1999-10-123914REPS1129501999-10-12Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Ministerial Arrangements1129514:01:0011295Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, the Minister for Defence will be absent from question time today, and questions relating to defence matters should be directed to the Assistant Minister for Defence, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and, in relation to other matters for which he takes questions in this place, questions should be directed to the Minister for Sport and Tourism.Questions Without Notice112951129511295Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Given Indonesia's imminent revocation of control over East Timor, what interim arrangements does Australia propose for the Timor Gap Zone of Cooperation to ensure that the Elang-Kakatua oilfield continues production and that the $2.1 billion Bayu-Undan liquids and gas project proceeds as planned? Are you aware of the recent statement of the Indonesian Minister for Mines and Energy that Indonesia will formally revoke the Timor Gap Treaty and, in doing so, presumably shut down the Australia-Indonesia Joint Authority for the Zone of Cooperation? Is it not also the case that the Indonesian technical director of the joint authority has declared Indonesia may well assert a continuing claim to parts of the Timor Gap? What action has the government taken to clarify Indonesia's intentions and to discourage disputation which may jeopardise the project and this substantial future revenue source for East Timor?11295Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—First, I thank the honourable member for his question and for raising this important issue. When I first met Xanana Gusmao and some of the East Timorese way back early this year, this was, even then, one of the issues on our agenda; so I want to make it clear that the government has, over quite a long period of time, developed a strategy to achieve a smooth transition of the Timor Gap Treaty from Indonesia to East Timor—in consultation with, of course, the key state and territory governments in this country as well as with industry.Before 30 August, the date of the ballot, the government informally discussed the issue with key international players and not just with the East Timorese. The exact date on which I discussed the treaty with Xanana Gusmao was 25 February. We did not think it was appropriate to discuss the issue too publicly and too openly before the 30 August ballot, because obviously that would have pre-empted the outcome of the ballot and we did not want to give the public impression of any expectation of how we thought the ballot would go. Since 30 August, the government has been implementing its transition strategy, including through talks with the United Nations and the East Timorese representatives. My officials have discussed it with Jose Ramos Horta and, just last week, with Mr Mari Alkatiri, who is a senior CNRT official whom the honourable member may have met. He is also an energy expert for the CNRT and has confirmed to officials a desire to move forward on future treaty arrangements. We see this as consistent with an early and smooth transition providing a solid basis for continued long-term investment in the Timor Gap. Some adjustments will have to be made to the treaty, of course—primarily in the arrangements for the joint authority, which the honourable member referred to in his question. It is the joint authority which manages the rights and responsibilities under the treaty on a day-to-day basis.In any case, I can report to the honourable member and to the House that we are happy with the way the discussions are proceeding. We think that the Indonesian government will be very cooperative in the process of transition. Equally, all the signs are very positive—and have been right from my meeting with Xanana Gusmao on 25 February—from the East Timorese as well. So we do not foresee any significant difficulties, but obviously there will be the sorts of transitional issues that the honourable member alluded to that will have to be concluded. I might just make one other point as well. After the MPR has passed its vote East Timor will move to be a United Nations territory and so we have been discussing this issue with the United Nations in particular because it is they who will have to administer the treaty as well in the interim period.1129611296Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—My question is also addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the Australian government's efforts to assist internally displaced people in both East and West Timor?11296Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Menzies for his question and for his interest. Members of the House will be aware that there are a very large number of displaced East Timorese in both East and West Timor. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that somewhere between 150,000 and 230,000 displaced people are in West Timor. While it is difficult to quantify, there are reports of around 200,000 East Timorese displaced within East Timor itself.Today the government is announcing a $6 million package of additional assistance to displaced East Timorese people. We are very concerned about the conditions of these people—in particular, leading up to the wet season, which is about to begin. So this assistance will address some of those issues. We are providing emergency shelter materials. Family kits will be provided, which will comprise items such as plastic sheeting, timber and tools, as well as soap and water containers. There will be enough kits to provide basic shelter for around 18,000 people. We are also ready to assist those who have the capacity to begin to support their own food needs. Now is a very low point in the agricultural cycle. We will be providing 30,000 seed and tool packs through Australian non-government organisations. The government will provide funding and logistical support to help the United Nations World Food Program activities—and that includes purchasing 10 four-wheel drive trucks to allow the delivery of relief assistance to remote areas during the wet season and continued support for air and sea transport services between Darwin and East Timor which back up the ongoing relief effort.As I said at the beginning, we are very concerned about the humanitarian situation in West Timor as well. We do welcome the recent repatriation flights from West Timor as a first step, but we continue to encourage the Indonesian government to permit voluntary repatriation. Of this package we are announcing today, $2 million will be directed to displaced people in West Timor, including funding for United Nations High Commission for Refugees repatriation programs. It will provide for basic needs of displaced persons living in camps or within host communities in West Timor until they are able to return to their homes. The task of recovery for these people will be difficult. The government calls on the international community to join with Australia in helping these people. But we are determined to provide practical and effective assistance to the East Timorese people.1129611296Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. I ask whether he has seen the recent comments of small business spokesman Rob Bastion:We're most concerned about the proposal to tax trusts as companies. But that's not set to come in until 2001, so we have time to lobby the government to try and change that.Treasurer, given that you have already put this measure off for a year, costing up to $900 million, will you guarantee not to water it down further?11296Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the first part of the question is no. In relation to the second part of the question, this was the government that came up with the policy of entity taxation. We remain committed to introducing it. Needless to say, I would point out that in 13 years of government the Australian Labor Party showed not one whit of interest in this subject—not one whit of interest. As per usual, it took the coalition to deal with the legacies of Labor failure and mismanagement. The Labor Party only ever got interested when it had the capacity to do nothing. When it had the capacity to do something, it showed not one whit of interest. It got interested in this issue only once the capacity to do anything about it had completely gone from it after 13 years.1129711297Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, would you inform the House of the benefits for small business, farmers and families flowing from reductions in capital gains tax?11297Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Kooyong for his question. Like other members of the Liberal and National parties, he will be very interested in the benefits to small business from cutting capital gains tax. On this side of the House, where there is a deep commitment to the small business community of Australia, we make no apology for cutting Labor's capital gains tax on small business. Labor was the party that introduced capital gains tax—some of the highest capital gains taxes in the developed world—and it appears that Labor is going to fight to retain them.On this side of the House we have announced real provisions to help small business. The first thing we say for small business people is that when they sell their business—in which they have wrapped up all of their life, all of their savings and all of their work—only 50 per cent of the assets of that business will be taxable. That is an extension to the small business owners of this country. In addition to that, for the 50 per cent that will be taxable, the government intend to introduce a 50 per cent disregard in relation to the gain. We are waiting, of course, for the Labor Party to announce their position as they desperately search around for a policy on this issue, but it appears that, as on most occasions, because they are unable to articulate a policy, they will say, `No, no, no. Vote no, no, no,' and oppose any reform.The small business people of Australia will be interested to know that Labor supports higher taxes on their business. The coalition wants to cut the capital gains on the small businesses and farmers of Australia. In addition to that, if they hold an asset for 15 years and they are retiring—a farmer, for example, selling the property to go into town on retirement—under the coalition proposal, which the Labor Party will not support, the sale of that asset will be capital gains tax free. And won't that be great news for the farmers of Australia! In addition to that, as a result of the government's share ownership proposals, 32 per cent of Australians directly own shares. In the sale of the first tranche of Telstra, 560,000 Australians purchased shares. I believe that in relation to that first tranche something like 75 per cent of Telstra employees took up shares. These are Telstra employees who own shares. The Labor Party wants to tax them on the gain at 48c—Telstra employees taxed at 48c on the Telstra shares they took out.Thirty-one per cent of Australians now owning shares need to know this: the Labor Party wants to tax them at full marginal rates on the gains on those shares. The Labor Party, first having tried to prevent them taking up shares, now wants to tax them for the privilege of having taken them up—modern socialism in the hands of the Labor Party: first of all, try to prevent them getting a saving and, if they manage to slip through the net, try and tax the saving at rates of 48 per cent. On this side of the House, we have a policy to encourage share ownership. We congratulate those Telstra employees who have taken out shares and we think they deserve tax relief on their savings. This is the side of the House that wants to deliver benefits to the Telstra employees and to the millions of Australians that now have shares in Australian companies.1129711297Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Treasurer. Treasurer, given your insistence that Ralph's findings be accepted at face value, do you accept his finding that your crackdown on the fringe benefits tax exemption for charities is flawed because, rather than save over $200 million per year, it will actually cause a significant loss to revenue? Treasurer, are you relaxed about this revenue loss or are you prepared to consider an alternative?11297Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As I recall the Ralph findings, he said that you should not have any exemption for charities. The government has a provision for $17,000, grossed up value, being exempt for charities. I make the point to the charities that it excludes all of the things that are not subject to FBT in the first place—it does not apply to their computers, or their laptop computers, or their briefcases or their airline memberships. All of the excluded benefits are not taken into account in relation to that $17,000. It means that charities can still give a car, completely tax-free, plus about another $1,000 of benefits. Mr Ralph said nothing. The government has a policy of a grossed up value of $17,000.DT4CREANMr Crean—He did actually say something.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Ralph said they should not have any exemption and that, if you wanted to help charities, you should instead send them grants. That is what Mr Ralph said.DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh! I see.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The point I am making is that the government has a more generous treatment than is recommended by Ralph. From the interjections of the member for Hotham, I take it he disagrees with the governments' policy. Mr Speaker, I am giving him the opportunity to answer—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer knows—CT4Mr COSTELLO—This is the first time I have ever known him to be silent in the House of Representatives: you ask him what his policy is and you stop the interjections, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Treasurer, I have the floor. The Treasurer knows that he is not free to invite the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to respond to questions. I invite him to respond to the question he was asked.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I assume that the Labor Party will oppose this policy, as they oppose all policies. Just before they make a formal announcement opposing the government's policy on this, and hold out to the charities their opposition to it, let me say that I went back and got the Labor Party policy in the last election. Right after the part where they promise to increase capital gains tax on pre-1985 assets, and right after the part where the member for Hotham promised to put higher taxes on four-wheel drives, because he was going to drive the Toorak tractors off the road, the Labor Party said:A Labor government will reform the fringe benefits tax to limit the value of FBT benefits that can be provided by certain institutions which enjoy concessional FBT treatment to $17,000 of grossed up benefit.So he walks to the dispatch box to query his own policy. Bring back Gareth!DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer has concluded his answer; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.1129811298Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would the minister advise the House what progress has been made with the government's new apprenticeships initiative in rural and regional Australia? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?11298Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Longman for his question and I acknowledge his deep interest in providing young people in his electorate with good-quality training opportunities leading on to real jobs. Earlier this year, I announced the rural and regional new apprenticeships initiative, which delivered on the government's commitment to provide a much-needed boost to training and jobs in rural and regional Australia. This initiative provided an additional $1,000 payment to employers of new apprentices in occupations where there were skill shortages. I am pleased to inform the House that following this initiative there has been a boost of new apprenticeship numbers in rural and regional Australia. Between January and June of this year, there have been over 6,400 new apprenticeship registrations in occupations eligible for the rural and regional new apprenticeship incentive payment. That is a 14 per cent increase on the number of registrations over the same period in 1998. The government expects that some 30,000 new apprentices over a five-year period will benefit from this initiative.While the government is expanding job opportunities and quality training for young Australians, there is a deathly silence on the other side of the House. I was asked whether I was aware of alternative policies. We saw what the member for Batman put forward when he was in the shadow portfolio—not a single question or issue raised in this House during question time since the election. Of course, that is what we would expect from the member for Batman, a failed ACTU president. They still have not got over the disappointment at the failure of their attempt to wreck the apprenticeship system. The record of the member for Batman presents a challenge to the member for Dickson. She is known for her lack of portfolio activity but it is very hard to believe that she will not be tempted at some time to ask a question in this House.Her first press release confirmed that she is going to follow in the footsteps of the member for Batman. She did not mention apprenticeships or training when she took on the portfolio. It was apparently beneath her notice. When she was interviewed on the Sunday program, she was actually quite explicit about the strategy that she intends to pursue. She said:I think that there are some rules that seem to operate when I open my mouth.The reporter said: `Yeah.' The member for Dickson went on to say:I'll just have to keep my mouth closed.So there we have a declaration of intent that there will be no policy from the member for Dickson on apprenticeships and quality training. Vocational education and training is vital to Australia's future. This Howard government has breathed new life into the apprenticeship system. We have rebuilt the apprenticeship system after Labor put the ACTU in charge and very nearly wrecked it. Now we are increasing opportunities for quality training for young people in regional and rural Australia, and on the other side of the House there is nothing but a crashing policy vacuum which reflects the lack of leadership on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. 1129911299Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given your undertaking at the 1998 Constitutional Convention that, should it fail to express a clear view on a preferred republic model, the people would be asked to vote in a plebiscite on alternatives, and given that less than half the delegates at that convention supported the parliamentary appointment model, why was no plebiscite held? Why is this unpopular model now being put to referendum at great expense? With opinion polls consistently showing that about 70 per cent of people want a directly elected President model, where will you take the republic issue if the proposed model is rejected on 6 November?11299Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The member for Calare will be aware of the history of this matter that: before the 1996 election I undertook that, if the coalition won, we would hold a Constitutional Convention. We delivered on that commitment. I was a participant in that convention, along with many others in this chamber. The announcement I made at the end of the convention that we would put the model that received clear support at that convention to the Australian people was greeted with widespread support, including from the leaders of the Australian Republican Movement, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. I say with great respect to the member that any attempt now, months after that event, to pretend that at the time what I announced the government were going to do was not in accordance with the wishes of the convention is completely wrong. This is a matter on which the government parties are allowed a free vote. I do not intend to pass any comment on the merits of the arguments for or against the question because I do not believe, given the free vote stance of the government, question time is an appropriate forum to do that, but I will talk on process. I would remind the member for Calare that at every stage I and the government have been totally candid with the Australian people.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You've been a sneak. That's what you've been.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Banks is warned!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I have never disguised my own position from the Australian people. I have never walked away from the commitment I made to have a convention. We are having a referendum on 6 November. I am not going to answer a hypothetical question. As is implicit in the fact that the government is holding a referendum, it will abide by the outcome. This is a matter for the Australian people and the Australian people alone to decide. I will accept and respect whatever decision the Australian people make, as I should.1130011300Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, what action is the government taking to ensure that businesses do not profiteer in the lead-up and transition to a new tax system?11300Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Macquarie for his question and for his considerable help and expertise in relation to tax matters. He has raised with me the question of the powers to monitor price increases, particularly to ensure that businesses do not use tax changes as an opportunity to increase prices. The government has amended the Trade Practices Act to prevent price exploitation in the lead-up to the new tax system with fines of up to $10 million for companies and $500,000 for individuals who try to use the tax changes to profiteer. In addition, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission can serve a notice on a company when it believes there may be price exploitation and the company must justify its position. The ACCC has power to monitor prices generally and particular industries can be declared by the Treasurer. In those circumstances, the industries concerned have to give prior notification of price changes.Some members have raised with me the question of insurance companies and some of the insurance premiums that are now being charged with tax. It is fair to say that that portion of an insurance contract to be performed after 1 July 2000 is subject to GST. In relation to that part of the contract and that part of the contract only, there would be a liability. Some members have raised with me the question of whether insurers are passing this matter on properly. In response to their inquiries, I have had discussions with the Chairman of the ACCC, Professor Fels, who has already had some discussions with insurers. But I have asked him to look at some of the complaints that have been forwarded to me and to have some discussions with the insurance companies to make sure that they—who, I admit, have had some bad losses through catastrophes such as the Sydney hailstorm quite recently—do not use tax changes as a cover for recovering losses or raising premiums.The ACCC has already written on one occasion to the Insurance Council of Australia indicating that some of the comments made on behalf of that organisation have been unhelpful and could lead to suspicion about price fixing. That letter was written back in April 1999. As a result of the representations that have been made to me, I have asked Professor Fels to have another look at the insurance industry. Professor Fels will be reporting to me. He has the full panoply of powers that the government has given to him under the Trade Practices Act and, in addition, can recommend a declaration in relation to a certain industry. So to those members who have raised this particular issue with me, I thank them very much for doing so. I can indicate to them that steps are already in train in response to those representations, and I will certainly be reporting to those members concerned the outcome of those investigations.Distinguished Visitors1130011300Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Before I call the member for Grayndler, I know he would want to join me in acknowledging that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. John Murray and his wife, Maureen. Mr Murray is the Speaker of the New South Wales state parliament. On behalf of all members, I welcome him and his party to the parliament.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice113011130111301Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Is the minister aware that there are over 160,000 Australians who live permanently in mobile homes, caravans or manufactured home parks and that as at the last census 6,649 live in his marginal electorate of Richmond? Does the minister support the GST being applied to these residents' site fees? Has the minister received any complaints from constituents in his marginal electorate following his comments in the Daily News last week that `site fees are not the same as rent' and that this is `nothing new'?11301Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I would like to thank the member for Grayndler, who has a keen interest in coming to the wonderful electorate of Richmond. I am not quite sure whether you are coming there for holidays. But I am fully aware of the rights of people in mobile home parks. As you correctly point out, I have many residents in my electorate who have chosen the lifestyle of living in mobile home parks, and there are many very good citizens. As they well know, prior to the last election we were very open and transparent about the GST, particularly the relationship that it had to rent and particularly the relationship that it had to mobile home parks. The facts are, and perhaps I can reiterate them for you, that as you are no doubt aware division 87 of the ANTS provides concessional treatment for long-term commercial accommodation. It allows the GST to be charged on 50 per cent of long-term accommodation prices. This extra charge will be offset by the ability of the operator to claim input tax credits for a GST paid on inputs. However, in some cases where commercial premises provide no or very little short-term accommodation, the government will provide some flexibility. Park owners, as you well know, have the option to charge it or not to charge it.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I ask for the minister to table the document from which he was so copiously quoting.4K6CAUSLEYMr Causley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: if the honourable member read his mail, he would have it in the mail.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is not a point of order, as the member for Page is well aware. I ask the minister whether he was quoting from confidential papers. The minister indicates that he was.1130111301Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, would you inform the House of recent trends in both job creation and work force participation? Would you also inform the House of the government's response to any alternative strategies to the government's plans to reduce the level of unemployment?XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—I can see it coming.11301Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Dunkley for his question. The member for Dickson says she can see it coming. There are serious issues which this government is dealing with.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—You are predictable, Pete.WI4Mr REITH—When it comes to employment and unemployment, I take it as a compliment when the member for Melbourne says that we are predictable. We are constantly on this issue. We consider this a very important issue. We give it the highest priority. We have policies on this issue which we are determined to press ahead with because we know that good policies implemented means good results. We have out the latest numbers from the ABS on jobs. I am pleased to report to the House that a record number of Australians are now in jobs—a total of 8.831 million people, according to those numbers released last week. Since coming to office, the coalition has seen the creation of 526,900 jobs. The unemployment rate is now at 7.4 per cent. The last figure did blip up a bit but that was because the participation rate moved up as more people took up opportunities.DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, I see.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the minister has the call. WI4Mr REITH—Well, what you see is that 81,000 jobs created or thereabouts in the last two or three months—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—That's two-thirds—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition!WI4Mr REITH—which represents a very strong—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Two-thirds!