreeing the GST administration costs.F9. The Performance Agreement will stipulate arrangements for an audit of GST costs and the systems for the control of GST costs.F10. The Performance Agreement will outline the process and timing of consultation for developing/modifying budgets and business plans for GST administration. These budgets and business plans will be developed, and/or revised, in an appropriate and timely manner so as to broadly accord with Commonwealth arrangements for funding agency operations.F11. The Performance Agreement will recognise that the States and Territories will fully compensate the Commonwealth for the agreed costs of administering the GST.Monitoring and ReviewF12. The Performance Agreement will stipulate the: (i) number and timing of formal reports by the ATO to the Sub-Committee; (ii) number and timing of progress reports by the ATO to the Sub-Committee; and (iii) arrangements for special briefings on particular issues.F13. The Parties to the Performance Agreement will ensure appropriate alignment of ATO Parliamentary reporting responsibili ties and reporting responsibilities under the Performance Agreement.F14. The Performance Agreement will stipulate that ATO reports to the Sub-Committee on outcomes will include: (i) updates on relevant internal governance arrangements, including appropriate strategic plans and annual and other relevant reports that scrutinise aspects of GST operations (including annual and other relevant reports from the Australian National Audit Office); (ii) accrual-based financial reports; (iii) key outcome performance indicators (including, registrations, revenue, refunds, costs, key processing workloads, Taxpayer Charter standards and international benchmark comparisons); (iv) litigation and public ruling information; (v) updates on relevant compliance and cost-of-compliance research; (vi) administrative base issues; and (vii) commentary on administrative performance and any key emerging GST compliance issues and related initiatives.F15. The Performance Agreement will ensure that the States and Territories will have access to GST data held by the ATO subject to statutory limitations.Matters of Operational SignificanceF16. The Performance Agreement will outline arrangements for raising matters of operational significance with the Ministerial Council. Matters of operational significance may include disputes over the interpretation of the Performance Agreement and non-performance by the ATO against agreed targets. The Performance Agreement will ensure that the ATO will have the opportunity to provide direct advice to the Ministerial Council on any matters submitted to the Council.Development of AgreementF17. The Performance Agreement will be developed by the GST Administration Sub-Committee and representatives of the ATO. The Performance Agreement is to be developed with reference to both: (i) the guiding principles outlined in this Appendix; and (ii) actual GST performance data (including revenue) in the Australian context, gathered during the transitional years. F18. The Performance Agreement is to be finalised by the end of the GST transitional year ending June 2002. The Performance Agreement is to be endorsed by the Ministerial Council prior to being signed.F19. The Performance Agreement will stipulate the process for its amendment.Transitional ArrangementsF20. The ATO and the GST Administration Sub-Committee will discuss key operational issues and costs commencing in October 1999 and on a semiannual basis throughout the GST transitional year ending 30 June 2002.F21. The ATO will arrange for an audit of the systems for the control of GST costs and the GST costs incurred during the period from 1 July 1999 to the date of the signing of the Performance Agreement by the Parties.F22. The ATO will undertake to establish, by the end of the Transitional year ending 30 June 2002, final GST benchmarking arrangements with relevant overseas administrations, subject to their agreement. The ATO will discuss benchmarking plans with the GST Administration Sub-Committee.Motion (by Mr Slipper) agreed to:That in the message returning the bill to the Senate, the Senate be requested to reconsider the bill in respect of the amendments made by the House of Representatives.Bills8669r7558669Consideration resumed from 29 June.Senate's amendment—(1) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 1 to 3), omit subclause (2), substitute:(2) Schedule 2 commences at the later of: (a) the start of 1 July 2000; and (b) the commencement of the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Act 1999 .Motion (by Mr Slipper)—by leave—agreed to: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration moving amendments to the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements—Consequential Provisions) Bill 1999 during the consideration of the amendment made by the Senate to the Bill.Motion (by Mr Slipper) proposed:That the amendment be disagreed to.16:47:008669Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Again, the government has completely botched the legislative process with the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements—Consequential Provisions) Bill 1999 . Not only is the government moving to amend the bill but those amendments actually repeal the amendments that the Senate has already made. This shows the shambles that the Senate deal with the Democrats has produced. Notwithstanding our opposition to the GST, the substantive amendments to this legislation are welcome by Labor. We welcome them because they are our policy. These amendments maintain the current role for the Commonwealth in local government relations. The government proposed to completely break the partnership commenced by Labor which has worked effectively for the last quarter of a century between the Commonwealth and local government.Labor welcomes the backdown by the government in keeping the funding arrangements for local government as a Commonwealth responsibility. To the coalition, local government does not exist as a separate tier of government. It is merely a creature of the states and does not deserve to be recognised in its own right. Labor rejects this position absolutely. Local government plays a key role in local communities, especially in regional Australia. It is a vital national institution and deserves proper national recognition.When the legislation was first before us last year, Labor moved amendments in this House to achieve the outcome that the government seeks today. At that time, the government rejected those amendments. We are happy to be vindicated in our position and our support for local government. The government should be ashamed of its attempt to ignore local government and to permanently demote its importance and status. The many thousands of people who provide their time for their communities through local government will not forgive the government for its arrogance, nor will the local communities themselves.16:49:008670Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, these amendments see the coalition dragged, finally—after repeated calls by local government—to maintain Commonwealth responsibility for local government financial assistance grants funding. Welcome though these amendments are, the fact is that for local government they certainly did not address the significant concerns of that important tier of government. At the end of the day, yes, Commonwealth financial responsibility remains, but so too does the coalition's attitude to the place of local government in our federal partnership and so too do the problems of the GST. Its impact on local government, particularly the compliance costs, remain at the end of the day. It is quite clear that the impact of the GST on local government will be significant and will be felt significantly by councils and, therefore, in its flow-on, by local communities.Let us think of some of the facts. In Australia, local government spends annually $14 billion, almost 2.4 per cent of GDP. Local government employs 142,000 people—that happens to be three per cent of the national work force. In addition to maintaining vital local infrastructure such as roads, footpaths and rubbish collection systems, local government also provides an enormous breadth of services ranging from community services for the aged, the disabled and children, and essentially community recreational facilities like libraries, swimming pools, sporting centres and community centres. I see this broad range of activities under the auspices of the Pine River Shire Council in the electorate of Dickson. This council, like most other councils, knows what is about to happen to them as a result of compliance costs and other flow-on costs from the implementation of the GST.On the face of it, we can say that the Commonwealth retaining responsibility for financial assistance grants funding is certainly better than not doing so, but it is being done in the context of the introduction and application of a goods and services tax. The final shape of how that goods and services tax will affect local government is still not clear.On the face of it, it appears that all local government fees or charges for council services and facilities, even if they are community service obligations and heavily subsidised by rates, will be subject to a GST. This has not been sufficiently clarified. When you consider that most of local government's community activities and facilities are provided not for profit and are subsidised by up to 90 per cent of rates, then you can see the impact this is going to have on the delivery of these services and activities to meet community need—a need that is not being met, particularly under a coalition government philosophy, where you just shove responsibility onto somebody else. How are these needs going to be adequately met by this important tier of government?To have the coalition claim that many of these activities are commercial is, in Labor's view, not only ludicrous but actually very counterproductive. Why is that? Because councils will be under enormous pressure not to pass on a GST for many of their services. Think about Meals on Wheels. How can the recipients of Meals on Wheels, in most instances, afford to pay a GST? Councils will have to look at subsidising services that are not already subsidised 100 per cent or they will have to face the prospect of scaling down such services. During the election campaign, in a letter from the Federal Director of the Liberal Party, Mr Lynton Crosby, on behalf of the now Prime Minister, John Howard, the coalition promised that non-commercial activities of local government for which a small fee is charged would be GST free. That is now shown to be clearly misleading.A KPMG report commissioned by the Local Government Association of Queensland showed that initial compliance GST costs for most councils would be up to $200,000, and ongoing GST compliance costs would be up to $15,000 a year. (Extension of time granted) However, in the face of those costs, this government has claimed that the cost of administering the GST will be small for local government and it has not extended the small and medium business compensation package to local government. The upshot of all of this is that local government will be under increased financial pressure as a result of the GST and it will be faced with either scaling back or withdrawing some important services—or the ever popular alternative of increasing rates to cover additional costs.The shambles surrounding these amendments show us a lot about the coalition's attitude to local government. We have seen a coalition seeking to end the 25-year history of a Commonwealth-local government partnership. It will not be forgotten by either the Labor Party or local government just how the coalition has attempted to nobble this important sector. This is a government which has cut local government out of the picture every step of the way. Who can forget the 1988 referendum campaign, with the role played by Mr Peter Reith then in churlishly opposing the constitutional recognition of local government? That said a lot about the coalition's attitude then and, here we are, so many years down the track, and we have seen this government go on to hint at the abolition of the National Office of Local Government. We have seen it seek to wipe its hands of any semblance of Commonwealth involvement and support for local government. We have seen it regarding local government as little more than a creature of the states.That is what this is all about. The coalition has cut $60 million out of financial assistance grants over the past four years and it has abolished the Local Government Development Program. And that is all on top of those first actions of this government that abolished Labor's regional development programs and dismantled Labor's Working Nation programs.The Labor Party, on the other hand, has always regarded local government as a partner. It has always regarded local government as a fundamental contributor to the well-being of the community. Prior to the coalition-Democrat deal, Labor did move amendments in the House and circulated amendments in the Senate to ensure that financial assistance grants remained a funding responsibility of the Commonwealth. That is the way it should be. Labor is committed to a partnership between the Commonwealth and local government in a way that has distinguished our approach to local government for most of this century.Even with these amendments, welcome though they are and necessary though they are, we cannot speak on this matter without pointing out the obvious—that these amendments have been absolutely wrenched out of the government. The government's philosophical attitude to the role of local government in a true federal partnership is quite clearly exposed, and these amendments still stand in the face of the implementation of a goods and services tax which will severely impact on the local government sector and therefore on the communities which those important councils serve to represent.16:59:008671Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—The honourable member for Dickson is really the last person who should talk about deals between the Australian Democrats and the government. She certainly was a very productive negotiator with respect to the industrial relations system a couple of years ago. It is regrettable that she does not praise the outstanding role carried out by her successor Senator Lees and her former colleagues in the Australian Democrats. I do not want to detain the House long, but I do have to rebut a couple of the comments made by the honourable member for Dickson concerning the Commonwealth's attitude to local government. We do in fact value local government as a partner. It is an important part of our Australian federation. Councils provide very necessary local services. Local government spends in excess of $10 billion annually and in fact employs 160,000 people, not 142,000, as was suggested by the honourable member for Dickson.We have a priority to build effective partnerships with local government and to help councils contribute to the welfare of their communities and to the nation's overall economic performance and social wellbeing. We are certainly a major contributor to funding for local government, and in the year 1999-2000 we will provide around $1.5 billion to councils around the country.The honourable member for Dickson also suggested that the Labor Party has been very generous to local government, and that its attitude to local government was much more favourable than that of the Howard government. Let us look at the record. Labor reduced the level of funding to local government. The effectiveness of local government was undermined and Labor stifled innovation by seeking to impose new layers of regional bureaucracy. In many cases, the regional development organisations set up by Labor were in competition with long-established local groups and duplicated the capacity of local government organisations.The government have a priority of reducing local government running costs, which will allow councils to reduce debt, improve services and reduce rates and charges. We work with local government cooperatively to help develop a range of policies and programs to sustain local communities and to build vital local economies. Unlike the Labor Party, we respect and support the vital role that local government plays in our system of government.The honourable member for Dickson suggested that the tax reform package will in some way be adverse to local government. Let us look at the facts. Removing Labor's embedded wholesale sales tax and other state taxes from the local government situation in Australia will benefit local government very considerably, and there will be very many savings. The new tax system will enable councils to claim a full refund of all GST payable on their purchases. Councils will save massive amounts on the operation of their vehicle fleets under the new diesel fuel credit arrangements, and councils in rural and regional areas with vehicles with a gross vehicle mass of more than 4.5 tonnes will save about 23c a litre in their diesel purchases. All councils will also be eligible for a saving of 7c a litre for all other petrol and diesel purchases. How did the Labor Party react to this? They voted in the parliament against these important benefits for local government.The honourable member for Dickson also suggested that in some way we were going to put a GST on the services of local government. General rates will be GST free, charges for water and sewerage will be GST free, regulatory and licensing services, such as zoning and planning fees and dog licence fees, will be GST free, and fines and penalties such as parking fines will also be GST free. The government will spend an additional $30 million a year on roads to upgrade the standard of key national freight routes as part of the new tax system. Much of this will benefit local government on these routes. With the implementation of our new tax system, local government, as with Australian businesses, will also get assistance from the Australian Taxation Office in changing their accounting systems.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—They still don't agree with it.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I am sorry that you do not agree with it.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—I said, `They still don't agree with it.'0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—There are very many local government people who support what the government is doing. I have spoken and consulted widely on a personal basis with many people involved in local government, and many of them are absolutely full of praise for these important changes. (Extension of time granted) I will not detain the House for long. Local government will also get support through the education and information programs which the government will be implementing as we approach 1 July 2000. The reforms which are before the chamber are positive. They do give effect to the arrangements made with the Australian Democrats, and I am very proud to be part of a government which not only recognises local government but also is bringing in a new tax system which will have immense benefits for that very important third tier of Australian government.Question resolved in the affirmative.17:04:008672Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—The govern ment's amendments include an amendment in place of the Senate amendment disagreed to, as set out in the schedule circulated to honourable members. I move:(1) Title, page 1 (lines 1 to 4), omit the title, substitute "A Bill for an Act to repeal the States Grants (General Purposes) Act 1994 ".(2) Clause 2, page 1 (line 10) to page 2 (line 3), omit the clause, substitute:2 Commencement This Act commences at the later of:(a) the start of 1 July 2000; and(b) the commencement of the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Act 1999.(3) Clause 3, page 2 (line 5), omit "Subject to section 2, each", substitute "Each".(4) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 2) to page 9 (line 5), omit the Schedule.(5) Schedule 2, page 10 (lines 2 to 18), omit the Schedule, substitute:Schedule 1,Repeal of the States Grants (General Purposes) Act 19941 The whole of the ActRepeal the Act.These amendments will give effect to the Prime Minister's announcement on 28 May 1999 that the government will retain responsibility for payment of financial assistance grants to local government rather than transfer the responsibilities to the states and the Northern Territory.The government's amendments do not affect the proposed repeal of the States Grants (General Purposes Act) 1994. This act, which appropriates funding for payments of financial assistance grants to the states and territories, will be repealed on the commencement of the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-States Financial Arrangements) Act 1999, or from 1 July 2000, whichever is the later.Question resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Mr Slipper) agreed to:That in the message returning the bill to the Senate, the Senate be requested to reconsider the bill in respect of the amendments made by the House of Representatives. Bills8673r8848673Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.17:06:008673Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I rise to oppose this legislation. The Social Security Amendment (Disposal of Assets) Bill 1999 is an ill-conceived piece of legislation that is merely another mean savings measure of a penny-pinching government intent on squeezing the last drop from elderly Australians—Australians who have formed the backbone of this country, survived the Depression, battled wars, saved all their lives and paid their taxes only to be slapped in the face by this government yet again.Never in the history of this country have we had a government so petty, so mean-spirited and so morally bankrupt as to punish those who have given all through thick and thin. From these seniors, after a lifetime of giving, this government want to take more. This is their reward in this International Year of Older Persons. The hypocrisy of this government is astounding. Recently we had a press release by the Minister for Aged Care, Mrs Bishop: `Honouring senior Australians in their international year'. It said:An important part of this International Year of Older Persons is to formally recognise the valuable, ongoing contribution of senior Australians to our community. I want our contribution to the International Year to begin cultural change within society, whereby we value and use the experience and wisdom of our senior Australians, not just as a celebration for a short 12 months.Fine sentiments, but not reflected in the government measures in this bill or in many others.So how has this government recognised and honoured the valuable ongoing contribution of our seniors? Since coming into office it has abolished the Commonwealth Dental Health Program; removed free hearing aids and hearing services for health card holders; cut the number of Financial Information Service officers by 25 per cent; introduced nursing care fees, including an annual and extra daily fee; deemed interest rates on bank accounts of less than $2,000; jacked up the cost of life-saving medicines; removed the earnings credit scheme; reduced rent assistance for shared renters; forced over-55-year-olds out of work to run down their superannuation savings before having access to unemployment assistance; tightened the Pension Advance Scheme; scrapped the Home Equity Conversion Scheme; and will now double tax our seniors with the GST. If this was not enough, Commonwealth funding provided to some pensioner and retiree groups has been savagely cut and funding to advocacy groups has been frozen, failing to increase in line with inflation.The government's shameful track record on its provision of services and entitlements to Australian pensioners and retirees is added further weight with this insidious piece of legislation before the House today. It is yet another ill-conceived budget savings measure that is in the same spirit as the appalling Compensation for Non-economic Loss (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment) Bill 1999 , still lingering from last year's budget. But the government has not had the guts to debate that in the chamber as yet.What we should be clear about from the outset is that the bill before us today is not about cracking down on social security rorters; it is just a thinly veiled attack on pensioners and retirees to secure pitiful budget savings. A cursory glance at the minister's second reading speech—some 300-odd words of it; and the emphasis is on `odd'—reveals the appalling lack of substance to the government's argument and stands as a testament to the government's ignorance of the plight of elderly Australians and their families.The government's principal aim—that this legislation will close the so-called loophole that allows high income earners to get on the pension—is fundamentally flawed for two reasons. First, it has not produced any concrete evidence to support its claim that the gifting rules are being widely abused. It has not provided any cases where a gift given to a family member or friend has been proven not to be genuine. Neither has the government quantified what proportion of people have been proven to have abused the rules against the overwhelming majority who do not. Second, as anyone who knows the Social Security Act will attest, there are some options within the act that will continue to be used as routes for those who wish to circumvent the system. For the small number of people who abuse the gifting rules, alternate methods will be quickly utilised by the financial planners of whom this government speaks so highly.Labor is strongly in support of bringing accountability to the social security system. We want to make sure only those who truly need benefits get them—after all, Labor initiated just about all the compliance measures used by the current government. But what the government is doing here simply will not work. What we need is a coordinated approach hitting at the heart of the problem, rather than an ill thought out measure that will only penalise the elderly unnecessarily. It boils down to this: while the principal aim of this bill will become absolutely useless and redundant as soon as it becomes law, as financial planners and others utilise the other methods at their disposal, hundreds of thousands of pensioners and retirees will have a reduced capacity to give their families a helping hand in times of need.Essentially, the bill we are debating today halves from $10,000 to $5,000 the amount of money that a pensioner may give away each year without it affecting their pension. It will affect those on aged, carer and disability support pensions. Under these proposed rules, any amount over $5,000 will be treated as an asset that will be included in the pension deemed income test and the assets test for a period of five years. Depending on an individual's circumstances, this mean-spirited change could cost them up to $15 per fortnight in their pension for five years. But worse than this, the government's petty changes will penalise families for helping each other.The current gifting provisions allow pensioners and retirees to assist their families in times of crisis and to help their loved ones get a head start. This legislation will act as a deterrent for those who, as a parent or a grandparent, want to give their family a helping hand. Make no mistake: this legislation will dramatically hinder the ability of families to help themselves. Whether it is to assist families who are experiencing marriage problems, unemployment, divorce, or who need medical treatment, this legislation will put a halt to it. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. As the Prime Minister and Senator Newman said last year:A civil society is one in which people take responsibility for themselves and those whom they love, but very importantly, it is also one which assists others who, either temporarily or permanently, require some help.Here we have this government on the public record encouraging families to be more financially responsible—indeed, they have legislated for it with the youth allowance, which forced parents to support their young unemployed adults at home—and now this government proposes through this legislation to discourage and penalise pensioners who take it upon themselves to assist their struggling families. The same too goes to parents and grandparents who want to give their loved ones a head start.Generosity within the family strengthens the bonds across generations. It is an investment in the future, and it is about to be penalised by this government. When grandparents help their grandchildren it is for a big-ticket item—a substantial contribution towards a home deposit, HECS fees, postgraduate tertiary fees or help to get a small business going. New home buyers will be paying an extra 10 per cent under the GST. In the majority of cases, the $7,000 government payment for new home buyers will not go anywhere near meeting the GST slug. The upward movement in prices for new homes will force the market price for older homes up. For many young people, the prospect of getting together the deposit to buy their own home—new or old—is receding. Help from family members—grandparents or perhaps older parents who have retired with savings—may be their only hope.For a couple who want to buy a $250,000 home—an average price in many Australian cities—a 20 per cent deposit is about $50,000. The combination of the GST and the government's proposal before us today will mean the great Australian dream will be a relic of the past for many families. HECs fees and postgraduate tertiary fees are another area where grandparents or parents help, meaning that a new generation can go after the training and so on that is so essential in our complex changing society. Also, when grandparents help their grandchildren start up a business, they are not investing to make money; they are being family—they are helping without profit in mind. Unlike the banks, they do not charge interest rates and they do not necessarily charge fees. This is a sly and sneaky measure. It is a hit-and-run money grab through the back door of the family home.The government claims that it will be saving up to $4 million through this measure. Maybe, but we cannot measure the social cost. What will be the social cost of health, welfare and associated problems when families are unable to help each other? The government can only look forward to spending many more times what it hopes to save if this particularly incompetent piece of legislation gets through.This government throws around a cliche: it says that it is family friendly. It only does that to mask the erosion of family time together under its bully boy industrial policies. This government is no more family friendly than a fox in a chicken coup is chicken friendly. This is a measure which laughs at family values of loyalty and a helping hand. I put this to you: the member for Leichhardt can help out a mate; why won't this government let the elderly help out their families? The people hit by this measure will not be the big income earners, the millionaires. Five thousand dollars is neither here nor there for those people. The people hit are ordinary decent Australians who stick to family values—people who made sacrifices to bring up their children and who will make more sacrifices to help their children's children. So much for the family friendly policies of this government.I would also like to draw attention to the appalling policy process that this government obviously engages in when it is drafting legislation such as this. In considering the impact of the government's proposals I have received input from a range of bodies, like the National Seniors Association, the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation, Welfare Rights and a host of others. It will come as no surprise that all were opposed to the government's proposal. What is especially appalling is that the government did not even consult with them before drafting the legislation. The Howard government obviously believes the policy process occurs in a vacuum. I can see the minister talking to the adviser now: `What do we want to do? Do we want to slash the gifting threshold, making it harder for grandparents to help their children and their grandchildren? There's no need to talk to the people who might be affected, no need to have any consultation.' This is just par for the course. This is just a normal activity from this government. It comes and goes, day in, day out.If this is not bad enough, the government decided in its infinite wisdom to advertise in the latest edition of Age Pension News that the new deeming rates were already law. I have here the latest edition of Age Pension News. There is an article titled `Changes to gifting rules'. We are debating this in the House now. Who knows when it is going to go through? So much for the parliamentary process. We have seen that all washed away in the House in recent weeks and months. This is a fait accompli. So much for honesty and transparency in government. This really highlights the contempt with which the government treats the elderly. How dishonest and misleading can you get?The government's contempt for the elderly is also highlighted by the element of retrospectivity contained in the bill. It is particularly outrageous. Between 1 July and royal assent of this bill—if it ever sees the light of day, and I assume it will, given the new relationship with the Democrats—any pensioner who gifts over $5,000 to assist their family will have their pension increase taken off them. So much for respect for the elderly, and the value of independence within the family. Each and every government member ought to be ashamed, particularly when looking at the figures on who lives in the electorates around this country. For example, look at the figures for the number of people aged 65 years and over by electorate. Take the electorate of Richmond in New South Wales—the electorate of the minister. He has 24,708 people over 65 years of age. We could take the electorate of the member opposite or many others. We could take the electorate of Moreton—there are 16,381 people over the age of 65 years in that electorate. In the electorate of Moncrieff there are 21,429, in the electorate of McPherson there are 25,312 and in the electorate of Lyne there are 24,240. There are very substantial numbers of people living in government electorates and they are being punished by this bill and many of the other measures that this government has taken in the area of aged care.How will the Minister for Community Services explain this rip-off to the 20 per cent of his voters who are 65 years and over? Will he be brave enough to go out and knock on doors and tell those 25,000 older voters how proud he is of this misery guts government? Will the members for Moreton and Petrie be out there telling the one in seven older voters in their electorates how big brother will be watching them every time they put their hands in their pockets to help their families? No, they will not be knocking on any doors. That is fairly obvious. The members for Moreton and Petrie will be out of sight just as they are in this debate.I would also like to add what an administrative nightmare this policy will be for both pensioners and Centrelink. A $5,000 limit is not much in the course of the year. Centrelink will have to be much more intrusive, forcing pensioners to account for every single gift. For many Australian families the 21st birthday of their children is an occasion for a big party. Will the grandparents now have to report on the value of any gift they give at the 21st birthday party? Under this government, Centrelink will be a guest at every 21st birthday party. The same applies to weddings. These are often occasions when grandparents give a substantial gift to help the young people start their lives together. It happens very frequently. What happens when the grandmother passes on her wedding dress to the bride? What happens if it happens to be valued in excess of $5,000? Will that be valued and reckoned up towards the grandparents' gifts that year? Again, Centrelink will be a guest, probably, at every wedding reception. Seniors have a tough enough time as it is, dealing with all Centrelink's rules and regulations, which this government has been changing over time. This bill will make things worse. There can be little doubt that this measure will cause hardship, alarm and anxiety for many of our seniors.Needless to say, Labor is referring this bill to a committee in the Senate and we are opposing it outright in the House. We want to give relevant advocacy groups an opportunity to highlight the significant problems that exist with this bill and to communicate the views of those they represent—something completely denied to them by the government. Secondly, we want to explore some more effective options that will allow flexibility for seniors to help out their families while bringing greater accountability to the social security system.Why do we want to do that? It is a very basic motive. The problem we have here—we saw it in the nursing home debate, we see it in the way in which the government are not funding HACC, we see it in the shortage of respite services, and we see it across the board as they erode and cause greater holes in the social security safety net—is that they see the elderly as a drain on society. That is the view they have of the elderly. They do not value the elderly as great assets. They do not value the elderly as those with the time to invest in their families. They do not value the elderly as the key resource to invest in tomorrow's generation. What this government do not realise is that our seniors have a critical role, a key role, in building tomorrow's families. What this measure will do is erode and hinder their capacity to invest in the next generation of Australians, because they do not believe in valuing the elderly; they just see them as a drain on resources.Recently I attended in Brisbane a forum where a number of older Australians spoke out about the way they felt they were being treated by this government and about the way they felt they were being crushed by the government. I quote from a report from that meeting prepared by some of the people there:Carers complained that in dementia cases, forms and more forms made their role difficult, and that for respite with a secure area, there was an 18 month to 2 year waiting list. One carer said he had to book a year ahead and the financial burden was great.Medical representatives said that HACC was 10% under funded. Carers also said that waiting lists for nursing homes meant you took what was available, not what and where you needed for your loved one. This was an important problem when nursing homes differentiate in quality of care.The Commonwealth's move from supporting to home care has not been accompanied by adequate funding, said participants.Many participants argued that the elderly had been especially targeted for government funding cutbacks and that older people were not seen as priorities for funding, rather they were seen as targets for reduction in funding.And what bill could better demonstrate that than this bill before the House today? The report continued:Some suggested that this was because their votes tended to be taken for granted, and it was time older people showed their discontent with the situation and demanded input.Participants also asked for a review of medications that had been taken off the assisted list . . . And so on. Older people are seen by this government as a drain. They are not valued for the contribution that they have made to this country. We saw this particularly in the debate over nursing home funding in the previous parliament. Older people were made to feel by this government that they simply were not valued and that alternative courses of action might be preferable for them than going into a nursing home—or they were being forced to sell their family home to do it.It is just another act from this government which demonstrates how insincere they are and how they vandalise any commitment to family friendly policies. And nothing better demonstrates how out of touch so many of those members opposite are than having a look at the number of elderly people in their electorates. Those elderly people will not be forgetting it at the next election. These people are going to get a fair deal in this country, and it is going to come from a Labor government. It will not come from those opposite who have hacked and smashed their way through the social safety net—and the first victims and the people that really are suffering from that are elderly Australians.