1999-10-113914REPS1117901999-10-11Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Bills11179r93111179Bill presented by Mr Beazley.12:31:0011179Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I present the Workplace Relations Amendment (Australian Defence Force Service and Training) Bill 1999 . Presenting this bill gives me the opportunity to once again, in this place, congratulate Major General Cosgrove and the troops serving under him for the excellent job that they are doing. Both the Australian component and the international component in INTERFET have acted with great military skill, considerable restraint and good political understanding of the circumstances in which they find themselves. We rely on them, and we are relying on people of great strength as we do so.The issue will arise at some point in time, however—during what is likely to be a lengthy deployment, under whatever rubric the United Nations ultimately determines for it—that the Australian military forces will have imposed on them a level of commitment they have not experienced for some considerable period of time. Already, the armed forces are drawing heavily on the reserves and, for the next rotation, they will be drawing very heavily on the reserves indeed.This bill would not have been necessary had the Minister for Aged Care, Bronwyn Bishop, when she was the minister associated with the Defence Force personnel, heeded the advice of Major General Luttrell—then the Assistant Chief of Defence Force reserves—when the first form of the workplace relations bill was in this parliament. You will recollect that that bill stripped award conditions down to a few allowable matters. Not included among them was provision for the patriotism and willingness of ordinary Australians to serve in the armed forces reserves. General Luttrell said to Minister Bishop at that time:As Reserve members constitute approximately 40 per cent of the ADF work force, their continued availability for training, as currently provided for in awards, agreements and company personnel policies, is essential to the Australian Defence Force capability.He went on:If not identified as a matter for inclusion in awards, Reserve training leave may not be picked up within either the Certified Agreement, Australian Workplace Agreements or other State Agreements which will increasingly supplant existing awards.Although not one of the safety net employment conditions identified in the Bill, Reserve availability for training is critical to maintaining defence capability and award coverage of this issue is an important component of ensuring availability. The Bill should therefore include provisions which would permit awards to continue to cover Defence Force leave provisions.I do not think you could be blunter than that in the statements you make and in the advice that you give government. We indeed have presented this on several occasions in this parliament. We have slightly amended it, and I have brought it forward again. Previously it has been moved by our spokesperson on industrial relations matters.The government has found itself in a position where it has fallen short of all its targets on reserves, and now it really matters. Indeed, if you take a look at its recruitment against target over the course of 1998-99, the shortfall in recruitment for the RAAF is 44 per cent. For the RAN it is 80 per cent and for the Army it is 49 per cent. That is a substantial record of failure to encourage people who are in the general work force to nevertheless uphold their patriotic duty to make a contribution to the defence forces of this nation. Now it is critical. It is not going to be possible to sustain this deployment for any length of time without recourse to reserves. Reserves must now be recruited and given certainty in terms of their employment and their capacity whilst in their employment to be trained properly for circumstances of danger in which they may find themselves.We will be presenting other legislation on this matter later to cover off protection of the jobs of those who volunteer for national defence in the reserves. It is another important component of being able to ensure that the reserves effectively perform the task set them. I cannot believe that the government, now weeks into this deployment, will any longer sit on their hands and the advice that has been given them by their military advisers as far as the reserves are concerned. I cannot believe that they will let this issue go any longer. They owe it to the rest of the force to take up the challenge that we have laid down for them. I seek leave to present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Leave granted.Bill read a first time.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business111801118012:37:0011180Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I move:That this House:(1) notes Tuesday 12th October is the day of Six Billion People;(2) notes uncontrollable population expansion will lead to increasing pressure on the world leading to serious environmental and social problems;(3) while respecting cultural sensibilities, calls for a realistic approach to family planning, including access to information on family planning; and(4) stresses the issues of population and development are interconnected.I rise today not only as a concerned Australian and the member for the federal seat of Bradfield but also as the chairman of the all-party group on population, planning and development in this parliament. The United Nations Population Fund has designated tomorrow as the Day of Six Billion People. Not only does tomorrow mark global population exceeding six billion but it also represents a doubling of global population since 1960. To put this into perspective, it took until 1804 for world population to reach one billion. It reached two billion in 1927, in the space of less than one lifetime. Global popu lation hit five billion in 1987 and here we are, only 12 years later, marking yet another one billion people living on this earth. Today, world population is growing at 78 million a year—that is 148 people every minute—and every second of the day five people are born and two people die. Future growth will depend largely on the decisions that will be taken by the 1.1 billion young people currently between the ages of 15 and 24. This is the largest number of young people in the history of mankind to stand on the threshold of adulthood.While life expectancy has risen in Australia as birthrates have fallen, the reverse is the case in developing countries where the poor pay the real price of human progress. Most of the 100 million births each year occur in developing countries where women have no access to education, let alone contraception. They face misery, illness and death in bearing 99 per cent of the world's children. Of the 200 million pregnancies that occur each year, 23 million are associated with severe complications and 15 million with long-term irreversible injury to mother and/or child. Half a million women die each year from the complications of pregnancies that are neither planned nor wanted. Less than one in 1,000 of these occur in the developed world. Twenty million women will die this year from the consequences of unsafe abortion.The lifetime risk of death from pregnancy in sub-Saharan Africa is one in six. In Italy, where the birthrate is lower, it is one in 17,000. Italy's population will take 1,386 years to double, whereas in Africa it will double in less than 20 years. Half the world's population suffers malnutrition, 70 per cent cannot read and over a billion lack basic sanitation, clean water and access to health care of the most rudimentary kind. The education of girls and young woman is the key. Raising a mother's age at first birth from 18 to 23 would reduce population momentum by 40 per cent. Educated women have healthier children and they prefer to have fewer of them. A World Bank survey last year calculated that, if developing countries had doubled girls' secondary education and enrolment in 1975, the number of babies dying 10 years later would have been more than halved—more powerful than doubling the net national income of those countries and ten times more effective than doubling the number of doctors.Women in many parts of the world are born and raised to serve men and children. They are neglected as children, they are underfed and overworked, they are sold as sex slaves, they are denied equal social, economic and legal status, they conceive too young and they are kept illiterate—deliberately so by men in these societies—only to suffer and die in pregnancy. In Central and East Africa last year, there were six million live births. One million of those mothers were HIV positive and, within two years, 300,000 of those babies will be dead from AIDS and, of the remaining 700,000, most, if not all, will end up as street urchins and some of them will be shot.Sometimes the easiest way to communicate a message to those of us who live in a privileged country and a privileged society that perhaps does not understand these things quite so well is to describe things in terms of a vignette. I was privileged to spend some time in Tanzania, Zimbabwe and Kenya, in particular in the slums of Nairobi, for World Vision in 1995. Imagine a woman called Maria. She is a girl of 17 and she lives in abject poverty in the slums of Nairobi. There is no running water or sanitation and Maria looks after her brothers and sisters while her mother can just scavenge enough to prevent starvation. Her only chance to escape is to marry someone who has a job. Her mother, like so many women from the poor parts of rural Kenya, originally came to Nairobi from the country areas in search of work.If Maria finds someone who is prepared to marry her, he will almost certainly blackmail her into having sex before marriage. She is likely to agree out of fear of losing him and there are a dozen other girls who see him as an escape vehicle from terminal poverty. He acts as a transport medium for gonorrhoea, syphilis and AIDS. The end result is that his girlfriends experience infertility, ectopic pregnancies, backstreet abortions and AIDS. If they ever give birth, the baby may die of AIDS or become an orphan. Maria refuses to have an abortion, although she has not yet chosen to marry. To provide for her child, she has to give sexual favours to a dozen men and five years later she dies of AIDS without any dignity. Her son is shot as a street urchin.In other parts of Nairobi and in other parts of the world, people have access to education, contraception and the things that we take for granted. In Kenya and Tanzania, by the way, the lifetime risk of death from pregnancy is one in 25; in Western Europe it is one in 5,000. It is all very well for people in our country to say that they should follow our moral codes, but I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that promiscuity is not more common there than it is here but, due to indifference, is punishable by death from AIDS or botched abortions. In the 1960s, the British gynaecologist Dougal Baird identified or defined what he described as the fifth freedom, and that is the freedom from unrestrained fertility.Australians use more than four times the world resources than developing nations. Mankind now consumes half of all the photosynthetic energy that is available to support all of the species on earth. The lip-service that is paid by the developed world to foreign aid needs to be urgently addressed, focusing in particular, as I said, on the education of girls. The human and ecological deadlines set by our profligacy are ones to which affluent nations are beginning to adjust only now. While media barons are currently jostling for access to datacasting in the new digital age and thousands of Sydneysiders marched in angered support of a football team at the weekend, people are dying from uncontrolled fertility that is born of ignorance.If we become a nation, if we become a people, who no longer care about the world, it will be then that we cease to be true human beings, for in our care, our concern and our compassion lies the basis of our own humanity. The world's Day of Six Billion, which we mark tomorrow, should also stand as a reminder to us as Australians that our responsibilities to other human beings and to the rest of the world do not begin and end at Australia's continental shelf.If the opinion pollsters who constantly poll the Australian electorate for Australian politi cal parties were to take their clipboards to the slums and shacks and shantytowns of the developing world, they would find that the ambitions of women in those countries for their own families, for their own lives and, indeed, for their own country are little different from those that are harboured by women here in our own country. The difference is that in our own country we make choices about how we will spend the money that is created by our relative affluence. If we are to leave a legacy to the next generation—one which is ecologically, environmentally and materially sustainable—every Australian needs to give serious thought to our obligations to see that world population is controlled in a way which ensures the survival of our world and not the very least the survival of humanity and the ability of women in the developing world to have control over their own lives and their own destiny.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?12:47:0011182Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I am pleased to second this motion marking the Day of Six Billion People, moved by the honourable member for Bradfield. Global population has quadrupled this century, growing faster than at any other time in history. At the beginning of this century, the world's population was approximately 1.5 billion; in 1987, it was five billion; and tomorrow, 12 October, is the day designated by the UNFPA as the Day of Six Billion People. Of course we cannot know with certainty the exact day. Some experts would put it earlier this year, some later, but 12 October is the official day when the world's population reaches six billion. It is a day for reflection on what it means to our planet to be home to six billion people, its challenges and implications.What especially does it mean for us living in Australia? Judging by the interest shown, not much. Most Australians are preoccupied with what is happening to our north in Timor, the implications of the GST, the republic debate or whether or not they got tickets to their favourite sporting event at the Sydney Olympics and will ignore this issue. I am not suggesting that these other issues are not important—but so is population. There are not enough votes in the issue for most members of parliament to be more than marginally interested, except for those who will be speaking in this debate and those who did not get on the speakers list. I am not expecting a prime ministerial statement or even a statement from the relevant minister, and the media will largely ignore the issue.To give an example of the disinterest, I wrote to the Department of the Parliamentary Library suggesting that a vital issues seminar with the theme `World of six billion people: implications and challenges' be held on the Day of Six Billion People. I was not surprised when the Library declined my suggestion with the feeble excuse that topics were already in place for the remainder of the spring session. Seminars to be conducted are on Timor, the Ralph review, regional development and human rights protection in Australia. Important as these issues undoubtedly are, I would suggest that each of them will be thoroughly examined by the media and in the long term the question of population could be far more important than all of them.While many countries in our region have ministers for population, we in this country do not even have a population policy, yet we live in the most populous part of the world and, increasingly, the most unstable. Three of the four most populous nations on earth are in this region. During this day, the global total will swell by another 214,000.While it is important that this motion states that cultural sensitivities must be respected, I must say that too often cultural sensitivities have been used as an excuse to do nothing. How do you justify cultural sensitivity with the death and suffering of thousands of women throughout the world? Too often cultural sensitivity is nothing more than subjugation.I also believe that many religions, especially the Catholic faith, have much to answer for. It is somewhat ironic that men, often elderly, in dresses are dictating to women how their bodies should be used. As an aside, I suspect that, if the Catholic Church did the unthinkable and permitted women to become priests, as eventually they inevitably will as the current generation moves on, the church's attitude to reproductive health would be vastly different. Put at its simplest, access to information on family planning must be regarded as a basic human right. All the evidence shows that, when you educate girls and when information is made available regarding family planning, birth rates decline.The 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo was a turning point in many important respects. First, it convened the entire spectrum of population and development related issues; second, it adopted concrete goals, including resource goals, for the next 20 years; finally, and most importantly, it allowed 180 nations to resolve a basic controversy which had dogged international population activities during all of UNFPA's 30 years. The conference agreed on the paramount importance of guaranteeing human rights and protecting individual lives. It also agreed that world population growth should be slower. The unique contribution of the Cairo conference was to reach an agreement that these two aims are complementary. But I must say that not enough has been done since Cairo.Experience and research both show that, if they have the choice, women and men will have fewer children and smaller families than their parents' generation. The result will be slower population growth. The Cairo conference accepted that freedom of choice must be the aim to secure individual wellbeing on one hand and slower population growth on the other. This means paying close attention to individual needs. It means the development of one person at a time.The reproductive and sexual rights endorsed at the conference include the right to make free choices about marriage and about the number, timing and spacing of children as a basis of equality between men and women; the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health; and freedom from sexual violence and coercion. Concrete goals centre on providing universal education and reproductive health care, including family planning, and reducing infant, child and maternal mortality.Each year more than 585,000 women in developing countries die, and at least seven million suffer infection or injury, as a result of pregnancy. Some 70,000 women die every year from unsafe abortions. How does the Catholic Church remain with that? There are over 330 million cases of treatable sexually transmitted diseases annually and 11 HIV infections every minute. Of the nearly 175 million pregnancies each year, up to half are unwanted or ill timed. Over 350 million women do not have the choice of safe and effective contraception. Nearly half of the 130 million births annually are not assisted by a trained delivery attendant. More than half of all women will suffer some form of gender based violence in their lives. Each year two million girls and young women are at risk of female genital mutilation, and 960 million people cannot read or write, two-thirds of whom are women.Progress and population cannot continue in the absence of economic, social and cultural conditions in which women and men can make free and informed choices about their lives. As we enter the 21st century, over a billion people are still deprived of basic needs. Of the 4.8 billion people in developing countries, nearly three-fifths lack basic sanitation. Almost a third have no access to clean water, a quarter do not have adequate housing and a fifth have no access to modern health services, including reproductive health services. In less developed regions, a fifth of children do not attend school to grade 5. Women are disproportionately affected by these deprivations. We are faced with not only personal tragedy but a daily violation of human rights on a massive scale.Meanwhile, consumption—which reached $24 trillion in 1998—continues to rise, with the wealthiest groups and individuals controlling a larger share than ever. At the end of this century, the wealthiest fifth of the world consume more than 66 times the materials and resources of the poorest fifth. When economic crises come, the poor are hardest hit and women hardest of all. It was interesting that the first things to suffer cuts in so many countries affected by the Asian economic crisis were the family planning programs.There is a looming crisis in basic resources. Though global food supplies remain adequate, distribution does not. In addition, grain output per capita has been stagnant for more than a decade and crop land is shrinking. Forest land, much of it crucial for upland watersheds, is being stripped. Access to water supplies is already a cause of conflict. More than 430 million people—eight per cent of the world's population—are living in countries affected by water stress or scarcity. A quarter of the world's population are likely to live in countries facing chronic or recurrent shortages of fresh water by the year 2050.The needs of the oldest people, the over-80s, will also increase substantially over the next 20 years. For developing countries, the extended family has been the main support of people in old age but, as populations become more urban, the extended family is not as close as it used to be. Older people are also living longer, putting an additional responsibility on their families. Most developing countries still lack the social safety net that industrialised countries have, and for many it will be difficult to construct. For most countries, however, the prospect is still on the horizon. Half the world's population is under 25, and there are over a billion young people between 15 and 24, the parents of the next generation. With over 100 million births a year well into the next century, there is no danger of a global birth dearth.Each year, for example, India is adding 18 million people—roughly another Australia. What can Australia do about this coming crisis? As the motion notes, uncontrolled population growth will lead to increasing pressure on the world's resources. We must do more. We cannot stand aside from this. We must increase our funding to UNFPA and restore IPPF funding to former levels. We have a special responsibility to our part of the world. (Time expired)12:57:0011184May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—The world's population will reach a staggering six billion tomorrow. It has doubled since 1960 and is still increasing at a rapid rate. Some 78 million people are born each year. At this rate, the world population is forecast to escalate to nine billion or more by 2050. It is universally recognised that the majority of the growth will be in the world's poorest and least prepared countries. It is also a fact that rapid population growth and high fertility rates help perpetuate poverty. The major effects of escalating population growth are on the depletion of natural resources and the environment, on the health and education sectors and on the labour markets of a region.In many developing countries population growth is exerting intense pressure on social services and economic institutions. Labour markets are feeling the pressure from burgeoning numbers of new job seekers whose aspirations for white-collar employment are fuelled by secondary and tertiary education. Environmental deterioration is increasing in urban areas because of the massive movement of populations from the countryside. Because of past and current high levels of fertility, population momentum will ensure that population growth will continue to be significant well into the next millennium. It is therefore imperative that the Australian government and organisations such as World Vision continue to work at developing strategies in the area of family planning and to encourage countries to implement suitable programs.Family planning services are an essential part of reproductive health care and have saved the lives and protected the health of millions of men, women and children. I had the opportunity to work with the United Nations on the ground in Indonesia some years ago helping to educate families about reproductive health and the importance of family planning. This work gave me first-hand knowledge of the difficulties facing developing countries in providing suitable and effective means of communicating just how important family planning and reproductive health is to the wellbeing of a country.The development of modern contraceptive methods has given people greater individual freedom and enhanced their ability to plan lives. Yet I know from first-hand experience that it often is not easy to implement family planning strategies and encourage use of modern contraceptive methods. Often sensitive issues such as customs, tradition, culture and religion need to be overcome. In addition, in some Pacific regions a major challenge is to improve access to reproductive health and family planning services, particularly for adolescents, in both urban and rural areas at a time when resources are scarce and government budgets in developing countries are stretched. High levels of unmet needs for contraception are often attributed to poor health service infrastructure, limited choice of contraceptive methods, scarcity of contraceptives, untrained service providers, as well as inadequate access to appropriate services for adolescents, young adults and unmarried women. At the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1994, a 20-year plan was agreed to by 180 countries, setting objectives to curb population growth. One of those objectives is that by the year 2015 there will be universal access to quality and affordable reproductive health services, including family planning and sexual health.With this in mind, I believe that reproductive health programs need to expand their reach and improve their quality to provide a full range of services to an estimated 18 million couples worldwide in their reproductive years. Another point to consider tomorrow when our attention is focused on the world's population is the impact of AIDS, which is now the leading cause of death in Africa and the fourth most common cause of death worldwide. Taking into account issues which may act as impediments to getting the message through about family planning and the importance of contraception, I believe developing countries need to look at alternative mediums for communication. Earlier this year I travelled to Vanuatu, where many people do not read and write and many adolescents have had only a couple of years of schooling. There, an innovative group has developed an effective way of communicating health and environmental messages—through theatre.I commend Dr Nelson's motion and reiterate his calls for a realistic approach to family planning. The process of developing population policies should continue to be encouraged as a means of curbing population growth.13:02:0011185Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—In response to Dr Nelson's motion, I would like to first assure the House that I and all my Labor Party colleagues do support any initiative that attempts to address the burden of overpopulation and its association with poverty, malnutrition and degradation of the environment. For that, Dr Nelson is to be commended. What I would like to illustrate is how important it is we realise that any attempt to address overpopulation, particularly in the Third World, must be done with the knowledge that several other factors must also be considered at the same time, if not first. The most important of these are general poverty, a continuing high child mortality rate and a lack of equality for women.Poverty is clearly a mitigating factor in overpopulation in Third World nation states. On its own, poverty can contribute heavily to there being a high birth rate. When you are poor, having a lot of children can be an insurance policy against infirmity in old age. More immediately, every child, even at an early age, is an extra pair of hands for the innumerable tasks that need doing. Every child can also be a source of income for such a family. This does not mean such parents are uncaring; it is simply a fact of life in many countries. While a high infant and child mortality rate does not sound like a contributing factor, it is perhaps the largest contributing factor. The tragic reality of so many regions on this planet is that watching your children die is a way of life. Parents need to compensate for this by having many children to, as I have mentioned, provide extra help and income for the family. However, thanks to modern medicine, the child mortality rate is lower than it once was in many countries, as is the overall life expectancy of many populations in the Third World, although it remains relatively high. In the industrialised West, a fall in the overall mortality rate and life expectancy of the population was accompanied by a lower birth rate. This is known as the demographic transition. This transition has not occurred in the developing world, thus populations grow at an exceedingly high rate. However, what also occurred in developed nations such as Australia and the United States was a rise in the overall literacy of the population. More importantly than this, however, is the rise in the franchise of women in the devel oped world. As women gained equality in the eyes of the system—and the journey is not yet complete, by the way—they were able to make choices about when to bear children or even not to have children at all. The rights of women in many poorer countries are extremely limited in numerous ways. Women worldwide have a lower rate of literacy, own a fraction of the world's property and hold a fraction of the world's wealth but do a significant amount of the world's work.There is no easy solution to overpopulation. What that means is that a single-minded approach based solely around the use or non-use of contraceptives will lack impact unless it is fully supported by a suite of other measures addressing the contingencies I have just outlined. What weapons can we use, then, to attack these problems? A common theme, it would appear, is a generous multilateral organisation dedicated in different ways to addressing these problems. UNICEF and UNESCO are such organisations. These organisations require the belief by all nations in a system of international cooperation, the importance of international law and the United Nations as an arbiter of this rule. It requires that foreign secretaries and foreign ministers, as well as their political superiors, have a deep love and respect for such multilateral institutions and that these ministers see diplomacy as a way of promoting, in the words of Australia's greatest foreign minister, `good international citizenship', and not merely as a means of pursuing petty domestic ideological bugbears.What a shame Australia at this current time does not have such a progressive government. Instead, we have a Prime Minister and a Minister for Foreign Affairs who seem to hold foreign policy in contempt. What a strange position to hold when you have so many exciting opportunities as the leader of a middle power to change so much in the world around you. We have seen both recently and in the past several years a government interested in `boys own' foreign policy. They have ignored the importance of multilateral relationships, instead opting for simplistic bilateralism. Not once have we heard a meaningful dialogue on nuclear disarmament, not once have we heard this government's vision of the future role of the United Nations. Instead, we have a government whose actions seem to demonstrate that it gets diplomacy tips right out of a Tom Clancy novel. How can this government then expect us to consider their support of Dr Nelson's motion as anything else but insincere lip-service? Dr Nelson's motion is a worthy and admirable one, but apart from him and a few other genuine Liberals the truly genuine, heartfelt support for this most vital of issues comes from this side of the House, not from the single-minded accountants Dr Nelson often has as his colleagues.13:07:0011186Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—Before I begin my short speech on the question of population policy, I must say that I was disappointed with the member for Throsby's quite unsubstantiated and vicious attack on the Catholic Church in his speech. I have come to expect better from the member for Throsby—although I do understand that he is an anarchist in the Labor Party and, as a consequence, is probably trying in iconoclastic fashion to break down the great institutions that make up our society. Turning to the motion—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I am very pleased that you are turning to the motion.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—The member for Bradfield's thoughtful motion raises issues of global concern that will inevitably affect Australia if current international trends and practices continue. The challenge for Australia is to help influence international opinion in terms of a sensible, realistic and culturally workable global population policy. The key features of any population policy are fertility, mortality and net migration rates.The outcome of this equation should not just be confined to a population target size. It is also important to consider the population composition—particularly, in Australia, age composition. These are important planning considerations for government in terms of infrastructure. In Australia, an ageing population will result in increases in demand for services, such as health, public housing and social security. There are also legitimate concerns that an uncontrolled, sudden population expansion in the rest of the world will increase pressure on global environmental capital. Indeed, if the composition of the population is ageing, it is likely that there will be an increasing demand on public services, which may require the raising by a government of additional taxation revenue from a labour market shrinking in size.As a result of the incredible advancements in the treatment of illnesses—and a number of speakers have already touched on this subject—and improvements in preventative health measures, the composition of the global population has been dramatically altered in recent decades. This trend is particularly pronounced in Western countries. For instance, in Australia, if we had the same mortality rate in 1998 as we had averaged in the early 1970s, there would have been 78,000 more deaths in 1998.Clearly, this development, while desirable, will continue to have a great impact on future global population composition and size. But, while mortality rates are declining by varying degrees in most countries, fertility rates continue to fluctuate dramatically from country to country. In countries of low economic development, many people believe that a bigger family is a path to greater personal prosperity. Compounding this is the fact that many of these countries also have little access to information about family planning techniques—as the member for Bradfield said in his own speech. On the other hand, in many Western countries, fertility rates are in free fall.Australia's present fertility rate is only about half of that which it was in the decades immediately after World War II. In fact, Australia's fertility rate is below the level of generational replacement. Therefore, sustained low fertility, combined with an increasing ageing population base, means that Australia's population will soon go into decline, on present indications. Based on authoritative estimates, if Australia is to avoid long-term population decline, annual net migration will need to be approximately 80,000 if fertility falls to a level of about 1.65 births per woman. A fertility rate as low as 1.65 births is a possibility based on current trends. If fertility falls below this figure, there would be a good argument for Australia to pursue higher levels of net migration.If we adopt a global approach to control population growth, a program of increased immigration to Australia would contribute in a very small way to relieving some of the immediate population pressures that may exist in other parts of the world. But arguments for a more robust immigration program for Australia need to be debated objectively. Credible opponents of high immigration levels in Australia often cite environmental concerns as a barrier to boosting immigration. This is a tenuous connection. While they are policies that are interconnected, population growth and a better environment are objectives that can comfortably coexist through effective management practices. This has been our recent experience in Australia. It is an experience that we should seek to share with the rest of the world.There is persuasive evidence to suggest that, proportionally, the period of the most destructive damage to Australia's environment occurred in the 19th and early 20th centuries, through land clearing practices then in use when our population was very small. It has been since 1945 that our awareness of the environment and of the need to undo decades of abuse has come about, something we have achieved while doubling our population. Indeed, increasing Australia's population to an economically and environmentally acceptable level through immigration would be a management product worth exporting. If we are to play a leading role in influencing a global approach to population policy—(Time expired)13:12:0011187Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I would like to start by supporting the member for Sturt. It was disgraceful that the member for Throsby ought to consider that the Catholic Church has much to answer for in terms of the world's population.DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—Read your history.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—That is a load of rubbish, and he knows it. It is China and India that are accountable and not the Catholic Church. I am here, anyhow, to talk about the UN information, which will support what I am saying. In supporting the motion on population policy, I commend Dr Nelson. The World population prospects report, in its 1996 revision published on 12 September 1998 by the United Nations Population Division, notes that the growth rate of world population peaked at an estimated two per cent during 1965-70 and has subsequently fallen to 1.5 per cent during 1990-95. The annual increase in numbers of people peaked at an estimated 87 million per year increase during 1985-90 and has since been declining at a rate of about one million per year.Since 1970, fertility has declined from 4.5 to 2.8 children per mother in the world, from 6 to 3 children in developing countries and from 2.1 to 1.7 children in developed countries. A fertility rate of 2.1 children per mother is required to maintain the population at no growth or decline. The world fertility rate is projected by the UN low variant to fall below this replacement level by the year 2013. World population prospects further notes that the UN low variant, which has been the most accurate UN projection, projects that world population will decline in about the year 2040 but that, if recent trends merely continue, world population decline will occur shortly after the year 2020.I note that `world population decline' means that there will be more deaths than births. There are 25 major factors which influence fertility. All are acting to reduce fertility. This suggests that significant population decline may be inherent in modern society and that we may not be able to stop it. With these facts in mind, l now wish to address particular paragraphs in Dr Nelson's notice of motion.I refer to paragraph (2). In particular, I note that, whilst uncontrollable population expansion will lead to increasing pressure on the world, leading to serious environmental and social problems, so will population contraction. I note from the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's annual publication The state of food and agriculture that countries with the most starvation and malnutrition are nearly all in Africa. UNICEF's annual publication The state of the world's children lists countries according to quality of life indica tors, such as nutrition, health, education and economy. Nineteen of the 20 worst affected countries are in Africa, and nearly all have been ravaged by war.Some argue that the misery of many people in developing countries is not primarily caused by war but by overpopulation. However, the data overwhelmingly disproved this hypothesis. Only one country among the 40 countries having the world's worst quality of life indicators—nutrition, health, education and economy—is among those with highest population growth rates. There is no significant correlation between high national population growth and poor performance, but high population growth rates and high population density within a region smaller than a country correlate overwhelmingly with faster economic improvement and better quality of life.According to UNICEF, per capita food production has improved by more than 60 per cent in developing countries since 1948. Data from The state of food and agriculture 1997 indicates that, since 1990, the food situation in developing countries has improved faster than ever before in world history. Food production has increased by 29 per cent, and food production per capita has improved by 16 per cent.I now refer to paragraph (4), which stresses that the issues of population and development are interconnected. l note that the four countries that achieved the greatest improvements in quality of life in the last 50 years—South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore—are all far more densely populated than the countries of average population density. These countries' population density apparently helps improve their quality of life. l note that in recent years developing countries have improved their per capita income by about five per cent annually so that each year, except during recessions, a larger world population lives substantially better. The last 30 years represent the fastest population growth in modern history. Life expectancy in developing countries—the best measure of quality of life—has increased over the last 12 years.Mr Gary Becker received the Nobel Prize for economics for his analysis of why certain countries improve their quality of life. What he said is needed is an increase in the education and training level of the people and a fair opportunity for them to use their skills. Substantially reducing the fertility rate seems to slow the economy a generation later when the number of new workers is reduced. During the first generation after reducing fertility, the economy seems to improve because of freeing up capital that would otherwise be used to care for the next generation. Unfortunately, this temporary improvement is soon overwhelmed by the problems caused by having too few young workers. During the 1990s, Japan and those countries in Europe that reduced their fertility rate the most during the preceding generation have suffered through a severe recession.In light of the UN's indicators showing a decline in world population, we must be wary, unless the world fertility rate increases, of increasing social problems resulting from recession.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.1118913:17:0011189Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I move:That the House:(1) acknowledges the oyster industry as a responsible industry that is a large employer of people both directly and indirectly in regional Australia;(2) recognises that regional jobs are rapidly diminishing and the loss of a viable oyster industry would result in the loss of thousands of jobs in coastal Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria; and(3) calls on the Government as a matter of urgency to exclude oyster farmers from having to value their oyster crop as an asset and therefore be considered as income for taxation purposes starting in the year 2000-2001.In moving this motion I do not miss the irony that we should be talking about the oyster industry after speaking about the fertility of Australians. In July next year, through no fault of their own, many oyster farmers will face a massive and debilitating change in the way they conduct their business. From 1 July in the year 2000, oyster farmers will be forced by the Howard government to value their immature stock as income. Case studies from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for a small, medium and large oyster farm show increases in income of $58,000, $98,000 and $136,000 respectively.The major problem with this system—that has obviously been overlooked—is that this income has not yet been earned. In fact, it is actually expenditure that the oyster farmer has to go to to catch and contain their oyster crop. In the case of this year's catch, this income will not be realised for four years, because that is the growing period of Sydney rock oysters. More worryingly, this income may never be earned, because it should be realised that floods, frost, heatwaves and pollution all destroy oysters. It is not uncommon for a kill to wipe out 80 per cent to 90 per cent of an oyster crop in one go.Throughout my lifetime—just as you have, Mr Deputy Speaker—I have come in contact with hundreds of oyster farmers, and I can tell you that they are a tough and tenacious breed of people. Their working conditions are harsh and, over recent decades, they have taken more than their share of setbacks—setbacks over which they have had absolutely no control. The oyster industry has faced its fair share of challenges. Many environmental problems have forced some farmers out of the industry—and yet, over time, these tenacious farmers have survived to develop an oyster industry that is more technologically advanced, more environmentally sensitive and with a better quality product than ever before. Unfortunately this vision, this drive from a thriving industry is not about to be rewarded; it is about to suffer a major setback.Oyster farmers are not asking for special treatment. The government has already exempted grain growers, fruit growers and timber growers from this form of accounting. Under the new system, oyster farmers are being treated the same as sheep and cattle producers—oysters are being regarded as livestock. Oysters may be part of the animal kingdom, but the difference between a bivalve mollusc and an advanced vertebrate is enor mous. The difference is not only great physically but also in the way they are farmed. This is where some understanding of this vital regional industry is needed.In 1992, the Australian Taxation Office made a variation of its ruling of IT2667 for the method of stock evaluation for farmers of freshwater crayfish—also an invertebrate. Instead of having zero stock value on entering their first year of this form of stock accounting, the value of their stock was regarded as the closing value for the previous year. While this would give some relief, it is still not treating the oyster industry the same as the grain and timber plantation industries, and I believe they have a right to expect that. That is the way it has been done. Traditionally, the stock that oyster farmers consider stock are the mature oysters that they harvest. As the House will know, all of the oysters that they pull out will not go to market because some of them will be affected by mud worm and disease and they are discarded.I believe the government owes it to regional Australia to ensure this industry survives. Under the Treasury proposal, many people in the oyster industry will suffer a final setback. Many oyster farmers have told me that they would be forced to leave the industry that their family has participated in for generations. They have survived pollution. They have survived low prices. They have survived floods and disease but they cannot survive the effects of this government.The legacy of a bankrupt oyster farmer on our environment is enormous. In Port Stephens, currently, the New South Wales government and the federal government between them are spending $4 million to remove disused racks from bankrupt oyster farmers from over a decade ago. The racks have to be removed because while they are there they continue to catch oysters. One of the major problems that oyster farmers have had in our area has been the gigas or Pacific oyster which, when it grows to maturity, is a prolific seeder and we have to get rid of it so we have to get rid of those oyster racks. You cannot force an oyster farmer who has gone belly up to do it, because he does not have the ability or the resources to do it, so the government has to accept that responsibility, and that is now happening.These tax changes come at a desperate time for regional Australia. In my region alone we have suffered major industrial changes. Only a week ago we saw the closure of our steelworks that have been there for the life of every person in the Hunter Valley. We have seen 2,000 jobs go from the coal industry in the past two years. We have seen meatworks close in the Hunter Valley as jobs are centralised in larger abattoirs. Regional jobs in Australia are becoming as scarce as hen's teeth. They are simply disappearing. This industry is threatening to go along that same path—simply to disappear.Our region is rich in natural and invested infrastructure, and that can be built upon to develop an economically strong Hunter and coastal New South Wales and Queensland. Surely this government must be looking at securing and growing regional jobs rather than placing them in jeopardy. Over the long weekend, at Forster and Tuncurry—not in my electorate but very close to it—the Wallis Lake oyster festival was held. It attracted probably some 10,000 people because Wallis Lake is one of the greatest producers of Sydney rock oysters in Australia. Who can evaluate what it was worth to that community: the number of people who came and stayed and spent money on accommodation, food and all of those sorts of things that go with a festival of that nature? Destroy that industry, you destroy that festival. That is what it amounts to.People in the Wallis Lake industry have told me that if this form of accounting comes in they are out of business. It is not fair. It is not that we are asking for some special treatment for this industry; we are asking that it be considered the same as other industries have been by this government. It is imperative that the Treasurer and the tax office listen to this private member's motion, that they support it and ensure that this industry is an ongoing industry into the next millennium.6J4SCIACCAMr Sciacca—I second the motion.13:27:0011190Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—In speaking to the motion today, let me first say that I am sure there are few members in this House who have not enjoyed the delights of the Sydney rock oyster, renowned throughout the world for its quality. Certainly, oyster farming is a very important industry within Australia. It employs some 14,000 people directly and many thousands indirectly, and many of those of course are involved in the restaurant and tourism industry. Oyster farming is one of the earliest industries in my electorate and in the Sutherland Shire. The rock oysters were originally harvested by people diving for them. Later, divers went into deeper waters to harvest them and then dredges were involved, which caused significant environmental damage and also some damage to the oysters themselves.Over time, the industry became environmentally responsible. Up to about five years ago, the Georges River was the centre of a sophisticated multimillion dollar industry, with 89 leases covering 94.6 hectares, where oysters were cultivated for local and export markets. The Sutherland Shire local oyster industry is a very responsible one and growers are keen to ensure that beds in which the young oysters are maturing are kept free of pollution and that the mangroves, which will provide protection and a food source for the oysters, are conserved and protected. To this end, the federal government is providing $40,000 to examine the distribution of mangroves, salt marsh and seagrass in the electorate of Cook as preparation for the long-term training of community groups and the initiation of a range of on-ground remedial works.There is no doubt, in looking at the motion, that there has been a reduction in the number of jobs involved in the oyster industry but, in contrast to the claims of the member for Patterson, this is not simply a matter of taxation policy; it is a matter of natural processes. Much of the problems the industry has faced have been due to natural causes. There are only about seven oyster farmers left in operation in the Georges River, and about three live in the Sutherland Shire. The operations of the 40 farmers that were in the Georges River—25 of whom were in the shire—were devastated by a disease called QX, which is a parasite also existing in the Richmond, Tweed and Clarence rivers.The oysters started getting sick and dying in around 1994. QX crept down the river from Lugarno and has moved further down the river each year, wiping out farms in Neverfail Bay and the Woronora River. It eventually found its way to Oyster Bay, wiping out the farms of constituents in my electorate, Reg and Val Richards, and the next year it moved down to Gorley Bay and then Woolooware Bay, which was when most of the farmers left—probably around 18 months or two years ago.The farmers who are left—Bobby Drake and his brother and five other farmers—are now running their farms with oysters brought down from Hawkesbury and Wallis Lake. We well remember the significant problems that faced Wallis Lake, and all of Sydney and Australia were affected by that particular problem. I am glad to hear that it has been rectified, and we had a great event the last weekend. The farmers bring down a truckload of immature oysters which they can grow to maturity within a year. They do this because QX is a parasite that kills oysters every February and March. There is one area of Georges River and Botany Bay which is clear of the parasite—that is, Quibray Bay, the bay closest to Kurnell at the mouth of the river. In all other areas, QX has a 99 per cent kill rate.The farmers donate to research but, unfortunately, little has been achieved to date in trying to retard the progress of QX and its impact on the oyster industry. The parasite has wiped out crops in South Africa, where they are now growing Pacific oysters. The naturally grown and harvested Sydney rock oyster grows from Brisbane down to the Victorian border. The harvest in that industry has dropped from around 150,000 bags in 1980 to around 80,000 bags, and this is due to a number of factors, as we have said. Obviously it is partly due to the QX problem in the Georges River; Port Stephens was knocked out by the gigas oysters, which have reduced the local crops; and, of course, we had the problems at Wallis Lake as well.The nub of the issue which the member for Paterson has brought before us is the ruling by the ATO. The ATO has called on the stocks to be evaluated and brought forward at the beginning of each financial year. It is that cash flow factor which has been threatening the viability of the oyster farmers, and certainly representations have been made to me by those in the Georges River. One of the problems is that, while other industry sectors have been taking account of the accounting valuations that are necessary, the oyster industry have not, and suddenly they are being confronted with these rather large payments that will affect their cashflow.This issue has been brought to the attention of the Australian tax office. It is important to clarify what the member for Paterson has said. It is not the Treasurer but the Australian tax commissioner who has ruled that, according to the legislation, the bringing forward of the stocks means that it is eligible for stock tax. Normally, the stock tax is given at the end of the financial year and brought forward at the beginning of the next year. For example, if the value of the stock is $200 and a further $100 is spent on bringing new stock into that particular crop, the total taxable value at the end of the year is $300, which needs to be moved forward to the next year.Under the current arrangements, that $100 cost of bringing in the new stock is tax deductible, so it is not as though they have not been eligible for some tax rebate. But the issue revolves around the fact that they have had zero tax accounting at the end of the year and, when they attempt to bring it forward at the beginning of the financial year, there is disparity. If there is $200 or $300 at the beginning of one year and there is zero the year before, that obviously does not fit the tax bill. There is some question as to whether it did come under the requirements of the Australian tax office or not in terms of this style of accounting. In 1997, it was made quite clear that they were eligible for this tax approach, and it is in the implementation of that that we are now confronting this problem.Mark Vaile, the current Minister for Trade and the local member for Australia's largest oyster producer, put a submission to the ATO dealing with the valuation of trading stock for the Sydney rock oyster industry. While the issue is a matter for the Commissioner of Taxation, Minister Vaile and, more recently, Minister Truss have been actively promoting the interests of our oyster farmers. Both ministers recognise the unfairness of the ATO's proposal. The government recognises that requiring Sydney rock oyster farmers to account for trading stock in their taxation returns for the first time in the financial year ending 30 June 2000 would potentially cause significant problems and widespread disruption to a well-established industry to the extent of possible bankruptcies. It is acknowledged that this would have that impact.As has been pointed out, this industry has had a significant reduction in the numbers employed in it overall. It has faced various problems, whether they be QX or the Hep A experienced in Wallis Lake. That is why Minister Truss took the issue to the Australian tax office two weeks ago to see if there could be a resolution. They point to the way in which crayfish were treated, but that crayfish treatment has now been resolved and they also are subject to the 1997 regulations.The issue is now before the Australian tax office. It is an issue. It is affecting their cash flow requirements. We all want to see a thriving rock oyster industry in this country. It is important for all Australians in terms of their great enjoyment of the product and for the tourism industry as well. It is important to emphasise to this House that the minister responsible is taking appropriate action with the support of Minister Vaile, and we hope that the Australian tax office can recognise the problem that is confronting the industry.13:37:0011192Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—I am very pleased to second the motion moved by the honourable member for Paterson. I am happy to hear what the member for Cook had to say as well, particularly when the appropriate minister here is supposedly trying to discuss the matter with the Australian Taxation Office.There is no question in my mind that one of the major problems in this country at the moment is that in many respects regions all around this great country of ours are dying. Because of economic rationalism, and the fact that the almighty dollar seems to be the only thing that people and companies are worried about, we have the situation where profit is what counts. As well, the bureaucratic Taxation Office comes in and introduces harebrained schemes like this one which would severely harm our oyster growers, as the members for Paterson and Cook have said.There are not a great number of oyster growers in my electorate. As Deputy Speaker Nehl would know, having an electorate which, like mine, is on the east coast of Australia, a number of oyster growers are in my electorate, particularly around North Stradbroke Island and Moreton Bay regions. I know them to be very honest people who are prepared to put in a hard day's work and make a few dollars out of it if they can. Indeed, on North Stradbroke Island many of the indigenous community work in the oyster industry, and I am told it is not exactly fantastic money. Merv Borey was an old friend of mine and an indigenous Australian—he was a terrific old fellow. Unfortunately, he died last Thursday night and I am sorry that I cannot be at his funeral today. I remember his family's involvement in the oyster industry on North Stradbroke Island. Every weekend when he saw me he would bring me a bottle of oysters. He used to sell them to make a quid.I would say to the Australian Taxation Office, `Don't harm this industry.' From what I can understand, the reality is that oyster growers will be asked to value their stock for taxation purposes for the next four years. Whatever stock they have will have to be valued by someone. I do not know how you value oysters on the rack. I am not an oyster person—I am a lawyer, not a primary producer. But who is going to take responsibility for that valuation? The reality is that oysters are not like normal stock where you know what the value is, and when you sell you make a profit and pay tax on the profit. My understanding of oysters is that they are liable to disease and the growers could end up with 90 per cent less stock than their original numbers. Whatever estimate is made will not only be a guess but also be an absolutely wild guess. The oyster farmers will have to pay tax on the value of that total stock, notwithstanding that at some time in the future that stock might be worth only 10 per cent of what it is worth today.I know that the Oyster Farmers Association of New South Wales have put in certain submissions and have asked the tax office, `Who is going to take the responsibility for the stocktaking? Who is going to take the responsibility in case we are wrong?' There might be some big companies associated with this industry, but my understanding is that it has many simple farmers trying to make a few dollars to earn a living.The member for Paterson mentioned Tuncurry. I have not been to Tuncurry, but I do know that there are oyster farmers in Tuncurry bearing the name Sciacca, except that they call themselves `Sharkers'. I do not know them but I have heard of them. I know there are a few Sciacca streets up there. But the member for Paterson tells me that they are oyster farmers, and I would hate to see the Sciaccas of Tuncurry go broke because of some stupid, bureaucratic decision made by the Australian Taxation Office.In my view, the Australian Taxation Office should do something about this. If the minister is fair dinkum and wants to help the oyster farmers, he should not just talk about it and have the member for Cook come in here and tell us that it is all under control. We always hear that it is under control, don't we? He should do something about it and make sure that this very important industry is saved. We must not have another industry moving out of regional Australia and people having to move into the cities. (Time expired)13:42:0011193Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I wish to join in the debate on the member for Paterson's motion and say that one can only have sympathy for the prospects the oyster growers are facing if this tax ruling is to be carried out. It is interesting to note that the member for Bowman talked about some of the difficulties in the region. Particularly in the case of Sydney rock oysters, I note that the harvest has in fact dropped quite significantly from around 150,000 bags in 1980 to around 80,000 bags today. It is not exactly a booming industry, so it does seem rather curious as to why the tax office should want to target it at this stage.I would also like to endorse the words of the member for Cook when he pointed out that the former minister for agriculture, the Hon. Mark Vaile, when he was minister—with the support of the current minister, Minister Truss—asked that a submission be made to the Australian Taxation Office by the fisheries and aquaculture branch of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on this whole issue. This submission is extremely important because it provides an objective viewpoint from someone who does not have a partisan view on the whole question. There are some very strong words in that submission. It is worth quoting parts of that submission, because it does support the case of the oyster growers in no uncertain terms. It says:The new taxation arrangements would potentially cause significant and widespread disruption to a well established industry to the extent of bankruptcies.Those are pretty strong words. It goes on to say:FAB also considers that the ATO method of valuation appears unfair when compared to those parts of the oyster industry (Pacific oyster farmers) that purchase spat from a hatchery.That is quite clear. It goes on to make some other strong points. It states:. . . there is an important weakness in the proposal in that it contains a strong element of retrospectivity . . . Again, this is a significant point. It goes on to say:FAB notes that the ATO considers that this proposal will have a minor impact on the industry. In contrast, the Oyster Farmers Association of NSW claim that the proposal could add, on average, over $50,000 per farmer to taxable income in the first year . . . That is a very significant amount, particularly for an industry—as previous members and the mover of the motion have pointed out—which is not exactly booming.Mr Deputy Speaker, time is short and that submission should be taken into account. It is a very significant submission and one to which the tax office should give very serious consideration.