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The chair exercises a great deal of tolerance to interjections because it is part of the nature of the parliament, but for the chair to actually nominate someone, ask for their attention and then be specifically ignored is intolerable and will be treated that way no matter what office that person holds.WI4Mr REITH—Mr Speaker, I have had interjections about how things were when Labor were in office. In the 3½ years since we have been in office, 526,000 jobs have been created. Let's be generous to them: let's compare that with Labor's last six years. In that time, only 396,000 jobs were created. In terms of jobs per month, in the time that we have been in office 12½ thousand jobs a month have been created.DT4CREANMr Crean—We had 20,000.WI4Mr REITH—You want the figure? In your last six years in office, 5,800 jobs were created per month. That is not to say that we are satisfied with progress. We are not. More needs to be done. And the people who are standing in the way of further reforms are the very people sitting on the front bench on the other side—most of them former trade union hacks sent up here as a reward for service in the trade union movement. The shadow minister did have something to say. She put out a set of numbers. When we corrected her numbers for the numerous errors—that is a little lesson to be learnt; you want to get your facts straight—compared to February 1996, the number of unemployed males, females and young people is down and the number of long-term unemployed is down. Even on the question of regions—and I think more needs to be done in terms of regional development—the shadow minister said that there were 235 areas—Mrs Kernot interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson!WI4Mr REITH—Right, just to get your facts straight, it is actually 227. But the interesting comparison is that that figure was 393 when Labor left office. So, again, progress is being made. Further progress will be made if we can see the passage of reforms that will help. For example, for small business, the change to unfair dismissals would help create more jobs. If we could have a better capital gains tax regime for small business—which you cannot support; you lack the leadership to support a sensible measure—that would be good for small business, that would mean more jobs. Lastly, what we would like to see from the opposition is for them to actually have a policy on this issue. We had a promise that we would have a policy position on employment by the end of September. What do we see? A statement from the Leader of the Opposition saying, `Oh, no, I have got too many balls in the air at the moment; it will have to wait until after the referendum.' People who are unemployed are sick of waiting for you. For 3½ years you have been leader; it is about time you showed a bit of leadership, actually had a policy and were prepared to stand up for the unemployed in this country.1130211302Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, do you recall the comments made in February this year by Guides Australia Chief Commissioner, Mrs Mandy Macky, who said the GST was `a tax on six- year-olds'? Further, she went on to say that the effect of the GST would be `devastating and the rise in fees would certainly reduce our membership by many thousands'. Are these valid concerns the reason why Guides Australia was de-funded on 1 October? Minister, now that you have re-funded the National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children, as announced by Senator Newman today, will you now re-fund all the other organisations that were defunded last Friday?11303Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—This initiative is properly that of the Office of the Status of Women—YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Were you a guide?SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Yes, I was a guide. The point of the matter is that the manner in which funding has been conducted to support women's organisations has been changed, in that there are three peak groups who are now receiving $100,000 each, as distinct from a greater number who were previously receiving $50,000 each. Those three are the National Council of Women, the YWCA and the Federation of Business and Professional Women. There is a further $200,000, because the amount of funding for women's organisations remains the same, at $500 million—Mr Swan interjecting—SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—I beg your pardon—$500,000; I added a nought. There is a further $200,000 which will be available for project funding for which groups such as the Girl Guides will no doubt be applying. The $300,000 for the three peak groups is designed to give an effective voice to those groups, so that the criticism that was previously heard that the funding was not great enough to carry out proper secretariat functions has now been met.1130311303May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Would the minister advise the House how the government is addressing social security fraud? In particular, what programs are in place to ensure that social security fraud is minimised?11303Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I would like to thank the member for McPherson, who does a mighty job as my neighbouring MP, for her insightful question. I would like to inform the House that later today I will be tabling the 1998-99 Centrelink compliance report. This report shows that over $232 million worth of social security payments owed to Centrelink have been identified by computer data matching programs. During the 1998-99 financial year, there were over 3,000 convictions for welfare fraud. Centrelink's compliance activities resulted in savings to the Australian taxpayer of $20.9 million per week. Over a quarter of a million payments were either cancelled or reduced as a result of Centrelink's compliance activities, equating to almost $280 million. These figures certainly highlight that the government's action on social security fraud is achieving results.Although this government is committed to reducing the cost of fraud and overpayments to taxpayers, I emphasise that this government is equally committed to prevention, and prevention, as we know, is always better than cure. This government takes seriously its duty to ensure the integrity of the social security system. We have a duty not only to the Australian taxpayer but also to the vast majority of Centrelink customers, who are honest and have genuine entitlements to social security payments. Later today, I will be tabling this document.1130311303Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, do you recall buying a bottle of alcoholic food essence in a Canberra supermarket nearly two weeks ago and advising the House that you had written to state and territory ministers requesting that they take action that `will mean that these products will very quickly disappear from supermarket shelves, as far as I am concerned, the sooner the better'. Are you aware that just this morning I was able to buy this bottle of alcoholic essence—right next to the ice-cream—at a Canberra supermarket? Minister, given that you have given national publicity to this serious health risk, why have you not followed through with action to remove the product from supermarket shelves as a matter of urgency?11303Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—What a pleasant change to get at least one serious question on health from the Labor Party. As I recollect, I wrote to the ministers on that day. I cannot remove the essences; the states and territories have to.Mr Griffin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Bruce!8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—I also spoke to the ACT Minister for Health and Community Care to tell him what I had done and to alert him to the fact. It is up to states and territories to do it.Mr Griffin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Bruce is defying the chair!1130411304Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Minister, would you inform the House how the Natural Heritage Trust is working to restore, enhance and protect the natural native environment, particularly in Townsville and Thuringowa and in electorates throughout Australia?11304Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I thank the member for his question. It is interesting to note that, in my travels recently to announce various NHT grants, I announced $14 million for Tasmania. A very interesting point was just made that it was going elsewhere, but not one of the Labor members in Tasmania bothered at any time to make any representations to get that money for their constituents. When the Prime Minister first advised the Australian people of our intention to sell one-third of Telstra, he made another very significant promise, which was to use the proceeds for debt reduction—that is, the reduction of the huge fiscal debt accumulated by the previous government, and the debt contemporary Australia owed to the environment. That promised funding was initially $1 billion and now stands at $1.5 million following the Telstra 2 announcement.One of the largest problems facing Australia today in the environmental area, and about which you, Mr Speaker, have issued constant warnings, is dryland and the associated waterway salinity. On 3 August 1999, Dr Harris of the CSIRO publicly estimated that the cost to overcome this problem over the years was in excess of $30 billion. It is a matter of statistical fact that this is almost exactly the sum of money this government has been obliged to spend in just four budgets to pay the interest on the Beazley borrowing binge. It is only this government which, in repaying that debt, is freeing up the funding needed to address many problems, including those associated with the environment. How people on that side of the House see the environment as a joke, I would like to know.Opposition members interjecting—SJ4Mr TUCKEY—Oh, yes; it is a joke to say things about the environment.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has been doing a great job at addressing his remarks through the chair, and I would invite him to continue to do so.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—Through announcements made by Senator Hill, Minister Truss, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Environment and Heritage, Dr Stone, and me, the government has recently announced funding for the third year of the Natural Heritage Trust program. Over $190 million in funding for over 2,700 projects throughout Australia has been announced so far for 1999-2000. By far the bulk of these funds will be spent in regional and rural Australia for obvious reasons.DT4CREANMr Crean—Largely in seats held by government members.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—Yes, like the $14 million that went to Tasmania.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—Last week I was present also in the electorate of Herbert, which is very ably represented by the member who asked this question, and in the adjoining electorates of Kennedy and Leichhardt to present certificates to the local community and the people they employee who will benefit from this round of funding. In the electorate of Herbert, a single grant of $164,400 will be provided for eight projects, which includes $7,000 to protect, repair and maintain the Serpentine Lagoon Wetland and $72,000 to enhance the biodiversity, habitat and connectivity between areas of high conservation value along the riparian areas of the Ross River. In the electorate of Leichhardt, $200,200 will be provided for six projects. This grant includes $36,000 to continue the implementation of the Trinity Inlet Freshwater Creeks Revegetation Strategy and $34,300 to establish a North Queensland farm forestry development committee, which has great prospects.Ongoing funding of almost $400,000 was presented in Cooktown for research and the reduction of the feral pig population. We were informed while we were there that that population is estimated to be between two million and nine million animals. When you look at the insects, frogs and everything that that research has identified these animals are eating, you do not wonder why we have a reduction in those indigenous species. One pig, when captured and dissected, was found to have some 300 frogs in it.The Natural Heritage Trust is the largest environmental rescue effort ever undertaken by an Australian government. This has been achieved through a partnership between the Commonwealth government, the states, local government and particularly community groups and individuals, who have contributed a vast effort in this regard. This is a program that gets people on the ground to identify the problems and to contribute personally with the aid of federal funding. It is certainly no joke, but it is another area of policy vacuum from those opposite.1130511305Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, do you still maintain that the suspect MRI contracts were signed months before the budget? Is it not the case that many of the contracts were dated as being signed between your meeting with the radiologists on 6 May 1998 and the budget on 12 May 1998? Is it not the case that one of these contracts was even signed within six hours of the budget itself? Will you now finally table the dates on these contracts so the public can judge whether you are hiding your responsibility for this leak?Opposition members interjecting—11305Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—Someone has had a bad lunch over there. I thank the honourable member for her question. I have never main tained that all contracts were signed months before the budget. I have maintained that some were. I think in the past I said that I did not know the distribution at the time. As the Health Insurance Commission said at the Senate estimates committee, to release the dates would be counterproductive to their investigation, and I intend to allow the investigation to run its full term. As for the fact that any leak came from me, I completely repudiate that. Those sorts of gutter tactics will not get you anywhere.1130511305Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—My question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Can the minister advise as to the recent trends in inbound tourism to Australia and what the government is doing to ensure that official forecasts of visitor arrivals are achieved?11305Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I applaud the member's interest in tourism, which is one of the largest foreign dollar generators for this country. In August 1999 we saw a 10 per cent increase in our inbound tourism numbers from August last year. That has been a major return to growth in inbound tourism for Australia. This is showing a clear recovery from the Asian crisis. We have invested $359 million in the Australian Tourist Commission for our promotions overseas, as well as around $30 million in annual funding to our tourism operators under the Export Market Development Grants. I encourage all tourism operators to have a look at the EMDG scheme as a boost to their export potential. It is evident already that Australia is well on target to achieving 8.4 million visitors to Australia in the year 2008, which sets up this industry to have an export potential of $33 billion.1130511305Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Does the minister recall telling the House on 27 August that he would be `deeply concerned' if he knew someone at the meeting with the College of Radiologists had a conflict of interest? Minister, were you not aware that these doctors were all practising radiologists and that some had expanding MRI practices? If you were deeply concerned, why did you not ask everyone present to declare whether they had a conflict of interest? If you told them nothing of commercial value, why were you deeply concerned and why did you swear them to secrecy?11306Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I do not know how I would be expected to know the nature of the practices of everyone meeting with me. They were a group of people put up by the College of Radiologists.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne is warned!Mr Beazley interjecting—8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—A stupid, buffoonish statement comes from the gasbag of the Leader of the Opposition. Quite frankly, it just shows you do not know the variation in radiology. You do not understand health.1130611306Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. What is the government doing to support people living and working in rural, regional and remote communities, all of which are represented in my electorate of Parkes?11306Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. He has a real interest in helping rural and regional communities that are facing very real periods of adjustment cope with that adjustment and find new economic and job futures for the people who live in those regions. Last week, the government announced that 13 regional communities would benefit from an injection of $1.6 million for a series of programs under the government's Rural Plan program. Rural Plan is part of Agriculture—Advance Australia, which is the very substantial package that the government, in its first term, put in place of the old Rural Adjustment Scheme, which was widely seen as outmoded and inadequate.This very substantial Agriculture—Advance Australia package included Rural Plan, which is all about supporting grassroots efforts by communities to deal with the changing economic and industry circumstances they con front and putting in place new plans, new ways forward and new strategies for more diverse and sustainable rural industries. In short, it allows them to find ways to kick-start their local economies, particularly in those areas that have been hard hit by low commodity prices and shifts in demand, such as we have very sadly witnessed in recent years in the wool industry.Examples under the latest round include funding of $120,000 for the Planning for the 21st Century program in Loddon shire in Victoria. In the electorate of the honourable member who asked the question, the Barwon-Darling Alliance project received $120,000 to put together a strategic plan to foster the development of primary and processing industries in that region. I share some of that region with the member, in my own electorate, and levels of unemployment are tragically high, particularly among young people and indigenous people. Everything that can be done to identify new industries and new opportunities ought to be done, and we are certainly doing what we can to help. In the electorate of the member for Hume, the Lachlan Valley Horticultural Network has been funded with $150,000 to help agricultural production gear more effectively for domestic and export performance. In the electorate of Lyons in Tasmania there is the Derwent Valley Economic Renewal program. Rural Plan is another example of the kind of program that we are putting in place—a whole range of programs and a whole range of tools are being made available to rural and regional Australia at a time of real pressure and adjustment.1130611306Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Health and Aged Care following his non-answer to my previous question. Minister, didn't you inquire as to whether any of the radiologists that you were negotiating with had MRI practices, and didn't your departmental brief outline the commercial interests of those you were negotiating with? If you were deeply concerned about any conflict of interest, why did you not ask everyone present to declare whether or not they had such a conflict? And if you told them nothing of commercial value, why were you so deeply concerned and why did you swear them to secrecy?11307Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—Because there had already been a three-month negotiation process with the department and this was the end of it. If anything like that was to be declared, it should have been at the beginning of the process and not at the end.1130711307Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Minister, could you advise the House on what steps the government is taking to promote community recognition of the centenary of the Boer War?11307Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the Chief Government Whip for his question. I am sure that we could have had more in the parade if we had had more horsemen in the House. Over the last three days, the people of Canberra have witnessed members of the Imperial Bushmen's Contingent from all the eastern mainland states coming here to commemorate the commencement of the Boer War 100 years ago. The Boer War is a significant part of our nation's history. Some 16,000 young Australians went off to the Boer War and we lost over 600 young Australians. The three-day activity in Canberra has been appropriate because the contingent has brought alive a significant part of our nation's heritage and history. I think it was Paterson and Henry Lawson who really epitomised the bushman. Paterson was a wartime correspondent in the Boer War and he wrote about the bushmen in South Africa as hard riding and straight shooting, and larrikins to boot.The member for Ballarat also has some hard riding larrikins who have ridden 800 kilometres from Creswick in his electorate, just north of Ballarat, right here to Canberra to participate in this very important commemoration. One of the most interesting things about that is that they were four young people: two 17-year-olds, a 14-year-old and a 15-year-old. I think that augers well for the future of the heritage of our nation. I think those four young people—Laura and Dane Woodward, Hannah Aumann and Mark Hansen—deserve to be congratulated by members of this House. I hope that members on the other side of the House might join in congratulating those four young people, who spent 23 days riding here to Canberra so that they might have some understanding of what those who served our country might have gone through. Many of those people who did go through that experience were not much older than those four young Australians, who have ridden 800 kilometres from Victoria here to Parliament House.The other thing that I might add, if I could, is that last night I had the opportunity to launch an Internet site through the Heraldry and Genealogical Society of Canberra. That Internet site is of Australian casualties in South Africa. In the past, these records have been held by South Africa, and we thank the South African official for making them available to us. They are an invaluable record on the Internet for all to search, and I think that also adds some significance to the occasion of the last three days. I do not think there is anything more significant, more Australian, than the slouch hat and the emu plumes that go with it, and seeing them on the young people riding up to Parliament House and the Australian War Memorial as part of the Imperial Bushmen's Contingent means that the spirit of the bushmen and the Anzac legend are alive and well in Australia, and that they will be into the century. I thank the Chief Government Whip for his question.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Auditor-General's Reports113071130710000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit reports Nos 13 and 14 of 1999-2000: No. 13 entitled Performance audit—Management of major equipment acquisition projects—Department of Defence and No. 14 entitled Performance audit—Commonwealth debt management .Ordered that the reports be printed.Documents1130811308Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following paper:National Museum of Australia—Annual Report 1998-99Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance113081130810000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Lilley proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The suppression of community opinion by the government in relation to its unfair taxation and social policy agenda.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:10:0011308Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—When it comes to community organisations, the government believes in social suppression and social coercion; it does not believe in a social coalition. The social coalition is the smiley mask that it puts up to pretend that it cares, to pretend that it is part of the community and has some real concern. But what we have seen from the government over the last four years have been dramatic cuts to community organisations which represent people. Last Friday we had cuts to 10 organisations: $50,000 taken away from the Guides; $50,000 from the National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children; $50,000 from the Older Women's Network; $50,000 from the Women's Electoral Lobby; $25,000 from the Catholic Women's League—and so on. But it is not just those 10 organisations that have been affected. During the period of this government, 30 organisations in all have lost over $12 million.Then we had the farce that occurred in the House yesterday and today. This minister is an accident looking for somewhere to go. Yesterday in this House there was an accident; he did not quite know who had been cut or why they had been cut but he embarrassed the government by saying that the Lone Fathers Association had been funded but that he was unaware of all the other organisations having been cut. In particular, one organisation that was cut was the National Council for Single Mothers and Their Children. What organisation and what group of people in this community have been singled out for special treatment from this government over the last month? Single mums and their children. Leaks from the government are that they are going to have their moneys taken away from them for their children aged 12 to 16.We did not get any participation from the minister today; he was not game to answer the question. Do you want to know why? Because we would have had another accident. If we had had another accident, he would have been back in the House tomorrow, or Mrs Bishop would have been back in the House tomorrow, announcing the refunding of all the other organisations. So I say to him: if we come into this House every day and ask you a question about Guides Australia or the Women's Electoral Lobby, will they get funded the next day through your having been embarrassed?You will be embarrassed because these organisations out there represent some of the most vulnerable people in the community and they cannot afford to have the funding cuts that you have imposed upon them. We have to ask ourselves why. Why have these funding cuts been imposed? Because every one of these organisations has one thing in common: every one of these organisations has opposed the government on the GST. Every one of these organisations has got up and said, `It's going to take money away from us, it's going to make it harder for families, it's going to make it a lot harder to operate. We're going to have less money to provide services to the people whom we serve.'Over the last 12 months, the writing has been on the wall for these community organisations because, when they went before that Senate inquiry, they signed their death warrant. Make no mistake about it. When these organisations went before the Senate inquiry, thinking that we had an open and democratic practice in this country and that there would not be any thuggery or retribution from this government, they signed their funding death warrant. That is why 30 organisations in this country have been defunded—and that is particularly why the Girl Guides have been defunded.I would like to quote from what Guides Australia had the temerity to say and be defunded for. It said:The effect of the GST on organisations like ours will be devastating and the rise in fees would certainly reduce our membership by many thousands. To add further insult, we have been advised that the Government's current plan is to tax our young people if they themselves receive a benefit from providing services in the community, such as mowing lawns for the elderly and the disabled, visiting sick children in hospitals, washing cars for fundraising and toy-making. These services will also be GST applicable.But to make matters worse, Guides Australia went on television and said these things. It actually articulated these concerns. When it was attacked by the thugs opposite, it did not take it—it stood up—and wrote to the paper saying:Under the GST these volunteers become tax agents for the Government. When children bring in their weekly contribution of a few dollars, the leaders will need to put on their accountant's hat and skim off 10 per cent for the government.That is what the Guides did. It stood up for voluntarism in the community. It stood up for community service. It stood up and it was knocked down. It stood up and it was thugged by this government. It stood up and it was silenced. Fortunately, many community organisations will not be silenced by this sort of thuggery.Let us have a look at some of the other organisations that have been defunded. I will go through them because there were only 10 on Friday. For a government that says it believes in family values, it previously defunded Family Planning Australia, the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation, the Australian Community Health Association, the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission and the Association of Civilian War Widows. All these organisations have one thing in common. What did they do? They criticised the government's unfair tax system. Is it any wonder that people say this government is strong in taxing and controlling the weak and very weak in taxing the strong?Why has all this emerged this week? What is going on at the moment? Why does the government want to send a really clear message to all the community organisations that they should not stand up and oppose this government's unfair taxation agenda? What could possibly be happening at the moment that it would want to send a really tough message to all of the community organisations that they should not be speaking out against this government's agenda? What could it be? It could have nothing to do with the business tax package. I am sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the business tax package, has it? Nothing to do with the fact that the government wants to give the big end of town a huge lift and increase tax on the battlers.By the way, we do not hear language about the battlers from this government any more, do we? Does anyone ever hear the government talking about the battlers any more? Now that you have a GST and now you believe in the principle that the less you earn the more tax you pay, do we hear anything about battlers? Now that you believe in taking the floor out of the industrial relations system and letting wages drop, do we hear anything about battlers? Do we hear anything about battlers when you articulate the principle—as you have over the past month—that if you take the wage system down then you have to take the social security system down with it?No wonder all your ministerial journalistic staff were out there briefing the gallery over the last month that you were going to engage in the third great reform. We have the unfair GST, the second wave of industrial relations, taxes up, wages down and welfare benefits have to follow. We cannot pay those single mums too much for their children aged between 12 and 16, the malingerers might not want to work. That is what you were saying out there. So much for family values. Some parents might want to spend some time with their adolescent children just in the interests of a cohesive society. Of course, we were told who were the shirkers and who else was bludging on the welfare system. We heard all about it. It was the DSP pensioners who were all bludging on the system. Something had to be done about them.We were treated to this parade of sneering from the sneer doctors opposite, who were saying, `If you feel insecure in your job and worried about your wages, it is not the fault of anyone above you, it is all those bludgers below you, so take out your frustration on them. Take it out on sole parents. Take it out on disability support pensioners and take it out on the unemployed.' I do not think the minister is a nasty person, but there is one sneer doctor in this House who has gone out there and reflected on the unemployed continuously, and that is the minister for employment. The minister for employment has been going around the country talking about the unemployed being job snobs and about the needy to be given a bit of tough love. Do you know where tough love is used in the United States? It is used in dog obedience training programs. That is where the term comes from. The minister went to Brisbane and there was a big feature article in the Courier-Mail. The central theme was: let's administer some tough love to those undeserving unemployed because they are all shirkers.The reason the government has been engaged in this campaign to undermine the whole credibility of the social security safety net is that it has a blow-out in welfare expenditure. The reason it has a blow-out in welfare expenditure has nothing to do with people being bludgers and everything to do with the government's negligence and its blinkered view of the world. There are two reasons why we have a blow-out in the social security budget and the first one relates to the government's abolition of training programs, the sorts of programs that can give people the capacity to move from welfare to work, the sorts of programs like the MIFS program which they sneered at in this House some weeks ago. It is a highly successful program giving people the capacity to move off DSP. What happened to it? It was abolished, gone, just like the funding for the labour market programs and the funding for all of the 30 community organisations that funding has been taken away from. That is why there is a blow-out in the welfare system. That is the first reason.What is the second reason there is a blow-out in the welfare dollar? Why is the welfare bill going to increase from $45 billion to $50 billion plus? Why is it going to go up by approximately $5.5 billion in a year? It is because the government has also put inadequate GST compensation into the welfare system. It spent approximately $21 billion trying to implement this unfair tax and then it wants to turn around and blame that on the recipients. It wants to blame them for the fact that it has completely stuffed up the financial bottom line and ripped away all of those programs that give people the capacity to be independent and move from dependence to independence. Then it wants to turn around and blame the victim. It is a tired, old strategy and one you have all been practising. I hope the minister does not get into the habit of it. Minister Abbott has and, of course, Minister Bishop is into a bit of it as well. But the person who has been into it most in recent times is of course Senator Newman, the welfare cut woman, the one who has all the plans bulging out of that bottom drawer.