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—That is nonsense. Not even you believe that.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—I believe it because I talk and live with these people—not like those opposite who do not live in their electorates and move to Canberra.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley will address his remarks through the chair, and the parliamentary secretary will exercise some restraint.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—This is a very serious question. Wherever I go in this country elderly people tell me they are no longer valued. It makes me sick, frankly, to come into this House and hear the government use all the rhetoric about being family friendly and then to see them, through bill after bill that comes into this House, ripping away support which can enable families in the widest definition—from grandparents and great-grandparents all the way through—to do something together, to invest in themselves. This bill erodes that capacity. This bill will mean that Centrelink will be present at every 21st birthday party and at every wedding because, when you take the gifting rules down to $5,000, you are essentially taking on board many of those very straightforward conventional gifts that are given by grandparents to their sons and daughters or to their grandchildren. That is what you are doing. You do not realise what you have done, because you did not engage in any consultation with the relevant and responsible organisations, some of whom you have defunded so they cannot even speak up effectively to the extent they would like to, because they have not got the resources to do so. On top of that, you impose double taxation through the GST. Having paid tax at a set rate throughout their whole working life, they retire and you come and hit them again—double taxation. Do not ever come into this House and claim you are family friendly while you have measures like this on the books. This bill deserves to be opposed and will be opposed vehemently by the opposition.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley knows that the chair is not guilty of having any of those things on the books. The term `you' is not appropriate for remarks made through the chair.Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.17:30:008678Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I support the shadow minister for family and community services, Mr Wayne Swan, in opposing the proposed amendments before this House in the Social Security Amendment (Disposal of Assets) Bill 1999 . The bill requires careful analysis and interpretation of benefits and costs. I will first deal with the benefits put forward by the government.First, the government says it will raise up to an extra $4.4 million per annum and that this measure is necessary to stop financial planners advising clients to maintain pension eligibility by gifting assets. To thwart this scurrilous practice, the government is seeking to have this bill apply retrospectively from 1 July 1999.Second, the bill changes the definition of a year from pension year to financial year. Currently a pension year refers to the anniversary of the day the income support recipient commenced receiving payment. However, the most significant impact of this bill is that it halves from $10,000 to $5,000 the amount of money that a pensioner may give away each year without it affecting their pension. The government asserts that this policy change will benefit the community by affecting the higher income part-pensioners who maintain pension eligibility by regularly giving away assets.Now for the costs. This bill, if passed, will also penalise pensioners who need to give away larger sums to family members to help them in a crisis. Pensioners who continue to give away more than $5,000 will have the excess treated as an asset that will be included in both the pension income and assets tests. This means that their pension may be reduced or eliminated altogether. What will it cost part-pensioners? Let us first look at the effect of the change under the assets test. Take the example of a pensioner who gives away $10,000 to her grandson to help him pay off a mortgage. Depending on the total level of her assets, this change could cost the pensioner as much as $15 a fortnight for five years because of the operation of the assets test. She loses $3 a fortnight for each $1,000 of her assets over the threshold. Applying the 4.5 per cent deeming rate to $5,000 amounts to income of $225 a year, or $8.65 a fortnight. This would reduce her pension, provided she also had other private income over $91.35 a fortnight. I must stress that the pension rate is not yet reduced by both the assets and the income test. Rather, both tests are applied and the one that gives the lowest rate is used.The government has put forward no evidence that retirees are using the gifting measures to maintain pension eligibility. Indeed, the opposite assertion does, in my experience, present a more accurate picture. The government is proposing amendments to the Social Security Act based on assumptions that are, at best, the exception rather than the rule. On this topic of the age pension, I speak with authority and mandate which comes from my constituency in Lowe. Lowe is in the top quartile of all federal seats with senior citizens. Further, I have one of the most culturally diverse seats in Australia, with some 23 distinct ethnic communities recorded in the 1996 census of the Australian Bureau of Statistics.While the gifting provisions were introduced to stop people giving away assets in order to maximise their pension entitlement, the changes proposed here today will do much more. It is my observation that aged people in my electorate commonly give more money to family members or close friends to assist them in crises or help them to advance in life. The government's changes will discourage aged parents from helping children to get together a house deposit or helping children or grandchildren with education costs. This is especially the custom in families of non-English speaking background, where familial ties are so strong and a culture of keeping the money in the family prevails.Government should be encouraging families to help each other, not penalising them for doing so. The government says that these new rules are to crack down on high income earners giving away assets to become eligible for the pension. This bill will not catch the high income earners. The bill will hit the battlers, those people who are around the assets threshold or just above it but do not really derive much income from them. It will reduce the maximum amount to be gifted by $5,000, which is neither here nor there with the way the assets test operates. My electorate of Lowe is situated in the inner west of Sydney. As all members of this House know, Sydney real estate is by far the most expensive property market in Australia. Asset values have been going through the roof and continue to do so without end. I mention this self-evident fact to indicate that it is precisely this escalating price value that has caught out many elderly pensioners in my electorate.Let me give this House a good example of a recent case in issue for my electorate of Lowe. A constituent presented her case to me in May of this year. She was gifted a house by a bequest in a will from a family friend whom she cared for gratis over 10 years. The single age pension asset threshold is currently $248,250. If a pensioner has more than that amount, the pensioner loses his or her entire pension. At Centrelink's request, the asset value was argued by the Australian Valuers Office. The first assessment was a drive-by assessment, with a valuation of $265,000 made. As a result of this valuation, the pensioner lost her pension. My constituent sought a re-evaluation from the AVO. A full valuation was conducted and a revised valuation of $255,000 was reached—still too high for her to obtain her pension. The house is tenanted by her son and his family and the constituent does not receive any income whatsoever from the asset. My constituent's income is approximately $2,500 per year. We hear the saying `asset rich, liquidity poor'. My constituent is liquidity poor and asset average. As a result of this valuation, she lost not only her pension but all the benefits attached to receiving a pension, including the pension card, discounts on prescriptions, travel and so on. This means her cost of living has also risen dramatically at a time in her life when she cannot even earn or borrow. At first, Centrelink seriously recommended she obtain a loan, through Centrelink, to finance her remaining years, a loan which will encumber her assets by registered mortgage, thus passing this debt on to her children when she dies. This is neo-slavery. I cannot believe the policies of this government which would seriously consider it ethical to impose debt on a person well into their retirement as a credible means of financing their lifestyle during their twilight years.My constituent is not a high flying schemer, nor is she participating in some elaborate financial plan. She is a true battler, a first generation Australian who acted in a very conscionable way. She did not anticipate the gift nor was it a fee for service. My constituent falls within a typical profile of people in the Lowe electorate: people who simply lived in a home and slaved their guts out, accumulating other assets for the benefit of their children so that their children would not have to go through what they went through.This bill will further penalise those bona fide benefactors gifting money or other assets to those who are in greater need at their station in life. These are the people who value land so highly. To them, it represents security, security they never knew before. Is it not the height of irony that members of the Liberal-National coalition government, the Howard government members who hold themselves out to be the champions of free market and private property, should be the very persons impinging on the most basic of democratic rights by limiting the quiet enjoyment of a person's private property? This is so even after the person has paid his or her taxes and after the person has complied with all the laws. Even what they have left is not theirs to deal with freely.I concede that there are some financial planners who do advise their clients to dispose of their assets in order to maximise their pension or otherwise qualify for the age pension. There is also a percentage of pensioners who dispose of assets for the same purpose. However, in the absence of any government evidence to support this retrospective and draconian bill, it is my observation that the government is making the implied assertion that this practice is the majority practice of pensioners and financial planners throughout Australia. For this reason this bill is an insult to all or even a majority of age pensioners and to those currently entitled to the age pension but who would be denied it retrospectively under this bill. It is also an insult to financial planners, smearing them as opportunistic evaders of valid government laws through this `necessary' bill, which will ensnare both the good and the bad, treating all persons indiscriminately.I am reminded of the reference made by this government in its open letter to `older Australians'. What an insult to such a significant percentage of Australians! This bill is adding injury to insult. These `older Australians', as the government described them and so arrogantly insulted them earlier this year, are now the subject of further injury through the application of retrospective and aggressive legislation. They are a sector of the community already punished by consecutive government policies designed to strip them of a pension, a cash flow and a means of supporting themselves. Now they are being denied as well their democratic right to the quiet enjoyment of their property. In the absence of government evidence to the contrary, I move that the bill be opposed.It is yet another attack on the incomes of pensioners and retirees. However, this attack is not restricted to retirees. This is an outright attack on all Australians. It is not an attack limited to those seeking age pensions. It is an attack on those who could best benefit from a prudent asset shift, thus enabling them, as beneficiaries, to use that asset more constructively through paying off a mortgage or otherwise giving them a better start in life.The amendments proposed in this bill cannot go unnoticed, nor can they be accepted without challenge, for the policy impacts of this legislation are as pervasive as they are immoral. Therefore, I recommend to this House that the matter be referred to a Senate committee for further investigation. I would recommend that a Senate committee consider a proposal put forward by the Australian Labor Party in 1994 that there be more flexibility in the gifting provisions to enable retirees to help their families in an emergency. The idea is for a credit which could be stored up each year that a retiree did not gift to enable larger sums to be given to family members in exceptional circumstances. In the Targeting for Equity report of 1994, an example was given of a pensioner who had gifted $50,000 to his daughter and her four children because her husband—the children's father—had been killed in a car accident. The money was used to pay off mortgage arrears.I urge this House to weigh the anticipated financial saving of approximately $4.4 million to the government against the effective freezing effect on asset disposal. The hidden cost to the economy is to those beneficiaries who would otherwise have a very high marginal propensity to consume this money, increasing the velocity of circulation of money throughout the community and thus driving more economic activity. Even at a bloody-minded economic level of reasoning, the freezing of asset disposal will clearly restrict consumption trends in Australia by further restricting the disposal of assets. It is anticipated that in the majority of cases the assets would be used by the beneficiaries. It is a highly questionable policy to restrict the circulation of assets, as a healthy economy relies on the active circulation of assets.Whilst the government parade themselves as champions of free markets, Productivity Commission agreements, free trade and the removal of restrictions on trade and the flow of capital, they are doing exactly the opposite here. Why? So that they may justify and expand the current regime of dependency on mortgages—thus pandering to the major banks—deny liability on pension payments and reduce those in a significant sector of our economy to neo-slavery, forcing them into debt in their senior years of life. For these reasons, I urge this House to oppose the bill and to refer it to a Senate committee.17:45:008681Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—The member for Lilley came to the attention of the House when, in question time, he addressed a question to the Minister for Aged Care. As the opposition spokesman responsible for those matters, he went on to demonstrate that he did not understand the difference between a nursing home and a retirement village. On that occasion, the Minister for Aged Care famously remarked on the level of illumination that one might expect from the member for Lilley on matters relating to aged care. I regret the fact that, in his remarks today, he has more than lived up to his reputation for lacking in luminosity.We have also heard from the member for Lowe who, in my view, is a very likeable and effective parliamentarian. Both of the previous speakers in the debate have, I suggest, been somewhat excessive in their language. Over the past 40 minutes this government has been accused of vandalism, theft, wilful damage and, in the last few minutes, of being proponents of slavery. I accept that this government is not without defects, but I find it hard to believe that any member on this side could be found guilty of those offences.The Social Security Amendment (Disposal of Assets) Bill 1999 is a fairly simple and commonsense measure which seeks to tighten up one area of the vast edifice of social security which at present is subject to abuse. The intention of the legislation is to ensure that those who are entitled to a pension should be able to receive one but that we ought not to be giving incentives to Australians to engineer their affairs in a fashion which causes them to denude and reduce their assets purely for the purpose of qualifying for the age pension or a part-pension.In my opinion, and I think by world standards, the current arrangements are relatively generous. For example, it is possible for a non-home-owner couple in Australia to qualify for the assistance of a part-pension, despite the fact that they hold up to $476,000 in personal assets. I want to clarify that this bill has no bearing on what senior Australians can do with their assets, in as much as they relate to their own sustenance and care. The bill relates to the availability of the age pension in relation to a deliberate decision, without consideration, to give away your assets or the value of your assets.The simple principle that the government operates on is one of self-provision. I do not regard that as a revolutionary, antisocial, vindictive, harsh or inhumane principle of public policy. The principle is simple: where self-provision is possible it ought to be encouraged. The difficulty we have with this particular corner of the social security regulation is that it provides a disincentive to self-provision. We would all applaud and support generosity. We would all support the instincts of the benefactor. We would all support the encouragement of one generation by those who precede it. But the problem is that, if you seek to rely on the Commonwealth, on the taxpayer, on consolidated revenue for your income, you then give up some of the absolute freedom which you otherwise enjoy in relation to the disposal of your assets. If you want the benefit of a part-pension, it means that you are not at liberty to hand over the value of your assets to your children or your grandchildren, while at the same time asking the taxpayer to fund your daily needs and requirements.The idea is to preserve the integrity of the social security system. The idea is to ensure that, when we get to the moment when we have to provide for those in this country who really need it—the many pensioners in this country who have no assets at all—and when we are thinking about doing that over the next 10, 20 or 30 years with a population which is ageing rapidly due to our great success in increasing life expectancy, we look carefully at the margins. We have to ensure that the policies we put in place are not manipulated, rorted or defeated by purposes which were not anticipated by those who originally drafted the parameters of the legislation.The member for Lowe suggested that this bill is an insult to financial planners. He suggested that the implication of this legislation is that financial planners are opportunistic evaders of valid government law. At the same time, the member for Lilley said that the government has not provided a single example of opportunistic evasion by the financial planning industry. I am not criticising the members of the industry for advising their clients according to valid current Australian law. That is exactly and precisely what they are paid for. The question is: is the law a good law? We on this side of the House are here today to tell the Australian people that it is not and that it needs to be changed.No doubt, the financial planning sector will support, and comply and abide with, that change, but the change will reflect the true purposes of retirement income provision for older Australians. The member for Lowe described the legislation as aggressive, but I want to provide the House with an example of what I would describe as the fairly aggressive posture of the financial planning sector. I have here in my hand a copy of a teaching module that was produced by the Society of Chartered Practising Accountants in Australia. In relation to gifting, under the heading `Disposal/gifting of assets', this CPA module says simply:This can provide considerable opportunity to help pensioners' relatives and increase the level of pension entitlement over a period of time.So you have the CPA teaching their financial advisers that the gifting provisions, if used effectively, can enrich the relatives—the children and grandchildren of pensioners—while at the same time further enriching pensioners themselves by lifting the level of their entitlement to income.I suggest that that is not the purpose of providing income to pensioners in Australia. Everyone here can get up and give the speech on what we owe older Australians. I could do it, as you could do it, Mr Speaker, with absolute sincerity because there is no doubt about the contribution that previous generations have made to the incredible quality of life that we enjoy in Australia today.The question at the margin is: is this particular regulation sustainable, is it wise and is it delivering its intended purposes? And I think fairly clearly it is not. As I said, a couple can currently qualify for a part-pension with personal assets of $476,000. The financial advisers have been suggesting that those who would seek to qualify for a part-pension can over a five-year period give $10,000 a year to anyone—whether it be their children, a charity or whatever—with the explicit purpose of reducing their income by $10,000 a year over five years to the point where they can qualify for a part-pension and at the same time, in qualifying for a part-pension, get access to other pensioner benefits. Through pensioner cards, with the concessions they involve from state and local governments, they are estimated to be worth over $1,000 a year. Often it is not wise for pensioners to deliberately denude their asset base in order to qualify for a small part-pension or to qualify for pensioner concessions such as pharmaceutical benefits, but that is the direction which the current legislation is pushing senior Australians. The bill is not retrospective, as has been alleged. The bill makes explicit provision for the transitional period between its coming into force on 1 July and the giving of royal assent, whenever that may be. The bill makes it absolutely clear that, for any gifts made during that period, overpayment as a result of this legislation will not give rise to a right to recover on the part of Centrelink. We have to look at the creation of a long-term, sustainable social security system and a long-term, sustainable retirement incomes policy for this country when you reflect on the fact that Australians are having fewer and fewer children. The rate of fertility is currently at about 1.75 in this country and that rate is falling. At the same time life expectancy in Australia has increased by about 20 years over this century, a subject on which I have previously made some remarks in the chamber. The pincer movement which those two demographic trends create—on the one hand, reduced fertility; on the other hand, increased life expectancy—is that over the long run Australia has a very substantial shortfall in national savings.We in this government have taken heroic steps over the past three years to address the chronic culture of public sector debt which was so much a feature of the former Labor government. But, in the area of private savings, considerable ground still needs to be made up if our retirement incomes policy is going to be sustainable. FitzGerald in his famous report on national savings in 1991 suggested that our savings rate was about 12 per cent of gross domestic product but that it had to be lifted to 18 per cent if we were going to be able to fund the future call on Commonwealth revenues that would result from the rapidly ageing population. That shortfall has not been made up, and we must continue to be vigilant. This legislation is not a huge revenue savings measure. In fact, by the third year of its operation, it will be saving only about $3 million or $4 million a year. In 2002-03 it will save $4.4 million—it is not a radical amount. But the more significant purpose of the legislation is to communicate a message about values and to reaffirm the central principle of self-support and of self-provision. This is not some sort of rampaging assault on older Australians. On the contrary, unless we can find ways to make our current system more tailored, more streamlined and more targeted, it will simply not be available to meet the legitimate needs of those who are genuinely disadvantaged—those who are truly poor—over the years ahead. It is a far-sighted measure, it is a forward looking measure and it is a measure which seeks to ensure that Australian taxpayers as a whole are not being asked to subsidise the personal choices in relation to assets of those who would seek continued reliance on a Commonwealth pension or part-pension. We have heard this tirade of opposition coming from the other side of the chamber. It is never a hard case to make. To resist a savings measure is never difficult. It does not require great intellect. To appeal to that instinct in the populace which wants governments to make greater provision does not require you to be an Einstein. In fact, it requires no scruples of conscience whatsoever. On the contrary, it requires intelligent members of parliament, such as the member for Lilley and the member for Lowe, to abandon their scruples of conscience and go out in a flagrant populist grab for votes.We have just seen the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business today have the enormous pleasure of announcing that Australia's rate of unemployment has fallen yet again. We are, in a sense, basking in the accolades of international commentators on the strength of the Australian economy. We are seeing young people have a chance. For instance, in my electorate of Parramatta, unemployment has fallen from over nine per cent to under six per cent since this government was elected. That is not an accident. We did not just wake up one morning and find a 3½ per cent fall in the national unemployment rate. That outcome is the consequence of hundreds of incremental, hard but fair decisions taken by this Howard coalition government over the past three years. This measure we are looking at today is simply one more of those simple but fair incremental decisions.The thing that we know about older Australians is that they are the only people whose voting patterns are more influenced by the interests of others than they are by their own immediate interests. The older demographic is, the political researchers will tell you, the only group who goes to the electorate thinking: how will my decision affect future generations of Australians? That is why I can stand here with great confidence in supporting this measure. I can stand here faithful to my conscience. I can stand here knowing that I have resisted the appeal of populism and the desire just to grab for votes. I have been able to resist the use of these emotive and wild descriptions of this government because I know that what we are doing is a simple, practical but important incremental step forward. I believe that fair-minded older Australians will also recognise the basic wisdom and practical commonsense of the measure which this bill contains. I urge honourable members to support the bill.Debate interrupted.Personal Explanations868418:01:008684Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Yes, grievously so.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member may proceed. K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Recently the Adelaide Review published my review of Ann Henderson's book Getting Even . Ms Henderson has now responded and, other than shifting the blame for numerous errors in the book to her publishers Harper, Collins and proofreader Gerard Henderson, she has misrepresented me. Indeed, there are so many misrepresentations that it would take up a great deal of time to outline them to the House. Therefore, I seek leave to table the relevant documents which outline my response.Leave granted.Bills8684r8848684Debate resumed.18:02:008684Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—The bill before the House, the Social Security Amendment (Disposal of Assets) Bill 1999 , suffers from the difficulty of most social security legislation in that it offers a one size fits all solution to problems which are often of an individual nature. The social security system is large and complex. To administer the system in an efficient manner requires, some might say, the kind of approach contained in this amendment, that is, to set a rule and apply it in every single case. Any member who has spent time in an electorate office would soon come to realise that the one size fits all approach creates many cases of hardship, whereas a system able to take a case-by-case approach could be more considerate of compassionate grounds that each individual case may present.This, however, would be far more expensive to administer and would require a complex set of review procedures which would ultimately disadvantage many less able pensioners. But this should not exclude the use of the mechanisms to deal with cases of genuine hardship, particularly where they improve the equity of the system. Despite this flaw and the views of some critics, I believe that Australia's social security system is arguably the best in the world and the most appropriate for Australia.The objective of this bill is to deter the practice of some pensioners, in particular those in receipt of a part pension, to retain pension eligibility by making gifts to family members. By reducing their level of assets, a pensioner may avoid losing a pension entitlement or become eligible for an increased entitlement. The extent of this practice in terms of the number of cases has not been documented. However, the government's estimate of savings growing from $2 million in next year's budget to $4 million per annum in 2002 suggests that the practice of retirees using the gifting measures to maintain pension eligibility is expected to grow considerably.The need for these measures may also be linked to the growth in retirees having considerable asset and income resources who may be eligible for part pension. This contrasts with the situation that existed earlier, when far fewer retirees had additional cash assets or income. The bill should, therefore, be seen as a measure which attempts to step in before the practice of gifting becomes too widespread, resulting in a blowout in social security payments. There would be cause for concern that, once word got around the local bowling club and many thousands of retirees rushed to get in on the practice, there could be a significant blowout. But here lies one of the concerns that Labor has with the bill, that is, we are not informed of the extent of the problem. By any measure, $2 million in next year's budget is a drop in the ocean compared with the overall social security expenditure. Without clear projections of the potential numbers of part pensioners expected to take advantage of gifting, we really cannot assess the need for this measure. To get hold of those projections, the bill should be subjected to much closer scrutiny, closer than is possible within this debate.I might add that the changes made by this government to asset and income levels as part of what has been described as a very generous treatment of entitlements for higher income retirees may have more to do with the need for this legislation than the government is willing to concede. When you have institutions such as Westpac Bank touting schemes which promise part pension entitlements to retirees with combined pension and private incomes of up to $45,000, you can see why the government is anxious to restrict the practice of gifting for fear that it will lead to an extension of pensioner entitlements at the top end of the scale.But again, we do not have the details. We simply do not know which pensioners are taking advantage of those provisions at present. Some form of inquiry is necessary to shed some light on this. With the benefit of that information we would be better able to consider the effectiveness of this bill in addressing the problem. My greatest concern with this bill is that it is nothing more than a means to reduce expenditure. It does so in a manner which ignores the most fundamental relationships in our society—those of families. Members of the government have frequently stated in this House their belief in the sanctity of family relationships and responsibilities. We saw an example of this government's attitude when it made changes to the youth allowance which effectively applied a means test based on family incomes.Families with modest incomes are now in many cases forced by this government to support unemployed adult children. The reasons given for this were that families have a responsibility to provide support. The government has encouraged and, as I have just said, in some cases forced parents to provide assistance to their adult children. In a similar fashion, the government provides care and assistance in programs such as home and community care, only where family members cannot provide that assistance. The government not only preaches the virtues of family responsibility but enforces those responsibilities in its programs of assistance. It is in those programs that the inflexibility of the policy contained in the Social Security Amendment (Disposal of Assets) Bill 1999 can be seen as harsh and unreasonable.Each year in Australia there are thousands of cases where the families of pension recipients fall into circumstances of financial hardship. The example quoted of the pensioner who gifted $50,000 to his daughter who had four children and whose husband had been killed in a car accident, with the money used to pay off mortgage arrears, is but one of many. It is a story repeated many times over, where pensioners must pay a heavy penalty by way of reduced pension should they assist a family member in financial distress. This has particular relevance in the Fowler electorate where, in some cultures, family members have an obligation to assist relatives in distress and will therefore suffer the loss in benefit to fulfil that obligation. This brings me back to the point I made earlier, that a one size fits all social security system lacks the flexibility to meet the full range of human circumstances.In seeking greater equity, flexibility which makes allowance for the obligation of senior family members to assist those in genuine distress must be built into the system. Surely there is greater equity where a pensioner can be given credit for not having gifted money in previous years and then to gift a greater amount than the annual allowed, whether it be $10,000 or the $5,000 proposed in the bill, to assist a family member in genuine need. Where is the equity when a high income, part pensioner can gift $50,000 to family members over five or even 10 years but a pensioner with fewer assets and less income is penalised if they gift $50,000 in one year out of 10 to a family member in severe financial hardship? Surely there is greater equity to allow for situations where a pensioner can assist a family member suffering financial hardship, without the loss of pension entitlement, than allowing high asset pension recipients to reduce their assets and increase their pension entitlement.The bill before the House addresses only the second of these issues, and it does that only by half measure. It does, after all, only reduce the annual amount of gifting from $10,000 to $5,000. I have no doubt that financial planners will recommend to clients that they continue to gift at the new $5,000 limit in order to maintain pension entitlements. The great majority of retirees—particularly in the Fowler electorate—who have a small amount of cash assets, cash that they have set aside for an emergency, will be the ones penalised by this change. Those who have a family member in financial hardship who require more than $5,000 will find themselves in the dilemma of meeting their obligation to assist a family member but suffering a loss in pension entitlement as a result.What is needed is greater flexibility, but that is not allowed for in this bill. The bill deserves closer consideration in a forum where the issues, including those I have raised here, may be investigated and reported on; an inquiry where we may gain better evidence of the effect of the proposed changes; an inquiry which could investigate the possibility of making the system more flexible and better able to meet the needs of the many thousands of pensioners faced with the dilemma of having their pension reduced if they meet their obligation to assist a family member in genuine financial hardship.The one size fits all approach to social security measures lacks the understanding and compassion which exceptional circumstances require. The bill should be opposed on these grounds as an inadequate measure to meet the real needs of pensioners. It represents yet another attack by this government on the incomes of pensioners and retirees. The issue must be investigated in greater depth before the parliament can agree to provisions in this bill.18:13:008686Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—This is pure, mean-spirited, Liberal-National Party doctrine. I am disgusted to be a member of a parliament which is introducing legislation attacking our older Australians. The government attacks our pensioners with every piece of legislation it introduces. Older Australians have really suffered under this government. This government has a philosophy of attacking those people in greatest need. If you really are in need, there is absolutely no way you can escape this government. There is a lack of caring, feeling and understanding of the issues that are affecting real people in the community, older people who are out there battling to survive every day.Every day I receive phone calls in my office from pensioners within the Shortland electorate complaining about the treatment they have received at the hands of this government. They complain about the difficulties they are having dealing with Centrelink even now, and they are going to be faced with yet another change, yet another attack on their benefits, on their income and on their freedom to make choices, because that is what this is about. At the moment older Australians can give away $10,000 each year. That is now going to be reduced to $5,000, because once it goes over that amount it will affect their pensions.I will share with the House a little story. My own mother is in receipt of a pension. Ten years ago my sister's marriage broke up and she had to move away from Newcastle where she lived. She moved to the north coast. She was not wealthy; she experienced extreme financial hardship. She had two young boys that she had to care for. From having a home and a job in the Hunter, she moved up to the north coast, had no job and no home, and she had to re-establish herself. At that stage, my mother had a little bit of money invested in the bank. She took that money out and my sister was able to get a deposit for a home and establish herself. My mother did not give her very much money because she does not have a lot of money. She is not a wealthy woman. She is just a pensioner on a full pension. Under the provisions of this piece of legislation that we are considering today my mother would not have been able to help my sister in the way she did. My sister would have been forced to try to get assistance from a government department, maybe the department of housing or such, to be able to establish herself in a new area, look after her children and give them a home and shelter.This legislation is going to attack families throughout Australia. It is going to make it harder and harder for families that are struggling to be able to survive. Pensioners that want to care for their family, that have a relative that is in need like my sister was, will not be able to help that sibling, or elderly aunt, or niece or nephew. They will not be able to be assisted, because of this legislation making it harder every day for pensioners to have choices.I think it was the member for Parramatta saying that we on this side of the House are giving way to popularism, that we are just taking the easy option, because `After all, if somebody is really poor, then they are going to be okay.' Does this government want to see all pensioners in Australia really poor before they can get assistance? We on this side of the House do not want to see that. We believe that older Australians should be respected. We believe that our older Australians should not have to live in poverty. We do not believe that poverty should be a state of old age.The electorate that I represent has quite an elderly population. The Hunter as a whole has 9.5 per cent of the population over 70 years of age. The Shortland electorate has part of Lake Macquarie and goes to the central coast of New South Wales, which also has an older population. Lake Macquarie has over 34.7 per cent of the population over the age of 65. The majority of those people receive a pension and the majority of those have a little bit put away so that they can help their families if any member of their family is in need.This legislation is also changing the pension year. It is changing it from the pension year to the financial year. It will raise $4.4 million. Furthermore, it is going to be retrospective. Once it is passed, it is going to be backdated to 1 July. This is just not good enough. This government continues to attack all older Australians, all people in need within our country. Not only is the government causing problems for older Australians with this issue but it is attacking health. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to continue my speech at a later date.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Adjournment8687Motion (by Mr Vaile) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.868718:21:008687Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—On Friday, 25 June this year I had the pleasure of going to the South Sydney Legends dinner. It was a dinner which brought back many memories for me. People such as Ron Coote, Bob McCarthy, Bobby Grant, Garry Stevens and of course the great Eric Simms and the great George Piggins were there. I can well remember in 1971 sitting on the SCG hill. I was there with a couple of my cousins. I was a bit short of course and they put me on their shoulder. It is one of the great memories: the victory 16-10 to Souths over St George in that grand final. There were other legends there—people like Jack Rainer, Bernie Purcell and others. South Sydney has a proud history going back to when it was formed on 17 January 1908. They defeated Norths 11-7 in their first premiership game on 20 April that year and they won the first premiership against Easts 14-12 in 1908. This was the first of 20 premierships. This tradition, history and culture is now under threat from the rationalists of the National Rugby League: all that tradition and all that community.The South Sydney Rugby League team is not just about the 13 players who run around in first grade each weekend. It is the kids running around in Souths juniors; it is the mums out there selling raffle tickets so their kids can buy football jumpers and socks and play on the weekend; it is the members of the club who own the club—unlike Super League, where Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd owned 51 per cent of each of the clubs that participated in it—and it is the businesses of the district. It is the sense of being a part of community. That is why this debate about the future of rugby league is so emotional. That is why so many people oppose the Super League concept—because we cannot reduce individuals in our society to consumers who sit in front of pay TV screens.The sense of community and the sense of loss which we debate, such as the increase in youth suicide and the rising problems with young people in our society, will not be helped if those great institutions of our local community are simply thrown away because the bottom line is just the dollar. The debate over the National Rugby League and the future goes to the very heart of the future of our society and that increased alienation which people are experiencing. Whether it be the local rugby league club or other sporting organisations or other community organisa tions such as the RSL, those institutions provide a real basis and foundation for a sense of community.The current debate, with an absurd proposition that somehow you have to reduce the number of teams in the NRL to 14, is very sad. I am sad that Balmain and Western Suburbs have had to merge under pressure. Leichhardt Oval is in my electorate of Grayndler, and I think that many people who have followed Balmain and Wests all their lives—people like Balmain supporter Laurie Nicholls—oppose that move, and I can understand why.South Sydney have been very principled. From the beginning they have shown a great deal of character, led by George Piggins, in rejecting the rationalist message of those people who wish to control what is the people's game. The people's game and sporting organisations really cannot be reduced to mere matters of finance. Newly established teams, such as the Adelaide Rams, which some said had a great future, and the Western Reds have all gone. Melbourne Storm are there for the moment but one wonders whether they will survive. One thing that is very clear is that the South Sydney Rugby League team means a great deal to a great many people. If South Sydney are not in the competition next year, I for one will not be interested at all in Rugby League and will pursue my interest in AFL because it is simply the case that this kind of rationalism contributes to a loss of community. (Time expired)868818:26:008688Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—An interesting article appeared in the Financial Review on Tuesday this week. This article sheds further light on the debate about Badgerys Creek airport. It may be that my colleagues are sick of my harping on about Badgerys Creek airport, but this article is worth referring to. I will quote one small piece from this article about a consultancy report prepared for the Sydney Airport Corporation to look at the forecasted pressures on Kingsford Smith airport. It says `looming air traffic capacity constraints at Kingsford Smith Airport can be solved without developing a second major airport in the Sydney basin'. I repeat—`without developing a second major airport in the Sydney basin'.This report, prepared for the Sydney Airport Corporation and echoed in other reports, makes the point very clearly that there are options that are preferable to rushing in and building a second airport in Western Sydney. These options include, firstly, better management of Kingsford Smith airport itself. Kingsford Smith has 120,000 movements a year of planes less than 50 tonnes. This means that valuable capacity is being taken up by lighter aircraft—30 per cent of the flight movements in and out of Mascot are planes with fewer than 30 passengers. The average number of passengers on a flight in and out of Mascot is 75 compared with average world practice of more than 100 and best practice of more than 200. The point is: Kingsford Smith airport is not being used anywhere near capacity. So the first point is that Kingsford Smith can be used much more efficiently.The second point that the consultancy report points out is that better development of Bankstown airport, just a few kilometres away from Kingsford Smith, can help relieve some of the capacity problems. According to this consultancy report, by moving the lighter aircraft out of Kingsford Smith into Bankstown we can make Kingsford Smith airport last another 14 years. It is ludicrous that timeslots are taken up at Kingsford Smith airport by light aircraft that could be working just as easily at Bankstown, just a few kilometres away.The third point that this consultancy report makes is that the possibility of speed rail connections will further push out the constraint capacity of Kingsford Smith airport. The development of speed rail links with Canberra, for instance—which should be up and running by 2004-05—should buy us at least another couple of years at Kingsford Smith. That would probably take 3,000 flight movements out between Canberra and Sydney each year. Once we have developed further speed rail links to Melbourne, then we can further put off the constraint limit of Kingsford Smith airport.According to this consultancy report, without changing the curfew, Kingsford Smith could be made to last another 20, possibly 30 years and, on some estimates, even longer than that. These comments echo those made by Tony Stuart last year. The Business Review Weekly of 16 November last year and the Sydney Morning Herald of 21 November reported Tony Stuart, the CEO of Sydney Airport Corporation, arguing that Kingsford Smith could last another 20 or 30 years.There is no sense at all in pushing ahead with an airport at Badgerys Creek if there are better alternatives. If there were no problems with Badgerys Creek you might consider it, but there are problems. There are significant problems. First of all, there are environmental problems. The EIS and other studies clearly show that there are potentially very grave air pollution problems related to an airport in Western Sydney. The studies clearly show that we will frequently exceed accepted ozone levels, on fine particulate levels and possibly on nitrogen dioxide levels. We will also have problems with the water catchment area.There will also be infrastructure problems. Seventy-five per cent of the users of flights in and out of Sydney live in the eastern and northern suburbs. To have them travelling an hour and a half across Sydney to an airport 50 kilometres west of the CBD is ludicrous to say the least. It will add significantly to congestion on an already overcrowded rail and road network between the CBD and Western Sydney. The infrastructure is just not there to support an airport in Western Sydney.Thirdly, the cost restraints are enormous. On current costs, it is estimated that it will cost $5 billion—without the blow-out—to build an airport at Badgerys Creek and probably another $3 billion for infrastructure for an airport that will not work. It will not solve Sydney's airport problems; it will only create environmental, social and economic problems. (Time expired)868918:31:008689Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—As all members of this House would know, irregular and often long hours of work as an MP can make home and family life difficult. While we may grumble from time to time, we are—at least in the eyes of the public—well paid for this disruption to our family lives. We have also, in most cases, undertaken this work in the full knowledge that the hours of work would be irregular and that demands on our time would intrude into our family lives.We should therefore appreciate more than most that stable and family friendly hours of work are highly desirable for many Australian workers. But a growing proportion of the Australian work force is finding that their once stable and family friendly work patterns are being changed. In the name of flexible work times, longer shifts are being worked, often in a manner in which overtime and penalty rates are not applied. The traditional standard hours for full-time employees—nine to five Monday to Friday or variations on those hours—are rapidly becoming a thing of the past.Figures compiled by Sydney University Associate Professor Ron Callus suggest that enterprise bargaining has been behind much of the trend to so-called flexible working hours. Callus notes that nearly 80 per cent of enterprise agreements deal with changing the times people work. While the agreements to allow changing the times of work were expected to give workers greater flexibility, for many workers, particularly those with school-aged children, the flexibility benefits only management in having staff on hand for extended trading hours, with workers facing inconvenience and increased costs as a result.The impact of these changes was illustrated recently with the case of Ms Kym Wood. Ms Wood's employer, Steggles, sought to change her start time from 8 a.m. to 6.30 a.m. With three school-aged children, Ms Woods found it impossible to arrange early morning child care and complained to the Industrial Relations Commission. The Kym Woods case clearly demonstrates the difficulty caused to families when changes to working hours are demanded by employers. What was to have been a flexible arrangement which benefited both employer and employee has in this case, and in so many other cases, resulted in gains to companies at the expense of workers. For workers in outer suburbs, extended hours make car ownership a necessity as public transport simply does not have the same flexibility of hours demanded by management. Child-care services outside regular hours are either unavailable or very expensive.But the changes to working hours have an impact outside of the family. For generations, sporting clubs and social organisations have relied on the assistance of volunteers to coach and manage their activities. Over recent years, I have increasingly heard comments from sporting and social clubs that they are finding it more and more difficult to get parents to participate in coaching and managing teams. Too often, calls for help receive the response, `I can't get away from work in time.' It is clear that longer and less regular hours of work are preventing many parents from actively participating in junior sports development. The contribution of volunteer coaches and administrators has been the backbone of junior sport in Australia and has been the source of much of our nation's success in the sports arena. Sadly, we may pay a high price in reduced participation in junior sport and ultimately be less successful in our national sporting performance as a result.Of greater concern however is the effect of less voluntary work in this generation. Many people are introduced to voluntary work through participation in sport and social activities and continue to participate in a range of community activities with their greatest contribution coming in the years after retirement from full-time work. With fewer people becoming involved due to work commitments, the future of community volunteer work is not bright. As a nation we need to be concerned at the prospect of fewer volunteer workers in the future and the loss in economic terms of the services they provide. While we measure the economic benefits of extended working hours, we should not overlook the economic costs to the community of the loss of volunteer work now and in the future.869018:36:008690Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—Members on both sides will be famili ar with Parramatta's very significant place in Australia's history. Many members will be aware that Parramatta was, for example, the site of the first wheat grown in the colony of New South Wales.UU5HORNEMr Horne—James Ruse.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON—That is correct. Members will be aware that Parramatta was the site of Australia's first brewery, which will perhaps have particular significance for the two members at the table. Members may be aware that Parramatta was the seat of government in the colony for most of the 19th century. Members may be aware that the site of Parramatta Town Hall is actually the site of the first true market in the new colony. James Ruse was the first person to take himself and his family off the government store and by the sweat of his own brow—his own initiative—he raised enough income to look after himself and his family. But members may not know that this week marks another special anniversary, and that is that 19 years ago this week—in fact, yesterday—was the first soccer match recorded in Australian history. The local club, the Wanderers, accepted as Australia's first soccer club, played its first match against the Kings School, Parramatta, on 11 August 1880. That is just one more of the many firsts that we find in this great city of Parramatta.It is particularly pertinent that I reflect on this anniversary this week, because the Parramatta Leagues Club, probably the most significant civic organisation in the city of Parramatta, has recently bought the franchise for a brand new team in the National Soccer League to be known as Parra Power. Characteristically, Alan Overton and Denis Fitzgerald, who really run the leagues club—some would say with an iron rod, but certainly very effectively—have gone out and gathered together the best talent available in Australian soccer. I want to extend my congratulations to David Mitchell, whom many people regard as Australia's best soccer coach. He still has a chance to be selected as the coach of the Socceroos.The team will be playing at Parramatta stadium and they are conservatively expecting crowds of up to 20,000. One of the interesting things that may not be so well known to members is that in the draw-in area which is covered by the Parramatta Leagues Club there are 15,000 juniors playing rugby league. What is more interesting is that, in the same area, there are 37,000 kids playing soccer. Parramatta Leagues Club, with an eye to the future, is looking at how it can engage with this young talent and encourage athletic and sporting excellence in Western Sydney, particularly in my electorate of Parramatta. The club is very pleased to have on its benches the likes of three of the Ollyroos who will be representing Australia at the 2000 Olympics. I want to honour the contribution of Jacob Burns, Michael Santalab and Mile Sterjovski, who are the stars of the team there, but who also share a commitment to the fostering and development of young talent.Some will say, `What is a leagues club doing in soccer?' People may not be aware that leagues clubs around Sydney, New South Wales and indeed Australia and New Zealand make a much wider contribution to their local community than just rugby league. For example, the Parramatta Leagues Club is the principal sponsor of the Parramatta cricket club. Ironically, it is a major sponsor of the Parramatta rugby union club. It is active in countless community sporting organisations, particularly developing the skills and the athletic potential of young people in Western Sydney. I want to congratulate the Parramatta Leagues Club on its contribution to our great city and I want to wish Parra Power every success in the national soccer league. I certainly hope that it will take its place at the absolute top of the table as we have seen with the Parramatta Eels in the rugby league competition. I wish both teams every success.869118:41:008691Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—In early 1997 BHP announced that they were going to close their steelworks, as we knew them, in Newcastle. The Howard government accepted that. Mind you, BHP had tried this on before. They tried it on with the Hawke government, but the Hawke government would not accept it. As a matter of fact, the Hawke government came up with the steel cities plan that saw major investment in the steel industry and BHP restructure. It certainly continued for another 13 or 14 years beyond the time they told the Hawke government they were going to close.In 1997 it took the Prime Minister about four months to respond to the statement by BHP that they were going to close and finally come up with the princely sum of $10 million for what he called the Hunter Advantage Fund. The Hunter Advantage Fund was a statement by the federal government to match the $10 million that had already been announced by the state government, and $5 million that was announced by BHP itself. This was precisely allocated to create jobs for 30 September this year, because 30 September this year is the date when the steelworks, as we know them, will shut their gate, close their furnaces and stop making iron in Newcastle. It is something that the people in the Hunter region do not know how to accept; we cannot see past that. It is something that all lifelong residents of the Hunter have always had. The steelworks have always been there. As a kid I went to school and university in Newcastle. I and most of the people I was educated with knew that our careers were going to be either in or about the steel or heavy engineering industry—that is the way it was—but that is not to be.With only six or seven weeks to go before this date, let us have a look at what has happened to the Prime Minister's $10 million. This is a disgrace. It is a statement about the lack of care of this government for the high unemployment in the Hunter region. Unemployment in the Hunter is affecting not only the steel industry but also the mining industry. Lack of competitiveness, the inability of the multinationals to employ miners and sell the coal and make their profit has meant that, in the upper valley, we have lost in excess of 2,000 jobs in the past two years. In the steel industry we are going to lose something like 3,000 jobs.The amazing thing is that the work force around the Hunter is probably as skilled as any in Australia. It is immoral that that region should be suffering unemployment that is some 50 per cent above the national average. If you considered its value to the country and what it has contributed over the past century, the Hunter region should have one of the lowest unemployment rates in Australia—because of the skills and the industry base there and because of what it generates for this nation. But that is not the way it is.But I go back to the Prime Minister's $10 million. The sum of $1½ million has gone to a heavy vehicle interchange. I have no argument with that. It is something that was needed, something that will attract new industry and something that will create jobs. Almost two years ago $3 million was allocated to Comsteel, our stainless steel manufacturer. Comsteel has been sold. The $3 million is sitting there and has not created a single job. Two million dollars went to Forgacs Shipyard. They were building the frigate modules at the time. Those frigate modules are now being built in New Zealand. Forgacs have not taken up the $2 million and they have not expanded their shipyard. That $2 million has not created a job.Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister came to Newcastle and announced $2½ million to Impulse Airlines for a call centre that will create 70 jobs—$2½ million for 70 jobs. Not one of those jobs will go to one of the people who will lose their job in our steel industry. The whole of the Hunter Advantage Fund and its management have been a disgrace and bring no credit to the Howard government. Let me say finally that a prime ministerial task force was made up of industrial leaders, union leaders and the Anglican and Catholic bishops of Newcastle, but not one recommendation of that committee has been accepted by the Prime Minister. (Time expired)869218:46:008692Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—It has been argued quite eloquently that Australia's greatest contribution and achievement since Federation have been our substitution of the original Federation belief of White Australia with a multicultural Australia. As Paul Kelly said in an inaugural Politics and the Media Lecture delivered in Sydney last October: White Australia was the essence of our nationalism, without which it is conceivable there may not have been a federation at the time it occurred.The policy was of course abolished by conservative governments in the later 1960s. There had already been a transformation of Australia's society and culture in the post-war immigration program. Within my electorate of Curtin alone we are blessed with significant numbers of people from Greek, Italian, and Chinese backgrounds—and others in perhaps fewer numbers.Knowing first-hand the contribution that these groups make to both the local community and the nation as a whole, I support wholeheartedly the need to stamp out racial prejudice, bigotry and intolerance that might still linger among small sectors of the population. I am proud of the fact that this government has introduced a range of programs designed to tackle issues of racism. Tonight I wish to mention the Living in Harmony community grants program initiative being implemented by the federal government in the Curtin electorate, working in conjunction with a highly regarded, respected and hard working group, the Western Australian Chinese Chamber of Commerce. Throughout my professional career I dealt with the Chinese Chamber of Commerce on many issues and I was impressed always with the dedication and professionalism they showed in representing the interests of the Chinese community in Perth.The concept behind this community grants program involves the input of local groups who have the best local knowledge in identifying relevant issues at the grassroots level. The local groups then propose suitable projects which they think will address their own community needs under the banner of Living in Harmony—projects aimed at improving social cohesion, at tackling racism and at generating better understanding, respect and cooperation among people from different cultural backgrounds.The project of the WA Chinese Chamber of Commerce is called Cultural Differences between the East and the West. This received $50,000 in funding from the federal government. The program is a series of free seminars designed to promote effective intercultural harmony and, importantly, continues the work of the chamber, which is already recognised as having a long record of achievement in the promotion of understanding and cooperation between many different professional communities as well as between people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds.Essentially, this project is all about education. It will see the imparting of essential information about common human values, Asian cultural values, and the norms and strategies for effective intercultural communication. The aim of the seminars is to create a better understanding of the differences between Eastern and Western cultures—and, in doing so, they will aim to reduce many of the misconceptions that lead to less than harmonious relations. It is through better understanding, through addressing misconceptions and by better education that long-lasting changes in attitude occur.On 26 July I was invited by the Chairman of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, Mr Simon Lee, to speak at the launch of the project at the headquarters of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce within the electorate of Curtin. The other members of the executive who were present included Roger Kwok, Wilson Wu, Ron Jee, John Chan and Jimmy Yong. One could take as a measure of support for the program the fact that many respected figures in Perth were present, including the Acting Commissioner of the Western Australian Police Force, Bruce Brennan.In the formulation of these seminars the Chinese Chamber of Commerce have involved many other interested local groups. They have been very inclusive in their discussions about their seminars. Hopefully the seminars will lead to a greater understanding of what social inclusion and a harmonious society can mean. We must all work to ensure that the benefits our immigration programs have given to Australia are not lost because of any sense of alienation by any sector of society. As the Chinese Chamber of Commerce has recognised rightly, one of the keys to an understanding of social inclusion and to living in harmony is, quite simply, better education.869418:51:008694Stone, Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLP10—We have just seen presented to parliament by our Prime Minister a preamble to the Constitution. It includes a reference honouring Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people, for their deep kinship to their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country. That is a reference that I as the government's member on the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation find absolutely perfect in summing up what I think about how our preamble to the Constitution should reflect on indigenous people. I have just been having a conversation with Jackie Huggins, another member of our Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, who was our writer working with David Malouf in particular to try and sum up what we could say in a one-page document that represented the declaration of the nation. Jackie also finds this statement superb. When we think of our new Democrat representative, Aden Ridgeway, who was instrumental in putting this particular preamble paragraph together, we have a representation of how indigenous people feel in a large part of the Australian population.I want to commend this particular reference. I think it is very important, and I hope all those people who in the future will be looking at this document will be able to see that it represents exactly where we are at right now in this nation with regard to reconciliation.Debate interrupted.Bills8694r8418694Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist upon its amendments Nos 1 and 3 disagreed to by the House.Bills8694The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Constitution Alteration (Preamble) Bill 1999 Adjournment8694Consideration resumed.Question resolved in the affirmative.House adjourned at 6.54 p.m. until Monday, 23 August 1999, in accordance with the resolution agreed to this sittingNotices8694The following notices were given:Mr Emerson to move:That the House:(1) expresses its concern about widening inequality in Australia;(2) notes the increasing evidence that the earliest years of childhood are vital in determining the life chances of young people;(3) recognises that early intervention in the form of parenting programs, home visiting and literacy and numeracy programs are valuable in improving the life chances of young people; and(4) acknowledges that the Commonwealth has an important role to play in the funding of early intervention programs.Ms Julie Bishop to move:That the House:(1) welcomes the report entitled "Final report of the Health and Medical Research Strategic Review Committee: The virtuous cycle—Working together for health and medical research" and its recommendations for implementation;(2) notes the important link between Australia's health and medical research capability and the delivery of a cost-effective and equitable health care system;(3) recognises the excellent work and the high level of commitment among those working in the medical research field;(4) applauds the Federal Government's specific commitment to increasing annual funding for health and medical research, through the National Health and Medical Research Council, by more than doubling funding of base research with an investment of a further $614m over the next six years; and(5) urges the Federal Government to pursue reforms proposed in the final report. 1999-08-12Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Before I call for members' statements, I advise the committee that we are having difficulty with the clock for timing speeches. I might give you a gong when you have got one minute left until we get it fixed.Statements by Members869586958695Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—I wanted to speak today on the 000 emergency call service, because Tasmania is just about to lose it. According to Telstra, it is a commercial decision. Apparently the new technology that tracks the locations of calls is supposed to be fail-proof and we are supposed to get this before the centre is moved. It is a small retrieval on what has been said recently but it does not reassure me or give me any feeling of safety for my constituents.My small town of Longford in northern Tasmania has already run foul of this emergency system when we had a robbery in the local bank on 30 December last year. One of my constituents, a man in his 70s, became the local hero when he tried to foil the bandit. It could have turned into a very serious situation, because the call centre got it wrong: it rang the wrong town. It rang Longford in Victoria. So without the local knowledge which would have normally dispatched a police officer to Longford in Tasmania it got it wrong and sent the person to Longford in Victoria.It was three-quarters of an hour before the Victorian police had picked up on the fact that there was no Trust Bank in their town, and they had to ring back and say that it was the wrong place. This could really have gone wrong and, of course, the robber was long gone by the time the police got there.Our 70-plus hero, who was all for stopping the bandit by tripping him up when he came out of the bank and who had tried to persuade others to assist him, was finally persuaded to come next door and take the number of the car and memorise the incident, and this did eventually lead to the conviction of the felon. This is the sort of local knowledge which is needed for it to be possible to dispatch services as a result of the 000 service.I believe the service should be located in the local area, state or region where the calls come in. How they do that can be a commercial decision. I believe that things will still go wrong right around Australia when there are people taking these calls in places other than the regions where incidents are occurring. What is the future? Is the future Calcutta? Is the future somewhere else in the world because that is where you can book your airline ticket these days? This is a major concern to constituents of Tasmania. (Time expired)86958695Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—That story from the member for Lyons sounds like the gang that could not shoot straight. Running off to deal with a bank robbery in the wrong state reminds me of the product of the recent meeting of the ministers for health where they considered the issue of cadmium in peanuts. As a result of that meeting, I can only discern the fact that in Australia and New Zealand—because this is a joint body on which the New Zealand health minister is also represented—it seems we have got three health ministers and seven anti-health ministers, the three in favour of health being the Commonwealth, the ACT and Queensland health ministers, and the seven against health being all the other states and New Zealand, because the impact of that decision is to increase the allowable level of cadmium in peanuts from 0.05 per cent to 0.1 per cent.That might not seem very much to somebody who comes from a state other than Queensland—and, of course, Kingaroy in my electorate is probably the centre of the universe when it comes to the growing of peanuts in Australia.BV5ADAMSMr Adams—It is the peanut capital of the world.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—It is the peanut capital of the world.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—We have both been privileged to represent it.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—Thank you to the honourable member for Fisher. Cadmium is a heavy metal. It has no redeeming health qualities. There is nothing about it that is good. I cannot see any circumstance in which a health minister would be able to hold their head up high in advocating an increase of cadmium in somebody's diet. The old levels in Australia used to be 0.05. In New Zealand, to their everlasting shame, the level was 1—not 0.1, but 1. That is 20 times the acceptable Australian level. The New Zealand level was set through a misguided process. The New Zealanders were conscious of the fact that they had to drastically reduce that level because, not surprisingly, they had high levels of cadmium in a whole range of foods and people were suffering kidney diseases in great numbers. The level had to be reduced and we had to reach a standardised position between Australia and New Zealand, but New Zealand was the place where the reductions had to be made.In Australia we had a level of 0.05, which was an appropriate level for peanuts. The only countries in the world that cannot make the 0.05 level for peanuts are the US and China. This is because the US has a lot of fallout from brown coal power stations and China uses nightsoil for fertiliser. Credit for the efforts to overcome this crazy increase to 0.1 must go to Senator Ron Boswell, Bob Hanson of Peanut Company of Australia and the Prime Minister, who made considerable efforts to ensure that the Commonwealth position was correct. The government did take a very strong stance in support of the peanut growers.