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Statements by Members111941119411194Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—One of the greatest assets anyone can have is a good neighbour. Harmonious relationships with the people we live near make for a peaceful and fulfilling lifestyle whilst conflict with neighbours can ruin our enjoyment of home and family life. I am concerned that the number of disputes between neighbours being brought to my attention is rapidly increasing. The conflicts vary widely from minor disturbances to outright intimidation and standover tactics, including threats to life and property. Everyone has the right to live in a safe and peaceful environment and there are laws to protect that right.Unfortunately, we are not always able to choose our neighbours and with all the will in the world conflict can occur. It is in everyone's interest to manage disagreements properly and not leave disputes until the situation has become desperate. One of the most important concepts in conflict resolution is the need to tackle the problem, not the people, in a calm atmosphere. No-one wins if anger takes over. If we cannot resolve the issue, we should seek the help of a mediator. It is ironic that in this electronic age, when we can communicate almost instantly with people anywhere in the world, we are losing the ability to effectively communicate face to face with our neighbours.1119411194St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I rise in the House today to congratulate a great Australian, Mrs Mickie Hardie OAM of Tamworth, on being named a Commonwealth Senior Australian Achiever. Mrs Hardie, who is an energetic 81-year-old New England constituent, was presented with her Commonwealth Senior Australian Achiever Award by the Prime Minister at a function in Canberra on 30 September. She received her award alongside about 40 other deserving recipients, including Slim Dusty, who was named Senior Australian Achiever of the Year. It is appropriate that Mickie Hardie has received such recognition under such a worthwhile government program in the International Year of Older Persons.Mrs Hardie has spent her life campaigning for other less fortunate people. After many years of dealing with asthma in her family, Mickie co-founded the Asthma Foundation of New South Wales. She was involved heavily in setting up similar associations in each state and territory across Australia, leading to the creation of the Asthma Foundation of Australia, a valuable and vital organisation involved in the treatment and management of asthma. She established the first women's fundraising committee for the Salvation Army and was an initiator of the Red Shield Appeal. At 81, Mickie remains passionate about these and many other causes and continues to inspire people with her vision, determination and commitment. Mickie Hardie actively contributes to her community, creating opportunities for herself and bettering our society. She provides a great example for us all.1119511195Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—This Wednesday, 13 October, the Great Hall of Parliament House is being used to showcase the strengths and the assets of the western suburbs of Melbourne. This event is being organised by the Western Melbourne Regional Economic Development Organisation. I certainly urge all members to take the opportunity to have a look at the very considerable economic and social strengths of the west of Melbourne which I, along with a number of other people in this place, have the honour to represent. A number of very large organisations are taking part in the exposition—Toyota, Mobil Australia, Orica, Tenix, AGL, Melbourne Airport, just to name a number of very large companies. Organisations such as the Docklands Authority and a number of icons of Melbourne, such as the Western Bulldogs, are also taking part in the expo.This is a part of Melbourne with a population of over half a million people. It is estimated to grow at the rate of over 20 per cent over the next 10 years. It is a region, as I have indicated, with very substantial econom ic strengths and with first-rate infrastructure. It is a place for further investment, a place with a well-skilled, well-educated, multicultural work force which is able to look to the challenges of the 21st century. I believe this is an opportunity for all decision makers in this city to become aware of the strengths of the west of Melbourne. I urge members to take part in that event. (Time expired)1119511195Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—Today I would like to speak about a terrible fire that occurred in my electorate two weeks ago at the Clontarf timber factory, owned by Russell Meyers Pty Ltd. The building was completely gutted, despite the fire brigade and crews getting there as quickly as possible. They tried to save the building but, unfortunately, not much remains of the equipment and buildings. It is believed that the fire started in the rear of the premises, but at the moment investigators are looking at electrical faults—and arson has not been ruled out either.It has been a longstanding family business, run by the Meyers family. The late Lindsay Meyers was an incredible man and his determination and hard work have built that business to where it is today. I want to extend my deepest sympathies to Russell and his family. Russell has 18 staff who work at the factory. One of the first things he said when he was interviewed by a news crew at the scene of the fire was, `I am concerned about my staff and about getting their jobs back on track.' There was no mention of his own personal feelings but about getting his staff members back into a job, and that absolutely touched me.They do want to rebuild. I am sure that with that sort of determination and will they will rebuild. They are starting already—in fact, the day after the fire I spoke to them and was able to assist them. They will be back in business. (Time expired)1119511195Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—Along with 50,000 other people, I marched from Redfern to Sydney Town Hall yesterday in support of the mighty South Sydney Rugby League Club and their right to play in the competition. South Sydney Rugby League Club are financially viable. They have the best facilities in the game at the Sydney Football Stadium and they have the best juniors in the game. You cannot buy respect, you cannot buy history, and those in News Ltd who seek to destroy the game should think about that.The fact is that local institutions play a central role in defining a sense of community and giving our young people role models to aspire to. The attempt to destroy South Sydney and to exclude them from the competition, under rules which are not publicly available and under criteria which are not open to scrutiny, is a disgrace. George Piggins—the mighty George Piggins—has written to the NRL asking for the details of the finances of each of the other clubs so that there can be some objective examination, because any objective examination of the code and of clubs' viability will show that South Sydney has a rightful place, as the greatest club and a foundation club, to participate. It was pleasing to be in the same group as people such as John Sattler, Elwyn Walters, Bernie Purcell and Jack Rayner—people whose history does count. It was a great day. (Time expired)1119611196Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—I rise to acknowledge the excellent work of the Lantern clubs of New South Wales, and in particular the Blue Mountains Lantern Club, in raising money for the Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children. The Blue Mountains Lantern Club is one of 25 in New South Wales. I was fortunate on Saturday to attend a luncheon which celebrated their 30th anniversary—that is, 30 years of hard and tireless work by this small group of volunteers to raise money for blind and deaf children. Over those 30 years they have raised $340,000 to help the institute and to help those young children. In what is not an affluent area, this is an excellent effort.I would like to particularly acknowledge the good work of the President, Edna Peters, who has led this able group of volunteers for the last 10 years. It is the selfless commitment to put others first which really enriches our community. The example of the Blue Mountains Lantern Club in putting others first, and in working tirelessly and with commitment to help those who are less fortunate, is a great example to us all and a great asset to our community. Congratulations to Edna Peters. Congratulations to all members of the Blue Mountains Lantern Club on their 30th anniversary.1119611196Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—I have had a lot of calls this morning from some pretty angry and disappointed people in my electorate. They are calling from Barcaldine which, as many members here know, is the home of the Australian Workers Heritage Centre. The townspeople of Barcy are very proud of what the centre does in displaying an important part of our country's history. They are also very proud of what the centre contributes towards the growing tourism industry in central west Queensland. The people who called me this morning are angry because the Commonwealth government has chosen to play politics in the way that funding has been allocated to projects under the Centenary of Federation program. The people at the Workers Heritage Centre put in their application in 1997 but missed out on funding from the Commonwealth government for their project.However, if you look at the minister's press release this morning, each of the other significant attractions in the outback has received quite significant funding from the Commonwealth government. I am not knocking those other projects; they are great projects. They are part of my electorate as well, and the people of Barcy do not knock them. What they are upset about is the fairly blatant politicking they see going on because of the Workers Heritage Centre's connection to the Labor Party. They expected some fairness in the way that that funding was allocated. This is not tokenistic for this part of Queensland. Tourism is a very important part of where the outback sees its future going, and Barcy wants to be part of that. (Time expired)1119711197Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—The nation is presently commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Boer War in which the Imperial Bushmen's Contingent and the Bush Veldt Carbineers participated. The Creswick Blue Light/RSL Light Horse Troop is a re-enactment group of the Australian Light Horse. The troop consists of 28 young riders, foot soldiers and nurses, all of whom are clad in uniforms of the era. The Creswick Light Horse Troop is a division of the Creswick Youth Alliance Branch Blue Light Discos Inc. and the Light Horse Troop serves as a living memorial which perpetuates the memory of a military strength of past generations.There are four young people from my electorate who made the 800-kilometre trip, and I would like to congratulate them. They are Laura and Dane Woodward, Hannah Aumann and Mark Hansen. These young people rode their horses, ably supported by the rest of the Creswick troop. The Prime Minister and Minister for Veterans' Affairs were there today. It was a magnificent spectacle and a number of members from both sides of the House were there to witness it. I congratulate not only the young people from my electorate but indeed all those who participated in the magnificent event this morning.1119711197Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I want to put on the record a small group of people in my electorate who are doing a fantastic job of keeping the area's history in touch with the people. They are called the Ipswich Historical Society. In particular, I would like to mention two people, Ian Wilson and Barry Wade, who do a fabulous job in keeping this movement going. The society was first formed at a public meeting in 1966 because they recognised the need to collect and preserve some of the history of the region. It is a region which has an immense and a very significant history. It is a regional country area that certainly has a lot of history that needs to be preserved. The society was first incorporated in 1991 and today it has four life members. As I said, it is a small group. It has a membership of only 44 people, but 44 people who are extremely dedicated to preserving what is very important to that region. The society has been involved in many events throughout the years. In particular, it was at the first turning of the sod of the Queensland railway celebrations in 1969, with all members of the society taking part at that time.The society has also raised funds to support its work over the years as there has been very little funding to keep it going. That is one of the great reasons why I think those people need to be recognised more—they are doing this off their own bat and with their own money. The society's members attend a number of activities in relation to heritage in the area, such as the Ipswich City Council Heritage Advisory Committee. (Time expired)1119711197Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I rise today to add my congratulations to the Australian netball team for their magnificent victory in the 1999 world championships. Anyone who watched that game with the thrilling one goal finish would have found it very exciting. It was certainly another magnificent Australian effort. Many people do not realise that netball is the largest participation sport in Australia, with some 350,000 players registered and, I believe, almost three-quarters of a million playing regularly. It is a great achievement for the Australian netball team to once again take out the world championships over their arch rivals, New Zealand. On that day they provided one of the best games of netball that has been seen anywhere in the world. Certainly the people of my electorate enjoyed watching their magnificent performance. They once again did Australia proud in the sporting arena.1119711197Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise to advise the parliament of the work carried out in Western Sydney by the Tuesday Night Club. This club operates as a recreational service provider for people with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities. The club educates its members in living skills, how to handle their finances and how to find accommodation. The club organises social activities and a range of holidays for its members. Along with Blacktown councillor Charlie Lowles, former councillor Geoff Bisby and the regional manager representing the New South Wales Minister for Ageing and Disabilities, Mr Andrew Weir, last month I attended a ball at the Parramatta RSL to celebrate 20 years of the club's existence.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Miscellaneous1119810000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that on Thursday, 30 September 1999, I received a letter from the Hon. Gareth John Evans QC resigning his seat as the member for the electoral division of Holt. On Friday, 1 October, I issued a writ in connection with the by-election for the division of Holt, and the dates fixed are those announced to the House on 30 September 1999.Questions Without Notice111981119811198Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. It arises from the reports last week that INTERFET positions were being repeatedly probed by Indonesian special forces operating from across the border with West Timor. In light of yesterday's border clash between Australian and Indonesian troops, what representations has the government been making to Jakarta to minimise the risk of conflict between the TNI and INTERFET? What has been the Indonesian government's response?11198Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. Perhaps it gives me an opportunity to say something about this incident and also, in the course of that, to answer the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I only interrupt the Prime Minister because a number of members have indicated to me that they could not hear the Leader of the Opposition and are unable to hear the Prime Minister. I invite the Prime Minister to continue.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I do not mind if he asks it again.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If members were unable to hear the question, the standing orders allow the Leader of the Opposition to repeat it, and I would invite him to do so.11198Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question to the Prime Minister arose from reports last week that INTERFET positions were being repeatedly probed by Indonesian special forces operating from across the border with West Timor. In light of yesterday's border clash between Australian and Indonesian troops, what representations has the government been making to Jakarta to minimise the risk of conflict between the TNI and INTERFET? What has been the Indonesian government's response?11198Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. The position, as I have been informed by the INTERFET forces and the ADF, is that at 1.15 p.m. East Timor time yesterday INTERFET forces were patrolling towards the village of Motaain in north-west East Timor near the border. INTERFET was engaged by militia who were accompanied by TNI forces and POLRI. INTERFET troops were fired on first. INTERFET troops returned fire in self-defence, as they are entitled to do. INTERFET personnel believe that the incident took place in East Timor. We understand that at least one Indonesian person may have been killed.The government regards this incident in the most serious terms. It shows that some elements in TNI may be disregarding the terms of the UN Security Council resolution 1264 and continuing to support militia groups. We are seeking urgent high-level discussions in Dili and Jakarta to agree measures to reduce the chances of similar incidents in future near the West Timor border. The House will be aware of discussions that have already taken place on the ground between the INTERFET commander and elements of the TNI command still in East Timor. We will also be making our concerns known to the United Nations Secretary-General.1119911199Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the progress in New York of the UN Security Council resolution mandating the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor? What is the government's position on a resolution which is expected to come into place after the Indonesian parliament agrees to formal separation of East Timor from Indonesia?11199Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for La Trobe for his question and for his interest in this subject, which is a matter of interest to all Australians. I was in New York the week before last and used that opportunity to, amongst other things, discuss with Security Council members the prospects for a new resolution to replace the existing resolution 1264 to ensure that there are appropriate arrangements for East Timor once East Timor is separated from Indonesia.Australian officials and I have been urging and lobbying members of the Security Council to enact a robust and comprehensive resolution that will allow for a seamless transition to a United Nations peacekeeping operation. On 7 October—that is last week—the British government introduced a draft resolution to the Security Council authorising the establishment of the proposed United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor. The draft incorporates major elements of recommendations made by the Secretary- General in his 4 October report, which did describe the situation in East Timor as critical, with no civil administration, with no judiciary or legal system, and with essential services on the brink of collapse. We have argued for, and the draft resolution proposes, a robust chapter 7 mandate for the United Nations transitional authority, and it envisages an operation of two or three years duration.We want to see a robust mandate. This draft resolution proposes a mission structure of three components: firstly, governance and public administration; secondly, United Nations and other humanitarian assistance; and, thirdly, a military component consisting of between 8,000 and 9,000 personnel. The draft resolution is expected to be considered further at expert level in the course of this week and to be voted on by the Security Council on 23 October. Australia is actively assisting the United Nations to prepare for the United Nations transitional authority in East Timor. We have several Australian experts providing input to planning in New York, and we have technical missions scheduled to travel to East Timor in the near future.1119911199Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Have you written to your counterparts as represented in INTERFET inviting them to a conference in Darwin? If so, when is this conference to take place?11199Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—I wrote to defence ministers who are members of the coalition and suggested to them that there should be a meeting at some stage this year, probably in November. That seemed to me to be an entirely appropriate thing to do. Those countries have made a significant contribution to the success of the commitment in East Timor. In the letter, I thanked them very much for their contribution. As the foreign minister has just outlined in his answer to the previous question, we are in the process of possibly moving to phase 3. Under those circumstances, the arrangements will be different and it would be quite natural to have some serious discussion with ministers.1119911199Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House of the outcomes of the 1999 South Pacific Forum leaders meeting at which he represented Australia? Did Australia secure support from the leaders of the region for the UN sanctioned INTERFET force in East Timor and Australia's leadership role in that operation? How strong was that support and how was it expressed?11199Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for her question. Indeed, it was my very great privilege to represent this country last week on the beautiful island of Palau at the 30th such forum. It was very well chaired by the president of Palau, President Nakamura. Leaders at the forum issued a special statement of support on East Timor after the retreat that we enjoyed on a very attractive island for many hours on the second day. That statement of support was in addition to the normal communique from the meeting. The special statement—and I am sure that this will be of great interest to all people in this House—commended the contribution of South Pacific Forum members to regional security, applauded the central role of forum countries in responding to the crisis in East Timor, welcomed Australian leadership of the INTERFET multinational force and welcomed both Indonesia's agreement to the establishment of INTERFET and the early success of INTERFET in restoring peace and security. It also called for the early establishment of a UN transitional administration and peacekeeping force in East Timor.But it went further. Leaders went on to say that they specifically indicated both their willingness and their desire to provide practical support to the United Nations operations in East Timor. They expressed a very strong desire to make their own contribution. I believe that is very significant, as well as very welcome. Many of those island nations are small communities—as they themselves would acknowledge—with limited resources, but they were adamant that they wanted to be involved and involved on the ground. The Australian government will now hold further talks with the island nations to see how they can best make an appropriate contribution. As they themselves put it, they do not expect to make a contribution in terms of military personnel or equipment, but in other areas such as policing, technical support, perhaps medical assistance and, interestingly—as one of them volunteered—in the area of expertise in rebuilding small communities, they may very well have things they can contribute, and they are keen to do so.I think the forum was therefore very good in terms of its outcomes from Australia's point of view. At the very time that the Leader of the Opposition here in Australia was carping about the need for the government to garner regional support, the South Pacific Forum was delivering that support in full. I think that is welcome, and there is no doubt that Australia and Australians very much appreciate the communique from the forum. I note, in passing, that from next year the name of forum is to be changed to the Pacific Island Forum. In closing my remarks, I congratulate the President of the Republic of Palau, His Excellency President Nakamura, on his chairmanship and on the success of the forum.1120011200Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister and it concerns Amnesty International's letter to him last Friday urging full Australian support for the UN Human Rights Commission inquiry into atrocities in East Timor, including provision of relevant information held by Australian intelligence agencies. Prime Minister, will you give an in principle commitment to provide the UN inquiry with relevant information held by the Australian government in a similar fashion to the intelligence assistance that NATO governments have given the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia?11200Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As always in these things, we will do the right thing.1120011200Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of recent international recognition of Australia's strong economy and its contribution to international financial reform?11200Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Moore for his question. I can advise the House that, during the recent annual meetings of the IMF and the World Bank in Washington, the membership of a new international grouping, the G20, was settled. The G20 is a group of countries which is considered systemically important to the world financial system and it was set up in response to a G7 initiative because of concerns about those countries which had recently been through crises. Australia has been asked to join the G20 group in recognition that it is systemically important to the world financial system and for its contribution to the international financial architecture. The group will be chaired by the Canadian Minister for Finance, with a ministerial meeting to be held for the first time in December this year. That is in addition to the fact that Australia is now a member of the Financial Stability Forum on Banking, which comprises the G7 and only four other countries in the world. It also recognises important financial centres.In addition to that, in the year 2000 Australia has been chosen to chair the OECD. The OECD is the grouping of the world's 29 industrialised countries that have the highest living standards. Australia has been chosen to chair the OECD council, which will be held in June next year, in recognition of its financial strength, particularly in the light of the East Asian financial crisis.Indeed, the Secretary-General of the OECD, Mr Don Johnston, will be visiting Australia next week to prepare for the OECD ministerials. As he recently said before coming out to Australia:Australia's performance is an example for other countries. It demonstrates that it is possible to continue opening markets and benchmarking performance against OECD best practice even in the face of severe external shocks.That is recognition at the OECD level, at the IMF level, in the Financial Stability Forum and at the G20 level of Australia's importance as a financial centre with its success in economic management during the Asian financial crisis and the legitimate and real reform building intentions that we have brought to discussions on the international financial architecture.Distinguished Visitors1120111201Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a delegation from the National Assembly of Vietnam and, most particularly, from their Council for Ethnic Minorities. On behalf of every member of the House, I extend to the leader and delegation a very warm welcome.Questions Without Notice112011120111201Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, I refer to your `big point' on the Ralph report that there was a $2 billion revenue shortfall in the business tax measures announced three weeks ago. When will you present the full details of a business tax package that is revenue neutral?11201Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As usual, the member for Hotham misrepresents. It was his big point that there was a so-called shortfall. He did that, as I pointed out at the time, by adding up six years of budget forward estimates, something that has never been done in the history of economic debate before.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Except by you.CT4Mr COSTELLO—No. I am afraid that, if you pull out your budget, you will find the forward estimates are always four years—Mr McMullan interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Manager of Opposition Business.CT4Mr COSTELLO—and you, as a shadow minister of finance, might have been thought to have pulled out a budget at least once in your term as shadow minister for finance. But perhaps that is expecting a little bit too much. Indeed, we have never published six years of forward estimates before, nor have we ever referred to cumulations of six years. It was the big point of the member for Hotham.Mr Crean interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—His vociferous interjections merely indicate that he has lost again on the point and been thoroughly exposed on the matter. In relation to the Ralph matters generally, he would also be aware, if he had studied them carefully, that the government has deferred measures which we are currently taking soundings on which, in addition to that, would generate additional revenues.But I do want to make this point, and it is important: the Labor Party was desperate to deal itself in on the Ralph review—absolutely desperate. All through the period before the announcement, the member for Hotham was trailing his coat, saying, `Don't forget me. I was irrelevant on GST. I was irrelevant on personal income tax. I was irrelevant on welfare reform. I have been irrelevant to the economic debate. I was irrelevant and went missing when the budget debates were on. But don't forget me with business tax reform.'PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The Treasurer was asked a specific question on the shortfall, the revenue neutrality of his package. He is now deviating way away from that. We are going to have to pay for a commitment in Timor, a very substantial commitment.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has made his point of order. He will resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—We want to know what he is talking about when he speaks of `revenue neutral'.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Treasurer will deal with the question of the budget deficit.CT4Mr COSTELLO—He pleaded to become relevant on business taxation. He announced on the day that he thought that these were `negotiable reforms', I think were the words he used. He sought briefings, got briefings. But the Labor Party has still been incapable of announcing a position on business tax reform—still incapable of announcing a position.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.DT4CREANMr Crean—Where is your position?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition does not have the call and will not get the call while the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is interjecting. When the House comes to order, I will recognise the Leader of the Opposition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The question was: when will you present the full details of the business tax package that is revenue neutral?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—When are you going to do it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the House has come to order, I will recognise the Treasurer and the Treasurer will come to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—We have announced the most far-reaching, far-sighted reform of business taxation in the history of Australia. What it does is reduce company taxes. It cuts capital gains tax in half. It gives merger relief. It introduces a simplified taxation system. In relation to the remainder of matters, including high level reform, we have said to the business community, `During the month of October give us your views on those matters and we will announce a response in November.' But the silence from Labor is deafening—still not a position on any single measure. It is trying to be relevant, but what happens when you do not have a policy? When you do not have a policy, you oppose, oppose, oppose, because it becomes a substitute for not having a policy and not thinking and not having a leader.1120211202Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Minister, would you inform the House how Australians have responded to the opportunity to invest in the Telstra 2 share offer? When will those who have invested know how many shares they have been allocated?11202Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—Last Thursday was the deadline for those who wished to invest in the retail tranche of the Telstra 2 share offer. I am very pleased to advise the honourable member for Makin and members of the House that the response of Australian investors has been very strong. In fact, it has exceeded the government's expectations. More than 1.56 million Australians have applied for more than 1.4 billion shares in the offer. This response means that more than 66 per cent of the shares available have been applied for by Australian retail investors. It also represents a large proportion of those who pre-registered for the offer.This outstanding response supports the government's decision to offer a further 16.6 per cent of the Telstra shares to Australian investors. It demonstrates that Australians are eager to invest in one of this country's largest and most dynamic companies, and it confirms that the government has succeeded in making the Telstra 2 share offer both fair and reasonable.This time next week, subject to market conditions, shares offered as part of this offer will be trading on the Australian Stock Exchange. The final price will be no greater than the average price of existing Telstra shares traded on the Australian Stock Exchange this week less the applicable retail discount. Investors will then know the cost of their second instalment, which is not due for another year—in fact, just after the Sydney Olympics. Details of the allocation and final prices will be announced next weekend and published in daily newspapers next Monday. I am pleased that so many Australians have decided to participate in this offer. I wish them well in their investment, and I acknowledge them for investing in this dynamic Australian company and helping to make Australia one of the world's great share owning democracies.1120311203Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Treasurer. Treasurer, given that parts of your business tax package have been open to serious question over the use of dubious revenue assumptions, what assumptions did you rely on to come up with the $500 million revenue windfall from the capital gains tax changes? Will you release those assumptions and Treasury's analysis of them as well as the letter that John Ralph wrote to the Acting Treasurer explaining how he came up with these figures?11203Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—We are asked to release what we relied on: we relied on the report from John Ralph which is 800 pages long. There has never been a more transparent process in relation to business tax reform in Australia. You set up an inquiry which has three of Australia's leading businessmen, they have something like 16 public meetings, they get 370 submissions, they get focus groups in, they run their proposals through business focus groups, they do an 800-page report and the Australian Labor Party asks, `Would you please release the explanation?' It is 800 pages of explanation.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The question actually asked for the Treasury analysis of those assumptions in Ralph, which I would have thought a Treasurer making decisions would have access to and should make available.CT4Mr COSTELLO—There is no need to get so upset about it.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will address his remarks to the chair.DT4CREANMr Crean—Then release the information.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer is responding to the question and has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—He asks, `Will you release the material you relied on?' We released 800 pages. Two weeks ago the putative shadow Treasurer said, `Give us a briefing.' We gave him a briefing; we brought him in. He was desperate to be dealt in. He said, `Don't forget about us. We want to be relevant to the whole procedure.' We go away for two weeks to see how his thinking has matured during the two weeks, and there has been no advance—not one position. He does not know where he stands on capital gains; he does not know where he stands on company tax; he does not know where he stands on the simplified tax system.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer must come to the question posed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.CT4Mr COSTELLO—All of these things are fully explained and costed in the open report of three of Australia's leading businessmen. The Australian Labor Party can say it is opposed to business tax reform or it can say that it does not believe that John Ralph is a credible inquirer. That is what it can say, but of course it says neither. It comes to no position; it nitpicks around. Why? Because it cannot have a policy. The one thing you will never hear from the Labor Party is a policy. Labor and policy do not go together.83TRUDDMr Rudd—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. In the two or three minutes in which the Treasurer has been speaking not one word of his answer has dealt with the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Griffith will resume his seat.1120411204Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, last week a full bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission handed down a decision on the Hunter Valley No. 1 Coalmine dispute after being asked by the CFMEU to arbitrate. What is the outcome of that decision? What does it mean for enterprise negotiations in the future?11204Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Mitchell for his question. It is a very important decision. It means that the system of enterprise negotiations is now fair and square at the centre of the labour market system in Australia. What that means for ordinary workers is that we now have a system that is going to encourage our businesses to promote productivity and that we have the wherewithal to continue to pay higher wages as a result of a more efficient system. This system helps to create not only higher wages—which we have seen in the last three years the system has been in place—but also jobs in the economy at large. So this is a very good decision. It is consistent with the reforms that we introduced in 1996, and it also underlines that in future the award system will be basically a safety net for those who are disadvantaged, those who are economically at the lower end of the wage scale. This decision confirms important trends and the basic pillars which we put in place back in the 1996 Workplace Relations Act.If you look at the editorial in the Australian this morning, they summed it up when they said: The decision is a welcome sign that an adequate framework for enterprise bargaining is being created in Australia.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Pity about the umpire.WI4Mr REITH—`Pity about the umpire,' says the shadow minister, who made the ridiculous claim that this was the end of arbitration. How could you possibly make such a claim when this decision was an arbitrated decision of the commission? This was a decision made under 170MX of the act, which is the provision in the act which provides an arbitral power for the commission. I know that because I spent many hours with the member for Dickson going over the exact words of this particular provision. This was not, `Push me over, I'm worried about a double dissolution.' Oh, no. This was a deliberate and carefully worded section to ensure an appropriate balance and a continuing role for the commission in certain circumstances. She now feels isolated because the Labor Party has left that position. But, in fairness to the member for Dickson, the fact is that when we negotiated this agreement in 1996 it was part and parcel of Labor's policy to simplify the award system. This is what Paul Keating said in 1993:It is a model which places primary emphasis on bargaining at the workplace level within a framework of minimum standards provided by arbitral tribunals. It is a model under which compulsorily arbitrated awards and arbitrated wage increases would be there only as a safety net. This safety net would not be intended to prescribe the actual conditions of work of most employees, but only to catch those unable to make workplace agreements with employers.So the member for Dickson, when she negotiated with us, was negotiating within a concept laid down by the previous Labor leader. Now she feels embarrassed because she has got frontbenchers on the other side backgrounding against her. The fact is that this is the deal we did, and this is working in the interests of Australian businesses and Australian employees.The other furphy we get is, `Oh, this'll lead to industrial action.' This is the same old claim that Bill Kelty made back in 1996, `I'll give you the symphony, I'll give you the whole orchestra, you'll have nothing but industrial warfare.' Did we get industrial warfare as a result of the introduction of these reforms? The answer is no. In fact, we got the lowest level of industrial disputes. And, if you bothered to read the decision by the commission, it actually makes the point that this was a decision made by the commission, under its arbitral powers, on the merits of the issue.Here we have a case where the union has undertaken industrial warfare and lost, gained nothing for the members, and the company has been able to force through sensible changes in an industry which needs to be competitive if it is going to be able to maintain jobs in the coal industry. This is not the law of the jungle according to Greg Combet; this is exactly the reform process we agreed with the Democrats when they were not bound hand and foot to the ACTU in formulating policy. It is a very good decision for Australia. It is another step along an evolutionary path which means higher productivity, and with higher productivity we are going to have more jobs and higher living standards.1120511205Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question again is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, will you confirm that most of the Ralph measures not yet announced will not be implemented until July 2001—a year's delay? Doesn't this put a further hole in the revenue neutrality of your business tax package?11205Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Absolutely not, because a cursory reading of the measures that we have announced would show that in the year 2000-01 they actually produce revenue. You are actually, as a result of these changes, in front. You raise more revenue as a result of these changes in the year 2000-01.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It again goes to relevance—not to the announcements that they have made but to the ones that have been deferred, the below the line items which the—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made his point and will resume his seat.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The question was whether additional measures to raise revenue would not come into effect until 2001-02. That was the question. The point I make is: why would you be looking for additional revenue measures before 2001-02 when the changes announced to date are actually revenue positive in 2000-01? We are talking here about measures to take place in 2001-02, because if you were looking for additional revenue you would not need it until 2001-02. That is also the reason why the government was in the position to say that it could engage in consultation with the business community. The business community, right throughout this very successful enterprise—probably the most transparent, up-front reform of business taxation in the history of Australia—said in relation to what we call high-level reforms, that is, the changing of concepts which are deeply embedded either by common law or by statute in our tax act, that if they were to apply then they needed consultation and they had to be put back. And, since they were not needed until 2001-02 because the package was revenue positive in the next financial year, 2000-01, we were only too happy to do that—to engage in the consultation.The Labor Party apparently is against the consultation or alternatively—which I believe is the case—cannot come to a view. So what does it do? It nitpicks around what is going to happen in 2001-02. But here is a real question for the Labor Party: the capital gains tax changes which we announced are to take place from 30 September this year—from a date that has passed. Why don't you focus your question on your attitude to a law which is designed to have taken effect from 30 September 1999 rather than fixating yourself on measures in 2001-02? We know the real position of the Labor Party is that it wants higher capital gains taxes. That was the policy it took to the 1998 election—higher capital gains taxes.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Oh, he does not like this.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—It goes to relevance. He was asked a very specific question. He challenges us to support legislation which he has not even introduced—a 30 September starting date and no bill.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is not a relevant point of order. The Leader of the Opposition, the Treasurer was asked a question about the impact of the Ralph reforms and is responding to that question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—As you move around the world the whole movement in relation to tax reform is to reduce capital gains taxes, for example: the Clinton administration, a capital gains flat tax rate of 20 per cent; Gordon Brown, the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer of the UK, was proudly boasting that Labour is reducing company tax and capital gains tax in Britain; and, as Ireland's finance minister, Minister McCreevy, recently pointed out, in Ireland they reduced company taxes and capital gains taxes, and revenues went up. So we have what you would probably call a left of centre government in the United States, a left of centre government in the UK—83UCOXMr Cox—Do you believe if you cut taxes revenues go up?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingston is warned.CT4Mr COSTELLO—and a left of centre government in Ireland all moving like this government to modernise business taxation. The only ones in the whole world who stand out—like they do with their modern thinking on the wholesale sales tax—is the Australian Labor Party, the party of reaction that modernisation has passed over. What you ought to do to get relevant to this debate is support us on tax reform to bring Australia into the modern world to get us into international practice, and have the decency for once in your lives to support a positive policy.1120611206Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. I refer to the minister's visit to Singapore and Tokyo last week. What were the outcomes of the discussions he had there regarding regulatory reform, and how will this further reform promote Australia as a centre for global financial services?11206Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I would like to thank the member for Fadden for his question. Last week the Minister for Trade and I travelled to Singapore and Tokyo, where we held over 30 meetings—most of them bilateral meetings—to discuss Australia's development as a global financial centre. From those meetings two points became evident. The first is that only some sections of the international financial community are fully aware of just how far Australia has come not only in its regulatory reform but also in its taxation reform. It surprised many people. Even the Monetary Authority of Singapore signalled to us that they are very interested in our corporate law reform program. They were surprised that, despite the Labor Party's opposition, we were are able to get the GST through. They praised us for the GST package, the ANTS package, and the good work done by the Treasurer and the government on that.What became evident was that Australia is at the forefront of international best practice across a range of areas. Lehman Bros, which is a global investment bank, handed me exclusively a copy of their international report on global stock exchanges last Thursday.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Only the Australian people don't like it.DK6Mr HOCKEY—You should listen to this. The report said—and this is salient advice for the Labor Party:Globalisation is rendering locally based systems completely inadequate. The sheer speed of change will bring about a much more flexible approach to regulation based on an agreed best practice.They go on to say that the traditional centres of London, New York and Tokyo are going to be in competition with centres such as Sydney. But the overwhelming advice that they put in the report is this—and the Labor Party should also listen to this:We believe—this is a global report—that Australia is extremely well positioned to continue to be a trendsetter into the 21st century.Why is it that the Labor Party opposes every attempt that we make to bring about better regulation? Why is it that the Labor Party opposes us on taxation reform—the taxation reform that the Monetary Authority of Singapore lauds us for? Why is it that the Labor Party opposes us on corporate law reform?QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question is about the minister's visit to Singapore and what agreements he may have made with the Singapore government—nothing to do with the Labor Party.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question was, in fact, as I noted, about the—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Members on my right! I was responding to a point of order from the member for Chifley. The question was about the world's view of changes that have occurred to regulation in Australia. The minister is entirely in order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The world and I!DK6Mr HOCKEY—As the Leader of the Opposition says, the world was amazed at the position of the Labor Party on this. Why is the Labor Party opposing corporate law reform? Why is it opposing taxation reform? Why is it opposing corporate tax reform? Why is the Labor Party opposing every regulatory initiative that this government is putting in place and every budgetary initiative that this government is putting in place that is delivering a better quality of life for Australians? The only answer is that the Labor Party does not understand the issues. It is being laughed at globally, and it is going to pay the price.1120711207Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Can the minister inform the House what has happened to funding for the Women's Electoral Lobby, the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition, the Girl Guides, the National Council for Single Mothers and their Children, the Older Women's Network, the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation and the Catholic Women's League? Minister, is it not a fact that you have de-funded all of these agencies over the past three years, including five last Friday, following their strong criticism of the GST? Minister, is this how you are building your social coalition—by removing all of the groups which may disagree with you?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for McMillan.11207Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I thank the member for Lilley for yet another insightful question. Of course, the government is always reviewing how best to spend government allocations to many groups. I might add that just recently we funded the Lone Fathers Association, which is a very worthy organisation—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Brisbane. This is the fourth time that I have had to draw his attention to the standing orders. I would have thought every member of this House would want to remain in the House and not find themselves outside it and no longer able to represent their electorate.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—It is good to see the Labor Party so interested in this. I also note that many of these programs are funded through the Office of the Status of Women. We have a major commitment to all groups. I think the member for Lilley is more interested in promotion and propaganda than he is in good policy.1120711207Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation. Can the minister inform the House of any recent initiatives the government has undertaken to celebrate Australia's 100 years of federation in the year 2001? How will my electorate of Hinkler and other electorates in Queensland benefit from the government's actions?