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Three-pension Jocey.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—That is right, three-pension Jocey. All those plans locked in the bottom drawer; the plans to target the people on DSP and attack those people on sole pensions. Of course, who is backing all this up? The Prime Minister. This Prime Minister has the courage of his prejudices, and his prejudices come through time and time again and they never change. I was talking to someone this morning who told me that when the Prime Minister first stood for parliament in 1974 he spoke so badly at a WEL function in Bennelong at a candidates' forum that he was rated last by the WEL group doing the judging there. He angrily stormed out of the meeting without talking to the members. He has got his own back this week. WEL has been defunded, along with all of those organisations that have had the courage to challenge the prejudices of this Prime Minister and this government.But it is not just those organisations. What has the government got against religion? You say you are family friendly and you believe in family values, but you go along and you defund a whole host of organisations. You have taken money away from Catholic, Jewish and Muslim women in these cuts.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Who's left?2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Is there anyone left in the community whom you do not like and want to pick on? This government has an agenda to cut welfare, because it is engaged in a massive redistribution of resources from the bottom to the top. What you are really on about here is increasing taxes on the boys and girls—such as the Guides, the Scouts, the canteens and the Brownies—and giving it all to the big boys. That is exactly what it is about. Anyone who has the temerity to stand up and say, `That is your strategy, that is what you have been up to,' anyone who takes the invitation of the parliament to appear before a Senate committee and articulate their concerns about what is happening in their society, gets defunded.If you speak up, you get knocked down. If you speak up under this government, you get clubbed down. So let us not hear anything about this government being compassionate conservatives. We all know that the term `compassionate conservatives' is a contradiction. It is an oxymoron. It is not possible. But we get it from this government, because they read all of the US campaign literature. Because Bush says he is a compassionate conservative and because we are introducing a harsh social agenda of a GST, they will go around and try to prove that they are compassionate.The government will pretend to be compassionate. They will erect this smiley mask which they call `the social coalition', but what they will do all the time, underneath it all, is cut it away. The social coalition is supposed to include government, business and the community sector. It is supposed to be a three-legged stool. The problem is that they have cut off a leg. The community sector has nothing left. They have defunded it. It is going to be hit with the GST—huge impacts in terms of fringe benefits; huge impacts in terms of the administration of the GST—and all of its resources taken away, and guess what happens? The social coalition just falls over. (Time expired)15:25:0011311Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—After hearing that diatribe from the member for Lilley, I would like to acknowledge that I think he probably has a social conscience, but it is very misguided—as, indeed, a lot of the members in the Labor Party are. His whole premise is that we are trying to hide, that we are not being transparent. How much more transparent and open can you be than going to a general election about reforming the taxation system, a component of which was the GST? I know full well, because I ran in 1993 on similar policies—admittedly, they were changed and I paid the price—that we ran on an open and transparent new tax system. Indeed, if the new tax system is profitable for people and families, then hopefully it will start to help those people who are really in need of help to get a leg up.But the argument that the member for Lilley is running here today is that we are being subversive, that we are not allowing interest groups to speak. I would like to just quote Michael Raper, the President of ACOSS, who is not known as the most enthusiastic supporter of the coalition. On transparency and openness regarding their policies, he said:We always give them a copy of a press release ahead of time and it hasn't stopped us from being very critical of the Government.Indeed, we continue to fund a range of organisations. But the important point—and, indeed, this is what Jocelyn Newman and the government will be doing over the next few months into next year—is to have an open and transparent debate on the welfare system. And why shouldn't we? Because that is exactly the debate that the Labor Party has been having for the last nine months, whether from the member for Werriwa, the member for Lilley, the member for Grayndler or the member for Dickson—who does not quite know what portfolio she is involved with.This debate has been open and raging for quite some time. But we want to make it controlled and to have the rest of the community and other interest groups participate. That is precisely why we are having a green paper and that is why, as was announced recently in a very good speech given by Jocelyn Newman to the National Press Club, we do wish to engage the community to ensure that people who are dependent on welfare—whether they are on unemployment benefits or disability support pensions—and those who are less disadvantaged are all encouraged to reach their maximum potential.Many of the schemes introduced by the previous Labor government, particularly when it came to labour market organisations, did not reach the target. They did not actually help the people that they were designed to help. They were rechurning many people through labour market programs for jobs that did not exist.Let us go to some of the points that the member for Lilley has raised. One of the issues that he talks about is the government's commitment to the funding of women's organisations. I should add, as I did yesterday, that these come under the Office of the Status of Women. I am pleased to announce that the government has announced funding for three key bodies which are well supported to represent the interests of women to the government—that is, the YWCA, the National Council of Women of Australia and the Australian Federation of Business and Professional Women. Funding to these organisations has actually been doubled to $100,000 a year. They do not always agree with the government.Indeed, I would like to remind members opposite that this process is vigorous. We have a review of national women's non-government organisation programs, which is in consultation with women in other NGOs. We do not have a policy to defund women's organisations, as is the line being run by the member for Lilley and by the opposition. We have maintained a minimum of $500,000 annually. Indeed, the government will shortly be announcing another round when we will be giving up to $25,000 to different women's organisations.I might add that the Howard-Anderson government has contributed significantly to delivering benefits to Australian women, and where better than in job creation. The unemployment rate at its peak in the early nineties was 11.2 per cent. That is down to just over seven per cent now. What better participation can you give both men and women than to give them a job and a future, so that they do not have to be dependent on welfare for the rest of their lives and, indeed, so that they can give a future to their children?With regard to the National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children, I would like to announce that we have actually funded them for $100,000 over the next two years. As I mentioned yesterday, whether it be from the Lone Fathers or the National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children or other organisations, we do believe in having an equitable input from both genders and all organisations.One of the points that I want to come to is that the member for Lilley and, indeed, many of the tactics of the opposition are very much into pointscoring and false accusations, particularly in regard to one of our major agencies, Centrelink. Centrelink provides services to over seven million Australians. It is a very large agency, taking up over one-third of the Commonwealth budget. But, of course, we never hear a good point from the member for Lilley or from the opposition. No; it is always trying to drag down one of the greatest agencies that we created through the merger of the old DSS and DEETYA. What the new Centrelink is providing is first-class service to over seven million Australians, whether they be on pensions, Newstart Allowance, Youth Allowance or any other government funding programs. So I think it is rather reckless that the member for Lilley and the opposition are more interested in promotion; recklessness and not actually telling the true story of what is happening. We are having this debate and—Mr Swan interjecting—XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—the Labor Party is also having this debate. As I mentioned before, it is no wonder that the member for Lilley is looking for self-promotion and publicity on whatever particular issue or angle he can find, because there is confusion out in the media about who actually is the shadow minister for community services. One could say it could be the member for Werriwa—who has always been very articulate and is, of course, paying the price by being on the back bench now—or it could be others. But I do note that there have been some recent articles, and that reputable paper, the Daily Telegraph —which we all read religiously—says:First came Dolly the sheep. Now comes Wayne Smith, the first genetically engineered member of the Federal opposition shadow cabinet.2V5SWANMr Swan—There is a photo to prove it.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—I look forward to seeing it—and we have a living photo right here—because there is confusion. Is it Stephen Smith? Is it Wayne Swan? Is it the member for Lilley? Is it the member for Dickson? Who knows? But of course it is our own GMO, our own `Wayne Smith', who we know is actually Wayne Swan, the member for Lilley. Perhaps that explains why he is spending so much time on whatever issue he can find and ducking out of here to issue press releases, whether on Centrelink or on women's issues.I would like to point out that today we have announced that there are six principles particularly reflecting our concern to ensure that the welfare system that we have for the next century can best achieve results and improve the viability of those people achieving their maximum potential so that they are not continually dependent on welfare. What better notion can a government or any community aspire to? The six principles that we will have for the terms of reference for the green paper that will be produced are: maintaining equity, simplicity and transparency; establishing better incentives for people receiving social security payments; creating greater opportunities; expecting people on income support to help themselves and to contribute to society through increased social and economic participation within a framework of mutual obligation. And what is wrong with that? That is the debate that you are having. The terms of reference will also include providing choice and support for individuals and families—because we are about providing choice and not just leaving people being unable to improve their potential because they are trapped in welfare dependency.You talk about the increase in DSP. Well, the disability support pension increased more under your government than it has now we are here. What we want to ensure is that people who are on disability pensions can reach their maximum potential and maybe integrate back into the community and not feel alienated, and that we give them the opportunity. That is exactly what we intend to do, and we hope to engage the rest of the community as part of this, because it should be an open and transparent debate and not be the exclusive domain of the Labor Party, who failed so many Australians because, under them, we saw record unemployment. You failed so many Australians because, when we came into government, we had to go back and clean up a lot of the financial mess that you left that did not give opportunities to young Australians or, indeed, older Australians—the vast majority who lost their jobs through the recession that we had to have.I would like to highlight that this is typical scaremongering that is happening from the opposition. They want to lock people into welfare dependency, and we do not. We do not want to lock them into welfare dependency, and that is why we want to try to help them, whether they are on parenting payments or disability support, or whether they are unemployed and on Newstart arrangements. That is why the Job Network, for one, has been very successful—with the cooperation of Centrelink.As I said, when you look at DSP—and the member for Lilley uses this as his argument—it has, I admit, risen by 80,000 since 1996, but there was a 92,000 increase in the last three years of Labor. Unemployment now is just over seven per cent. Even when we came into government it was 8.5 per cent. What better thing can you give an individual or a family than to give one member—or, hopefully, a couple of members—of that family the opportunity to get full-time employment? There are a number of measures that we have taken to ensure that people who are on welfare or who need help are given that assistance. Indeed, we have provided that through the Work for the Dole scheme, through Job Network and through changes to Youth Allowance.Youth Allowance was not a cost-cutting measure. Youth Allowance has actually cost the government more. The reason for that is that we believe that we should intervene to ensure that young Australians are given training and given a skill, and not just given a cheque—which was the case under the Labor Party, when it was easier to go on the dole than it was to get into a job or to go on to further education. That is not a cost-cutting measure: we have actually spent money there.Our return to work program provides $24 million to assist women who want to get jobs after raising children. Work for the Dole, which I have mentioned, gives unemployed people the chance to gain work experience to improve their self-esteem and communication skills and to build motivation. It also provides an opportunity for them to make a contribution to the community. We do believe that the community has a vital role to play, and that is precisely why Jocelyn Newman and the government are having a green paper and an open discussion on welfare. Why shouldn't we be? We have tackled the hard decisions with this country with tax reform and with industrial relations reform, and we do not step away from that. Indeed, what it has achieved is a more prosperous Australia, and a more prosperous Australia means more opportunities for people who are less able to look after themselves.The government is concerned to prevent long-term welfare dependency by helping parents on income support to plan for their future, to return to work. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with the government taking up a policy of engaging the rest of the community—whatever their gender, whatever their social standing, to ensure that when we move into the next century we have a relevant welfare system that will deliver and not trap people into a permanent dependency on welfare? The member for Lilley mentioned the other day that he found the speech of the Minister for Family and Community Services at the National Press Club rather lucid—and perhaps he learnt something from that. Let us hope he does learn, because he is a slow learner—we know that. That is why the press gallery still do not know who actually is the shadow minister for community services. But we know he is ably assisted by other members here.I would like to point out that particularly low income earners, particularly people on pensions, will be compensated and compensated substantially when the new tax system comes into place on 1 July next year. It is a new tax system by which 80 per cent of Australians will pay 30 per cent less PAYE income tax. What is wrong with that? It is a tax system from which pensioners will have a four per cent increase in the rate of social security payment. And if we are wrong and inflation does move up—which we do not anticipate—by two, 2½ or three per cent, we have put in a buffer of at least two per cent to ensure that people on pensions or people on some sort of social security payment are compensated. And why should we not compensate them? We recognise that we should and we do not step away from it, because we do want to look after those people. By the same token we want to help wealth creation, we want to help families get ahead—and doing that provides not just a healthier community but a healthier place for investment. Part of that is the next thing we have done with the Ralph review. You should be endorsing that, because that will create wealth and create opportunities.So why is it unfair that we will be having this debate? What is unfair is that you feel marginalised. You are more interested in publicity and self-promotion than you are in good policy. That is the tragedy. What we are getting from the opposition is the one-liners every day to grab the headlines—and, as I mentioned before and I will mention a third time—it is a desperate attempt to remain relevant. We are committed to all organisations. As I mentioned before, we have just announced $100,000 for the National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children. We have done the same with many other organisations. (Time expired)15:40:0011315Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—Now, we all know how the Prime Minister tries to praise women in sport. And we all remember when the Prime Minister wrote to Australia's netball team captain—and what a wonderful captain—Vicki Wilson, to congratulate her on our international women's `hockey' team. He did the same thing a while before that by calling the Hockeyroos the Australian women's cricket team. It is embarrassing. But it shows how little this government knows or cares about women. It also draws into focus what it thinks of those organisations serving the interests of women—the non-government organisations or the government's own Office of the Status of Women.The Office of the Status of Women has lost its head. It was highly political in any case. It was more about conservative connections than about women's policy. It was then that the OSW lost its head because Pru Goward was not a policy person. She presided over an office which saw its budget cut in half. She was appointed to wear the flak over a major downgrading of women's issues. It was nothing more than a PR front job which easily translates to the Olympics publicity work she is going to. We can see a snow job. We can see through the shallow motives of this government when it comes to pushing its own devious, narrow little agenda.As the member for Lilley rightly says, it is thuggery. The social coalition this government talks about is very selective. Kennett was not very conservative in putting the boot into anything which did not suit him, but this government is truly conservative in going through the charade, the performance of a sly and stealthy reshaping of the social landscape back to the desert. This government does not care about the battlers of Australia. We do not hear anything about the battlers any more, do we, Minister? This government does not know netball from hockey. The minister yesterday did not know what we were talking about. He did not answer the question. He was not on top of it, because he does not rate it as important. Anyone, any group, who does not agree does not rate. It is that simple.The issue of assistance to non-government organisations is not about redressing any imbalances, it is not about providing incentives for social good, for community betterment. It is a welfare thing, isn't it? Conservatives have this in-built view that policy comes out of the end of a factory chimney. They also have the dangerous notion that government is paternal—that government intervention warrants gratitude, even servility. It is close to a totalitarian view. It does not make for good public policy.It is the role of government to undertake some social evening out, to implement measures to discourage those ills which are not in the interests of the community as a whole. At the same time, governments have to guarantee the freedoms our citizens hold so dear—such as being able to criticise the government. That is not the case with this government.The non-government groups which have had funding withdrawn have been critical. They have not served their patron. They have been made to pay. It is a form of censorship. It is not right or proper. The government says it is in search of the `moderate' voice, that the silent majority must be paid heed to, that many women's organisations do not represent the interests of all women. We can agree with that. We can agree that every view must be entertained. But when the government defunds organisations like the Women's Electoral Lobby, it is consigning it to the far off margin. When it takes funding away from the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition, it is silencing a policy conduit into what many of us think is one of the most important constituencies—young people. You might not agree with what they have to say, but it is critically important that you listen to them because one day they will be in charge. We all remember that Treasurer Peter Costello was once a riotous Labor orientated student with long hair. Look where he is today.It is remarkable that, when the Howard government are criticised for its lack of women's policy—and they are about to dilute the equal opportunity legislation—when any criticism is levelled, they point to broader achievements. `Australian women are enjoying the fruits of good government,' says Minister Newman. She points to home loans, to the family tax initiative and to jobs. She might as well be pointing at more comfortable family cars, more gentle washing powders or the widespread use of the steam and dry iron! It is all part of progress. It is not real policy. It is the consequence of other policy borrowed to explain something else.Minister Newman talks of funding that focuses on achieving real outcomes for all women, but we know that that is doublespeak: it is the women's round table—delayed, postponed, abbreviated, curtailed and muzzled to a measly 20 minutes for each of the guests, significantly reduced in number, of the government. Why do they bother at all? Because some conservative people also believe governments should deliver policies for women, and because the Howard government do not want to spook the horses—they want to slide out of the issue inconspicuously.They have changed the rules on funding women's NGOs to bring them into line with other community groups. The Office of the Status of Women, then, is even more irrelevant. Groups seeking support have to put in a tender. It is the Job Network, isn't it? But it is more than that. The tender document calls for `constructive working relationships with the minister's office' as well as `timely advice on likely media activities'. To us, that definitely sounds very dangerous. It sounds to us like a very bad way to get policy advice. It sounds to us like that is the way to get the sort of advice the government want to hear.Last year's budget statements authored by this government clearly state:The purpose of this grants program is to assist women to effectively convey their views and concerns to the Commonwealth Government by providing block funding for core operational support to a limited number of representative women's non-government organisations.And further:Payments will be made to approximately 10 organisations following a yearly competitive selection process. Ten organisations. Like the Office of the Status of Women, it has been halved. We are now down to three, and the announcement today that the National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children makes it four. We on this side can count; we know that that is less than half. Why chop off the Girl Guides? Why chop off the Women's Electoral Lobby? Why fund the Lone Fathers Association as a new group? Why, in this year of the older person, did the government shunt the Older Women's Network? It was the wrong constituency, wasn't it? It did not match the government's views.If this government truly believes the pendulum has swung too far then it should face the issue honestly instead of trying to disappear those groups in the night like an extremist, right wing dictatorship. To muzzle your critics and to channel your own propaganda into those organisations under your own patronage reeks of the sorts of politics that we do not want in this open and free country where we like to debate issues, where we kick the ball around and live with our differences. That is football; it is not netball. But if, like the government, you do not care to listen to the debate, if, like the minister, you do not care, why play the ball at all?15:50:0011316Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—As I was listening to the honourable member for Lilley bring on this matter of public importance today, I was reminded of that statement of Richard Ingrams, the former editor of the satirical magazine Private Eye , which I use with apologies to Mr Ingrams and with some adaptation, namely: when the honourable member for Lilley starts to speak, most normal people think of something else. This debate illustrates that precisely, particularly in the choice of matter. What we have had this afternoon is half an hour of confected indignation from the opposition, and the continuation of the scaremongering for which the member for Lilley is becoming extremely well known.What is the essence of the complaint that has been raised as one of such public importance here this afternoon? The essence is that certain organisations that have been funded under programs by governments are no longer funded and that some other organisations are funded. The member for Lilley has not pointed to any precise details or particulars as to whether that process of funding was inappropriate or appropriate, in some circumstances, or whether the funding that has been provided to organisations is in some way inappropriate in the circumstances. When you look at what has happened under this program, you can see a couple of things which are facts rather than simply the opinion which has been spouted forth by the member for Lilley this afternoon.The first thing is that the amount of money provided under this program is the same as was provided before. The second thing is that there has been an open and accountable tender system—advertisements in newspapers and the like—and a selection criterion. That has been processed through in order to arrive at a situation where, after review, the representation of the interests of women in Australia is most adequately brought to the government and is most adequately done by appropriate organisations. As a consequence of that open process of tendering, an open process based on a criterion for funding in these areas, three major women's organisations have been funded to an extent far beyond that to which organisations have been funded in the past.In fact, each of the three organisations—namely, the National Council of Women of Australia, the YWCA and the Australian Federation of Business and Professional Women—will receive $275,000 from 1 October this year until 30 June 2002 under these grants. This is the first time that organisations such as these have received grants beyond a period of 12 months. This is the first time that organisations such as these have been given grants which enable them to plan on the basis of what they can do, not just over a 12-month period but over a three-year period, to represent not only one sectional interest of women's issues in Australia but women's interests broadly right across Australia.I ask the members of this House and the people who are present here today and listening to these proceedings: what can be fairer than that? What can be fairer than to provide an open system of tender whereby all organisations are entitled to put forward what they believe is the appropriate way to represent women in Australia, that that be judged according to criteria and that the recipients of these funds get double the amount previously provided over a period three times longer than previously provided? What can be fairer than that? But, as usual, all we get from the opposition is the whingeing which we have heard this afternoon.849SIDEBOTTOMMr Sidebottom—There's no diversity, mate.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—Is the honourable member saying in this debate this afternoon that the National Council of Women of Australia do not represent a diverse range of women within this country? Is the honourable member saying—and I am listening for his next interjection—that the YWCA does not represent a diverse range of women's interests in Australia? Is he saying that the Australian Federation of Business and Professional Women do not equally represent a wide range of interests in Australia?849SIDEBOTTOMMr Sidebottom—There's not enough diversity. Listen to what I said.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—You said there was none before, but now there is not enough diversity!10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Menzies will ignore the interjections of the member for Braddon, who will keep quiet.