(Time expired)86968696Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—I want to talk very briefly this morning about the position facing the ACT hospice. It is currently located on Acton Peninsula, but unfortunately it has to move. Members may recall some comments I made previously on this subject when we were attempting to bring some pressure to bear on the government to ensure that the hospice remained where it was on Acton Peninsula. Unfortunately, we lost that battle and the debate has now moved on. All of our efforts are now being put into ensuring that a location is found on the basis of the needs and the ideals of the hospice community, and not purely on an economic judgment. Seven sites are currently under consideration, of which five are located at, near or within Calvary Hospital. One of the sites is at Lake Ginninderra and another is at Yarralumla Bay—the latter site having been put into contention for consideration by the hospice society.Unfortunately, some advice came out of Senator Reid's office on 26 July stating that the ACT government already had a preferred option for the relocation of the hospice. Their preference was to consider a Calvary Hospital site. The Hospice and Palliative Care Society put out a press release on 30 July with the heading: `Appalled with the process of re-siting of the ACT Hospice'. They expressed their very strong objection to the processes where, on the one hand, an investigatory process is under way while, at the same time, a so-called `preferred site' is being made known to them through government sources. It is fair to say that Senator Reid's advice was strongly refuted by the ACT government and some clarity has now been put on that particular situation. One cannot really blame those who are supporting the hospice people when we know that the consultants for the hospice relocation process also happen to be carrying out the feasibility study for the refurbishment of Calvary Hospital.So whilst we are not in any sense accusing anyone of any untoward action there, one cannot be blamed for suspecting some decisions have already been made. What we do know is that we now have a situation where the processes are under question: do we have a process where we are going to have a new location determined on the true needs and ideals of that ACT hospice community or is it going to be skewed unfairly by looking more strongly at the economic costs? The Yarralumla Bay site, in my opinion and in the opinion of the hospice community, is an ideal site; but what we would like to see is an honest and open appraisal of that site—the one suggested by the hospice society and its community—and hopefully it will be located there. (Time expired)86978697Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I rise to praise the noteworthy contributions to our community of three young people on the Sunshine Coast. These are people for whom we can have the highest regard. These young people have gained the respect of their peers and community leaders. They have participated actively in community organisations. I would like to mention in particular Jarrod Bleijie from the Caloundra State High School, John Nielsen from the Nambour Christian College and Haimee-Jane Roberts from the Sunshine Coast Christian Outreach College.In July 1999, the Order of Australia Association in Queensland set up Student Citizenship Awards. Both Jarrod and Haimee-Jane were given this outstanding award by His Excellency the Governor of Queensland, Major General Peter Arnison. I am particularly proud that these two young people were nominated. They were considered by their peers, by the general community and by the Order of Australia Association to be people who were worthy of this particular recognition. It is an outstanding achievement for the Sunshine Coast, and in particular for the electorate of Fisher, to have two of the 12 inaugural recipients of the Order of Australia Student Citizenship Awards.In addition, Jarrod, along with John Nielsen from the Nambour Christian College, have both been selected to represent the electorate of Fisher at the Australian Youth Parliament for the Environment to be held in Old Parliament House at the end of this month. Everyone in Australia knows that the current Howard government is the greenest government in Australia's history.Mr Ronaldson interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—We have stood up for our environment and I am pleased that the honourable member for Ballarat, who is present in the chamber, so strongly supports the government's initiatives in this area. We are proud of the fact that we are a green government, that we have achieved so much, and I am particularly pleased that Jarrod and John from the Sunshine Coast have been selected to travel to Canberra to participate in, and make a contribution to, the Australian Youth Parliament for the Environment.We in our society see so much criticism of young people. When we have three fine young people such as Jarrod, John and Haimee-Jane, we can know that our society in the future will be in safe hands. We know that they are role models for other young people. I have the highest regard for them. They have made a wonderful contribution not only to the electorate of Fisher and to the Sunshine Coast but to our wider Australian community. I salute them; I congratulate them. I look forward to hosting the participants in the Australian Youth Parliament for the Environment when that parliament is convened. I dare say that colleagues from both sides of the chamber will join me in congratulating these three outstanding young people from the Sunshine Coast. I know that they will be a continuing example to their peers.86988698Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—Yesterday in this committee I commenced the rather ambitious task, I suppose, in the three minutes available to me, of attempting to read a large chunk of a very important letter that was sent to me and which I passed on to Minister Bishop, the Minister for Aged Care, in respect of aged care hostel funding. I was unable to complete it, but circumstances now enable me to make a few remarks on that issue.I was referring to the outstanding service provided to the community in my electorate by the Holloway Hostel. I also referred to the great honour that particular hostel has given my family by naming the facility after my grandmother and recognising her work in aged care in Victoria. It is an outstanding service and one which has got strong local community support and is very well supported by the local community. However, it has serious problems, along with many similar organisations, because of liquidity problems brought about by changes in government policy.This government has ceased to provide capital funding for frail aged hostels and, consequently, any expansion in service needs to be financed from residents' funds held in trust. The difficulty with that process is that when those funds are invested they earn interest and provide important revenue for hostels. This 40-bed hostel has some considerable problems in terms of liquidity because, in order to expand so that it can get economies of scale in its operation, it would need to draw down residents' funds rather than continue to invest them to support its revenue.A 40-bed hostel, no matter how well managed, would appear to have considerable difficulties at that level in sustaining its operations in a way which enables it to repay longer term debt. This is a practical example of many community based hostels in this country that are suffering because of the government's policy in relation to capital funding.Liquidity problems are also contributed to by decisions the government has taken with respect to requiring hostels to repay residents' funds held in trust within seven days, I understand, of the resident departing. That needs to be compared with the six months that an incoming resident has to meet that contribution, so there is obviously a very significant financing gap because of that, which exacerbates the more fundamental problems brought about by the government's parsimonious approach to capital funding for these important community services. I take this opportunity, unexpected as it is, to emphasise that in an ageing community this is a matter that the government needs to attend to. (Time expired)86998699Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—I do not agree with a lot of what the honourable member for Maribyrnong has just said, but I do congratulate him on the service being named after his grandmother, and I can understand that it would be a matter of great importance to the honourable member—and quite rightly so.In the very short time available to me, I want to talk about the Centre for Advancement of Men's Health, which is based in Daylesford in my electorate and very ably run by Mr Bernard Denner, who started the Men's Awareness Network quite some time ago. I was very fortunate to be able to launch the Good Medicine for Men handbook in February 1998, and this has really grown into something that is getting up a head of steam and is now being used all over Australia. The Men's Awareness Network is about convincing us mere mortals that our own health is our responsibility and not somebody else's.As a result of Mr Denner's work, the South Australian health minister will launch a South Australian version of the Good Medicine for Men handbook on 26 August. Mr Denner has just returned from the Blair Athol coal project in Claremont, Central Queensland. He addressed 178 men, as well as the occupational health and safety people and the mine doctor. The response from the miners to the mine management's facilitation of this project was overwhelmingly welcomed by 96 per cent of the miners. Mr Denner was rated 4.24 out of five. Ninety-one per cent of the miners wanted more sessions and they thought more highly of their employer. The aim of the exercise is to get men to see their GP, and, apparently, they have been knocking the local doctor's door down to get in.The work of the MAN network—the Centre for Advancement of Men's Health—is spreading not only throughout Victoria but also in Canberra itself. The ACT Legislative Assembly's Standing Committee on Health and Community Care invited Mr Denner and his group to Canberra. One of the recommendations of the report they recently released was that a similar community awareness program to encourage men to access health services be developed in the ACT, and specific reference was made to the Men's Awareness Network—the MAN model—from Victoria, which utilises a partnership approach between men, general practitioners and health workers. They were very complimentary and will indeed, I think, be basing a program in the ACT on this MAN model developed out of Daylesford. Men's health is our responsibility, and I congratulate the Centre for Advancement of Men's Health and Mr Bernard Denner. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills8699r886Billsr887Bills8699Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time. 09:59:008700Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Bill 1999 and the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Consequential and Transitional Bill 1999 give effect to a not previously announced proposal to consolidate and improve the provisions concerning unclaimed and lost superannuation moneys by doing a number of things. First, they extend the use of tax file numbers for superannuation purposes to the Commonwealth lost members register and the state or territory unclaimed money registers. Second, they improve the definition of unclaimed money to better target cases. Third, they allow the Commissioner of Taxation to publish details relating to unclaimed money, as currently permitted for unclaimed bank money, subject to privacy safeguards. Fourth, they improve cooperation between Commonwealth and state or territory unclaimed money registers. Fifth, they include public sector superannuation funds into the lost member and unclaimed money schemes. Sixth, they consolidate existing provisions which are currently spread over four separate items of legislation. Finally, they ensure consistent taxation treatment between Commonwealth and state or territory unclaimed money registers.To ensure that the bill is prospective, transitional provisions are contained in the second bill which allow up to two years for the states or territories to pass appropriate changes to their unclaimed moneys legislation. In some cases, existing state or territory legislation may already satisfy the provisions of this bill. A small unquantifiable increase in Commonwealth revenue is expected due to the superannuation moneys paid from these state and territory money registers being taxed in the same manner as superannuation moneys which are currently paid into the Commonwealth's unclaimed money register. The compliance costs are said by the government to be minimal. The bill will not significantly change the existing structures of the Commonwealth and the state or territory registers. The Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Consequential and Transitional Bill 1999 also makes a technical amendment to section 202 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and sections 8WA and 8WB of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to rectify a drafting error which occurred as a result of the insertion of two paragraphs (k) in section 202 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.With the introduction of the superannuation guarantee in 1992, superannuation coverage has steadily increased to its current level of over 90 per cent of workers. In anticipation of this problem—of more workers losing track of their superannuation entitlements—Labor announced the Commonwealth unclaimed money and lost members register in October 1992 in a policy statement `Strengthening Superannuation Security'. The Commonwealth unclaimed money register has, in fact, only been operational since 1 July 1997 and is administered by the Commissioner of Taxation. Approximately $80,000 is currently held as unclaimed moneys by the Commonwealth and a total of $17 million by the states and territories. Some states or territories have unclaimed money register legislation which is consistent with the Commonwealth legislation. In these states or territories, superannuation or retirement savings account providers are required to report unclaimed moneys to the state or territory registers rather than to the Commonwealth register.However, there is a significant difference between moneys which are unclaimed and moneys which are lost. Due to preservation arrangements, superannuation money may only be classified as unclaimed when a member has reached eligibility age, which is 60 or above, or has died. In some state or territory jurisdictions, this creates a long lag time before a member can be reunited with their superannuation entitlements. In contrast, the Commonwealth lost members register only requires superannuation providers to report information rather than pay money and tries to reunite members with their moneys before it is deemed to be unclaimed. It is, therefore, more efficient and less cumbersome to declare superannuation lost rather than unclaimed, in many cases.This bill will formally allow the Commissioner of Taxation to keep a register of details relating to unclaimed and lost moneys so that the money can be more easily claimed by those workers who are entitled to it. It also allows for the matching and safekeeping of lost and unclaimed moneys and for the coordination of matching and collection of unclaimed moneys between the Commonwealth and the states or territories. We consider this to be a positive initiative.We note that there is a possible privacy issue and that the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills may wish to ensure that the privacy provisions relating to the use of the tax file numbers are in order. I have been provided by the government with some correspondence from the Office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner. I thank the government for providing this information to the opposition. The letter from the Deputy Privacy Commissioner to the tax office says that the Deputy Commissioner is making a note concerning the regulations which might be made pursuant to section 50 of the main bill, that there are privacy issues connected with providing access to lost member and unclaimed money registers, and that the Privacy Commissioner would welcome consultation on regulations which deal with that aspect of maintaining the registers. The Privacy Commissioner would like to see the regulations when they are drafted. Naturally, we would also be interested in seeing those regulations when they are drafted and having the opportunity to comment on them if there are any privacy concerns that arise from that.As I have indicated, the purpose of the bill is to consolidate the existing provisions relating to notification and payment of unclaimed superannuation money, and the notification of lost members of superannuation entities; to reduce from two to one the number of Commonwealth entities involved in unclaimed money and lost members' entitlements; and to provide that, for state and territory authorities to be able to collect unclaimed money, they have to operate under the laws that meet similar requirements to those applicable to the proposed single Commonwealth entity involved in the area. In short, it is to ensure that all superannuation moneys paid to workers are received by workers, and that is a very admirable aim.While the government is working to look after these unclaimed superannuation contributions, however, it is, regrettably, not showing the same endeavour in helping many workers who are not being paid their superannuation guarantee levy by their employer. I want to bring to the House the case of a resident of Bulleen, Mr Michael, whose employer had not been paying his superannuation guarantee as required under the law. Mr Michael contacted the Australian Taxation Office, seeking its assistance in getting his superannuation contributions. Instead of the rather more efficient service that you receive from the tax office if you owe it money, Mr Michael was told that he should contact the department of workplace relations because the tax office only collects figures on non-compliance for statistical purposes.Mr Michael also received a letter from the tax office in response to his letters about non-compliance. This letter, which I found somewhat disturbing, said in part:Complaint forms continue to be the ATO's most valuable source of information and are input into a database which includes additional sources of information. Analysis of this database guides the ATO as to the best and most efficient way to channel its audit and compliance action. For example a number of complaints from the same industry in the same region may lead to a project on all employers in that industry or region. Does that mean that, if you want your superannuation looked into, you are best advised to get your mates to put in claims as well? I would rather have thought not.Another example I have received is from Rebecca Pattison, of Boronia Heights, who made a complaint in 1998. She received a letter from the tax office on 16 September 1998, thanking her for providing all the necessary information. It is now August 1999 and in a letter to her local member, she has said:I then contacted the ATO, for them to look into it. It has now been a year, and I still haven't heard anything about it.The reason, I dare say, that Ms Pattison has not heard anything is that the ATO has simply entered her information into a database. Ms Pattison indeed found out herself, with one phone call, that her superannuation was not being paid, whereas the tax office had not done anything in the course of 12 months.That sends out all the wrong messages about compliance and education. Sending out the right messages about the superannuation guarantee is a critical thing if you expect compliance. The right messages have got to be sent out to the community, and the tax office has not been doing it. It also says that employees who are members of very small workplaces have to live in fear of recalcitrant employers who choose not to pay their superannuation guarantee, because the tax office is only going to follow up the larger cases. When I wrote to the tax office seeking redress on behalf of Mr Michael, I was sent a letter which said in part:To date, the Employee Notification of Insufficient Employer Contributions (EN) forms lodged by individuals who believed their employer was not providing superannuation support have been the sole determinant of audit activity. The ATO's analysis of the finalised `form cases' has shown that the individual actioning of these cases has only met with limited success in meeting its goal of superannuation for all employees. In addition, the analysis has also revealed that in excess of 50% of the complainants actually had superannuation contributions made for them but did not know. In short, cases based on complaints were receiving the majority of the ATO's resources, often without justification and at the expense of employees who had not lodged complaints.You can imagine my surprise when I received a press release from the tax office at about the same time titled `Tax office comes to town for annual superannuation survey'. Part of that press release stated:Employers will receive the SG99 diskette with instructions and contact details for more information. It would be appreciated if employers comply with the request for information at their earliest convenience.To what end, we have to ask, is this being done? So that the information can be loaded into a database? Indeed, beyond that, in the Financial Review of 6 July this year it was reported:But the ATO has abandoned its policy of following up all complaints from workers about employer's superannuation contributions, relying instead on individual employees to make inquiries.Mr Bator of the Australian Taxation Office was quoted as saying:We used to chase down every one of them but in more than 50% of cases the employer was doing the right thing. Now we ask the employees to make inquiries themselves.This is exactly what Rebecca Pattison, for example, had done. But she has never heard back. The information must simply have been entered into a database and forgotten about. So this `campaign' from the tax office was something less than fair dinkum. There is no point in gathering figures on compliance if they are not going to require employers to pay their workers' superannuation guarantee contributions.In my view, the superannuation guarantee needs to be policed by the tax office. Non-payment of the superannuation guarantee means that employee retirement incomes are diminished and that the country—the rest of us as a nation—pays for that loss. Effective compliance relies upon action by the tax office. Employers have a legal responsibility to pay workers' superannuation guarantee contributions, and workers are entitled to the assurance that the tax office will act on complaints and not simply file them.Since this occurred, I have received other similar complaints from workers and are being dudded by their employer and are most concerned that the tax office only seems interested in catching the whales while thousands of minnows get away. I agree with them. I wrote letters to the editor, sent out a press release and alerted radio news to this, and this did prompt some action from the tax office. They endeavoured to get across the idea that they were following up every claim. They even sent me a new letter about superannuation guarantee compliance. In this new letter, however, they could not bring themselves to say that they would follow up each and every complaint individually. Instead, they said:Every complaint is followed up through a reminder strategy which involves over 11,000 letters issuing to employers about whom we have received a complaint or who have paid the SG Charge in a previous year.So, yes, we now have the tax office going back to sending letters to all employers telling them of their obligations under the act, but it is obvious that many employers already ignore their obligations. Therefore, I do not hold up a whole lot of hope that this strategy will necessarily prove to be effective. Ms Pattison's employer would have received this letter, and it certainly has not helped her. The tax office went on to say:Our new outbound call centre in Burnie also rings all employers about whom we have a complaint to `remind' them of their obligations . . . Once again, we presume that Ms Pattison's employer has received this call, although it certainly has not helped her yet. I am concerned that this is not good enough. I have had a briefing as a result of raising this issue with the tax office, and I appreciated that opportunity. I hope this leads to an improvement and, indeed, to the tax office now following up those individual complaints.I want to see the government applying the same directed effort to superannuation guarantee compliance that they are now evidently applying to lost and unclaimed superannuation through this bill. I want a guarantee from the government that tells every Australian employee that, if they make a complaint, they will have their case followed up individually, not by a call from a call centre or from someone with a script but by an officer from the tax office who is actually investigating the suspect company. Australians expect nothing less from the tax office.If you have an individual complaint to raise with any other department such as health, social security or housing, an electricity authority or your council, you do not necessarily have the right to have that complaint upheld—it may well not be upheld—but you do have the right to have your individual circumstances checked out and to receive a response which takes into account your particular circumstances. Mr Deputy Speaker, as I said earlier on, the opposition is supporting the legislation before the House.10:15:008703Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—The member for Wills, and the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Bill 1999 , speak about two categories of money: unclaimed and lost superannuation money. Those are the two categories that are referred to, but I believe that there is a third category, and that is superannuation money generated under false circumstances. I will explain what I mean by that as part of the account I will give here. The discussions I am raising centre around the itinerant labour industry across Australia. I am referring to people who are engaged in pursuits like pruning vines and trees, picking fruit and vegies, and cotton chipping. It is a large industry across Australia. In fact, I am privileged to be a member of a group that is currently studying the needs of the harvest industries across Australia. The group is called the National Harvest Trail Working Group and it focuses on those industries. It was formed by the Minister for Employment Services and is chaired by the member for Hindmarsh. Hopefully, it will report very early in the new year on its findings.We are investigating the problems of harvest labourers and their employers across Australia. Members may recall that, years ago—before mechanised cane harvesting—there was a very strong perception of there being a national harvest trail where canecutters, as portrayed in the famous Australian play The Summer of the Seventeenth Doll, would pack their kitbag, and off they would go and get involved in the cane harvesting. In fact years ago, when I worked out west, I would hear how, in times gone by in the history of the sheep shearing industry, sheep shearers used to ride around on pushbikes covering up to 500 kilometres to move from one shearing shed to another in the outback of Queensland and New South Wales to engage, in effect, in the pursuit of bringing in the harvest.The members of this national harvest trail group include representatives of industry, people who are growers and people who have also tried to set up harvest labour combines to serve various aspects of this industry. I am raising the needs of the harvest labour industry because superannuation and the provision of superannuation entitlements are massive issues for growers and pickers. There is a massive turnover of workers in this industry. Some people go out picking and stay for a day; other people go out and might stay for two hours. They might stay for a week. But for many participants, it is not the kind of work that goes on to become a lifelong pursuit. For some people it is. But for many who try it, it can be a very daunting task. It is up to us to encourage people to consider taking part in this industry because it is a very strong economic driver for rural industries across Australia.So far, the National Harvest Trail Working Group has visited an area in South Australia from Adelaide to Mildura, and we have also visited Queensland. We are still to visit other areas across Australia to meet people engaged in harvest labour, to meet their employers and to discuss issues that are of concern to them. The people who have attended the meetings we have conducted include growers, Job Network members and pickers, as well as mayors and people representing these communities.If you have got a massive harvest on the vine or on the tree ready to go and you cannot get harvest labour, it is an absolute economic disaster for these communities. We have run across places where thousands of acres and millions of dollars worth of crops have just gone straight back into the ground because of the incapacity of the grower at the time to access the labour needed to do the job. It really is a big issue.People engaged in the harvest industry represent a wide range of people. In fact, it has been exposed in recent times that illegal immigrants often resort to the harvest trail to find a way of keeping the wolf from the door. For them to get a start in this industry, someone is contributing to their superannuation. They do not walk out there and say, `I am an illegal immigrant; give me a job.' They turn up and there are processes to be gone through whereby often there will be a false tax file number or a false name stated. There can be all kinds of falsehoods as part of the process, but they wind up out there picking and earning money.At the same time the superannuation meter is starting to tick over. At the end of the day, assuming they go about their business, that money winds up in this great mass of money set aside that is regarded as lost or unclaimed. That is a case of an illegal immigrant generating money into the system under false pretences—I cannot think of any other way to describe it.It is not just illegal immigrants, of course—they play a very small part in this whole exercise. We also have unemployed Australians using the harvest industry as a backstop, and I really encourage them to do so. University students and even high school students use the harvest industry, as do an increasing number of backpackers—or we should refer to them more correctly as working holiday makers. There are even retirees, people who might have retired early, who want to—as they say on that radio program, Australia All Over—be out on the wallaby. They might pack up their caravans and decide to turn a little bit of money along the way. They are going to help pick cherries or go cotton chipping.In any case, the harvest trail working group has discovered that people out doing this, if they are effective—and they do not even need to have been in it for very long if they have a natural flair for the type of work that they are doing—can earn very good money. The other day, for example, we found people cutting Chinese cabbage and earning over $1,000 a week clear. That is pretty good money if you can do it. You can say that it is skilled work because it does involve a certain level of dexterity that not all of us have, but it is work that you can get into fairly readily, and we should encourage people to engage in that sort of work.Unfortunately, while there is that kind of money, the work is very sporadic; the coordination of opportunities in harvest industries is very minimal, and people can find themselves engaging in this harvest trail and operating hand to mouth. You can wind up with an underclass of people who drive around in unregistered cars, use false names and all kinds of false declarations, merely to maximise the cash in hand that they receive at the end of the day. They have got the dollars and they really do not live for tomorrow; they live for today.We need to be aware, when we are looking at legislation such as this, that there is a whole group of people generating income and superannuation under those circumstances. I have got to warn members, the parliamentary secretary, the minister and the others considering these issues, that there really is an explosion of work in harvest industries coming on-stream. From what I have seen in the weeks that I have been travelling around with the harvest trail working group, we have seen whole areas, hundreds of thousands of acres of wine producing grape vines—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—We have seen it in South Burnett.0V5Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—We have seen them in the South Burnett. Probably the largest area was around Mildura. There are vast amounts of new young vines in that area, and people are going to be needed to harvest those crops. For example, Kingaroy is an area where in the past there has not been a tremendous amount of itinerant labour, but vast quantities of olives have been put in there and will need to be harvested. There is a mechanised process to harvest olives, but only once the trees have reached a certain level of maturity. In the years until that has occurred, those crops are going to have to be harvested by hand. We are going to have to meet the demand in these areas to ensure that we do not wind up with a disaster, with crops having to be ploughed into the ground. Imagine this kind of problem happening in a country concerned about unemployment! We get this huge injustice: crops go bad because we cannot get labour at the time it is needed. We really must do something about this.As I said, there will be many opportunities. Immense problems and difficulties emerge from the various components engaged in this harvest labour. For example, there are working holiday-makers, colloquially known as backpackers, and there are locals who would like this kind of work. I mentioned the fellow who harvested cabbages, who made $1,000 a week. Anyone would like that kind of income if it could be regular and, of course, locals in these communities would like to see themselves in that position.There are difficulties that arise for people on the dole if they just leap into this sort of industry. In particular, people might find that they are not necessarily suited to be gun pickers, not because of any lack of enthusiasm but because they do not have that level of dexterity. The fact that they are human and have turned up for work may not be enough: some people fall into it naturally; other people do not.We have to ensure that we have answers to the current difficulties that face locals who want to get into this kind of industry. For example, if you are on the dole and take up one of these temporary jobs but you find you are unsuitable, that you are really having trouble just physically doing the work, or something like that, it can mean that, if you quit, you have to go through a period of waiting for your unemployment benefits to be re-established. Of course, that is a disincentive to people.Another more psychological disincentive is the fact that the majority of young people are educated to year 12 level. A consequence of that education is that people do not think they are really suited to manual labour and they aspire to go beyond that. This is a bit of a worry when we are going to be relying so much on these manual workers in the future to generate this kind of economic activity, when there are opportunities to make a good living out there.Those are problems that face the locals. Backpackers, working holiday-makers as they are more properly known, need the money. They do not have the safety net of unemployment benefits and they get directly involved in this activity because if they do not, they are going to be feeling very hungry. Their demand and drive for this work has resulted in whole chains of backpacker hostels and caravan parks that not only provide accommodation but also provide work. They are providing fleets of buses to take these people out to the farms. If you are a working holiday-maker, you can travel right around Australia: you can get carried out to farms; you can get provided with accommodation. It is a very good holiday opportunity for them. Unfortunately, this process leaves locals a little bit wrong-footed. The locals are often not aware that the bus services are available, and the backpackers certainly are not pitching their bus capabilities to them.I raise all those points, and you can say that they are not directly involved with this bill. But I say that they are, because those problems do mean that, through the bureaucratic processes, we have a lack of incentive for people to take up harvest work. The impact of superannuation requirements on this industry means that there is a lot of bureaucratic paperwork. If you are a grower and you are employing people for this kind of activity, particularly if they turn up for a day and then disappear and then another bloke turns up for a day and a woman turns up for a day, you can imagine the number of superannuation contributions, with minuscule amounts, that you are generating. Imagine all that, and then that half the people who turn up might be giving you a false name or a false tax file number. They might have their tax file number but they might change a digit in it because, frankly, they might want to operate outside the system—and there are a lot of people who are doing that. Also on your books you have got dozens of different superannuation funds. So there is massive bureaucratic paperwork that applies.These bills are a good start because they are starting to reduce that level of bureaucratic paperwork, but they still focus on mainstream employment in Australia. We are talking here about the average worker—that is the level at which these bills and our superannuation industry, as it stands, are focused. We should be going beyond that. We need superannuation that is flexible enough to accommodate all needs—and that includes the needs of the fruit-pickers, the cotton chippers and all those sorts of people.When I say fruit picking is good, it can be backbreaking work. So if superannuation is to provide for you in retirement, people who engage in that industry deserve extra consideration because they are prepared to get out there in the hot sun, they are prepared to pick in the rain, they are prepared to put up with all the field conditions such as lack of toilets and all kinds of difficulties that a lot of other workers would probably turn up their noses at. Picking is a good backstop. It is something that provides a way of life. As I say, there is an opportunity even for retirees to get out into that industry, to take their caravans and discover Australia in a way that is different. Many of these people are very strong and healthy and have the desire to do it; they have the work ethic; they have the interest. So it would be good to see that some of these bureaucratic impediments could be reduced.It would be good to see the government look very closely at the findings of the National Harvest Trail Working Group not merely from the angles of where we find the labour, whether we encourage more working holiday-makers, whether we encourage more locals, and how we encourage more locals but from the angle of what the heck are we going to do about the superannuation issue. There are others issues that apply in this area too—things like workers compensation—that can be extremely hard to administer when you have got a work force that changes like the tide. It is not really fair to the growers and to the people engaged in this industry to drop on their head the level of paperwork that we currently are. We have got to find ways to administer these things that are fair to the employees but that encourage people to engage in it, because if we can do that we will really boost the productivity of this country. There are many areas in the country that really are suffering because we are not getting the maximum benefit out of itinerant labour.I commend the Minister for Employment Services for looking into these issues. I commend the member for Hindmarsh, who is the chair of the working group, and the other members of the group for the effort that they are putting in. I look forward to the outcome of that particular study. I urge the minister and everybody else engaged in the process of providing good superannuation and good access to superannuation in Australia to have a look at the needs of itinerant workers and take them very closely into account, and to ensure that in the future we have a superannuation system that is more flexible and more appropriate to the needs of Australians from all walks of life.10:34:008707Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I wish to participate in this cognate debate on the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Bill 1999 and the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Consequential and Transitional Bill 1999 . In recent years the extension of compulsory superannuation to all in the work force has been progressive and has been done very largely on a bipartisan basis. The concept and principle of retirement now being funded jointly by the worker's employer or employers and by the worker is universally accepted.Superannuation has provided the nation with a vast and ever growing investment fund. It is progressively providing a far higher standard of retirement living for hundreds of thousands of people, and it is saving the taxpayer many millions, and ultimately billions of dollars, in old age pensions. Superannuation is a relatively new form of savings and benefit and, as such, the legislation governing it requires close and ongoing attention to ensure it functions smoothly and provides the intended benefits. This legislation is the result of that attention and finetuning. Increasingly, the work force is becoming more and more mobile. Certainly, in my electorate of Dawson, there is a large, seasonal, itinerant work force in the horticulture, sugar and tourism industries. All workers, even casual and itinerant ones with broken and irregular work patterns, pay superannuation, as do their employers.During the tomato picking season in Bowen, hundreds of pickers come into Bowen, as they do into Ayr and Home Hill to pick fruit and vegetables. On the islands there are some thousands of workers. Some stay for a matter of three to six months; some stay longer. But certainly in the areas of horticulture, sugar and tourism, there is a large group of employees who simply, I guess, migrate. Perhaps they start fruit picking down in Victoria and migrate up the Queensland coast, and then they go back down to Victoria for the season as it starts again.Often these workers become so-called `lost members' in the sense that they have 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.At present, unclaimed money in superannuation funds must be paid by the trustees to the Australian Taxation Office, or to the state and territory unclaimed money agencies where state and territory laws require trustees to do so. While accurate statistics are not readily available due to the complexity and multiplicity of agencies involved, the ATO estimates that as at May 1999 there were approximately 2.5 million lost members and $2 billion of unclaimed money. In anyone's estimation, that is not an insignificant amount.While we accept that a person may be a member of more than one fund and, therefore, possibly count as more than one lost member, I think we would all agree that these are quite significant numbers of people who ultimately will not receive the