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Swan is warned.11207McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I thank the honourable member for Hinkler for his question. He has a deep and abiding interest in the issue of federation funding, as do a number of members, even on the other side of the House, who benefited from the joint announcement by the Premier of Queensland, Peter Beattie, and me late last week with respect to federal funding for the Queensland heritage trails. The federal government invested some $50 million from the Federation Fund, and the Queensland government, in a joint project, invested some $38 million. The sum of $12 million will be garnered from local government and corporate or private sponsorship—making an investment of $100 million into rural and regional Queensland.It is a magnificent concept. The Premier was fulsome in his praise of the Commonwealth, because he knows—as he said privately and publicly—that this is a very significant, indeed historic, injection of funding for tourism and cultural development infrastructure in rural Queensland of the like not seen before. There are four trails: the coast trail, which follows the eastern coast from Brisbane right up to the Torres Strait; the mining and dinosaurs trail, which links the great mining sites of the north and the fossil beds from the prehistoric inland sea; the Matilda trail, which links the sites and landscapes of Queensland's outback; and, finally, the early settlers trail, which links places and landscapes associated with the pastoral industry—largely centred on the Darling Downs.As a result, tourists who are driving can link up with the four trails. There will be cultural destinations where museums are being refurbished and galleries are installing new attractions. It is all quite magnificent and will appeal to international tourists as much as to domestic tourists.I inform the member for Hinkler that the Mount Morgan Mining Centre, worth $1 million, is being funded. The electorates of a number of other members—the members for Brisbane, Oxley, Wide Bay, Capricornia, Dawson, Herbert, Kennedy, Groom and Leichhardt—are receiving significant investments. Those members have been vitally interested and have been champions and advocates for their electorates. As a result, there is much needed infrastructure now available to meet not only the social or cultural aspirations of their communities but also their need for economic development.1120811208Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, do you recall stating in this House on 20 September in relation to the pension increase:What we are doing here is ensuring pensioners are protected.Minister, isn't it a fact that the new pension payment system introduced on 1 July this year has seen pensioners paid the new pension rate for only the proportion of their fortnightly pension that fell after the 20 September increase rather than the full fortnightly increase that was payable before the changes? Minister, isn't it true that these changes have seen each of Australia's 2.5 million pensioners short-changed by up to $5 each and that this has resulted in annual savings of up to $20 million per year?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order, members on my right! The member for Lilley will come to his question. He is now advancing a case.2V5Mr SWAN—Minister, is this yet another attempt to rip away the GST compensation?11208Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—It is interesting to note, Mr Speaker, that the member for Lilley is determined to scare our elderly, our pensioners, and every other interest group. As far as the arrangements with Centrelink for pension paydays are concerned, we gave the people on pensions—indeed, people on any government payments—the choice of day to receive their payments. If they are unhappy receiving payments on that day, they can always go back to the first day.Mr Swan interjecting—XJ6Mr ANTHONY—The member for Lilley spends all his time scaring innocent people.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Lilley is warned.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—The member for Lilley spends all his time scaremongering amongst people who are not fortunate enough to have the ability to look after themselves. We are doing this as part of our equitable social welfare program, particularly looking after people on pensions.1120911209Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Can the minister inform the House of the implications for Australian sport and tourism of Melbourne's winning the bid to host the 2006 Commonwealth Games and of the role that the federal government will play.11209Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I congratulate the member for his interest in this major sporting event which brings an enormous boost not only to our elite sport but also to tourism within Australia. It is the government's aim throughout the Olympic Games, the 2001 Goodwill Games and the 2002 Gay Games to spread the benefits from these events to all of Australia. I congratulate the Melbourne Commonwealth Games team on their successful bid. I think we were assisted by Wellington's pulling out but, nevertheless, it was a win. I understand that our overseas missions, our diplomatic posts, worked very well with the state of Victoria to present the successful bid to host these 2006 Games. It certainly gives our elite athletes something to train on for past 2000. We will continue to assist all those who seek to have events in Australia, and to distribute the benefits from those events right across Australia—from the outer fringes of our urban areas to our regional areas—so that all of Australia benefits from these major events.1120911209Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, you have repeatedly claimed in this House that the purpose of the radiology agreement was to make a saving of $80 million over three or four years compared to the forward estimates. Is it not the case that Medicare statistics released last week show total Medicare expenditure on radiology has ballooned by 14 per cent or $130 million in one year? Despite this, gap charges by radiologists have increased another three per cent. Does this not confirm your department's prediction in May this year that the expenditure on radiology was massively over budget for the next three years and that your agreement has failed? What action have you taken to recover these funds from radiologists and what have you done to prevent the cost of this blow-out being passed on to patients in the form of increased gap payments?11209Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her question. The first thing I did was have discussions with radiologists over several months. In fact, a whole range of changes came in on 1 September which included an across-the-board cut of two per cent, some rules for attendance at items and a variety of other things. I point out that this is a three-year agreement and that you can only judge its success over three years and not in the first year. I expect it to be successful over three years, particularly having brought the changes in with the cooperation of the profession.Secondly, this is the sort of agreement that the Labor Party were never able to come up with, to work cooperatively with the medical profession to try to balance and manage a budget over a period of time. It is a significant change. It is a significant reform. It is something the Labor Party can carp and whinge about but they were never up to it themselves. Thirdly, with regard to gaps, between 1985 and 1995, the average gap payment on Medicare under Labor went up 12.6 per cent. So you are hypocritical in the extreme to talk about a three per cent increase.1120911209Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister inform the House of Austrade's activities in promoting the arts and the cultural sector overseas and the benefit to Australia in improved export earnings.11209Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for Cook for his question. I recognise his obvious interest in trade—it being his former profession—and also his interest in exports of Australian art and culture. Austrade and the Australia Council have been involved in a process lately of promoting the export of Australia's arts and culture to the world. In fact, the annual growth rate for our exports has been between six per cent and seven per cent in recent times. We now earn more than $650 million in export earnings from cultural exports. In 1997-98, Austrade's Export Market Development Grants Scheme provided $4.3 million in grants to 77 cultural organisations which generated more than $100 million worth of exports for Australia. Austrade's work with the film industry has helped attract to Australia the production of movies such as The Thin Red Line and The Matrix .Last week Austrade, in conjunction with the Australia Council, conducted briefing sessions in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, to make people in the arts and cultural industries aware of the assistance available through Austrade for their export efforts. I thank the member for Cook for representing me in the Sydney briefing session and I acknowledge the involvement of my colleagues—the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Adelaide and the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation in the briefing session in Melbourne. It goes without saying that we should recognise that it is not just the sales of wheat and coal and export dollars earned from tourism that are important to Australia's export efforts but also Australia's cultural achievements and the arts.1121011210Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Minister, what steps did you take prior to the 1998 budget to determine the financial impact of the proposal by the Minister for Health and Aged Care to extend Medicare rebates to all MRI machines under contract on the night of the budget? Did your department make inquiries to determine how many contracts would benefit from this generous provision? Did the minister for health convey to you the concerns his department alerted him to several days before the budget that there might be problems if a large number of such contracts turned up after the budget?11210Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The question of magnetic resonance imaging and funding for it prior to the 1998 budget was the subject of discussion with my colleagues in the Expenditure Review Committee, and the Minister for Health and Aged Care had discussions with me in respect of it. What the honourable member for Jagajaga continues to forget in all of the matters she attempts to raise on this particular issue in this House is that the proposal was put to the government on the basis of a capped amount.There was a capped amount available for radiology generally. It was an extension of the funding in terms of radiology but within a capped amount. That is what was taken into the budget. That is the manner in which the minister for health has dealt with it throughout the period since it was first decided prior to the 1998 budget, within the 1998 budget and through to the present time. I believe that that covers the broader issues that were raised by the honourable member for Jagajaga. The simple fact is that, with the capped amount, so much is available for the service through MRI, and the minister for health continues to monitor that, as does the finance department.1121011210Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would the minister outline to the House the government's initiatives to further enhance young Australians' literacy and numeracy skills? Is the minister aware of alternative proposals which exist in this and other education policy areas?11210Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Forde for her question. The Howard government has put in place the nation's first national literacy plan to give every young Australian the chance to read and write satisfactorily by the time they leave primary school. Recently we held Australia's first national literacy week, at which 70 schools received awards for the progress they were making in teaching young people to read and write satisfactorily.The question asked me about alternative policies in this area. I am aware of alternative policies, but these alternative policies are not coming from the frontbench of the Labor Party because we know that, on the front bench, there is a complete policy vacuum. There is no leadership and there is a policy vacuum. But the backbench of the Labor Party are becoming desperate, and they are now producing some alternative policies which the frontbench seem unable to come up with.Last week the member for Rankin came forward with a 10-point education policy. We were told yesterday by the Sun-Herald that the member for Rankin cleared this speech with the opposition leader and discussed it with the shadow education minister. Of course, the opposition leader said, `There's no problem. This doesn't conflict with any of our policies. We don't have a policy in this area, but this 10-point policy might provide us with one.' The member for Rankin deserves credit. He said he did not intend his proposals as a criticism of Mr Lee. Of course, one can treat that with some scepticism because this is now the only education policy circulating on the other side. This is probably why Michelle Grattan wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald on 2 October:Michael Lee as education spokesman is not making a big impact. Yet this area is a priority for Mr Beazley, who aspires to be the "education prime minister". Mr Lee could be better used elsewhere.Perhaps the member for Fremantle can be brought down from the back bench, or maybe we will hear something from the member for Dickson. That might be her next portfolio. While chaos reigns on the other side of the House, this government is getting on with the task of making sure that all young Australians have educational opportunities.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Personal Explanations1121115:06:0011211O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Corio claim to have been misrepresented?WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—Most grievously.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—In a press release issued by the member for Eden-Monaro on Wednesday, 29 September 1999, the member claimed in relation to the dairy industry and the accusation that the ALP had engaged in scare tactics: This is in stark contrast to Labor's Gavan O'Connor, who is only now running around my electorate in an unprincipled attempt to scare dairy farmers, Mr Nairn concluded.Mr Speaker, I did visit the Eden-Monaro electorate before the New South Wales election. I have had consultations with concerned dairy farmers in Eden-Monaro about the state of the dairy industry and I have had consultations with the Labor candidate for Eden- Monaro before the last election, but I have not been to the member's electorate recently on this matter.1121110001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:11211796BV5 VU5 XS4 83A FI4Adams Dick MP; Griffin Alan MP; Lawrence Carmen MP; Livermore Kirsten MP; Morris Allan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the people of East Timor have overwhelmingly voted to become an independent and sovereign nation and the Indonesian Government has failed to fulfil its responsibility to maintain security in East Timor during the period of transmission to independence.We therefore petition the House to require the Government and all responsible Ministers to:(a) Withdraw Australia's de jure recognition of Indonesia's annexation of East Timor;(b) Sever Australia's remaining military ties with Indonesia;(c) Support calls for international institutions including the IMF and the World Bank to suspend all assistance to Indonesia;(d) Call upon Australia's regional neighbours to bring all possible pressure to bear on Indonesia at a bilateral and regional level including through the APEC forum; and(e) To act urgently to establish a peacekeeping force to end the military created anarchy that exists in East Timor and to protect the security of all citizens of East Timor.Mr AdamsBV5Mr Adams(from 71 citizens)Mr GriffinVU5Mr Griffin(from 377 citizens)Dr LawrenceXS4Dr Lawrence(from 237 citizens)Ms Livermore83AMs Livermore(from 86 citizens)Mr Allan MorrisFI4Mr Allan Morris(from 25 citizens)1121210942V5Swan Wayne MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the people of East Timor have overwhelmingly voted to become an independent and sovereign nation and the Indonesian Government has failed to fulfil its responsibility to maintain security in East Timor during the period of transmission to independence.We therefore petition the House to require the government and all responsible Ministers to:(a) Withdraw Australia's original de jure recognition of Indonesia's annexation of East Timor;(b) Suspend Australia's remaining military ties with Indonesia;(c) Support calls for international institutions to suspend all financial assistance to Indonesia;(d) To advise the Indonesian Government to direct forthwith the Indonesian Army to disarm the pro-Jakarta militia in East Timor; and(e) To advise the Indonesian Government to authorise forthwith the UN to despatch a peacekeeping force to East Timor.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr Swan2V5Mr Swan(from 1,094 citizens)1121270XW4Kernot Cheryl MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of electors of Dickson points out to the House our desire to see community pharmacists retain their unique position in Australia's health system.We trust and respect our local pharmacists and are opposed to any moves to allow supermarkets to compete against them. We believe that the community benefits from pharmacies being owned by pharmacists.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House heeds our wishes and allows our local pharmacy to continue to play a vital role in our health care.Ms KernotXW4Ms Kernot(from 70 citizens)11212705083CMcFarlane Jann MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of electors of Stirling points out to the House our desire to see community pharmacists retain their unique position in Australia's health system.We trust and respect our local pharmacists and are opposed to any moves to allow supermarkets to compete against them. We believe that the community benefits from pharmacies being owned by pharmacists.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House heeds our wishes and allows our local pharmacy to continue to play a vital role in our health care.Ms Jann McFarlane83CMs Jann McFarlane(from 7,050 citizens)112121683UCox David MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain electors of the Division of Kingston, draws to the attention of the House, their concern about the affect the proposed Goods and Services Tax may have on monthly maintenance charges paid by residents of retirement villages as many residents on single pensions would be severely disadvantaged by the GST being added to maintenance charges.Your petitioners therefore request the House to, give consideration to exempting such monthly maintenance charges from the GST, or to making concessions that will alleviate the impact of any increases.Mr Cox83UMr Cox(from 16 citizens)11212224283UCox David MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain residents of the State of South Australia draws to the attention of the House the property known as Glenthorne, an area of about 229 hectares situated at O'Halloran Hill and adjoining the Adelaide Hills Face Zone. Glenthorne has been in the possession of the Commonwealth Government for some eighty years.As the CSIRO no longer requires use of the land the opportunity now exists to re-establish for future generations native forests and wetlands within the urban environment.The area has the potential for a major park and recreation area to service the whole of South and South-Western Adelaide.The historic farm buildings which must be preserved should only be used for community, arts and crafts activities.Your petitioners therefore ask the House that Glenthorne;1. Is granted to the people of South Australia as open space;2. That native forests and wetlands are re-established; 3. That community recreation facilities are provided; and,4. That none of the land is sold for urban, commercial or industrial development.Mr Cox83UMr Cox(from 2,242 citizens)112131878T4Ferguson Laurie MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of the State of New South Wales respectfully bring to your attention their concern about the Board of Studies not offering an Extension Course for Turkish speaking students from 2001 onwards.Your petitioners therefore request that the House urgently review the decision with a view to ensuring the course is retained.Mr Laurie Ferguson8T4Mr Laurie Ferguson(from 187 citizens)11213104883WGerick Jane MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain electors of the Division of Canning draws to the attention of the House that at present, people cannot obtain the medication Donepezil under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) to treat Alzheimers. This drug is extremely expensive and is free only for those in a hospital or nursing home.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House allow Donepezil to become available on the PBS so that people who suffer from Alzheimer's can be treated at home and free up much needed hospital beds.Ms Gerick83WMs Gerick(from 1,048 citizens)1121330VU5Griffin Alan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The undersigned citizens and residents of Australia call on you to:. Label all Genetically Engineered foods that may be approved for sale;. Ensure pies contain meat and jam contains fruit;. Make food labels reflect the true nature of the contents;. Ensure that the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA)—the food safety watchdog—is adequately resourced to protect our food.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr GriffinVU5Mr Griffin(from 30 citizens)1121314792V5Swan Wayne MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The undersigned citizens and residents of Australia call on you to:Retain compositional and ingredient requirements for basic items so that meat pies still contain meat and jam contains fruit;Prevent misleading labelling of low fat foods;Keep responsibility for food regulation in the Department of Health;Properly consider the impact on consumers and publis health of any legislative proposals to water down ANZFA's powers and objectives and further deregulate the food industry;Make no tax changes that discriminate against healthy foods.We are among the big majority (90% plus) of Australians who want all foods accurately labelled. It is our right to make informed choices on what we eat.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr Swan2V5Mr Swan(from 1,479 citizens)11213907PG6Macklin Jenny MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The electors of the NSW Electorate of Richmond comprising the Tweed region draws to the attention of the House their deep concern and disappointment about the abolition of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program by the Howard Government in 1996.The abolition of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program has left pensioners and many people with no means of receiving affordable, preventative dental health care.We, the undersigned, ask the House of Representatives to re-establish the Commonwealth Dental Health Program immediately.Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin(from 907 citizens)1121384ZT4Somlyay Alex MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that a shipment of plutonium fuel is currently en route from Europe to Japan and destined to travel close to Australian waters. It is understood that the companies responsible for this shipment plan to make five such shipments a year along a route which passes south of Australia and then northwards through the Tasman Sea, parallel with Australia's eastern coastline. We are deeply concerned at the possibility of an accident involving these shipments of one of the most radiotoxic substances in existence. An accident on board the ships carrying this cargo could be catastrophic.Your petitioners therefore request the House to do everything in its power to prevent these shipments from occurring and to add its voice to the protests of countries such as New Zealand, Marshall Islands and Vanuatu to ensure that the Tasman and Pacific do not become the route for hazardous plutonium fuel shipments from Europe to Japan.Mr SomlyayZT4Mr Somlyay(from 84 citizens)Petitions received.Miscellaneous11214QI4PRICEMr Price—I rise under standing order 132 to inquire whether there are any ministerial responses to petitions.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—You may raise the query. The answer is no and, if there were, they would be included in the announcement automatically.Private Members' Business112141121415:11:0011214Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I move:That this House:(1) recognises the role of community pharmacy in the Australian health system;(2) notes the recommendations of the Joint select committee on the retailing Sector regarding the discouragement of pharmacies in chain stores;(3) draws attention to the independent professional status of Australian pharmacists in their delivery of dispensing and health advisory services; and(4) believes that pharmacy ownership should continue to reside with duly trained and qualified pharmacists.Before recapitulating the four terms of reference in today's debate on the future of pharmacy in Australia, let us review the role of pharmacy and pharmacies in the broad health and community structures of this country.There are approximately 4,950 community pharmacies in Australia, or one pharmacy for every 3,500 citizens. That is on a par with the United Kingdom, South Africa and New Zealand and slightly better than Canada and the United States. On average, every Australian visits a pharmacy 14 times a year and that is over 200 million visits per year for people seeking professional advice. These visits are responsible for a turnover of $6.5 billion a year. The pharmacy profession employs 40,000 salaried pharmacists and pharmacy assistants and 500 or more drug substances are dispensed each year through a range of 1,740 medical products.How do those raw figures compare with the rest of the world? Australia has 58.4 community pharmacists for every 100,000 of population and that is at the lower end of the representation of chemists in the community in OECD countries. Canada and the US have just over 62 per 100,000, while New Zealand has 65. When employed pharmacists are taken into account, there are 74.3 pharmacists for every 100,000 people. The male to female ratio in the pharmacy occupation is 55 per cent to 45 per cent. Seventy-nine per cent of pharmacists are employed in community pharmacies—I ask you to note that figure, Mr Deputy Speaker, nearly 80 per cent or four-fifths are employed in community pharmacies—15 per cent are employed in hospitals, clinics or the defence forces and six per cent are employed in industrial pharmacy. On a population basis, pharmacies are slightly overrepresented in capital cities, slightly underrepresented in metropolitan cities and rural areas, and well underrepresented in remote areas. At $16 per prescription on average, our costs compare favourably with the UK and are less than Canada, which is around $25 per prescription. New Zealand is about $22, South Africa is about $21 and the US is about $30 per prescription.Australia has a unique Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme which goes back to 1953. This scheme, maintained by parties of both persuasions, provides essential medicines to most Australians. In 1997-98 there were 183 million prescriptions issued in Australia. About two-thirds of these, 68 per cent, were covered by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, 20 per cent were not claimable as they cost less than the patient contribution, and six per cent were repatriation benefits. The remaining six per cent were private prescriptions. If you take the 20 per cent that were under the patient contribution level and the six per cent that were private, 26 per cent were paid for by the public; in other words, we paid for only a quarter of the medicines which were supplied.Against this background, is it any wonder that we should scrutinise most critically any move to diminish the role of the community pharmacist who is essentially the distributor of health care on behalf of the government and, in addition, the adviser on the appropriate use of drugs and medicines? At the time when we came to government, the cost of pharmaceuticals was increasing under Labor at 14 per cent per annum. By a range of sensible measures, especially referring to generic drugs and co-payments, that has slowed to nine per cent, but it is still a very worrying aspect given that the annual cost of pharmaceuticals now exceeds $3 billion per year. A knee-jerk reaction to this is to say, `Let's apply national competition policy to this field and see how it stacks up.'While I recognise the need for competition if Australia is to be efficient and compete internationally, I query the relevance of this principle to the occupation of pharmacy. First, the concept is flawed inasmuch as it tries to apply competition policy to a profession. I think that is something that has been missing from the debate about pharmacy from day one—it is a profession; it is not just some business that can be played with. Second, it takes no cognisance of the Commonwealth's already considerable role as the `gatekeeper' in the approval and pricing of drugs and medicines to the community. The Commonwealth has a considerable influence. Third, it denies the advisory role of the pharmacist in the appropriate use of prescription drugs and certain restricted medicines sold over the counter only in pharmacies. Fourth, it presupposes that there is no competition in the pharmacy industry itself.I have a very strong view of the role of the four-year trained pharmacist. As early as the sixties, we saw the need for an upgrading of the status and technical and academic competence of pharmacists. Training was moved from apprenticeships and technical colleges to universities. Chemists are better trained in their profession now than at any time in the industry going back to Greek and Roman times. This has been matched by standards of professionalism in the pharmaceutical society itself in setting standards for the profession and the peak body—that is, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia—in its leadership of policy issues.Pharmacy being a profession should not be the plaything of chain stores and supermarkets. The Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector made its view very clear in recommendation 8 of its recent report, which states:The Committee recommends that the major supermarket chains take note of widespread community and pharmaceutical industry concerns that the nature of the role played by pharmacists is unique, as it relates to matters of public health. The Committee is therefore of the view that expansion by the major chains into the dispensing of pharmaceutical products should be discouraged.And so say I. I would also like to quote from two letters from constituents in my electorate. The first is from Brendan West, a pharmacist in Bundaberg. He states:There are probably three or four occasions every day, where someone walks out without buying a product on my advice. This represents 3-4% of my daily customers. These consultations often consume 10 minutes each, with free advice being the only outcome. I argue that this would not happen in a supermarket setting, where category managers insist on targets being met.About 90% of my customers are regulars that I know on a first name basis.Another pharmacist Richard Sargent said:On the point of prices, let us not forget that these companies—and he is talking about supermarket companies—charge very large amounts just to stock a product, which in turn leads to inflated prices. A classic example of this is the huge blowout in prices of infant formulas since they went into supermarkets 3 years ago. The market leader S26 was selling for $11 in pharmacies and is now $16, slightly more than inflation! I fail to see how supermarkets can make PBS items any cheaper for the public as they are mostly subsidised anyway. I can see a period of predatory pricing for a while, but when the dust settles aren't they there to make a profit for their shareholders?They are both very interesting points. I want to see pharmacy remain a profession. I want to see it servicing rural and remote areas. I want to see the continuation of pharmacy as a family business and profession. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?834LAWLERMr Lawler—I second the motion.15:21:0011216McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to this motion moved by the member for Hinkler which affirms the role played by community pharmacies and the community pharmacists. It is particularly good timing as today I am pleased to be tabling a petition from my electorate containing over 7,000 signatures calling for the House to recognise the special position held by community pharmacies in the Australian health system and to uphold and protect that status from encroachment from the major supermarket chains. When I first started circulating the petitions I wondered if I would meet with some resistance from either pharmacists or customers who could see some advantages in deregulating the pharmacy system. I have to tell you that, after visiting 35 different pharmacies across my electorate of Stirling and speaking to the pharmacists and a great number of their customers, I encountered nothing but support for the current system.As you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, currently only qualified registered pharmacists may own pharmacies and that ownership is limited to shares in three stores. The benefits are clear. A qualified pharmacist oversees all the dispensing. He or she is always there when advice is needed about a medicinal drug which is required or a sunburn cream for sensitive skin. The limitation on ownership means that pharmacists concentrate their energies, have the ability to ensure quality control within their shops and get to know and understand their customers and the local area. It is clear that this quality controlled, customer focused industry is under threat from the big end of town. I have little confidence that this government will protect the small business person when big business comes knocking.At present, there are almost 5,000 community pharmacies in Australia. These are small businesses working in a competitive environment which ensures that only those who provide appropriate, affordable services survive. Contrast that to the three major corporations—Woolworths, Coles Myer and Franklins—which control over 80 per cent of the retail grocery market in Australia. It is almost inevitable that this contraction of the market along the lines of the biggest players would happen to the pharmacy industry if it were to be deregulated from 5,000 to a dominant few. That is hardly a ringing endorsement for so-called competition policy!A government member in Western Australia has apparently written to some pharmacies criticising my concern about the future of community pharmacies by indicating that there is absolutely nothing to worry about and that there is no threat to the current retail ownership. I take no reassurance from this. Firstly, the government has already demonstrated that its ideological zeal for competition reform is all consuming. This government seems unable to understand that sometimes competition is not the overriding imperative and that things such as service, standards and quality assurance are equally and often more important than competition for its own sake. This government needs to put people back into the equation.It is my sincere hope that, if the National Competition Council recommends the deregulation of the pharmacy industry, the government shows leadership and an understanding of the depth of public opinion and rejects any such regulation. It is not just the 7,000 signatures that I have collected in three months which indicate the depth of feeling. An independently commissioned review by the Pharmacy Guild found that 81 per cent of respondents believe that ownership of pharmacies should be restricted to qualified pharmacists—as the member for Hinkler pointed out, professionals who are trained, accredited and qualified—and 87 per cent believe that the existing rules should not be changed to allow anyone to own a pharmacy.The recent inquiry conducted by the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector recognised the strength of community feeling. Recommendation No. 8 of that inquiry states:The Committee recommends that major supermarket chains take note of widespread community and pharmaceutical industry concerns that the nature of the role played by pharmacists is unique, as it relates to matters of public health. The Committee is therefore of the view that expansion by the major chains into the dispensing of pharmaceutical products should be discouraged.I endorse that sentiment. It is really a very simple matter. If a system works well the way it is, and I have heard nothing that contradicts this, then leave things well alone. When I go into the community of Stirling and discuss with constituents the threat to community pharmacies, they are universally horrified by the idea of going into a big supermarket chain to purchase their pharmaceuticals and other products. Everybody has a story to tell about why their community pharmacy is important to them.When the shadow minister for health, Jenny Macklin, recently visited my electorate of Stirling we spoke to a young woman on the methadone program. She was understandably nervous at the idea of losing her community pharmacy. She had built an important relationship of trust with her particular pharmacists. She felt that they treated her with respect and did not judge her. Just as importantly, they were aware of her program and ensured that any products or pharmaceuticals she used did not counter-indicate. She had confidence in the staff and pharmacist because they got to know her personally and she got to know them. She felt secure and safe in the small and friendly environment of the pharmacy. Because she received her service from her local pharmacist, she no longer travelled to the city and had been able to break her ties with her old contacts and drug dealers and therefore was able to stay away from temptation for over four years.Others have also indicated to me that their community pharmacy is important to them. I am aware of young couples who, unsure about a child's ailment, have opted to visit their local pharmacist first to seek her advice and then followed her recommendation to consult a doctor about the baby's rash. For many, the pharmacist is in the front line of medical care by working with other health professionals, including doctors, to provide care to people at all the levels they require. I have lost count of the number of elderly constituents who have told me stories of their local pharmacy staff bringing filled prescriptions and other necessities to their door when they have been too sick or disabled to go out to collect them. The pharmacist provides this extra service because he or she personally knows the customers and their lifestyle needs.For those who visit their pharmacy regularly, the pharmacist and their staff become a part of their social network. These are just some of the examples I hear every week, but they all have one thing in common: they all demonstrate that this is not an industry where high product turnover, bulk distribution of products and maximum profits are the keys to success; rather, it demonstrates that this is a people's industry. It is about people, for people. If ever there was an example of an industry where the benefits to the community of trade restrictions outweigh any perceived cost, then this is one.I am pleased to be able to support the motion of the member for Hinkler, Mr Paul Neville. I am even more pleased that he acknowledged the important role the community pharmacy plays in the Australian health system and that he believes they should be allowed to continue to carry out this role. I am also pleased that this issue has been raised because it is an important issue not just for city people but for rural and regional communities which have already been negatively impacted by deregulation and untoward outcomes of competition policy. I can only hope that the member has been lobbying his coalition colleagues and that the government speaks out on this matter soon and reassures community pharmacists that their work is valued and that they will be left alone to get on with it.Life cannot just be about profit. I think in Australia sometimes we have got a little bit off the track. The issues of people's lives and services have been pushed aside while business, industry and governments have galloped along the path of deregulation, competitive policy and industry reform. It has led to many sad stories. People come into my electorate office every day, people who have been made redundant or who cannot get a service—or the service has been located centrally interstate—and they feel alienated and bewildered. With this issue let us hope for a triumph of commonsense over ideology.15:31:0011218Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—Before I speak on this motion, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that I am a pharmacist and do have pecuniary interests in two pharmacies, as is stated on the register of members' interests. Put simply, I believe that the impact of allowing supermarket chains to own pharmacies will be felt by the community in two main ways. Firstly, when sold by a supermarket, products which have not been, and should not be, regarded as normal items of commerce would be sold purely because of stock pressure and profit, not for the benefit of the patient. Secondly, the current pharmaceutical wholesalers who provide tremendous service to community pharmacy—and therefore to the public—will lose their ability to assist due to a severe erosion of their market share brought about by the major chains setting up their own wholesaling channels.I believe that the recognition of the role of pharmacists by the community and the esteem in which they are held is due in no small part to the way they go about running their businesses with a professional and caring attitude. The thrust from professional bodies, and indeed from the government, has been to promote the quality use of medicines and to tighten up the control of products which have the potential to be misused. Greater restriction on supply of these products is to protect the user, not to protect the business interest of pharmacies. In fact, some of the requirements on the sale of certain potent medications cost the pharmacy quite dearly in terms of time spent counselling.Opening up the ownership of pharmacies completely flies in the face of these objectives. The claim of the supermarkets is that they will be able to deliver a cheaper service to the community. I concede that they may well be able to do this, but I stress that it is cheaper in the short term only. The increased cost of hospital admissions and the cost to Medicare through the intended or unintended misuse of many seemingly inert products, like some cough medicines, would inevitably follow.I would like to touch briefly on these two aspects of the ownership question. The first is the purchase and stock pressure that would be applied to managers of a pharmacy department in a chain. At the moment, the pharmacist in a community pharmacy is in charge of ordering, for example the winter stock. They order the types of products they believe will best suit their recommendations and a range of products that will cover a range of solutions. In a supermarket, this stock ordering would be done by a remote, non-pharmacist buyer. The stock would be shipped down in bulk to the local pharmacy within the supermarket, and the manager would be told, `This is the stock you are selling this winter. This is what is to be moved,' and by what date. The pressure would be then to sell depending on the stockholding rather than on the condition of the patient.Something that all pharmacists are guilty of is stocking a product that is not profitable—something that they may dispense only once in a blue moon but when needed is needed urgently. I defy any supermarket, with their requirement of dollar return per linear metre, to keep many of these life saving drugs. They would cherry pick the fast moving and most profitable and leave the rest.I would like to explain the effect on the wholesalers' ability to assist pharmacies to assist groups such as the aged, the disabled and those in rural areas. Firstly, at the moment, the major pharmaceutical wholesalers are large providers of finance for young pharmacists who are going into the business. Many of these are in the country, and this is the only way many older pharmacists are able to sell out to be able to retire without closing the doors of their pharmacies, many of which are in one-pharmacy towns. Secondly, the delivery of urgent medications Australia wide is second to none in the world. These medications are usually provided at 24-hours notice. The reason this can be done is that the major wholesalers are able to subsidise deliveries and deliver drugs to the most remote areas of Australia at the same price as they do in the city areas. Inefficient? Yes, probably, if you believe that people in remote locations should have to wait for a week for their life-saving drugs. A decline in market share of the existing pharmaceutical wholesalers would inevitably occur with the entry of the major chains. This industry has already restructured considerably with amalgamations, buyouts and automation, and I believe it operates pretty efficiently.The pharmacies in Brewarrina or Lightning Ridge would have to pay the real freight costs of the drugs, and this would be passed on to the community. This would lead to the demise of the pharmacies—as people would tend to shop more in the regional centres—in their one-pharmacy towns. If anyone in government believes the outcry over the closing of banks was something to behold, can you imagine what would happen if the pharmacies in one-pharmacy towns closed? They would lose a doctor; they would lose hospitals. There would be a decline in nursing services and the inevitable further down spiral of schoolteachers and retail shops. Clearly, this is a situation that, as a government, we cannot countenance. I ask members to consider these outcomes.15:36:0011219Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—In supporting the motion of the honourable member for Hinkler, I think it is quite appropriate for the House not only to note the role of the community pharmacy in the Australian health system but also to recognise the importance of community pharmacy. As the deputy chair of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector, of course I stand by that committee's recommendation regarding the discouragement of chain stores taking over pharmacies.My interest in matters to do with pharmaceuticals and pharmacies dates back a long way. At one stage, as a very new member of the parliamentary Labor Party, I chaired a caucus subcommittee when pharmacists thought that they were under attack by the then Labor government. At some stage, my colleagues nicknamed me `the pharmacists' friend'. Over time I hope that Labor governments had a better relationship with pharmacists. We did try to put in place a range of measures that recognised the role of pharmacists, especially community pharmacists. Then, later in my political life, I chaired the House of Representatives Family and Community Affairs Committee, which did a major inquiry into the whole range of the PBS, from pharmaceutical companies and pricing practices through to the prescribing habits of medicos and the dispensing habits of pharmacists.One of the things that I think needs to be stressed about community pharmacies is that, through the PBS, governments have achieved a highly price effective delivery system for pharmaceuticals to the public. Because of the nature of community pharmacy, the front of shop, as I describe it—the non-medicines, the non-pharmaceutical business of a community pharmacy—is very important. That element also plays a role in enabling those businesses to be economically effective. The evidence that the committee received in its inquiry called Prescribed health is interesting in this context. In its 1992 submission, the Pharmaceutical Guild of Australia stated:Despite its primary health care role, [committee] pharmacy is not a charitable non-profit institution. As well as being health professionals, pharmacists need to survive in the business world with all its associated risks and rewards.In its submission, the School of Pharmacy at the University of Tasmania stated:. . . community pharmacists are now seen as people who are fractionally retailers and fractionally professionals and they just have not got the time to be full time professionals because of the nature of the remuneration.So the way in which pharmacies are delivered to the public is integral to many of the issues that surround the importance of the ability of community pharmacists to be the owners of their pharmacies.The other thing that I think needs to be stressed, and it is very important not only in rural and remote Australia but also in metropolitan Australia, is that pharmacists are part of a team approach to public health matters. In the local area that I represent in this place, I have noted that nearly all of its newly created or renovated pharmacies are physically located alongside either general practices or family medical practitioners. I think that is very important—that is, the way in which we have developed a health system that sees it as very important for there to be a partnership between medicos and pharmacists. As has been said in this debate, one of the real problems especially in rural and remote Australia is that, if the local doctor goes, the pharmacist tends to have to go or, if the pharmacist goes, it is very difficult for the local doctor to survive.So it is very important that we continue to have this synergy. This can be best done by recognising that a pharmacist is not just about selling goods or services that might find their way into the corner of a supermarket but is also a health profession. It is very important to recognise that it is a health profession and that we need to have measures that encourage pharmacists to remain in their community as part of a health team that delivers proper services to the community. I think one of the notions that we have here is that the ownership of those community pharmacies is a way of achieving that, because it must be recognised that a lot to do with competition policy does not apply, especially to the PBS. Already we have an economically efficient PBS by driving the prices down to pharmaceutical companies.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.1122015:41:0011220Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I move:That this House:(1) calls on the Government to reverse the decision on the transmitters at Cox Peninsula near Darwin; and(2) urges the Government to recommence broadcasting from Cox Peninsula as a matter of urgency.Governments of all political persuasions make mistakes and take decisions which have, with hindsight, been shown to be wrong. In my motion today concerning Cox Peninsula, I do not want to take cheap shots at the government, but I do want to sincerely appeal to the government to reverse the decision concerning the closure of the transmitters at Cox Peninsula near Darwin.It is true that I have always opposed the closure of this facility and, as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I have visited this site. In fact, over the years I have twice visited this site. In the committee's report of March 1998, Australia and ASEAN: managing change, it was the strongly held view of the committee that the decision to close the transmitters was wrong. In 1998, the committee said that the shutting down of the transmitters and consequential curtailing of the reach of Radio Australia was counterproductive and detrimental to our capacity to project an accurate image of ourselves to our neighbours. I suspect that the current committee holds a similar view, given the misinformation about Australia circulating in Jakarta and elsewhere in Indonesia.It would not be terribly expensive to reopen or recommence the broadcast. All the equipment is there; it has to be kept active and the valves operative. Basically, it would require little more than a flick of a switch. I have heard it argued that it is important for this facility to be reopened to transmit, especially to our troops in Timor. This is not really accurate because Cox Peninsula is too close to Timor. You can get the broadcast there, but it is a very jumbled broadcast. Its real benefit would be to put an active message into Indonesia through Java, Sumatra and Kalamantan and it is important that an accurate portrayal of Australia be given to the Indonesian people.As we have constantly stated, any argument that Australia might have is not with the ordinary Indonesian people; it is with elements of the military or the militia. And perhaps the Indonesian government has not always been fully accurate in some of its comments or the reporting on Australia. It is therefore important that we get our message out to the ordinary people of Indonesia. Another important element would be that it would allow the Shepparton transmitters to be freed up and, if need be, they could be used to transmit to Timor. There would be a much better signal from Shepparton to Timor than from Cox Peninsula to Timor.I note that Minister Hill has recently claimed that Cox Peninsula is a dead zone. This is simply not true. The point that must be made is that reopening the transmitters would not be a hugely expensive exercise and I honestly believe it would bring many benefits. I have honestly believed it to have been a mistake from the time that the transmitters were first closed down, and I do not see why we should prolong that mistake by allowing them to remain closed—especially, as I have said before, when it would not be terribly expensive to reopen them. As I understand it, the cost of having a fully operational service is just over $5 million a year, and a part-operational service could be had for much less. But I honestly do believe that it should be a fully operational service.The property, as I understand it, is now in the control of the Property Group of the Department of Finance and Administration. There is a contractor on site who is maintaining the facility and I understand that technicians travel from Darwin once or more a week. The government has called for expressions of interest, and I understand that amongst those who have shown keen interest are the BBC World Service and a United States evangelical broadcasting service. Given the situation to our immediate north, it is more important for us in Australia to get an accurate message to Indonesia than it is for the BBC. The very last thing the people of Indonesia need is yet another evangelical broadcast stirring up the situation.It is no wonder that the BBC wants this facility. It is a world-class facility. Interestingly, it was first opened under the Menzies government when we had problems with Indonesia over a confrontationist situation. Essentially it was established to get an accurate message to the Indonesian people. It was destroyed, as so much was, by Cyclone Tracy. Quite recently, as shortly ago as 1993, it was upgraded at a cost of $50 million. That is $50 million of taxpayers' money that has been put into that facility. But, depending on what sort of agreement has been reached over those expressions of interest, as usual, we could be giving it away as a gift, it being so important for Australia to have that facility now and for us to be getting an accurate message through to the people of Indonesia.This station is really very important for Australia, as has been shown in recent weeks. It also is not outside the realms of possibility that Australia might want to pass warnings on to its nationals in other parts of Indonesia. Many expatriates have complained that, with the closure of this facility, they have not been getting accurate information from Australia. As was quoted in the ASEAN report:We established an image of Australia as a friendly nation, it has taken years and years to build that, I have a feeling if we are not there the destruction of it by counter press copy would be much quicker than the building up, if we are not prepared to speak for ourselves in the region, the people of the region are going to form opinions of Australia of what others say about us and that is totally unacceptable.Given the current tensions in our relations with Indonesia, the need for expatriate Australians and ordinary Indonesians to receive full information about Australia's policies and intentions—regarding not only East Timor but the whole of Indonesia—and the long-term need to re-establish our obvious good intentions towards Indonesia as a whole necessitates an urgent reconsideration of the decision on the Cox Peninsula transmitters. Through Radio Australia we can contribute to regional stability and bring credit to Australia by providing accurate impartial information that counters the rumour and misinformation that has currency in turbulent times. Australia can address a mass audience, including the emerging middle classes in Asia, without interference and the danger of reinterpretation. For instance, a 1997 survey indicated that 30 per cent of university educated Indonesians listened to Radio Australia in the previous year—an audience of significance in Indonesian national life, being the decision makers of that country.The point I have stressed time and time again is that we are not asking the government to spend a lot of money. For a full service the cost will be something like $5 million a year. Surely in the overall scheme of things, that is not very much. Bear in mind that we are talking about this issue in the environment of our increase in the armed forces, the build-up, the re-establishment of relations to our north and maintaining forces for goodness knows how long in Timor, rebuilding that country. We are talking about spending billions there, and rightly so—it will cost us billions. Here we are just asking for $5 million a year to be spent on a facility that could be easily reopened. Through having served on committees with members on the other side, I know that many feel as strongly as I do that that facility should be reopened and I hope that this will get bipartisan support in this House. As a matter of urgency, I again appeal to the government to bring the transmitters back into service and to recommence broadcasts.