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was tempted beyond what I should have been. The reality is that these are three well-established, well-known, well-regarded and highly credited organisations that represent a wide cross-section of women in Australia. As well, the criteria by which they were selected in order to receive these grants ensured that they do not simply represent any one sectional interest of Australian women.Over and above the additional funding to these organisations, a further $200,000 is still to be provided on a project by project basis to a range of organisations. Whether it is the Girl Guides, the Women's Action Alliance, the Women's Electoral Lobby or some other organisation, they are all eligible to apply on a project basis for funding pursuant to this scheme. I and the government believe that this provides ongoing criteria and an ongoing basis for funding over a period of time. This means that the activities carried out by these three major national organisations can be for the greater benefit of the women of Australia yet at the same time provide for projects to be undertaken for specific interest groups—to which the member referred—specific issues or, for that matter, specific areas such as regional or rural parts of Australia so we obtain the best value overall for the good of the people of Australia.It was noticeable that, when the member for Lilley made this complaint this afternoon, he did not particularise in any way why these groups should not have got the funding. All he said was, `There's been a change in the funding, and isn't this a bad thing,' as though some review by government from time to time is not appropriate. Neither does he mention a whole range of other groups which are funded by the federal government as national peak organisations. I will take a moment or two of the House's time to list those organisations, which are funded to the tune of some $3 million by the Commonwealth government.You have organisations such as ACOSS. As the minister pointed out before, it is not an organisation which has always been uncritical of this side of politics over the years but nonetheless continues to be funded as a worthwhile organisation. You have ACROD, the Australian Early Childhood Federation, the Australian Federation of Homeless Organisations, the Deafness Forum of Australia, the National Council on Intellectual Disability, Volunteering Australia, the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, Family Services Australia, Relationships Australia, Centacare Australia, the National Caucus of Disability Consumer Organisations, the Physical Disability Council of Australia, Women with Disabilities Australia, the National Disability Ethnic Alliance, the Head Injury Council of Australia, the Australian Association of the Deaf, the Federation of Blind Citizens of Australia, the Lone Fathers Association of Australia and the National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children. In total, some 20 organisations are receiving more than $3 million of Commonwealth funding in order to represent particular interests within the community.This is hardly a government which is defunding a whole range of important programs and a whole range of organisations in the community that are providing a considerable service to the people of Australia at this particular time. When we actually look at the facts rather than the emotive rhetoric and the scaremongering which have been engaged in by the honourable member for Lilley this afternoon, we can see a totally different picture of what has been undertaken by this government.Some of the members speaking in this debate have mentioned that we should look at welfare again within this country. The interesting thing about this is that it seems to me to be, again, a case of the current opposition simply not being on the ball as far as this is concerned. Let us look at left of centre parties in other countries around the world. If you look at Mr Clinton's administration in the United States of America, you have a President who said a few years ago that he was reforming welfare as we knew it. If you look at what Tony Blair and the Labour government are doing under their new deal in the United Kingdom, you can see a major reform and a major review of welfare going on in that country. It seems to me that the only left of centre party in the industrialised world that is not actually addressing this in any systematic way is the Labor opposition in Australia, and it will pay for not having policies and not having leadership.What we have in this debate is yesterday's man from yesterday's party arguing yesterday's debate with no eye for the future. In place of this, we need a party with policies and leadership rather than the continual whingeing which we have heard this afternoon. We listened to the member for Lilley's song. Unfortunately, it is not his swan song. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Bills11319Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bill: Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 Miscellaneous1131910000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 13 October 1999, at 9.40 a.m., as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Miscellaneous11319Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—agreed to:That the following order of the day, committee and delegation reports, be referred to the Main Committee for debate:Industry, Science and Resources—Standing Committee—Report on the effect of certain public policy changes in Australia's R&D—Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate.Committees11319113191131916:02:0011319Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 18 October 1999. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO THE THIRD ROUND AUSTRALIA-CHINA BILATERAL HUMAN RIGHTS DIALOGUE : Report on the Australian Delegation to the Third Round Australia-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 5 minutes. Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1 Mr Beazley to present a bill for an act to amend the Defence (Re-establishment) Act 1965 in relation to protection of the civil employment of members of the Reserve Forces. (Notice given 30 September 1999. )Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 5 minutes—pursuant to sessional order 104A.2 Mrs Elson to move—That the House:(1) recognises the widespread community support for the Government's "Work for the dole" program;(2) acknowledges the vital role played by the hundreds of community groups and local organisations throughout the nation that conduct local work for the dole projects;(3) recognises the social value and community contribution of the work carried out by participants; and(4) welcomes the Government's commitment to expanding Work for the dole, as outlined in the 1999-2000 Budget initiative to double the number of Work for the dole places to 50 000 next year—providing hope, experience and opportunity for more young Australian jobseekers. (Notice given 20 September 1999. )Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3 Mr Mossfield to move—That this House:(1) recognises that there needs to be a greater recognition by all adults of the needs of younger people;(2) recognises that there needs to be a nation-wide recognition that young people can gather together without being regarded as potential law-breakers;(3) recognises that security personnel need to be far better trained to deal with young people in shopping centres and other public places and that such training enable the security personnel to better determine the correct method of handling young people in public places and shopping centres;(4) recognises that adults need to be more publicly exposed to young people and listen uncritically to the views they express and respect young people for the views they hold even if they are not agreed with;(5) recognises that Parliament supports the provision of an increase in technical high schools where young people can expand their practical talents where they are not necessarily academically inclined;(6) recognises that Parliament recognises the need for increasing dramatically the number of careers advisers available to young people for assistance prior to their leaving school and seeking full time employment; and(7) conduct a Parliamentary inquiry into the foregoing in order that proper national policies can be recommended to Government that will assist the advancement of young people of the future. (Notice given 27 September 1999. )Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—7 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.4 Mrs Elson to move—That the House:(1) notes the recent report of he Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, "Pregnant and Productive: It's a Right not a Privilege to Work while Pregnant";(2) recognises that a significant level of discrimination against pregnant women still exists in many workplaces;(3) acknowledges the vital importance of families in Australian society; and(4) calls on all employers in Australia to be aware of, and sensitive to, their responsibility to their female employees to ensure they do not suffer discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy. (Notice given 30 September 1999. )Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each. The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.5 Mr Hollis to move—That this House:(1) expresses its sympathy at the loss of life of three Australian AusAID workers in the recent air crash in Fiji;(2) commends AusAID for the work it is performing throughout the South Pacific, especially relating to population and development issues; and(3) calls on the Australian Government to at least maintain current funding, but also consider increased aid for development work in the South Pacific. (Notice given 26 August 1999. )Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Bills11320The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Australian National Training Authority Amendment Bill 1998 Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999 Bills11320r90411320Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills11320r90311320Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills11321r71711321Consideration resumed from 22 September.Senate's requested amendments—(1) Schedule 2, item 53, page 30 (line 14), omit "19 September 1999", substitute "19 March 2000".(2) Schedule 2, item 53, page 30 (line 16), omit "19 September 1999", substitute "19 March 2000".(3) Schedule 8, page 102 (after line 30), after item 1, insert:1A At the end of subsection 553B(3)Add:; or (e) satisfies the Secretary that the person has moved from his or her original place of residence because of an extreme circumstance which made it reasonable for the person to move to the new place of residence (for example, the person had been subjected to domestic or family violence in the original place of residence).(4) Schedule 8, page 103 (after line 21), after item 4, insert:4A At the end of subsection 634(3)Add:; or (d) satisfies the Secretary that the person has moved from his or her original place of residence because of an extreme circumstance which made it reasonable for the person to move to the new place of residence (for example, the person had been subjected to domestic or family violence in the original place of residence).Motion (by Mr Anthony) agreed to: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.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the purpose of requests for amendments announced.16:06:0011321Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I move:That the requested amendments be made. The Senate recently made a number of amendments to the Further 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security) Bill 1999 . Amendments (1) and (2) ensure that the correct calculations of income reductions for those persons who are receiving both a youth disability supplement payment as well as a Community Development Employment Projects, CDEP, payment. Amendment (3) is a technical amendment. There are no further financial implications for these amendments.Today we are talking about three minor technical amendments. However, I believe it appropriate to inform the House of another amendment to this bill that the government will not be supporting. The amendment put forward by the Democrats relating to the CDEP scheme and lone parents also receiving parenting payment (single) is nonsensical. The Democrat amendment effectively creates a grandfather clause in relation to existing lone parents so that they would forever be unaffected by the new provisions.A more considered review of these amendments has shown that, for a number of technical reasons, the Democrats' apparent objective is not achieved by the amendments. Firstly, the insertion of the provision to exclude recipients of parenting payment (single) from the operations of items 48 to 52 of schedule 2 is ineffective, items 48 to 52 impacting on parenting payment (partnered) and non-partnered payment (single). Further, the provision as it relates to item 53 of schedule 2 prevents lone parents from receiving their CDEP income supplement. It also disallows CDEP participants from receiving their supplement for any future payment they transfer to. This would result in a group of people who have never been eligible for the CDEP payment supplement, irrespective of whether they are on income support or what payments they are qualified for.There are strong policy reasons for avoiding a grandfathering approach to the income treatment of lone parents. A grandfathering clause is inconsistent with the welfare reform intended by the measure; that is, greater equity for CDEP participants in this measure has the strong support of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. The measure supported by ATSIC ends the situation where a small group of people are able to legally claim and keep two income support payments. No-one else in the Australian community is legally able to double-dip from the taxpayer. For this reason, the government is not supportive of these particular Senate amendments.16:09:0011322Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise to object to the government's attempt to eliminate the amendment which was successfully carried by the Senate in relation to the CDEP scheme and sole parents. I find it quite astonishing that a government that says it supports Work for the Dole, that says it supports single parents and that says it supports indigenous Australians could come into this House and object to the amendment to its original bill which was carried in the Senate.The ALP moved in the Senate that the attempt to slash assistance to indigenous sole parents be not supported at all. It is with some reluctance that we agreed to the Democrat position, which was to create a two-tiered system whereby beneficiaries who were currently eligible would not lose this money and whereby the new application would apply to only new participants in CDEP. We need to examine the government's rhetoric on this, and then we need to compare it to the reality.The government's rhetoric is that somehow this allows welfare double dipping. That is not true, Minister. In fact, what this scheme does is ensure that sole parents who are on the CDEP are treated the same as other sole parents; that is, that they are allowed, on top of their parenting payment, to receive up to $100 a fortnight as a result of their working. Indigenous sole parents working is an important principle. It encourages them to participate fully in society. It also means that of the $330 which the individual is paid by contributing to the CDEP scheme and participating in that scheme, the individual sole parent gets only $100 per fortnight, which means that there is $230 put into that community.We know that the CDEP is paid to indigenous communities. It has been extraordinarily successful and has gained widespread support, in spite of the government setting up an inquiry into the CDEP scheme when it was first elected and in spite of the fact that this government's first action upon coming to office was to slash $450 million from ATSIC. So given the previous debate which we had, where the shadow minister, the member for Lilley, spoke about the 30 groups who have had their funding cut, perhaps that explains to the minister ATSIC's position in relation to this matter.The fact is that this is a government which is prepared to intimidate any group in our society that objects to its uncaring, selfish agenda. This is a government that is never happier than when it is kicking the most vulnerable in our society—and who is more vulnerable than indigenous sole parents? The fact is that this government is not interested in actually participating in giving people a helping hand up to contribute to society. This government, by not supporting this amendment, wants to slash $80 a fortnight off indigenous sole parents. Minister, $80 a fortnight might not be much to you and your frontbench colleagues, with your family trusts, but it matters a lot to indigenous sole parents. (Time expired)16:14:0011322Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I fully support the comments made by the member for Grayndler here today. I think it is outrageous that this government, which prides itself on looking after the indigenous brethren of this country, is ripping into them by opposing the very sensible amendments carried in the Senate in relation to the Community Development Employment Program. We know that this program is designed to help the Aboriginal community. It was established in 1977 so that members of the Aboriginal community could effectively work for the dole on projects which were beneficial to their community. The government's opposition to the amendments is disgraceful. As the member for Grayndler has just said, this is a vicious attack on the most vulnerable in the community—indigenous sole parents.I thought this government was interested in doing everything possible to help indigenous members of our community to get into employment and to give them every possible opportunity to make a contribution to this country, but this is quite a callous act. What the Senate has sought to achieve by trying to help those participating in this program is in the interests of not only the Aboriginal community but all of Australia.Interestingly, the research done by Anne Daly demonstrates the enormous socioeconomic disadvantages for indigenous sole parents. Ms Daly's research revealed that indigenous sole parents were almost twice as likely to be unemployed compared with non-indigenous sole parents, that indigenous sole parents were responsible for caring for 40 per cent of all indigenous children, that indigenous sole parents were earning less money than non-indigenous sole parents while caring for more children, that indigenous sole parents were bearing extra financial burden due to care given to foster children, often without government income support and, further, that indigenous sole parents were less likely to be educated compared with other indigenous families and non-indigenous sole parents.The government is trying to save a few bob here at the expense of the very people we are elected in this House to look after. All we are trying to do is give them an opportunity to contribute to Australia and get paid for it. Through callous efforts, the government is opposing these very sensible amendments that took place in the Senate. It is noteworthy that, since 1966, the government seems to have had a whole agenda of getting stuck into those on welfare payments. It has more of a priority for creating jobs and a social security safety net than for meeting the disadvantaged people in our community. Recently, the Prime Minister and Senator Newman ruled out further cuts to welfare. It is going to continue, and it is disgraceful. We have to oppose it here today. I do not support what the government is trying to achieve through amendments to the CDEP, the employment and education entry payment and the liquid asset waiting period. I will talk about them very briefly in the short time that is left.Firstly, those on the CDEP are ineligible for a range of ancillary benefits, including rent assistance, bereavement payments, telephone rental allowance, pharmaceutical allowance and pensioner concession cards. Secondly, it is estimated that as many as 4,000 sole parents on the CDEP are now going to have further unfair measures placed on them. The present arrangements will see eligibility for parenting payments reduced for every dollar of CDEP income up to the amount of the parenting payment benefit. The parenting payment would also be reduced by something like 50 per cent for each dollar of CDEP income in excess of the parenting payment threshold. This is disgraceful. We have to support the amendments. (Time expired)16:19:0011323Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise again to reinforce the opposition's concern about this issue.XJ6ANTHONYMr Anthony—You like the sound of your own voice.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—The Minister for Community Services might not care about indigenous sole parents. Perhaps we can put something on the Hansard record to inform him and the government exactly whom they are kicking. A bit of research has been done on indigenous sole parents and what they represent in society. That research from census data shows the following: that indigenous sole parents are almost twice as likely to be unemployed compared with non-indigenous sole parents; that they are responsible for caring for 40 per cent of all indigenous children due to the culture—a culture of looking after children who are not necessarily their own by parentage; that they earn less money than non-indigenous sole parents while caring for more children; that they bear extra financial burdens due to care given to foster children, often without government support; and that they are less likely to be educated compared with other indigenous families and non-indigenous sole parents. So, Minister, who better to single out for a kick than indigenous sole parents?The Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman, has raised this matter. One would think that this would be incongruous for the minister. How can the minister support this attack, taking $80 per fortnight from these Australians? Let us have a look at Senator Newman's attitude towards single parents. You do not have to quote the Minister for Community Services or even the Attorney-General, but let us quote the minister herself. This is extraordinary. This is the minister just after she had to abandon her great welfare announcement. Just after she put that in the bottom drawer, this is what she had to say on the ABC radio's Life Matters :. . . the 32% of the mothers with children between the ages of 10 and 14 (who do not work) are either quite wealthy or they have no skills to offer and no confidence to try to be like all other women.What a disgraceful comment from the Minister for Family and Community Services. What a disgraceful comment from the graduate from the Margaret Thatcher school of kicking beggars. What a disgraceful position from a minister who talks about compassion.The opposition will be supporting the Democrat amendments in the Senate when this bill goes back there. We will be supporting those because we have been consistently of the view that the people who are singled out for cuts in order to fund tax benefits for the big end of town in the government's Ralph review, in the GST changes and in the income tax cuts should not be single parents, should not be indigenous Australians and should not be the disabled.Every time the government has a look at this issue, it is as if it gains pleasure from attacking the most vulnerable people in our society. It says it is doing it for consistency, but that is just not true. Consistency requires that indigenous people be allowed—as non-indigenous people on parenting payments are allowed—to earn up to $100 a fortnight. Non-indigenous people are allowed to do it, Minister. Why are indigenous Australians being singled out? They are being singled out because of the One Nation type agenda being pursued by the government when it comes to the issue of race and when it comes to the issue of the most vulnerable in our society. Right now, single parents can use the CDEP to supplement income. What is wrong with that, Minister? What is wrong with indigenous Australians being encouraged to contribute to their community? (Time expired)16:24:0011324Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I stand here amazed by some of the remarks from members of the opposition. They are basically supporting double-dipping. They are saying that it is okay to double-dip. The interesting point with the moralistic sort of stand that some members of the opposition are taking is that, if we were so wrong, why is it that ATSIC and the leadership of ATSIC are supporting these amendments? ATSIC has always being known to be fiercely independent in its views of government policy, and we accept that. But ATSIC is accepting the amendments. The amendments have strong support from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. It seems as though the Labor Party is not listening to that. It is not listening to this peak organisation which we recognise looks after indigenous Australians—who have been disadvantaged for many years—and which acknowledges of itself that this policy of not double-dipping is correct and that the amendments that have been moved by the Democrats in the Senate are wrong.Yet members of the Labor Party are trying to beat up this little story of our being uncaring and not being supportive when the facts are that the indigenous community recognise that the amendments that are being proposed are wrong. The CDEP scheme has been operating for many years—well before Work for the Dole. Indeed, the fact it has been working so well is one reason we decided to extend the mutual obligation principle to many other members of the community. But, historically, there has been an anomaly that lone parents on CDEP schemes could legally claim their CDEP wages plus their pension payments.The opposition are saying that that is okay and are encouraging people to double-dip. We do not believe that is correct. People should be entitled to their payments but only their entitlements. Even when the same well-respected indigenous organisation, ATSIC, says that it agrees that the amendments are wrong, the opposition conveniently forget this, for political purposes and point scoring. The government acknowledge this. We are not backwards; we do not try to politicise this, as the member for Grayndler unfortunately does. He is stooping to university style politics.The government acknowledges the considerable disadvantage faced by indigenous lone parents. However, it does not believe that double-dipping is a satisfactory solution. Both the board of ATSIC and Ian Spicer, who conducted an independent review of the CDEP scheme in 1997, believe this double-dipping loophole should be changed. Indigenous lone parents do receive assistance through other measures—we recognise that—such as the Jobs, Education and Training program, JET. For instance, JET funding has enabled creches to be set up by the CDEP scheme to train child-care workers in indigenous communities. In some cases, it has led to permanent child-care centres operating and other innovative child-care solutions. After the changes, lone parents will still be better off participating in the CDEP than remaining solely on income support. They will also remain slightly better off financially than other CDEP participants.Access to CDEP is being extended to all other pensioners for the first time under this measure. It is a good measure. Age and disability support pensioners have been eager to participate in the scheme, and extending the current treatment of the CDEP income to these pensioners will create further disparities between customers in similar circumstances. Quite frankly, the Labor Party are not even going to divide on this bill. If they feel so passionately about it, maybe they should. Underneath it all, they are just playing politics, and they are recognising that double-dipping should not be supported by any members of the community. And it should not be supported by the opposition.The whole reason we try to have a very open and transparent welfare system is so that people who are entitled to that assistance receive it, whether they are indigenous Australians or any other Australians. But we do not support double-dipping, and neither would the opposition if it were open and transparent about this. It is whipping up a storm in a teacup for pure political purposes. Even ATSIC, the premier organisation and peak body that looks after indigenous people in this country, recognises that this anomaly is incorrect and unfair for other Australian taxpayers. It acknowledges that the opportunistic amendments moved by the Democrats, with the tacit support of the Labor Party, are wrong.16:29:0011325Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—One thing I have learnt this afternoon is that the Minister for Community Services has absolutely no idea how the CDEP operates or, indeed, where it operates. Nor has he any idea of the conditions in which people who are participants in the CDEP live. I doubt whether he has ever seen a CDEP community, and he comes in here and waxes lyrical about the sorts of services that are available to single parents in remote communities where the CDEP operates.You are living in cloud-cuckoo-land, brother. You have absolutely no comprehension about what life is like for people who live on CDEP in my communities. You have absolutely no idea about the level of poverty that people are subject to when they live in these communities. You have no idea at all about the lack of universality of services—about the services which do not apply in those communities. I just heard you talk about how JET operates in Aboriginal communities. I suppose you will tell me that your employment programs generally operate in Aboriginal communities. Let me tell you that they do not. In fact, the net result of the efforts of your government over successive budgets has been to whip out the funding not only from ATSIC but from those other agencies that provide the sorts of support services that you were just waxing lyrical about.There is no doubt about it: the most disadvantaged people in Australia, bar none, are the people living in severe poverty in these Aboriginal communities who are subject to CDEP. In reference to that level of disadvantage, studies by the Northern Territory Department of Health have demonstrated that the cost of living is higher for the people who live in those remote communities where they get the privilege, which they themselves have accepted since 1972, to work for the dole—nothing more. The cost, on average, of a simple basket of goods in most of these communities in remote Northern Australia is 140 per cent of the cost of a basket of goods in Sydney or Melbourne. What you are planning to do by these proposals is whip out $80 per fortnight in income and assistance to some of these people. You should understand the impact of this on these communities.You, along with your government, continue to talk about your concerns for young Australians, single parents and indigenous Australians. Well, we have never seen the colour of your money. We are seeing here an effort by you and by your government to withhold from these Australians their legitimate rights, to withhold from them their legitimate needs that should be being met by your government. In some measly-minded way, you believe that somehow or other they are double-dipping. Let me tell you: they are being treated no differently from other sole parents. That is what the equation should be about: their treatment vis-a-vis other Australians. I have the privilege, and have had the privilege, of knowing many of these single parents. I understand and know how difficult it is for these people to make ends meet. I know how hard it is for these people to put clothes on their children's backs and shoes on their children's feet and to supply appropriate nutrition because of the level of geographic isolation they suffer and the cost that they incur as a result.What you are proposing to do now is further undermine that ability to provide these essentials of life for their children. That is what the test is about: whether it is reasonable and whether it is fair. It is very clear that it is neither reasonable nor fair. It is just another extension of the attitude of your government, historically and until now, and of your disparaging attitude towards those people who live in remote Australia generally and, most particularly in this instance, towards those people who are on CDEP. I ask you, Minister: if you really are sincere about understanding these things, go and look at the impact of the decisions that are being made by your government in terms of the withdrawal of services, in particular and in general, from these remote communities as a result of financial stringency and the budget cuts being made by you and your government.16:34:0011326Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I note that the Minister for Community Services, in defending this callous action by the government, has quoted ATSIC. I want to quote ATSIC myself, from the letter that they wrote to the Leader of the Australian Democrats on 31 December 1999, signed by Gatjil Djerrkura, the Chairman of ATSIC:While the Board has expressed concern over the potential impact of the new income arrangements for lone parents, pensioners on CDEP . . . There it is: ATSIC themselves have expressed concern. But, because this government has a take it or leave it approach and because of the way it disguises cuts as reforms, ATSIC were once again put in the position of: `Here is the package—take it or you get nothing.'The ALP moved a number of amendments in the Senate to this bill. We fixed up the crisis payment and the changes that the government was proposing in knocking off the education and employment entry payments. We fixed it up so that there will now be a choice of either getting that one-off payment or having a loan of between $50 and $400. We also fixed up the pensioner education supplement issue. In fact, we have fixed up a number of the inadequacies with this bill. But one of the things that we also moved on was this issue. I have said to the minister that we would have preferred that it not be subject to a time frame. We would have preferred this move to have just been knocked off completely because, as ATSIC themselves say, there is no doubt that people will leave this scheme as a result. If you take away any financial incentive whatsoever for people to participate in the CDEP—so that instead of getting $100 a fortnight, they get $20 a fortnight—you say to them: `Don't bother; don't bother trying to improve your situation or trying to contribute to your community because we do not believe that you should participate.' The inequity in this is just extraordinary. The double-dipping argument is false.The fact is that other people who are receiving parenting payments can earn up to $102 per fortnight. The difference with this scheme is that they are actually earning $330, not $100. Therefore, $230 remains with the communities in which they are contributing, and only $100 per fortnight goes into their own pocket and into the mouths of the children they have to feed. This government and this minister want to take the food out of those children's mouths. This government wants to take the clothes off those children's backs. It wants to take the books off those children. If you were to think of who in our community would be the most vulnerable, where would you begin but with indigenous sole parents in remote areas? It is just extraordinary that this minister and this government speak about these people ripping off the taxpayer. I am sorry, Minister, but here we are speaking of 4,000 indigenous sole parents who have been subjected to 200 years of discrimination—and you say to them, `We're going to take $80 off you.' Minister, you are joking!XJ6ANTHONYMr Anthony—Get off your high horse.