benefit of their superannuation. It is a great sum of money that is unclaimed. Plainly, the onus is on legislators to devise a better way of ensuring this money and the lawful owners are connected by the existing legislation.Current roadblocks in existing legislation include the restriction on the use of tax file numbers; the taxation provisions applying to superannuation payments not applying to superannuation payments from state and territory unclaimed money registers; the inability to publish the names of lost members who have unclaimed money, as opposed to those who have lost bank accounts; no sharing of information between Commonwealth, state and territory registers; the exemption of public sector superannuation schemes from the existing arrangements; and a weak definition of unclaimed money which, for example, excludes cases where a member has received a cheque but has not cashed or banked it.Demonstrably, there need to be changes. This bill formally transfers the administration of the unclaimed money register to the Commissioner of Taxation and overcomes those other identified deficiencies. The improved process which will be provided under this bill follows extensive cooperation work between the ATO, the Insurance and Superannuation Commission and state and territory agencies since 1997. It has been an outstanding example of federal, state and territory cooperation for the benefit of a disadvantaged group who are more likely to be low paid, or often infrequently paid, or occasionally paid. I have to say, coming from an electorate where there is a huge number of seasonal employees, that while employers understand the difficult and transient nature of their employees' lifestyle they rightfully begrudge the fact that the superannuation moneys that are paid are never going to be received by the employees. Despite that, they are paid out by the employer.This is going to bring reassurance, I think, and confidence in the superannuation system both to employers in my electorate and also to those deserving and rightful owners of the superannuation moneys, the seasonal workers. I am very pleased that the minister has taken note of such a group, who have been very vulnerable because of their lifestyle and their work patterns, and of employers in my electorate who rightly would like to see a just and fair superannuation system. I commend the bill and I am very pleased today to be able to support it.10:40:008709Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—in reply—Thank you very much for the opportunity to sum up. At the outset, I would like to thank the members for Wills, Blair and Dawson for their contributions.The coalition is committed to improving the living standards of older Australians through an effective retirement incomes policy. The coalition is also determined to give all Australians greater choice in superannuation and we are committed to expanding opportunities for Australians to contribute to superannuation. The coalition will encourage Australians to save for the future and enjoy higher living standards in retirement. Superannuation contributions and assets have grown very strongly under the coalition government.The bills before the chamber establish a scheme for ensuring that superannuation members who have lost contact with their funds have a comprehensive register to check where their superannuation is held. The bills will overcome deficiencies in existing provisions relating to unclaimed money and lost members. It will particularly benefit employees who have changed jobs regularly, who have moved interstate or overseas and who have multiple superannuation accounts.It is interesting that the bill enjoys the support of both sides of the chamber and indeed, the member for Wills conceded the benefits and welcomed the positive initiative in this particular bill. The member for Wills did, however, traverse matters beyond the technical terms of this bill and used the broad title of the bill to be able to talk about other matters in relation to superannuation. In particular he referred to allegations that the Australian Taxation Office is not following up every superannuation guarantee complaint. As the member for Wills himself conceded, he has been briefed by the Australian Taxation Office on the new superannuation guarantee compliance strategy. The tax office has a more targeted approach which makes best use of resources. When a complaint is received, the employer who is the subject of the complaint is indeed followed up by the Burnie call centre. So the government and the tax office are absolutely resolute in ensuring that when complaints are made those complaints are fully investigated with a view to achieving an appropriate outcome.The member for Wills also referred to certain privacy considerations and he pointed out that he has indeed been largely convinced that the privacy problems that he thought were there are in fact not there. On behalf of the government, I just want to assure the chamber that there has been extensive consultation with the Privacy Commissioner, and the Privacy Commissioner has in fact cleared these bills. The Privacy Commissioner will want to be consulted on regulations, and it is the government's intention to do so. In fact, the Privacy Commissioner has written confirming that there are no privacy concerns in relation to the bills currently before the chamber.The honourable member for Blair, my good friend who now represents many parts of south-east Queensland previously in the electorate of Fisher and to whom the whole nation owes a debt because he won the seat of Blair under very difficult and trying circumstances, referred to the National Harvest Trail Working Group and to some of the problems which occur with respect to harvesting and itinerant workers.It is government policy for low income earners to be able to opt out of the superannuation guarantee; that is, if they are paid between $450 and $900 a month. It is our intention to reduce paperwork and it is our intention to ensure that we do not have lots of small amounts of superannuation contributions in a multiplicity of funds which essentially are beyond the reach, control and benefit of the particular employees.People have asked how much unclaimed superannuation money there is, and it would surprise many to know that there is $18 million in unclaimed superannuation money held across Commonwealth, state and territory unclaimed money authorities. There is approximately $3 billion held by superannuation funds and retirement savings providers for lost members who have not yet reached retirement money age.The bills address deficiencies in the Superannuation Industry Supervision Act 1993, in particular for the purpose of reducing the $3 billion figure for lost members before the amounts become unclaimed money and are required to be paid to Commonwealth, state or territory authorities. The bills will also establish a central register, to be administered by the Commissioner for Taxation, to hold information of unclaimed superannuation money in Commonwealth, state and territory unclaimed superannuation money registers. People will be able to apply to the central register for the purpose of ascertaining whether they have any superannuation money held by a registrar in Australia. It is very interesting, and ought to be noted, that the total amount of superannuation money in the superannuation system in Australia is currently some $400 billion.These bills enjoy the support of both sides of the parliament. They are very positive initiatives. They are initiatives of which we are very proud and I commend them to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills8711r8878711Consideration resumed from 30 June, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills8711r8558711Debate resumed from 23 June, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.10:47:008711Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The opposition will be supporting the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1999 . We accept the reasons for the increased appropriation and regard it as essentially a housekeeping item.I cannot, however, resist the opportunity that the bill presents to draw attention to the hypocrisy displayed by the government speakers on the last occasion we debated an amendment to the same legislation. That was in May 1996, shortly after the change of government. At the time, the amount appropriated for ministerial salaries was increased from $1.615 million to $1.64 million. The then Minister for Administrative Services, the late lamented Mr Jull, pointed out that this increase was required to meet increases in salaries for ministers granted under the previous Labor government. The Howard government, on the other hand, was going to reduce both the size of the ministry and the sum required in future years. This would go down to $1.6 million as from the 1996-97 financial year.But what happened? John Howard was no sooner re-elected for a second term last year when he increased the size of the ministry to 30 and increased the size of cabinet to 17. He is now increasing the appropriation for the salaries. Is it any wonder that we greeted his promises of frugality, probity and higher standards of conduct in government with a certain degree of scepticism? Our scepticism, unfortunately, has been validated absolutely. So, while we are prepared to assist in giving the bill passage, I suggest to the government speakers in this debate that they spare us any more of the hypocritical posturing that we have had to suffer so far.10:49:008711Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—in reply—At the outset I would like to thank the honourable member for Melbourne for his participation in the debate, although not for the content of his speech. The honourable member for Melbourne was somewhat hypocritical in so far as he sought to criticise this government for bringing forward the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1999 and, indeed, for the contribution made in the parliament in 1996, following the election of the current government in that year.Had the Labor Party remained in office, the amount which would have been spent on ministerial salaries would have been $1.78 million per year. This government is firmly committed to restraint in government spending. The sum of $1.622 million is less than that set for 1995-96, which was $1.64 million, which was to cater for salary increases during the last year of the previous Labor government. This government is very careful to ensure that we are very sensible about government spending, whereas the previous government adopted a spend, spend, spend mentality. The previous government passed on to us a $10.3 billion deficit. We have had to make some very sensible and difficult decisions to make sure that the country could be firewalled against the crisis which occurred in South-East Asia with respect to the economies in that region.This bill arises from a constitutional provision, section 66, that the total salaries of ministers of state be provided by the parliament. It is a simple machinery measure and the increase which is covered by this legislation is a modest figure of $22,000. The bill is straightforward and what we are seeking to do is appropriate. I commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills8712r8468712Debate resumed from 23 June, on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly:That the bill be now read a second time.10:52:008712Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—The opposition supports the general principles behind the Australian Tourist Commission Amendment Bill 1999 which is before the chamber. It seeks to amend the Australian Tourist Commission's third statutory objective, which currently states:(c) to ensure that Australia is protected from adverse environmental and social impacts of international tourism.While that objective is more than admirable, it is quite clear that the Tourist Commission does not have the legislative empowerment to meet that objective. The bill before the committee seeks to replace the current words in part 2, section 6, with the following words:(c) in meeting those objects, to work with other agencies (as appropriate) and to have regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development set out in subsection 21(3) of the Natural Heritage Trust Act 1997 and the social impacts of international tourism in Australia.I foreshadow, for the benefit of the chamber, my intention to move an amendment at the consideration in detail stage simply to correct what I think is a drafting error. Members will note that the word `Australia' is not used in the description of the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act. I foreshadow my intention to correct that drafting error at the consideration in detail stage. I expect to have the government's support, unless I am advised that my assessment of that error is incorrect.The original objective which we are dealing with today came about as a result of an amendment moved by the Australian Democrats back in 1987. At that time, I suppose, it was an attempt to appease the environmental movement with respect to their concerns that tourism development must always involve a responsible assessment of the potential environmental results. While I do not doubt that the ATC is committed to assessing the environmental and social impacts of these developments, it has been concerned for some time that it simply does not have the legislative empowerment to meet that objective. The matter came to a head late in 1987, when the ANAO conducted an audit into the commission and found that it was not meeting its objective as set out in paragraph 6(c). Subsequently, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit recommended that the Australian Tourist Commission should propose to its minister that this statutory object should be amended to clarify the commission's role.So the amendment is worthy of the opposition's support, and I am pleased to recommit the opposition to a bipartisan approach to tourism matters wherever that is possible. I never miss the opportunity to remind the House that we do not have that bipartisan approach to the GST. It is quite clear that the tourism sector is basically a services sector and, of course, services in this country have been hitherto untaxed. We maintain our view that the goods and services tax would have a negative impact on the industry and will cost the industry jobs.It would impact, in particular, on wine tourism—and that I have raised in the House on a number of occasions previously. There is no doubt that the combined effect of the GST and the government's proposed wine equalisation tax will hurt that very important growth industry—one that serves regional Australia, in particular, very well. It is quite clear on the calculations that the combined effect of the GST and the wine equalisation tax will reap an additional $147 million annually from the industry. To put it another way, it will result in an increase in wine of around eight per cent—to use the Treasurer's own calculations. There can be no doubt at all that that is going to have a devastating impact on the wine tourism sector.These are very important issues. The importance of tourism to the Australian economy can never be underestimated or understated. Yet tourism, unfortunately, seems to get nowhere near the recognition and the attention of government that it deserves. I think it is fair to say that if you walked down the street in any CBD in this country and surveyed people and asked them what they believed to be Australia's largest export earner, they would nominate one of our mineral exports, such as coal or iron ore, or probably one of our agricultural products. Whereas, of course, tourism, earning around $16.5 billion in foreign exchange, is our largest export industry, and it is the Australian Tourist Commission's job to ensure that that very strong growth continues.Certainly we have had strong growth. Since 1985, international visitor numbers to Australia have more than doubled. Over the past year, spending by tourists has provided employment for over one million Australians and has contributed almost $60 billion to Australia's gross domestic product. Once upon a time, tourism was not even counted as an economic sector. Now it has become the world's largest export, ranked ahead of petrol, motor vehicles and, indeed, electronic equipment. In 1993 there were half a billion tourists worldwide, and international tourism receipts reached $US304 billion.In 1993, Australia ranked 12th in the world in absolute numbers of international tourist arrivals, having been ranked only 19th in 1985. Between 1998 and 2007, international visitor arrivals are expected to increase at an average annual rate of 5.9 per cent, reaching 7.7 million, hopefully, in the year 2007. Of course, the excitement of all this has now been enhanced by our anticipation of the Olympics to be held in Sydney in the year 2000.As I said, the Australian Tourist Commission does play a central role in all of this. I would like to put on record my support of John Morse, Don Morris and their team. They are doing an excellent job. Since I entered this portfolio only some 10 months ago, they have taken every opportunity to brief me on the issues I need to be across and have been very cooperative with the opposition generally. I know that they enjoy the support of the government, as well.I recently had the very good fortune of attending a tourist expo in Darling Harbour organised by John Morse and his team. It really was a privilege to be there to see Australia's tourism industry and parts of it on show to the rest of the world. Australia's growing ecotourism industry was on show. Its appeal now is very strong, and consistent data is now available for all nature based activities. Aboriginal tourism, of course, is a high growth industry and it is another project John Morse at the commission has been very supportive of and is driving very strongly.At the outset, I indicated that the opposition will, at every opportunity wherever possible, take a bipartisan approach to tourism matters and I qualified that with my statements on the GST. I have already indicated that I will be moving a minor amendment in the committee stage. I indicate to the Main Committee that there is some concern among those who are strong advocates for the environment that the wording we are adopting today might be too light. I suppose they would say, `It lets the Australia Tourist Commission off too lightly' in terms of how much it should have regard to the environmental and social impacts of tourism.While I do not intend to move any amendment to the second reading motion—certainly, I would not do that in this place; it is a chamber for a bipartisan approach—I foreshadow that, when this bill arrives in the Senate, it is possible that the opposition might be seeking a subtle word change to part C of the Tourist Commission's statutory objectives. I admit that I have not come to any conclusion on the words to be used. There is a view that the words `to have regard to', in the paragraph `in meeting those objects, to work with other agencies (as appropriate) and to have regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development' might be a bit too soft, too light and unclear. I do not have a fixed view on the matter. I am happy to talk to the government, the Democrats and the Greens. Possibly there could be a very subtle word change—for instance, `to work with other agencies to uphold the principles of ecologically sustainable development set out in subsection 21(3).'I certainly do not want to see any debate over this issue in the Senate. I do not think that is healthy for the industry. I do not think the word change is of sufficient importance to trigger a debate on what should really be a bipartisan approach to this issue. What we want to do is to ensure that the Tourist Commission can meet its objectives and get on with doing what it does best, and that is growing international tourism in Australia. I foreshadow that for the benefit of the Main Committee. I repeat that I would be happy to talk to the government on that issue.I close by reminding the Main Committee that I intend in the committee stage to move an amendment which has been circulated in my name which simply inserts the word `Australia' in the bill, because I believe that in the description of the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act the word `Australia' has been omitted. I assume that is only a drafting error, but I would be happy to hear from the government if there is another view.11:03:008715Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise in support of the Australian Tourist Commission Amendment Bill 1999 . It is a logical step in recognising an aspect of the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1987 which requires the commission `to ensure that Australia is protected from adverse environmental and social impacts of international tourism' by substituting the words:in meeting those objects, to work with other agencies (as appropriate) and to have regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development set out in subsection 21(3) of the Natural Heritage Trust Act 1997 and the social impacts of international tourism in Australia.This seems entirely appropriate, as you, Madam Deputy Speaker Gash, in terms of your role in tourism, would know the outstanding work that is carried out by the Australian Tourist Commission. It is inappropriate to saddle them, as an agency, with the full responsibility to ensure that Australia is protected from adverse environmental impacts of tourism. While they should have due regard to it, they are not the principal agency. Their job is to promote Australia offshore, and they have certainly done an excellent job in that.In terms of the protection aspect of the environment, other agencies are more equipped, having specialised personnel who are able to provide expert advice on sensitive areas around Australia that can maintain only a limited amount of tourism. So to say to them, who are specifically geared up with marketing, advertising and promotional skills, `You'll also be environmental experts; you'll also be ecotourism experts,' I think is a little unfair. By all means there should be a group within the ATC with a brief to look at the environmental aspects, but that should not be their principal concern. When you have other departments and other agencies that have people with their own background training, university training and postgraduate training in these areas, it is appropriate to use them to have interface with the Australian Tourist Commission and to chart a course which is in Australia's long-term interest.I am sure that there are many members, some of whom are in the chamber today, who have a strong interest in tourism. We want to see it grow and develop within Australia, but we do not want tourism at any price. You have only to go to Spain to see tourism which in many ways pays little regard to the impact on the environment. Some of the developments there, that I have personally seen, are just appalling in terms of environmental impact. I think that developments such as some of those in the States, which have a direct impact on the environment, are not the types of developments we would want to see here, especially in those sensitive areas—wetland areas and others—where the numbers of people who can enter the areas must be limited. To do that on a scientific basis is important.In my previous role at Tourism Council Australia, I was part of the environment group which was made up of experts including ecotourism experts and people from the department of tourism. It was chaired by a fellow with a particularly good name, Dr Doug Baird, who is the adviser to Quicksilver in the Great Barrier Reef on the impact on the environment of tourists visiting the reef and the protection that needs to be in place to ensure that the reef is protected adequately.In that committee, we considered various aspects of the guidelines that should be established, and a number of reports were produced during that time. Expert as that committee might be, I still believe that the agenda for most people in the tourism industry is to get people into the country. They are happy to live within the guidelines, realising that it is in Australia's long-term tourism interest to provide those guidelines and preserve those sensitive areas for the long-term future. It is inappropriate that the peak tourism body—the Australian Tourism Commission—should have that as a prime responsibility, so I am glad to see the bipartisan approach.I should in passing comment on the GST, in which I have had a passing interest. I think that it is important to emphasise that the attitude of the tourism industry has been considerably modified on the basis that the bed tax in New South Wales will be withdrawn as a result of the GST. As 67 per cent of all international visitors come to Sydney, it does have an impact. It has meant that tourists have spent longer in Queensland than in Sydney as a result of it. If you speak to any of the hoteliers there, they will say that it has had a direct impact on them.The removal of the bed tax has certainly modified the approach, and it also has meant that no bed tax can be imposed anywhere else in Australia. So the taking away of that threat was significant in seeing a different approach from the tourism industry. And, of course, a number of the major players in the tourism industry recognised that they would experience a lesser cost factor with wholesale sales taxes taken off. So it is a mixed view within the industry. It may have been the case before the final package was brought down that there was only one clear view within the industry, but I do not believe that it is the case that there is a consistent view within the tourism industry now, especially given the removal of the bed tax, which has meant that it is a great attraction for the industry.I say that in passing, as it was raised by the shadow minister. But it is a bipartisan day, and I join with him in congratulating John Morse and the great team at the Australian Tourist Commission. The Australian Tourist Commission is one of the most highly regarded government funded tourism promotion bodies around the world. It is generously supported, as it has been, by both sides of the House. This has meant that we have led the way—as you, Madam Deputy Speaker Gash, would know—especially with the Australian Tourist Exchange, which is a great first around the world. It brings people from around the world to see the Australian product.What has been the result? The result has been outstanding. The fact that a country of this size has had 4.3 million international visitors over the past four months is very impressive. There has been a six per cent increase on the figures year-to-year date for the past 12 months. The preliminary June figures indicate that 120,000 more international visitors visited Australia in the first six months of 1999. A 13 per cent increase in visitor arrivals from South-East Asia was recorded for the first six months of 1999—a 48 per cent increase in visitor arrivals from Thailand and a 30 per cent increase from Malaysia. Some of the traditional markets were up significantly. The UK was up by seven per cent and the USA was up by 10 per cent. These are high-yield markets, so that is particularly encouraging.On the other side, we have seen a drop in the number of Japanese visitors. There have been 25,000 fewer Japanese tourists so far this year, equivalent to $106 million in lost revenue. I think that highlights why the Australian Tourist Commission should not be saddled with the additional responsibility of concern for the environment—important as it is, as highlighted yesterday in the preamble to the Constitution outlined by the Prime Minister—but should be allowed to focus on issues such as the drop in the number of Japanese tourists coming here.Japan is our largest source of international tourists, and the number of visitors coming here continues to drop. That is a concern. I notice now that, where they were overwhelmingly No. 1, they are actually equal figures so far this year with New Zealand. It is great to see the Kiwis coming over. We need another Bledisloe Cup—as we are about to have—to again boost the figures. I was interested in the figures that showed that more New Zealand men left New Zealand to see the Bledisloe Cup when it was held in Melbourne than left New Zealand in World War II. It is good to see the numbers from New Zealand up, but we also need considerable emphasis in the future on Japan.We congratulate the minister on bringing this amendment forward. It is not an earth-shattering amendment, but it is important that we make these changes so that concentration is on the main game. The Australian Tourist Commission continues to do an excellent job under the leadership of John Morse, and long may it continue to have the lead around the world in international tourism. I know that my colleagues in the chamber today are strong supporters of the tourism industry, and this is just a small step in continuing our dominance.11:13:008717Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—Of all the isms that will be of influence in Australia in the next few years, tourism and environmentalism will have a high level of significance, particularly in the lead-up to the Olympic Games and beyond. Tourism is one of Australia's fastest growing industries. It is expected to contribute to significant increases in employment opportunities in the period leading up to the year 2003. It currently generates over $16 billion in export earnings, a figure which is forecast to increase to $23.2 billion by the year 2000—the year of the Olympic Games.Our share of world tourism is relatively small, but Australia is one of the fastest growing tourist destinations in the world. Visitor numbers have increased by 11 or 12 per cent annually for the last three years. It is worth noting that in 1998 alone there were an estimated 3.859 million international visitors aged 15 years and over, and international visitor expenditure was estimated at $8.5 billion in Australia in 1998.The domestic market is still our strong point in tourism. Of the 694,000 people employed directly in tourism in 1996, over 522,000 were employed in the domestic sector. That leaves over 170,000 people employed directly in the international visitor sector. Australia welcomes the rapid growth of inbound tourism. In fact, the Australian Tourist Commission, the statutory authority which is charged with the prime task of promoting Australia overseas as an international tourist destination, has as its principal objectives: first, to increase the number of visitors to Australia from overseas; second, to maximise the benefits to Australia from overseas visitors; and, third, to ensure that Australia is protected from adverse environmental and social impacts of international tourism. It is with regard to the last objective that we are conscious that there is a price to pay for increased numbers in tourism in terms of the potential impact on our environment, as well as any adverse social impacts. The inclusion of this objective in the Australian Tourist Commission Act is consistent with the broad policy goal of ecologically sustainable development. This goal aims to balance economic, environmental and social considerations in decision making in the long-term interest of our whole society.The concept of `ecologically sustainable development' was brought to the fore following growing concern throughout the seventies and eighties about the current and future environmental impact of economic growth and development. It is an international concept. A commonly used definition of sustainable development emerged in 1987 when the World Commission on Environment and Development, known as the Brundtland Commission, articulated that sustainable development is `development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'. Internationally, policies addressing sustainability in this way have become widespread. The World Bank recently found that over 100 countries had national strategies for sustainable development in place.In Australia, governments have adopted the term `ecologically sustainable development' to address these considerations. The major relevant policy initiative in Australia is the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development. ESD, as it is called, is often only equated with the environment, but the national strategy recognises that it is about short-term and long-term economic, social and environmental impacts. That is a far broader policy agenda. So it is with the ESD, the national policy, in mind that we look at the Australian Tourist Commission Act and the inclusion of its objectives—the third objective particularly—to ensure Australia is protected from adverse environmental and social impacts from international tourism.The amendment proposed by this bill has come about because of the Australian National Audit Office's audit of the commission in 1997 which concluded, amongst other things, that the commission `is currently unable to demonstrate that it is fully meeting all of its statutory objectives'. It went on to say that this applied particularly to the third objective. The Audit Office acknowledged that the commission had no regulatory powers or authority to ensure the protection of the environment and of society from the impact of tourism, but pointed out that there was a statutory responsibility which it could perform and that that would be to closely monitor and report the effects of international tourism on Australia's natural environment and society. I think it is fair to say that what the Audit Office was concerned with was the fact that the Australian Tourist Commission had not fully addressed in its corporate operational or business plans what was meant by the third objective. Like a number of government agencies, it had a separate environmental strategy which articulated its environmental vision, but the Audit Office thought that this vision did not contribute to a common, measurable understanding of what was meant by the objectives and how they were to be translated into a framework of strategies and plans.The Audit Office noted that the environment strategy contained reference to some key performance indicators but, otherwise, the commission's corporate plan or its annual operational plan had no indicators identified to measure the commission's performance in relation to that third objective. Again, it is fair to say that in this regard the Australian Tourist Commission has not been alone. Evidence suggests that the extent to which departments and agencies have fully implemented programs and policies with an explicit ESD focus, as well as the extent to which ESD principles and objectives have been considered and applied in general policy development, varies to some extent across Commonwealth departments and agencies.Perhaps it is a case that the ESD policy is still rhetoric rather than practice in some areas. But, in general, a number of impediments or constraints can influence the rate of implementation of ESD policies by departments and agencies and can include, as the Tourist Commission found, a lack of clarity or understanding as to what constitutes ecologically sustainable development related policies.There are complex issues associated with the implementation of ESD, the information and data requirements and trying to adopt good policy making practices, and there are some deficiencies in intra- and intergovernmental coordination in policy making. We need greater attention to longer term sustainable development issues.The amendment we are considering in this legislation takes away the requirement that the commission ensure that Australia is protected from adverse environmental and social impacts of international tourism, but then replaces that requirement with one that will ensure that the commission maintains its involvement in the social and environmental issues, but at a level appropriate to its powers. In other words, in meeting its objectives it will now be required to work with other agencies as appropriate and to have regard to the principles for ecologically sustainable development, as set out in the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act, and the social impacts of international tourism in Australia. In effect, the proposed amendment allows the commission to meet its statutory objectives without removing its social and environmental responsibilities.When the Auditor-General's report for 1997-98, including Audit Report No. 10 on the Tourist Commission, was reviewed by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, it was apparent that the Tourist Commission had already taken action to address a number of the issues raised by the Audit Office. In particular, it had already prepared operational definitions of its statutory objectives, their related corporate objectives, and key performance indicators. This was said to demonstrate quite clearly the relationship between the corporate objectives, the commission's strategic plan and the objectives as defined in the act.The commission was keen to point out to the joint committee that the commission was already focused on environmental concerns and, in fact, believed that the natural environment is one of Australia's greatest assets, if not the greatest asset in terms of tourism. It is apparent that the Australian environment generally is one of the key reasons why Australia is chosen as a tourist destination. The commission also pointed out that a number of specific initiatives had been undertaken to help it achieve its third statutory objective relating to the protection of Australia from adverse environmental and social impacts. These included a study into the social attitudes of the environmental impact of tourism; in conjunction with the Office of National Tourism, developing environmental messages published in agency literature and on airlines flying into Australia; and developing partnerships with other organisations in undertaking environmental best practice. They also produced an annual portfolio of ecotourism and were developing an even broader environmental strategy.It was a recommendation of the joint committee that the Australian Tourist Commission enter into an extensive dialogue with relevant authorities in order to develop a cohesive strategy to ensure that Australia is protected from potential adverse environmental and social impacts of overseas tourism. Of course, it was the joint committee that recommended that the act be amended to clarify the commission's role in relation to its objectives.The joint committee has highlighted a more widespread problem with implementing ESD policy, and that is a necessity for intra- and intergovernmental coordination. It could be argued that there is not currently a sufficiently effective Commonwealth-state coordinating mechanism for ESD. Of course, such coordination is not costless, but the benefits of enhanced coordination are likely to outweigh the costs, and a failure in such coordination or in the level of coordination in that regard could create more problems subsequently.In Australia, natural resource management and environment protection responsibilities are shared between the states and the Commonwealth. This in some instances can contribute to vertical coordination failure. A whole of government approach is needed to overcome intervention failures in implementing ESD—due to perhaps a failure of government coordination. This government is keen to ensure that Commonwealth departments and agencies show leadership in the processes by which the economic, social and environmental goals are integrated. I am sure we will see the Australian Tourist Commission taking the lead in this regard. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.11:25:008720Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—May I commend the incisive nature of the speeches of the honourable member for Curtin and, before her, the honourable member for Cook on what is really a very minor amendment to the Australian Tourist Commission Amendment Bill 1999 . I have no objection to the bill and I think it is an eminently sensible amendment to make. But I think it is quite significant that we are debating these particular amendments and putting the correct focus on the environmental watch of the Australian Tourist Commission on the days when the news wires are running hot with developments that have happened in Thailand. There have been a number of accusations about the tourist industry in Thailand. The present government of Thailand, for which I have quite a deal of regard and which is taking the tourist industry very seriously, all of a sudden has woken up to the fact that it has some huge environmental problems.I suppose two of the greatest destinations that Thailand offers, Pattaya Beach and Phuket, are prime examples of what happens when you do not keep an eye on things. Phuket, for example, is a relative newcomer to the international tourist market and handles—I think I am correct in saying—something like 8½ million international tourists a year. There has been unbridled development in a number of sections of that particular island and all of a sudden the results of it are coming home to roost, in that the coral reefs, which were such an attraction 10 years ago, are starting to fall to pieces. The development that has happened along the beachfront has been an ecological disaster, and the new Thai government is now trying to do something about that.In Pattaya, which is an older development and which handles unbelievable numbers of international tourists and always has, the infrastructure of the place virtually collapsed. It has cost millions upon millions of dollars for them to get some semblance of environmental protection in what is left of Pattaya. I guess that, while the Thais have probably done very well in terms of their international earnings and the employment generated in those two resorts, it is a very good example, I think, to Australia of what happens if you do not keep an eye on things. Obviously the Australian Tourist Commission has got an obligation to do that as part of these amendments.I thought one of the more interesting parts of the bill that was circulated to us was the explanatory memorandum which specifically spelt out the fact that, to a very great extent, the prime purpose of the Australian Tourist Commission was the promotion of international visitation to Australia. Of course it is. In that respect, can I say that I also have a very high regard for the work that they do. It is quite significant because we are really in the 20th year of the development of phase 2 of Australian tourism.The Australian Tourist Commission in various guises has been in existence since about 1927, but it was 20 years ago under the leadership of the then minister, the late Phillip Lynch, that Australia started to become quite serious about the tourism business. I believe, from my recollection, that in 1979 there was a major increase of allocations to the Australian Tourist Commission by the government and I think they were granted something like $8½ million for international promotion. This was a major advance. Australia set about getting into the international tourism business—and I suppose, to a very great extent, the rest is history.I think we have done well, and that is not to say that we cannot do better, but if we think that we are a major player in the international scene obviously we are wrong. We still do not get one per cent of international tourism coming to this country. But we have done reasonably well and we have done reasonably well in those targeted markets. If there is a commendation for the Australian Tourist Commission, I think it has been for their capacity to be able to pick out these markets and to go and develop them.I think we have learned a few lessons along the way. Obviously we had a very close concentration on Asia and, while Japan was the initial market and we put a great deal of concentration on Japan as the market that we wanted to build—it certainly worked early in the piece—as the member for Cook said today, that is now flattening. We put a great deal of concentration on specific markets, such as Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and even Thailand. With the Asian economic downturn, those people in the industry who had not really spread their product into different areas found themselves in a great deal of trouble. There were great examples of that on the Gold Coast, where hoteliers who had concentrated on the Korean market all of a sudden found their properties were empty and they had a difficult time.I guess that this is all part of the learning process of what tourism is about, and I would commend the Australian Tourist Commission, especially in light of what happened with the Asian economic downturn, for what it did. It certainly had the flexibility and the capacity to switch its markets, to switch its emphasis, to go in pretty hard in Europe, to go in pretty hard in North America. Obviously, that has been paying off, and we are seeing evidence of that with the improvement in figures coming out of the UK and Europe and out of the North American market.It is absolutely mind-blowing to contemplate the size of that American market and the impact that you can have. The Australian Tourist Commission has been in there plugging away and, despite reasonably small budgets, it has made an impact to such an extent that, in all the major surveys out of North America now, Australia is the preferred destination, and the Condor Naste travel group, which has the biggest selling travel magazine in North America, once again this year names Australia as the No. 1 destination.But the biggest problem that we have got in terms of promoting Australia and in terms of landing those international visitors here is, as it was 20 years ago, firstly, the distance from the major markets and, secondly, the cost of the air fares. I would like to spend just a couple of minutes on what is happening in terms of international civil aviation. In recent years, what we have seen is a coming together of airline alliances. There are now five around the world, two of which operate to a very great extent in Australia: the One World group, which includes Qantas and British Airways, and the Star Alliance, which has carriers like United Airlines, Air New Zealand and Lufthansa tied up together.What has happened, particularly in Europe, is something that we must be concerned about and must keep an eye on. There was a very good speech delivered in London in recent days by the President of Trans World Airlines, a United States carrier, a major carrier into Europe, but an airline that is not allied with anyone. He gave examples of what happens when you virtually create duopolies in markets and, to a great extent, I think that we have got a situation where, if we are not careful, we could redevelop these duopolies.Trans World Airlines has been forced out of the Rome market. They have been forced out of the French market, they have been forced out of the German market and they are looking very closely at their operations into London. But he also cited some examples of what happens to air fares when a duopoly gets on a particular route. What happens now is that the air fares out of some 55 ports in the United States to London are some hundreds of dollars more expensive than fares to fly from various ports in the United States into places like Paris, Frankfurt or Rome. It is the old two-airline agreement story that we suffered in Australia for so long: once you get a duopolistic situation on a route, you have got to be careful. We have not reached that yet in Australia, but it is something that should be monitored, along with the policy of the Australian air carriers.All of us, I think, have a very high regard for Qantas and all of us acknowledge that Qantas has made a contribution in terms of developing the international tourist market. Its alliance with British Airways obviously now is a very close one, in terms both of the One World arrangement and of the ownership. But what is happening with British Airways—and in recent press reports in Australia the same story is being raised—is that it is concerned with the back of the bus. Obviously, it has a bottom line to meet. British Airways now is completely restructuring its routes out of London, and physically restructuring its airline fleets and its airline configurations. It is going for the high yield market. That is fine; that is a matter of its commercial judgment. But, at the end of the day, the number of seats that will be specifically allocated to the tourist traffic is going to be lowered because there is not the money to be made from those cheaper fares. Interestingly, in North America, United Airlines is now doing exactly the same thing.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 11.34 a.m. to 12.08 p.m.MH4Jull, David, MPMr JULL—Prior to the suspension, I was talking about some of the recent developments being made by some of the world's major carriers which may directly affect the cost of air fares to and from Australia. I mentioned the situation of British Airways, with the redesign of its cabins and its pricing structures, along with how Qantas was looking at the same thing and also a similar situation in the United States with United Airlines. We should flag that and keep a watching brief, because in the case of Australia, which is a long haul destination and a fairly high cost destination, if we allow the air fare components to get out of control we can be in real trouble.In that respect, I was pleased to see that in recent days there was at least some loosening-up by the government on the international air rights agreements. We have not yet got to a stage where we have total freedom of access—that does not necessarily mean completely open skies, but we have not got total access—to all the major gateways in Australia. I hope we would move toward that.In light of that, while there has been some very heavy criticism of the government's decision to give Emirates Airlines almost unfettered rights into Australia, we have to be cognisant of what I was talking about before. The criticism that has been made is that Emirates are going to undercut traffic. They will be looking at freedom of traffic out of Australia to Europe and from Europe to Australia, and there will not be much out of the Gulf. That is yet to be proved. I have got no doubt that Emirates will be marketing very heavily in Europe and Australia to get that traffic to go through the long haul destinations. At the end of the day, there are a lot of advantages to be gained from opening up new markets like the Gulf countries.During my term with the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation, we sent a representative into the Gulf early in the 1980s to ply that particular market, because potentially it was one of the most lucrative in the world. When we talk about visitors from the Middle East, we are not necessarily talking about backpackers. In fact, some of the leading members of those communities are coming to the Gold Coast now. More will probably come as a result of these direct flights. They bring an entourage of wives and support staff and they have the capacity to book out whole floors of hotels—and it is all first class, big dollar stuff.Before we start making general criticisms, we have to weigh up the situation. As I say, if we get carriers like Emirates and Royal Brunei and some which bring that low fare market, because of what is happening with the major carriers, I would be the last to criticise them.I have probably spoken longer than I should have and I have probably gone a bit wider than the bill, but it is not often that we have the opportunity to speak about the tourist industry. This is now one of our greatest export earners and our greatest employers. In fact, it is the biggest private sector employer. It is an industry that attracts a lot of international attention and it has a lot of investment by some major international concerns. At the end of the day, about 92 per cent of the tourist industry in Australia comes from mums and dads. It comes from small business. In terms of the contribution to the small business sector, we often undersell the contribution that tourism makes.My final point is that we are all very excited about what is happening with the Sydney Olympics. Potentially, that is going to be the greatest boost to Australian tourism. If the Australian Tourist Commission plays it right, if governments play it right in the future, the investment that we have made will keep us in good stead for decades to come. If you look at what has happened overseas, the reality is that you get that boost during the period of the Olympics and the period leading up to the Olympics and it is what you plough in afterwards that is really the return on your investment.If people go to Munich and take an organised tour, they will be amazed that the Olympic stadium is still the No. 1 priority. The Games were in 1972 and the people are still cashing in on it. In Spain, they are still feeding off the Olympics. Quite frankly, I think we have probably got a lot more to offer than Spain. The populace and the industry have to realise the exposure we will get from organisations such as the NBC Network telecasting from all points around Australia for weeks on end. That is publicity you cannot buy. We have to make sure that we have got the infrastructure, commitment and money to cash in for years to come. We have to do that because the reality is, as much as we might talk about it, that one of the very few industries we have in Australia that has the capacity to provide really big numbers of jobs is the tourist industry. We should never forget those figures that came out of the Bureau of Industry Economics years ago, which indicated that we have the capacity to employ up to a million people in the tourism and hospitality industry without too much problem at all. There is nothing wrong with that because this is an exciting industry. It is an industry that is attractive, particularly to young people, and it does have the capacity to be able to provide those jobs, particularly in regional Australia.12:14:008723Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—It is a pleasure to follow the member for Fadden. I always enjoy listening to his overview of the tourism industry. He came to my electorate—it would be about five years ago now—and was a great hit; they loved him. It is always good to listen to what you have to say, David.I would like to address the Australian Tourist Commission Amendment Bill 1999 and the amendments first, and then talk about tourism generally and in the area that I represent—the Whitsundays. With regard to the bill, I think the minister has been very sound and has acted with commonsense in bringing it before us. The Australian Tourist Commission was established by the Hawke Labor government in 1987. Undeniably, it was one of that government's few achievements and, sadly and predictably, the act was flawed. This bill before us honestly and realistically addresses that major flaw.The ATC has done some magnificent work over the past 12 years. It has had major successes bringing international tourists to Australia and its role in the lead-up to the Sydney 2000 Olympics is obviously critical. Under the existing act, the ATC has three major objectives: to increase the number of visitors to Australia from overseas, to maximise benefits to Australia from overseas visitors and—the last one—to ensure that Australia is protected from adverse environmental and social impacts of international tourism.This last measure was obviously a clear pandering to the extremist environmental lobby in 1987, and the then ALP government included it as the third objective. It was truly a bizarre requirement, especially given the fact that the ATC was never given any power or capability to meet that third principle. What was obviously a political sop in 1987, and allowed the government to gain political points with the green movement, has become a reporting, accountability and responsibility nightmare for the ATC. The inability to meet this statutory objective presents the commission with reporting and accountability problems and has resulted in criticism from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and the Australian National Audit Office.Both the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and the Australian National Audit Office have acknowledged that the commission does not have the power to meet statutory object 6(c)—the one I have just referred to. The joint committee has recommended the commission propose to its minister that this statutory object should be amended to clarify the commission's role. This bill proposes an amendment of this unworkable third principle and will allow the ATC to actually work cooperatively with other government agencies to meet the generally accepted nature of the existing third principle. It is important to understand that the government's amendment to that existing paragraph of the act does not in any way, shape or form weaken the powers of the ATC in relation to the impact of tourism on social and environment issues. Simply, it could not do so, as the ATC never had any real powers in this regard. The government's amendment will allow the ATC to meet its statutory objects within its powers and, importantly, to have regard to the ecologically sustainable development set out in subsection 21(3) of the Natural Heritage Trust Act 1997 and to the social impacts of international tourism.In an effort to meet its obligations under subsection 6(c), the commission has put in place strategies that involve publicising the value of Australia's environment, conducting research into attitudes to the environmental impacts of tourism and implementing best practice environmental standards within the commission. This goes some way to addressing the issue, but does not `ensure' environmental protection, as required under subsection 6(c). This was highlighted in the Australian National Audit Office's 1997-98 review Aspects of corporate governance: The Australian Tourism Commission and subsequently addressed by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.It is appropriate in the context of this bill to discuss the current state of the tourism industry in the holiday jewel of Australia, the magnificent Whitsundays, in my electorate of Dawson. Firstly, there is another body overseeing tourism along the Queensland coast, and that is the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. This was really a matter of appropriating responsibility to an organisation that did not have the power and authority to undertake it, when there was already another federal agency charged with this very responsibility.I would like to talk about the Whitsundays and the success that they have had in terms of tourism. In 1998, according to Tourism Whitsundays, which compiles relevant local statistics, there were 442,000 visitors to the region—an impressive 22.7 per cent more than the 380,000 in 1997. That is a very good result, bearing in mind that we have had the Asian downturn and many other difficult circumstances that have impacted on tourism. Credit for that would have to go to the Whitsunday Visitors and Conventions Bureau, which has now been renamed Tourism Whitsundays, and to their Chief Executive Officer, Rodger Powell. Rodger has had some very innovative marketing programs to attract both international and domestic tourists, the most current one being the Whitsunday out of the Blue program, which you would have seen advertised in many national newspapers and on television.One of the interesting things that came out of the Whitsunday out of the Blue marketing program was the fact that decision making in tourism is so very short. When the marketing program was put together, it was believed that there would be a lead time of some three months. It was thought that people would see the program, plan their holiday in three or four months time and then hopefully come to the Whitsundays. But we found that people made their minds up within a week. They would see it on television and say, `Gee, we need to get away for three days because work is wearing us out,' and would make a booking. So the immediacy of tourism decisions became apparent to us—the short time span of deciding a destination, booking it and going and having the holiday. I think that certainly changed the perspective of people planning marketing in our areas.While we have had this very pleasing increase in numbers—and I give full credit to Tourism Whitsundays—regrettably, the number of visitor nights has fallen by 5.4 per cent, from 1,623,000 to 1,536,000. In 1998, the average visitor spent $189, up 7.4 per cent from $176 in 1997. As a result of shorter visitor nights and greater amounts spent per visitor per day, the total tourism revenue in our area in fact rose by 1.7 per cent, from $286 million to $291 million. The reason for the very modest increase in total revenue compared with the impressive lift in tourism visitors was, as I have said, the fact that the average stay fell from 4.5 days to 3.5 days. I think perhaps this reflects that spur of the moment decision on tourist destination, booking and undertaking the holiday.I would have liked Tourism Whitsundays to provide me with a statistical breakdown of the origin of numbers, but that has not been possible at this point in time. But it would be fair to say that the South-East Asian crisis has impacted on our visitors from Asia. I know ATC has been very forthright in attracting North American and European visitors to Australia. In the Whitsundays now we certainly see a lot of German, Scandinavian and North American visitors. That has really helped to boost numbers and has been a very welcome addition to what was a fairly difficult time with the downturn in Asia.I would like to talk very briefly, too, about Hamilton Island. Obviously, there are 76 islands in the Whitsunday Passage. Hamilton Island has really gone ahead in the last few years, and full credit has to be given to the Chief Executive Officer, Wayne Kirkpatrick. Now that both airlines operate out of the international airport on Hamilton Island, we have had a great boost in visitors to the area, and the upgrading of facilities and conference rooms has been a tremendous boost for the area too. Restaurants on Hamilton Island have all served to make it as they advertise it: the island that is spoiling Australia. There are other islands in the Whitsunday Passage: Hayman Island, Daydream Island, Brampton Island out of Mackay, South Molle Island and many others, all of which are working very hard to attract both domestic and international tourists.The ATC, as I said, has played, and is continuing to play, a vital role. I commend it for its work over the 12 years, especially for its contribution to the tourist industry in my own electorate. However, as the member for Fadden said, one of the greatest difficulties we face in Australia is cost and the fact that we are a long haul destination. We are never going to be able to bring our client base closer to Australia. That long haul and the fact that you can now on the Net call up another destination—perhaps a couple of hours closer; certainly a couple of hundred dollars cheaper—is always, I guess, going to be a road bump on the way to success for us.I will briefly mention the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority because, as I said, it is the authority in our area that has the responsibility for managing the care of the reef. The member for Fadden mentioned the difficulties in Thailand. He is absolutely right: seeing a degraded coral reef is not a pleasant sight. While I support GBRMPA and think that a sensible, well managed approach is very important to the reef, I think balance is the key to this. There needs to be a very strong coordinated effort between the tourism and the environment industries, represented through GBRMPA, to ensure that the balance is right.We had an instance recently where the plan of management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority allowed only one cruise ship per day to anchor in the Whitsundays. As anybody in tourism will tell you, cruise ships are booked some 18 to 12 months ahead, and once you have a major cruise ship or liner out on the ocean you cannot turn it around. It was very awkward to have two cruise ships in the area at the one time until that plan of management could be changed. I do want to thank GBRMPA for working hard with the industry to ensure that that difficulty has been overcome. Cruise ships are again able to come to the Whitsundays profitably and safely so that people can enjoy a great holiday.Whale watching was a recent example as well of a very uncooperative approach, I felt, by the Beattie state Labor government to what is one of the low impact, great experiences you can go on. I think whale watching is one of those things where you have an opportunity to really see the marine environment first-hand. The state government said that they would issue no further licences; their plan overlaid the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's plan and whale watching was stopped in the Whitsundays—fortunately, for only 10 days. GBRMPA, to their credit, have worked out a permit arrangement that will allow it to proceed.These are some of the difficulties. As I said, there needs to be a sensitive balance between the needs of the environment, which we recognise, and the needs of a burgeoning tourism industry. I commend the minister on this sensible move. There are other authorities to take charge of environmental issues concerned with tourism. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is certainly one in our area. This amendment allows the ATC to do what they do so well, which is to boost our tourism numbers.12:27:008726Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—In summing up, I would like to congratulate all the speakers here today, especially the mighty member for Dawson—one of our regional members—who talked about the importance of international tourism to regional Australia. She especially mentioned the area of particular concern to her—the Whitsundays, the issues she has raised with GBRMPA and the need to have a balance between tourism and the environment. Tourism, after all, is a non-extractive industry and contributes greatly to the employment in the region.The member for Fadden talked about the ATC's promotion. His comments on air fares and international airline access now to Australia all contributed to a mighty debate. The situation with the Arab Emirates has the potential to lead to an increase in flights right around Australia and greater competition in international air fares. Tourism is one of our great export industries, as the member for Fadden said, and we are set to benefit enormously from the Olympics.The member for Curtin spoke on ecologically sustainable tourism, very much part of our broad policy objective. The member for Cook, who has extraordinary experience in tourism with his background on the TCA and in managing that organisation through the Asian crisis, made interventionist comments on bed tax and the importance of international tourism as a $16 billion industry and one of the greatest private sector employers.We heard from the member for Hunter. I believe he has foreshadowed an amendment to which we do not object. It is a very welcome amendment. There is a terrific interest in this parliament in tourism. Tourism is growing every day. It is a great industry, and there is bipartisan support for it to flourish and to create continued employment of Australians.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.8727Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.Amendment (by Mr Fitzgibbon) agreed to:(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 10) after "Trust " insert "of Australia "Bill, as amended, agreed to.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House with an amendment.Adjournment872710000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.H. Adams)—Order! It being 12.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.872712:30:008727Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I rise today to speak on an issue that affects thousands of Australians every day—the poor state of public dental services in this country. It is now 2½ years since the Commonwealth Dental Health Program was abolished. The program's charter was to improve access to dental services for those on lower incomes, and from all accounts it had delivered on its charter by significantly reducing waiting lists. The ruthless decision to cut the program has had far reaching consequences for some of the most vulnerable people in the community—those on low incomes, children and the elderly.As most members would be aware, last week was Dental Health Week, and like many Labor members I took the opportunity to investigate the issue of accessibility and affordability of services in my electorate. Sadly, my inquiries confirmed all the anecdotal evidence we had been hearing on a regular basis.In the city of Monash, waiting lists have grown to two years and are still on the way up, with over 6,000 people on the waiting list at the Monash Dental Link Service. In the city of Whitehorse there were 2,406 people on a four-year waiting list. It is difficult to underestimate the frustration and discomfort this causes people on those lists.In May 1998, a Senate inquiry was established to inquire into the effects of these cuts on users of the system. The findings of the committee confirmed the success of the program in delivering dental care to the disadvantaged by reducing waiting lists for treatment, and they highlighted the adverse effects of the abolition of the program.The committee heard evidence that since the cessation of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program there had been a shift in the care provided by the public dental services back towards emergency care: that the state and territory governments had been unable to make up the shortfall resulting from the withdrawal of Commonwealth funding; and that there were now certain sections of the community who were suffering a particular disadvantage due to the withdrawal of funding. These groups were low income earners; the elderly, particularly those who were housebound; pre-schoolers; those in rural and remote areas; indigenous Australians; young people; and those from a non-English-speaking background. Precisely the sorts of people whom the program was set up to cater for are now the people who are suffering the most.I have had countless numbers of people through my door relating horror stories about their inability to track down affordable dental care. We have heard from people living in considerable pain whilst languishing on a waiting list, and from young people with oral diseases that cause them social embarrassment and make things like attending a job interview, or applying for a bank loan, a soul destroying experience.Just three weeks ago, a lady on the pension in her 80s, suffering serious tooth decay and unable to chew her food correctly, came to my office looking for a way to move up the waiting list. To my dismay, the only thing we could do for her was to recommend a range of affordable dentists in the area, if there is such a thing. What I really would have liked to have said was that there is an efficient and targeted program for those in need with dental problems. Alas, due to the government's policies, we had to send the woman away without relief and in extreme discomfort.Only a few weeks prior to that, two pensioners in my electorate dropped off their bill to my colleague Simon Crean for inspection. They found it bizarre that they would have to pay a $20 fee, even though they were on the pension. This is the other cruel element in the axing of the system. The dental program raised the public's expectation about dental services, only to find that the system has now been gutted. Probably the most damming indictment of the government's policy came from a doctor who gave evidence at the inquiry. She said:Australia is now a country where you can pick the poor by their teeth.The committee's recommendations included the Commonwealth government taking a leadership role in promoting oral health throughout the country; the appointment of a senior officer for oral health in the Department of Health and Aged Care; and pilot programs for disadvantaged groups. These recommendations have been on the table since 28 May last year. The government's response, nine months later, was at best lacklustre and at worst highly negligent.On all the major recommendations, such as targeting disadvantaged groups and the establishment of a national oral health policy, the federal government squibbed it. They appeared to be determined to vacate the field and put all the responsibilities at the feet of the state and territory governments. This is despite the fact that the Senate inquiry found that the Commonwealth is empowered by the Constitution to legislate in the area of dental services. Unfortunately, this is the sort of imbalance in the government's priorities we are used to witnessing.Despite the fact that we have a huge budget surplus that was raided to pay for its tax deal with the Democrats, and despite the fact that the latest private health insurance rescue plan is costed at $1.7 billion a year, the 1999-2000 budget provided no joy for those suffering from a lack of access to dental care, with the government refusing to commit the money that is so desperately needed. There is a need to restore dental services to those on low incomes. Rising waiting lists and the disturbing move from preventive care to last minute treatment begs a proper response from this government. It is time for the government to restore some of the $4 million it ripped out of this area and direct it to the many Australians suffering needlessly due to this government's miserable and mean-spirited inaction.872912:35:008729Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—I feel compelled to stand and answer the honourable member who has just made a statement to the committee. Having spent seven years in the cabinet in New South Wales, I am surprised that a Labor member from Victoria would be getting up and supporting Jeff Kennett. I am quite amazed, in fact, because this is a state program. It always was a state program.I was in the cabinet in New South Wales. I know where our money went. I can tell you exactly how this came about. It was before your time in parliament, obviously, but you should listen. It was in the dying days of the 1993 election when Paul Keating was facing the election he could not win. He came out with a plan to improve the waiting lists on dental care. There is no doubt that there were waiting lists. It was a state program and there were waiting lists. As usual, as the states normally do, they welcomed it with open arms. Here was some more Commonwealth money coming into an area which they were funding at that time.I remember it clearly because he made the specific promise that he would put in a specific amount of money for a specific number of procedures over a specific period of time. He said so. It is quite clear. It was not an ongoing Commonwealth program, but it may well need to be. As soon as the states, and especially the treasuries of the states, can see an opportunity to cost shift they do. That was what happened immediately in our government in New South Wales—and I am not frightened to say so. Treasury shifted the money that was going from the state into that program and used the Commonwealth money.Do not get up here and say that somehow this terrible government has stopped a Commonwealth program. It was not one; it was a state program. You can easily get up here and say, `We should introduce a program.' Yes, I will accept that. I will accept that you can say that we should introduce a program. I might not disagree. But it is dishonest to get up and say that it is a Commonwealth program. It never was.I am sure that the Premier of Victoria would be smiling. He is very fond of putting the boot into the Commonwealth, whether it be the Liberal-National Party or the Labor Party in government. He has learnt that, I suppose, from a former Premier of Queensland. The fact is that at every opportunity he will blame the federal government. I am very disappointed that a member of the Labor Party would get up here and support the fact that he has been denying Victorians a program which should have been a state program. I am pretty sure that New South Wales are exactly the same, but they will not admit to it. As I said, I was there. I saw what happened. I knew where the money went out of the budgets in the state at that particular time. Yes, there was a waiting list, but it was a state program.873012:39:008730Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I rise today to speak about a major concern not only in my electorate but all over Australia where there are people who derive their income from Australian defence manufacturing. The Prime Minister made a strong public commitment to the Bendigo region to retain the ADI plant in public ownership in the lead-up to the 1996 federal election. On 15 February, his exact words were `No, no and no. We have no plans to sell ADI.' The electors of Bendigo took him at his word and returned a Liberal MP to this parliament.Some 15 months after that election, former defence minister, Ian McLachlan, in responding to a question from the then Liberal MHR for Bendigo, Mr Reid, announced that the plant would in fact be offered for sale at some time within the next 12 months. This blatant disregard for commitments given in an election campaign is yet another example of the Howard government's manic obsession with privatisation at all costs. The fact that this plant is an integral component of our vital defence manufacturing industry makes the proposed sale one of the worst acts of political treachery witnessed in recent times.Over the last decade, Australia has built a strong and viable defence industry which has returned some $30 million in dividends to the federal government, paid more than $140 million in taxes and developed world-class project management skills, with thousands of subcontractors engaged in leading edge technologies that would not otherwise be available in Australia. Bendigo's ADI Bushmaster project, worth around $200 million, is just one example of the world-class standard of design and engineering that this company is now providing.Now we have an ideologically hidebound federal government that sees no problem in virtually giving away our defence manufacturing capability to overseas interests. Media reports over the last few weeks are quoting figures of around $200 million as a purchasing price for the company. Government figures value ADI at around $400 million to $450 million. The Bendigo community is again waiting anxiously for the plant's future to be decided, being now quite used to the coalition's deceit regarding ADI in Bendigo.In 1981, the then Fraser government's Expenditure Review Committee recommended that the former Bendigo Ordnance Factory, which is now ADI, be sold. The government accepted the recommendation and announced the proposed sale, resulting in massive concern from all sections of the Bendigo community. This resulted in the most intense community based lobbying campaign ever seen in regional Victoria, to try and save the plant. This represented 450 jobs and over $9 million worth of economic activity in Bendigo's economy each year.The then Bendigo City Council, which was not widely renowned for its radical views, took the unusual step of having three of its most senior councillors nominate as candidates in the forthcoming state elections. They campaigned on a `save the ordnance factory' ticket. The idea was that conservative voters who wanted to register a protest about the proposed sale could vote for a well-known conservative councillor and then give their second preference to the Liberal candidate. Those who wanted to protest and vote Labor would vote for the well-known Labor councillor and allocate their second preference to the endorsed Labor candidate. Those who wanted to protest and could not make up their minds could vote for a well-known Democrat councillor, who obviously could not make up his mind either, and issue the second preferences accordingly.This political stunt gained considerable media interest and highlighted the intense community opposition to the proposed sale. David Kennedy, the endorsed state Labor candidate, campaigned heavily on the sale issue and won the seat comfortably from the Liberals.The Bendigo Trades Hall Council successfully lobbied the Australian Democrats to initiate a Senate inquiry, which resulted in the sale being deferred until the completion of that inquiry. They were the days when the Democrats had some backbone. This was over many months and resulted in the Fraser government running out of time, having to announce the scheduled federal election for 1983. The sitting Liberal member for Bendigo, government whip John Boucher, supported the sale and lost the seat to Labor's candidate, John Brumby, who campaigned vigorously against the sale proposal.History has shown that Australians prefer defence manufacturing to stay in public ownership. If Howard continues with the privatisation and sale of our defence industries, then there will be almost certainly a political price his government will pay. If a sale results in our defence industries being lost to an overseas interest that manufactures offshore, then the whole nation will not only pay a severe penalty but could well be placed at considerable risk.