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?83TRUDDMr Rudd—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:51:0011222Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The suggestion from the honourable member for Throsby at first appears very noble, but when one digs a little deeper one understands the stamp of an incredibly paternalistic logic lies right across this issue. The Australian Labor Party, some of the Democrats and certainly a lot of people in the ABC itself believe they know what is best and they are best able to discern what information should be passed on to the Indonesians. I think members in this House would be very, very concerned if ordinary Indonesians were to be subjected to the views of the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith, for instance, ad infinitum as a result of Radio Australia broadcasts as per what the member for Throsby has had to say. I do not think ordinary Indonesians deserve to be confronted by this paternalistic notion that Cox Peninsula should be switched back on.To take it a little bit further, next we will perhaps be debating the logic of dropping leaflets over the nation of Indonesia to try to get a view up amongst the people. Having said all of that, as the member for Throsby said, the fact is that the Cox Peninsula transmitter is of no use whatsoever with regard to Timor. There is a 1,000-kilometre exclusion area that those broadcasts will not work in. So the Cox Peninsula is not even on the agenda as far as the Timor circumstance is concerned.The other fact is that Radio Australia is heard throughout Indonesia, and it has nothing to do with the Cox Peninsula transmitter being on or off. In fact, Radio Australia is now broadcasting six hours a day more in Bahasa and English into Indonesia. Those two languages are heard and understood, and Radio Australia is the source of those programs. In addition to that, the BBC World Service, Radio Netherlands from Holland, Deutsche Welle from Germany and Voice of America make broadcasts available in Indonesia. If the premise is that somehow or other the Indonesian government pollutes the press reports of things—there is probably plenty of evidence to suggest that sort of thing occurs from time to time—at least five media outlets that are quite independent of the Indonesian government are currently broadcasting across the Indonesian archipelago. In that regard, the proposition from the member for Throsby does not really have any relevance to what is going on in Timor.The other thing that cannot be forgotten—and those opposite will want to shoot this away automatically—is that the closure of Cox Peninsula came as a direct result of two things. The closure of Cox Peninsula came firstly as part of the budgetary measures contained in the August 1996 budget, the first Costello budget in the Howard government. The $10 billion Beazley black hole led to the sorts of tight measures that were introduced in that particular budget. I do not think anybody opposite could substantiate a claim to go back and re-fund all the things that were defunded.Where is the member for Throsby going to get his $5 million from? He said $5 million; I had $4 million. Labor inflation applied in his case, I suspect. Are we going to cut money from health services or education? I see the Minister for Community Services at the table. Are we going to cut funds to that vital area? If you are, Minister, in order to pay for the member for Throsby's proposition, cut it from his services, because I do not want you to cut funding to services in my elector ate to pay for this paternalistic idea of telling the Indonesians what they should be thinking.As a result of the budget measures which reversed the Beazley black hole, we now have a situation in this country where we have the lowest interest rates for 30 years, the strongest rates of economic growth in the world and strong employment growth. We do not want to turn the hands of time back as Labor suggests. A 12-hour shift of running the Cox Peninsula would cost $4,000 or more, according to estimates coming out of the department. That is $4 million or $5 million a year.The other reason the Cox Peninsula transmitter was switched off is that the Mansfield review, a totally independent review of the ABC and these services, saw that these sorts of international services should be part of Australia's public diplomacy effort; they were not just something that the ABC should do as of right. So there was a refocusing of those public diplomacy measures onto a focus on the South Pacific regions. Transmitters at Shepparton in Victoria and Brandon in Townsville continue to offer Radio Australia programs right across our region.There are those opposite, Friends of the ABC and a few other diehards who do not want to look at responsible economic management. They have decided they have an excuse now, with the events in Indonesia and Timor, to reignite the notion of the opening of the Cox Peninsula transmitter. Let us demolish a few of the other untruths about Indonesian powerbrokers having to be informed of Australia's official position, that people in their tens of millions in Indonesia are clamouring for the impartial voice of Radio Australia and the claim that Australia's ability to influence events in the region is now non-existent. Radio Australia broadcasts into the region still exist. If you want to look at the notion of bringing Cox Peninsula broadcasts back on, it may in fact be the petrol that goes onto the fire at the current time. Since the East Timor ballot, Radio Australia has boosted its service to East Timor from its Shepparton transmission site. It has provided additional broadcasts in English and Indonesian, and is now providing a service to East Timor, including news and current affairs, for at least 19 hours each day.The ABC has also chosen, quite wisely, to lease some offshore transmission sites. I believe they are in Singapore and Taiwan. Those facilities extend Radio Australia's service coverage for additional time in central and western Indonesia—areas not accessible from Shepparton. That gives another six hours a day into those areas. As to the fact that expats need to know what is going on, that is what we have embassies for.2V5SWANMr Swan—Fair dinkum!CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—That is why we have officials placed on the ground. To say that our diplomats are not able to let Australian expatriates know what is going on is a slight on the people in those professional tasks.Mr Rudd interjecting—CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—I think the next speaker may be referring to some of his former colleagues in that regard if he is not careful. The other thing that is worth knowing is that private enterprise itself has taken up some of the challenge. I do not think it is well understood by those interjecting at the moment that not only is the Australia Television satellite providing satellite services into Dili and to the service personnel who are there but the satellite is also redirecting radio transmissions from a broadcasting station in southern Queensland, Star 106.9. They are broadcasting their programs into Dili. It is on a cable circuit at the moment, but from Wednesday when a 100-watt FM transmitter will be switched on there will be news programs that come from the Australian radio network via Star 106.9. Music and entertainment, general information and a general contact with Australia will be broadcast on the FM band in and around Dili to help our service personnel.I am using this as an example of the fact that a lot of the old short-wave technology that is inherent in this motion has moved on. We are not necessarily seeing people huddled with secret radios underneath the sink waiting to hear the last gasped word from the ABC and the people who generate Radio Australia programs. Despite the importance of the tasks they have undertaken in the past, I submit that the sensitivity of the current circumstances in East Timor—and, indeed, in Indonesia itself—needs to be handled a little more cleverly than that proposed in this motion.It is ludicrous to claim that without a Radio Australia broadcast facility at Cox Peninsula the people of Indonesia would not know that Australia had peacekeeping troops in Timor at the moment. It is certainly implied in what we are talking about here that the people of Indonesia do not understand what is going on. One would presume that, because of our own diplomacy and the fact that the Indonesians themselves are talking about it a lot, they well understand the world has an interest in what is happening in East Timor. It is certainly a fact that Radio Australia continues to provide a vital service throughout our region. From those facilities in Townsville and in Shepparton it is providing broadcasts into the particular region at the heart of this issue. The Cox Peninsula facility will be sold or leased off to others who are interested in providing services from that site, returning some money to the taxpayer and continuing the established trend of this government of responsible economic management. It is also right from a foreign affairs point of view because we are treating our neighbours with respect and not expecting them to wait for us to tell them what they should think.16:01:0011224Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in support of the motion moved by the member for Throsby because it goes to the heart of our national capacity to project ourselves as a nation into the region of which we are part. In fact, it is extraordinary that we have to have this debate at all, that we have to have a debate now about the wisdom of our nation projecting our national image, our national message, to the region, that we should be having a debate about whether it is important to have an international broadcasting capacity to disseminate objective information to the region at large, that we should be having a debate at this stage about our ability as a nation to transmit emergency data and information to Australian citizens located across the region should that contingency arise.I found the presentation just now by the honourable member for Moreton to be one of the most appalling I have heard in this House in articulating and defending a decision on the part of the Howard government. The logic of what the member for Moreton was expounding simply had no foundation at all. His first argument was that it was paternalistic for a country such as this to wish to have its own nationally owned international broadcast capacity to project its message abroad. On those grounds you are arguing that it is wrong for any nation across the world to have an international broadcast capacity: it is wrong for VoA to have that capacity, it is wrong for the BBC to have that capacity and it is wrong for Radio Netherlands to have that capacity. Why is it different for those nation states to have an ability to project their national interest and message to their part of the world or to the world at large yet for us to somehow be different here?His further argument, which I found extraordinary because of its complete dissonance with the facts, was his contention that Radio Australia can now be heard across Indonesia. I suggest the member for Moreton pick up the telephone, ring Radio Australia and ask whether the signal can now be heard in any part of western Indonesia. It cannot. From the island of Bali west through Java and Sumatra you cannot hear the signal at all. Why can't you hear the signal? Because you have shut the Cox Peninsula—it is as simple as that.His further defence was that it all rested on budget cutbacks introduced through the wisdom of Treasurer Costello some years ago. I simply ask this question: at a time when we are about to countenance an enormous addition to overall budget outlays because of the defence burden arising from the East Timor contingency, is it the right and smart thing to do to further debilitate our capacity to project our diplomacy, our message and our intentions for the region by simply emasculating Radio Australia's capacity to do so? I would think not. Part of the function of government is national capacity building. Part of the function of government is the construction of public goods. It is not all about reductions to the expenditure side of the equation.The fourth argument which the member raised—he is leaving the chamber—is that in the Mansfield review of the ABC the responsibility for this function was flicked past to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The bottom line is that the department of foreign affairs did not pick up the ball. The result? We now have no effective capacity. What sort of argument is that? He then went on to say, `It's all okay in the morning because we're now getting a bit of space on the weekends through renting a transmitter on the island of Taiwan.' What an extraordinary disgrace that this nation cannot rely upon its own indigenous transmitting capacity to get its image out to the world but has to do a $1.50 job on the weekends with a bit of transmitter space from some private company operating on the eastern part of the island of Taiwan.A further argument which he advanced was that our embassies can notify Australians in distress. Do you know how many Australians live across the Indonesian archipelago? Do you know how many diplomats are resident in Jakarta and in Australian consulates-general? It is a physical impossibility.The bottom line is that this government has emasculated Radio Australia. The number of foreign language staff has been reduced from 144 to 68, and the Indonesian language staff from 16 to 8. From Cox Peninsula we were able to broadcast to all Indonesia, all the South Pacific, all South-East Asia, a large part of South Asia and most of eastern China. What we now face, however, with this new capacity purely restricted to the Shepparton broadcasting facility is a narrow band in the south-west Pacific and a narrow band in the eastern part of the Indonesian archipelago. We have silenced ourselves as a nation at a time of critical national need.I well recall the appropriations debate this year. The Minister for Community Services at the table participated in that debate, and he asked me what soft diplomacy was and why we should defend Radio Australia. This was before the current contingency arose. The answer, Minister, lies in what we see before us now in the East Timor crisis. Learn from it. (Time expired)16:06:0011225Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—This is an interesting debate and one that draws from the opposition some of its recently found concerns about doing something in East Timor. For years—from Whitlam forward—you guys did nothing, cared less and just turned the whole outfit over to the Indonesians. Paul Keating was an absolute classic. He and Suharto did whatever they liked in our region. Keating and Suharto did a deal and the Australian people were expected to fall into line.Here today, in private members business, we have a trumped-up argument about, `Let's beam some radio in there. That will make a difference to the way the Indonesian people think.' The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade does not seem to think that that is a priority. They have not felt that it was significant to spend part of their budget on picking up a priority to broadcast into the Indonesian peninsula. They did not think they should be investing in that process. The ABC had the option of, amongst its priorities, choosing to broadcast Radio Australia into that area. The ABC did not consider it a priority when they were making decisions about what was important to their budget or not. They preferred to keep the symphony orchestras. They preferred to keep all of their highly paid executive staff at North Sydney. They preferred to do all of those sorts of things—run their expensive television productions—but they did not consider it a priority to broadcast into South-East Asia.So it has fallen to the government to maintain a presence in that area. As has been said by members of the House already, we have boosted the signal out of Shepparton into the Timor area. It is all very well for members of the Australian Labor Party to say, `We do not really mean "Timor" when we talk about this.' I would like to quote to members opposite the comments of Stephen Smith, the member for Perth and shadow minister for communications, who in a statement on 24 September said:The recent tragic events in East Timor saw the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade issue warnings to Australian nationals living in Indonesia and East Timor. There is the shadow minister for communications confusing the issue and thinking that signals from Cox Peninsula can in fact get into Timor. They cannot. Short-wave radio transmission is a hazardous thing in the best of circumstances, but to expect Cox Peninsula to broadcast into Timor is beyond any realism.Radio Australia has made a decision to broadcast back into the Indonesian peninsula from Taiwan and Singapore. I think that that is a realistic process. It is a process that targets the area where Australia needs to have some information going out for six hours a day. I notice that Brian Johns, the senior executive officer of the ABC, has made statements about the adequacy of such a program.To add further to the confusion about whether or not Cox Peninsula—the place that the Australian Labor Party wants to reopen—can reach into East Timor, UNAMET has asked the federal government for urgent permission to use the Cox Peninsula transmission station, closed since 1997, so it can broadcast to the East Timorese as soon as possible. That is from a news report dated 24 September. It is absolutely wrong and badly informed. Anybody thinking that Cox Peninsula can broadcast into East Timor is wrong. What is needed is to establish as quickly as possible civil order in East Timor and to have the United Nations start to deal with a local radio station for the people of East Timor. What is needed is a radio station of the East Timorese for the East Timorese; not a foreign program beamed in from Australia—from Shepparton, in fact, and not from Cox Peninsula. The Cox Peninsula project would cost $4,000 for each 12 hours it was kept open. It is a somewhat remote or difficult to get to site.Mr Snowdon interjecting—SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—The ferry costs $300 each way, so that is not an easily locatable site. The government's decision is a reasonable one in the circumstances. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate has adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate11226Question proposed:That grievances be noted.1122616:11:0011226Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—It is not my intention to be distracted by the erroneous contribution of the previous speaker on the debate about the Cox Peninsula. Suffice it to say that I thought the opposition members involved in the debate put the case quite succinctly. I will make the observation, however, that anyone who believes Cox Peninsula is remote is themselves remote from reality. Nor do I want to contemplate at any great length the appalling way in which this government has handled our foreign policy in relation to East Timor. I do not want to recount my observations which had been made in this and other places about this issue over the past few weeks, but I would like to direct members of the parliament, particularly members of the government, to a very good article in today's Age by Robert Manne in which he points out the very obvious shortcomings of the government's diplomacy in relation to East Timor. I will just quote the penultimate paragraph of that article, in which he says:Why, then, did Australia fail to call on the Americans to warn Indonesia of the cost of violence in East Timor? Until the very end Australian diplomacy remained too concerned about the wounding of Indonesian sensibilities. Until the end it hoped against hope that somehow the special relationship with Indonesia could be preserved. The old appeasing habit of mind with regard to Indonesia died hard. If there is an explanation for the failure of our East Timor diplomacy it is to be found here.I concur absolutely, 100 per cent, with that observation. This afternoon in question time we heard the Minister for Foreign Affairs responding to a question. He talked about a draft resolution which is to go before the Security Council as a result of a recommendation made to the Security Council by the Secretary-General. It is that that I want to talk about this afternoon. I want to note the thrust of the report of the Secretary-General on the situation in East Timor, the structure that it promotes in terms of its recommendations and its intent in terms of capacity building amongst the East Timorese. The principal recommendation is for the establishment of a new body to replace UNAMET. That new body will be known as the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor—UNTAET. In paragraph 28 of his report the Secretary-General says that the purpose of this body should be:To establish the condition for sustainable peace and to facilitate the transition of East Timor to independence. It is proposed that UNTAET must be entrusted with a robust mandate containing the following elements:. provide security and maintain law and order throughout the territory of East Timor;. establish an effective administration;. assist in the development of civil and social services;. ensure the coordination and delivery of humanitarian assistance, rehabilitation and development assistance;. support capacity building for self government;. assist in the establishment of conditions for sustainable development.That is a very comprehensive list, and we have here the opportunity for the United Nations to set up, in a quite unprecedented way, a new system of governance in consultation with the East Timorese community. It is that issue that I want to concentrate on—the issue of the relationship between UNTAET and the East Timorese community.This document from the Secretary-General is replete with words such as `consult', and the need to consult with the East Timorese is important but we need to include them at every level of decision making. The references to documentation in the document are not sufficient. We must have the Timorese involved in making all decisions—now and beyond the time that they set up a new and independent government after the transitional period. They are, after all, the subject of our attention. The UN's resolutions, the humanitarian aid effort, the work being done by other sovereign governments and by independent and private organisations which are not NGOs are not the object of our attention. There is therefore a need to see the East Timorese as people with whom we should be negotiating at every step of the way. At the moment that is unfortunately not the case.There are a number of fundamental questions about the language used by the United Nations or by the Secretary-General in his report. What in fact does consultation mean? How does the United Nations envisage that advisory bodies will be formed? I refer there to paragraph 30 of the Secretary-General's report in which he talks about the effectiveness of UNTAET `resting on its ability to perform its duties in close consultation and cooperation with the people of East Timor.' Later in the same paragraph he says:Pending the holding of elections, the Special Representative will establish advisory bodies at all levels to ensure the participation of East Timorese in the governance and administration of the territory.That is laudable, but it needs to happen as of now. It is not something which should be delayed, because we will have a period when UNAMET continues its operations until the decision by the Indonesian parliament—which is expected shortly—and subsequently, when the new United Nations body is properly formed and takes up its responsibilities.It is clear that at the moment there is only one organisation that can argue that it represents the views of the vast majority of the East Timorese community—that is, the National Council for Timorese Resistance, CNRT, a coalition of forces under the presidency of Xanana Gusmao. Under the CNRT, he is the President of the National Political Commission. This body is already represented on the reconstruction committee set up inside East Timor—with others, including INTERFET, UNAMET and the Catholic Church. It is imperative that, until an alternative representation operation is put in place, the representation which is made for the consideration of the East Timorese community comes from at least CNRT. Until the new body is put in place, the CNRT must be represented at the core of decision making by UNAMET and by the body to replace it, UNTAET.The role of the special representative for governance and public administration under the new proposal is very important, because it gives that person the responsibility to set up, among other things, all managerial and representational functions of the mission. He will be responsible for and head the governance and public administration component of the organisation. In terms of the governance and public administration component, he or she will have two core objectives: to lay the foundations for sustainable institution of independent East Timor and to design an agenda for sustainable economic and social development.It is absolutely imperative that at every stage of this operation the East Timorese community are part of the decision making process. CNRT represents the bulk of the East Timorese community—at least in the context of the vote which took place on the question of independence from and integration with Indonesia. It needs to be understood that CNRT is a political alliance of a whole range of bodies which have drawn together to support the process of independence. There is an absolute and fundamental need for the United Nations and its agencies, other governments, the NGOs and other private organisations to be in constant dialogue with and in tune with the wishes of the Timorese community.This also means those business people who see an opportunity as a result of the massive amounts of money currently being outlaid by non-government agencies and the United Nations as well as other governments for expenditure in East Timor. It would be folly for these people not to believe that they have to create partnerships with the East Timorese community—that the benefits which flow from this expenditure should be to the East Timorese community. The primary objective of these funds is the East Timorese community. The non-government organisations involved with East Timor should ensure that they develop framework agreements with the East Timorese community—in the first instance, with the CNRT. They need to develop protocols for operation which ensure that the CNRT and the East Timorese community are involved in their decisions and the way in which they operate on the ground as well as in the decisions of the United Nations and its agencies. It is imperative that, if we are to advance the cause of the East Timorese in a way which they would want, we ensure that their advice is understood, that their views are properly appreciated—and that they own the process and the process is not owned by another colonising power.1122816:21:0011228Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I rise to speak in the grievance debate on the issue of East Timor and the appalling partisan behaviour of the opposition and the Labor Party. In this place several weeks ago, I stated that as a former serving member of the Australian Defence Force I was not only ashamed of the Labor opposition but thoroughly disgusted with their party political tactics. To score cheap political points with little or no regard for our national interests or for the morale of our defence forces here in Australia—or, more particularly, of our peacekeepers in East Timor—is irresponsible and shameful. What must our Australian soldiers based in East Timor be thinking when the opposition is saying, on the one hand, `Oh yes, we do support our Australian soldiers in East Timor, ` but, on other hand, `We should have sent them before the ballot, against the wishes of the Indonesian government.'The Labor opposition in government would have sent our troops to their slaughter. What the opposition is demonstrating, and has been demonstrating all along, is that political point scoring is more important than the security of our Australian defence forces. I just cannot believe it. According to opposition leader Kim Beazley and the shadow spokesman for foreign affairs, we should not have waited for the UN, or the participating countries; we should have just gone into East Timor in a hostile and aggressive fashion and sent our troops to the slaughter. It is no wonder that the people in my electorate of Makin are as disgusted as I am with the Labor opposition's policy for our troops. The opposition now seek to heap blame on the coalition and our Prime Minister for imagined wrongdoings and incorrect handling of foreign affairs.In the Financial Review today, we have the member for Werriwa actually attempting to rewrite history. He says that we should ignore what has happened over the past 25 years in East Timor, particularly under Whitlam and Keating, that Labor should wrap up all of their successive policy failures in a bundle and not feel guilty. He wants us to disregard all of that, forget Whitlam's and Keating's record, and blame the past and present problems on Spain and Portugal. Let us not forget that, as Prime Minister of the day, Keating, through his business dealings with Indonesian businessmen, ensured his piggery was sold with huge profits, even though the Commonwealth bank had written off debts of $20 million for the piggery.This was at a time when our farmers were being dragged from the land, as they went broke during `the recession we had to have', when we had record interest rates of 22 per cent in some cases for our farmers. He wants everybody to forget those details. He wants to wrap everything up in a bundle and delete it, in the usual fashion that the Labor Party does. He then makes the extraordinarily erroneous claim that `East Timor is a consequence of the Howard government's foreign policy failings.' The opposition needs to get a reality check, which I am sure the Australian electorate will give them, and I know they already are.What Mr Howard, as our Prime Minister, is responsible for—in the Prime Minister's own words—is Australia playing a principled and honourable role, acting in a constructive and balanced way. The operational readiness of the Australian forces meant that we were able to respond promptly to the United Nations request to both participate in and lead the multinational force. This is the truth of the issue and history will record it as such. When issues of national security arise, as they have done with East Timor, the safety of our defence forces is of paramount importance. Leaking of documents and cheap political point scoring does nothing for our security, for our national interest or for the morale of our defence forces serving overseas and their families and friends. I will make it one of my priorities to inform all of my electorate of the callous way in which the Labor opposition would have our defence forces treated.The most frequent comments by constituents have been that public figures, such as Mr Keating and Mr Beazley, should stop trying to make political capital out of this situation and get behind our peacekeepers. More tellingly, I have heard many people on talkback radio, who are Labor supporters, expressing their disgust with Paul Keating for the words that he has used and with Kim Beazley for failing to condemn Keating more strongly than he has. These Labor supporters are right to be concerned.There are times in the life of our nation when partisan politics is necessarily put aside in the national interest. At no time is it more crucial to observe this principle than when young Australian lives are at stake. Of course, Australia has a robust democratic tradition and the people of Australia would tolerate dissent on this issue if there were substance to it but, there is the pity: there is none, and the Labor Party simply has no credibility on this issue.I have said previously that the approach of the government to the East Timor question has been by far the most principled of any government since East Timor was integrated into Indonesia nearly a quarter of a century ago. No government before us was prepared to tackle the issue with the view to what was best for the people of East Timor. Policy was driven by pragmatism and expediency. By contrast, Prime Minister John Howard and foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer have worked tirelessly to find a solution to the East Timor question which will best serve the interests of the East Timorese people.The letter from our Prime Minister to President Habibie in December 1998, on which Mr Keating rested so much of his case, made clear that the Australian government favoured direct negotiation between the Indonesian government and representatives of the East Timorese people, with a long-term view to a ballot on independence. Australia was not pressuring Indonesia into an early ballot, as some critics would apparently have it. The subsequent decision by President Habibie and foreign minister Alatas to proceed to a ballot sooner rather than later presented our government with a challenge, to support the process being put in place by the Indonesian government, giving the East Timorese a vote on their own future, or to oppose this process and effectively say to the East Timorese people that Australia—not Indonesia—was now standing in the way of giving them a voice in their own future.The answer to this dilemma was clear. No responsible government could oppose a proposition to allow people to participate in a ballot on their own future. It is absurd to suggest that any alternative Australian government would have done this. The task that we were then faced with was to take whatever steps we could to ensure that the ballot was conducted in a safe and transparent manner. In this context, we sought and received undertakings from the Indonesian government, President Habibie and foreign minister Alatas that the safety of the East Timorese people would be assured during the conduct of the ballot and after the result was known.Herein lies the second and more irresponsible criticism from the Labor Party—namely that Australia should have insisted on a peacekeeping presence during the conduct of the ballot. It is a matter of record that this matter was raised with the Indonesian government and that it was firmly rejected. By continuing to insist on it at that point would have guaranteed that the Indonesian government cancelled the ballot altogether. To have tried to insert peacekeepers over the refusal of the Indonesians would have amounted to an invasion that would have resulted in the slaughter of our Australian troops. I will just repeat that: it would have amounted to an invasion that would have resulted in the slaughter of our Australian troops. We would have been facing not simply a hostile militia but an openly hostile Indonesian military and government.History will record this as a most unredeeming period for the Australian Labor Party. In the context of what they have acknowledged to be the most dangerous military operation by Australian forces since the Vietnam War, they have put on the thinnest veneer of bipartisan support for the government's policy in East Timor while undermining it at every turn. That the opposi tion has been unable to raise itself above petty politics at such a crucial time for Australia is a source of deep dismay to the people in my electorate of Makin and to Australians everywhere.1123016:30:0011230Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, I know the matter of executive salaries is of concern to you. Most of the executives at the Macquarie Bank at a senior level earn salaries of between $400,000 and $500,000 per annum. This should be compared with the Prime Minister's salary of $240,000 per annum. I do not think it is churlish of me to suggest that they are doing very nicely, but that is not all.There is a profit sharing scheme which commences when the bank earns more than eight per cent on shareholder equity. In recent years, because of the extraordinary deals that the Macquarie Bank has secured with the state government of Victoria, the bank has been earning between 25 and 26 per cent returns on shareholders' funds. The result has been the creation each year of a massive profit pool to be shared around the top 70 or so executives. Each of the senior executives receives a base figure of around $400,000, plus extra for special performance. In 1998, this meant that more than 40 Macquarie Bank senior executives had total incomes of $1 million or more. Indeed, in 1998, seven senior executives had total incomes of more than $2 million. One of the main beneficiaries, the chief executive of Macquarie Bank, Mr Allan Moss, saw his salary in 1998 increase from over $498,000 to a total of $3.7 million.The question that arises is: who is the one person whom they have most to thank for these massive salaries? The answer is Mr Alan Stockdale, the former Treasurer of Victoria. His motto has been: if it is owned by the people of Victoria and it moves, sell it. In fairness to Mr Alan Stockdale, he has been true to his word. He sold our electricity generators and distributors and our gas distribution business. He sold the Grain Elevators Board. He sold our equity in the Portland aluminium smelter. He sold Victoria's pine plantations. He commenced the sell-off of our hospitals and water supply utilities and had plans to privatise our schools. He also floated Tabcorp.The total sell-off was in excess of $25 billion in a period of seven years. How did these sell-offs benefit Macquarie? For starters, Macquarie Bank was paid a fee of $25 million for advising on the $1.7 billion City Link project. Second, Macquarie Bank was an active participant in the successful consortium which tendered for the $4.76 billion Loy Yang A electricity generator.Then we have Macquarie Bank's asset and infrastructure group. The asset and infrastructure group is divided into three separate businesses. They include project and structured finance, infrastructure and specialist funds and Macquarie capital. During the past 12 months, this group has provided advice on the sell-off by the federal government of Sydney airport and the sale by the Victorian government of Victoria's rail freight. The Macquarie Bank asset and infrastructure group has equity in Victoria's Loy Yang A power station and Sydney's M2 and airport motorways. The asset and infrastructure group was responsible for the float of Transurban, the company that operates City Link.This asset and infrastructure group also advised the Kennett government in 1997 on the sale of the state government's 25 per cent holding in the Alcoa aluminium smelter at Portland and earlier, in 1993, on whether the Transport Accident Commission should be sold. Macquarie Bank has also acted as local adviser to two of the foreign consortiums who wanted to purchase parts of Victoria's public transport system.So in all these ways decisions of the then Treasurer of Victoria, Alan Stockdale, enriched Macquarie Bank. What do we find now? Mr Stockdale, the same Alan Stockdale whose asset sell-off so enriched Macquarie, has now been appointed to the position of chairman and chief executive of none other than the Macquarie Bank's asset and infrastructure group! This is the same Mr Stockdale who, when he was Treasurer of Victoria, awarded a section of the Macquarie Bank—the Macquarie and Computer Fleet Management—a $150 million contract for the leasing and management of the Victorian government's computer system.I understand that senior executives on salaries equivalent to what Mr Alan Stockdale will be earning all received incomes in 1998 of around $2 million. Indeed, according to Mr Terry McCrann in the Herald Sun on Thursday, 7 October:The person he [Mr Alan Stockdale] will work closest with, who runs the asset and infrastructure group, got $2.9 million.Mr McCrann went on to say that:. . . were Stockdale just to turn up to work each day he would pocket at least $1.5 million.. . . . . . . . .And if he were to put some real runs on the board he could easily earn $3 million, and even more.It is understood that, in addition to the Macquarie Bank appointment, Mr Alan Stockdale is contemplating joining other boards. The question that arises in relation to the Macquarie Bank appointment is: what are the terms and conditions of the contract that he has entered into? Is he merely receiving a base salary and a performance pay based on future services, or is he receiving an up-front bonus in return for what he delivered for Macquarie Bank while he was still Treasurer of Victoria?The Victorian state election conducted on 18 September sent a clear message from the electors to the Kennett government that they had had enough of the secret state. Voters called on the government to open their books and disclose the Intergraph contract, disclose the Grand Prix contract, disclose the casino contract and disclose the Austin Hospital privatisation contract. Premier Kennett says he has changed now. He says he is going to restore the powers of the Auditor-General which he took away. He says he is going to restore the freedom of information laws which he gutted and stop the abuse of the commercial-in-confidence category to hide information. He gets his chance now. He has an opportunity to demonstrate his bona fides to the electorate by insisting that his close friend and colleague, former Treasurer of Victoria, Mr Alan Stockdale, do the right thing—open the books and disclose his contract with the Macquarie Bank.While the people of Victoria have watched their assets sold off and their schools, hospitals and roads neglected—particularly in regional and rural Victoria—they have simultaneously watched the Macquarie Bank grow fat on lucrative contracts provided by the former Treasurer of Victoria, Mr Alan Stockdale. The $25 million commission paid to the Macquarie Bank would have been well spent on roads, hospitals, police stations and schools in regional Victoria. But of course Victorians saw none of that and now Mr Alan Stockdale wants his share.For the Macquarie Bank to now reciprocate the Victorian Treasurer's generosity with anything from a $400,000 to $3 million salary is disgraceful. This is after Victorians paid $25 million to Macquarie Bank to sell off our roads and major contracts in our computer services as well as an equity stake in our electricity generators and City Link. Has Victoria really sunk to this?A minister of the Crown should not be able to benefit with a job from a bank or company that has been awarded major commissions or contracts by the government. It certainly should not happen when he has been the minister responsible for the awarding of those contracts. In the United States, I understand it is illegal for government advisers to leave and immediately start working as lobbyists or advisers for companies or banks negotiating with government.There are other matters of concern. Is it not the fact that Mr Laurie Cox is a director of Macquarie Bank and that he is the one who has personally recruited Alan Stockdale? This is the same Laurie Cox who is chairman of the world's biggest toll road company, Transurban, a position he was supported into by Premier Kennett. This is the same Laurie Cox who Premier Kennett has described as one of his stockbrokers and who we know, courtesy of Stephen Mayne, delivered some 20,000 Yates shares after a phone call from Premier Kennett when ordinary Victorians were unable to obtain shares. Stephen Mayne's web site describes the Transurban float as `the best example I've ever seen of fat cats and insiders making millions from a business which relies on ordinary citizens paying up . . . Mr Cox has profited to the tune of more than $2 million'.We know the Kennett government has given Transurban special treatment. It plans to reduce the number of lanes on Footscray Road and take other traffic management measures to funnel traffic on to City Link. We know it has turned a blind eye to Transurban's numerous breaches of its undertakings to the Victorian community—that the Moonee Ponds Creek would be naturalised, its massive downward revision of projected travel time savings, its ugly and third-rate noise walls, its promise that Western Link would be open way back in May, its introduction of a complex structure of fees and charges more worthy of a bank.It has long been a matter of concern to Labor that the Kennett government has been running dead on holding Transurban to its promises and that the public interest has run a poor second to Transurban's private interest. The Auditor-General of New South Wales said that one day there would be a need for a royal commission into the Kennett administration. Mr Stockdale's appointment by Macquarie Bank brings that day closer.1123216:40:0011232Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—Franklin Roosevelt reminded us that `democracy is not a static thing. It is an everlasting march'. Whatever happens on 6 November, the republic referendum before the Australian people represents a missed opportunity. We are being asked to embrace the mood of the new century, to reflect on almost 100 years of Federation and to draw on symbolism and identity to make a constitutional change.Opponents to the referendum proposal point to our constitutional history, the performance of our system of government over generations, practicalities of the status quo and deficiencies in the proposition to reject this push for change. Whilst I am a relaxed republican, the model for the selection and parliamentary appointment of our head of state has me underwhelmed. It offers neither the genuinely minimalist change of a McGarvie-like model nor the virtue of citizen participation offered by direct election.The chance for greater involvement of Australians in the governing of our country is the missed opportunity. This mood will not dissipate and is not contained to questions about our head of state. The editorial in the 9-10 October Weekend Australian recognised that the direct election of the President `is an inherently democratic procedure, well in tune with the Australian spirit'. The current republican debate need not be the only avenue to express this Australian spirit identified by this leading newspaper. We should embrace the imperative of greater community involvement in the governing of our nation as our nation's democratic goal for the new century.Australia began this century boasting the world's best practice Constitution and governing institutions. Our constitutional founders searched for what was best for our new nation and its component colonies and what its citizens would embrace and proudly protect. With this same attitude and approach today, we would not be being asked to vote on a constitutional change which further institutionalises power in the hands of those who already possess the greatest share of influence, control and access to the levers of government. We would be debating ideas about how to better align our governing systems with the legitimate expectations of the Australian electorate.I propose a constructive way forward that embraces the Australian spirit of democratic involvement through the introduction of a new instrument that enables electors to present legislative proposals to the parliament. These `people's polls' would enable supported proposals to pass the first reading stage of the legislative process in the House of Representatives and give electors a direct influence over the governing of our nation.This idea of direct democracy is right for our time and is entirely consistent with the Australian spirit. While the strength of the idea is obvious to the Australian people, it is also the biggest obstacle faced by supporters of the yes republican case. Rather than try to ignore the broad community support for the direct election model, the yes republicans should recognise the strong democratic character of the Australian spirit and seek to embrace this enduring desire of electors to be able to more directly influence the governing of our country.My interest in direct democracy dates back long before my election to this place. It started with the embrace of the concepts at a local government level guided by research that identified 78 per cent of the local community believed that the electoral system would be enhanced if the public could vote on particular issues and policies, as well as voting to elect representatives.Australians are not apathetic by natural disposition. However, it can be argued that indifference is an intelligent response to a circumstance over which a person has little influence. This can be changed—by providing the democratic instruments to re-engage individuals in the governing of our nation beyond the event of elections. Contemporary Australia embraces the values and ideals of political freedom, choice, personal engagement and achievement, individual worth, mutual responsibility and the sense of community—a new type of citizenship.We can renew support for our democratic and parliamentary institutions by enhancing the stake and influence electors have in them with `people's polls' as the cornerstone. This Australian version of direct democracy is clear, simple and right for our time. Direct democracy delivers the direct access to political decision making that informed and educated citizens want. It sits alongside and supplements a healthy system of representative democracy where elected members remain the principal means of translating the needs and interests of citizens into good government. There is no more Liberal idea than providing an opportunity for the hands of the governed to be placed on the levers of government. Here is how we would do it.A petition containing the signatories of three per cent of Australians eligible to vote could trigger a poll. A minimum proportion of signatories from each state and territory would demonstrate genuine national interest. A requirement to register intended propositions would ensure that the petitioners presented authorised and accurate material when seeking signatories to activate the electoral processes. The poll would be held in conjunction with the next federal election subject to the proposal having `qualified' not less than three months before polling day.For the proposal to be endorsed by the electorate, a total majority combined with a majority vote in the majority of states and territories should be required. Such a result would be valid only if not less than 25 per cent of those eligible to vote chose to participate in the poll. The valid endorsement of a proposal would be presented to this House, the House of Representatives, the people's house, via a reworking of standing orders 211 to 216 as a bill deemed to have been introduced and read for a first time. The government would be called upon to accompany the bill with a statement about whether it is prepared, not prepared or conditionally prepared to recommend any necessary appropriation.Issues of precision in the drafting and associated claims that the mechanism is only accessible to those who can fund a team of lawyers would be overcome by the goodwill and guiding hand of the parliament's officers resourced to assist. The government may choose to support, amend or reject the proposal and carry the political responsibility that accompanies such a decision. Rejection of a validly endorsed proposal or amendments against the spirit of the proposal would no doubt be the subject of debate and reaction at the next election.Critics, commentators and even some of my own colleagues are likely to selectively draw from international experience to deride the concept of direct democracy. But the design of this proposal draws from the experience of others, recognises our constitutional foundations, complements our representative democratic systems and provides a distinctly Australian style of direct democracy.`People's polls' would not act as a referendum on the introduction or amendment of a law. It places a bill for such a new law or change to an existing law squarely before the parliament and the elected representatives to determine the bill's ultimate fate. The government of the day has the opportunity to embrace the proposition in full or in part, align the bill's provisions with its broader economic strategies, policy direction and other obligations. `People's polls' are entirely complementary to the representative democracy that is the backbone and workhorse of our system of government. The mechanism would enhance the functioning of our representative democratic model by providing electors with `insurance' if those elected to pursue the public interest fail in this task in the eyes of the Australian people.With the `people's poll' proposition supported by the electorate presented as a bill before this House, our constitutional settings are respected and renewed. It is a form of direct democracy with training wheels that will enable our mechanism to evolve as our experience builds, as our participation matures and as the community confidence develops in a way only experience can produce. This approach dismisses any suggestion that constitutional change is a necessary precondition for direct democratic reform. It also enables the government of the day to respond to the expressed will of the people while preserving the duty and responsibility of the parliament.Combining direct democracy as the natural tool that accompanies our promotion of civic and personal responsibilities and contemporary values and ideals would be our `new citizenship'. Moreover, embracing `people's polls' as part of the republican debate would actually deliver a tangible dividend to the Australian people. It would enable the yes republicans to offer meaningful citizen involvement in the governing of our country alongside its model that fails to respond to the public's wish for a say. It would underwrite the `yes plus' camp's claim that we can revisit the presidential appointment process. The citizens themselves could activate a further review.For the direct electionist, `people's polls' would guarantee the opportunity to put this view at some point in the future. I would argue that `people's polls' are a more accurate and meaningful reflection of the desire for greater democratic involvement than the direct election of our head of state. For monarchists, `people's polls' represent democratic reform that they could support that best accords to community attitudes for greater involvement in the governing of our country. Embracing the concept would move the republican campaigns beyond the sloganeering and jingoistic appeals to the electorate that currently characterise the campaign. Let the merits of the republican debate decide that issue.Let us embrace `people's polls' as the practical and tangible instrument for greater democratic involvement and connectedness the Australian electors are seeking. `People's polls' are a means to deliver the democratic spirit all sides of the republican debate are trying to exploit to advance their cause. The strength of this idea is that it is real, substantive and renders pure symbolism a very poor substitute for genuine democratic reform. Direct democracy's capacity to ensure that both electors and the elected have their hands on the `levers of their government' may not be the only way of providing for perfect government, but it is a giant step in the right direction. Those political advocates of the republican model cannot ignore the Australian spirit. I seek their consideration of this proposal. (Time expired)1123516:50:0011235Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—There are only 26 days before Australians vote in a referendum that will decide whether Australia will become a truly independent nation or whether our independence will continue to be compromised by having a British monarch as our head of state, a person who is chosen not because they are the best person to fulfil that position but because of who they are, who their parents were and the blood they carry in their veins. The issue is: do we move forward as a mature nation or do we continue to wallow in adolescence? This referendum is about pride and it is about maturity. One hundred years ago, six colonies came together and decided to become a nation, and Australia as we know it was born. It is now time for us to decide to become a truly independent nation, a nation where we can all be proud to be Australian and a nation where we have an Australian as our head of state.Unfortunately, the debate and the referendum have been shrouded in misinformation. This is because those people supporting the no case, or opposing change, are trying to dupe the Australian people. The campaign has been deceptive. It has been full of misinformation. It has been based on scaremongering. I believe that if you win a debate you should win that debate honestly. You should win it on the strength of your arguments. You should not win it because you frighten people into supporting your position. You should approach anything you do in life honestly and you should seek to be judged on that from an honest perspective.Currently, those people supporting the no case in the debate have been anything but honest. You can look at all the adages, all the positions and all the arguments they have put forward. Each of them are based on creating fear and deceiving Australian people. They say, `If it ain't broke don't fix it,' or `It's a politicians' republic.' If something is not broken, you can still change it. We do not say that our Constitution and our form of government in Australia are broken. We have a very fine system of government, but that system of government can be improved. If things do not change, we will be left behind. Our current system of government has served us well. It is based on the Westminster system. Now is the time for us to retain the good parts of that and to have a truly Australian system of government with our own head of state—somebody who is Australian, someone who is one of us and somebody who does not attain that position simply because their mother or father was there before them.To say it is a politicians' republic is also very dishonest, and I will deal with that in more detail in a moment. There has also been the constant refusal by those people supporting the no case to even mention the Queen or her successor, Prince Charles. The most dishonest person of all in this debate has been the Prime Minister. First of all, we had a long title for this legislation—the question the Australian people would vote on—that was very dishonest. The first question promoted by the Prime Minister would have been for a republic with a President chosen by a two- thirds majority of the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia. That does not give any idea about what the change to the Constitution is truly about.A committee was set up by the Prime Minister himself. That committee recommended a very different question be put to the Australian people—that is, that legislation provide for an act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic, with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by an Australian President. Unlike the first question, the second question had support from a number of quarters. The first question was only supported by those people supporting the no case. That in itself shows just how dishonest that first question was. The second question was rejected by the Prime Minister and a compromise question was chosen. The question we will be voting for on 6 November is for a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.Once again, this is very dishonest because it talks about only part of the process. If you are going to put in part of the process, you should include the whole process. In our current system, the Governor-General is appointed by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister can choose whoever he or she wants to be the Governor-General. The Prime Minister does not have to discuss that with his cabinet. He does not have to discuss it with the parliament. He does not have to discuss that with anyone. It is purely the choice of the Prime Minister. What we have at the moment is a Prime Minister's system of government, a Prime Minister's constitutional monarchy. The Prime Minister can sack the Governor-General whenever that Prime Minister chooses to. The Prime Minister is not accountable under the current processes which are not transparent.The proposed system is a system of minimal change where the President will have the same powers as the Governor-General but the appointment process is very different. A committee of 32 will make a recommendation to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will then nominate the person whom he or she chooses from that short list to the parliament. That will be seconded by the Leader of the Opposition and then a two-thirds majority of the whole parliament will have to endorse that nomination—that is, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The process is much more open and the Prime Minister is much more accountable—far from being a politicians' or Prime Minister's republic. In relation to the dismissal process, currently the Prime Minister can dismiss the Governor-General whenever the Prime Minister chooses to. Under the proposed system, the Prime Minister can still dismiss the President but within 30 days of that dismissal the Prime Minister must explain to the parliament why he or she took that action.Sir Zelman Cowen and former High Court Justices