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—The minister says, `Get off your high horse.' Minister, we will continue to stand by these indigenous sole parents because we know that this grubby, uncaring government, made up of graduates of the Thatcher institute for kicking beggars, does not care about these people. This government is looking for budget savings measures wherever it can get them. Then it will be able to fix up its tax cuts for the big end of town. It will be able to reduce capital gains tax. It will be able to put in place all these measures for the wealthiest in society whom it represents whilst, at the same time, introducing this pitiful measure for the meagre savings it will bring.Motion (by Mr Anthony) agreed to:That the question be now put.Original question resolved in the affirmative.16:39:0011327Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I move:(1) Schedule 2, item 53, page 22 (table item 3, 4th column), after "1066A-B1", insert "(including any amount required to be added by point 1066A-C1)".(2) Schedule 2, item 53, page 23 (table item 4, 4th column), after "1066A-B1", insert "(including any amount required to be added by point 1066A-C1)". (3) Schedule 2, item 54, page 39 (line 31), omit "1231A(1A) ", substitute "1231(1A) ".I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum.Amendments agreed to.Motion (by Mr Anthony) agreed to:That, in the message returning the bill to the Senate, the Senate be requested to reconsider the bill in respect of the amendments made by the House of Representatives to the bill.Bills11327r91711327Debate resumed from 2 September, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.16:41:0011327McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition will not be opposing the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1999 , but I will make a couple of points in the course of the debate. The bill itself is relatively straightforward, but the issues which it traverses are frequently and appropriately controversial and sensitive. In particular, this legislation relates to the regulation of information obtained with search warrants through, as the title of the bill says, telecommunications interception. The international community, as we would expect, generally is concerned about how this area is regulated. Clearly, society has an interest in effective law enforcement, but equally that has to be balanced against the rights of individuals.For instance, article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides:1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour or reputation.2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference and attacks.The provisions of article 8, the European Convention on Human Rights, are also to similar effect in a little more detail. So the international community, in respect of multilateral treaties, has recognised the balance required between enabling proper law enforcement activities and protecting the rights of the individual. That has usually been obtained by ensuring that the executive action of implementing a warrant is firstly scrutinised by a member of the judiciary who is separate from the executive level of government.The problem occurred where, after a High Court case in 1995 of Grollo v. Commissioner of Australian Federal Police, a number of Federal Court judges indicated their concern about issuing search warrants. Increasingly they were finding themselves on cases reviewing the administrative action of implementing those warrants, and they were concerned that their involvement in the issuing of those warrants compromised their ability to adjudicate. So, as a result of that, the government extended the ability to issue warrants to selected members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I will talk about those issues a little later in the debate.The first series of amendments that the bill proposes are really to include the Anti-Corruption Commission of West Australia among those agencies entitled to receive this intercepted information. It essentially deals with corruption, crime and serious improper conduct of public officers. The opposition has no objection to that agency being declared under section 34 as an appropriate agency to receive information. The second agency is the Queensland Crime Commission, which has responsibility to investigate criminal paedophilia and organised crime generally. Again, the opposition recognises the gravity of those matters. We have no objection to that body being declared as an appropriate organisation to receive information. The amendments will entitle those two bodies to receive the information where it appears to relate to the conduct that they are investigating, where the use of the intercepted information is undertaken in accordance with its functions or its charters and also, where provided—and importantly provided—the Attorney-General first issues a declaration under section 34 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act to obtain warrants to intercept telecommunications. And there are a number of requirements before those declarations are issued.As I indicated earlier, section 103A of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act required a review to be undertaken of the power of Administrative Appeals Tribunal members or certain identified and selected members to issue warrants. At the time, the opposition supported the power being extended to members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on the basis that there was a sunset provision which expires in December of this year and subject to review.The government set up the Telecommunications Interception Policy Review of the operation of the act and specifically the issuing of these warrants by members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The review has recently been tabled in parliament. The proposed amendment will effectively remove that sunset provision which will, on an ongoing basis, enable the minister to continue to nominate specified members of the AAT to issue interception warrants for law enforcement purposes. There are indeed qualifications imposed in the selection of those specific AAT members, specifically that they have to have legal qualifications and appropriate experience.While the Australian Labor Party have reservations about the use of members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to issue warrants, we acknowledge that the experience has largely proved positive. We must place on the record that we do have some concerns regarding the readiness of members of the AAT to issue warrants but note that this is largely being addressed as those members gain experience of the warrant process. Nonetheless it is very important to ensure that they are fully aware of what is required from them; otherwise there is not that independent scrutiny of the executive action or executive request if the person issuing the warrant is not fully aware of their responsibilities.We are also concerned that some agencies are preferring to obtain warrants from members of the AAT rather than from available Federal Court judges. We strongly believe that it is still preferable for judges to be approached first when a warrant is sought. Indeed, we read that as also being consistent with the views of the policy review, to which I have referred earlier. By and large, particularly in the circumstances where Federal Court judges themselves were apprehensive about issuing warrants, we are prepared to support this bill both in respect of the inclusion of the agencies to which I have referred and also in respect of removing that sunset provision and providing the ongoing power for members of the AAT to issue warrants.The three points I want to address in the discussion are as follows: firstly, the relationship between the government and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and whether it will be appropriate for a similar power to be bestowed upon members of the Administrative Review Tribunal which the government is contemplating establishing; secondly, whether the range of offences for which a warrant can be obtained are sufficiently defined and appropriate constraints placed on the use of telecommunications interception devices for serious offences; and, thirdly, the need for the supervision of the exchange of information between agencies.The first point to note is that, as I have indicated, under section DA of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act the Attorney-General has the power to authorise named persons to issue warrants. As I have indicated, they have to have necessary qualifications. They have to be a legally qualified legal practitioner of at least five years standing to be nominated as a person who is appropriate to issue warrants. Again, the fact of the security of tenure of members of the AAT separates them sufficiently from the executive to make them appropriate officers to undertake this very serious and significant task of permitting warrants to be issued.But we are concerned about the government's proposal to introduce legislation establishing the Administrative Review Tribunal. The discussion paper associated with that proposal has been released. The primary distinguishing features of the Administrative Review Tribunal are that members of the tribunal will, if the government's intention goes ahead, be likely to come from those departments that they are involved in and there will not be the same necessary qualification restrictions on those members. Also, importantly, they will have short-term contracts before returning to the bureaucracy or the executive arm of government.We are of the view that those persons are not likely to be sufficiently qualified to undertake this important and serious task, nor are they sufficiently separated from the function of the executive to be impartial in reviewing the request by the executive to issue warrants. Accordingly, we put the government firmly on notice that, while we are prepared to agree to members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal having the power to issue warrants, we will be drawing a line in the sand when—or if—it comes to the establishment of an administrative review tribunal. Indeed, we note that if such a tribunal is established to replace the Administrative Appeals Tribunal it will be necessary to amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979, and we put the government on notice that we would not accept that as an appropriate amendment.So in those circumstances the government would do well to heed the recommendations of the Telecommunications Interception Policy Review, which recommended that in respect of the appointment of Federal Court judges it first be ascertained whether those Federal Court judges would be prepared to be nominated or declared as an appropriate person to issue warrants. Again, it is the view of the Australian Labor Party that wherever possible it should be a member of the judiciary that supervises the issuing of these warrants, for that very important reason. They are obviously qualified lawyers, they are experienced in the rules of evidence and, most importantly, they are quite separate and have security of tenure. They are separate and distinct from the executive government, which is issuing these warrants to impinge on the liberty of members of the community.The second issue which I indicated required examination was whether the offences for the issuing of warrants are sufficiently defined and sufficiently serious. There is also a related issue as to whether those seeking warrants and being approved to issue warrants are doing them bona fide, having regard to the seriousness of the matters which they are required to investigate.We note that concern has been expressed in recent weeks about the use by certain state anticorruption authorities of telecommunications interception warrants to investigate offences, potential offences or potential corrupt acts that may not be sufficiently serious to justify the action that they have taken. For instance, it appears that the New South Wales Independent Commission against Corruption has issued warrants for the interception of the telephones of members of parliament—perhaps not going into Parliament House itself, but certainly, it appears, their electorate offices.That is a very serious situation, because it does have the potential to affect the ability of members of parliament to fulfil their privileged responsibility of representing their constituents. Clearly, if telephones are being intercepted, they are recording not only statements made by the member of parliament but complaints coming in from constituents. That sort of situation is obviously a very serious intervention in the privacy of those people, particularly the constituents who are contacting their members of parliament, and one which should occur only for very serious offences.Section 45 of the act provides that the warrants can be issued in respect of class 1 offences, which are defined in section 5 of the act to include very serious offences, such as murder, kidnapping or a narcotics offence. Again, any reasonable Australian would say it is appropriate that our law enforcement authorities have the power to intercept telephones in those circumstances. Section 46 provides for the issuing of warrants in respect of class 2 offences, which are defined in section 5D of the act. Class 2 offences include offences punishable by a maximum period of at least seven years, and relate to various types of criminal conduct and also other specified offences, usually involving serious corruption. So, by definition, an offence having the potential maximum period of penal servitude of seven years is in the nature of a serious offence and appropriately included in the schedule. We note that that schedule has not changed since the period of the former Labor government in 1995.Also, there is the added safeguard in respect of the issuing of warrants for class 2 offences by a judge or member of the AAT that the member must consider, among other matters, the gravity of the offence. Again, we say that is appropriate. As one would expect, a warrant also exists in respect of an offence that is ancillary to those class 1 or class 2 offences. That would include matters such as aiding and abetting one or other of those offences. But they are, again, those serious offences as set out in the provisions of the act to which I have referred.Further, anticorruption agencies may only investigate a prescribed offence, with the term being defined in section 5 to include serious offences punishable by a maximum period of at least three years and also ancillary offences. A serious offence is defined as a class 1 or class 2 offence as listed above. We note again that those provisions are the same as they have been for a long time, since 1987—again enacted by the previous Labor government.In summary, the range of offences for which a telecommunications interception warrant can be used has not been significantly altered in recent years. The only thing that has changed has been the range of agencies than can apply for a warrant and, again, only in respect of those matters involving serious criminality and serious corruption.So the Labor Party is determined—as I hope all members of parliament would be—to ensure that any alleged abuse of the warrant process should be fully investigated. It is a serious matter, a serious infringement of basic human rights, and one which requires an appropriately and effectively functioning independent investigative agency to review these matters. At the federal level there is the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and each state has established an agency to act in a similar role. While these arrangements go a long way to addressing the concerns which we have raised about the use of warrants, we believe that they are not in themselves a comprehensive solution.We believe that the Commonwealth should advocate for the establishment of a national inspecting authority coordinating committee to review the operation of the warrant process and to develop a national code setting out the principles of best practice in issuing and using these warrants and the material obtained from the use of these warrants. This committee will help to ensure consistency of practice in the undertaking of those particular functions. Again, that is consistent with a recommendation of the policy review committee, although that committee was perhaps too limited in talking about the coordinating authority reviewing, in particular, the use of encryption technology. But we say there is a need for that coordination between the Commonwealth and state investigative agencies to develop best practice models and procedures applicable to these law enforcement agencies.That relates to the third and final point, about the exchange of information. These agencies are entitled to notify, and one would expect that, if they became aware of a serious offence or act of corruption that was not perhaps within their area of responsibility or within their charter, they would have in mind the public interest and duly notify the agency or agencies that had the responsibility to investigate that particular area of criminal activity or corruption. Again, it is very important that such information only be exchanged with respect to the same scrutiny that is necessary when we are contemplating issuing a warrant.We note that there are procedures in the act whereby under section 68 these exchanges can take place only from one chief executive to the chief executive of another agency or by a person duly authorised by the chief executive to either give or receive the information. And it is important that the information not be exchanged without that senior level of supervision. We also note that information can be lawfully exchanged only where it appears to relate to a relevant offence in relation to that agency. The term `relevant offence' is defined in section 5 of the act to include a proscribed offence particular to the relevant agency. Again, we would think that is appropriate. It would be one thing for an interception to detect an official or a criminal using an SP bookmaker, as it is clearly an illegal activity; but to communicate that fact to an agency which did not have responsibility for investigating racing and gaming may be inappropriate.These controls are very important and more so is the application of principles and the need to oversee how that information is exchanged. At the Commonwealth level there is the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and each state government has similar inspecting authorities. Again, we say that it is appropriate for the Commonwealth to take a leading role in establishing a coordinating committee to review the exchange of this information. It is relatively easy for the Attorney-General to exercise that role because, before he makes a declaration in respect of an agency that that particular agency is duly authorised to receive information under section 35 of the act, the Attorney-General is required to be satisfied that the relevant agency will report to the Attorney-General on its application and use of warrants under the act and also will be subject to scrutiny by a suitably empowered and independent state inspecting authority. While we think that those mechanisms are appropriate, they most certainly could be enhanced with respect to the area of the transfer of information, and we would call on the Attorney-General most certainly to review those matters.Finally, I note that it is appropriate—and I expect that the government will arrange this—for the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills to examine the bill. That committee has a special position in the parliament—one often underestimated and underrated. It has a responsibility to review these bills and to report to parliament as to whether they will `trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties' of individuals; whether they will `make rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent upon insufficiently defined administrative powers'; whether they will `make rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent upon non-reviewable decisions'; whether they involve an inappropriate delegation of legislative power; and, finally, whether they will `insufficiently subject the exercise of legislative power to parliamentary scrutiny'.While that function is important and will, as a matter of course, take place in respect of a bill such as this, I noticed in the press yesterday that there was an article regarding the potential use of interception power so that a warrant would not be directed at a particular technology but rather at an individual. The very sophisticated technologies we have now for intercepting phone calls, email communications, tracing vehicles and distant tracking devices all have the potential to be very seriously invasive of not only that person who is the subject of investigation but also those persons with whom they are dealing. They have the potential therefore to affect all members of the community.As we are looking at the need to provide our law enforcement agencies with cutting edge technology to undertake their task I think the time is coming for us to also examine and more fully state the rights, of individuals. It is coming very close to the time when this parliament should again be looking at the appropriateness of at least a statutory bill of rights, which could beef up and make more significant those sorts of principles that the Senate committee to which I have referred takes on board when it reviews legislation. Insofar as these are matters which are very significant when we are looking at the executive interfering in and intruding into the lives of our citizens, we cannot take the responsibility too lightly. Having said that, we think this bill is appropriate in that it removes a sunset provision and extends what is already occurring on an indefinite basis, and the two agencies which will be declared agencies are appropriate law enforcement agencies to be so declared. The opposition will support this bill.17:09:0011332Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—This Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1999 deals with telecommunications interception and aims to strengthen the ability of Australian law enforcement agencies to deal with paedophilia, organised crime and corruption by public officials. The interception of telecommunications by law enforcement agencies and the subsequent use of intercepted information are regulated by the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. This bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 to include the Anti-Corruption Commission of Western Australia and the Queensland Crime Commission as `eligible authorities' under the act.It is unquestioned that we live in an age where there have been enormous advances in telecommunications, and no country has been more ready to embrace changes in telecommunications than Australia. I note the shadow minister's caution in his address that as these various forms of telecommunications converge we have to be vigilant that they do not become intrusive into the lives of ordinary Australians. Improvements in communications and telecommunication have had a profound effect on the quality of our lives and the way we do business. Just consider how the average telephone has changed in the last 12 years—to say nothing of the mobile phone. I can remember winning a mobile phone about eight or nine years ago, and it was a great big bulky thing; today you can slip one into your pocket and it is scarcely discernible. Shortly, more opportunities will be opened up to us with satellite mobile phones.Soon, nowhere in Australia will be remote from telephony. While this provides enormous benefits for legitimate business and we can use phones in a variety of ways—recorded messages, call-backs and diversion call facilities right through now to data transfer, just to name a few of the possibilities—we also have to recognise that our current era of telecommunications expansion has enhanced the opportunity for criminals and perverts to harness this medium and to hide behind its relative confidentiality. In the future, someone smuggling drugs or illicit pornographic material—or even smuggling human cargo—will be able to be in the loop of the most sophisticated telecommunications in the most remote parts of our coastline. So I suppose it is appropriate that the government cautiously widens the agencies and the limits under which they can operate.Like the shadow Attorney, I am a great libertarian. I always view with the utmost scepticism anything that limits the freedom of the individual or intrudes into his or her privacy. There is nothing more abhorrent to any Australian than the thought that someone might be illegally listening to his or her conversation. Many people come into my electorate office when they suspect this is happening—whether it is being done legally or illegally, and they usually suspect it is illegal. In fact, people can be quite paranoid about it, quite disturbed.Quite rightly, we have always had very strict laws regarding intercepting and recording conversations, and any move we make to impinge on this principle needs to be measured against the right of privacy on the one hand and the greater community good on the other. Prior to 1960, there was no prohibition on the interception of telephonic communications, although some activities, such as interference with telephone lines, would have constituted an offence. The general prohibition on interception was introduced in 1960 with exemptions from the prohibition for interceptions relating to offences against post and telegraph legislation and for national security purposes—where warrants were issued but only to ASIO. The Telecommunications (Interception) Act of 1979 extends the range of matters on which interception warrants could be issued to include narcotics offences punishable under the Customs Act 1901. This principal act also extends the service which could be intercepted to include data transmission. Although, like the shadow Attorney, I have misgivings about that in some respects, I can understand that sophisticated criminals—just taking those three examples before of people introducing narcotics or pornographic material or even human cargo into this country—would have those sophisticated means at their disposal.The last major change in this area occurred in 1987 when the ability to apply for an interception warrant was extended to more general serious offences and to state law enforcement agencies. The bill today widens the power of interception but within fairly limited parameters. For example, with regard to potential offences, these amendments mean that agencies other than ASIO can use interception to investigate class 1 and class 2 