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.H. Adams)—Deputy Chairs have been reminded by the Deputy Speaker to remind members that, when they pass in front of the chair, they should show due respect to the chair—not to the individual sitting in it, of course. The honourable member for Robertson passed the front of the chair without acknowledging the chair. I just bring it to his notice as directed by the Deputy Chair.873112:43:008731Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. For a moment I thought I had not acknowledged you in the polite and proper manner. I am glad to hear that I was acknowledged.I attended this morning the launch by the minister, Bronwyn Bishop, of a very important program in the International Year of Older Persons 1999: the Senior Australian of the Year Award. I was very pleased to see that launch. It really instils in me and many others a sense of the great contributions that our senior citizens make. The fact of our demographics is that we are getting to be an older population. At the moment there are one in eight older Australians who are in the work force. There are now 2.2 million people aged 65 years and over living in Australia, and by the year 2016 there will be 3.6 million people in this demographic age group. It is also estimated that, by the year 2036, people over the age of 80 will make up 6.2 per cent of the population.I have also been on a committee that dealt with mature age employment issues. The number of contributions that older people make in the community, in volunteer work and also in mentoring programs, cannot be ignored.Why do we need to have an award and a program such as this? A lot of people do take our older generation for granted. I had the wonderful privilege of growing up in a family where my parents came to this country from southern Europe. I also had the wonderful opportunity of having a very close relationship with my grandmother and grandfather. I learned much from them. In my day-to-day life as well I have had the privilege of having some wonderful older people as mentors not only in a business sense but also in a political environment. I must say that it is absolutely terrific to have someone to go to. There is nothing like age and wisdom, as they say.The reason these awards have been initiated in the first place is that they encourage mutual responsibility between the community and senior Australians. They recognise a significant contribution of older Australians to communities and families. They build partnerships involving government, business and the community to better meet the needs of Australians. They also improve younger people's understanding of older Australians and promote greater responsibility by families and individuals.I have a fairly active older constituency in my electorate of Petrie: 30 per cent is over age 65. I see the same people in the community organisations that I go out to every day; they do outstanding work in my community. I am absolutely overawed by their energy, responsiveness and their sense of community. Organisations like Meals-on-Wheels, War Widows and University of the Third Age would not be as active or as well run if it were not for the individuals concerned.I would also like to say that this is a very open process. Any member of the public is welcome to submit a nomination for the Commonwealth government Senior Australian of the Year Award. The person nominated for this award can be an Australian citizen. There is no formal age limit, so that is pretty good. The Commonwealth government Senior Australian of the Year is for those over the age of 65. He or she has to be a person of exceptional achievement who has made a significant contribution to the welfare of the nation.These particular kits have been sent out to all electorates. I welcome and encourage all the members in the Main Committee to participate in this terrific program. Nominations will be accepted by any member of the public. The award is complemented by a separate Commonwealth recognition award for senior Australians, which recognises people who have made a significant contribution to their local community and it is coordinated through their federal MPs. This will hopefully be an ongoing national award, managed by the National Australia Day Council. I commend this award to the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.H. Adams)—Order! Before I call the honourable member for Calwell, I will say that I mentioned to the honourable member for Robertson that the Deputy Chairs have been reminded by the Deputy Speaker to remind members that, when they pass in front of the chair, they should acknowledge the chair. The honourable member for Robertson was reminded a few moments ago; the honourable member for Calwell did exactly the same thing when he entered the chamber. I remind him of his obligation. I now call on him to speak.873212:49:008732Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise. I always do that in the House; I will do so here as well.I wish to raise a very serious matter concerning the rebellion that occurred at the Maribyrnong Detention Centre on 22 July of this year and certain aspects of that issue. The detainees in the centre are, of course, asylum seekers; they are not people who have committed any crime. Nevertheless, because of the conditions in that centre and the development of many grievances over a period, there was a rebellion. The department of immigration advised that, as a result of that rebellion, the internal part of the centre was totally destroyed, including a general trashing of the centre—destruction of televisions, videos, computers, furniture, and the like.One would have thought that this was a very serious event and that it would have been investigated. Instead, what happened was that the department of immigration tried to keep quiet the events that occurred on that day. It was only when Mr Nacer Benbrika, the president of the Algerian community of Victoria, came to see me that the matter was brought to my attention. That was seven days after the event.Mr Benbrika had certain allegations to make about the events of that day. He asserted that, notwithstanding the fact that 35 to 40 people—that is, detainees—had actually been involved in that rebellion, seven had been singled out by the department and six of those had been seized by police and security guards at the Maribyrnong Detention Centre and had been taken to Port Phillip Prison. They are still in Port Phillip Prison, as far as I am aware, and they have not been charged with any offences. Mr Benbrika went on to assert that these people had been assaulted by the security people in the Maribyrnong Detention Centre and by police. They had been assaulted physically—this is the claim that was made.I immediately contacted the office of Mr Farmer, the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, and one of his senior lieutenants spoke to me about the matter. I was not satisfied, however, with the explanation that was given. I did tell him that I would go down on the Friday—that was the next day—to visit the people. He did assure me that no-one had been injured and that only one person had a slight scratch on their forehead. When I went to visit these six people at the Port Phillip Prison I discovered a different story. In fact, one had virtually had his arm broken—not quite broken but severely contorted—and he had been in hospital at the prison for a number of days. Several others had severe bruising in different parts of their bodies. The claim that these people had not been assaulted appears, on that evidence, to be false, unless there is some other explanation for these bruises. This situation gave me great concern and, on the basis of that, I raised the matter with the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The Commonwealth Ombudsman undertook to hold an inquiry into the matter. That inquiry has proceeded apace, and is still proceeding.I want to just indicate, because the time is running out, that there are a number of other very serious aspects to this issue. For example, why was it that 35 to 40 people felt so aggrieved that they actually rebelled in the detention centre? I have put two questions to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on this matter—question Nos 838 and 839—and I would ask members to have a look at those questions and to see what can be done. I am looking forward to the answers from the minister. I am also looking forward to the response of the Ombudsman, as is the UNHCR and Amnesty International—both bodies have had the matter raised with them. We are looking forward to getting real answers to what has happened in relation to this extremely serious question with respect to the people at the Maribyrnong Detention Centre. (Time expired)873312:54:008733Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—As honourable members would know and as many in the community would know, areas of my electorate of Robertson were devastated by the outbreak of newcastle disease amongst the chicken industry at Mangrove Mountain on 1 April—that was the day that it was first identified this year. It resulted in the slaughter of some two million chickens and the devastation of the entire industry in the Mangrove Mountain area. More importantly, it resulted in devastation and financial difficulty for many families in that area.At that time, people from all over New South Wales, the state government and the federal government, all rushed to help the communities of Mangrove Mountain. It was a great effort by all the volunteers and government officials. The federal government arranged for some ex gratia payments to enable those families to at least feed their children, put food on the table, and pay some of the basic bills, because their entire livelihoods had been destroyed by an unexpected and unanticipated event.There appears to be a view in the community that this crisis is over, that the disease has been eradicated. But the crisis is not over, not for these families on Mangrove Mountain. While some of the farms are now beginning to slowly be restocked, many of them, particularly those farms that are under contract or work with the Ingham's company, have not been restocked. They hope to be restocked within a few weeks, but it then takes 16 weeks for these young chickens to be fully grown, and, more importantly, produce an income for those farmers. That will be in four or five months time.The ex gratia payments that the federal government has contributed, some $250,000, have now ceased because the quarantine restrictions have been lifted. These farmers are now left in limbo for the next four or five months, and it is causing a great deal of heartache in the community.I spoke only this morning to Dr Joanne Sillance, the Executive Director of the Australian Chicken Growers Association. She was very distressed by the plight of some of these farmers. She said to me, `Jim, how do you think I feel when I have to look these farmers in the eye and tell them that they are not going to have any income for at least the next four or five months?' That was the difficulty. That statement really affected me because these people are my friends as well. I am part of their community and, when they hurt, I hurt.I appeal to the federal government to look at the proposal that I put forward, in conjunction with Dr Joanne Sillance, to allow those ex gratia payments to continue for some time, not as a gift, not as a hand-out—these people do not want hand-outs—but as a small, interest free loan to enable them to have money to put food on the table for their children for the next three or four months at least, until we can get this industry back on its feet.There is an exceptional circumstances application which the federal government is looking at. But exceptional circumstances only come into operation when farmers have had a significant downturn in their income for more than 12 months. The Mangrove Mountain people do not fit into that criterion at this stage. I believe that they will. I believe that they will have a significant downturn in their industry and their income for much more than 12 months. But, at this stage, that application has been laid aside for two months until we can better assess the effect on the industry.There is also a Premier's fund. I understand the New South Wales government offers low interest loans to assist farmers at this stage. But I also understand that that is assets tested. I would appeal to the New South Wales government, and in particular to the New South Wales minister, Mr Amery, to look at the Premier's fund to see where they can assist.I was very disappointed in a press release that Mr Amery put out on 6 August where he claimed that the federal government was refusing the exceptional circumstances application. He knows that the application did not meet the criterion which all state and federal government ministers had agreed to. He knows that it has only been put aside to further increase the chances of that exceptional circumstances application being successful.I appeal to the government, and to everyone that is involved in this crisis, to understand that the crisis is not over, that the families are still suffering, and that we need to do much, much more to ensure that those families are looked after in this crisis. (Time expired)873512:59:008735Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I want to make a few more comments about the issue that I raised before which has to do with the Maribyrnong Detention Centre. As I mentioned, I put two questions on notice to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, but I am very concerned about the conditions in the centre and the reasons why the people rebelled in the centre. It should be brought to the attention of the House that 55 persons signed a letter to Amnesty International on 15 July, one week before this rebellion, protesting about the conditions at the centre. The minister has to look into this. I understand that there is an internal inquiry by the department—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allowed for the debate has expired.Main Committee adjourned at 1.00 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing8736The following answers to questions were circulated:8736(Question No. 647)6478736Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Trade, 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).8736Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows:Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and AusAID(1) (a) The Australia-Korea Foundation approved a grant of $5,000 to the NFF in December 1997 under the Foundation's Commerce, Industry and Tourism program to support a visit to the Republic of Korea by Mr Donald McGauchie to promote the development of links between Australian and Korean rural associations. Mr McGauchie visited Korea from 15-20 January 1998.(2) Mr Donald McGauchie has been a member of the Trade Policy Advisory Council since 1994, and a member of the Foreign Affairs Council since February 1998.The NFF has also been represented by various officers in the National Trade Consultations Intersessional Meetings, and other consultative groups, to which individual appointments are not made.(3) (a) Nil.(b) Nil. (c, d) The following travel and related expenses have been paid to Mr McGauchie:(i) $925 travel expenses for meetings of the Trade Policy Advisory Council (TPAC) on 30 May and 7 August 1996.(ii) $480 paid for travel expenses for the meeting of the TPAC on 4 December 1998.(iii) $2296.28 for airline costs, overnight allowance and transfers to attend three meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council.Austrade(1) The Australian Dried Fruit Board, a body run by the Australian Dried Fruit Association (an affiliate of the NFF)(a) (i) Export Market Development Grant(ii) Reimbursement of expense of promoting their member's produce in overseas markets.(b) 1996 $140,103.001997 $200,000.001998 $97,257.00(2) Nil(3) Nil8736(Question No. 574)5748736Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 31 March 1999:Has he or his Department engaged Australasian Research Strategies to conduct research; if so, (a) what matters are to be, or were, canvassed in the research, (b) who has received a copy of the research report, (c) is the report available to the public; if so, at what cost, (d) was the research put to tender; if so, (i) what criteria and process were used to select the successful tender and (ii) was the cheapest tender accepted, (e) did any of the States or Territories contribute to the cost of the research, (f) what was the cost to the Commonwealth and (g) what percentage of the cost was borne by the Commonwealth and each of the contributing States and Territories.8736Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Department, on behalf of a number of Labour Ministers' Council (LMC) governments engaged Australasian Research Strategies on 22 May 1998 to undertake research on attitudes to workplace reform.(a) The project is designed to obtain information on the drivers behind attitudes to workplace reform.(b) The Department received copies of the research report and has provided copies to the governments participating in Phase 2 of the project.(c) The Minister publicly released summary findings of the first and second stages of the research on 17 February 1999. A seminar to release the research results from these stages was held on 3 May 1999, involving business, academic and media representatives. The report is available free of charge.(d) The company was selected by participating governments of LMC from a panel of 34 researchers established by the Department on behalf of LMC through open advertisement in late 1997 because:- of the panel members, ARS was the only researcher to provide a fully detailed proposal for values research; and- it is the sole supplier in Australia of a qualitative research methodology, VISTATM values research methodology. This methodology was chosen because it has been used successfully internationally, including by a number of governments, to improve understanding of the drivers behind public attitudes.2.(e) Yes.(f) To date of the $260,890 paid for the completed Phases I and II of the project, the cost to the Commonwealth was $185,667.50.(g) The percentage of the cost to the Commonwealth for Phases I and II was 71 per cent with the remaining 29 per cent being contributed by the participating State and Territory Governments. These State and Territory Governments have not agreed to be identified so it is not possible to provide information about each of their contributions.8737(Question No. 582)5828737Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:(1) What applications have been received from each federal electoral division with respect to the capital upgrading grants for outside school hours care services since they were announced in the 1997-98 Budget. (2) Which applications referred to in part (1) were successful and what sum was granted in each case.8737Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) and (2) As at 18 May 1999, 544 applications, totalling $3,409,595 have been approved. 52 applications have been rejected outright and three services withdrew their applications.A further 512 applications are currently being processed at an estimated total of $3 million.Details of approved applications and approved grant amounts by federal electoral divisions have been forwarded to the honourable member.8737(Question No. 600)6008737McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 11 May 1999:How many Job Network sites (a) existed immediately after the Government introduced its new Jobs Network program and (b) providing services have been (i) closed and (ii) opened since the program began operating.8737Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) Job Network Members were initially contracted to provide service from 1481 sites around Australia. On 1 May 1998 more than 1400 sites opened for business through Job Network with a number opening over the next few working days. However, DEETYA, the Department then responsible for Job Network, did not have the capacity to physically check the operational status of every Job Network site on 1 May 1998 and therefore does not have a complete list of every locality or any services or activities that were operational on that day. It would require excessive resources to now compile such a list and I do not see a need to direct scarce resources to such a task.(b) As at 5 July 1999(i) DEWRSB has approved 75 Job Network sites for closure since the commencement of the market. This figure includes sites that have become outreach services, ie offering part-time services from a location linked to a full-time parent site, and sites that opened after the commencement of the market and later closed.(ii) 28. This figure includes those locations originally providing services on an outreach basis that have since become full-time sites. 8738(Question No. 603)6038738McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 12 May 1999:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 369 (Hansard , 11 May 1999, page 4178), does he assert that each organisation who is a member of or affiliated to the small business coalition believes that 50 000 jobs would be created if small businesses were exempt from federal industrial unfair dismissal laws; if not, which organisations make that assertion.(2) What percentage of businesses employing 15 people or fewer are (a) constitutional corporations, (b) respondents to a federal industrial award or (c) located in Victoria or a Territory.8738Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) My comments in relation to the Small Business Coalition (SBC) referred to the SBC's consistent support for the Government's policy on exempting small business from the Federal unfair dismissal laws.I pointed out that COSBOA is a member of the SBC, but I did not indicate what views are held by other members about the effect of the exemption. I have nothing further to add to my previous answer.(2) Percentages taken from data generated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the 1996-7 financial year indicate that:(a) approximately 47% of businesses employing between 1 and 15 employees were incorporated;(b) no relevant data is available; and(c) approximately 30% of businesses employing between 1 and 15 employees were located in Victoria or the Territories.8738(Question No. 648)6488738Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Treasurer, 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).8738Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) The NFF is represented on the Commissioner of Taxation's Small Business Consultative forum, and various State based Australian Taxation Office small business consultative fora.(3) No fees or cost re-imbursement are paid to any of these representatives.8738(Question No. 649)6498738Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, 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 the total sum 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).8738Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) A grant to Farmwide Pty Ltd was made under the former Government's Regional Development Program for the Online Services Project. An Agreement was signed in February 1996.(a) (i) The grant was for the conduct of specific project work and payments were based on the achievement of milestones.(ii) The purpose of the project was to identify the information and other service needs and the technological requirements of farm enterprises nationwide in accessing on-line information and other services. The project included trials and pilot program work.(b) The total sum provided for under the Agreement was $1,542,220. A partial payment of $634,220 was made on signing the February 1996 Agreement and payments totalling $908,000 have been made since April 1996.(2) (a) Mr Donald McGauchie has not been appointed to any portfolio boards, committees or other bodies since 2 March 1996.(b) Dr Wendy Craik has been appointed to the Regional Australia Summit Reference Group.(c) The NFF has been represented on the Supermarket to Asia Transport and Logistics Working Group by, in turn, Mr Robert Skeffington, Mr James Ferguson and Mr Richard Calver.Mr Mark Needham was employed by the Australian Cane Growers' Council (ACGC) at the time of his appointment as a member of the Rural Communities Program Advisory Committee on 28 January 1998. Mr Needham resigned from the ACGC in May 1998.(3) (a) The Commonwealth has paid $713 in sitting fees to Mr Needham. The other appointments referred to in part (2) have not received sitting fees.(b) Nil.(c) The Commonwealth has paid $65 in travel costs to Mr Needham. The other appointments referred to in part (2) have not received payments for travel costs.(d) Nil.8739(Question No. 667)6678739Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer, 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). 8739Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:See my answer to Question No. 648.8739(Question No. 674)6748739Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, 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).8739Hockey, Joe, MPMr HockeyDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:See the answer to Question No. 648.8739(Question No. 707)7078739Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June 1999:Has a Department or Agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility entered a contract with or made a grant or payment to an organisation registered under subparagraph (a) l88 (1) (a) or (b) 188 (1) (b) of the Workplace Relations Act 996; if so, in each case, (i) which organisation, (ii) what sum was received and (iii) in what State or Territory is the organisation located.8739Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:In responding to the question: the period involved is taken to be from 31 December 1996, being the date of effect of the relevant criteria for registration of organisations under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, to 7 June 1999; and the relevant organisations are taken to be those registered as at 7 June 1999. Departmental records do not show any contracts or grants involving any of the entities registered under sub paragraphs 188(1)(a) or 188(1)(b) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, during the period 31 December 1996 to 7 June 1999. Departmental records do show that the following two organisations did receive payments from the Department during the period concerned, as follows:(i) The Community and Public Sector Union. (ii) 24 separate payments with a total value of $17,243.17.(iii) New South Wales; and(i) The Australian Hotels Association.(ii) Two payments with a total value of $3,300.(iii) Australian Capital Territory.8740(Question No. 709)7098740Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June 1999:Has a Department or agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility entered a contract with or made a grant or payment to an organisation registered under subparagraph (a) 188(1)(a) or (b) 188(1)(b) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996; if so, in each case, (i) which organisation, (ii) what sum was received and (iii) in what State or Territory is the organisation located.8740Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Nil.In responding to the question:. The period involved is taken to be from 31 December 1996, being the date of effect of the relevant criteria for registration of organisations under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, to 7 June 1999; and. The relevant organisations are taken to be those registered as at 7 June 1999.8740(Question No. 713)7138740Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Sport and Tourism, upon notice, on 7 June 1999:Has a Department or agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility entered a contract with or made a grant or payment to an organisation registered under subparagraph (a) 188(1)(a) or (b) 188(1)(b) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996; if so, in each case, (i) which organisation, (ii) what sum was received and (iii) in what State or Territory is the organisation located.8740Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss Jackie KellyGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The response to this question is incorporated in the response to Question No. 704.8740(Question No. 734)7348740Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small business, upon notice, on 21 June 1999:Further to the answer to question No. 24 (Hansard , 9 February 1999, page 2264) in which he referred to positive discrimination measures within the internal management practices of his Department, for those measures which are available to and impact on the general public (a) what measures has the Department implemented which could be categorised as positive discrimination, that is, providing preference to certain citizens on the basis of their gender, sexuality, age, race, place of birth or some other personal characteristic, and (b) what are the details and funding commitments in each case.8740Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has implemented a number of measures which could be categorised as positive discrimination, in the sense of active encouragement of desirable policy outcomes.These measures are encompassed in the department's Workplace Diversity Strategy. In very broad terms the strategy seeks to build an inclusive environment in which the diverse skills, cultural perspectives and backgrounds of departmental staff are valued. The Strategy also emphasises employment equity, which, among other things, ensures that employment decisions are based on merit. The Strategy has been developed in accordance with Government policy and the requirement of the Public Service Act.A key initiative under the Workplace Diversity Strategy is the development and implementation of an Indigenous Australian Recruitment and Career Development Strategy for the department (the Strategy was launched in June 1999). This strategy aims to increase the number of Indigenous Australian staff in the department through recruitment and retention strategies and to improve the representation of Indigenous Australian staff in professional, technical and management positions.Specific initiatives implemented in accordance with this Strategy include: . employing Indigenous Australian cadets whereby the department contributes to the cost of university study and provides vacation work placements for cadets; and. offering study programs specifically targeted at Indigenous Australian staff, ie the Aboriginal Undergraduate Study Awards (AUSA) and the Aboriginal Staff Sponsorship Program (ASSP).The department also participates in Australian Public Service (APS) development programs targeted at women. For instance, the department sponsors staff on the Senior Women in Management program (SWIM). SWIM is aimed at women senior officers in the department and offers placements in other agencies and organisations plus course work. In addition, the department will next year encourage staff to participate in Springboard, a development program aimed at women in APS 1-4 classifications.As mentioned in response to the honourable member's previous question, the other area of positive discrimination occurs in relation to Recruitment Services Australia (RSA). The department has responsibility for RSA which administers the Indigenous Australian test for recruitment to designated positions and the Graduate Administrative Assistant Program for the APS, which has special eligibility criteria for Indigenous Australian applicants.(b) Currently the department sponsors two Indigenous Australian cadets and four AUSA recipients. For the next calendar year the department intends engaging an additional eight cadets and offering one place under the ASSP. The combined total commitment for 1999-2000 is $409,000.Funding for the SWIM program for 1999-2000 (one participant for the remainder of 1999 and two in 2000) is $165,000. Costs associated with participation in the Springboard program will be dependent on number of participants sponsored by the department.Funding for the Indigenous Australian recruitment test is on a fee for service basis. Departments using the services of the RSA are charged a fee of $325 per placed applicant. The department is provided with a loan from the Department of Finance and Administration, which is now approximately $890,000, to administer the centralised recruitment program, which includes the Indigenous Australian recruitment program. 8741(Question No. 735)7358741Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 21 June 1999:Further to the answer to question No. 25 (Hansard , 25 March 1999, page 2125) in which the Minister referred to positive discrimination measures within the internal management practices of the Minister's Department, for those measures which are available to and impact on the general public (a) what measures has the Department implemented which could be categorised as positive discrimination, that is, providing preference to certain citizens on the basis of their gender, sexuality, age, race, place of birth or some other personal characteristic, and (b) what are the details and funding commitment.s in each case.8741Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable Members question:The Family and Community Services portfolio has a number of income support programs. Some of these programs have eligibility requirements that include age or gender qualifications. In addition, within the range of programs funded by the Department of Family and Community Services, some funding is provided for groups that serve a specific section of the community. However, it is not considered that these programs represent positive discrimination in the sense implied in the honourable member's question.8741(Question No. 744)7448741Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Treasurer upon notice, on 21 June 1999:Does the Minister's Department operate a library or libraries; if so, (a) what sum was spent on purchasing new books for departmental libraries in (i) 1996-97, (ii) 1997-98 and (iii) 1998-99 and (b) will the Minister provide a list of the title and author of each book purchased by departmental libraries in 1998-99.8741Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes.(a) 1996—97 $9,375.431997—98 $21,370.231998—99 $26,998.77(b) List detailing the author and title of each book purchased by the Treasury Library in the period 1998-99 is as follows: AUTHORTITLEAdams, Robert, 1956-Hunting the woolly mammoth how to beat economic rationalism and make society really work.Adams, Scott, 1957-Dogbert's top secret management handbook. Agbinya, Johnson IhyehInternet technology in a nutshell. Council of Australia and New Zealand.Agriculture and Resource Management Sustainable agriculture assessing Australia's recent performance : a report to SCARM of the National Collaborative Project on Indicators for Sustainable AgricultureAhern, CatherineLiblaf two : cartoons for librariesAllen Consulting Group.Trends in the Australian legal system : avoiding a more litigious society.American Library Association Anglo-American cataloguing rules. Amir, EliFirm valuation with deferred taxes.Anderson, Kristin.Delivering knock your socks off service. Anderson, KymVietnam's transforming economy and WTO accession : implications for agriculture and rural development. Aoki, Masanao.New approaches to macroeconomic modeling : evolutionary stochastic dynamics, multiple equilibria, and externalities as field effects. Archibugi, Daniele.Technology, globalisation and economic performance. Archibugi, Daniele.Trade, growth, and technical change.Atje, Raymond.The market structure benefits of trade and investment liberalization.Australia. Copyright Act 1968Butterworths intellectual property collection Australia. Market Development Task ForceTrading with East Asia in difficult times : Australia rises to the challenge.Australian Bureau of Agricultural and ResourceEmissions trading : proceedings of the International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading : Sydney, 21-22 May 1998.Australian Bureau of Statistics.Manufacturing, Australia. Australian Chamber of Commerce and IndustryThe impact of payroll taxation and the benefits of its abolition.Australian Council of Social Service. Agenda for tax reform : background to the ACOSS proposals.Australian Council on the Ageing. Valuing older Australians : an election policy guide for all candidates.Australian Library and Information Association.Linking the industry competency standards to your organisation : workshop booklet.Australian National Training Authority.Frontline focus : implementing the frontline management initiative.Australian Society of Certified PractisingManaging your treasury : is outsourcing an alternative?Australian Surveying and Land Information Group.The Ausmap atlas of Australia.Axelrod, Alan, 1952- 201 ways to deal with difficult people.Bamber, Andrew Accommodation contracts for the elderly : recent seminar papers.Bannock, Graham,The Economist Books international dictionary of finance. Bannock, Graham, 1932-The Penguin dictionary of economics Bannock, Graham, 1932-The Penguin international dictionary of finance Barkoczy, StephenAustralian tax casebook Barkoczy, Stephen Core tax legislation & study guide 1999Barnes, Michelle L.Nonlinear threshold relationships between inflation and nominal returns: a time series approach to 39 different countriesBarnes, Michelle L. On the nature of dependence in the volatility of US stock returns Barry, Michael, 1969- The fallacy of flexibility : workplace change in the Queensland open-cut coal industryBarzel, YoramEconomic analysis of property rightsBazley, M. E. (Michael E.)Contemporary accounting : a conceptual approachBeaman, IanFinancial modellingBeesley, M. E.Privatization, regulation and deregulationBemelmans-Videc, Marie-LouiseCarrots, sticks and sermons : policy instruments and their evaluationBenninga, Simon.Financial modelingBerger, NicholasTrends in the world wine market, 1961 to 1996 : a statistical compendiumBergsten, C. Fred, 1941-Competitive liberalization and global free trade : a vision for the early 21st centuryBergsten, C. Fred, 1941- Open regionalism Berveling, Steven Pollution law New South Wales : how new laws make the polluter pay.Billsberry, JonThe effective manager : perspectives and illustrationsBinh Tran-Nam, 1954- Tax reform and the GST : an international perspective Binkowski, G. A. (Gerwazy Adam)The A-Z of government : a guide for Australian business on government policies and assistance to business and others Blackshield, A.R. (Anthony Roland),1937- Australian constitutional law and theory : commentary and materials Blainey, Geoffrey, 1930-A history of the AMP 1848-1998Blake, Philip.Wise web weaving : guidelines or web site developmentBlanchard, Kenneth H. The one minute manager Blejer, Mario I.Financial factors in economic stabilization and growth Bodger, Amanda K.Trade practices : David—v—Goliath casesBolton, Robert.People styles at work : making bad relationships good and good relationships better Bonk, Mary Rose.International acronyms, initialisms & abbreviations dictionary : a guide to over 169,000 international acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, alphabetic symbols, contractions, and similar condensed appellations in all fields Bora, Bijit K.Human capital, foreign ownership and wages Borgmann, Fred F. J. 1960-Canadian insurance taxation, Borowski, Allan.Ageing and social policy in Australia Boston, Jonathan, 1957-Redesigning the welfare state in New Zealand : problems, polices and prospects Bosworth, Barry, 1942-Aging societies : the global dimension Boyd, Colin.Information security and privacy : Third Australasian Conference, ACISP `98, Brisbane, Australia, July 13-15, 1998 : proceedings Boynton, Jim.3rd annual legal issues in superannuation : papers delivered at a BLEC seminar in October 1998 Bradley, Stephen P., 1941-Sense & respond : capturing value in the network era Brailsford, Tim.Investments : concepts and applications in Australia Brain, Peter J.Beyond meltdown : the global battle for sustained growth Bramley, Peter, 1934- Evaluating trainingBreen, Peter (Peter J.)Advance Australia fair : reforming the legal system with a rights and responsibilities code Brennan, Frank, 1954-Legislating liberty : a bill of rights for Australia? : a provocative and timely proposal to balance the public good with individual freedom Bridgman, Peter, 1956- Australian policy handbook Briers, MichaelAustralian financial markets review 1998 : towards a regional financial centre Brittain, J. Michael (John Michael)Information professionals in Australia : expanding horizonsBrittain, J. Michael (John Michael)Introduction to information management Brooks, Robert D.Macroeconomics in the open economyBrownlee, Patrick.Migration issues in the Asia Pacific Bruce, Alex , 1968-Trade practices lawBrunner, Karl, 1916- Money and the economy issues in monetary analysis Bryan, DickThe global economy in Australia : global integration and national economic policyBurki, Shahid JavedBeyond the Washington consensus : institutions matter Burnett, Robin, 1934-The law of international business transactionsBurns, Robert, 1939- Doing business in Asia : a cultural perspective Burnside, JulianInformation technology : Internet—legal issues Burton, John W. (John Wear), 1915-Conflict resolution : its language and processes Business Law Education Centre (Australia)Cyber law : papers delivered at a BLEC seminar in April 1998Butler, E. SonnyUsing Microsoft Access : a how-to-do-it manual for librarians Butterworths (Firm)Australian corporations legislation.Buzo, Adrian.The guerilla dynasty : politics and leadership in North Korea CHLA/ABSC Benchmarking Task ForceBenchmarking tool kit Campbell, Nancy, 1949-Writing effective policies and procedures : a step-by-step resource for clear communicationCapron, H. L.Computers : tools for an information age Carew, Edna, 1949-Edna Carew's guide to financial survival : how to hang on to your money in uncertain timesCarew, Edna, 1949-Fast money 4 : the bestselling guide to Australia's financial markets Carlopio, James R.Implementation : making workplace innovation and technical change happenCarman, Michael, 1966-Out of the rut : making labor a genuine alternative Carson, EdgarUnemployment : economic promise and political will Cashmere, Maurice.Tax and corporate financing into the new millennium Cassidy, JulieConcise corporations law Castles, Stephen, 1944-Immigration and Australia : myths and realities Catapult, Inc.Microsoft Outlook 98 step by stepCathro, Grant, 1958- The Australian sharemarket explained simply Caves, Richard E. (Richard Earl), 1931-World trade and payments : an introduction Centre for Australian Regional Enterprise Innovations in economicdevelopment roundtable Chai, C. H.China : transition to a market economy Chang, Shu-kuang, 1939-Measuring the costs of protection in China Chapman, Richard A. (Richard Arnold), 1937-The Treasury and public policy Charles, Bob, 1936-Internet commerce : to buy or not to buy? Charles, C. Leslie.The instant trainer : quick tips on how to teach others what you know Church, TimProperty trusts : papers delivered at a BLEC seminar in April 1998 Cielens, MartyThe business of communicatingClark, David (David L.)Student economics briefs, 1999Clark, John O. E. (John Owen Edward), 1937- Dictionary of banking & finance termsClark, John O. E. (John Owen Edward), 1937-Dictionary of insurance & finance termsClarke, A. L. (Allan Lawrence)Sustainable crop production in the sub-tropics : an Australian perspective Clarke, Philip H.Competition law and policy : cases and materials Clinton, Michael, 1945- Management in the Australian health care industry Coburn, Niall F.Insolvent trading : a practical guideColebatch, H. K. (Hal K.), 1944- Policy Coleman, CynthiaIncome tax analysis : cases, questions and commercial applications Collier, Berna.Corporatisation and privatisation in Australia : a collection of papers examining legal, economic and policy issues Colvin, John H. C. (John Hugh Clifford), 1950-The workplace relations handbook : a guide to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)Committee for Economic Development of Australia.Economic and political overview : background paper Common, Michael S. (Michael Stuart)Environmental and resource economics : an introduction Compton, Tony, 1951- Shares, derivatives and taxation Considine, Mark, 1953-Managerialism : the greatdebateCoombes, DavidCGT demystified Cooper, Graeme S.Cooper, Krever & Vann's income taxation : commentary & materials Cooper, Jeremy, 1950-Joint ventures : 1998 seminar papers Coper, Michael.Power, parliament and the people Corbett, D. C. (David Charles), 1925-Reforming the public sector :problems and solutions Corcoran, Robert, 1923-The Collins Australiandictionary of political termsCostanza, Robert.An introduction to ecological economicsCraig, John ClarkMicrosoft Visual Basic 6.0 developer's workshop Crawford, Walt.Future libraries : dreams, madness & reality Creedy, John, 1949-Measuring welfare changes and tax burdens Crosbie, DavidAlcohol, taxation reform and public health in Australia : a joint ADCA/NCRPDA discussion paperDaly, M. T. (Maurice T.), 1939-Reconstructing Asia : the economic miracle that never was, the future that is Davis, Bruce S.How to build riches Davis, Frank E.Productivity improvement through best practice : workplace reform; quality management; problem solving; absentee control, and composite Q.A., OHS&R, & environmental protection model documentsDayal, Surendra, 1970-LDL online 1998 : computer assisted legal research De Bono, Edward, 1933-Why I want to be King of Australia : lateral suggestions for a newmillennium De Lange, Paul Company accounting & financial statements : with advanced applications Debelle, Guy Unemployment and the Australian labour market : proceedings of a conference held at the H.C. Coombs Centre for Financial Studies, Kirribilli on 9-10 June 1998 Deegan, Craig Michael, 1960-Australian financial accounting Delhaise, Philippe, 1948-Asia in crisis : the implosion of the banking and finance systems Denison, Tom.Electronic sources of information for business in Australia and New Zealand Diaz, Karen R. Reference sources on the Internet : off the shelf and onto the Web Disney, Julian.Restoring revenue : issues and options Disney, Julian.Superannuation, savings andtaxation Dixit, Avinash K.Optimization in economic theory Dobson, Wendy. Financial services liberalization in the WTO Domberger, Simon The contracting organization : a strategic guide to outsourcing Donaldson, Lex.Performance-driven organizational change : the organizational portfolio Donnelly, Austin. Do it yourself superannuationDrucker, Peter F. (Peter Ferdinand), 1909-Drucker on Asia : a dialogue between Peter Drucker and Isao Nakauchi Drucker, Peter F. (Peter Ferdinand), 1909- Management : tasks, responsibilities, practicesDrysdale, PeterEurope, East Asia and APEC : a shared global agenda?DuBrin, Andrew J.10 minute guide to Effective leadership Dunphy, Dexter C. (Dexter Colboyd), 1934- The sustainable corporation : organisational renewal in Australia Dwyer, JudithCommunication in business : strategies and skills Dwyer, Terry The taxation of company andbusiness income Eckersley, Richard Measuring progress : is life getting better? Edwards, Robin, 1945- Banking transactions law Ekelund, Robert B. (Robert Burton), 1940- A history of economic theoryand method Emmerton, Kaye Tax catch-ups Evans, Chris, (Chris C.), 1952-Capital gains tax : planning for the twenty first century : 31 July 1997, Sheraton on the Park, Sydney Evans, Richard, 1968- Lawful expression : a guide toimproved writing skills for lawyers and other professionals Evans, Tim Sams teach yourself HTML 4.0 in 10 minutes Fenna, Alan, 1958-Introduction to Australian public policy Ferrier, Fran Different drums, one beat? : economic and social goals ineducation and training Firth, Stewart, 1944- Australia in internationalpolitics : an introduction to Australian foreign policy Fisher, Roger, 1922- Getting ready to negotiate : the getting to yes workbook Fisher, Simon, 1962- Export best practice : commercial and legal aspects FitzGerald, Stephen, 1938-Should Australia have an EastAsia doctrine FitzSimons, Peter.Beazley : a biography Fitzgerald, Paul.The Sydney airport fiasco : the politics of an environmental nightmare Fletcher, Christine, 1944-The implications of a goodsand services tax (GST) for Northern Australia Ford, Guy, 1961- Readings in financialinstitution management : modern techniques for a global industry Ford, H. A. J. (Harold Arthur John) 1920-Ford's principles of corporations law Forrester, Geoff Post-Soeharto Indonesia : renewal or chaos? Forster, Gavan J. Managing people : workplace practice Frank, Andre Gunder, 1929-ReOrient : global economy inthe Asian Age Frankel, Jeffrey A.APEC and regional tradingarrangements in the Pacific Fraser, IanEconomics for business Freedman, CraigJapanese economic policy reconsidered French, Nigel.PageMaker 6.5 for Windows 95 bible Fritz, Peter, 1943- Beyond yes : negotiating & networking : the twin elements for improved people performance Funnell, Warwick N. Public sector accounting and accountability in Australia Garran, Robert, 1957- Tigers tamed : the end of the Asian miracleGarton, Karen.Design and layout with PageMaker 6.5Gates, Bill, 1956- Business @ the speed of thought : using a digital nervous systemGates, Stephen J., 1946-Tax aspects of corporate restructuringGillies, Peter, 1950- Business law Gitman, Lawrence J. (Lawrence Jeffrey), 1946-Principles of managerial financeGiven, Jock, 1960-The death of broadcasting : media's digital Go, Frank M.Tourism and economic development in Asia and Australasia Gold, LauraMaery.The complete idiot's guide toMicrosoft Excel 97 Goldberger, Arthur S (Arthur Stanley), 1930-Introductory econometrics.Golden, John, 1950-Contracts of employment : agood management guide Golden, John, 1950- Winning at work : negotiatingfor workplace success Goldstein, Morris, 1944-The Asian financial crisis : causes, cures, and systemic implications Golis, Christopher C. Enterprise and venture capital: a business builders' and investors' handbook Goncalves, MarcusFirewalls complete Goode, R. M. (Royston Miles)Principles of corporateinsolvency law Goode, WalterDictionary of trade policy terms Gough, Leo.Asia meltdown : the end of the miracle? Gravelle, Jane G.The economic effects of taxing capital income Gray, John, 1948-False dawn : the delusions ofglobal capitalism Greenaway, Jon, 1968- It's never too early : asuperannuation guide for the under thirties Greenbaum, Abe I.Tax administration : facingthe challenges of the future Griffiths, David Understanding data : principles & practice of statistics Guillemin, Marilys A Woman's work is never done : the impact of shifting care out of hospitals Gujarati, Damodar N. Basic econometrics Gunningham, Neil, 1950-Smart regulation : designing environmental policyGwartney, James D. (James David), 1940-Microeconomics : private and public choiceHabraken, Joseph W., 1954-The complete idiot's guide to Microsoft Access 97 Halevi, Joseph Restoring demand in the worldeconomy : trade, finance, and technology Hamermesh, Daniel S. Labor demandHamilton, Roger, 1948-Guidebook to Australian international taxation Hancock, Linda Health policy in the marketstate Hanks, Peter, 1941-Australian constitutional law: materials and commentary Hanley, Nick.Environmental economics in theory and practice Hannan, Kate Industrial change in China : economic restructuring and conflicting interests Harman, David. Asia initiatives directory : a comprehensive guide to Australian government, university & private sector Asia programs and initiatives Hart-Davis, Guy Word 97 macro & VBA handbook Hartcher, Peter. The Ministry : how Japan's most powerful institution endangers world markets Hartmann, Jessica. Determinants of the price premium for Australian salmon exports to Japan : an ABARE submission to the Productivity Commission study on Australian Atlantic SalmonHarvey, A. C. (Andrew C.)The econometric analysis of time series Hasluck, Paul, Sir, 1905-1993. The chance of politics Hawke, AnneEnterprise bargaining in the coal industry: implications for work practices Hawke, AnneImpact of enterprise agreements : evidence from the AWIRS Hazledine, Tim Taking New Zealand seriously : the economics of decency Healy, Patrick L., 1945- Project management : getting the job done on time and in budget Henning, C. Randall The Exchange Stabilization Fund : slush money or war chest? Henninger, Maureen, 1940- Don't just surf : effective research strategies for the netHey-Cunningham, David.Financial statements demystified Hilmer, Frederick G. (Frederick George), 1945-Strictly boardroom : improving governance to enhance company performance Hochheiser, Robert M., 1936- Throw away your resume Horrigan, Bryan.Government law and policy : commercial aspects Howard, Steven.Corporate image management : a marketing discipline for the 21st Century Huang, Cliff J., 1938-Mathematics and Mathematica for economists Hull, John, 1946-. Options, futures, and otherderivatives Humphrey, James H. (James Harry), 1911- Job stress Hunt, V. Daniel.Process mapping : how to reengineer your business process International Bureau of Fiscal DocumentationThe international taxation ofelectronic commerce : Amsterdam, 3 October 1997 Irons, KenThe world of superservice : creating profit through a passion for customer service Irving, HelenTo constitute a nation : a cultural history of Australia's Constitution Isard, Peter Exchange rate assessment : extensions of the macroeconomic balance approachJackson, Alun C. Managing to survive : managerial practice in not-for-profit organisations Jacobs, J. Bruce Democratisation in Taiwan Jaensch, Dean, 1936- A plague on both your houses : minor parties in Australia /Jakobi, Hans, 1953-How to be rich & happy on your income Johnston, Robert B.Trading systems and electronic commerce Jones, Barry, 1932-Sleepers, wake! : technology & the future of workJones, Ross, 1951- Developments in the cinema distribution and exhibition industry : report to the Australian Competition and Consumer CommissionJosling, Timothy E. (Timothy Edward)Agricultural trade policy : completing the reform Jungwirth, Gary New visions for governmentJuttner, D. J. (D. Johannes) Financial markets, money and risk Juttner, D. J. (D. Johannes)International finance and global investments Kaplan, Robert S.The balanced scorecard : translating strategy into action Karliner, Joshua.The corporate planet : ecology and politics in the age of globalization Kates, Steven, 1948- Say's Law and the Keynesianrevolution : how macroeconomic theory lost its way Katz, Richard, 1951- Japan, the system that soured: the rise and fall of the Japanese economic miracle Keats, J. BrennanTrust accounting for practitioners : a practical approach legal Keay, Andrew R.Insolvency : personal andcorporate law and practice Kelly, Paul, 1947- Future tense : Australia beyond election 1998 Kennedy, Angus J.The Internet & World Wide Web : the Rough guide Kennedy, Angus J.The Internet : the rough guideKenworthy, J. R. (Jeffrey R.), 1955-Indicators of transport efficiency in 37 global cities: a report for the World Bank Keuning, D. (Doede)Management : a contemporary approach Keynes, John Maynard, 1883-1946. The collected writings of John Maynard Keynes. Kingsbury, DamienThe politics of Indonesia Kinsella-Taylor, LeanneProfiting from maturity : the social and economic costs of mature age unemploymentKirchner, Stephen, 1968-Reforming central banking Klein, Michael W.Mathematical methods for economics Knox, David M. Mathematics of finance Kramar, RobinAustralian human resources management : current trends in management practice Kroehnert, Gary. Basic training for trainers : a handbook for new trainers Ladd, EricUsing HTML 4, XML, and Java1.2 Lademann, Astrid.Introduction to PageMaker 6.5 Latimer, Paul, 1947- Business law materials Law Society of Western Australia. The Law Society of Western Australia presents a seminar entitled Damages for commercial losses : Wednesday, 16 September 1998, WA Club, 101 St George's Terrace, Perth.Law Society of Western Australia.The Law Society of Western Australia presents a seminar entitled Update on securities in practice : Thursday, 30 July, 1998, The Hotel Ibis, Perth. Laws, Eric, 1945-Embracing and managing changein tourism : international case studies Lee, Jeremy, 1931- Australia 2000 : "what will we tell our children?" Leebaert, DerekThe future of the electronic marketplace Legal and Accounting Management SeminarsFranchising in Australia : the Pty Ltd. new code of conduct Lehmann, Geoffrey, 1940- Taxation law in Australia Leo, K. J. (Ken J.), 1948-Company accounting inAustralia Leo, K. J. (Ken J.), 1948- Financial accounting issues Leonard, Peter G.Internet law anthology Lewis, Geoffrey, 1947-Australian and New Zealandstrategic management : concepts, context and cases Limerick, D. C. (David C.)Managing the new organisation : collaboration and sustainability in the postcorporate world Lindgren, Carl-Johan Bank soundness and macroeconomic policy Lipton, P. (Phillip) Understanding company law Litan, Robert E., 1950-American finance for the 21st centuryLively, Lynn. Managing information overload Lock, Kevin. Salary packaging 1998 : papers delivered at a BLEC Seminar in June 1998Lonergan, Wayne. The valuation of businesses, shares and other equity Lowe, Doug More Word 97 for Windows for dummies Lowe, Philip W. Monetary policy and inflationtargeting : proceedings of a conference held at the H.C. Coombs Centre for Financial Studies, Kirribilli on 21/22 July 1997 MacIntyre, Amrit. Handy GST guideMacfarlane, I. J. (Ian J.).The Deregulation of financial intermediaries : proceedings of a conference held at the H.C. Coombs Centre for Financial Studies, Kirribilli on 20/21 June 1991 Macken, J. J. (James Joseph), 1927-Macken, McCarry and Sappideen's the law of employment Maddox, Graham Australian democracy in theoryand practice Malouf, DougPower up your people skills : communicating in the new millennium Mankiw, N. Gregory Macroeconomics Mann, Richard Economic crisis in Indonesia : the full story Manning, Chris Indonesian labour in transition : an East Asian success story? Manser, Martin H.Chambers English thesaurus Mant, AlistairIntelligent leadership Marsh, Ian W.Competitiveness indicators : atheoretical and empirical assessment Martin, John F. (John Francis)Reorienting a nation : consultants and Australianpublic policy Maskus, Keith E. (Keith Eugene)Strengthening intellectual property rights in Asia : implications for Australia Mathews, Race, 1935- Jobs of our own : building astakeholder society : alternatives to the market and the stateMay, R. J. (Ronald James), 1939- Natural partners : North Australia-Philippines relations Mayhew, Claire.Outsourcing and occupational health and safety : a comparative study of factory-based and outworkers in the Australian TCF industry McClure, Margaret. A civilised community : ahistory of social security inNew Zealand, 1898-1998 McCullough, Colleen, 1937-Roden Cutler, V.C. : the biography McDougall, Derek J., 1945- Australian foreign relations : contemporary perspectives McFadyen, Jacqueline U.S.-Japan civil aviation : prospects for progress McFedries, PaulThe complete idiot's guide toWindows 98 McGuire, Paul (Paul B.), 1962-Getting the framework right : policy and regulation forMicrofinance in Asia McKenna, Richard J.New management McLean, Ian B.How to be . . . positively optimistic McLeod, Graham. Managing information technology projects McLeod, Ross H.East Asia in crisis : from being a miracle to needing one? McQueen, Humphrey, 1942- Temper democratic Merriam-Webster, Inc. Webster's dictionary of synonyms and antonyms Millar, Jane, 1953-. Integrated family benefits inAustralia and options for theUK tax return system Monash University. Banking Law Centre.Australian banking and bankinglaw bibliography 1989-1997 Mooney, Gavin H.Economics and Australian health policy Moosa, Imad A. International finance : an analytical approach Moran, Theodore H. Foreign direct investment and development : the new policyagenda for developingcountries and economies inTransition Morris, Richard, 1944-Workplace reform andenterprise bargaining :issues, cases and trends Mortimer, Mary, 1944-LibrarySpeak : a glossary of terms in librarianship andinformation management Mulder, John.The negotiator's handbook Mulligan, David Robert.Environmental management inthe Australian minerals andenergy industries : principlesand practices Mungavin, Tony E. Government taxation, ownership and financing policies forachieving full employmentMungavin, Tony E.Taxation and financial policies for assisting industry and reducing unemployment Murphy, R. Taggart.The real price of Japanese money Nadler, DavidChampions of change : how CEOs and their companies are mastering the skills of radical change Nagarajan, VijayaTrade practices law Napoli, Joan.Understanding equal employment opportunity : a guide for the workplace Neal, Cathy M. Consumer behaviour : implications for marketing strategy Neef, Dale, 1959-The knowledge economy Newman, Peter K., 1928-The new Palgrave dictionary ofeconomics and the law.Noland, Marcus, 1959-Chasing phantoms : thepolitical economy of USTR Noland, Marcus, 1959- China and the international economic system Noland, Marcus, 1959-German lessons for Korea : the economics of unificationNoland, Marcus, 1959-Global economic effects of the Asian currency devaluations Noland, Marcus, 1959-Some unpleasant arithmetic concerning unification Norris, Keith, 1940-The economics of Australianlabour markets O'Connor, Tony (Anthony Gerard), 1962-Understanding Australia's constitution : an easy to read guide Oldfield, Audrey, 1925-The great republic of the southern seas : republicans in nineteenth-century Australia Ong, Denis S. K.Trusts law in Australia Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.The transition from work to retirement Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD health data 98comparative analysis of 29countries Osmond, RobertTrends and cycles in the Australian wine industry, 1850-2000 Owen, John M.Program evaluation : forms and approaches Oxland, John. Federal constitutional law P=Desktop Marketing SystemsCD phone directory.Painter, Martin, 1947- Collaborative federalism : economic reform in Australia in the 1990s Palley, Thomas I., 1956-PostKeynesian economics : debt, distribution and the macro economy Panagiotopoulos, ManuelJapanese and Australian trade, 1988-1997 /Pardo, William J.XML in action Parry, Ken W.Human resource management : contemporary challenges and future directions Parsons, Alfred R. (Alfred Roy), 1925-South East Asian days Pattinson, Bill.Business exits Australia, 1994-95 and 1995-96 Paul, Satya.Trade and growth : new theory and the Australian experiencePearce, D. C. (Dennis Charles).Delegated legislation in AustraliaPearson, Linda. Administrative law : setting the pace or being left behind?Pecotich, A. (Anthony), 1937-.Marketing and consumer behavior in East and South-east Asia Peel, Greg, 1962- Derivatives in the stock & money markets : a plain English guide to the mysterious world of the financial markets Peirson, Graham, 1938- Peirson and Bird's businessfinance Peirson, Graham. Financial accounting : anintroduction Pentony, BrendanUnderstanding business law Perkins, J. O. N. (James Oliver Newton), 1924-The Wallis report and the Australian financial system Perry, Guillermo.Financial vulnerability, spillover effects, and contagion : lessons from the Asian crises for Latin America Pestana, Barry Best business letters Phillips, Harry C. J.(Harry Charles John),1943- Representing the people: parliamentary government in Western AustraliaPhillips, Marc.Successful e-commerce : 10 case studies to show small business how to profit form [i.e. from] online commerce Pickford, M. (Michael), 1936-The Structure and dynamics of New Zealand industries Piggott, John, 1947- International trade policy and the Pacific Rim : proceedings of the IEA conference held in Sydney, Australia Porter, Cathy A. Special libraries : a guide for management Powell, Matt Running Microsoft Internet information server Preston, Noel, 1941- Ethics and political practice : perspectives on legislative ethics Prince, Jimmy B.How to make too much money Prince, Robert, 1952- Australian economic statistics: a student guide to recent Australian experience Purchase, Shirley, 1932-The Little book of style Puregger, Marjorie. The Australian guide tochairing meetings Putnis, Peter, 1950- Professional communication : principles and applications Queensland. Government Statistician's OfficeChanging structure of the Queensland labour market 1986-1996.Quiggin, JohnContemporary issues in Australian economics : essays in honour of Professor Percy HarrisQuiggin, John. Taxing times : a guide to Australia's tax debate Rath, Subhrendu. International finance Reinicke, Wolfgang H.Global public policy : governing without government?Renton, N. E. (Nicholas Edwin), 1931-Dictionary of stock exchange and investment terms : an annotated guide for investors at all levels Renton, N. E. (Nicholas Edwin), 1931-Renton's understanding the stock exchange : the essential reference Richards, Robert I.Tax update : NSW young lawyers' CLE : by Young Lawyers for the whole profession Rickett, C. E. F.Corporate personality in the 20th century Rider, Cameron Minimising corporate tax avoidance Riggall, David.The liability of company directors in negligence new directions and thebusiness judgement rules Robbins, Stephen P. (Stephen Paul), 1943-Management Robbins, Stephen P. (Stephen Paul), 1943- Organisational behaviour :leading and managing inAustralia and New ZealandRoberts, Jean (Jean Edna) Competitive tendering : how to write a competitive tender Robertson, A. I. (Alistar I.)Preserving rural Australia : issues and solutions Rolfe-Flett, AnnThe mentoring workbook Ronalds, Chris.Discrimination : law and practice Rose, Dennis J. (Dennis John)Lewis' Australian bankruptcy law Rosen, Daniel H. Behind the open door : foreign enterprises in the Chinese marketplace Rosenoer, Jonathan Cyberlaw : the law of theInternet Roy, Denny, 1960- China's foreign relations Rudd, Chris, 1956-The political economy of New Zealand Rudenno, Victor.The mining valuation handbook Rumble, Tony, 1935- Derivative tax reform : ATAX seminar papers Sampford, C. J. G. (Charles J. G.) Public sector ethics : finding nd implementing values Sarros, James, 1951- Leadership & values : Australian executives and the balance of power, profits and people Saunders, John.Indicators of competency : profiling employees and the workplace Saunders, Peter. Development of indicativebudget standards for AustraliaSchmidtz, David. Social welfare and individualresponsibility Schott, Jeffrey J., 1949-Launching new global tradetalks : an action agendaSchott, Jeffrey J., 1949- Restarting fast track Searle, PeterThe riddle of Malaysian capitalism : rent-seekers or real capitalists?Shapiro, CarlInformation rules : astrategic guide to the network economy Shapiro, Perry. Federal stability, secession and uniform tax sharing : an application of the theory of the core to federalism Sheehan, P. J. (Peter James), 1940-Working for the future : technology and employment in the global knowledge economy Sherman, Tom Executive inquiries in Australia : some proposals for reform Simpson, Alan C. (Alan Campbell), 1943-The constitutional implications of MMP Simpson, John E.Just XML Sinclair, Amanda, 1953-Doing leadership differently : gender, power and sexuality in a changing business culture Singleton, Gwynneth, 1943- Australian political institutions Smith, Barbara, 1944 Super simple superannuation Smith, Jim, 1946-Building cost planning for the design team Snooks, G. D.(Graeme Donald)Longrun dynamics : a general economic and political theorySnower, Dennis J.Unemployment policy : government options for the labour market Spak, Vee Now that your job has gone Spurgeon, P. Cultural crossroads : a collection of papers from the conference `Cultural Crossroads: Ownership, Access, Identity', Sydney , 24-26 November 1997 Standards Association of Australia Strategies for the implementation of a public key authentication network framework (PKAF) in Australia : SAA MP75-1996Stanley, Philip.The millennium bug handbook : how to control your year 2000 problem Staples, Max Studies in Australian ruraleconomic development Steinberg, Marc I. Insider trading and government enforcement Stewart, Thomas A., 1948-Intellectual capital : the newwealth of organizations Stone, Raymond J.Human resource management Strachan, Graham, 1941- Globalisation: demise of the Australian nation Stranks, Robert The impact of liberalisation : communicating with APEC communities : APEC Economic Committee report Studenmund, A. H.Using econometrics : a practical guide Sutherland, Peter (Peter H.) Annotations to the Social Security Act 1991 Sveiby, Karl ErikThe new organizational wealth: managing & measuring knowledge-based assets Switzer, Peter, 1954- Who's afraid of the GST? Szekely, LesHomeowners' guide to tax planning Tan, Teck Meng. Business opportunities inIndonesia Tanner, Lindsay, 1956- Open Australia Tasman Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd.Asia's infrastructure in the crisis : harnessing private Enterprise.Tate, Christopher.Understanding futures tradingin Australia Taylor, Allen G.SQL for dummies Thussu, Daya Kishan.Electronic empires : globalmedia and local resistance Tian, XiaowenDynamics of development in anopening economy : China since 1978 Tipton, Frank B., 1943-The rise of Asia : economics, society and politics in contemporary Asia Tow, William T.Australian-American relations: looking toward the next century Turner, Dennis, 1926-Change power : capabilities that drive corporate renewal Tynan, David, 1958-Successful projects : apractical guide Uhr, John, 1951-Deliberative democracy inAustralia : the changing place of parliament United Nations Conference on Trade and DevelopmentWorld investment report 1998 : trends and determinantsUniversity of Melbourne, Centre for Corporate Law Institutional investors' views on corporate governance Legal findings 1999University of New South Wales.Faculty of Law Stamp duty : keeping a breast of the re-write.Uren, DavidThe impact of liberalisation : communicating with APEC communities: summary report : Canada, New Zealand, Peru, Philippines and Thailand.Valdes Prieto, Salva dorThe economics of pensions : principles, policies, and international experience Vaneveld, Elizabeth Communities at work : lessons from Australia and OECDexperience of employment development initiatives 1980-1994 Vermeesch, R. B. (Robert Bryan)Business law of Australia Verrucci, NadiaAustralian economic policy : selected articles from the Ecodate collectionVon Nessen, Paul.A practical guide to managed investments Wajcman, Judy.Managing like a man : women and men in corporate management Walker, Gordon (Gordon R.)Securities regulation in Australia and New Zealand Walker, Michael, 1942-Gambling government : the economic and social impacts Wallace-Bruce, Nii LanteThe settlement of international disputes : the contribution of Australia and New Zealand Waring, Alan.Managing risk Waters, NigelPrint media use of freedom of information laws in AustraliaWatters, R. F. (Raymond Frederick) Asia-Pacific : new geographies of the Pacific Rim Webb, Wendy.A trainer's guide to the World Wide Web and intranets : using online technology to create powerful, cost-effective learning in your organization Weill, PeterLeveraging the new infrastructure : how market leaders capitalize on information technologyWhitty, Geoff.Devolution and choice in education : the school, the state and the marketWildavsky, Aaron, 1930- Culture and social theoryWilks, Kevin J.How the economy works : a description of the market economy as the process of production and distribution of goods and services through the production, distribution and usage of its own production of surplus valueWilliams, George, 1969-Labour law and the ConstitutionWills, I. R. (Ian R.)Economics and the environment : a signalling and incentives approachWilson, Valerie, 1947-The secret life of money : exposing the private parts of personal money Windschuttle, Keith, 1942-Writing, researching, communicating : communication skills for the information ageWoellner, R. H. (Rob H.)Australian taxation law in 1999 Wooden, MarkThe changing nature of employment arrangements Wooden, Mark The role and significance of individual agreements in Australian industrial relationsWren-Lewis, SimonReal exchange rates for the year 2000Wu, YanruiForeign direct investment and economic growth in ChinaYarbrough, Beth V.The world economy : trade and finance Yergin, Daniel.The commanding heights : the battle between government and the marketplace that is remaking the modern worldYeung, Chris, 1958- Hong Kong China : the red dawnZines, Leslie, 1930-The High Court and the Constitution8751(Question No. 765)7658751Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 June 1999:(1) How many market-testing processes under the Commercial Support Program (a) have been concluded since March 1996 and (b) are planned for 1999-2000.(2) What was the (a) annual value of the contract, (b) identity of the successful tenderer, (c) reduction in the number of uniformed positions and (d) reduction in the number of civilian Department of Defence positions associated with each completed process referred to in part (1).(3) What is the cumulative reduction in (a) uniformed and (b) civilian personnel positions in each State and Territory since March 1996. 8752Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) 25(b) 28(2) (a) and (b)Activity NameContractorAnnual Contract Value $m*Domestic Services RAAF Support Unit WilliamsIn-House Option1.0RAN Armament Depot Somerton Guarding & Other ServicesProbe Australia0.3Stores and Office Requisites (ACT)Pederson Contact1.5Base Support Services 306 Air Base Wing (ABW) PearceSERCO/GM5.4Domestic Services 302 ABW WilliamtownSERCO1.3Specified Weapons Maintenance in WAIn-House Option4.6Defence Establishment Orchard Hills and RAN Armaments Depot Guarding ServicesACS Group1.7Base Administrative Support Company Liverpool—Base SupportKilpatrick Green9.0Navy Port Services/Support CraftDefence Maritime Services32.0Defence Computing BureauIn-House Option24.2Hunter Valley Logistics Battalion—Base Support FunctionsTransfield Pty Ltd7.4Albury/Wodonga Military Area Logistics & Base Support FunctionsTenix19.7Base Support Services RAAF Telecommunications and Support Unit GlenbrookSpotless1.3Richmond Corrosion Control Facility (Round 2)ANZES1.9Base Support Services 302 ABW WilliamtownSERCO/GM1.7Garrison Support—South QueenslandSERCO/GM21.4Garrison Support—North QueenslandSERCO/GM9.4Aircraft Research and Development Unit (SA) Reform Project—Airborne Test and Transport SupportAFTS2.6Garrison Support—South AustraliaTransfield Pty Ltd14.0Garrison Support—NT/KimberleySERCO/GM19.6Garrison Support—Western AustraliaTransfield Pty Ltd18.7Commercial Vehicle Management Program (CVMP)—MelbourneDASFLEET1.9PC9 Integrated Logistic SupportStatus Quo0.0Garrison Support—ACTEurest (Australia) Support Services Pty Ltd20.5Garrison Support—Central SydneySERCO/GM24.5* Annual Contract Value estimated as at time of selection decision.(2) (c) and (d)Activity NameContractorUniform Positions SavedCivilian Positions SavedDomestic Services RAAF Support Unit WilliamsIn-House Option130RAN Armament Depot Somerton Guarding & Other ServicesProbe Australia110Stores and Office Requisites (ACT)Pederson Contact019Base Support Services 306 Air Base Wing (ABW) PearceSERCO/GM9437Domestic Services 302 ABW WilliamtownSERCO921Specified Weapons Maintenance in WAIn-House Option081Defence Establishment Orchard Hills and RAN Armaments Depot Guarding ServicesACS Group110Base Administrative Support Company Liverpool—Base SupportKilpatrick Green4665Navy Port Services/Support CraftDefence Maritime Services15061Defence Computing BureauIn-House Option4107Hunter Valley Logistics Battalion—Base Support FunctionsTransfield Pty Ltd8885Albury/Wodonga Military Area Logistics & Base Support FunctionsTenix191441Activity NameContractorUniform Positions SavedCivilian Positions SavedBase Support Services RAAF Telecommunications and Support Unit GlenbrookSpotless188Richmond Corrosion Control Facility (Round 2)ANZES160Base Support Services 302 ABW WilliamtownSERCO/GM1231Garrison Support—South QueenslandSERCO/GM261276Garrison Support—North QueenslandSERCO/GM6971Aircraft Research and Development Unit (SA) Reform Project—Airborne Test and Transport SupportAFTS260Garrison Support—South AustraliaTransfield Pty Ltd126102Garrison Support—NT/KimberleySERCO/GM108269Garrison Support—Western AustraliaTransfield Pty Ltd259108Commercial Vehicle Management Program (CVMP)—MelbourneDASFLEET410PC9 Integrated Logistic SupportStatus Quo00Garrison Support—ACTEurest (Australia) Support Services Pty Ltd14592 Garrison Support—Central SydneySERCO/GM16217418232058(3) (a) and (b)State or TerritoryUniformedCivilianQueensland330347New South Wales553906Australian Capital Territory145111Victoria32117Tasmania00South Australia152102Western Australia353145Northern Territory108269Not Known *15061Total18232058* The distribution of positions for the Navy Port Services/ Support Craft process is not held.8754(Question No. 768)7688754Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon8K6HunterALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 22 June 1999:(1) Is he able to say what is the exact nature of the covenant placed upon the site of Shepherd's Hill Cottage in Newcastle.(2) Has his attention been drawn to a use or proposed use of the site which may contravene the covenant.8754Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The covenants placed upon the Shepherd's Hill Cottage site are as follows:(a) The Transferee shall not demolish, damage, alter or change the essential historic character of the said land and the improvements thereon or permit same and shall maintain the land and the improvements thereon in good order and condition having regard to their essential historic character;(b) The transferee shall not use or permit to be used the land and any improvements thereon for any purposes other than as an historical and recreational site provided however that the cottage on the said land (being the cottage known as "No. 45 The Terrace, Shepherds Hill"), may be occupied as a home for an artist-in-residence or for any similar purposes not inconsistent with the said historical character;(c) The transferee shall not permit any new buildings or structures to be erected on the said land which adversely affects the historic character of the cottage, battery or King Edward Park; and(d) These covenants shall run with the land.(2) Mr Kerry Hickey, MP, Member for Cessnock, recently wrote to me advising that the Newcastle City Council is preparing to obtain consent from the New South Wales Minister for Land and Water Conservation to lease Shepherd's Hill cottage to the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol (RVCP). Mr Hickey suggests that this proposed usage may contravene the covenant.Officers of my Department have confirmed with the Newcastle City Council that the New South Wales Minister for Land and Water Conservation has given in principle agreement to such a proposal, primarily to enable the RVCP to set up a marine base and thereby overcome radio coverage problems in the area.The Australian Heritage Commission (AHC) has advised my Department that, on the basis of the available information, the use of the site by the RVCP would not be inconsistent with its historic character. In relation to the fitting out of a room for radio communications and providing bathroom and kitchen facilities, however, the AHC has advised that the extent of such work would need to be assessed against the impact that these proposals would have on the significance of the Shepherd's Hill Cottage. Accordingly, I have directed my Department to ascertain the full details of the scope of the proposed work and request the AHC to assess their impact on heritage values as soon as possible.