Brennan and Mason came out last week and said that the proposed process is a lot more accountable and a lot more open than the current situation. When the committee was taking evidence, Malcolm Fraser addressed the committee. It was very definitely his opinion that the process on which the Australian people will be voting for on 6 November is open and accountable in that the Prime Minister must explain to the Australian people his or her decisions. The only way we will have a politicians' republic is if the people elect a President. If the people elect the President, the only people who will be able to afford to run for that position will be members of political parties—somebody who is either a member of the Labor Party or a member of the coalition—or, if you really wanted to let your imagination run wild, a representative of one of the big corporations, maybe Kerry Packer.I believe that the model and the amendments to the Constitution that the Australian people will be voting on are very fair. It will not mean that we change the flag. It will not mean that Australia cannot participate in the Commonwealth Games. We will still be a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. The referendum has awakened in all Australians a keen interest in our Constitution. It is a time to determine who we are and what we want to be. It is a time to look to the future. Australian people want to understand their Constitution. I hope that, as a result of this referendum, they will. It is important that the referendum debate be honest and not based on a scare campaign. This is a chance for Australians to vote to maintain the best aspects of our current system whilst, at the same time, asserting our status as a truly independent nation with a President who will not be a politician, chosen by the Prime Minister or appointed to that position because he or she is a member of the British royal family. (Time expired)1123717:00:0011237Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—Two years ago, after the Asian economic crisis, both the Department of Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade issued white papers. When we look at those white papers from two years ago, it seems that the true impact the Asian economic crisis would have on regional security was not anticipated in the defence white paper. That is what I would like to touch on in the grievance debate today.The key features of the post-Cold War strategic environment in the Asia-Pacific are the demise of Soviet influence in East Asia, the rise of China as an economic and military power and the continuing presence of the United States in East Asia. Japan and India remain important regional powers which play a part in the consideration of the balance of power. Regional flashpoints include the Spratley Islands in the South China Sea, the Straits of Taiwan and the Korean Peninsula.In the first phase of the post-Cold War era, running from 1989 to the Asian economic crisis in 1997, there was hope that economic interdependence and multilateral institutions would encourage cooperation and underpin regional stability. The Asian economic crisis has highlighted the failure of organisations like the ASEAN regional forum and APEC to contribute to economic and strategic cooperation. It was actually extraregional institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank which provided assistance to affected Asian countries. In the last sitting week, we heard the member for Holt talking about the role that he and Indonesia had played in the establishment of the ASEAN regional forum and APEC. But, as we saw during the Asian economic crisis, they were not actually able to play a role. Undoubtedly, the crisis has altered the regional balance of power. Although the bipolar distribution of power in East Asia, characterised by Chinese land power and US maritime power, has remained unaffected, China has had its status as a regional leader enhanced by its actions during the crisis and by the economic stagnation of most other countries in East Asia.The Asian economic crisis began in July 1997 with the devaluation of the Thai baht and has altered Asia's strategic outlook dramatically. It was unpredicted and destroyed the assumption that the rise of East Asia would continue without check. Shortly after the crisis began, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Defence both issued white papers. As highlighted in the Bulletin on 3 August 1999 in an article by J. Lyons entitled `Operation Backflip', they failed to anticipate the collapse of Suharto in Indonesia and nuclear testing by India and Pakistan. Issued in December 1997, the Defence white paper, entitled Australia's Strategic Policy 1997, minimised the impact of the Asian economic crisis on regional security. I think it is important that the Defence white paper this year takes into account the failures that were made in that 1997 white paper and anticipates problems better in future.Paul Dibb has described the Asian economic crisis as the start of the second phase of the post-Cold War order. The economic crisis has altered the central feature of Asia-Pacific stability—that is, regional stability was underpinned by the rapid economic growth of East Asia. Several regimes based their legitimacy on economic growth rather than on democratic election. The economic crisis has increased uncertainty in the Asia-Pacific and undermined regional cohesion. It has also altered the regional balance of power and undermined the view that growing economic interdependence and multilateral institutions will prevent conflict in Asia.Leadership in Asia was based on delivering economic growth without legitimacy drawn from a democratic election. That is not in all countries but in several countries. In ASEAN countries, in South Korea and in China, unending economic growth was the expectation of the population. Only Taiwan and China avoided negative economic growth during the crisis. For the remainder, the collapse of prosperity in Asia threatened the basis of those governments. Of the three countries that required IMF bailouts, democratic change has already occurred in South Korea and Thailand, and the resignation of Suharto preceded Indonesia's first democratic election since 1955. There has been democratic change there.The Asian economic crisis has highlighted the weaknesses of regional multilateral institutions such as APEC, the ASEAN regional forum and ASEAN itself. None of these institutions played a role in addressing the economic or strategic implications of the crisis. Richard Woolcott has argued that it is too early to write these institutions off. Both APEC and the ARF are recently established, and neither was able to formulate common policies on the economic and security implications of the crisis. The ARF is at only an early stage of discussing confidence building measures and preventative diplomacy. APEC has no security discussion. ASEAN was irrelevant to the economic crisis—that is, despite the development of those institutions, Asia was unable to cooperate on security or financial matters during the crisis. I think the jury is still out on what role they will be able to play in economic and security cooperation in the future.Economic development and security have played an important part in regional security discussions, and there is a risk that the crisis will undermine regional security cooperation. One encouraging sign during the crisis has been China's refusal to devalue the renminbi, which would have led to competitive devaluations throughout South-East Asia. Also on a positive note, Thailand and South Korea witnessed a democratic change of government, and President Suharto was overthrown with less violence than expected.The variable impact of the crisis on ASEAN members may increase tension within the organisation. Already within ASEAN, you see a split between some of the countries. Indonesia and Malaysia are seemingly more anti-West. With the Philippines and Thailand, this is not so. ASEAN celebrated its 30th anniversary in 1997, but I think there are now real questions about its future.The economic crisis also has several important implications. As Geoffrey Barker pointed out in the Financial Review, Indonesia still has a significant risk of political and social disintegration. Although there have been encouraging signs, Indonesia remains poised between stability and chaos. Secondly, Thailand's economic collapse has undermined its position within South-East Asia. That may encourage Cambodia, Myanmar and Vietnam to follow a model based more on central political control rather than to follow a Thai model based on open markets. Thirdly, rivalries between ASEAN members may surface and their economic weakness may make members more susceptible to influence from an external power.The rise of East Asia led to military modernisation programs in most countries. While there are differing views as to whether that was a benign or ominous development, the Asian economic crisis caused countries such as Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines and South Korea to cut defence spending by 30 to 40 per cent, and Indonesia has cancelled purchases of new defence equipment. Japan has also cut defence expenditure in non-hardware areas. China, Taiwan and Singapore were less affected by the regional crisis and, as such, have continued their defence spending at pre-crisis levels. This has important implications for the balance of power and the power hierarchy in Asia.Countries such as Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia, South Korea and Indonesia have been reduced in their relative power and standing, while China has enhanced its status as a regional power. Although Japan contributed significantly to IMF bailouts and provided over $42 billion in financial assistance, it has still been perceived within the region as having been distracted by its own economic problems. In South-East Asia, Malaysia's economic malaise is contrasted with the continuing strength of Singapore. In North-East Asia, the weakness of South Korea may have delayed reunification and encouraged the isolated North Korean regime to delay cooperation with South Korea. Again in the Financial Review, on 7 and 8 August 1999, Geoffrey Barker reported that North Korea appeared to be planning to conduct a second long-range missile test and was continuing its program to develop weapons of mass destruction. South Korean plans for large defence expenditure and for developing a force which will allow power projection beyond the Korean Peninsula will also have to be postponed.The United States, through the IMF, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, has provided leadership during the economic crisis. In April 1998, a report from the US Congressional Service stated that `a prolonged economic decline could fuel nationalism, undermine regional cooperation, and foster confrontation over longstanding territorial and other disputes'. The leadership shown by the United States has not always enhanced America's standing in East Asia. The reluctance of the United States to support an ally, Thailand, and its support for harsh IMF conditions for Indonesia may lead to anti-American sentiments in the future. In closing, the major potential problem relating to the economic crisis has been a shift in the balance of power and how that will be handled by the regional powers.1123917:10:0011239Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—As the 6 November referendum draws nearer, the Australian people are becoming more focused on the real issues. In discussing these issues with my constituents in the Fowler electorate, I find that their views are based on experiences which are often different from the arguments being put by the representatives of each side of the debate. My electorate of Fowler could be described as the least British of all Australian electorates. Almost half of the population are descended from non-British parents. For these people, the monarchy is seen as being essentially British and even as something foreign. That is quite the opposite to what the monarchy represents to some Australians of British descent.If the monarchy were totally irrelevant, this might not be a concern, but in many ways having a non-Australian head of state does influence the thinking and actions of many Australians of non-British descent. For one thing—and this is crucial in a multicultural society—almost half of the people in Fowler cannot expect a person of their origin to become Australia's head of state. No-one of their race or origin can aspire to that position. Australia's head of state is the sole preserve of people of British origin. Not being able to identify with a country's leadership can have a number of negative influences. I will give a few examples. Not so long ago, I was speaking with a constituent who told me that his Australian born son had gone to his—the father's—country of origin to perform military service. When I protested that his son was born here and so was an Australian citizen, the father gave me this argument: if his son were to serve in the Australian Navy, he could serve on one of Her Majesty's Australian ships or in the Royal Australian Air Force. He said, `It is okay for you. The Queen comes from your country. Why can't my Australian born son serve in my country?' That feeling sums up the beliefs of many Australians. No-one should question their loyalty to Australia, but while ever they see Australia's head of state as someone foreign their loyalty to their own heritage will be above their loyalty to the heritage of British Australians.This division of loyalties is having an effect on Australia's performance in a global economy. For an increasing number of people of European origin, their heritage entitles them to lucrative employment opportunities in the European Union. To maintain this entitlement and to ensure that their children have the same entitlement, a significant number hold dual citizenship—where this is possible—or, in some cases, they renounce their Australian citizenship in order to maintain their entitlement. In a global economy, it is not only ideas and capital that flow freely across borders but also people. This will increasingly mean that more and more of Australia's best and brightest will leave our shores to work overseas. This brain drain will cost Australia dearly.What loyalty can we expect from people who cannot identify with their country of birth? When Australia's head of state is not an Australian, why should they maintain loyalty to Australia? Having a non-Australian as head of state is really the ultimate kind of dual citizenship. It must seem strange—as our courts have again recently shown—that, while you cannot be a member of this parliament if you have not renounced your holding of citizenship of another country, you can be head of state.These may not be considered the main issues in the debate, but they are issues which must be addressed whatever the outcome of the referendum. If Australia is to be more than a country of convenience, more than a motel room on the global economy highway, we must have an identity and a vision of what our country is and what it represents. We must have leadership which helps to create that vision and it must share that vision as one of us. In short, we definitely must have a resident for president.On a completely different matter, an issue which has troubled me for some time is the effect of tobacco taxes on low income families. This is an issue which, due to changes which will soon come into effect, deserves closer consideration. The changes which will levy the excise on each stick rather than the weight of tobacco will make what is already one of the most regressive taxes totally unfair. Let me say from the outset that I am a smoker, one of that now small band of members who are still hooked on the habit. But let me also say that I do not hold a brief for the tobacco companies—far from it.What we have seen in recent years, in the name of health policy, has been a dramatic increase in the taxes applied to cigarettes. While these measures were undertaken by the states, the Commonwealth has taken responsibility for those taxes since the High Court found that only the Commonwealth could levy such taxes. Since taking over tobacco taxes, the Commonwealth has changed the method of calculating the tax so that it is now to be calculated per stick. This will add around a dollar to the price of a packet of 25 cigarettes, with a further 10 per cent GST is to be added next July, which will add a further 70c or 80c per packet, and then there are CPI adjustments to come. Where will it end?A generation ago such increases would have been sufficient to bring down a government. Mr Deputy Speaker, you can imagine what the headlines would have been on the day after the handing down of a budget—`Workers hit: beer and smokes up'. Smoking has become a luxury—a luxury that fewer and fewer people can afford. But that does not mean that they can give it up. If any other industry were to be taxed in this fashion, consumers would rebel and none of the goods would be sold. But with smoking, because of its addictive nature, consumers cannot just give it up. Ask any smoker and they will tell you how hard it is. But the government knows this. That is why it knows it can increase the tax and only a few will give up smoking.Until now, smokers have had the option to buy cheaper cigarettes in larger and larger packs. But the government has closed this loophole. Now you pay the tax of nearly 20c every time you light up. The Treasury should be giving away free matches. The latest increase will add $440 million per year to the revenue. Smokers in Australia will be paying $5 billion per year in taxes that non-smokers do not have to pay. This is grossly unfair. It is a harsh and unreasonable penalty, particularly on low income Australians.Of course there is the health argument: make cigarettes so expensive that everyone has to give them up. But where is the evidence that this is behind the small decreases in Australians smoking? In fact, the high cost of cigarettes may cause greater health problems than it prevents. For low income households, tobacco taxes divert expenditure away from what may be beneficial goods and services. When you look at the cost of tobacco taxes on a low income family, the effect is startling. At 20c per smoke, a moderate to heavy smoker will pay $5 per day in tobacco taxes. That is around $150 per month, or $1,800 per year. If both husband and wife are smokers, that is $3,600 per year. That is more than the amount of income tax paid by a single income family with two dependent children having a weekly income of $500. Low income families with two smokers will pay more in tobacco tax than they do in income tax. That is grossly unfair.It is time for the health nazis to take stock of the cost of tobacco taxes—not just tobacco—on the health of low income Australians. It is time that Treasury kicked the habit of exploiting smokers to the tune of $5 billion per year. And it is time for smokers to put their money where their mouth is—in a different way—and take a stand against this exploitation.1124117:20:0011241Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—I congratulate the government on the action it is taking after recognising that some public benevolent institutions are taking unfair advantage of the exemption to fringe benefits tax. It is right that we are considering proposals to prevent rorting in what I understand to be a small sector of public benevolent institutions. There is no doubt that this small sector is making things very difficult for the industry as a whole because most of the institutions are treating their fringe benefits exemption with the respect that such a privilege deserves.I understand that some of the big institutions are taking advantage in several ways. First of all, many are packaging an enormous component of their salaries—I have heard figures of up to 60 and 70 per cent—and some are also packaging for a large number of people on the payroll. Clearly this practice is not the intent of the privilege of exemption.The privilege of exemption of FBT given to these institutions was to enable them to attract suitably qualified staff when in competition with the private sector. Being able to package a certain component of an employee's wage meant that they could, for example, offer a potential employee a package that was worth, say, $80,000 to the employee but may cost the institution, because of its fringe benefits tax exemption, only $50,000 or $60,000.This exemption, I must stress, was designed to assist the institution, not the individual. Like so many things in our society, we are forced to legislate down to the nth degree to prevent people from taking advantage of a situation. I believe there is a danger in meeting this problem, however, with an overreactive response. I believe we need a proper and considered response that will achieve the aims of the government—that is, to prevent the rorts—but will also allow the intent and the spirit of the original legislation to be delivered to those institutions that are treating the privilege in its proper way. There is already widespread acceptance by governments, especially in the disability area, that much of this sector is already underfunded by the state governments, and a serious attack on the bottom line that might result from severe restrictions on the fringe benefits tax exemption will have serious implications on many industries, not the least the disability support industry.The public benevolent institution industry as a whole has recognised an unofficial benchmark of about $30,000, or around 30 per cent of the package. My understanding is that it is considered from both their side and the government's side as not an outrageous amount and that it probably meets the spirit of the existing legislation. All of the institutions that I have spoken to certainly recognise and understand the need for the reporting on group certificates of fringe benefits tax, and most appear to have no problem with this. My concern is that we would be tempted to tighten up the legislation too much too quickly. This would have a large effect on PBIs, certainly in regional and rural areas, and I would imagine in the city areas as well.In my area, for example, we have Westhaven Industries, a big organisation that has a supported employment service as well as an accommodation area for disabled people. Nearby there is Wangarang in Orange, House with No Steps in Forbes, Glenroy Industries in Bathurst, Carlaminda in Gilgandra, and the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Dubbo and Broken Hill. These are only a few of the institutions that will be making use of the exemption on fringe benefits tax. There are many, many others doing good work for the community—for example, community legal centres that are too numerous to mention. However, they provide an enormous range of services to the community, from legal services to financial counselling, disability support, aged care support and many other services.Westhaven Industries provide accommodation and employment support for between 125 and 130 people. They make pallets, tomato stakes, survey pegs, dusters, boots, slippers, underlays, doonas, saddle cloths and picture frames, to name but a few products. Like many of these institutions, they have moved from being a group run by perhaps a well- meaning manager and a board. In the past, these people may not have had the financial skills to run such an organisation in such a manner that would deliver the best outcomes for the public dollar. However, having the fringe benefit tax exemption has allowed them to employ financial controllers with the skill required to successfully run such an enterprise.The result is that the industry is run probably at its optimal efficiency. This, in turn, takes pressure off governments' budgets which would otherwise be pushed even harder than they already are for support in these areas. Even so, there is still a recognised shortage of funding from state governments. For example, all the trainers at Westhaven who are there to support the employees are also supervisors, and they are providing hands-on work already. This severely limits their ability to provide one-on-one training for the participants who need their help. This leads to less than optimum productivity. To allow optimum productivity would enable such a facility to be self-sustaining and probably help contribute to the cost of the accommodation area, which is the main area that is severely short of funding. I am sure the state government would welcome such a relief of pressure on their funds.A fringe benefits tax exemption limited to a grossed up amount of $17,000 would cost Westhaven Industries approximately $33,000. They would immediately have to submit funding submissions to the government so they could continue to be commercially competitive in attracting a level of expertise required to effectively manage and improve the quality of service delivery in this particular area of disability.The Royal Flying Doctor Service is an icon in rural and regional Australia. For those people who do not know, it provides a unique service to people who live in isolated areas. It provides an aeromedical retrieval service for people, for example, who have a car accident or who fall from a horse or who have some other serious injury. They also provide primary health care in delivering regular clinics consisting of mental health nurses, diabetes nurses, general practice doctors and Aboriginal health workers as well as drug and alcohol counselling to areas that would otherwise not receive these services at all.The community input into the funding of the Flying Doctor is enormous. Last week I had the privilege of joining about 16 young horse riders and about the same number of support staff with about a dozen vehicles in a horse ride from Bourke to Tilpa to raise money for the Flying Doctor. This type of fundraising activity is repeated all over inland Australia and some areas of metropolitan Australia and shows the regard that the Royal Flying Doctor Service is held in by these people. The private money that is given to this organisation is enormous, and it allows the contributions by various governments to be levered to provide services far above what would be provided otherwise. This is because the local people recognise what a magnificent service is provided for them by the Royal Flying Doctor.If a large restriction on the fringe benefits tax exemption were applied to the Royal Flying Doctor, it would cost them well in excess of a million dollars. The doctors that the Royal Flying Doctor Service employ have a fringe benefit component of their salary of about $30,000. This is to provide housing and motor vehicles for the doctors who live in places like Broken Hill. These fringe benefits are certainly not used to pay these doctors an exorbitant salary. In fact, their equivalent grossed up wages would be approximately $130,000, far below what any of these doctors would expect to earn in general practice elsewhere. The beneficiary is not the individual but the organisation, and therefore the huge community that it serves.If the ability of the Flying Doctor to supply fringe benefits tax exemption to these doctors were greatly reduced, it would severely limit their ability to recruit. This is where we come to the argument that is being used that all that is happening is that these organisations are cost shifting to the government. Some probably are, but it is my belief that most are not.I believe a limit to the exemption of about 30 per cent of the package, or a dollar figure of about $30,000, perhaps with a limit of 30 per cent of the number of employees that can be packaged, would go a long way to solving this in a non-draconian way. I believe that would largely be supported by industries. Certainly, the reporting of fringe benefits on group certificates is something that really needs to be done in fairness to people who are not paying a proper Medicare levy, and for some who may not be contributing properly the amounts that they should in the way of child support payments.Having this system in place will certainly address these two major concerns without having the effect of crippling areas of industry that provide enormous support to all communities but especially communities in the bush and, most importantly, industries that are providing these services to those least able to support themselves—the disabled, the lower socioeconomic group and, in some cases, the elderly.I urge the government again to clamp down on the institutions that are ripping off the system. Stop those that are growing fat at the expense of ordinary taxpayers and at the expense of the institutions that are doing the right thing. A statement must be made by the government in such a way as to address the abuse but maintain the spirit in which the legislation was originally framed, that is, to assist those magnificent organisations that do so much to assist the communities they serve. The public contributions to keep these facili ties going are an indication of the great work they do and the recognition they have for doing so.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—The question is:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees11243112431124317:30:0011243Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: HMAS Albatross Stage 2 Redevelopment, Nowra, NSW.The Department of Defence proposes to develop further the Royal Australian Navy air base by implementing a second stage of construction. This will provide purpose-built facilities and services that will improve the operational reliability and organisational functionality of this base. These works are a natural continuation of the major redevelopment of HMAS Albatross , which under the Defence stage 1 project was agreed to by the Public Works Committee in April 1998. The stage 1 works included an integrated squadron complex with HS816 Sea Hawk helicopter and HS805 Sea Sprite helicopter squadrons, an air traffic control complex, an airfield lighting system, aircraft shelters, an explosive ordnance storage complex and training and photographic centres. The design, documentation and construction of these facilities is currently progressing with completion planned for October in the year 2000.The second stage of proposed works will provide for the upgrade of existing arrester gear, a helicopter corrosion control facility, flight deck procedural training simulators, a visiting military aircraft hardstand, perimeter security fences, a helicopter underwater escape training simulator, a gymnasium, extension of taxiway bravo and the demolition and relocation of buildings and engineering services. Future proposals for works at HMAS Albatross will address further developments or upgraded facilities extending beyond economical repair or upgrade.The Department of Defence is currently reviewing a proposal for relocation from Sydney of 170 defence personnel in the Naval Aviation Logistics Management Squadron to Nowra, New South Wales. The two options are to provide a new 2,280 square metre facility or lease facilities in the adjacent Council-Aviation Technology Park. The estimated outturn cost of the proposal is $41 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, it is anticipated that construction will start in mid-2000 and be completed by December 2001. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.112441124417:33:0011244Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Navy Ammunitioning Facility, Twofold Bay, NSW.The Department of Defence proposes to construct a Navy ammunitioning facility at Twofold Bay near Eden, New South Wales, to support ammunitioning and deammunitioning of ships of the Royal Australian Navy. The proposed ammunitioning facility will provide for the Royal Australian Navy's long-term east coast ammunitioning requirements following the closure of the current arrangements in Sydney Harbour at the end of 1999. The current facilities at Homebush will close to make way for the Sydney 2000 Olympics.The Commonwealth owned port at Point Wilson, Victoria will be used for interim ammunitioning of Royal Australian Navy ships until permanent arrangements are in place. Point Wilson would not be suitable for ammunitioning Navy ships in the longer term due to the additional steaming time and associated cost to the Royal Australian Navy and the requirement to upgrade the Point Wilson infrastructure. Point Wilson is nearing the end of its economic life and would require considerable upgrade to extend its life for 30 years. The cost of upgrading Point Wilson would be greater than the cost of the proposed facility at Twofold Bay.The Department of Defence has investigated numerous locations on the east coast to find a site that is operationally and technically feasible and environmentally suitable. More recently, detailed technical investigations have been conducted at Twofold Bay, including wind-wave studies, seismic and bathometric survey, geotechnical testing, road transport survey, explosive ordnance risk management, bushfire risk study and preliminary flora and fauna assessment. The detailed investigations have indicated that the Twofold Bay site is operationally suitable and technically feasible. A detailed environmental assessment is currently under way.Public exhibition of the environmental impact statement is scheduled for November-December this year and formal environmental clearance is expected early in the year 2000. Environmental field studies have been completed and the results have been utilised in the concept design of the proposed facility. Specialist assessments indicate that the proposed facility can be constructed and operated so as to have minimal adverse environmental impact. The wharf at Twofold Bay will be used by the Royal Australian Navy for between 45 and 70 days per year and will be available for commercial use the rest of the time. State and local government have indicated strong support for the proposal as commercial use of the wharf is expected to create employment opportunities in the Eden area.The main components of the facility are a wharf and jetty and a land based depot. The New South Wales government is planning to develop an area adjacent to the jetty head for commercial stockpiles of timber products and other compatible industries, should the proposal proceed. The estimated outturn cost is $40 million. Subject to parliamentary and environmental approval, construction will start in the middle of next year and be completed by December in the year 2001. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees11245112451124511245Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)10000PON/A10—The Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator Bourne has been discharged from attendance on the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories and that Senator Greig has been appointed a member of that committee.Bills11245Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bill: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 Bills11245r90811245Debate resumed from 30 September, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Kelvin Thomson moved by way of amendment: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 this House:(1) condemns the Government for not providing adequate resources to the Australian Taxation Office to allow it to properly discharge its administrative functions;(2) condemns the Government for its indifference to the severe impact of the GST transitional provisions on the community and on industries such as the car industry;(3) condemns the Government for its continuing unwillingness to legislate against tax minimisation through the use of family trusts and notes the conflict of interest involved in approximately 17 Government frontbenchers holding family trusts;(4) calls on the Government to introduce into the House without delay the anti-avoidance entity taxation arrangements announced in the ANTS package; (5) notes with alarm the consequent failure of the Government's response to the business tax revenue-neutral criterion and the effect of the resulting fiscal loosening on the current account deficit and on equity; and(6) notes that Jeff Kennett has received a strong rebuke from the voters of Victoria due to his championing of the GST, excessive secrecy and nobbling of the Auditor General.17:38:0011245Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—When debate was interrupted on 30 September I was speaking on the A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill 1999 about the difficulties being placed in the way of the Taxation Office doing its job in Western Australia. In particular, I was bemoaning the fact that Western Australia was not to get a call centre—where call centres had been established in Tasmania, New South Wales, and Victoria—and that this would impact on tax office functions in that state. I can report good news. Since I raised this issue in the House on 30 September we have had an announcement by the Commissioner of Taxation, Michael Carmody, that the tax office has now decided to establish a call centre in Western Australia. From the opposition's perspective, this is unusual—that we are so effective that we can raise the issue and indeed have the tax office announce that it is going to establish that call centre. I do welcome that announcement. I do think that that will benefit Western Australia in terms of the operation of the tax office, and I regard it as a significant step forward.I do, however, have some ongoing concerns about the tax office's presence and functions in Western Australia, as I outlined initially in debate on the bill. We are still seeing a drain of jobs and expertise from Western Australia. In its media announcement that it would be establishing the call centre the tax office talked about a 26 per cent increase in jobs in Western Australia. This does not account for the more than 300 positions that have already been lost. To take the Commissioner of Taxation's own figures, he says:Jobs will rise in Western Australia from 1,020 currently to 1,290 by the year 2003.But back in 1997-98 there were 1,306 staff employed in Western Australia. Frankly, it is a bit rich to be claiming a 26 per cent increase when you are not even restoring job numbers to their 1997-98 level. I also want to express some concern that the tax office refers in the report it gave to the West Australian to plans for further downsizing. So, on the one hand you have the tax office promising some new jobs; on the other hand it is suggesting that there will be further downsizing. The tax office has told staff that the tax office will backfill those vacancies created as staff transfer into new GST jobs. But that conflicts with plans to downsize in those areas.I do question the government's commitment to providing for the whole community where we have the closure of cashier points as an example of services being reduced. Frankly, I think it is extraordinary that the tax office will not accept payments direct from taxpayers. These are euphemistically described as `ATO access centres', when they are in fact places without access. This is an example of the problems of service reduction that we are increasingly seeing in the tax office. It is essentially seeking to reduce other functions—by closing cashiers and the like—so that, when all of those GST positions need to be filled, they will be able to say, `The tax office as a whole is not any larger,' thereby disguising the additional administrative effort which the GST is imposing on the tax office and on the community generally.The second area that I wanted to cover in my remarks—and this was flagged in my second reading amendment—is the position of the Premier of Victoria on the GST. Premier Kennett is on record as being quite hostile to the compromise package agreed with the Democrats. He talks about the substantial compliance and administration costs which the compromise package imposes on small business. He has written to Victorian senators saying that he believed that these compliance costs could well be beyond the capacity of many small businesses to accommodate. He says that the demarcation between `all food' and `basic food' will create many anomalies in terms of differential treatment of goods with little intrinsic difference and talks about some of those anomalies—muesli bars being taxed, but not fruit bars; chicken pieces being taxed, but not whole chickens—resulting in unintended inequities. He talks about penalties to low income purchasers of packaged food while high income purchases of expensive fresh food such as lobster do not get taxed.According to all of this, the Premier has gone a bit further and put forward a proposal for a GST of five per cent on all food, which he says would yield $29.1 billion. He says that would enable FID to be abolished in July 2001 and debits tax to be abolished by July 2005. He makes it quite clear in his representations to Victorian senators and in his statements on the record that he supports a five per cent GST on all food. All Victorian voters, including those who are involved in the Frankston East supplementary election, ought to be aware that, if they support Premier Kennett, what they are supporting is a GST on all food.The third area I want to cover in this debate relates to the Ralph package on business tax reform. I think a few points ought to be made about this package and where we stand at present in relation to it. Labor support the business tax reform, and we see the government's response to the Ralph report as a good starting point for negotiations. But it ought to be pointed out that the package proposed by the government, firstly, fails the revenue neutrality test and, secondly, is incomplete because it defers key decisions recommended by Ralph. The Treasurer has said he has a predisposition to deliver on those shortcomings. That is fine, but it does not really cut it. In terms of expecting the opposition to endorse this package, we need to know what the government is going to do about revenue neutrality and anti-avoidance. I note that, if the government intend, as they do, to introduce a large gap between the tax on income and the tax on capital gains, something of that order needs to be complemented by effective anti-avoidance measures to prevent those contrived schemes that convert income into capital gains. Anyone with any history or memory of these things will recollect that, prior to Labor introducing the capital gains tax, that was a regular occurrence—that people on high incomes transferred those incomes, converted those incomes, into capital gains so they could avoid paying any income tax or tax of any kind on them.I also mention that we are not satisfied with the level of disclosure which has been provided by the government. The sorts of concerns that people express about capital gains tax reduction include the fact that the lion's share of capital gains accrues to wealthy taxpayers, the fact that a lower capital gains tax level could encourage people to invest in assets such as real estate and shares that increase in value rather than being directly invested in active businesses that obtain their profits from selling goods and services—it is alleged that it is an inefficient way to encourage investment in new ventures—and that tax avoidance could increase and so would complex anti-avoidance rules. Given all those sorts of concerns, we need a greater level of disclosure from the government in this area of business tax before we can make a more considered decision on the government's proposals.The government's tax package as a whole—we are looking, on the one hand, at what it has done with the GST and, on the other, at what is referred to as `a new tax system'—and its business taxation package really put us in the position where it is battlers who have to pay more. The Prime Minister pretends to be supporting battlers but, in reality, he wants to have them paying for his unfair GST and also, I suspect—with recent developments in Timor—paying for foreign policy.There are now significant budget pressures, largely of their own making, growing on the government. They produced the unfair GST which has needed a huge unfunded compensation package which cut some $20 billion out of the first three budgets to try and offset some of the unfairness of the GST. They have now produced a business tax package which is not revenue neutral to the tune of almost $4 billion. Now there is talk about a new round of spending cuts to finance additional defence expenditure. Where are these savings going to come from? We have heard reports that Senator Newman is looking at cutting back the compensation package. So, as usual, this government target the battlers. Labor said at the time of the GST that you cannot make the GST fair; you can only make it a bit less unfair. We are now seeing evidence that, regrettably, it is going to be even more unfair than we believed at the time. That is because the price rises are going to be much higher than that fraudulent figure of 1.9 per cent which the government bandied about with advertising at taxpayers' expense prior to the election.The price impact is going to be higher than 1.9 per cent. We know this because the private sector analyses are now coming out regularly saying that inflation next year will be much higher than 1.9 per cent. We know it because the government refused to publish an inflation estimate in the last budget—an act of unprecedented secrecy. We know it because all those industries that have released their price impact estimates show a higher price impact estimate than the figures released by the government in the GST tax document.There was an example just in the last couple of weeks with domestic air fares—up by eight per cent, with more to come, according to Ansett, whereas the government's papers said there would be a reduction in air fares. The government refer to `a bundle of air services'. I think it was Minister Moore who was asked a question about this and started talking about space transport—you have to wonder about the space transport in Minister Moore's head. They have also talked about a reduction in prices for holidays overseas. If we get a lift for holidays overseas at the expense of domestic travel and tourism, that is hardly going to be a good thing for Australia and for the Australian economy.Motor vehicles will not achieve the savings claimed by the government, according to Peter Sturrock of the FCAI and other industry sources. We have also had the television networks reported as rejecting passing on the five per cent cost reduction that the government have claimed and factored into their figures. We have had research for the banks showing an increase in costs which will inevitably mean an increase in bank fees and charges—an increase in costs of $430 million a year instead of the $670 million reduction which the government claimed would occur.Given all this, what is the government's response? We hear they are developing an increasing interest in excluding the GST from the inflation figures. What a fraud. What a shonky thing. What an example of their height of arrogance that they would impose an unfair new tax on the necessities of life and then say, `We can remove this effect by taking it away from our measurement of inflation.' You would have to ask whether this also means that the indexation of pensions and benefits would be reduced to the lower tax excluded figure. Is that what the government are planning? On top of the unfairness of the price impacts, the tax cuts are massively unfair, with almost half of the benefit going to the top 20 per cent of taxpayers and the other 80 per cent left to share among the rest.We supported the compensation measures, even though we knew and argued that they were inadequate, but we warned that you cannot guarantee that compensation would be permanent. Labor proved at the Senate inquiry that the government's real intention was to provide no long-term compensation to pensioners, and we demonstrated that the compensation would erode to zero within a few years. This was supported by private sector experts and eventually even confirmed by Treasury. So right from the start this government's intention was to dud pensioners, and they took a deliberate decision that pensioners would not receive adequate compensation.The government has not given up on its objective of doing this; it has merely deferred it for a period. We see Senator Newman working on options to start reneging on that compensation. The Prime Minister is apparently so concerned about Senator Newman's work that she has been unable to present it publicly. So the government has reneged on the GST deal and is shamelessly using the forestry industry as a bargaining chip. Where have the Democrats' cries of outrage been in relation to that issue? They have just sat idly by while the Prime Minister reneged on that aspect of the GST package, and I fear that that will be their position in the future as well, as the so-called compensation package is whittled away.Another example of the government reneging on the taxation compensation package is the savings rebate. I invite members of the House to recall the savings rebate. This was the great compensation for the government scrapping superannuation co-contributions in the 1997 budget. As someone who takes an interest in retirement incomes, every time we have a serious discussion about retirement incomes everyone regrets the fact that those government co-contributions were scuttled and not proceeded with, because they would have gone an immense distance towards addressing the retirement income needs of the present generation of working Australians.The co-contributions would have provided massive assistance, but the government reneged on its promise to implement it. The government said, `We will give you a savings rebate.' But it was worth much less and it skewed away from low income earners. It was disowned by the Prime Minister a day or two after the budget. It commenced on 1 July 1999 and was then abolished six weeks later at the launch of the tax package. That is the kind of form the government has on abolishing compensation. People should rest assured that, if the government can, it will try to do it again.I also want to address the issue of the GST and motor vehicles. As someone who represents an electorate whose prosperity, in considerable part, depends on the wellbeing of the Ford motor company at Broadmeadows, and all of those component suppliers for the Ford motor company, I am very conscious of the issue of the GST and its impact on motor vehicle sales. At present, about one-quarter of the wholesale sales tax revenue comes from motor vehicles and parts. The 22 per cent wholesale sales tax rate is equal to a retail tax of around 14 or 15 per cent. The 10 per cent GST is therefore expected to reduce the retail price of cars.Indeed, the ANTS document says that they should fall by 8.3 per cent. Treasurer Costello has claimed that the price of cars will be reduced by some $3,000. I have to say that others regard this as grossly optimistic. Peters Sturrock, for example, has claimed that six per cent is a much more realistic figure. This price effect is expected to affect the demand for cars in the transitional period—that is, from now until July of next year. This may well see people delaying purchases until July 2000 at least.The input tax credit denial will affect business for two years after this. The ANTS document briefly touches on this point. At page 156 it says:In the short-term, the package might be expected to have transitional effects upon both demand (particularly its pattern) and prices.The pattern of demand in the economy is likely to change in the period immediately preceding and following the introduction of the tax reform package. To the extent that consumption decisions are discretionary, some expenditure is likely to increase before implementation of a GST as consumers bring forward consumption in anticipation of higher prices. Other expenditure is likely to be deferred.Clearly, expenditure on cars is one item likely to be deferred in anticipation of lower retail prices. In addition to this price effect, businesses have an additional incentive to defer purchase, as they would be entitled to a credit in respect of the GST component of the price.To supposedly overcome this input credit effect, the government has disallowed credits for the GST on cars in year 1 and is only granting 50 per cent of credits for purchases made in year 2. That reduces the incentive to defer purchase but does not eliminate it. This issue was examined by the Voss committee in some detail. Voss recognised the two potential problems as being the likelihood of a delay in motor vehicle purchases in the period before the indirect tax changes are implemented as well as losses by owners of vehicles as a result of the price reductions.After examining a number of options, Voss's committee concluded that the government's preferred option—that is, to keep the 22 per cent wholesale sales tax until 1 July 2000—was not an unreasonable response to the difficult issues faced by the motor vehicle industry in the transition period. However, he subsequently criticised the government for adopting `lollipop economics' and said that better transitional arrangements were needed to ensure that the economy would not be damaged and jobs lost.He raised the spectre of loss of motor vehicle sales over the two-year transition period of some 300,000, which would never be recovered despite cheaper prices in the future. New car sales have been strong until recently. There is now substantial evidence of a slowdown starting to come through. Material supplied by the industry shows a forecast fall of new vehicles sales in 1999-2000 of a substantial magnitude. This is an area of considerable concern for the opposition.In conclusion, some of the areas the bill deals with, in terms of tax administration include pay-as-you-go system provisions including withholding information requirements for withholders to the Commonwealth, how much should be withheld from various payments, a rewrite of earlier provisions concerning labour hire amendments, pay-as- you-go withholding registration and consequential amendments. It also deals with a binding oral advice regime, reformed collection and recovery rules for all taxes, a shorter review period for some non-business taxpayers, a new regime for charities and gift deductible entities to retain their tax exempt status, and some other matters, including the Australian business number and the quarterly business activity statement.Labor does not intend to oppose the legislation. We would like to see it reviewed in the Senate by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for more detailed consideration but, subject to that, we do not have any problem with the detail of the bill. But I have moved a second reading amendment, and I would urge the House to have a close look at it.The bill does deal with the GST and charities. I do not have time to go into that area in detail, but it continues to be a matter of concern to me and to the Labor opposition. The more evidence we get about the impact of the GST on charities, the more serious its effects in that area appear to be.