offences, as they are known. Class 1 offences include murder, kidnapping, the transportation of narcotics and conspiracy emanating from those three crimes. Class 2 offences include a range of offences punishable by a maximum penalty of seven or more years. Examples include money laundering offences, offences relating to Commonwealth computers and data, and serious bribery.As the end of the millennium approaches, we have all been sensitised to the Y2K phenomenon. We recognise that the malfunctioning of computers, for example, is a matter of the greatest gravity. We can well understand why, over time, the bill has been expanded to include artificial tampering with computers, especially where they relate to government services. That should attract our concern and penalties for those offences should reflect that concern.Going back to the amendments themselves, this mode of interception can only occur when a warrant is issued by a judge of a court created by the Commonwealth parliament or a member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, while ASIO can also be issued with warrants by the Attorney-General and the Director-General of Security. I would like to take up a point that the shadow Attorney made. I find it a little disturbing that members of the Federal Court forgo the right to issue these warrants. I have some ambivalence to these things being handed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, not that I have any problem with the tribunal itself, but it seems to me that we empowered the Federal Court to carry out a number of functions, and judges of that court are fairly senior in the legal hierarchy of this country and for them to forgo this responsibility disturbs me somewhat. I would like to think that judges—before forgoing this responsibility—would take a more serious look at it. I would much prefer to see these things in the hands of the judiciary. I agree that the second-best choice is someone in the AAT with five years legal experience.The organisations currently eligible to apply to carry out such interceptions include the Australian Federal Police, the National Crime Authority, the Victorian, New South Wales, South Australian and Western Australian police forces, the New South Wales Crime Commission, the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Police Integrity Commission of New South Wales. The amendments proposed will mean the Queensland Crime Commission and the Anti-Corruption Commission of Western Australia will be included within the definition of eligible authorities for the purposes of the principal act.The QCC was first established in 1997 to investigate and gain evidence relating to relevant criminal activity referred to it by its management committee. Relevant criminal activity includes paedophilia, crimes punishable by imprisonment of 14 years or more and organised crime. Paedophilia is an issue of utmost concern in Queensland following recent court cases. It is a matter that causes people on both sides of politics in Queensland great angst. I, for one, support the extension of this power to the QCC.In Western Australia, the ACC was established in 1988 to receive or initiate allegations of corruption about police officers or other public officials and to investigate these allegations. The amendments will enable these agencies to receive and use intercepted information originally obtained by other law enforcement agencies where the information relates to matters that the agency investigate. I too have ambivalence about the exchange of that information, and I think we should periodically review this legislation to make sure that it does not get watered down in such a way that someone indulging in a bit of SP bookmaking—to use the example used by the shadow Attorney—is picked up as a consequence of some other investigation and finds that that information becomes available to other law enforcement agencies. That is not the purpose of this act and we should make sure that this act is never watered down to include such matters. As we all know, there is a tendency, once a privilege is extended, for intrusion into people's civil rights and for margins and envelopes to be pushed to the extremes. I caution the government that they keep a very close eye on that.The second purpose of the bill relates to the power of nominated members of the Adminis trative Appeals Tribunal to issue warrants and it implements the recommendation of the Telecommunications Interception Policy Review. This review recommended that:The provisions allowing interception warrants to be issued by nominated members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal should be continued and transferred to be Administrative Review Tribunal when that body is established.I add that that should only be on the basis of equal qualifications of the personnel available. We should also try to establish that people serving on that new body do not have any conflict of interest with the agencies which might exercise these privileges. By virtue of section 3 of the Telecommunications (Interception) and Listening Device Amendment Act 1997, the power of nominated members of the AAT to issue warrants will expire on 31 December 1999. The bill will repeal section 3 and ensure that this critical function continues to be carried out by people with the necessary independence and experience.The issue of effective law enforcement and the protection of the right of individuals must always be balanced when considering telecommunications interception. I cannot stress that too much. The government is balancing these views. While the bill widens the powers of interception, it is within fairly limited parameters. The amendments will strengthen the ability of Australian law enforcement agencies to fight a more sophisticated mode of crime.17:22:0011334Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—We have heard already that the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1999 deals with phone tapping and powers for the Queensland Crime Commission and the Anti-Corruption Commission of Western Australia. As a Queenslander, I am naturally interested in the activities of the Queensland Crime Commission.I am a tremendous supporter of the Queensland Crime Commission. I believe it is a positive crime fighting force. It was established by the former coalition government in Queensland, which wrote to the federal government seeking telephone tapping powers for the activities of the QCC. The Attorney-General wrote back and he set out very well the circumstances under which this bill has been drawn up. He said:I have considered the request on its merits and in the light of the Crime Commission Act 1997 (Qld) which I note confers extensive powers on the Commission but also imposes stringent accountability measures and close supervision by independent authorities. On that basis, I would endorse in principle amendments of the Act to confer `eligible authority' status on the Commission. If such amendments were to be passed by Parliament, this status would enable the Commission to receive lawfully intercepted information collected by other agencies which appears to be relevant to the Commission's functions. However, the Commission will not be able to seek and execute interception warrants in its own name until I—that is, the federal Attorney-General—exercise my discretion to make a declaration under section 34 of the Act. I cannot do that until Queensland has laws in place which comply with the requirements of section 35 of the Act. I understand that a Bill was introduced in the Queensland Parliament to create such laws but that it was not passed before the election—that is, the 1998 election—was called.Currently every state police force is deemed to be an eligible authority, but not every force and not every crime fighting body has those sorts of telephone interception powers. The agencies able to apply for warrants to intercept telephone calls are the Australian Federal Police, the National Crime Authority, the Victorian police, the New South Wales Police, the New South Wales Crime Commission, the Independent Commission Against Corruption—ICAC—the South Australian police, the Western Australian police and the Police Integrity Commission of New South Wales.It is opportune to consider this bill today, and the fact is that phone tapping powers in Queensland were first sought by the Criminal Justice Commission in 1995. In the past week or so, the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee in Queensland has again been considering the issue. I would like to refer to a couple of press releases that cover that time and the reports of what that committee has had to say. The Australian Associated Press of 1 October said:A Queensland parliamentary committee will hold public hearings into whether the Criminal Justice Commission . . . and other agencies should have phone-tapping powers.Mr Lucas—the Parliamentary CJC chairman—said it was envisaged organisations to make representations would include the CJC, the Queensland Crime Commission, the National Crime Authority and the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties.A further press report on the matter dated 5 October stated:Criminal investigation phone tapping should go ahead in Queensland but only if "rigorous" safeguards were put in place, an inquiry in Brisbane told today.This submission to the inquiry came from the CJC, and the report goes on to state:Two years ago, the role of the Public Interest Monitor . . . was introduced to oversee phone tapping.Current PIM Richard Perry told the inquiry today the practice was warranted, especially when law enforcement agencies such as the CJC and police were investigating serious crimes such as murder, rape and paedophilia.But Mr Perry said "an extremely rigorous regime" was needed to oversee such powers and ensure they were not abused.Earlier, Council for Civil Liberties spokesman Terry O'Gorman said Queensland police already were using phone and e-mail tapping through joint operations with the National Crime Authority and Australian Federal Police.We should have a look at the history of this particular issue, where phone tapping has come from and under what circumstances. The Commonwealth first exercised its power to make laws regulating the interception of telecommunications by enacting the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1960. Under that act, it was an offence to intercept telephonic communications except in two circumstances—firstly, where interception was effected by officers of what was then the PMG department generally for technical reasons or, secondly, where interception was authorised by a warrant issued under the act. Such a warrant could only be issued to ASIO for national security purposes.The current act specifies the circumstances in which it is lawful for an interception to take place: namely, in connection with the operation or maintenance of the telecommuni cations system or, under the authority of a warrant, the investigation by law enforcement agencies of serious offences or by ASIO for national security purposes. The amendments that we are dealing with here are basically dealing with those police enforcement provisions. I should look at what particular items come within the gamut of those law enforcement agencies when they apply for a warrant to proceed in this manner. The member for Barton made some comments in this regard, and I would just like to rehash some of the statements that were made by him and the member for Hinkler.A class 1 offence includes murder, kidnapping and equivalent offences, certain narcotics offences and offences in relation to which the National Crime Authority is conducting a special investigation. Class 2 is defined under section 5D of the act and covers several categories of offences—serious offences involving loss of life or serious personal injury, or serious risk of loss or injury, serious damage to property in circumstances endangering a person's safety, trafficking in prescribed substances, serious fraud, serious loss to the revenue of the Commonwealth or a state or the Australian Capital Territory and bribery or corruption of or by an officer of the Commonwealth, state or territory.When the member for Barton was talking about his concerns about MPs' phones being tapped, I think he has to bear in mind that that is one of the class 2 offences that is referred to here—`bribery or corruption of or by an officer of the Commonwealth, state or territory'. As has been found many times before, MPs, while we have an important job to do, are not above the law, and if we were, for example, to indulge in any of those low practices of bribery or corruption then certainly the law, as it provides for such offences, should come down upon us. I think it should be brought to the notice of the member for Barton that that is part of the class 2 offences. Class 2 offences also involve planning and organisation offences, money laundering offences and computer related offences.When issuing a warrant to one of these bodies, the judge has to give consideration to various issues, and we have heard that the AAT could also be involved here. The principal matters which the judge or nominated AAT member is required to consider are: the availability of alternative methods of investigating the offence; and, in the case of class 2 offences, the gravity of the conduct being investigated and the degree of interference with the privacy of any person. Where an application for a warrant includes a request that the warrant authorise entry on premises, the judge or nominated AAT member is also required to be satisfied that it would be impractical or inappropriate to intercept communications by less intrusive means.We should now look at what kind of impact this has had. If we look at the number of arrests that have been made by bodies utilising powers under these provisions of this particular act, we will see that, in 1995-96, 657 arrests were made, including 269 by Victoria Police. In 1997-98, 625 arrests were made, including 164 by the New South Wales police and 124 by Victoria Police. If we look at the Australian Federal Police, just one of the police bodies involved, and the range of offences being dealt with, we will see that they picked up two prosecutions in relation to murder charges, 39 in relation to narcotics charges and 20 in relation to trafficking in drugs out of a total of 97 AFP prosecutions in one particular year.Since 1987 state governments have been able to enact legislation enabling state police services and other relevant bodies to obtain warrants to tap phones. This was investigated by the Criminal Justice Commission in Queensland through a report into telephone interception and criminal activity in Queensland. Let us look at some of the things that were covered in that report. The report harked back to September 1991 when the commission—that is, the CJC—and the Office of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services released an issues paper on the matter of investigating police powers. One matter canvassed in this paper was whether the Queensland Police Service should be given a power to tap telephones.The commission subsequently received a number of submissions which included at least some discussion on the issue. The Queensland Police Service, for example, argued strongly that it should have the power to intercept telecommunications in order to effectively discharge its law enforcement role. The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties argued that the extent of telephone interception throughout Australia should be considered before any further extensions of power are granted. Other submissions at that time stated, for example, that the QPS, the Queensland Police Service, should seek the assistance of Commonwealth law enforcement agencies if it needed to intercept telephones, rather than having powers of its own. The CJC, having gone through all those items, concluded:The Queensland government takes the necessary steps to enable the QPS and the Commission—the Criminal Justice Commission—to intercept telecommunications as they pass over the telecommunications system. This will require:. the introduction of a State Telecommunications (Interception) Act which conforms with the requirements of the Commonwealth Act. a request by the Premier to the Commonwealth Attorney-General to have the QPS and the Commission declared `agencies' for the purposes of the Commonwealth Act.Now the Queensland Crime Commission is making application for these powers. What is the Queensland Crime Commission? The Queensland Crime Commission has a mandate to investigate criminal activity referred to it and, in particular, criminal paedophilia and major and organised crime. The QCC is intended to be a tightly structured, specially focused and relatively small body that can concentrate its crime fighting efforts on referred matters without the pressure of having to deal with wider policing and criminal justice issues. It intends taking a leading tactical role in the fight against organised and major criminal activity and paedophilia within Queensland as well as performing distinctly strategic intelligence gathering purposes.The creation and continued operation of the QCC are justified only to the extent that it succeeds in areas where other investigative agencies or methods have already tried and failed or are unlikely to succeed. The QCC has a management committee, and its role is to refer matters to the QCC under special circumstances where it is satisfied that investigations using ordinary police powers would not have been effective. The Police Commissioner also can ask the committee to refer relevant criminal activity or a major crime to the QCC for investigation, but he must show that an investigation carried out by the Police Service into the matter has not been effective, that further investigation by the Police Service is unlikely to be any more effective, and that investigation by the QCC is in the public interest. The QCC's jurisdiction in relation to criminal paedophilia is also extraterritorial—that is, it extends beyond Queensland—provided that there is a connection between the offender or the victim with the state of Queensland.The QCC has statutory power to require specified information to be provided or particular documents or things to be produced. It also has the capacity to do all other things necessary or convenient to perform its statutory functions. An authorised QCC officer may apply to a magistrate or a judge for a warrant to search private places, vehicles and people and, in cases of evident necessity, enter a place without a warrant in order to preserve evidence. With the Crime Commissioner's approval, a QCC officer can also apply for a warrant to use a tracking device or use a surveillance device without a warrant in certain circumstances. A QCC officer can apply to a Supreme Court judge for a covert search warrant or an arrest warrant. The Queensland Crime Commissioner is personally authorised to give a notice to produce to a person requiring the production of a specified document or thing and he can also issue a written attendance notice requiring a person to attend a QCC hearing. Finally, all QCC officers are entitled to seize anything found in a place lawfully entered that provides evidence in connection with a QCC investigation.So what has the QCC achieved so far? A 12 November 1998 report of the Australian Associated Press on the annual report of the QCC states:The QCC annual report showed in its first 10 months, the body set up to investigate paedophilia and organised crime had assisted police in laying 65 criminal charges. The report further states:. . . the QCC has launched two major investigations in partnership with police—Project Axis and Project Krystal.Project Axis aims to reduce the number of serial or systematic sex offences against children.Project Krystal aims to assess the level of organised crime in Queensland.In that period—the first seven months of the operation of the QCC—there had already been a total of six arrests. The QCC is structured in such a way to ensure that it represents a wide range of law enforcement interests in the state. It has a management committee. The members of that management committee are the Crime Commissioner, the Police Commissioner of Queensland, the Chairperson of the Criminal Justice Commission, the Chairperson of the National Crime Authority, the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee, the Children's Commissioner, and two community representatives—of which one must be a woman and the other must have an interest in civil liberties. In that latter category, Sherree Meyer of the Queensland Homicide Victims Support Group is included. That run-down of the make-up of that body shows what authoritative checks and balances apply to the Queensland Crime Commission.Unlike the sometimes controversial other organisation—the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission—the QCC has shown an ability to get on with its activities in a comparatively low profile manner, as befits such a body. The Commissioner of the QCC is a distinguished crime fighter in Queensland, Tim Carmody. I pause to refer to some of his achievements. He is a former police officer who was admitted to the Queensland Bar in 1982 and specialised in major criminal trial and appeal work. He was also counsel assisting the Connolly Ryan inquiry into the future of the CJC. Those are a couple of the major highlights of his career. The important fact is that he has strong political support from both sides of politics in Queensland, and in a community sense he really is a straight shooter.In looking at what Commissioner Carmody has to say about issues such as the utilisation of phone tapping powers, I refer to an article recently in the Courier-Mail in Brisbane where he was reported as saying that the body had focused its operational efforts on seven investigative leads and two major projects. I referred before to Project Axis, which had been established with the Queensland police force to minimise the commission of serial and systematic sex offences against children. The range of issues that Project Axis and Project Krystal have investigated cover a wide range of the criminal landscape in Queensland. The Courier-Mail article states that Mr Carmody, in the QCC annual report, questioned the cost of crime, arguing for the introduction of legislation allowing the Queensland Crime Commission to recover its operational costs by using the proceeds of crime. I think that is something that Queenslanders and Australians in general would like to see a lot more of.The Queensland Crime Commission operate with a staffing level of 37 at the current time. In 1998 and 1999, they rounded up a total of 47 offenders, laying 292 charges. They have a budget of $4.3 million for 1999-2000, with $3.3 million going into combating major crime and paedophilia and another $622,000 going into the maintenance of an effective intelligence service. Recently the Queensland Crime Commission released a report on Project Krystal, which was referred to in the Courier-Mail in an article by Wayne Smith. (Time expired)17:42:0011338Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—I thank the members for Barton, Hinkler and Blair, who have contributed to the debate on the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1999 , and I thank the opposition for their support of the bill. It is right that members who deal with a subject like telecommunications interception should express grave reservations about the use of this intrusive power. I know that I have done the same in the past on debates when speaking in opposition. It is very important that the government takes a very responsible attitude towards the granting of powers to intercept telecommunications covertly, even though the purpose for which the interceptions may be made—protection of the community from crime and from things like terrorism and politically motivated violence—are of themselves grave issues.The member for Barton has raised the question of why judges should not continue to perform the function. I think he probably understands reasonably well what the reasoning is, but for the record let me explain. I, too, shared the reservations that the member for Barton had in relation to judges ceasing to be the issuing authorities and it being necessary to find another body of persons capable of doing it. But there is a good reason. The function is currently performed by consenting judges of the Federal Court and the Family Court. The amendments that were made in 1997 were necessary because the Federal Court judges have generally stated that they believe this is a function they should no longer perform and that they should withdraw their consent. The Family Court has made a similar indication.In the case of the Family Court, this was prompted by two factors, one being that a number of the judges of the Federal Court were the respondents to applications for judicial review of the decision to issue a warrant. Those applications were made in the very court in which the issuing judges sat. Another reason related to a decision of the High Court in Grollo v. Palmer in 1995. The court held that the provisions of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act conferring the power to issue interception warrants on eligible judges are valid, as the act confers the function on judges not as judges but as personae designatae and not on the courts of which they are members.However, the court also stated that the power to confer non-judicial functions on judges as designated persons was subject to two conditions. Firstly, the individual judge must consent to the conferral and, secondly, a non-judicial function cannot be conferred if it is incompatible with either the performance of judges' judicial duties or the integrity of the judiciary. We understand that judges are concerned that the workload associated with issuing warrants is interfering with their judicial duties. It can take one or two hours of a judge's time to consider a single application for an interception warrant.The judges have also noted that, in the Grollo case, the High Court accepted as `troubling' arguments that the involvement of judges in the process of issuing warrants may give rise to an apprehension of bias. More recent decisions of the High Court—among them Wilson v. the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs—have stressed concerns that the legitimacy and independence of the judiciary must not be compromised by appointing judges to perform non-judicial functions. In the Grollo case, the High Court specifically advised the judges of the ACT Supreme Court not to accept an appointment as an eligible judge because of the possibility that a judge who issues a warrant may be involved in a related criminal proceeding. Both judges in the situation subsequently withdrew their consent.Given the concerns of federal judges about the compatibility of this function with judicial duties, it would not be appropriate to seek to confer the function on judges of state courts. The same constitutional limitations apply to the federal parliament imposing administrative functions on state judges. Authorities for this proposition are Kable v. DPP in 1996 and the Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital v. Thornton in 1953. The concerns of the High Court about the ACT Supreme Court also apply to state Supreme Court judges who are involved in day-to-day criminal proceedings.The Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 sets out in some detail the matters about which an eligible judge or nominated member of the AAT must be satisfied before issuing an interception warrant. These provisions are to ensure that the person issuing the warrant fairly weighs up the competing considerations of privacy and private property on the one hand and law enforcement on the other. The Australian Federal Police Act and the Customs Act also set out requirements for the issue of listening device warrants. These requirements are unaffected by the amendments. The Telecommunications (Interception) Act requires a judge or nominated AAT member to consider certain issues before issuing the warrant. Those issues include that the person is likely to use the service, that the information is not available by other means, that the offence is serious and that the act itself places appropriate safeguards on the action of interception.The Telecommunications Interception Policy Review found that nominated members of the AAT have a high status and are independent of the executive. The review found that they bring to their task a seriousness of purpose and a commitment to the principles of accountability which serve the public well. Only persons expressly nominated by the minister are authorised to issue warrants. The nomination process includes consultation with the President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal concerning the suitability of individual members to be nominated. The High Court has itself indicated that, in addition to judges, many other persons and tribunals are also well fitted to issue these warrants.The Telecommunications Interception Policy Review was tabled on 25 August 1999. A recommendation of the review was that the provisions allowing interception warrants to be issued by nominated members of the AAT should be continued and transferred to the ART when that body is established. The review found that the conferral of the power on nominated members of the AAT had worked well in practice. The review also found that the AAT members who have been nominated have a high status and are independent of the executive. As I said, the review found that they bring to the task a seriousness of purpose and a commitment to the principles of accountability.The member for Barton has foreshadowed potential opposition to the transfer of the authority from members of the AAT to members of the ART—that is, the Administrative Review Tribunal, which it is proposed should be established by the combination of the AAT, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the Immigration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal. I think the member for Barton can be reassured that it is not intended in any way that the members who issue warrants would have lesser qualifications than the current members of the AAT. The Telecommunications (Interception) Act requires that the Attorney-General must not nominate a person who holds an appointment as a part-time senior member or a member of the tribunal unless the person is a legal practitioner of at least five years experience. This requirement will be retained regardless of the form of the ART legislation. Therefore, members who issue warrants will be equally suitably qualified to consider complex legal issues as those who currently issue them.A question has been raised about the level of offence in respect of which telecommunications interception warrants can be issued. It is plain under the existing legislation that a warrant cannot be used for trivial matters. The act defines serious offences by reference to the penalty attached. An offence must be punishable by at least seven years imprisonment. Because the Telecommunications (Interception) Act covers several jurisdictions—and we are adding at least one new jurisdiction under this bill—the definitions have to be general.The issue of the exchange of intercepted information between agencies was also raised. In response to that expression of concern, I remind members that section 68 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act also specifies circumstances where information may be exchanged. It can be done only under the control and responsibility of the chief officer of the communicating agency. It may be communicated only where the offence is punishable by at least three years imprisonment or is a police disciplinary matter or a public service disciplinary matter. When the receiving agency receives the intercepted information, it is subject to all the stringent controls found in part VII of the act which regulate the original acquisition of the information.The member for Barton also raised the possibility of a national oversight committee to coordinate the activities of the various Commonwealth and state inspecting authorities, who are principally ombudsmen, and to develop a national code of best practice. The state inspecting authorities actually report through state ministers to the Commonwealth minister on the annual outcomes of their inspections, and then the Commonwealth Ombudsman reports directly to the Commonwealth minister. In these circumstances, I would suggest there is no need for the formation of a national oversight committee since the function the member for Barton contemplates might be performed is in fact already being performed.This bill is a significant bill, and it is right that members should carefully consider it. It is important for law enforcement in Australia. As criminal activity in this country becomes more sophisticated, our law enforcement agencies should be equipped with the most effective investigative tools available. Telecommunications interception provides law enforcement agencies with a proven cost-effective technique for uncovering and prosecuting serious organised crime and serious corruption.The bill will give the Anti-Corruption Commission of Western Australia and the Crime Commission of Queensland the means to perform their crucial functions more effectively. The government is aware of the corrosive effect unchallenged organised crime and corruption can have on our society. For this reason, the Commonwealth supports the government of Queensland in its moves to deal with paedophilia and organised crime and the government of Western Australia in its efforts to excise corruption, crime and serious improper conduct of public officers by providing the respective commissions with appropriate and effective investigative powers but subject to the existing stringent safeguards in the interception act. These powers will, however, be ineffective if there is no independent authority available to issue warrants authorising their use.The Telecommunications Interception Policy Review found that the practice of nominated members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal issuing warrants has worked well. The nominated AAT members bring to their task a seriousness of purpose and a commitment to appropriate principles of accountability, and the public interest is accordingly served. The government believes the AAT members have demonstrated independence, experience and expertise in their role. On that basis, the nominated members of the AAT should be able to continue to issue interception warrants.The bill reflects the government's commitment to providing effective tools for law enforcement while ensuring the appropriate safeguards are in place to protect individual rights. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.11341Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Williams) read a third time.Bills11341r91111341Debate resumed from 23 September, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.17:57:0011341Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—The Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 is another botched implementation measure of the GST deal. It is a fascinating piece of legislation as well, because it introduces the notion of conurbations but does not define them, it extends the nightmare on main street that was the GST to a nightmare on highway 1 and it introduces dipsticks as the armoury of the diesel fuel police in ensuring that this measure can be carried out.The exercise that preceded the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 debate was a shameful one. The National Party first of all deceived the bush and then capitulated to the Liberal Party. Then the Democrats capitulated to the Prime Minister, who then dudded the National Party. It was a nice little three-way double deal. As Peter Garrett said, it was a dirty deal done dirt cheap. The then leader of the National Party, Mr Fischer, originally said that he would support a GST only if fuel excise were abolished. But he reneged on that pledge, as the fuel credit scheme that was announced by the government in fact retained fuel excise. This meant no reduction in petrol tax for ordinary motorists and an increase in the city-country price differential—a bad deal for country Australia. But that is only the beginning of it.The government promised a whole package of measures on diesel which it has reneged on. This House recently dealt with legislation where the government was trying to renege on a deal cut with the Democrats to get the GST through. The Prime Minister used the diesel fuel rebate in the forestry industry as a bargaining chip in order to fool the Democrats. He promised to cut the diesel fuel rebate to foresters to secure Democrat support for the GST, and now he has reneged on that deal. This legislation is one more step in the government ratting on the promises it made to the road transport industry.The former Leader of the National Party promised that he would resign if he did not deliver the full diesel promise. The deal done with the Democrats ensured that he did not deliver on that promise. He has since resigned for different reasons, but the truth is that, if he were true to his word, he should have done it anyway. The current Leader of the National Party also promised that he would resign if the deal was not delivered. He has not resigned, but he has reneged on the deal as well. This Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grant Scheme came about because the deal with the Democrats was unconstitutional. The deal was so bad that it was against the Constitution—it was against the Constitution to divide the nation into city and country regions and to impose differential tax regimes. That is how the government originally wanted to do it, but they could not.So we are left with this uncertainty surrounding the grant scheme. The government could not do what they wanted to do through the tax mechanism because of the differentiation between rural and city, so they came up with this scheme. It is the second piece of legislation concerning the diesel grant scheme. The first piece was introduced at 9.30 one night and debated at 9.30 the following morning. That in itself was an absolute disgrace because Labor and the public should have been entitled to have the opportunity to dissect that bill and fully understand it before it was dealt with in the House. Because of the confusion surrounding the scheme, the government could not give us details on it at the time. This is what happens when you rush things through—when you rush through what has been a deal done on the run to secure a GST at any cost.We remember Tim Fischer, the then Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister, saying to us, when we asked about the further detail, `Wait, it is all going to be explained in the explanatory memorandum.' He said that everything would be revealed therein. We waited for the explanatory memorandum and it revealed that the government did not know what the scheme that they had agreed to was actually all about. The government wanted us to pass that legislation and then wait for months until they worked out how it was to be applied through administrative arrangements. The truth is that we have been cooperative as an opposition, and we want to try to end the confusion for the road transport industry. On that basis, we reluctantly agreed to that approach, flawed as it was.Tonight we have before us the next piece of legislation, which is supposed to deal with these administrative issues—the issues that they said would be cleared up later. But what do we find? We find that this legislation still does not end the confusion. Rather, it defers yet again the issue of the boundaries between the city and the country—the so-called urban conurbation boundary lines. The definition of those boundaries is critical because journeys by vehicles, by trucks, wholly within the conurbation do not get the grant—they do not get the concession that now has to be given in a grant form. If they cross any part of the conurbation, they can qualify for the whole of the grant. If you understand that point, you understand that the definition of the conurbation is actually critical. Without it, the scheme is meaningless. Yet now the second piece of legislation is before us and we still do not have the definition of those boundaries. What incompetence—deals done on the run and still total uncertainty.Apart from the difficulty in the definition—which we say is critical and which we say, without it, is a meaningless proposal—it gets worse because the new scheme imposes a huge new compliance burden on transport operators. It involves more paperwork, more record keeping requirements, more expense in seeking professional advisers to navigate through the red tape and the potential for penalties if people make mistakes. So not only do the small transport businesses have to contend with the GST compliance nightmare and all of the compliance burden that that entails—which the Treasurer himself coined as the nightmare on main street—but these businesses get the double whammy because they get the next instalment: a nightmare on highway 1.Since June, Labor has been asking: what are the areas that qualify for the grant and what are the areas that do not? We have had many examples raised in this House—questions about where people can locate their transport operations to take advantage of the scheme by operating just outside of the conurbation and coming into the capital city. We are constantly told that it will be explained soon. However, each time that has occurred, we find nothing but continued silence and a continued inability to answer from the government.Transport operators have the right to be able to plan their businesses with certainty. This government is not giving them that certainty. They have a right to expect that governments set out the rules simply and with adequate time to prepare for them. It is now more than four months since the dirty deal was struck with the Democrats, yet we still do not have the detail of the scheme—even though it is a scheme that the government has costed down to the last million dollars. How can the government do that, unless it has an idea of what these boundaries are?Either the government know exactly where the boundaries are between those that get the grant and those that are discriminated against and they are not going to tell anyone, or they still do not have any idea of what they have agreed with the Democrats and they have just made up the figures. Either they are hiding the truth from the Australian people because they are worried about what a nightmare they are going to impose on the transport industry or they have no idea, in which case how can they seriously depend upon the rigour of the figures associated with the Prime Minister's press release? It is for these reasons that I move the second reading amendment which has been circulated in my name:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:(1) continuing the uncertainty in the transport industry by not releasing the details of the boundaries of urban conurbations for the purposes of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (the Scheme);(2) not disclosing, prior to the last election, the new powers being proposed for the Commissioner of Taxation to stop, detain and search vehicles;(3) imposing a complex new layer of administration on transport operators in connection with the Scheme, in addition to the new compliance burden associated with the Goods and Services Tax; and(4) its failure to disclose the basis of its claims that the programs agreed with the Democrats will counter the greenhouse gas increasing effects of the Scheme."Since June, in this House, we have asked repeated questions about how the nightmare will work. We never get any answers. All of the transport operators who live and work around urban centres have a right to know whether they will qualify, yet they are being kept in the dark. There is important new information in this bill but, as usual, there are more questions posed than answered.There are the record keeping requirements, for example. These impose the new red tape for the grants. If you fail to satisfy the provisions of clause 18, you do not qualify for any grant. We now know that, but what we do not know is what you have to do to satisfy the clause. As usual, in this legislation the detail is not specified but is deferred to a determination not yet issued by the tax commissioner. So we do not know what the record keeping requirements are in order for people to qualify for the grants. On top of that, we still do not know which journeys will qualify for the grant. But there are new provisions which are complete. These are the new powers of the diesel police. These are the new powers that transport operators will now face. This bill allows virtually unlimited access to premises. It creates an offence if people do not comply exactly. But that is not all. This bill also creates new powers for the tax commissioner to stop vehicles and to search them. So this is legislation that sets up the diesel police.First of all, we have the GST police. They are armed with the thermometers, going around the food stalls determining, when food goes from hot to cold, whether or not the GST applies. Now we are equipping the diesel police with the dipstick. There they will be, out on the pillbox on the border of the conurbation, dipstick in pocket, stopping the vehicle, sticking in this dipstick to work out how much the vehicle has used coming across the border. Not only will they have dipsticks but they will have the power to search and seize. You would have to be a dipstick to introduce this proposal—that is the truth of it. This is absolute madness. This is what happens when you cobble together something on the run.Truck drivers in Australia will now face unprecedented intrusion in their businesses—indeed, in their personal affairs. You can just imagine the truck driver who has been on a long haul. He arrives home later than normal. The wife is at the door. `Hello, dear. Why are you so late?' He says, `The tax commissioner was there on the highway. He jumped out of the pillbox and ordered my truck to be stopped and searched. I've just experienced the nightmare on highway 1—one of many. For the last few hours, they've tried hard to work out what needs to be done. This is what Labor warned would happen and the government said wouldn't.' The wife then looks behind him and says, `You've brought someone home for dinner.' He says, `Well, not exactly, but since the tax commissioner believes that there are some documents here relating to the diesel grants scheme he has decided to enter the home and stay here for "a reasonable time".' The tax commissioner can do that because clause 47 of the bill enables him to. By the way, he does not just visit for a reasonable time. According to clause 47(2)(d), he has a right to inspect, examine, count, measure, weigh, gauge, test or analyse any such goods or other property on those premises to that end and, to that end, take samples.What a lovely little piece of administration this is. This is all about putting the diesel dipstick into place. We have got such a complicated system that, firstly, we do not know what the boundaries are and, secondly, we have the diesel police not just with the dipstick but with a search warrant going in and occupying the house and undertaking all of this investigation. But don't worry about that, this is all part of this brave new world the Treasurer has talked about—you do not have to cook him dinner; you just let him run through the house and check and assess what he wants. The government is providing itself with all these new powers. It is imposing new requirements on transport operators, but it has not addressed any of the confusion it has caused with the deal done with the Democrats.Why did the Democrats insist upon this as part of the overall dirty deal? They claim that their motivation was the environment. Let us have a brief look at the achievement on that. In essence, we had the Treasurer admitting that this was done because the Democrats:. . . wanted to keep fumes and emissions down in capital cities, large cities and large conurbations. That is the agreement that we have reached to protect rural and regional Australia, help the trucking industry and reduce diesel excise.That is what he said on 31 May when he was explaining this deal in amongst the thermometers in chooks, the packets of salad and all of the other crazy things that came out of this deal.But, if that is what the Democrats sought to achieve, did they? They had an expert adviser, a Dr Clive Hamilton, from the Australia Institute advising them on this and other environmental issues. He was their expert to help them through their considerations, their negotiations, their deliberations with the government on the GST. What did he do? He examined what the government was offering the Democrats—this incomplete legislation we now have before the House—and advised them against it because it was a nonsense proposal in terms of protecting the environment and then he resigned when he saw that the Democrats were committed to it.Dr Hamilton is a man of integrity and he refused to be associated with this dud deal. He knew that the Democrats were getting conned by the government, and he tried to warn them. But they did not listen. They did not care. They were going to shaft the community with the GST and shaft the urban environment as well. Their theory was: don't give the subsidy in the city because it will encourage diesel and air pollution. You might say on the face of it that is a worthy objective, but under the scheme the operator can still get it in the city so long as they travel outside the conurbation. No wonder Dr Hamilton resigned. These are dills who negotiated this deal, either unwittingly or prepared to be conned.The fact that the truck operators would also face an administrative nightmare did not worry the Democrats either. So they did not succeed in their objective, which was supposed to be environmentally driven. In the process, they have imposed an administrative and compliance nightmare on diesel truck operators operating in the transport industry on top of the compliance nightmare that they have given them with the GST and the deal done on the GST. They were naive and they were gullible, but this is just the sort of people that the Prime Minister likes to prey on, and we have seen many examples of that.But the truth of it is that the Australian transport industry is now having to bear the cost of these compromises. It is the industry that is going to have to deal with these nightmares, this confusion and this intrusion. As well as copping the paperwork and uncertainty, they now face unprecedented government powers. This is not what they expected when the government told them that they were going to introduce this brave new taxation world. They were told that this would be a simpler system. They were told that this would be a system that would give them benefits. This is not a simpler system and this does not give them benefits. The qualification in terms of the grant involves significant paperwork, significant policing and uncertainty about the boundaries in which they can qualify.It is against that background that I have moved the second reading amendment. We believe that this is another example which highlights the haste that was undertaken in trying to implement and secure this deal. There are many of those examples, and we have used the House each time we have had the legislation before us. There have already been significant amendments to the original GST bills, and there are more to come. And there will continue to be more to come. This is not a simpler system. This bill before us today indicates the complexity that is going to be associated with this new tax regime.This is something that the transport operators are going to have to come to grips with between now and when it is implemented in the middle of next year, but it is something they have not been given any assistance, any encouragement and any clarification on by the government. We will continue to expose the deficiencies in the government's legislation. We will continue to use the forms of the House to try to ensure that these problems do in some way get mitigated, but the fundamental point is that this is a bad deal for the transport industry, just as the GST was a bad deal for the Australian public.We will have many more opportunities to highlight the deficiencies, but the Australian public should be very wary of what is in store for them. At the moment the government believe this is off the agenda—that they have got the deal through, it has been passed and legislation is coming forward and people will be happy as it gets implemented. They will not be happy with the implementation, because once they understand what it involves, how it impacts upon them and how it adversely impacts upon them they will have a very different view to the government's of the benefits of this legislation.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.H. Adams)—Is the amendment seconded?83VEMERSONMr Emerson—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak at a later time.18:22:0011346Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—Australians certainly will be pleased when the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 comes into action next year. This is a far-sighted meeting of Australia's vital needs in the expensive transportation of our goods around the nation. Australia is two to three times more reliant on its road transport systems than any other equivalent nation. In fact, information that has been given to me indicates that the trucking industry slogan of `Carrying the Nation' is not far wrong, and Australia has a dependency on road transport which is three times the OECD average. So everything that is done within this nation—from our great farming enterprises to our factories, even to the point of transporting our goods by sea to their ports of destination—is affected by fuels, and mainly diesel fuels.This legislation that the House is debating tonight is something that should have been introduced into Australia many years ago. The Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grant Scheme is a program which covers not only diesel fuel but other fuels as well, such as compressed natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, recycled waste oil, ethanol, canola oil and other prescribed fuels. These fuels are all prescribed in the act as a way of reducing costs and making our nation more efficient in what we do.The advantages of reducing the price of fuels—because that, in fact, is what this legislation does—apply to rail as much as to road. Whilst the opposition would want to muddy the waters and make it appear that this is a difficult to administer piece of legislation and that there will be chaos in the streets, what they will find as it comes into action is that for the majority of those in the transport industry it will be quite simple. Far from being a heavy-handed process of surveillance and supervision, this is nothing more than what goes on now with checking weights and lengths of road transport units—something that is done every day in every state of Australia.I want to commend the government for coming forward with a program that will make massive differences to costs, which will have the effect of bringing the nation closer together so that the competitive force that we need to exert against those in whose markets we compete is not damaged by the incredible distances that Australian producers have to face—distances not only from farm or factory to waterside but from wharf to ultimate destination.The legislation is simple because the grants scheme applies to vehicles with a gross mass of 20 tonnes or more and will require little record keeping of kilometres travelled, litres used and receipts. So we remove with one swift swipe all of those vehicles with a gross mass of 20 tonnes or more. Eligible fuel used in vehicles between 4.5 and 20 tonnes outside the metropolitan area will not have complicated record keeping processes either. So the narrow area where there is complexity to some degree is for those vehicles which have a mass of 4.5 to 20 tonnes which operate in and outside metropolitan areas. Extensive records will be required for those vehicles. There is no doubt about that. It is not the government's wish or the government's intention. The member for Dickson may well smile. She might have been part of the process if she had not been here. The fact of the matter is that for that narrow area there is increased complexity, and more extensive record keeping will be required.The scheme applies not only to the movement of freight and goods—the products of our farms and factories—but also to the movement of people. The Bus and Coach Association have committed themselves tonight to an extensive program of cooperating with the greenhouse challenge that confronts Australia and the commitments that the Australian government has made. They happen to be here this night for this very important occasion. But every bus and coach operating in an urban area will also, if they are between that 4.5 and 20 tonnes in weight, have the complexity of record keeping and a disadvantage compared with fleet or motor vehicle owners.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—The House is debating tonight the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compli ance) Bill 1999 . It is a bill with a long title but it is a simple bill. It really just proposes that the Australian road and rail transport industries are actually able to compete on a better level than ever before. That has been the role of the Howard government and of the coalition ministers who have understood the needs of our great nation, which is reliant—to an extent perhaps three times greater than any other nation on earth—on a road and rail based transport industry. There is no OECD country more dependent on road transport than Australia is. In fact, Australia is three times more dependent on road and rail transport than its competitors are. Therefore, built into all of the costs of moving goods grown on farms or manufactured in factories to the waterside and then from the waterside overseas is the huge factor of road and rail transport.Australia suffers serious economic disadvantage and yet our fuel prices have been historically high. The average motorist in Sydney or Melbourne understands how high their fuel prices are. One only has to travel to the United States to understand that successive governments of Australia have seen an advantage in taxing highly the motorist—and not just the average private motorist but also the whole of the road transport industry. The argument has run that governments need a resource to put back into the road system and to build up the road system. The fact is—as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, coming from rural Australia—that there has never been a return to the road users of all the taxes they have paid.Although we have an excellent program of increasing expenditure on roads, the government has not chosen to use all of the taxes collected from road users to massively increase the road system. We have chosen to reduce the cost of transportation to motorists and particularly to our transport industries. That will make a massive difference to the cost of everything that we do. We hear critics of this new tax system that Australia is moving into saying, `But the cost is going to be at least 10 per cent.' The fact of the matter is that this piece of legislation dramatically reduces the costs of everything in Australia. Everything has got to go on a truck or go by rail. To reduce the cost of that process is going to affect everything we eat, everything we wear, everything we use. Everything that our society uses is going to be impacted upon by this legislation.So the government has provided, by the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme, a grant of $600 million in 2000-01 and, in the financial year 2001-02, one of $690 million. That is restricted to use by 20-tonne-mass trucks outside metropolitan areas. The advantage is restricted to those trucks in the range of four to 20 tonnes which move in and out of metropolitan areas and it is restricted to those trucks which are 20 tonnes or more in mass moving in metropolitan areas. So what misses out? The lighter vehicles moving in metropolitan areas. This was a concession that the government gave to the Australian Democrats in order to see the passage of this legislation. So the advantage is there for the real economic earners of Australia, but there is a complicating factor of compliance which has been imposed by the restrictions—something that the government would have preferred not to have had but which is there.This bill means that a person must be registered before they can become eligible to receive this grant, and so there is a registration process and a definition process of what comprises a journey—whether a journey includes metropolitan and non-metropolitan travel. The Commissioner for Taxation needs to determine what exactly a journey is. In so doing, he must consult the transport industry, the Bus Industry Confederation, the Australian Trucking Association, the National Farmers Federation and any other organisations specified in the regulations yet to be drafted. So the commissioner determines with the industry what a trip is. People are registered and then it is decided what trips are. Record keeping requirements are necessary. Minimal recordkeeping requirements are there for those trucks of 20 tonnes mass and over, and very few for those of four to 20 tonnes outside the metropolitan area; but there are substantial record keeping requirements for vehicles of four to 20 tonnes within city areas. The records must substantiate the claims, of course, and they must be kept and maintained for a period of not less than five years after the claim is made, so there is a capacity to go back and identify any problem.Why is it necessary to do this? The benefit from the reduction in fuel prices is so substantial that the temptation is there—I know it would never happen in any of the electorates of the members present here, certainly not in Deputy Speaker Causley's electorate—to play with the system and subvert funds from this diesel fuel grant. So there are strong enforcement measures in this legislation to discourage people from even being tempted to manipulate the system. If a person is caught manipulating the system, they are disqualified and pay penalties.This fuel grant has been welcomed widely throughout Australia. When the minister, Mr Joe Hockey, announced the bill, a spokesman for the Australian Trucking Association said on 24 September that the