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Is the amendment seconded?XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.18:01:0011250Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—There are four main areas in this legislation before us which are being dealt with by the House this evening. The Labor spokesman on tax matters chose not to deal with any of them, but that is his choice. I did not want to interrupt the honourable gentleman while he strayed into capital gains taxes and business taxation. In the last closing breath of his speech, I think it was in his last sentence, he chose to mention charities, one of the four major issues that are contained in the A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill 1999 .The government is moving with these tax administration bills to clarify and define areas of administration in preparation for the introduction of the goods and services tax on 1 July 2000. We are seeing legislation which clarifies and puts in place the details of the administration of the goods and services tax. The four areas covered in the legislation that the House is dealing with tonight are charities, improving compliance processes, the lodgment dates and wash-up amounts—that is, the amount of taxation paid by businesses at the end of their financial year or their collection period—and electronic payments and electronic statements.It has a great deal of practical application in the community because the community is concerned about the details of how the goods and services tax will actually work. So, far from being dry, boring tax legislation, it is of interest to the community at large, particularly to those who are involved in organisations such as the Guides, the Scouts and P&F or P&C associations. They are concerned that, because they have not heard anything, they will be lobbed with very difficult administrative processes and changes. That is not the case. The government is moving ahead with its taxation task force, chaired by Mr Chris Jordan, and is going through all of these matters one after another, clarifying them and bringing the legislation into the House, and so the whole package in detail is being put together.I want to compliment the government for its choice of members for the task force and for its practical understanding of the way in which our community works and for our need to have a system that is understood by people who will be affected by the goods and services tax. I will dismiss some of the unfair comments about the tax made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Wills, because the Labor Party had 13 years in office in this country to administer, change and bring Australia forward. This government has had a few short years and already we have seen a balanced budget, Australia more competitive, changed workplace relationships and a taxation system which will return to the average pay-as-you-earn taxpayer a greater proportion of their salary and which will tend to tax tourists, the cash economy and the big end of town in a more equitable way than is currently the case. But, no, the Australian Labor Party does not want to move in that direction, and it has done nothing but oppose changes which will improve the situation for most Australians.First of all, I will deal with the proposals in this legislation that deal with charities. There are about 30,000 charities which have in the past been confirmed by the Australian Taxation Office as being entitled to receive tax deductible gifts. All of us are aware of those organisations in our community. Some of them are like Teen Challenge, a group in my own area which sets out to support young people. Whether they help young people who are homeless or in drug rehabilitation programs or they assist young people through positive lifestyle guidance, Teen Challenge is a great organisation. So is the Drug Arm, run by the Wesley Mission. These organisations tend to be tax deductible organisations where a person making a gift can claim a tax deduction. That is one way our community encourages charitable organisations to raise funds and be more effective in what they do.Society has a choice. We can collect taxpayers' funds and have public servants do these things or we can say that an organisation such as the Wesley Mission is a very good, ethical, well-run organisation and will probably do the job better, more effectively and with more compassion than a government scheme. So the government of the day has chosen that, for 30,000 organisations, it is better to offer an incentive for people to give their funds to those organisations so those organisations can carry out tasks which are beneficial to society at large.The number of these funds entitled to receive such gifts is unknown as there is no current requirement to keep a register. I am told that the departments that have carriage of the activities related to these organisations are supposed to keep lists. For instance, a list of those organisations which relate to the environment is kept by the Department of the Environment and Heritage. The lists have been kept in various places, and there are about 30,000 of them. There is no requirement in tax law for them to obtain taxation confirmation of deductible gifts or the status of the recipients.In this legislation, the government is requiring that those charities which have a capacity to receive tax deductible gifts apply for an Australian business number. The granting of that Australian business number then places in an orderly process all of those organisations which should receive these gifts. The organisations apply for their Australian business number and, having been granted it, from 1 July 2000 they will be part of the system. You will be able to look up a list of charitable organisations and make donations to the charity of your choice. I think this is a good step. It will suit charities because it will give them a legitimacy which has not been the case so far.Also, the full value of donations made to charities by way of trust distributions will be able to be claimed as a refund of imputation credits for tax paid by the trust on the distribution. That means that trusts making donations to charities need to be fair dinkum from now on and need to be able to quote Australian business numbers. So that is a compliance factor that is cleaned up in this legislation.On one hand, the deductibility of gifts will be endorsed by the commissioner and the income tax will be claimed back by the person who made the gift. There will be another type of charity—that is, the charity which is income tax exempt. Many of those charities are listed under the act, and all of them will have Australian business numbers. So there will be two types of charities—those that are free of income tax and those that are entitled to receive tax deductible gifts. This cleaning up process is not one of huge administration, but it will make sure that all entities in Australia conducting transactions will have an Australian business number and can be easily tracked. People making donations to any organisation which has not sought an Australian business number by mid next year will not be able to claim a tax deduction for that organisation. So the various groups in Australia need to make sure they are properly claiming their Australian business numbers.The second part of this bill introduces a compliance process, which I think is interesting. The House will be aware that the government is simplifying the taxation system; there are fewer payments and the reportable payments system and the prescribed payments system are removed. They are an absolute pain to those people who are administering them and who are caught up with them. For the building and transport industries and the fruit and vegetable growing industries these taxes are a pain. They are reporting systems which impose difficult compliance processes and expensive compliance costs. The government is removing those taxes, wiping them right out of the system.This legislation also indicates that, if an industry displays a particular prospect of not complying with the processes of the pay-as-you-go system, the commissioner may identify that industry and impose some compliance processes on it. The compliance processes which can be imposed are reporting obligations, ABN—that is, Australian business number—verification obligations or identity verification obligations. They are three basic areas that are going to impose additional rigour on the transactions conducted by businesses.This means that, if an industry has a bad name, the tax office can impose rigorous compliance processes on it which are going to be somewhat lengthy and more painstaking but capable of tracking the transactions undertaken by everybody in the industry. In other words, if an industry misbehaves, it will bring upon itself additional compliance processes. The reporting obligations will require a purchaser and/or a supplier involved in a prescribed high risk transaction to provide details of all transactions to the commissioner each quarter. That means not only the Australian business number but the name and address and each type of transaction undertaken. The business activity statement from that tax paying organisation will be much more complex than is proposed under the ordinary goods and services process or under the pay-as-you-go tax introductions that we are seeing in the goods and services tax legislation.The Australian business number verification obligation means that purchasers may be required to undertake some form of checking action in respect of the Australian business number provided by the supplier. You will have to ask this person to produce not only the verification of their number but the address of their office, perhaps their telephone numbers and the types of businesses they conduct. The entity verification obligation will require purchasers to in some instances verify the identity of a supplier. This may be undertaken as an additional step to verifying the Australian business number provided by the supplier. The tax office has the capacity to increase the rigour of compliance of a particular industry if an industry has a bad reputation.A third measure in this legislation, which is a good one, concerns proper accounting records for those who have been using the prescribed payments system or the reportable payments system—I have mentioned them—and the date of the wash-out payments. If a large business that has paid its taxation on a quarterly basis has at the end of the financial year a final reckoning as to whether it has paid enough tax, there is a wash-out process where the business rectifies any shortcomings in its tax returns during the year. That usually occurs not before 1 December. There are various dates for small and medium companies after that.All companies will be treated the same from now on. There will be a requirement that the final date of lodgment of all company income tax returns and the payment of wash- up amounts be no earlier than 1 December. This will be still subject to the tax office's lodgment program. The actual dates for lodgment for most companies will be staggered later than 1 December. That is a sensible housekeeping process which I endorse.It is also a requirement with electronic payments and statements that companies with a turnover of more than $20 million or a payroll of $1 million be required to make all tax payments electronically. This proposal will result in 10,000 of the largest taxpayers making all statements to the ATO by electronic means. Some companies may whinge and complain about that. I believe that it is much to their benefit to move into an electronic system, provided it is physically possible in some outlying areas. If the lines and processes of cabling make it physically possible, companies would be much better off paying electronically.For individuals, binding oral advice has been introduced as part of the goods and services tax. We often hear of the Taxation Office giving some advice and the taxpayer then finding that due to a technicality it is incorrect or needs to be changed. From now on, oral advice will be binding on the tax office in the same way that written advice is. That innovation is worth while.Finally, as this government moves to simplify and change the tax system, it is interesting to notice that within the last few days there have been proposals by the New South Wales Treasury for increases in payroll tax. I find that abhorrent. Payroll tax is a robber of job opportunities. As the states of Australia start to share in a definite way in this new tax regime, a proposal has been put forward by Mr John Pearce, the Secretary of the New South Wales Treasury, for consideration by the government of New South Wales. There is the prospect of reducing the threshold for the introduction of payroll tax in New South Wales. It offers a number of options covering a $500,000 complete payroll down to those with none, which means that every company that pays tax would be eligible for payroll tax.The New South Wales government's paper, which is freely available on the Internet to anybody who wants to go looking for it, states that there is the prospect of raising up to $2,500 million—$2.5 billion—from the additional revenue that could be generated from having payroll tax running right across every business across Australia. This is a horrific proposal that must chill the blood of any person involved in employment or any person seeking a job. (Time expired)18:21:0011253Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—How many times has the Treasurer said that he is introducing a modern, streamlined new tax for a new century GST? How many times has he said that he is replacing a ramshackle 1930s Botswana-style, outmoded wholesale sales tax system with this streamlined new tax for a new century? I have here the legislation for the streamlined, modern new tax for a new century. This is the simplified new tax for a new century. It is the streamlined, modern new tax for a new century.I have taken the liberty of looking at the Botswana sales tax legislation of 1982. There are very clear differences between the two pieces of legislation. One is written in English and the other is written in Swahili. The one written in Swahili is the modern, streamlined new tax for a new century. I will draw the House's attention to one example. Section 165-55 states:For the purposes of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may:(a) treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and(b) treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat that event as: (i) having happened at a particular time; and (ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity;(c) treat a particular event that actually happened as: (i) having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or (ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity).That Swahili is from the new tax for a new century that is being produced by the Treasurer. He is quite obsessed with this. I had occasion to have a look at the number of references he has made to replacing the 1930s ramshackle Botswana-style wholesale sales tax. On 23 separate occasions in the last year he has boasted about how he is streamlining the tax system by this nice, neat streamlined legislation. The nightmare on Main Street goes on.Arthur Andersen felt strongly enough to make a submission to the Senate GST inquiry. In relation to the streamlined new tax for a new century, they said:There are, for example, 158 identified "medical aids and appliances" that are GST-free but only if they are not "widely used by people without an illness or disability". Such imprecise language (define "widely used") in tax legislation will only lead to challenges and disputes.They went on to say:The draft legislation as proposed is very complex and at times uses vague and imprecise language.. . . . . . . . .There are 67 pages of "Basic Rules" which require a 28 page "Dictionary" to apply, but these are impacted by 30 pages of "Exemptions" and 144 pages of "Special Rules" which are made even more difficult by extensive cross-referencing to other Acts. Indeed, the draft legislation is far more complex than we were led to expect.The nightmare goes on, because Arthur Andersen made that submission to the original Senate GST inquiry, and that was before the Howard-Lees deal on the GST—a deal which has made the system infinitely more complex by exempting some items of food and not other items of food, which inevitably will be the subject of legal challenge. In fact, the tax commissioner warned about this very problem when he said in a speech earlier in the year that, if there were some exemptions like this and other food items were caught in the net, the whole system would be held to ridicule and that the new tax for the new century would be ripe for avoidance opportunities. He said that it would in fact encourage avoidance.I am sure there are problems with Botswana's 1982 sales tax, but I am able to understand that sales tax regime by referring to a single page written in English. It is a pretty clear system to me. When we actually get the modern, streamlined new tax for a new century GST and we have to confront this paperwork, we know that there are going to be enormous compliance costs. Those compliance costs are going to be felt by no less than 1.6 million businesses, most of those small businesses. At the moment, just 75,000 businesses pay the wholesale sales tax—this is the Botswana-style wholesale sales tax that the Treasurer refers to—but 1.6 million businesses are going to pay the new tax for the new century GST. The compliance burden on them is going to be enormous.Arthur Andersen again pointed to the problems created by the government's miserly assistance towards small business with regard to helping them overcome this massive paperwork burden. They said:We are deeply concerned that the Government's proposed $500 million compliance assistance package is grossly inadequate, equating to approximately $300 each for the estimated 1.6 million taxpayers who will register for GST.I point out an area where the government, by stealth, can make changes to the GST and widen the net of the GST by getting back into the GST net many of those items that slipped out as a result of the deal they did with the Democrats. Again, Arthur Andersen points out that the wholesale sales tax has been replaced with three new taxes—GST at 10 per cent, a new luxury car tax at 25 per cent and a wine equalisation tax. They said:The strongest objection to this structure is, of course, that these taxes compound. GST will be payable on the wine equalisation tax itself and the luxury car tax will be charged on the GST—these results are untenable in the context of the Government's stated goal of the tax reform process in general and the GST in particular.They went on to say:A further concern, of course, is that, over time, more and more goods/services will find their way into these other taxes to meet political goals. The Government constraint on increasing the GST rate can thus be easily circumvented.They then ask the rhetorical question:How long will it be until other "luxury" goods are brought within the luxury tax regime?This is an opportunity that is wide open for the government and the Democrats to slip more of those food items that the government reluctantly excluded from the GST net back in. It is effectively increasing the rate of the GST by putting these extra items in. That is the government's agenda. They have opened up this opportunity to slip some more of the food items in there either by legislation or by regulation.I point out in closing that the new tax for the new century streamlined GST legislation does not include the regulations. The regulations, by and large, have not even been written. When those regulations are written, we are going to have a pile this high. It is a true nightmare on Main Street. It is a true nightmare for small business. It is a tax that is no good for the economy and a tax that is, in the words of Professor Peter Dixon, `a job destroying' tax. Why are families and small business going through this pain? The only reason they are going through this pain is so the Treasurer and the Prime Minister can shift the burden of taxation off the shoulders of high income earners and onto the shoulders of pensioners, low income earners and beneficiaries.This is a disaster ready to happen. I am already getting calls in my electorate office from people complaining that insurance premiums have gone up by a full 10 per cent. We saw the fiasco the other day with air fares going up by 7.5 per cent when the government said they would go up nothing like that. So that is it. We are going to have a disaster on our hands. The new tax for the new century streamlined GST is going to be nothing but an unmitigated disaster for small business and Australian families.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8 p.m.20:00:0011254Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise tonight to support the A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill 1999 . It was interesting to hear the substance of what the previous speaker, the member for Rankin, was saying. He was complaining about the complexity of the new tax system and how it would create a compliance burden on small business, which will have to remit to the Taxation Office. He said that the new system would be too hard to understand and that we ought to try to go back to the previous system, with a myriad wholesale sales taxes right across the board and all the complexities involved in that. He said that it was all too hard.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Did he say that?MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—The member for Rankin had that to say. His audacity in saying that the new tax system is just too hard—when you compare it to the existing tax system, where book upon book is required—is amazing. The new tax system is a much tighter, organised taxation system.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—And modern.MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—It is very modern. The government has undertaken a massive education campaign on the new tax system by way of seminars, booklets, telephone hotlines and boards. The government has allocated $500 million for the purpose of assisting small and medium businesses and charities to understand the changes. Two weeks ago, a series of seminars began right across the country. Over 1,000 are planned throughout Australia. No business in Australia will be more than 100 kilometres away from any of the seminar sites. So far, attendance has been impressive, according to the press reports. A series of industry booklets is being produced so that people can check their own requirements relative to the industry sector in which they are involved.The tax office has begun a program to ensure that agents are also trained to pass on the right advice. The first rulings of the GST will be made public on 22 October. The tax office will also send out teams from 15 November and has made a commitment that any business that asks for a visit by a team will get one. You cannot do more than that to assist people to adjust to the new tax system. A whole range of education has been provided—seminars, booklets, visits and support. Industry by industry across Australia, the level of support is very impressive.I also take issue with the member for Rankin for his criticism of the GST tax avoidance provisions. Every tax system around the world has its own tax avoidance provisions. This one is no more complex than any other, and 80 per cent to 90 per cent of businesses will have to deal with only the basic provisions. The special provisions that the member for Rankin discussed have been designed to fit certain industries and will certainly not be hard for people operating in those industries to understand. If this is all that the member for Rankin can raise in relation to these issues, it is very clear that the opposition is absolutely struggling to find some valid basis for criticism. Of course, it cannot be found, because this is a far more efficient tax system than we have seen for many a long day in this country, certainly since Federation. We are finally getting it right.This bill relates to several key provisions: firstly, reducing the period in which ATO reviews can be made; secondly, binding the tax office to the tax advice that is given over the phone; thirdly, introducing identification numbers to prevent tax evasion; fourthly, clarifying the position of charities; and, finally, amending a legislative area in the A New Tax System (Pay As You Go) Bill 1999 regarding labour hire.Mr Deputy Speaker, you may recall that, when the PAYG system was introduced in the House, it was pointed out that the government was aware of some of the problems of definition that existed. This is, of course, an issue about companies contracting out various work to other operators in the field. It was not the intention of such provisions to include barristers in that requirement. It had been suggested that one of the new withholding payments—referred to as payments under labour hire arrangements—will create difficulties for many consultants. The category applies whenever a payment is made to an individual performing work or services for a client of the payer. The obligation to withhold tax could therefore occur when a solicitor or an accountant engages a barrister on behalf of a client. An amount would then have to be withheld from the payment made by the solicitor or accountant to the barrister.The problem of the new withholding category concentrates on a situation, as I have said, where work is contracted out to an individual who is not an employee of the labour hire firm or the end user. Obviously, the wider drafting provision of the bill caught this in the net. It was never intended that we have solicitors or barristers caught up in those provisions. This simply identifies those areas which are provided for. It does allow that, in the future, categories of work which will be exempt can be spelled out as part of the provisions. This identifies an unintentional drafting error in the legislation, but it has now been corrected so that no concern need be held, in particular, by barristers and solicitors.I turn now to the question of tax exemption for charities. As has been clear and as you would be well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, the government works on the basis of a social coalition, contracting out to the charities in the field or marketplace which know best the particular requirements, needs and concerns of those individuals in society. Instead of government agencies—which are large, impersonal and without direct knowledge—dealing with the charities, the contracting out is made to the individual charities so that they deal in turn with those organisations.As part of that process, for reductions in terms of deductions on taxation, charities have been exempt—and this has grown exponentially. The provisions in this bill will spell out those charities which are tax exempt. Certainly, those charities that are not included in these provisions will not be allowed the normal taxation deductions. The Australian Business Registrar will commence the Australian business number registration process. Charities and deductible gift recipients will be required to obtain an Australian business number and be endorsed by the Commissioner of Taxation in order to obtain either income tax exemption or deductible gift recipient status.There is no change to the concessions that were applied before, but now it is required in legislation. Where before there was an understanding of how it would work, now it is clearly spelt out in terms of the legislative requirement. This is about protecting the integrity of the taxation system and ensuring that those charities worthy of receiving taxation deductions do receive them—that those charities are clearly identified—and that people who give donations to those charities can clearly know that, in doing so, they will receive the full reduction in their taxation submissions.So the purpose of the measure is to protect the integrity of the taxation system in respect of deductible gift recipients and income tax exempt charities. The amendments will do that by, firstly, extending the existing gift deductibility provisions to specify that a taxpayer can deduct only a gift made to a recipient that is endorsed by the commissioner or listed by name in the income tax law; secondly, extending the existing income tax exemption entities provisions to add, as a further special condition, that an entity is not exempt from income tax unless it is endorsed as exempt from income tax; and, thirdly, ensuring that deductible gift recipients identify themselves to the commissioner by applying for an ABN and endorsement and meeting certain relevant conditions.I think it is fairly appropriate that we move in that direction. It tightens up the requirements, it spells out those organisations that receive the tax deduction and it provides surety to the organisations concerned and also to the people who provide donations to those organisations. The organisations concerned simply have to register with the ATO and receive the appropriate notification. The next provision requires reduced time for ADR reviews—as you are aware, there is a requirement that documents must be held for four years—so that, if there is some change in the assessment, if there is some amendment of the assessment by the ATO, the assessment can be made within a two-year period instead of the current four-year period.Similarly, there will be a reduction in the time that taxpayers are required to keep certain records, apply for private binding rulings and lodge objections to assessments and private binding rulings. Currently, the commissioner has four years from the time of lodgment of a tax return to amend an assessment, except in cases of fraud where there is no time limit on a review. This reduction is only for taxpayers with simple tax returns, and that is highly appropriate. Whether or not a person is classed as a `shorter period of review taxpayer' depends on the taxpayer's capacity, the assessable income derived by the taxpayer, the deductions claimed by the taxpayer and, finally, certain matters that would disqualify the taxpayer from being an SPOR taxpayer. A shorter period of review taxpayer must also include the following categories of Australian source assessable income: salary and wages income derived from financial institutions and government bodies and dividend income received from certain Australian resident listed public companies.Then there is the further requirement that oral advice received from the Commissioner of Taxation be binding. In the past, only written rulings by the Commissioner of Taxation were binding and any oral advice given by the commissioner was not. Of course, that led to some concern by individuals who were given advice and then the final interpretation of the tax legislation meant that that advice was proved out of order. This will provide that not only can taxpayers or companies request in writing that a judgment or ruling be made but also an oral ruling can be given. There has to be a request made for the oral ruling and the result is that the ruling so given is binding. The taxpayer will not be able to obtain an oral ruling in circumstances where they would not have been able to obtain a written private ruling. Oral rulings, we understand, will be given only to individual taxpayers and not to businesses.Finally, we have the issues of payment, the Australian business number and the identification verification system—obviously, to improve the compliance of this whole process in terms of what is required to ensure that those who wish to avoid taxation in a significant way will be found out, and we would support that. In contrast to the member for Rankin, who has complained about the GST tax avoidance provisions, this ensures that we do have an effective tax avoidance system. The establishment of transaction reporting, the ABN and an identification verification system aimed at improving compliance with the taxation laws are very important. The system is intended to be used in areas where non-compliance with the taxation laws is entrenched. The main objective of the new system is to ensure that business participants meet their tax obligations and that any current or future competitive advantage resulting from non-compliance is minimised. Components of the new compliance system will be used only in areas where there is entrenched non-compliance and when the government is convinced that it is necessary. The purpose of the amendments is to provide a legislative framework for the application of one or more of four components of a new compliance payment and identification system: transaction reporting by purchasers, transaction reporting by suppliers, verification of a supplier's ABN by a purchaser and verification of a supplier's identity by a purchaser.These are part of the provisions contained in this bill which provides a sensible range of requirements. The first part changes the relevant requirement so that there will be no misunderstanding as to who is caught by the provisions of contracting out, and that does not include barristers and solicitors or other similar professional arrangements; that, in terms of the oral advice given by the tax office, it will be binding where there has been a request made that such a ruling be given; and that there will be a reduction in the period of time in which ATO reviews can be made. In this legislation the position of charities has been clarified. It will now be clear to all which charities are able to claim deductions and which are not. Finally, this legislation will introduce an identification number to prevent tax evasion.This legislation forms part of the government's bold new tax initiatives. These are the types of initiatives that follow the radical change which is being made with Australia's taxation reform measures in the new tax system. These tax reforms are being brought out to the public at the same time as our response to the Ralph report. There have been dramatic and significant changes—the most significant we have seen since the foundation of this parliament. I am very proud to be part of a government that is providing such significant tax reform, the aim of which is to make a more vibrant business sector and to establish a system which will provide appro priate encouragement and incentive for our businesses and also for individuals within that process. But at the same time this system will look at those who may wish to avoid taxation and rort the system and it will provide appropriate anti-avoidance measures. I commend this bill to the House.20:17:0011258Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in support of the amendment moved by the member for Wills to this bill, entitled A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill 1999 . This bill is part of the ANTS package of legislation, the core of which is the GST, a $32 billion monster tax that will be introduced from 1 July 2000. It is a monster tax that is a $32 billion assault on social equity, a $32 billion assault on fiscal rectitude because of the cost of the tax and financial compensation packages which arise from it and a further $32 billion assault on this nation's future economic growth. What do we get in net terms from all of this? A less equitable society, a more parlous fiscal predicament and an economic growth scenario which, on balances in the future, is more likely to be net negative than net positive as a consequence of these changes.So much for ANTS or, as John Quiggin rightly wrote in the Financial Review last week, `Let these ANTS be exterminated.' But ANTS is one part of the taxation change wrought by this government; the other part is the Ralph Review of Business Taxation. Both sets of taxation changes have implications for equity, for growth and for fiscal management.Let us look, for example, at the fiscal management dimensions. ANTS will cost public revenues some $20 billion over three years. Ralph, it is estimated on the basis of the government's own figurings, will cost some $3.8 billion. What did the Treasurer say about Ralph prior to it being commissioned and prior to its recommendations being delivered? What did he say was the key test for the assessment of Ralph's overall integrity? What was that test? That test was revenue neutrality—yes, the `n' word.Neutrality is not a terribly ambiguous concept. I think in Public Finance 101 it probably means something as simple as this: whatever you lose from one set of public revenues, you must make up by gains in other sets of public revenues. But, having proclaimed it from the rooftops, did the Treasurer of the Commonwealth—this ambitious aspirant for the keys to Kirribilli—in the midst of his prime ministerial election campaign actually deliver on this revenue neutrality undertaking to the people of Australia? The simple answer is no. I would submit that, for someone who is seeking the highest office in the country, this is not a particularly good start to one's own leadership campaign.Maybe we have gone back to the good old reliable theology employed by this government in previous years—one of core and non-core promises. Of course, Pete's main defence on this count is, `It will be all right in the morning, just trust me.' The capacity to deliver on the government's path of revenue neutrality hinges on the government's treatment of the Ralph review's so-called `deferred items'.But did we all note a subtle change in the Treasurer's language on these deferred items during question time today in the House of Representatives? Last week I thought I heard the Treasurer say something along the lines of, `Don't worry about it, the government will bite the bullet on these deferred items, including the treatment of trusts,' and, `You'll see evidence of this by 1 July 2001.' Today, however, in question time I thought I heard the Treasurer say that, as far as these deferred items were concerned, the government was now `taking soundings'. In my humble understanding of these terms, taking soundings is a somewhat weaker formulation than we have been presented with so far; it falls somewhat short of an unqualified undertaking that the government will proceed with a determination to implement these deferred items in order to ensure that the revenue gap which will arise from this package will be closed.On the whole question of the revenue neutrality point and the revenue implications for CGT in particular, the Treasurer was all over the place in question time today. There was a very simple question from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in question time today asking the Treasurer about what assumptions he had used in calculating the overall capital gains tax impact of the CGT changes which the government is planning to introduce. In his long reply—the Treasurer's replies in this place in question time are invariably long—not a single word was actually relevant to the specific question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. One cannot but conclude that, on this question as to the assumptions underpinning the revenue implications for CGT for these changes, the Treasurer was engaging in simple duck and weave.We have had a number of postulations as to what may occur in relation to revenue as a consequence of these proposed changes. We had the famous Dr Reynolds of the Hudson Institute—the ASX's hired gun on these questions, and I am sure a totally non-partisan contributor to this debate—predicting that, if these changes were introduced, a revenue bonanza would flow to government as a consequence of what would then flow as an activity spike because of the overall change to the taxation mix. We have had Mr Ralph himself saying in the public debate that his assumptions of what would flow to revenue as a consequence of these changes were not as courageous as that of Dr Reynolds, and we have had elsewhere in the debate Treasury saying that its views on these matters were somewhat less courageous than Mr Ralph's.The bottom line, however, is this: the critical question for us all is simply what are the assumptions which the government, the Treasury and the Treasurer are using in calculating the precise revenue impact which will flow from these CGT changes? Will it in overall terms be neutral, net positive or net negative? Can we place any confidence at all in the attached tables which lie at the end of the Ralph review document? Wouldn't it be a remarkable change if we could simply have the Treasurer enter this place at question time and, for once, answer a simple and direct question with a simple and direct answer?On the capital gains tax in general it is interesting to note the tenor of the national commentary that has flowed since the release of the Ralph package on 21 September. First of all, what exactly did the government announce as far as CGT reforms so-called are concerned? The headline effect of these changes has focused on the halving of the CGT rate. Under the previous regime, the top marginal rate was 48.5 per cent. That would now be halved to 24.25 per cent. The CGT rate has become part and parcel of the Treasurer's public relations rhetoric as he seeks to proclaim this CGT revolution to the country.However, less part and parcel of the Treasurer's prime ministerial campaign rhetoric was the simultaneous announcement contained in documents of the abolition of indexation. Under the previous regime, the capital gains tax rate of 48.5 per cent was on the real, not the nominal, capital gain realised from the sale of a particular asset—that is, the difference between the purchase price of a particular asset and the sale price minus the inflation factor. Under the new capital gains tax regime, for assets purchased after 30 September 1999 the new CGT rate of 24.25 per cent will apply—but herein lies the catch—on the nominal not the real capital gains realised from the sale of the asset; that is, with zero discounting for inflation.The key question facing Australians at large, investors, self-funded retirees and their financial advisers, is whether they will be better off or worse off under this new regime. In my discussions with government backbenchers and other backbenchers, this question has been asked by many self-funded retirees in our various electorates across the country. I am sure government backbenchers are as keen as I am to obtain some sort of response from the Treasurer to these key concerns, and that is: who will be the winners and who will be the losers out of this new proposed raft of CGT changes?I have noted from the Australian Financial Review that the response of the Treasurer, when confronted with the very simple question of whether everybody will be better off as a result of the CGT changes, was once again to duck and weave. He was nowhere to be found. Why did the Treasurer duck and weave on this particular question? Answer: the reality is that there are winners and there are losers.For the superannuation funds, there are also CGT changes. There is a new regime which will tax two-thirds of the nominal gain at 10 per cent. Once again, as a consequence of that, there will be winners and losers. For companies there is separate treatment and less favourable treatment as against sole traders and partnerships. Sole traders and partnerships will have a 75 per cent exemption on capital gains from the sale of `active investments'. For companies, there will be different treatment again. The question arises again as to who will be the winners and who will be the losers out of all of this. And what will be the overall impact on economic activity in the Australian economy? What will be the impact on revenues? What will be the impact on the general economy?In this context it is worth reviewing briefly how the analysts and commentators focusing on the capital gains tax question as part of the government's overall attempts to `reform' the nation's tax system have treated this particular matter. First of all, it is important to note what commentators have had to say about the impact of the proposed change on individual investors. I refer to an analysis in Queensland Business Review of 23 September entitled `Business Tax Reform News—CGT Cuts: Beyond the Political Hype'. It states:Treasurer Peter Costello's proposed reforms to Capital Gains Tax (CGT) are far less beneficial for businesses than was first thought, according to tax experts.For one, the cut in the CGT rate for individual taxpayers and superannuation funds, to effective rates of 24.25 per cent and 10 per cent respectively, has been soured by the removal of indexation.The freezing of indexation at September 30, 1999 levels will mean that when an asset is sold, the taxable gain will be the difference between the sale price and the cost, adjusted for inflation between the time of purchase and September 30.For assets acquired prior to that date, and held for at least one year, individual taxpayers will have the choice of including in their assessable income either half the realised nominal gain, or the whole of the difference between the disposal price and the frozen indexed cost base.Companies, however, will not have this choice and will be taxed at the corporate rate on nominal net capital gains. For pre-implementation assets, companies will be taxed on the difference between the disposal proceeds and the indexed cost base. But an example cited this week shows that, for instance, under the previous scenario—that is, under the previous CGT regime—an investor who buys a $100,000 flat today, that rises in value by double the inflation rate at 10 per cent, and sells it a decade later for $259,000, would have paid—under the previous regime—$30,000 in CGT.Under the new system, the investor will pay $38,000 in tax.It would be interesting indeed to obtain the Treasurer's response to these observations contained in the most recent edition of Queensland Business Review .Another commentator who has had something to say on the overall impact of the new CGT regime is Ivor Ries, writing in the Financial Review. In fact, I would like to quote extensively from Mr Ries's observations in the Financial Review of 25 and 26 September. Mr Ries says in the Financial Review:While the media and the business world were falling over themselves this week in the rush to congratulate Peter Costello on his plans for a new tax system, nobody noticed when the Treasurer cracked one of the biggest tax jokes of the year.In response to a question about the removal of indexation, Costello replied that indexation had to be removed because it was too confusing and complex for small "mum and dad" investors.Nobody noticed the joke at the time, but as accountants and financial planners this week—this is late September—slowly came to grips with the implications of the death of indexation, all over the country people were rolling around on office floors and holding their sides.The joke is this: the old "complex" capital gains tax (CGT) system Costello has just abolished was so simple that even a bare-arsed baboon could understand it. The one he has replaced it with has just imposed a new and totally uncalled for layer of complexity on most investment decisions.Small investors who don't change their investment strategies to cope with Costello's new, complex CGT regime will end up paying a heavy price. Indeed, some will be shocked to discover that under the new "low" tax regime they could end up paying more tax. And for some, they'll soon be paying capital gains on real losses.Mr Ries continues:While the Ralph report changes are designed to be revenue neutral to the Government, they will create new groups of winners and losers as the new tax system comes into effect.The biggest winners from Costello's Ralph-inspired changes appear to be small business, wealthy individuals who operate self-managed superannuation schemes, and sophisticated investors in high-growth industrial shares who turn over their portfolios quickly.The big losers appear to be those in highly complex, trust-based tax minimisation schemes, owners of low-growth real estate investments, and passive share market investors who prefer unexciting, slow-growth, blue-chip stocks. The last two groups contain many self-funded retirees.Mr Ries continues and raises two cases in point as to how this new regime will operate. He refers to an imaginary Bob Barnacle:Bob Barnacle is a wealthy financial journalist who works in a Collins Street office. As a big share investor he's always out to lunch with stockbrokers, gleaning tips on which shares to buy and sell.Because Bob usually make a tidy 15-25 per cent gain on most of his share investments and turns over his holdings at least once every two to three years, he will pay no more than 24.25 per cent tax on his nominal share-investing profits. After adjusting for inflation, the real rate of CGT Bob will pay on his share investments will probably not exceed 29 per cent.So, like all sophisticated and active investors, Bob's a real winner from the Costello CGT system. His effective real rate of CGT has dropped nearly 20 percentage points.Unfortunately the same can't be said for Fred and Betty, Gold Coast greengrocers who through years of 14-hour days have managed to buy two small investment properties.Fred and Betty are unsophisticated investors and, having had the misfortune to invest in an area where property values are appreciating at just a fraction above the inflation rate, are going to pay a lot more CGT under the new Costello CGT system.Fred and Betty hold their investment properties for a decade, during which inflation averages 2.5 per cent and property values rise by 3.5 per cent, and then decide to sell them. Much to Fred and Betty's shock, they discover that they'll pay CGT on the nominal gain—rather than the real gain—in the value of their properties.On my numbers—that is, Mr Ries's numbers—the rate of CGT Fred and Betty will pay on their real capital gain will be roughly 76 per cent. Thanks to that nice Peter Costello, Bob and Betty's effective CGT rate went up by nearly 28 percentage points.Mr Ries concludes by saying:Welcome to Peter Costello's new world of investing: where the information-rich and the fleet of foot are to be rewarded again, and again, and again—and the rest just pay, and pay, and pay.I imagine that, after the Treasurer, Mr Costello, had taken leave from his prime ministerial election campaign and read this, Ivor Ries would probably have been taken off the Treasurer's Christmas card list for this year. In fact, I can see Mr Costello choking on his Weeties as he read through this, as it was printed only several days after the much awaited release of the Ralph report. But, once again, it would be good to get the Treasurer's response to these observations from Ivor Ries in the Financial Review .What are analysts saying about the impact of the CGT changes on superannuation funds? Here is an interesting excerpt from a superannuation expert with Deloittes, Mr John Randall, who says in a statement of 21 September:CGT changes for superannuation funds short sighted—not enough incentives for long term investments. The changes to the method of calculating the tax on capital gains made by super funds may not provide enough incentive for long term investments and savings through superannuation funds . . . "In fact, fund members may be around 4.5% worse off under the new tax regime," says Mr Randall.He goes on by saying:"In order for the new system to give a break-even result the net profit on sale needs to be three times the indexation on the cost base: in other words, the profit needs to outpace inflation by 200%."Again, it would be nice for the Treasurer to respond to some of these observations from analysts and commentators in the field. The bottom line is this: we are dealing in this debate on the taxation reform of the country with serious matters. They impact on equity and they impact on individual investors and avoidance. The Treasurer would do well to respond to these questions which have been raised. (Time expired)20:37:0011262Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—The member for Griffith, unfortunately for this chamber, spoke about many things other than those contained in this amendment bill. That is his right, but it just seems to be another reflection on those opposite, who will not talk about the issue before them because that might lead to a policy. The trouble with the member for Griffith and the rest of the Labor Party is that, even when they speak on issues outside the range of this bill, they still cannot come up with a policy. We all know that red herrings do not make a policy, and relying on journalistic comment does not make a policy. The Labor Party simply does not have any academic rigour or relevance to decision making in Australia. What does the Ralph report have to do with this bill? Nothing. What does capital gains tax have to do with this bill? Nothing. What does the Labor Party have to do with this bill and policy making in Australia? Nothing. I am not surprised that the member for Wills was falling asleep during that diatribe.It gives me great pleasure to speak on the A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill 1999 , because it gives us many benefits and fairness for our taxpayers. Compliance costs and red tape have been the eternal bane of our population, and this bill reduces compliance costs in many cases and reduces the red tape that we all despair about. This bill will provide more certainty for those taxpayers with simple affairs, by reducing from four to two years the period within which those taxpayers are generally able to lodge objections to their assessment. This also applies to written private binding rulings—and, indeed, to requests for amendments to their assessments or for written private binding rulings.This shorter period of review will provide more certainty for taxpayers. Indeed, where oral advice is given by the Australian Taxation Office for simple affairs, then that oral advice also becomes binding in much the same way as a private written ruling. This ruling, again, gives certainty for taxpayers to know that they can rely on the verbal advice given by the Australian tax office.This government has brought in administrative measures to ensure that the income tax exempt charities and gift deductible entities are fairly treated under the new tax system to come into force on 1 July 2000. Under the new tax system it is proposed that we introduce an identification system to ensure that tax exempt and gift deductible organisations continue to receive the full value of donations made to them by way of trust distributions by allowing them to claim refunds of imputation credits for tax paid by the trust on distribution.This registration process will also reform the current tax administration arrangements for these organisations that deserve our support for all of the good work and services they provide to our community. All of these organisations will need to apply for an Australian business number—or ABN—regardless of their wish to recover GST input tax credits. Then the Australian tax office will contact them, requesting that they apply for endorsement as a charity or a gift deductible entity—unless, of course, these organisations are mentioned by name in law, which already gives them that status.This bill proposes a system of Australian business number reporting tools to enable the Australian tax office to respond to blatant tax evasion. Those opposite often talk about doing things about blatant tax evasion; we are doing something about it. If everyone does not pay their fair share of tax, then the rest of the community has to pay more unfairly.The new tax system will, by its very nature, ensure that consumers pay a fair share of tax through paying a GST. It is necessary for businesses to do the same by going beyond the simple approach of requiring businesses to report only what is contained in invoices they receive. As we all know, serious non-compliance can emerge at any point in a market chain, and a reporting system based only on invoices received would not assist with compliance activities where no invoices existed and would be less effective where tax evasion practices were being perpetrated by a purchaser.The proposed system of reporting would include, firstly, reporting of transactions using the Australian business number provided by purchasers and suppliers and, in certain circumstances, a requirement for a purchaser to verify the ABN of a supplier. Likewise, in certain circumstances where we believe it necessary or the Australian tax office is suspicious, there will be a need to verify the identity of the supplier. This will reduce the amount of tax evasion by unscrupulous traders.This bill deals with instances of labour hire and the pay-as-you-go bill, which requires a withholding payment by an entity to an individual for services that the individual performs for a client of that entity. The minister has informed us that the provision is too broad, particularly as it relates to a barrister performing services for a client of a solicitor, so this bill includes the necessary amendments to ensure it operates as it was intended.The amendments will restrict the withholding payment to an entity that provides services directly to clients of that entity and will exclude cases where such an arrangement is merely incidental to the business of the entity. To help those who may be affected, examples will be provided to show when and where it does apply and does not apply, including the barrister-solicitor example previously referred to.This amendment bill also includes provisions for the lodgement of income tax returns by business. As many members would know, the pay-as-you-go system replaces the existing tax collection mechanisms, including provisional tax and company instalments. We all should welcome this simplifying for business and the reduction in red tape and compliance costs. ANTS did not change the lodgement dates for income tax returns and, given the changes made to the payment dates for companies, which are treated equally under the pay-as-you-go system, there is no longer the need to maintain different dates.What this bill does is include a proposal to ensure that the final date for the lodgement of all company income tax returns is no earlier than 1 December following that particular year. This will still be subject to the Australian Taxation Office lodgement program, so that the actual dates for lodgement for most companies will continue to be staggered later than 1 December. From my personal experience with farmers, I know that the lodgements are often well after Christmas because of the busy harvest time which takes place at about that time. So the Australian Taxation Office does allow for businesses to have a later lodgement date at their busiest time of the year.This bill will also require businesses with a turnover of $20 million or more or a payroll of a least $1 million to make all tax payments electronically. This proposal will mean that the 10,000 largest taxpayers will make all payments to the Australian Taxation Office electronically. Of course, the good management of this economy in the last 3½ years by the Howard led government will ensure that this number will grow.While some large businesses might criticise this measure, it is unlikely that businesses of that size—those with a $20 million turnover or a $1 million payroll—would be dealing out of a shoe box. Indeed many already deal with the Australian Taxation Office electronically. For example, those businesses with $1 million payrolls already make up to 52 electronic payments each year—which of course is weekly—and those with a $20 million turnover will be making at least one payment electronically each month after 1 July 2000.Finally, the amendments will deal with the administration of the business activity statement obligations. There will be a uniform format for notification of each tax debt or credit entitlement and each entity is required to notify the tax commissioner of all business activity statement obligations. It will require an entity—as defined under the A New Tax System Act—when it exceeds the GST electronic lodgement threshold or is deemed as a larger withholder under the pay-as-you-go withholding system, to pay all its tax debts electronically. This, of course, applies only with larger types of entities, which would probably find that more appropriate anyway.In a purely administrative action it also removes the GST and withholding tax refund rules to the extent that they are covered by the new generic refunds in part 11B of the Tax Amendment Act of 1953. It will entitle an entity to interest where a refund is not made within 14 days of the lodgement of a correct business activity statement—which we promised at the last election and of course are delivering.I particularly like this proposal because it gives the Australian Taxation Office an incentive and strong direction to enforce complying, and puts the same pressure on them as they have been putting on us for years. It is almost getting back at Big Brother, and it is satisfying for the poor harassed taxpayer.In summary, this A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill 1999 will implement the remaining measures for tax administration. Finally, we have a government that has been prepared to make the courageous decisions for tax reform in this country. The Labor Party has wimped on them all and still cannot find the time to come up with any credible policies on anything—let alone tax reform. The Labor Party continues to be irrelevant. The Labor Party continues to be negative and obstructive. We are the government that has managed this economy. We are the government that has reformed the tax system and we are the government that set up the Ralph report and made the decision to reform business taxation. Unfortunately, the Labor Party continues its same old shallow rhetoric and wonder why it is not taken seriously. How can you take seriously a party that has no policies, no leadership and no relevance? Members of the Labor Party seem to be forever quoting journalistic comment and to be without any ideas of their own.Compliance costs will be reduced under our tax reforms. Under the previous Labor government of 13 wasted years, a business could be filling out up to 32 forms a year, varying from two to 16 pages. So there was quite a lot of compliance under the previous Labor government. Under our reforms a business will fill out one double-sided page only four times a year—one signature four times a year.UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—Why are bankruptcies going up?848Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER—Those opposite complain about businesses being worried about what we are doing, but that is because those opposite have been giving them false information. This bill we are debating does away with the reporting systems, such as the reportable payments system that is a significant compliance cost to all businesses across Australia. It is a pity those opposite cannot recognise the truth when they see it. This bill gives more certainty by reducing the available time for Australian Taxation Office reviews from four years to two years. This bill ensures that oral advice for simple affairs is binding on the tax commissioner. This bill recognises that tax evasion may occur and ensures that the Australian Taxation Office can respond quickly and effectively if tax evasion is occurring. This bill ensures a more transparent endorsement process for charities and other tax exempt and gift deductible bodies.This parliament should welcome this bill because it contains the changes necessary to implement a new tax system for the benefit of all Australians. Not one group of people will be worse off; indeed all will be better off—with the exception of tax evaders, and I am not going to support them. We had 16 months of Senate inquiries. We had four Senate inquiries, each lasting four months, and not one group of people in Australia was proved to be worse off. In fact, they were all proved to be better off. I commend this bill to the House.20:52:0011264Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—On 28 September, in light of Ford standing down 3,500 workers, I asked the Acting Treasurer when the Howard government would act to provide a satisfactory GST transitional arrangement for cars. The answer I got was that there was not a problem. The House was told:The simple facts are—and I am sure the honourable member for Kingston will not like this—that to date there is little evidence that consumers are putting off the purchase of new vehicles in anticipation of lower prices after the commencement of the GST. In fact, the industry data for August show that sales for 1999 continue to lag just behind the 1998 record sales level and they continue to be ahead of the 1997 levels, and that of course was the previous record year. Total sales for the first eight months of 1999 were 2.3 per cent lower than 1998 but 13.4 per cent higher than 1997. Total sales for August 1999 are 3.9 per cent lower than August 1998 but 11.1 per cent above the August 1997 figure. The minister then quoted the General Motors director of sales and marketing as saying that it was Holden's best August result in 20 years and, if there was a GST downturn, the company was not being affected. The minister went on to make some unflattering remarks about the latest model Falcon. Evidently, in his uncomplicated world, there are only two Australian car makers and no competition from imports. The minister finished by saying:Therefore, it is not correct to suggest the GST is having an adverse impact on the car industry.From that, I conclude that the government has no intention of changing the GST transition arrangements for cars.The figures that the minister quoted in his answer were selectively chosen and are not an accurate indicator of the present state of the motor vehicle industry in Australia. First, they are figures for the whole of the motor vehicle industry and not specifically passenger motor vehicles—Australia builds only passenger motor vehicles not trucks, buses or even four-wheel drives. Second—and this is their biggest defect—they are for the whole calendar year. The figures that are relevant are for the months of July and August after the GST legislation was passed.The estimates by the Australian Bureau of Statistics of new passenger motor vehicle registrations show the extent of the problem. In July, new passenger motor vehicle registrations plunged. They fell from 63,189 in the same month last year by more than 10,000 to 51,161—that is a fall of 15.9 per cent in original terms. In seasonally adjusted terms, the fall was 13.9 per cent. In August, the comparison with the same month in the previous year was similar, a fall of 13.6 per cent. For the financial year to date—that is, since the GST was passed—the original series is down 12.8 per cent and the seasonally adjusted series 13 per cent compared to the same period last financial year. That is a somewhat different picture from the vehicle sales figures fall for the 1999 calendar year of only 2.3 per cent, which the government focused upon.The comparable sales figures for the 1999 calendar year to date, for passenger motor vehicles sales by the four Australian car makers, are down more than double that—by 5.1 per cent on the same period last year. Those figures include the imports the local makers bring in to fill out their model range. For the calendar year to date, for passenger vehicle sales, two of the local car makers total sales are ahead of last year—one of them is Ford. Two have recorded lower total passenger vehicle sales than last year—one is Holden. This is the reverse of the minister's simplistic remarks about Ford and Holden sales.There are three main factors contributing to the GST-induced new car buyers' strike. The first is the expectation that new car prices will fall by a large amount as a result of the reduction in indirect tax. This is the major factor influencing private buyers. The difference between a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax and a 10 per cent GST seems like a lot but one is a wholesale sales tax and the other is determined by the retail value. A retail tax equivalent to the WST would be 13 per cent—suddenly the difference between wholesale sales tax and GST does not seem so large.The government's A New Tax System document's estimate of the GST price effect puts the fall in car prices at 8.3 per cent. The industry estimates it at only 6.3 per cent. Before the election the Treasurer claimed a grossly optimistic $3,000 drop in the retail price of new cars. It is that kind of overblown rhetoric which fuels the buyers' strike. The second factor is the lower residual value of a new car bought pre-GST. Lower new car prices will drive down the value of second-hand cars. Fleet managers are much more conscious of this than private buyers because it has significant implications for the cost of lease agreements.The third factor is the incentive which fleet and business buyers have to defer purchasing new vehicles until the GST comes in because they will be entitled to a credit with respect to the GST component of the price. To reduce this input credit effect, the government has disallowed credits for the GST on cars purchased in year 1—that is, 2000 to 2001—and only allowed a 50 per cent credit for purchas es made in year 2—2001 to 2002. What the government is doing is increasing its GST revenue take from cars for two years. What was the government's expectation about the influence of these factors? The government seems to have believed that the buyers' strike might occur for a few months before the introduction of the GST and that any loss in sales would be made up for by a surge in demand in the few months afterwards.The transitional costs, if there were any, would be made up for by increases in future demand as a result of greater affordability of new cars. This optimistic set of assumptions is wrong on a variety of grounds. The belief that the buyers' strike would only occur a few months before the introduction of the GST has already been demonstrated to be wrong. Sales have plunged a full 12 months before the GST becomes operative. Buyers, including business and fleet buyers, have discretion about how often they will replace vehicles. It is by no means certain that deferred new car purchases will rapidly be made up after the GST comes into operation.Because cars have a substantial residual value, they are different from most consumer goods. The fall in the value of second-hand cars is going to have a significant impact on the industry. On the face of it, the GST will improve the affordability of new cars, but the reality is, as any car dealer will tell you, it is the changeover price, not the retail price, that determines affordability. With the value of second-hand cars set to plummet, the changeover price is not going to be improved by the GST.In fact, the second-hand market is going to be under a great deal of pressure with dealers forced to pay GST on second-hand car sales. They will need to quit stock prior to the GST coming in, and after it does they will not be in a position to be offering higher trade-in values. The local car makers will also face increased competition from cheap imports which have been improving their market share as a result of tariff cuts and now will benefit in the marketplace from the price effect of the GST.It is an open question what proportion of any new sales will go to locally produced cars as opposed to cheaper, smaller imports. It is important to note here that the modest price effect of the GST is not going to overcome the affordability problem for most people who would like to buy a new upper medium car built by one of the local makers. Most will still have to settle for a second-hand one or an imported compact if they want a new car. That is why only 28 per cent of locally produced cars are bought by private buyers.The benefits of the GST to the local car industry have been grossly overstated and are probably outweighed by the transitional costs. These transitional costs are going to have a significant impact on the industry's revenues and will therefore be a blow to its capacity to fund investment in new models and more efficient production facilities. In this regard, I have been given a rather disturbing industry report which suggests that the adverse transitional effects of the GST on cars will not cease on 1 July 2000 when the tax comes into operation. The document is a draft report by Martec Automotive Consulting on the Impact of the introduction of the goods and services tax.Martec are well qualified. They have been providing consulting services to the car industry for the last 30 years and have an established track record forecasting sales. They also operate in New Zealand and so have already had some practical experience with a GST and transitional arrangements. The report says:Despite the lower retail prices flowing from the introduction of GST making new vehicles more affordable, Martec do not believe that the present transitional arrangements will allow the volume levels to be sustained in the next two to three years. We are forecasting that new vehicle sales will decline by 5.3% in calendar year 1999 over 1998, and the downturn is more significant on a financial year basis.On a financial year basis, Martec is forecasting a 12.6 per cent reduction. That is pretty curious in a situation where we have a relatively higher level of economic growth which is being fuelled by a substantial level of consumer demand. Martec's forecast for the second quarter of the year 2000, the three months immediately before the GST becomes operational, is a 17.6 per cent decline over the second quarter in 1999. What is even more disturbing is that Martec say that:Based on the present transitional arrangements a similar but smaller decline in selling rates will occur in 2001 and 2002. We would also point out that the projected delays and declines in the new vehicle trade cycle that underlay these forecasts will change the historical sales seasonality for a number of years beyond the forecast period.The length of this disruption to the market from the introduction of the GST is a result of the government's transitional arrangements. According to Martec:The potential negative impact on vehicle sales from the GST transition for fleets will be felt primarily from business fleets in not just the period to 1 July 2000 but also in the period through to 1 July 2002.Martec's conclusions about the consequences for the local manufacturing industry are severe. They state:With the four local manufacturers (Ford, Holden, Mitsubishi and Toyota) generating 72% of their sales from fleet the decline in fleet sales will fall most heavily on local manufacturing . . . The difficulties of reducing local production line speeds in the short term will if the Martec forecast is correct result in plant closedowns and employee standdowns, particularly in the period March through May in the years 2000, 2001 and 2002.The fiscal consequences of this downturn are also a major problem. They state:Martec estimate that Federal Government revenue from the Wholesale Sales Tax will be depressed by around $450 million through lower sales volume and changes in the vehicle mix in the 1999/00 financial year.The Howard government may have got itself into a situation where it cannot fix the problem it has created for the car industry without blowing a big hole in its own budget.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—You don't believe that.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—We will wait and see. Martec calculates that reducing the wholesale sales tax to adjust the recommended retail price to the same level as would apply post GST would require a nine-point reduction in the wholesale sales tax rate to approximately 13 per cent. The cost of this reduction to federal government revenue is estimated to be $1.3 billion. The Treasurer's choice is: does he wreck the car industry or wreck his budget? The transitional arrangement which the government has put in place is one which is designed not to protect the car industry but to protect the revenue.21:06:0011267Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I would like to thank the other members of the House who have contributed to this debate, including the members for Wills, Rankin, Griffith, Kingston, Mitchell, Barker and my friend the member for Cook. They all made very interesting speeches on the A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill 1999 .There are a couple of points I would like to make specifically in relation to the points raised by the member for Wills. He said that on 2 September there would be a shortage of resources in the Australian Taxation Office to support the development of a new tax system. In the typical rhetoric coming out of the Labor Party at the moment, he too committed to not having a commitment on business tax. We on this side of the House look forward to the day when the Labor Party has a strong commitment on any particular policy area, let alone business tax. We look forward to that.What I would like to point out is that the government is undertaking with the Taxation Office and through the Taxation Office a very significant public information campaign on the ANTS package. Two weeks ago, the Australian Taxation Office launched a series of over 1,000 free seminars for the public with a focus on the application of the ANTS package to business. No business will have to travel, I am advised, more than 100 kilometres to get to these seminars, and the seminars will cover all aspects of the implementation of the ANTS bill.There has also been a series of industry based booklets to explain an individual's obligations in respect of any industries they are involved with. The ATO has developed an extensive education campaign aimed particularly at tax advisers. The first GST ruling will be coming out from the ATO on 22 October this year, and there will be a program of advisory visits to businesses, which has already started I am advised. That will notch up a couple of rungs in intensity from 15 November.Eighty to 90 per cent of businesses just deal with basic GST provisions and not the special rules which are based on industry specific situations. Therefore, it will be a plain language information service available to businesses. That is in stark contrast to the plethora of information around about the wholesale sales tax system, the financial institutions duty, the bank account debits tax, stamp duty on the transfer of marketable securities and all the other taxes we are abolishing as part of the ANTS package.In summing up, this bill contains the remaining tax administration initiatives foreshadowed in ANTS, including a more transparent endorsement process for tax exempt and gift deductible bodies. The amendments in the bill also support the pay-as-you-go system, the running balance account and single activity statement initiatives which were passed by this House on 1 September.Taxpayers with simple affairs will have more certainty that their annual tax return is finalised because this bill will reduce the time in which a review can be made from four years to only two years. In addition, those taxpayers will be able to get oral advice from the Commissioner of Taxation that will be binding on the commissioner. As someone who represents 30,000 small businesses in my electorate of North Sydney, I can say that a great sense of frustration has always come out of business—and the member for Lindsay will be well aware of this—when they ring up the Australian Taxation Office and get advice, follow that advice and find that it may or may not have been necessarily binding. In this instance, oral advice from the Commissioner of Taxation will be binding on the commissioner. That will be a very well appreciated measure, particularly for small businesses.Overall, the measures will all but complete the government's initiatives to reform the administration of the tax system so as to ensure we have a modern and flexible system to take us beyond July 2000. Yet again, it illustrates the fact that this government is getting on with the job—getting on with the job that people in significant places all around the country are lauding as landmark initiatives that are going to further stimulate the already strong Australian economy. But, importantly, these taxation initiatives are having a very real impact on the perception of Australia globally. That has a real impact on the amount of investment coming into Australia and our capacity as a nation and as an economy to insulate ourselves from the volatility of the Asian region.I can only ask the question again of the shadow ministers at the table: why won't the shadow Treasurer come in here and declare a position on the business tax initiatives? Why won't the shadow Treasurer do it? Why won't he just come in here and say, `We think having a 30 per cent company tax rate is good policy; we'll support it. We think halving capital gains tax for individuals is a good idea; we'll support it. We think opening up venture capital initiatives that will make it attractive for offshore investment to come in and invest in Australian ideas and Australian manufacturing is a good idea; we'll support it'?Why is it that the Labor Party is so hell-bent on opposing us on every significant economic initiative we are trying to put in place? We are fixing its budget deficit and we will have a fully independent Reserve Bank that focuses on the effect of inflation. Why did the Labor Party oppose the charter of budget honesty? Why did it oppose the ANTS package which we are debating here tonight? Why did it oppose the sale of Telstra, both tranches 1 and 2? Why did the Labor Party oppose industrial relations reform that has given us the lowest level of industrial disputation since records were first kept in 1913? Why is the Labor Party so hell-bent on opposing corporate law reform? The only answer is that the Labor Party does not believe in anything. Having gone into opposition, it just does not believe in anything. The tragedy of it is that it is rapidly becoming not only irrelevant in opposition but an irrelevant opposition.We are forced to turn to the other minor parties in the Senate to have a rational debate about real reform that has lasting benefit for Australia. The proof of the pudding is that the reforms we have undertaken to date are delivering one of the strongest economies in the world when seven out of our top 10 trading partners are in recession or depression. We have a better standard of living for Australians at a time when our major clients and customers are in recession or depression. That is the benefit of the reforms we have undertaken over the last three years. It could only be common sense to support the business tax initiatives, because we have form and our form has delivered real results.I know that the shadow minister for small business is a smart, capable and eloquent fellow. I know that the shadow minister for small business would be in the caucus arguing for lower capital gains tax. He would know better than most in the opposition, because he speaks to small business—I accept that—how important the 30 per cent company tax rate is for Australian small businesses.I can only urge the shadow minister for small business to exercise a louder voice in caucus. During question time tomorrow, I am going to put the hat around. We are going to raise some money for him to get a loud hailer. They have him sitting so far down the end of the green benches that he needs a megaphone to be heard in the leadership group of the Labor Party. We will put the hat around. I am sure that we can raise some money. It will be either that or we will provide an opportunity to bring Bob Baldwin back into the House. The traditional sparring that we all miss between the former member for Paterson and the shadow minister for small business might give the shadow minister a greater opportunity to convince his colleagues of the merits of business tax reform.We commend the bill to the House. We look forward, together with the Australian people, to the full benefits of taxation reform.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.11269Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey) read a third time.Bills11269r84611269Consideration resumed from 23 September.Senate's amendment—(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 5 to 11), omit the item, substitute:1 Paragraph 6(c)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) in meeting those objects, to work with other relevant agencies to promote the principles of ecologically sustainable development set out in subsection 21(3) of the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 and to seek to raise awareness of the social and cultural impacts of international tourism in Australia.Motion (by Miss Jackie Kelly) proposed:That the requested amendment be made.21:19:0011269Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—The opposition supports the Senate amendment to the Australian Tourist Commission Amendment Bill 1999 . Indeed, it played a vital role in framing the amendment to the original bill. The bill originally sought to change one of the objectives of the Australian Tourist Commission. As a matter of principle, it was something the opposition supported on the basis that it was quite clear, following an ANAO report and a subsequent parliamentary committee report, that the Australian Tourist Commission simply was not capable, within its powers, of meeting those objectives.We supported in principle the amendment as it went through the House in its original form but did take on board some concerns on behalf of environmental groups that the amendment might be a bit too soft and give the ATC too much scope to ignore some of the environmental consequences that might flow from a rapid growth in international tourism. In concert with both the government and the Democrats, we negotiated a better, more improved and more appropriate form of words before that bill went to the Senate. The Senate has now considered that improved wording. It is now sending that message back to the House for our approval.The opposition is delighted that, with the government, we have been able to take a bipartisan approach to this matter. It is something which is very important to Australian tourism and, therefore, very important to the Australian economy.21:21:0011270Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—Basically, the Australian Tourist Commission Amendment Bill 1999 is about removing an anomaly from the Australian Tourist Commission Act. It looks at giving the Australian Tourist Commission a workable objective in respect of its social and environmental responsibilities. The amendments made by the Senate to this bill do not alter the general intention. In fact, the amendments have strengthened the commission's environmental responsibilities while ensuring that they remain within the commission's capabilities. The cooperation of all parties in assisting the expeditious passage of this bill through both houses is appreciated.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills11270r73311270Debate resumed from 20 September, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.21:22:0011270Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—It is nice to speak after a happy message from the Senate. I must say that I am a bit puzzled as to why the government wanted to postpone their business without explanation, but I accept that that is what they want to do and I am pleased to speak on the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 . It is entirely appropriate, Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis, that you as a former Chairman of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee should be in the chair. I know that, notwithstanding that illustrious background, you will maintain your normal dignified self and not intervene in this debate, which must be very painful for you.Why is that so? No other organisation or no other department has suffered the way that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has suffered under the Howard government. Not only are they renaming it from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to the Human Rights and Responsibility Commission, but they have attacked its budget. For example, it has been cut by 55 per cent. This is an extraordinary cut to an organisation that, after all, is established to look after the interests of ordinary citizens.You might wonder why this government has a fixation about responsibility. If anything, this really demonstrates the difference between the government and the opposition. The opposition believe that not all citizens are really equal—that is, there are more powerful citizens able to exercise their rights whilst there are less powerful people in our society who deserve the protection of organisations such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The government on the other hand believe that if they put the onus on the ordinary citizen then in a sense they can blame the victim. That is what it really is all about. That is one of the reasons why it is being attacked. The other thing is that no government particularly welcomes reports of bodies like the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, because they are there to investigate in a very impartial way deficiencies in the delivery of different services to, as I say, the disempowered in our society.For example, under Labor Mick Dodson was the Aboriginal Social Justice Commissioner. It would be a miracle if the reports and matters that he deliberated upon were not critical of the federal government. If you keep on cutting out organisations which point out deficiencies to you, you eventually get to a position where answers or solutions are superfluous because you do not acknowledge the problem. If the problem is not being brought to your attention, how can you provide a solution? One thinks that this is part of the approach of the federal government.This federal government has not only cut back legal aid but also ensured that all Commonwealth legal aid can only be spent on Commonwealth matters whereas in the past under the former Labor government some of that money went to non-federal matters—that is, to some criminal matters. The net result of these cutbacks has been that the states have been stretched in their budgets and increasingly individuals are going unrepresented in matters that are quite serious. I have said in this place before that it is all very well for this parliament to talk about the legal rights of citizens, but if they do not have the wherewithal to exercise those legal rights then they may as well not have the legal right at all. Legal aid was one way that the disadvantaged were able to afford to exercise their legal rights.The chief justice has said recently that he does not want to get involved in the debate about cutbacks to legal aid, and I respect that point of view that the chief justice of the High Court does not want to get involved in political matters. But he has pointed out that there is a high cost of people being unrepresented and of people increasingly dropping out entirely—that is, not exercising their legal rights. But, if they do, the one means left to them is self-representation. The chief justice points out that there is a cost to the court in this in the extra time that is taken whilst the matter is argued. I believe that it is all very well for us as a democracy to say that we believe in the rule of law and that citizens have legal rights, but I am one who argues that they ought to be able to exercise their rights. The Howard government has diminished their ability to exercise their rights.In commenting on the chief justice's comments over the weekend, I think one of the great tragedies of the federal system was the Brandy case, which itself involved the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. That decision virtually ruled out tribunals operating in the federal sphere. I am a great believer in the way tribunals have, in relatively minor matters, successfully allowed citizens to still have legal rights without having to have recourse to legal aid, solicitors, barristers and QCs. In our state, Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis, we know about the Guardianship Board, which is a tribunal. We know about the Tenancy and Residency Tribunal and the Small Claims Tribunal. All these successfully operate and allow ordinary citizens access to the law but, in the federal sphere, tribunals need to be presided over by a judge.The interesting thing about state tribunals is that they operate on the smell of an oily rag. Once you have a judge presiding over a tribunal, of course you have to have all the staff who are associated with a judge. You do not keep lawyers—that is, solicitors and barristers—out of those tribunals. There is a real need not only to bolster legal aid but also to create the infrastructure that exists in our states, where ordinary citizens have access to tribunals.I wanted to mention a couple of other things. The bill proposes that the specialist commissioners that we had under the existing Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission be replaced by a president and three deputy presidents. We are going to refocus the objectives of the commission away from trying to resolve matters—and even undertaking court cases, in appropriate cases—towards education, dissemination of information on human rights and assistance to the business and general community. We will focus on what the commission's functions are.It is interesting that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, in relation to the Department of Defence and the employment of gay officers, was instrumental in finally getting the matter to cabinet. It kept reporting on and getting involved in the matter, raising cases with the Department of Defence and threatening to take legal action. It forced the hand of the Commonwealth to make a change in that regard. That change was made and caused a minimum of disruption. No-one would particularly argue against that change today. Within the armed forces and the wider community, it is generally accepted. But, given the proposed change of modus operandi of the commission, how successful would this general education brief be? I am bemused that anyone could think that it would be effective and that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission needed all the powers it had to engineer what some may say was a small change but what I think was a significant and necessary change.One of the other changes that I wanted to comment on was that the commission now requires the leave of the Attorney-General before it engages in any litigation. Firstly, 55 per cent of its budget has been cut. I suppose I have not dwelt sufficiently on that. That means that the commission cannot do all the work that it would like to do. It has to say no to many ordinary citizens who ring up and may require the assistance of the commission. It will not have the personnel to be able to respond—and what a tragedy that is.Let us assume that the commission gets a case that is so pressing it believes that it needs to mount a case in the courts. It needs to get the approval of the Attorney-General. What does this say for the independence of the commission? Here we are saying, `Isn't it marvellous that we have sent Mr Sidoti over to Burma—or Myanmar—to advise them on how to set up a human rights commission in that country? It will do a lot of good work.' He has been over there, and I certainly hope that his efforts bear fruit. But how can we suggest that this is a fearless independent body that will take action of its own volition without any pressure if it has to go cap in hand to an Attorney-General seeking permission to mount one case? If it wants to mount two cases, it has to get his permission. If it wanted to mount 20 cases—and, of course, it could not afford to do so—it would need to get 20 individual approvals.I think it is unfortunate because the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has done a lot of good work in the past. Not only has this government damaged the commission's stature by its changes in composition and objectives and by its changes to its funding but the very thing that the commission would set the greatest store by—that is, its independence—is compromised by the need to seek the Attorney's approval.Some have suggested that the Attorney may be compromised in making any decision. What if the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission wanted to take a federal department to court? Here you have the first law officer of the land, who is bound to defend and mount the case in defence of the department, agreeing or disagreeing about whether this body that acts on behalf of the poor and disempowered should be allowed to mount the case. I think it is very unfortunate.It is quite clear that this government has learnt nothing from the Victorian election—it has learnt nothing about what happens when governments attack independent organs like the office of the Auditor-General or the independent Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner. I mentioned that the position of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner is to be abolished. What a tragedy. If there is one group in our society that is surely deserving of a voice it is our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. It is as if the government believes that everything has been accomplished—that there is no particular need for this body to have such representation. I wish that day had arrived. But we are far from it, and I believe that there is a real need for the continuation of this commissioner.This bill abolishes the position of Race Discrimination Commissioner and the Community Relations Council and establishes a separate Office of the Privacy Commission. I think these changes are really more ideological changes. They are establishing this body as the No. 1 target of the conservative government, and the real losers are not going to be you, Mr Deputy Speaker, or me. It is the poor, the disempowered and those citizens who cannot afford to exercise their legal rights—in fact, those who cannot even speak up about the rights that they are losing—that have the most to lose from this bill going through. This bill brings shame on this government, and I do not support it.21:39:0011272Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—It is by no means simply a coincidence that this government has come under scrutiny from the United Nations for its human rights policies at the same time as, in my view, its arrogant policy making is starting to catch up with it. There is an endless list of demonstrations of arrogance in terms of its policy making. One need only allude to its clumsy attempt to include, in the preamble of the Constitution, proper mention of Aboriginal people and their rightful custodianship of our land. A more recent example is its abolition of defence service leave as an allowable matter, which is now coming back to haunt it in terms of the East Timor situation. And, of course, back to the Aboriginal situation, there is its heinous approach to the stolen generation when the Prime Minister refused to say that he was sorry.It is an international disgrace that a developed country such as ours should come to the attention of the UN, again for all the wrong reasons. On the matter of the preamble, which I just alluded to, earlier this year the Prime Minister said:Isn't it better for those who want the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders recognised to have something rather than nothing at all? Because that is what will happen . . . That is, what will happen if the preamble is rejected. This underpins much of the government's policy making in general. For it would seem that the government's proposed emasculation—which is all that it really can be called—of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in this bill is yet another case of: `It is better to have a degraded human rights body unable to properly perform its function rather than to have nothing at all.' In my view, this is tokenism at its worst.The government, as the member for Chifley quite succinctly indicated, has missed the point of having an accessible and progressive Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. As the member for Chifley also said, citizens need not only legal rights but also the resources, facilities and the wherewithal to exercise those rights. Not only are cuts to legal aid a manifestation of the government's real agenda in this regard but also the fact that it has diminished the opportunities for people to exercise their rights through the commission is a further indication of its true intent.As part of the government's restructure of the commission, five commissioners with discrete responsibilities will be reduced to three generalist deputy presidents. This includes the removal, as the member for Chifley said, of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, a position that was introduced in response to the Royal Commission into Aboriginals Deaths in Custody. We have seen something of a moderate decline in recent years in the rate of those deaths, but they still remain unacceptably high, as do the rates of incarceration.Obviously, the least appropriate time to remove the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner would therefore be right now. Under the legislation before the House not only is this commissioner removed but also Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders do not even rate a mention in the new deputy president's responsibilities. This is, at best, insensitive government policy and, at worst, it is policy that jeopardises the increasing level of goodwill that has been developed and built up between the government and Australia's indigenous peoples, primarily by previous governments. It also no doubt further tarnishes Australia's previously excellent reputation and record in the whole realm of human rights.The Attorney-General has argued in this House that these amendments will, by and large, improve the efficiency of the commission. One can but ask: how can this be when it has already lost a third of its staff and some $7 million from its funding? The actual savings from this restructure are far from clear even to the government, as plans for the new and separately administered Privacy Commissioner have not yet been properly costed.The Attorney-General also claims that the commission's key focus will be on education and assisting business and the community to comply with human rights standards. But, as was posed also by the member for Chifley, how will the commission achieve this? It will be flat out handling complaints. It will have neither the time nor the money to educate or assist anybody. But the government does not stop there in trying to justify its actions. In response to these so-called efficiency measures, the commission now will have to prioritise—or perhaps we could use the word `discriminate'—in all of its discrimination cases rather than investigate each and every one. The absurdity of this situation is that Australia will become saddled with an embarrassingly and increasingly watered-down antidiscrimination body which will be forced to discriminate because of poor and inadequate government policy.This brings me to the somewhat curious though seemingly innocuous proposed name change of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission. It is just a name, but a tale perhaps begins to unfold when we examine some of the guidelines for accessing the commission. In particular, these guidelines state that assistance may be granted for equal opportunity/discrimination cases where there are strong prospects of substantial benefits being gained. Moreover, these benefits should not be confined to the applicant but to the public and/or any section of the public. I repeat: applicants must show that they have strong prospects of success before being granted assistance. So not only will applicants more than likely be subjected to lengthy waiting times due to the decimation of staff and resources but also somewhere along the line a decision may be made that their case is not important enough to be heard at all.Is it any wonder that the government wants to get rid of the term `equal opportunity'? Really there is very little that could reasonably be said to be equal about it. Those who need the commission's assistance most will be those who have the door slammed in their face. The phrase `equal opportunity' carries far more weight than this government realises.In conclusion, I point out that Australia is the first Western developed country to fall under investigation by the United Nations for the direction of its human rights policies. This lumps Australia in with nations such as Burundi, Bosnia and Rwanda. What does this government do in response? As we all know, the Prime Minister makes a vague and insulting attempt at including Australia's indigenous people in the Constitution's preamble. But the government also removes the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, slashes the resources for the nation's peak human rights agency and, furthermore, ignores calls from the UN to reopen talks with indigenous people regarding native title. This has all been done under that vague notion of increasing efficiency. But for whom, might I ask? Certainly not for those trying to reasonably access justice.If Australian society is to be judged by the world at large as to how it treats its vulnerable and disenfranchised citizens, then the government needs to be mindful of its treatment of agencies which protect the rights of these groups. As was alluded to by the member for Chifley, one need only look to the Victorian situation to see the embarrassing backflip that caretaker Premier Kennett has had to suffer with the whole state railing against his attempts to abolish the role of the Auditor-General.This government should not undervalue the inherent and substantive benefits to be gained by promoting a proactive educative Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It should heed the warning put to it by the Australian Institute of Criminology that:If we [Australia] do not make progress [on human rights issues] in the immediate future, attention on Australia in the year 2000 may not be focused on the Olympics alone.If these amendments are passed, in my view, the rest of the world will scorn Australia for its insensitive approach both to race relations and human rights.The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is not just about funding—again the member for Chifley put up a cogent argument that the commission was about far more than funding—neither is it about picking winners nor deciding whose case is more important, one over the other. It is about equal access to protection. It is about having a genuine opportunity to right wrongs. It is about recognising and assisting minorities—the sorts of people that we on this side of the House are pleased to protect and pleased to ensure will not be left behind. It is about proactive community education on human rights issues. All of these are severely compromised by this legislation. Overall, the commission has done some fine work in the past, some excellent work, but this legislation denies it of its funding, its independence and its opportunity to continue to pursue the sorts of causes that Australia has become known and respected for.21:52:0011275Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I also wish to speak tonight against the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 , as I believe it is an expression of this government's disinterest, if not disregard or outright disregard, for human rights in Australia. The raft of amendments, when combined with the budget cuts that have been inflicted upon the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission since the Howard government was elected in 1996, sends several very strong messages to our community.These messages are that this government is not interested in maintaining a viable and accessible rights based antidiscrimination system for individuals who have been discriminated against. Secondly, this government is not committed to, and is quite dismissive of, internationally accepted standards in the area of human rights and the conduct of independent human rights commissions. Thirdly, the government is prepared to downgrade the rights of our Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. Finally, although the government is prepared to emphasise education, it is not prepared to fund it. It makes other changes to the operation of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission which run counter to this hope of trying to educate the community further.Whilst I support the comments that have already been made by previous members on this side of the House, such as the member for Chifley and the member for Isaacs, I am going to concentrate mostly in my speech on one key issue that is proposed to be changed in this legislation. It involves the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's right to intervene in proceedings before other courts and tribunals where cases involve human rights issues or where human rights issues are relevant to the determination of that case. The commission previously has been able to intervene in all sorts of proceedings. Examples of intervention in the past have been the Sex Discrimination Commissioner intervening in Industrial Relations Commis sion hearings, particularly the national wage cases, and dealing with the position of women in the work force. Other matters include family law, taxation and immigration—the list goes on.Despite covering a broad range of areas, intervention by the commission is not that common, but it is an important part of the commission's work. It is important because by its nature it is not dependent upon or driven by individual complaints. It is an opportunity for the commission to take a broader approach, which allows the commission to raise concerns that affect a larger number of people than just individual complaints. Hence, it can be regarded as an important part of the commission's educative function, something which the Attorney has said he is keen to encourage. I believe it is very important for us to make an assessment of this question, because it is a key to the government's real view of human rights in Australia. It might sound like a relatively technical area, but it strikes at the heart of human rights matters and is really relatively simple.The change that is being proposed would mean that the Attorney-General must consent or provide his permission before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission could seek to intervene in any proceedings. I would like to point out to those in the House or to those listening that the Attorney-General must provide permission before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission even seeks to intervene in the proceedings. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, when it would seek to be heard before the Federal Court or the High Court on an Industrial Relations Commission, still needs to seek permission from that body. That body can determine whether or not it will be of assistance in determining their case to have the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission appear before them. But the Attorney-General believes he should have a say in whether or not the commission needs to do that.If we start at the beginning, the current process is that commissioners have the power to intervene in proceedings. As I was saying, this does not give them a right to do that; it simply gives them the right to seek to intervene in proceedings. The court will then determine whether or not it is appropriate or helpful for the commission to do so. Recent cases where the courts have granted the commission the right to intervene include the Hindmarsh Island case, the Teoh immigration case and a Family Court matter known as B and B. In each of these examples the Commonwealth also appeared, but it put a different view to that put by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Take the immigration case as an example. This was a case where the government's own decision making processes were under review. Its policies and the administration of the immigration department were being scrutinised. It is clear that the Commonwealth's interests in such a case are not necessarily the same as the human rights interests that the commission may wish to put before the court.It is clear that, if human rights matters were to be affected, the commission would be an appropriate body to be able to highlight those concerns. The worrying question about the proposed changes in this bill is that we must ask whether an Attorney-General—whether it is this Attorney-General or another Attorney-General—under the system that this government is proposing would give his or her consent to the intervention in such circumstances where there is a possibility of the government being embarrassed by the commission's position that is put to the court.Why does the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission seek to intervene in matters? What is the purpose of seeking to intervene? As I have mentioned above, the intervention is often part of the commission's role in providing community education, including that education which is sometimes required or information that needs to be provided to judges and lawyers who are involved in other cases. The commission, as an intervener, can present submissions on broad statistics that may have a bearing on the case and can discuss questions of principle and the wider consequences of the case.There has been no history of abuse of the current process. There has been no history of very regular applications being made or them being made in irrelevant areas and rejected. It is not all that common. In fact, the commission has intervened in cases only 17 times in the last 11 years. When you think of the variety of matters where the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission might have an interest, that is relatively restrained. Unfortunately for the citizens of Australia, the capacity of the commission to promote these broader community interests and to assist in making sure that decisions that are made at the judicial level take account of human rights matters has been drastically restricted, not just by successive budgetary decisions of this government but by the sorts of proposals being put up in the bill before us today.In his second reading speech, the Attorney wanted to emphasise the priority that he wishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to place on education. He said:The bill makes it clear that the new commission's priority will be to educate Australians about human rights and discrimination, and to help them to understand their responsibility as members of the Australian community to respect other people's human rights.But the Attorney knows that this cannot be so easily done. The commission has no real discretion in the handling of individual complaints. It cannot simply say to someone who lodges a complaint, `I am sorry, we cannot prioritise your complaint at the moment. We are busy educating the Australian population about human rights, and we do not really have enough money to deal with your matter, so come back in a couple of years.' The commission by its nature is obliged to deal with complaints as they come in and needs to have sufficient capacity to play an educative role and to intervene in matters that affect the broader picture.So, although we can see that the commission's capacity to intervene is a good example of the educative role the commission can play, its capacity to do so is being restricted. You would think that now this has been raised the government's response might be to put some extra money into the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Whilst that is not the sole answer it would certainly be helpful in this area. Do we see the government doing this? Unfortunately, we do not. We see instead this new hurdle being put in place, which is the requirement for the Attorney-General to grant permission before the commission can intervene in any matter.The bill sets out a number of issues that the Attorney-General may consider when deciding whether or not to grant permission for the human rights commission to seek to intervene in a court matter. These include four matters: whether the Commonwealth has already intervened in proceedings; whether the proceedings may affect human rights or discriminate against persons that are not party to the proceedings; whether the case has significant implications for the administration of disability, race or sex discrimination acts; and whether there are special circumstances such as the intervention being in the public interest. On the first issue, the Commonwealth interest in intervening may not be at all related to the human rights commission's interests or responsibility. The commission's role is quite independent of government and is undermined by a suggestion that the Commonwealth and the commission will always have the same view. The most obvious and immediate conflict comes from matters where the Commonwealth is defending its own actions, such as the Teoh case that I have already referred to.The second and third points—the matters that the Attorney-General is to consider—seem to doubt the human rights commission's own capacity to judge whether or not a matter involves human rights issues or whether it involves issues that are covered by the various pieces of antidiscrimination legislation. It is very difficult to understand why the Attorney-General would believe that he had more expertise than the human rights commission in this area. We really must ask what it is that the government is trying to control. On top of this, it is already an issue for the court to assess in deciding whether to grant leave in a particular case, whether it is legitimate for the commission to intervene and the public interest that is involved. This provides an automatic check in a situation where the commission might, for some reason, get it dreadfully wrong. The court can simply refuse to grant leave to intervene. To my knowledge it has never done so, other than in one instance on a technical matter. Similarly, it is the court which would assess whether or not there was a public interest issue raised to justify any intervention. If there were no valid public interest issues raised by the matter before the court, again, it could simply refuse.The introduction of the need to seek the Attorney-General's approval simply creates another hoop for the commission to go through before taking any action in an area that it believes needs to be pursued. In this context, the move to require such permission from the Attorney-General seems quite superfluous. But it is really worse than that. It is a question of there being a direct conflict of interest and also a threat to the commission's independence. The commission has an extremely important role to play in scrutinising Australia's compliance with its international obligations. In so doing, its role is to critically assess what a current government is doing to comply with such obligations.If a government is neglecting its obligations, will the Attorney-General happily consent to a process which may embarrass his government? Is the government running scared because of its recent poor reception in a number of international forums? Its policies have been criticised quite extensively from the ILO to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, a matter that the member for Isaacs went into in more detail.The government's sensitivity on human rights has led it to refuse access to Australia to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Whilst the matter is a decision of this government, it is a matter of great shame for all of us in this House that the government is seeking to stifle any scrutiny of its policies with respect to the way that we as Australians respect and treat our fellow Australians, particularly indigenous Australians. With such decisions being made every week by the Howard government it is hard for us to believe that this step will not further restrict any hope of the commission playing an important role and expressing an independent voice in the human rights area.The commission is a statutory body. It has its own functions and powers. A number of those functions will always bring it into conflict with the government of the day, the policies of the government and issues of public administration. To fulfil its functions and powers properly it needs to have the confidence to approach its duties with vigour, without fear or favour and certainly without considering government policy or approval. In this way it should be no different to other independent statutory bodies.We must address directly the issue which is clearly the unspoken agenda of this government—to silence its critics. Various commissioners, in fulfilling their duties and upholding our obligations to observe and respect human rights in this country, have often raised issues of embarrassment to this government. But, importantly, they have also raised issues of embarrassment to governments before this one. The commission's role, by its nature, often brings it into conflict with government policy and positions, but these commissioners and others have taken their statutory duties seriously and pursued them with the integrity that we would expect. They have been extremely effective at times in raising issues that are distinct to the groups that they primarily represent. Instead of dealing with the issues legitimately raised by these commissioners, the government seeks to silence the voices that raise these issues of embarrassment. It tries to sweep them under the carpet rather than address the ongoing discrimination that some Australians still suffer, particularly at the hands of government.I have already spoken in this House in the budget debates about the pattern we have seen emerging under this government, particularly in the legal portfolio area under the administration of this Attorney-General. We have seen the same approach of silencing critics occur not just to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission but in the approach that is taken to community legal centres, the Law Reform Commission and many other bodies. The reward for this work, for a government that really does not like any sort of criticism, is to seek to silence its critics.The member for Lilley today in question time raised issues of great concern where we see the government meting out retribution to other organisations which have also voiced their view on the government's policy in other areas. We have seen organisations such as Girl Guides Australia and the National Council for Single Mothers and their Children lose their funding for daring to be critical of the government's GST proposals. It is not just the Guides and the National Council for Single Mothers and their Children which are affected; the list extends to the Older Women's Network, the Women's Electoral Lobby, the Catholic Women's League of Australia, the Muslim Women's National Network, the National Council of Jewish Women, the National Women's Justice Coalition, the National Women's Media Centre and the Women's Action Alliance.All of these organisations have one unifying feature, that is, they have dared to speak out and express their view about the government's policy. The government's reaction is extremely disappointing. It is a great disappointment to realise that we are living in a country where organisations that are supposed to be able to represent their members by vigorously representing their views and making them known to the government are punished by losing their funding any time they disagree with a proposal that is made by this government.So we see a very strong pattern emerging. It was bad enough when it was just in the legal portfolio area, but we see it extending into the community areas and really striking at the core of our being as a nation. We should be able to be proud of our democracy and argue and express views about things that the government is doing that we do not agree with and seek to persuade the government to change those views. But, unfortunately, this government is intent on controlling any sort of independent organisation. It is intent on silencing criticism, and it is intent on hiding any mistakes that are made. If that does not work, it will simply cut funding.All of this seems to be aimed at enabling the coalition to govern without fear of any sort of accountability and responsibility. This is not the sort of legislation that we deserve in an open and democratic Western country like Australia. We should be prepared for scrutiny. We should be confident about the stability of our parliament and our government, and we should be confident that one of the real strengths of our system is that we are actually prepared to listen to independent statutory organisations, like the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission or community organisations like the legal centres, who have the expertise—although no longer the funding—to be critical of government decisions.I cannot support the government's agenda of silencing critics and neutering alternative views. The independence of the commission is something that is recognised at an international level. There are international Paris principles which are recognised as appropriate for ensuring that human rights bodies do have an independent role—independent from government—to play. The commission's current status should be maintained. Its funding should be restored to enable it to realistically fulfil its duties. Those duties are growing, particularly in importance, in the ever more multicultural society that we live in. At the very least, the government should change its view on the requirement for the Attorney-General to provide permission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission before intervention and refuse a veto on the commission fulfilling its ordinary and important duties within the community. It is for those reasons that I oppose this bill.22:09:0011279Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—This is the second contribution I have made to debate on the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 , as the debate on the original bill was not completed prior to the calling of the last general election. Although it is my second contribution and over a year since I made it, my opposition to the provisions in this proposed legislation have not changed. My opposition has, if anything, become even stronger. I have had another year to assess the impact of the government's savage cuts to people in need of legal assistance and legal support.Given the range of conflicts in our part of the world at this time, Australia should be sending a powerful message abroad in support of the protection of human rights. But what sort of message does this government send abroad? We send a pathetic message internationally that the Australian government is prepared to undermine human rights in our own country. So much for our standing up for human rights in other parts of the world. Instead of leading, Australia, once again, abdicates a leadership role in a troubled world at a troubled time.The Howard government has delivered massive cuts to a wide variety of justice related services. There are substantial cuts to legal aid funding, the courts and tribunals. There are also increased fees and charges to access courts and tribunals. Even as late as today the Chief Justice drew attention to some of the difficulties with the cuts to funding. But the savage cuts are also borne by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Those of us in this place who closely follow the government's record on human rights issues and justice are not really surprised by the cuts to HREOC, but it must be said that we are surprised by the speed with which this government moved against HREOC and the undermining of its work and functions.I have sat in this place as a government member and heard those opposite rail against the commission. The cuts have made the fulfilling of the commission's functions and role that much more difficult. There has been a huge reduction in the commission's staff. The effects of these cuts have been nothing short of devastating, with the commission being forced to abandon its inquiry work. Between 1997 and 1999 the HREOC budget has decreased by over 36 per cent. It is one of the most significant savings measures within the Attorney-General's portfolio.The Attorney-General has tried to justify the delivery of the meat axe to HREOC, but the real reason is that the Howard government hates the commission and what it stands for. The purpose of this proposed legislation is to rename the commission as the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission and to restructure the commission by the abolition of five specific commissioners, replacing these positions with three Deputy Presidents, and provide the Attorney-General with approval rights preventing the commission from intervention in court proceedings relating to human rights and discrimination—which the honourable member for Gellibrand drew our attention to. The proposed legislation guts the commission.I represent in this place one of the most diverse ethnic centres in Australia. The Illawarra contains a population made up of over 100 different ethnic backgrounds. These people have come to settle in the Illawarra and make lives for themselves and their families. They work hard and are good Australians. The Illawarra is a tolerant regional community. But over the last two years the Howard government played the wink, wink, nod, nod game with One Nation. It had to be dragged kicking and screaming to finally join the Labor opposition in principled outrage against this pathetic juvenile political party—now a fraud of a political party.But the genie has been let out of the bottle. Over the last two years I have seen and heard first-hand the increase in racial vilification and hatred in the Illawarra community. Just over one month ago a young Aboriginal woman came into my office distressed and emotional, because some real estate agent would not allow her to try to rent a flat. The real estate agent was quite happy to talk over the telephone to this young woman, but it was a different story when she actually went into their office. All of a sudden the vacancies and the availability of flats for rent disappeared, within the space of her making the telephone call and coming into the office.I advised this young woman to take the matter up with HREOC; indeed my office completed all the required documentation. We received a response from them a few weeks ago but, because of the staff shortages, this matter will not be resolved for another few months, if ever at all. In the meantime, this young Aboriginal woman has been dismissed and humiliated—and for what? She has a different skin colour. She is part of a people identified by some pathetic Australians who over the last two years have discovered that, because One Nation was given a free hand to say whatever it pleased, they can also run riot with racial vilification and discrimination.Despite the government's wish to close its eyes and ears to these incidents, I make it clear that the vast majority of people in the Illawarra community will not cop this rubbish. We are a tolerant and diverse community. We will respect each other. Those who seek to get away with racial vilification or seek to instil hatred in the Illawarra community will not have an unchallenged journey, because people will fight back. That hateful, pathetic genie will be driven back into its bottle and capped.Australia has had an impressive standard on human rights issues. This parliament has enacted such legislation as the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the HREOC Act 1986, the Privacy Act 1988 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. But those days appear long gone, and the Howard government cares not a dot. For the first time in nearly two or three decades, Australia has been severely criticised by United Nations committees on a number of occasions since this government assumed the treasury bench. Previous governments of both political persuasions would have taken these criticisms very seriously and would have worked to have them addressed. This government seems to rejoice in being an international bad citizen.The renaming of the commission is confusing and pointless. It appears to me to be a simple extension of a kind of Work for the Dole policy. No submission to the Senate committee inquiry on this proposed legislation supported the renaming of the commission. This proposed legislation includes provision to abolish the specialised role of current commissioners, replacing them with three generalised deputy presidents. Again, this matter has caused great controversy in the media and through submissions to the Senate inquiry. Given the scope of the legislation administered by HREOC, it is vital that the specialist commissioners be retained. But the government's motives are based on the fact that specialist commissioners have been critical of so many of the government's policies, programs and results in areas of race, women and disabilities. One Liberal woman lobbyist told the Sydney Morning Herald on 16 September 1997 that:I'm sick of fighting to keep the gains we've got . . . We're having to fight so hard to keep anything. Let alone advance anything.I am certain that other lobbyists can testify to much the same view. The government is silent on transitional arrangements, despite being urged to include such arrangements in the Senate report—not, it must be said, by the Labor opposition but by its own members. Showing absolute contempt for its own members, the government has rejected the recommended call for amendments to be made. This government must explain how it intends to fill three deputy presidents positions while there are four specialist commissioners. One of the commissioners is under threat. Who is it? The parliament has a right to know, and the Attorney-General is obliged to answer.The proposed legislation not only guts the commission, as I have said, but also frustrates its independence. In an extraordinary provision, the Attorney-General will now be required to be asked permission prior to the commission being able to intervene in court proceedings. Coalition senators have criticised this provision so strongly that it was recommended that it be dumped. Again, the government rejected out of hand a recommendation from within its own ranks. This provision gags the commission because it has the temerity to intervene in court cases and has put forward a vastly different submission from that advocated by the Commonwealth.If the provision is to be applied, the Attorney-General will only agree to intervention by the commission in court proceedings if the government is satisfied that its submission will toe the line and not be critical of the approach taken by the Commonwealth. If the commission continues to take an independent approach before a court and argues a different submission from that of the Commonwealth, the Attorney-General will deny permission for it to appear. There is no precedent for such a provision. No other similar independent statutory authority of the Commonwealth is required to undergo such a cap in hand procedure. Even the government's own ranks realise the real, desperate motive for the Attorney-General's direct intervention, and that is to reduce the independence of HREOC. This is an unacceptable, despicable attempt to silence the lambs.Since 1996, Australians have seen the government's approach to human rights not only to those abroad but, importantly, to our own. Countries, like it or not, are judged on how they handle problems faced by minorities and other groups who face some form of discrimination—be it racial, sexual, religious or against those with disabilities. Human rights is a continual challenge. The duty we owe to each other is never truly fulfilled, but it is enough to continually try to do better. Governments must allow ordinary folk to challenge its decisions. That is what democracy is supposed to be about. It is not always easy, but I suggest that it is absolutely necessary. It is sometimes embarrassing for the government but, again, very necessary. Government must be accountable.Australia is abdicating its leadership role on human rights. It is an abdication Australians can ill afford here and abroad. The proposed legislation is unworthy. It deserves defeat. It deserves defeat especially at this time when we are starting to make noises about human rights abroad. If we cannot even protect them at home, how dare we suggest we can protect them abroad?22:21:0011281Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—Unfortunately, the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 continues a trend in both economic and social governance where the rationalist argument again starts to bite into areas of social policy. Instead of asking what the cost of things is, we should begin to question the cost of not providing such things as are being eliminated in this bill. Are we talking about a financial dividend, or do we want to deliver a social dividend? The bill is not only about economics but about political control.I believe it implements a variety of measures that will deprive many Australians of any real ability to enforce their human rights. It does this through the restriction and disintegration of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's independent ability to actively represent and defend the human rights of all Australians. The member for Throsby quite rightly points to the need for Australia to project an enhanced rather than diminished human rights agenda to the world in the context of the human rights abuses currently on show so tragically in our region.I regret to say that this is far from the first time the government has cut back and eaten away at not only the commission's ability to function to its full potential but also other areas of what I regard as human rights. I speak particularly of the deterioration in equal access to legal representation through Legal Aid services, funding cutbacks for the commission and now this bill. Not only has the government made it more difficult for needy Australians to access legal aid through cuts to funding but also it has carried out precisely the same action upon the commission over the past two years. Over this time, HREOC's budget has been cut from $19.3 million in 1997 to $12.3 million, a decrease of 36 per cent. This has provided the Attorney-General's portfolio with its most significant savings. The effect of these cuts has been alarming. The commission was forced to sack up to 60 of its 180 staff last year, effectively decreasing its ability to be a central and powerful body in addressing human rights cases. That was step 1; this bill is the next step.Tonight we are really debating the next step in delivering the power, the tools and ultimate authority of Australia's human rights to the government or, more specifically, the Attorney-General. We happen to have an Attorney-General who, I believe, is a man of great compassion and a humanist, but the fact remains we are putting into place legislation that gives the Attorney-General of the day the power to dictate to what should be an arms-length organisation dealing in the most critical area of social policy.The idea that the Attorney-General's approval is necessary for the commission to intervene in court proceedings, where this has never been deemed necessary over the 11 years the commission has been doing so, seems more than a little odd. When looking further, my suspicions prove to be justified. Why over the 11 years the commission has had control over this function, having intervened in only 17 cases during that time, does the government feel it is absolutely necessary to remove that power? Isn't it obvious that this power has not been abused? It is up to the court to decide who gets involved in proceedings, not the Attorney-General or the government of the day.It is no secret that the courts believe HREOC's intervention in court proceedings is of assistance to the courts. You have only to read the Senate committee report into the 1998 version of this bill to know that. So I ask the government: why the need for such a restriction to be placed on the commission, save for some narrow political and obviously economic agenda? The Senate committee report on this bill recommended that it be amended to restore the powers to the commission and that any legislated powers over court intervention by the Attorney-General would result in a serious conflict of interest.How inappropriate is it that the Attorney-General of the day have sole responsibility for determining the interests of the community in human rights matters, with absolutely no avenue whatsoever for accountability or review of the reasons for his decision, as far as I can see from this legislation? Then there is the obvious threat to HREOC's independence and the conflict of interest between the commission and the Attorney-General in cases where the Commonwealth is a party in the court proceedings. Finally, the whole process of seeking approval means delays in urgent cases in which the commission, through its expertise, determines a need for intervention.The commission has made it crystal clear that centralising all responsibility for complaint handling with the president is another attempt to restrict the commission's ability to function to its full potential. This unnecessary restriction effectively bars the president from delegating complaints to deputy presidents with specific areas of expertise and therefore restricts how those deputies could be used to their full potential. The government seems somewhat confused: on the one hand, it is pushing this legislation as necessary change in order to make the commission more efficient and, on the other hand, it is unnecessarily restricting the commission's ability to do just that.It is not dissimilar to the legal aid crisis that Justice Murray Gleeson has, in recent days and hours, pointed out in the family law area where he so clearly demonstrated that enforcing people to take on their own legal defence and in fact cross-examine the other party to a marital situation—how unwise is that?—has made the preparation of cases far more complex than they might necessarily be. According to him, it has introduced more not less cost to the system. The commission's president, Professor Tay, when asked about the bill questioned `the amount of work that is therefore being laid upon the president under the proposed legislation if the president can delegate only in a limited sort of way'. He further said that `the limitation also distracts the president from being able to select delegation on the basis of the best competence available, the best specialisation of expertise available'.The final power of the commission removed by this bill affects the commission's ability to recommend damages or compensation following inquiries into complaints. The Attorney-General proclaims that the removal of this function is `consistent with the commission being primarily a forum for the negotiation and conciliation of complaints rather than a quasi-judicial forum adjudicating on people's rights'. The Attorney-General then becomes the judicial forum adjudicating on people's rights, according to my interpretation of that.The Australian Lawyers Group for Human Rights has expressed its concern that the removal of this power actually amounts to a breach of Australia's international law obligations. Australia ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights but did not implement the covenant by legislation on the basis that existing law provides sufficient protection for individuals. This bill will withdraw that. The government's argument is that this function is not exercised and there fore no longer necessary. The point is that the function exists if there is ever a need for it to be exercised, and it fulfils our international legal obligations.I am also concerned at the restructure of the commission. The restructure set out in this bill has the potential to leave subject areas of discrimination virtually unrepresented. This entirely new structure removes the positions of specialist commissioners whose expertise is vital in the determination and investigation of all human rights matters. Certain discrimination subject areas—such as disability, indigenous Australians and women's rights—are so significant that they all warrant special commissioners.Debate interrupted.Adjournment1128310000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.1128322:30:0011283Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Today is a dark day for Australia as this government sacrifices Australia in the name of greater competitiveness and globalisation. I speak specifically of the 19 July 1999 announcement by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service of its revised fish import policies. In reaching its conclusions, AQIS considered a considerable number of fish species, including salmon.I also refer to Alex Harris's article that appeared in the Australian Financial Review on 25 June 1999 in which he implores Australian corporations and government bodies to develop `a sales focus like our livelihoods depended on it'. Mr Harris reminded us that `global competition means competing against our trade rivals'. I put to this House a most important question that begs an answer, a question put by aquaculture industry consultant, Dr Roslyn Brandon, in her article in the Australian Financial Review on 28 June 1999:Why then is the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service set to squander one of our greatest competitive advantages by succumbing to pressure from Canada and the United States to lift the import ban on uncooked salmon products and to effectively allow the entry of exotic fish diseases (AFR 7 May 1999) not just to a level where disease pathogens may enter Australia, but to where diseased products will knowingly be allowed into Australia?I envisage questions on notice to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to this effect. Through the World Trade Organisation, Canada and the United States are pursuing this under the guise of a trade issue, one which we should review with considerable scepticism. For Australia, this is not an issue about trade; it is about disease. I join with Dr Roslyn Brandon when, in her press release in the Australian Financial Review of 28 June 1999, she notes:We cannot afford to take avoidable risks when the resultant diseases cannot be eradicated or controlled. This issue is about setting a precedent for allowing disease-bearing products to cross our borders.Dr Brandon further notes:Compromising on this challenge opens the Australian market as an agricultural dumping ground and invites the importation of other products with known disease (for example foot and mouth).Dr Brandon exhorts us to rally together to protect our nation's competitive advantage—to continue to compete against our trade rivals. If we succumb, this will be the first instance where Australia has willingly allowed the importation of animal products known to be diseased. AQIS claims this is an acceptable risk.As we consider the philosophy of globalisation in this issue, this is a dark sense of deja vu with the same ominous overtones facing us with respect to the present government's desire to ratify Australia as a signatory to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. It seems this government is willing to take any level of risk, any level of surrender, in its desperate bid to satiate that insatiable appetite called globalisation. Globalisation is a profoundly erroneous doctrine because laws of nature neither recognise nor honour international agreements. Laws of nature do not discriminate between borders. Contamination is contamination, and no level of economic benefit will compensate a contaminated fishing resource.It is ludicrous to think that, simply by accepting a higher level of risk, simply by allowing contamination of our fishing supply, there will be economic benefits which can ever balance out such environmental harm. This sales-like focus is synonymous with the MAI argument—that is, in our bid to become more competitive or more sales focused, you must be less focused on environmental imperatives as if you can trade one off against another, as if you can barter with nature. You cannot barter with nature. Compromise nature and nature will simply cease to exist. It will be no answer to say to future generations, `We contaminated our fish stock forever, but we raised our competitiveness for a time.' In any event, such market advantages ultimately level themselves out to a level of the lowest common denominator in which, in terms of the environment, we all lose.Like the MAI, we see the deterioration of sovereignty of Australia. At a time when we look to become a republic, we see one of the most fundamental functions of sovereignty personified in AQIS—our border protection function—being eliminated in favour of economic imperatives which themselves are based on fundamentally flawed premises. Like the MAI, this government is willing to sacrifice everything—the environment, local jobs creation, ethical imperatives and preservation of the natural law itself—just to be seen playing this Russian roulette of globalisation, pandering to the corporate world and reducing Australia to the dumping ground of contamination. I urge this House to reject this deliberate attempt to undermine border protection policies which preserve and enhance our environmental integrity.1128422:35:0011284Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—The weekend before last, I was privileged to attend a ceremony at the Woomera Village, as it was known. That ceremony was to commemorate the unveiling of a national engineering landmark awarded to the Woomera rocket range. I suppose it is almost beyond imagination how you award something that extends from the Indian Ocean, between Broome and Port Hedland, to the centre of South Australia and acknowledge via the Institution of Engineers what has transpired there over the last 50 years or more.Nevertheless, it was a very significant celebration of that period. What became very clear to me was the contribution, probably unheralded and unknown to most Australians, of Woomera to the national effort over the last 50 years, and I suppose that is partly due to the military nature of Woomera. It was a very secretive place when I was growing up and, as that military tradition remains, we do not go out there and sing it from the treetops. Nevertheless, this ceremony a week or so ago recognised Woomera and its contribution to the Australian way of life.I will quote from the wonderful presentation prepared by Robert Breen and Trish Grice from the Institution of Engineers. They quote from Peter Morton's book Fire Across the Desert and acknowledge the experts in the area when they say:. . . a flow of scientific and technical brainpower and people talented in other directions into South Australia. Some settled permanently and enriched the community. It could be said that the Woomera rocket range and Salisbury were to South Australia what the Snowy Mountains scheme was to New South Wales and Victoria. The Snowy Mountains scheme cost $1 billion—no doubt, in dollar terms of that era—and involved 100,000 people. The Anglo-Australia joint project cost $2.5 billion and involved many thousands of people.As time has gone on, the population at Woomera has gone from between 6,000 and 7,000 people back to around 1,000 people now. When you travel around with the very professional guided tour and look at the various sites—the launcher pads and all the paraphernalia that makes up this facility—you become aware of the enormous effort the allies put in there over the last 50 years.It would be remiss of me not to mention one of the great founders of Woomera, the late Len Beadell. He was known and, I believe, greatly loved by many Australians all over Australia. His wife was at the ceremony and she mentioned to me that Len had been all over Australia and had spoken to over 800 groups about his exploits. Many Australians would be aware of the exploits on the Gun Barrel Highway. I think Len Beadell was one of the great founders of Woomera itself.Tomorrow, the Minister for Defence will travel to Woomera and, with the Americans and the local people, will acknowledge in a formal way the conclusion of another chapter at Woomera—that is, the closure of Joint Defence Facility Nurrungar. It was built in 1970 and it has been there for the past 30 years.In the few seconds I have left, I should say that Woomera has had many lives, and the American presence and contribution to that part of the world, I am sure, is greatly acknowledged by the government, by the parliament and by the local people who have shared their lives at Woomera in these last 30 years. There is new life again for Woomera, in the sense that Kistler Aerospace is looking into the future for a rocket launcher facility for the new communications age.1128522:40:0011285Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I rise tonight to invite all members, senators and other officials who are in Parliament House this Wednesday to attend an exhibition called `Showcasing Melbourne's West' being held in the Great Hall on Wednesday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. It has been organised by the Western Melbourne Regional Economic Development Organisation, otherwise known as WREDO. WREDO was established in 1995 with the objective of promoting the competitive benefits of the western suburbs of Melbourne. It works in consultation with local governments and the private sector and has been extremely successful in its work.There are over 30 contributors to the exhibition that is being held on Wednesday in the Great Hall, including exhibitions from the six local councils, businesses and government agencies. Some examples of the major organisations participating in `Showcasing Melbourne's West' are Mobil, AGL, Orica, Powercor, the Docklands Authority, Toyota, VUT, Tenix and the cities of Brimbank, Hobson's Bay and Maribyrnong.The aim of `Showcasing Melbourne's West' is to display the strengths, diversity and economic capability of the region. It is to show what the west has to offer, as well as how much the west has achieved. In order to keep creating opportunities for the future of our region, we need to continue to attract new businesses to the area. The exhibition aims to educate people about our region.The western suburbs of Melbourne, as many of you would know, is the engine room, if you like, for the city of Melbourne. There are 20,000 businesses in the region, and in the last two years the west has recorded a business growth of 6.6 per cent. The population of 500,000 is forecast to grow by 20 per cent in the next 10 years. Forty per cent of Melbourne's industrial land is in the west. The west is a major distribution centre, with access to major transport infrastructure such as the Western Ring Road and City Link and access to major port and national railway networks. The west is within 15 minutes of a curfew-free international airport and 25 minutes from Melbourne's CBD.Employment is still the key issue for us in our region, and it is vital that the region continues to grow and attract new investment and industry. As you would realise from the brief comments I have been able to make, the west is well positioned to continue to develop as a major powerhouse of the Australian economy.Many of you might not have been to the west of Melbourne at all or have much knowledge of the area. The overwhelming image of this region is one of petrochemical plants and a rich industrial history. Although we are proud to claim this, the west is also much more than that. It is a thriving and energetic place both to live and to work.The exhibition is an opportunity to meet the west's industry leaders and to discuss strategies for fostering economic growth in the region. I hope many members and senators will go to this exhibition so they can see what the west of Melbourne has to offer. The exhibition is an opportunity for you to find out more about our region and to discover its rich diversity.Although tourism is not a word that immediately springs to mind when we discuss Melbourne's western suburbs, there is a great capacity for family entertainment and daytime recreation. Scienceworks, historic Williams town and the Footscray Community Arts Centre, just to mention a few features, are all in my electorate of Gellibrand. They are within a short drive from other western suburbs tourist attractions, such as Werribee Park—which includes an open range zoo and mansion—and are very accessible to Geelong and the Great Ocean Road via the Princes Freeway. The Maribyrnong River in the west also has the potential for tourism if it is redeveloped thoughtfully, a matter I have already raised in this House a number of times. Of course, I could not forget the Bulldogs, who will also be attending with an exhibition here on Wednesday.I encourage all members and senators, advisers, public servants, trade officials, business people and any other interested staff, whether ministerial staff, embassy staff or others who will be around and within the House on Wednesday, to come and attend `Showcasing Melbourne's West' and see what we really do have to offer.1128622:45:0011286Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise tonight in relation to Towra Point. On taking off in an aircraft at Sydney from the main north-south runway, you will notice to the right of the aircraft a wetland area called Towra Point. Towra Point is a wetland of international importance. Its location in Australia's largest city has brought with it a cost. Towra Point has suffered from a number of different impacts, most notably, shoreline erosion and a reduction in the number of birds using the area.Towra Point nature reserve is one of nine Ramsar sites in New South Wales and one of 53 in Australia. It is the only site in the Sydney region. Towra Point was designated as a Ramsar site in February 1984 and has satisfied a number of criteria based on uniqueness and representativeness, biodiversity and habitat for endangered species and migratory birds. In fact, it is a migratory bird sanctuary, with birds coming from both Japan and China. Australia is a joint signatory to agreements called JAMBA and CAMBA. Under these agreements, Australia, Japan and China have agreed to preserve and enhance the habitats used by migratory birds listed under the agreements, to engage in a joint research program and to share information.The reserve contains approximately half of the remaining mangroves and 90 per cent of the remaining salt marsh communities in the Sydney region. The wetland communities present include tidal mud flats, which are vital for wading birds, seagrass beds and freshwater ponds.In 1997, Environment Australia and the National Parks and Wildlife Service committed to a cooperative effort to address the management of Towra Point. Funding from the National Wetlands Program and support from the service led to two projects being funded by the federal government: a review of the 1986 plan of management for the reserve and investigation into options for addressing shoreline erosion. An amount of $100,000 was allocated by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Recently, a further $25,000 was matched by the New South Wales government.It is also of historic significance, as this was the site in which fresh water was drawn by Captain Cook and his crew after they had landed at Kurnell. There are problems with the erosion of banks because of the change in the water patterns and tidal flows in Botany Bay with the building of the new third runway.The plan of management and strategic plans together combine to provide a clear mandate of management for the future. Obviously the issue of erosion at Towra Point poses a significant challenge. Having said that about Towra Point, it is clear that it is of international significance. It is one of a limited number of international Ramsar sites. It is the only one located in the city of Sydney. It is also of historical significance. It is important because of the migratory birds that use the site.Given all that, a group called IAC Aviation Technical Services now has a solution to airport problems at Sydney. They have produced a document that has been circulated to members of SACA which contains their solution to the airport problems of Sydney. Guess what their solution is? It is to build another airport right in the middle of Towra Point despite its being one of the very limited number of Ramsar sites in Australia. It is also the centre of the most important environmental and biodiversity process in the whole of Australia.They have proposed that the runway should go in the middle of this site. Never mind the impact on the environment. They are also proposing to use the sandhills of Kurnell to build the runway. This obviously has backing from commercial interests in Sydney. They are pushing it hard. On behalf of my electorate, I have to say, and not only because of the noise implication, that this is just not on. I am very glad to say that Minister Anderson has also said publicly that he will not support such a plan. It would be an environmental disaster on every level if such a plan ever saw the light of day.1128722:50:0011287Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—I will take this opportunity today to talk a bit about the Redlands shire, which forms most of my electorate of Bowman. I am delighted to be here representing the people of Bowman. I am grateful for the fresh opportunity that they have given me to do so. Last Sunday week, 3 October, was the first anniversary of my re-election to this place.My electorate is a magnificent seaside electorate, with more than half of its area under the waves of Moreton Bay. Matthew Flinders sailed through Moreton Bay during his circumnavigation of Australia. We celebrated the bicentenary of this visit in July. In addition to numerous smaller islands, Bowman contains two large islands, namely, Moreton Island and North Stradbroke Island. My electorate of Bowman covers two local authorities: the Wynnum-Manly region of the Brisbane City Council in the north and the Redlands Shire Council in the south-east.I will use the time available to me to talk about the Redlands shire. As the name suggests, it has the richest farming soil imaginable and was `the salad bowl of south-east Queensland', as council CEO Hayden Wright phrases it, for many years until recent housing developments started to change the landscape. I know the soil of the Redlands. My father and I worked that soil during my youth, with the whole family pitching in. We lived at Wellington Point and Capalaba until a major hailstorm in the mid-1950s wiped us out and we moved elsewhere.Redlanders are proud of their farming heritage. The major event each year is the strawberry festival. I was there recently with my local state member, the member for Capalaba, Queensland's Deputy Premier, Jim Elder. The Redlands is a culturally diverse place. The Italian and German families who settled the area over a century ago still live there and actively participate in its civic and cultural life. Indeed, the local mayor is my good friend, Italian born Councillor Eddie Santagiuliana, who is coming up for re-election in early March next year and who I am sure will lead us safely and confidently through another four years. I also hope and trust that my good friends Ray Bucknall, the deputy mayor, Frank Bradley and Murray Elliot will also be returned. They are all terrific representatives for their divisions.I loved the Redlands so much that eventually I made my way back there after travelling throughout Queensland, settling almost exactly halfway between my previous Redlands homes in the lovely suburb of Birkdale. My father and late mother retired happily to the Redlands. I am content in the knowledge that I will eventually end up in the local shire cemetery at Cleveland beside my beloved late mother and beloved late son. There is nowhere else I would desire to live nor any finer electorate anywhere in Australia that I could hope to represent.This year, Redlands Shire Council celebrates its 50th anniversary. On 9 June 1949, the actual anniversary, the Tingalpa and Cleveland shires united to form a new local authority, which has since gone from strength to strength. It is a bit daunting to think that the shire where I live today was born just four days after my own second birthday.When the shire was established, it had a population of around 5,600 people. There is now more than that in almost any of the myriad suburbs which make up the Bowman part of Redland shire—Cleveland, Thornlands, Ormiston, Wellington Point, Birkdale, Thorne side, Capalaba and Alexandra Hills. I understand there are in excess of some 108,000 Redlanders today. People used to come to Wellington Point and to Raby Bay, which is part of Cleveland, from Brisbane for their holidays in the beginning. According to council records, the major issue of the day was the lack of residents. Upon amalgamation, secondary school enrolments were assessed at a possible nine students. Today the Redlands boasts a wide and proud collection of high quality schools, both state and private. I have been lucky enough to visit some of them in recent months to launch my youth information kit.As an outlying coastal region just outside the Brisbane area, roads have always been a key issue for the Redlands. Indeed, this year has seen speculation about the unsuccessfully mooted widening of Finucane Road between Capalaba and Cleveland. It would surprise no-one that the construction of this very road was a major issue when council amalgamated. In 1952 a resident wrote to the local paper saying that it would be a waste of money because the country between the two centres was inhospitable. That same land is now called Alexandra Hills and it is the population heartland of my electorate of Bowman. I return to Minjerribah Moorgumpin, or North Stradbroke Island. Here again Redland Shire Council has demonstrated its visionary thinking. After many years of discussion, a native title agreement was finally signed.I want to mention today a very old friend of mine who sadly died last Thursday night. His name was Merv Borey. He died last Thursday and his funeral will be held tomorrow. Unfortunately, I cannot be there. He was a great old fellow and he was a great Labor stalwart. I want to record his name in the Hansard of this place. On behalf of my wife and myself, I extend to all his family my very deepest sympathy. Redlands is made up of people like the Merv Boreys. I am very proud to be representing them in this parliament.1128822:54:0011288Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—One of the most heartening and inspiring aspects of this job is that we get the chance to witness the great and often unsung endeavours of so many in our community. I have spoken many times in this House about the tremendous achievements of many voluntary workers throughout Forde who really give our local communities their heart and soul. I am pleased to be able to honour them each year with the annual Forde Community Contribution Awards.Last week I was delighted to make an extraordinary presentation of this award to a truly extraordinary group of young people. I want to take this time tonight to bring to the attention of the federal parliament the incredible generosity and community spirit of the young people who are the proud students of Mount Warren Park Primary School. I am very proud of the many schools throughout my electorate. It has been a pleasure to witness the achievements of students throughout the years by attending award evenings, special openings and celebrations, but I can honestly say that I have never been more proud, amazed or moved than I am by the efforts of the students of Mount Warren Park.Earlier this year the students received a letter from a local charity, Community Care and Food Bank Association, who do vital work in helping local residents who are experiencing difficulties. The student council decided to answer Community Care's call for help. With colder weather approaching, they ran a special blanket drive for a week by bringing in blankets they no longer required. At the end of the week, they had a special face painting day where they raised money to buy even more blankets. The day was also a special uniform free day, or mufti so they call it, where instead of money the students were asked to bring in non-perishable food items they could donate.These activities were totally devised and organised by the student council. They were ably assisted by their teacher, student council coordinator, Linda Barnier, and of course supported by their parents. The end result was that this group of primary school students provided more than seven large bags of second-hand blankets, four brand new blankets and more than 40 bags of groceries to Community Care—an enormous help to those less fortunate in our local area. To say that Naomi Morris and Jennifer Carpenter, who run Community Care, were delighted and grateful is a huge understatement. They approached me to nominate the students for special recognition because, quite simply, they had never witnessed such an incredible effort and such remarkable results.But the truly marvellous thing is that this is not at all remarkable for the students of Mount Warren Park. They have a very proud history of giving to the community and of pulling together to help others. When I presented them with their award last Friday at the school parade, they were giving a special donation to a local family of $400 to help with expenses for their disabled son, a former student who was injured in a car accident. The students had raised the money through special hair glittering days on their sports day and by sending special friendship lollies to each other.Last year the students raised a remarkable $5,712.15 for the Mater Children's Oncology Unit to buy toys, games and activities for sick children who are treated in the unit. When one of the school's students, Jessica Willman, was diagnosed with cancer, the student council organised a special summer fair to raise some money to help make things a little brighter for all the children being treated at the unit. I am pleased to say that Jessica made a full recovery and that all the children at the oncology unit are continuing to benefit from the kindness and generosity of the students of Mount Warren Park. There is not enough time to go into the many charities the student council at Mount Warren Park have assisted over the years. They start with the premise that if everybody did a little there would be a lot less suffering in the world and in the community. As Sydney Smith once said, `It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can do only a little.' Fundraising activities are generally kept to just 20c or 50c at Mount Warren school so the students can use their pocket money. In some years up to 20 different charities have received a cheque from the student council.These young people are a shining example for all Australians. I want to take this opportunity on behalf of both the federal government and the local community to thank them most sincerely. Time does not permit to name each and every student, but to school captains Corey Edmunds, Claire Garner, Ashlee Eakins and Mark Petith: keep up the good work; please be assured that your efforts are greatly appreciated. When I see such kindness, community spirit and determination in our young people, I know that Australia's future is in good hands.Question resolved in the affirmative.House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.Notices11290The following notices were given:Mr Anthony to move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent a Minister moving amendments to the Further 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security) Bill 1999 during the consideration of Senate's message No. 195.Mr Albanese to move:That this House:(1) applauds the actions of South Sydney rugby league supporters in demonstrating their support for South Sydney to remain in the National Rugby League competition;(2) notes that South Sydney are financially sound, have superb facilities at the Sydney Football Stadium, have an enormous support base and an outstanding junior team development structure;(3) notes that to abandon any sense of history, spirit and community involvement will destroy rugby league;(4) recognises that local institutions play a central role in defining a sense of community and giving our youth role models to aspire to; and(5) calls on the National Rugby League to include South Sydney in any future competition.Answers to Questions in Writing11291The following answers to questions were circulated:11291(Question No. 869)86911291Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 24 August 1999:(1) Further to his answer to question No. 607 (Hansard , 9 August 1999, page 6323) concerning the Regional Assistance Program (RAP), what guidelines were used to select RAP projects prior to 12 May 1999.(2) Has his Department finalised the New National Policy Framework and the guidelines for RAP; if so (a) what are they and (b) have they applied to the selection of RAP projects since 12 May 1999.(3) Has his Department finalised the development of a formal mechanism to evaluate the impact of RAP projects; if so, (a) who was engaged to develop the mechanism, (b) what was the cost of developing the guidelines and (c) what is the basis of the evaluation tool.11291Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) A copy of the Guide to Applicants for RAP projects used prior to 12 May 1999 is being provided to the honourable member (a copy is also held in the House of Representatives Table Office). In addition, other factors such as unemployment rates, population rates and the presence of disadvantaged groups were also taken into account.(2) Yes.(a) a copy of the new Guidelines for RAP is being separately provided to the honourable member (a copy is also held in the House of Representatives Table Office).(b) the guidelines apply to all projects developed for consideration in September 1999, the first round of the new quarterly approval process which commenced on 1 July 1999.(3) No. My department has advised me that the evaluation mechanism for RAP projects is currently being finalised. The process was put on hold pending finalisation of the new RAP guidelines. However, in relation to (a) and (b) my department engaged a consultant, the Ampersand Group Pty Ltd, to conduct consultations with Area Consultative Committees (ACCs), initially on ACC performance matters and subsequently RAP projects to provide, amongst other things, base data and advice on the design of RAP case studies and evaluation mechanisms. The total amount paid for the consultancy was $110 000.(c) The basis against which the evaluation mechanism will operate is the new RAP guidelines.11291(Question No. 871)87111291Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 24 August 1999:(1) Further to his answer to question No. 585 (Hansard , 10 August 1999, page 6422), what is the nature of his Department's research into the success rate of employment services using Intensive Assistance Job Network to assist job seekers in gaining employment.(2) Since the commencement of Intensive Assistance Job Network, (a) how many intensive assistance commencements have there been and (b) what has been the cost of those commencements.(3) Since the commencement of Intensive Assistance Job Network, how many payments have been made for placements meeting the criteria of placement into a sustainable job and satisfying the conditions for an outcome payment.11291Abbott, Tony MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) As part of both ongoing contract and market management and the formal Evaluation of Job Network, research will be conducted into the success rate of Intensive Assistance. This will include:. ongoing assessment of employment achieved by job seekers after leaving Intensive Assistance. Several measures will be used: . `paid outcomes' which are the payments to Job Network members for placing job seekers in jobs; . `post assistance employment outcomes' which measure the labour force status of job seekers 3 months after leaving assistance; and . `post assistance income support outcomes' which measure the proportion of job seekers no longer seeking employment, or whose allowances have been significantly reduced in the 12 month period after leaving assistance.. case studies of Intensive Assistance, to establish what types of assistance contribute to job seekers gaining employment; and. analysis of the impact of Intensive Assistance on the employment outcomes of job seekers, controlling for other factors (such as job seeker characteristics) known to influence a person's employability.(2) (a) As at 27 August 1999, there had been 407,552 Intensive Assistance commencements since 1 May 1998.(b) As at 27 August 1999, $651.4m had been paid for job seekers commencing Intensive Assistance.(3) As at 27 August 1999, payments had been made for approximately 40,000 interim outcomes and approximately 17,500 final outcomes.11292(Question No. 873)87311292Hollis, Colin, MPMr HollisDH4ThrosbyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 23 August 1999:(1) Has his attention been drawn to an incident off Port Kembla on 19 May 1999 involving an alleged discharge of fertiliser by the bulk carrier MV Ramon Aboitiz .(2) Did the alleged discharge of fertiliser occur in Commonwealth waters.(3) Is the discharge of fertiliser an offence under Commonwealth legislation; if not, why not.(4) Which Commonwealth authorities were involved in the investigation of the alleged discharge of fertiliser.11292Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) A bulk carrier, Ramon Aboitiz , was reported to have washed its cargo holds at least three nautical miles from shore as instructed by the port authorities on 21 May 1999 in preparation for loading grain. Its previous cargo had been fertiliser.(2) The hold washing by Ramon Aboitiz occurred within the twelve nautical mile limit of the territorial sea of Australia.(3) Australia is one of 108 countries that are signatories to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (MARPOL 73/78 Convention) which regulates the disposal of waste from ships. The Convention is applied in Australia by the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983.Under this convention, the disposal of dry bulk cargo residues, such as iron ore, coal or fertiliser, falls within the definition of "garbage". The discharge of cargo residues through deck and hold washing, providing such particles are less than 25 millimetres in diameter, may occur when the ship is at a distance of not less than three nautical miles from the nearest land. Accordingly, a vessel carrying out hold cleaning operations of this type more than three nautical miles off Port Kembla, is complying with the requirements of the International convention.(4) The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) is responsible for administration of the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983, which implements the Convention standards. In the case of Ramon Aboitiz , there was no investigation in relation to its hold cleaning off Port Kembla on 21 May 1999, as reports AMSA received indicated that the operation complied with both national legislation and international convention requirements.11292(Question No. 878)87811292Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 25 August 1999:(1) Has his attention been drawn to some medical specialists charging additional initial consultation fees for every referral required by patients for ongoing treatment of a continuing condition.(2) Do Medicare arrangements state that specialists can charge an initial consultation fee only once in a single course of treatment; if so, (a) does the practice referred to in part (1) contradict those arrangements and (b) what measures can be taken to enforce the Medicare provisions preventing multiple initial consultation charges.11292Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) Medicare arrangements relating to the issuing of specialist referrals state that the receipt by a specialist or consultant physician of a new referral following the expiration of a previous referral for the same condition or conditions, does not necessarily indicate the commencement of a new course of treatment involving the itemisation of an initial consultation. In the continuing management/treatment situation the new referral is to facilitate the payment of benefits at the specialist or consultant physician referred rates rather than the unreferred rates.(a) The arrangements also provide that where the referring practitioner deems it necessary for the patient's condition to be reviewed and the patient is seen by the specialist or the consultant physician outside the currency of the last referral and the patient was last seen by the specialist or the consultant physician more than 9 months earlier, then the attendance following the new referral does initiate a new course of treatment for which Medicare benefit would be payable at the initial consultation rates.(b) The Health Insurance Commission (HIC), which administers the Medicare program on behalf of the Government, routinely audits compliance with the referral requirements.11293(Question No. 890)89011293Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 30 August 1999:(1) Have the Australian and New Zealand Governments consulted on the ratification of the 1989 UNESCO Convention on Technical and Vocational education since his answer to question No. 959 (Hansard , 13 May 1997, page 3407).(2) Has the Australian Government consulted with any other members of the South Pacific Forum.11293Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No, the Australian and New Zealand Governments have to date not consulted on the ratification of the 1989 UNESCO Convention on Technical and Vocational Education.(2) No, the Australian Government has not consulted any other members of the South Pacific Forum.11293(Question No. 894)89411293Gillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard83LLalorALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 30 August 1999:(1) What percentage of the total target population for the Disability Services Program (DSP) resided in the Victorian regions of (a) North Metropolitan, (b) Eastern Metropolitan, (c) Southern Metropolitan, (d) Western Metropolitan, (e) Barwon South West, (f) Grampians Metropolitan, (g) Loddon Mallee, (h) Hume and (i) Gippsland, including the respective sub-regions, as those regions are defined by the Victorian Department of Human Services, in (i) 1997-98 and (ii) 1998-99.(2) What was the percentage distribution of DSP supported employment funding for each of the Victorian regions of (a) North Metropolitan, (b) Eastern Metropolitan, (c) Southern Metropolitan, (d) Western Metropolitan, (e) Barwon South West, (f) Grampians Metropolitan, (g) Loddon Mallee, (h) Hume and (i) Gippsland, including the respective sub-regions, in (i) 1997-9 and (ii) 1998-99.(3) What was the percentage distribution of workers in DSP supported employment programs for each of the Victorian regions of (a) North Metropolitan, (b) Eastern Metropolitan, (c) Southern Metropolitan, (d) Western Metropolitan, (e) Barwon South West, (f) Grampians Metropolitan, (g) Loddon Mallee, (h) Hume and (i) Gippsland, including the respective sub-regions, in (i) 1997-98 and (ii) 1998-99.(4) What was the percentage distribution of DSP Employment Placement funding for each of the Victorian regions of (a) North Metropolitan, (b) Eastern Metropolitan, (c) Southern Metropolitan, (d) Western Metropolitan, (e) Barwon South West, (f) Grampians Metropolitan, (g) Loddon Mallee, (h) Hume and (i) Gippsland, including the respective sub-regions, in (i) 1997-98 and (ii) 1998-99.(5) What was the percentage distribution of workers in DSP Employment Placement programs for each of the Victorian regions of (a) North Metropolitan, (b) Eastern Metropolitan, (c) Southern Metropolitan, (d) Western Metropolitan, (e) Barwon South West, (f) Grampians Metropolitan, (g) Loddon Mallee, (h) Hume and (i) Gippsland, including the respective sub-regions, in (i) 1997-98 and (ii) 1998-99.(6) What was the percentage distribution of funding for advocacy under the DSP across the Victorian regions of (a) North Metropolitan, (b) Eastern Metropolitan, (c) Southern Metropolitan, (d) Western Metropolitan, (e) Barwon South West, (f) Grampians Metropolitan, (g) Loddon Mallee, (h) Hume and (i) Gippsland, including the respective sub-regions, in (i) 1997-98 and (ii) 1998-99.(7) What was the percentage distribution of workers in DSP employment programs across the Victorian regions of (a) North Metropolitan, (b) Eastern Metropolitan, (c) Southern Metropolitan, (d) Western Metropolitan, (e) Barwon South West, (f) Grampians Metropolitan, (g) Loddon Mallee, (h) Hume and (i) Gippsland, including the respective sub-regions, in (i) 1997-98 and (ii) 1998-99.(8) What was the total funding for the DSP for each of the Victorian regions of (a) North Metropolitan, (b) Eastern Metropolitan, (c) Southern Metropolitan, (d) Western Metropolitan, (e) Barwon South West, (f) Grampians Metropolitan, (g) Loddon Mallee, (h) Hume and (i) Gippsland, including the respective sub-regions, in (i) 1997-98 and (ii) 1998-99.11294Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) to (8) The information requested is not readily available. To collect and assemble it would be a major task and I am not prepared to authorise this to happen.