process had been very successful—an endorsement for the process the government had adopted from the Australian Trucking Association. The trucking industry slogan says that the trucks of Australia are `Carrying the Nation'. In view of the dependency Australia has on road transport, that is not far from wrong either.Farmers of Australia have not been slow to see the advantages of this system. The President of the New South Wales Farmers Federation, Mr John Cobb, said on 26 May 1999:Australians are twice as dependent on road transport as comparable developed countries—distance is our most significant competitive disadvantage.He is absolutely right. This is going to restore the balance and do something for our competitiveness. Not only will it bring local costs down; it will mean that things we export are going to be more competitively priced. Mr Cobb went on to say:The reality is that diesel is already the fuel of the transport industry. New registrations of petrol and gas trucks are the exception, not the rule, so the opportunity for switching to diesel is limited. Blocking a cut in diesel fuel excise maintains a penalty on Australia without addressing the real problem.The average household spends $29 a week on fuel excise—half directly at the fuel pump and the other half in higher prices. As I have already said, every family is penalised by the regime of taxing fuels that Australia has had. The Road Transport Forum and the Australian Trucking Association must be the very heart, I would think, of private enterprise in Australia. They have claimed a 75 per cent reduction in emissions and they ask why there is so much resistance to this change in fuel use when we are starting to take charge of emissions. Mr Andrew Higginson, the executive officer of the Road Transport Forum, said:The report shows the trucking industry is leading the way in addressing pollution and emission issues. The introduction of Euro 2 and Euro 3 emission rated engines and the lowering of sulphur content in fuel will reduce particulate emissions by 75%.What a great record this industry has. The National Road Transport Commission has data which shows that cheaper fuels will not have a detrimental environmental effect and will not bring about an increased use of fuel. The commission said that over 90 per cent of the freight in cities is moved by road anyway, so cheaper fuel will hardly make a difference. The loads will not be carried twice. The freight will not be shifted twice—90 per cent goes by road now and that will continue to be the case. If that percentage increases at the margin, it will make only a small difference to the total use of fuels. The executive director of the Minerals Council of Australia, Dick Wells, said:. . . while the mining industry would benefit from the diesel fuel rebate, it still paid an effective rate of 11.8 per cent wholesale sales tax on diesel—the mining industry does that—an impost none of Australia's major competitors faced.We are expecting our miners to work with lead in the saddlebags. The way we have been behaving is not realistic. Ian Donges from the NFF said that during the election campaign the Prime Minister made a commitment to the nation and that during that campaign the NFF campaigned for the total removal of fuel excise and for the application of a fair road user charge. So the reduction in diesel fuel excise contained in this package that the House will pass tonight already represents a significant compromise position for the farmers—and the farmers are delighted with the result. With regard to the criticisms from the Senate, Ian Donges said:Over the last 2 years, the pump prices of petrol and diesel have fallen dramatically.This gives the lie to the claims of some members of the Senate and the committee that examined this issue. He said that the Senate committee's conclusions regarding the impact of diesel fuel cuts under the government's tax package are wrong and based on untested research. As I have said, Mr Donges said that over the last two years the pump prices of petrol and diesel have fallen dramatically. He went on to say:Total national consumption of petrol products was 48,178 megalitres in 1996.He said that consumption had decreased as fuel prices have come down. (Time expired)20:12:0011349Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise to speak on what I regard as being a far from simple bill. The opposition's approach to the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 is contrary to that of the member for Mitchell. The bill is in essence best described as seeking to implement the administration and compliance regime for the scheme. Not only do I question the member for Mitchell's claim that the bill is simple in nature; I also reject the member for Mitchell's claim that the bill—when it is in place as an act of this parliament—will not lead to an endeavour by some in the community to bypass the intent of the administrative arrangements relating to this diesel fuel rebate.It is for that reason—although I have had opposition responsibility for the transport portfolio for only just over a week—that I can say, contrary to what previous speakers on the government side have said, that many in the industry regard the bill as an embarrassment and a joke when it comes to the government's approach to the matters before the House today. I suppose that is a fairly harsh statement but, in many ways, it reflects comments made to me over the last couple of days by those in the industry and comments made to me at a function—which the member for Mitchell also attended—this evening by people operating in the bus industry. They said to me that the problem is that the government simply does not understand the nature of the industries that it seeks to cover with the bill, and that there is no other way to describe the bill other than as a joke and an administrative nightmare from the point of view of those people who will be expected to operate under the regime that will arise as a result of the bill.It is hard to believe that any member of the government can come in here and speak on this legislation without feeling embarrassed by the lack of detail, by the shoddiness and the dishonesty of the process that surrounds it, and by the very obvious failure of the government, the minister for transport, and their partners in this debacle, the Democrats, to devise a workable diesel fuel rebate scheme. When the government did its deal with the Democrats back in May, the opposition's concerns—and the concerns of a number of organisations, both small and large operators in industries covered by this bill—about changes to the diesel fuel rebate scheme were brushed aside in public debate, in question time, and in debate in the House and in the Senate.When we objected to debating legislation that contained no detail about how the scheme would work in practice, we were told by the government that the administrative and compliance arrangements needed to support the scheme would be introduced before Christmas. But anyone who thought his or her questions about this scheme would be answered `prior to Christmas', as the minister for transport kept telling us, will be sorely disappointed. Not only does the bill not answer any of those questions; it unfortunately raises further questions, which remain unanswered. It also raises further uncertainty, confusion and concern. That is why the shadow Treasurer, in speaking to the bill this evening, moved a second reading amendment that clearly places the concerns of the opposition on the table for consideration by the House and, more importantly, by those in the Australian community who will be expected to operate in an honest and efficient fashion under the terms of the bill.Having said that, it is also fair to say that the last time these matters were debated, and questions were raised about implementation and the various administrative regimes intended by the bill, the shadow Treasurer, the member for Hotham, correctly referred to the scheme as a nightmare on highway 1. Nothing in this bill suggests that he was in any way wrong in describing this bill as a nightmare on highway 1. The most extraordinary thing about this legislation is that we still do not know how a metropolitan area is to be defined. We still do not know where the boundaries between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas will be drawn.I would have thought, for an operator in the industry, no matter how big or small, that that is a pretty fundamental question, a pretty fundamental gap, because the entire purpose of the scheme is to quarantine the reduction in the diesel fuel rebate to country areas. I remind the House that all vehicles over 20 tonnes are eligible for a new fuel grant, that vehicles under 4.5 tonnes are ineligible and that vehicles between 4.5 and 20 tonnes are only eligible for that part of their journey that is in a non-metropolitan zone. Simple, the member for Mitchell suggests—well, it is not simple to the operators in the industry, including some that live and operate in his electorate. I suggest that he, with other members of the government, ought to come clean and put on the table for proper debate, and for public consumption and consideration, answers to the questions we have posed during this debate.On that matter, I also believe the government and the Democrats told us back in June that the grant would not apply in metropolitan areas surrounding capital cities—other than Darwin and Hobart; in the conurbation running from the Queensland Sunshine Coast to New South Wales; in Geelong; and in the conurbation running from Newcastle to Wollongong. At the time we asked: where do you draw the boundaries? How do you define a journey? How much record keeping will be required and how are you going to police this? These are pretty straightforward questions, I would have thought. They are questions that surely the government and their partners in crime, the Democrats, would have considered when agreeing upon the proposition before the House this evening. Rather, they have placed before the House the nightmare, the mess, that we currently have to consider and debate—according to our best endeavours and in, I dare say, a constructive way.When we asked those questions the answer was—and it is also the answer today—`all will be revealed prior to Christmas.' It is almost as if the minister for transport, as he runs around Red Hill—or is it Snob Hill in Canberra—where he lives, wants to again escape his responsibility to tell the operators in this industry how this bill will apply to them in their day-to-day operations, how it will apply to their businesses, irrespective of where they operate those businesses around Australia. Here we are, prior to Christmas, looking at the relevant legislation and all has, surprisingly, not been revealed. There is no definition, for example, of what constitutes a journey. There is no indication of where the metropolitan or conurbation boundaries will begin and end. The bill, I suggest, flicks that unenviable task to the Commissioner of Taxation. Again, the government is walking away from its responsibilities because, apparently, it was all too hard for the minister for transport—as he has clearly displayed in question time on a number of occasions—and his department to answer those fundamental questions.So, rather than seeking to work it out, what did the minister do? Again, he got on his bike and sought to run away from his responsibilities by handballing the issue to the Commissioner of Taxation. Under this bill, following consultation with industry representatives, the commissioner will supposedly determine in writing what will or will not constitute a journey for the purposes of the scheme. Five months after this deal with the Democrats was delivered, the government still has no idea how this scheme is going to work in practice. The government still cannot tell us whether those metropolitan boundaries will operate, how they will operate, for example, and how they will be drawn.Earlier in this process, the opposition raised the possibility of satellite tracking as being the only reliable way of administering this scheme. Maybe that is what is happening here. Maybe they have a mate in the industry who wants to supply that service because, after all, they are not bad at looking after mates when it comes to handing out grants, as has clearly been displayed with respect to the federation grants. Maybe that is why there is no detail in this legislation. Maybe the minister has come to the same conclusion after five months of running around trying to devise some other mechanism. But he does not want to put that on the table. He does not want to be the National Party leader who introduces satellite spying on regional businesses.What will the minister for transport now say if we ask him to tell us how the central element of this scheme, the notion of a journey, will be defined? He will say, `That's up to the Commissioner of Taxation. Don't ask me, I'm only the minister. I'm only the one who helped devise the scheme in consultation with the Democrats. I'm only the one who was part of a dirty little deal that conned the industry to get the Prime Minister's dirty little GST through the Senate. We didn't think about detail. We didn't think about what it would mean for operators in the industries—the mum and dad and the small and medium sized businesses—who would expect to actually try to make our mess operate. That wasn't for us to worry about. All we wanted to do was a dirty little deal with our mates the Democrats. You worry about that. You worry about the nightmare on highway 1 and all the administrative arrangements. That's your problem. That's your red tape. After all, we're just politicians. We don't worry about how it applies in industry. We'll again walk away from our responsibilities and allow industry to sort out the mess.'I believe that, when we ask him where the metropolitan boundaries for Melbourne, for example, begin and end, he will say, `That's up to the Commissioner of Taxation. It's not my responsibility. It's not on my desk. It's nothing to do with me. The problem's solved.' Of course, it is not a problem solved for the Commissioner of Taxation and it is not a problem solved for all those rural and regional businesses which deliver into the cities and metropolitan areas and which are trying to work out just how this scheme will affect them.What I most worry about when we have these complexities is not those hundreds of thousands of decent, honest operators who will seek to do the right thing by the Australian public and by the Commissioner of Taxation but all those people, including members of the front bench on the government side, who will seek to minimise their commitments and obligations to the Australian public through tax minimisation. Some of these operators will take the view that, if it is good enough for ministers of the Crown to minimise their tax through family trusts, it is good enough for them to try to minimise their responsibilities through the complexities and the nightmare created by the Diesel and Alternative Fuel Grants Scheme and the regulations and method of application which the Commissioner of Taxation will now be expected to put in place. So much for the member for Mitchell's claims this evening that no-one will seek to avoid their responsibilities under this scheme.For those reasons, I think it is appropriate that those businesses know now what is ahead of them. They are going to have to keep substantial new records. They want to know what those records will be. They want that worked out now and they want it on the table for discussion in this House. But they also know that they are facing another layer of administration on top of the compliance burden associated with the GST—and this government says it is friendly to small business! This bill proves yet again that this government is far from friendly to any business in this country in the transport industry, be it small, large or medium sized.They also know that the Commissioner of Taxation is being given extensive new powers to gather information in relation to the scheme. Those powers include stopping a vehicle, detaining a vehicle, asking for information about the destination of passengers or goods, searching a vehicle and taking fuel samples. Now it is official: the commissioner and the tax office are the new `dipstick police', in association with the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, `Dipstick' John Anderson. They all fit together in the mind of the minister for transport.More importantly, we were told all this after the last election. I think the question ought to be answered about why the Australian public were not told about this before the last election. Not only were they not told about it; more importantly, they were not told the Commissioner of Taxation would be getting these new powers. They were not told that having your vehicle seized and detained and having fuel samples taken was going to be the price of this scheme.Even leaving aside these intrusive new powers and lack of detail in the bill, the underlying problems with the scheme remain. There is still the inherent unfairness in trucks based in Goulburn, for example, getting the grant whilst those based in Gosford miss out, or trucks based in Seymour getting the grant whilst those based in Werribee do not. There is still the very real issue of the competitive balance between businesses changing overnight depending upon which side of a city they are located. There is still the issue of how—`dipstick police' or no `dipstick police'—you stop business just outside the metropolitan area making several delivery runs in and out of the city in order to qualify for the grant on each journey instead of making a one-off delivery round and only getting the grant for the first leg of that trip.The Democrats still face the difficulty of explaining how and why they agreed to a scheme that continues to subsidise diesel fuel in the cities as long as the relevant journey starts outside a metropolitan area. All this particular bill does is reinforce two things: firstly, how the Democrats got done over in their deal with the government and, secondly, the complete failure of the minister for transport to deliver a workable and effective scheme arising out of that deal.As I said earlier, it may not be possible to deliver a workable scheme without satellite tracking, but the government have repeatedly assured us that they could deliver such a scheme. They have rejected accusations that they pulled this scheme out of a hat in a desperate attempt to get the Democrats on board with the GST. I believe this bill gives the lie to those assertions. In his second reading speech, the minister says this bill will `enable industry to develop record keeping arrangements and plan with confidence for the introduction of the grants scheme on 1 July 2000'.The opposition would like to know—and I presume, more importantly, the transport industry would like to know—on what basis we can all go forward with such confidence. It certainly cannot be based on the contents of the bill before the House for debate this evening. The bill is clearly a flick pass; it is a piece of fluff; it is 46 pages of window-dressing being used to disguise a massive policy failure—a massive policy failure by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and a massive policy failure by the Democrats yet again.And where are the Democrats in all this I wonder? Apparently they have washed their hands of the matter. What they say is that it is up to the government to make it work. That seems to be their line. It is not their responsibility, yet they are partners in crime. If the government cannot or will not make it work, where does that leave the Democrats? Having colluded with the government to ram through the GST last sitting, they cannot now walk away from the consequences of their actions. They have some responsibility to make sure the outcomes they promised are actually delivered. Perhaps they will accept that responsibility. Perhaps they will move some amendments in the Senate, and let the rest of us know how the Democrats define a journey and where they think the metropolitan boundaries should be drawn. Perhaps it is in the cafe latte set in Carlton or Paddington where they seem to spend a lot of their time rather than in regional Australia.Do not hold your breath. That would be my advice to the transport industry and to regional businesses waiting for some certainty about the scheme. It seems that neither the Minister for Transport and Regional Services nor Senator Meg Lees have the faintest idea how to deliver the detail of the scheme. Having cobbled together this deal, having made commitments neither can keep, they have dumped the mess in the lap of the Commissioner of Taxation and are running away from it as fast as they can.That is the real story behind this legislation. The failure of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, `Dipstick' John Anderson, and his partner in crime the Leader of the Democrats, Meg Lees, to take responsibility to deliver on their own deal. It is a failure for which they deserve to be strongly condemned. It is for that very reason that I support the second reading amendment moved by the shadow Treasurer, the member for Hotham. It clearly poses serious questions which go to the outstanding definitions that the industry want now, not later. They are entitled to them because they will be required to operate under the scheme. But the industry also appropriately condemn the government for failing to disclose the detail of this scheme prior to the last election and in doing so failing to ensure that we have a scheme in place that does not impose on industry, on small, medium and large sized businesses, a new layer of administrative nightmares.The member for Hotham, the shadow Treasurer, was correct. This is a nightmare on highway 1 for the industry. The government stands condemned and so do the Democrats. It is a very significant industry that deserves better than this bill—an industry that creates many jobs in metropolitan and regional Australia, an industry that is part of the lifeblood of this very country. Yet what is this government's answer to the problems that confront this industry? `Here is our mess. We got our dirty little deal with the GST through and this is the cost of it. It is not our problem to make it work. We know it is not simple. We know it is going to be an administrative nightmare. But would you please try to make it work for us because we are not capable of making the decisions to make it work? It is all too hard because in the end we were not very interested in the needs and problems of this industry.' (Time expired)20:32:0011353St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I thought the standard of shadow ministers may have risen, but it has not. I rise tonight to support a bill that will have posi tive and constructive effects on the people of my electorate of New England and on an industry that is dear to my heart—the transport industry.The Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 amends the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Act 1999 to insert the machinery and administration provisions necessary to give administrative support to the act, which the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the member for Gwydir—for the member for Batman and shadow minister, that is in the central west of New South Wales, not in the middle of the city—foreshadowed when he introduced the act. The minister also stated that the government would be seeking passage of this bill prior to Christmas. The reason for this was so that there was confidence for the introduction of the grants scheme on 1 July 2000.This bill is vital to the people living in regional and rural Australia. Under this bill, which was agreed between the government and the Australian Democrats, there will be large and enduring benefits to regional Australia and to transport operators in the road, rail and marine sectors. The wide variety of Australian businesses that provide transport services to country areas will benefit. These include: interstate and city-country road transport; the transport of goods from all Australia's rural export regions and processing centres to their markets in the city and offshore; essential inputs being transferred from ports or factories in the city back to the bush; and the very bread and butter, indeed all of the goods, consumed by people living in country areas across the vast continent.As agreed between the government and the Democrats, the grant for diesel use in prescribed vehicles and prescribed areas will be set so as to provide a cumulative reduction in the cost of diesel by 23c a litre—23c a litre reduction. Currently the diesel fuel excise is at 43c per litre for road users and 36c per litre for rail. The grant will be potentially available for all road transport vehicles above 4.5 tonnes. However, fuel used in vehicles between 4.5 tonnes and 20 tonnes gross vehicle mass will qualify only in the following circumstances: if the vehicle is engaged in transporting goods or passengers within regional Australia, between a metropolitan area and a regional point and vice versa, or between metropolitan areas on an interstate journey.Fuel used in vehicles of 20 tonnes or more gross vehicle mass will qualify if used by a business for road transport and if the business is registered for the purpose of the scheme within the Australian Taxation Office. Apart from road transport, other major benefits include: recognition that the rail industry as an off-road user of diesel, and the consequent extension to rail operators of the full rebate of excise on diesel—36c per litre; and, extension of the full rebate for diesel and like fuels to marine use and other existing qualifying uses, including agriculture, fishing, mining and forestry.When the deal was settled between the government and the Australian Democrats, it was agreed that the government would put in place rigorous enforcement measures to police the scheme. In accordance with that, this bill provides adequate penalties and safeguards to protect funds and to prevent abuse of this scheme. It would not have been needed if the Labor Party had supported a 23c a litre reduction in the price of diesel for all trucks, whether they be city or country based.Grants for vehicles with a gross mass of 20 tonnes will require little record keeping additional to kilometres travelled, litres used and receipts. Eligible fuel use in vehicles between 4.5 and 20 tonnes outside the metropolitan area will have these same requirements. Where there is some use of vehicles between 4.5 and 20 tonnes inside and outside the metropolitan areas, more extensive records will be required to substantiate a claim for a fuel grant.This bill has a provision to enable advances to be made under the grants scheme in the same way as they were made under the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. This will assist in minimising the compliance cost for claimants who also claim the diesel fuel rebate. The Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Act 1999 represents a commitment that the government made to Australia's rural and regional heartland in the lead-up to the 1998 election.This side of the House recognises Australia's dependence on transport due to the vast size of our continent. In light of this and its commitment in the last election, the government has introduced this bill and the act which this bill is amending to substantially reduce the cost of our major transport fuel. I repeat: to substantially reduce the cost of our major transport fuel. This is the type of reform that the Australian people are turning to. Such reform would in turn reduce transport costs and consumer prices, especially in regional, rural and remote areas of my electorate and the rest of the nation.Let me also make the point that this is part of the tax package that this government went to the last election on. The transport industry, which is the blood that runs through the veins and the arteries of rural and regional Australia, carrying with it the goods essential to a healthy nation, will benefit from other benefits of this tax package, and they include: abolishing wholesale sales tax and some of the state and territory taxes; substantially reducing industry costs; providing a single reporting form which replaces several current business tax forms; reducing the number of times you report to the Australian Taxation Office; making sure all taxpayers pay their fair share of tax—no more and no less; providing quick and easy ways of dealing with the Australian Taxation Office, including through the Internet; helping you to be internationally competitive and lifting the tax burden on our exports; giving state and territory governments a secure revenue base to pay for community needs; substantially increasing government support to families and low income earners; and dramatically reducing personal income tax.Both the transport industry and the bush benefit from this greatly. If you add in the extra $30 million a year that my colleague the member for Gwydir, who is the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, secured for upgrading bridges and roads, the extra fuel cost cuts of about $80 million a year for a new remote power generation initiative, over four years, farmers, miners, truckies and many others will get back $12 billion in lower diesel costs. This is a huge saving, not just to the people in regional and rural Australia but also to the rest of this great nation. The benefits to Australia can be seen through the new diesel scheme. There will be an extra estimated $840 million annual boost to the gross domestic product. This in turn will lead to economic growth, which equals jobs—which I would have thought could only be good for the whole of Australia.Let us turn our attention to Labor's record in reform of the transport and fuel industry. In doing so, I would like to quote from my colleague and friend the member for Mallee, another rural member who spoke in this House on the original bill in June this year and described so accurately Labor's efforts:After campaigning against the comprehensive policy of the coalition in 1993, the Labor government was elected with no policy and went for its own form of indirect taxation: massive increases in wholesale sales tax and fuel excise. But the tragedy was that this consumption tax was not broad based but sectorally based, and the sector that was taxed so heavily out of those initiatives, in a desperate move for government revenue, was the productive sector of our economy. This is the sector that produces the jobs. It was penalised by the then government, now opposition, which, like then, is still devoid of proper policy to get our productive sector into a framework to help it to be world competitive.The member for Mallee went on to say:This is the big challenge for a nation like Australia that produces five times more than we use. We rely on being competitive into some of those aggressive export market opportunities, and yet we send our commodities and products into those markets with the monkey of Commonwealth taxation on their backs. Fuel has a cumulative, cascading effect through the economic sector and the productive sector where the jobs are.My colleague is 100 per cent correct. All Labor has done in the past is try to block the veins and arteries through which our economic lifeblood is carried. It is the cholesterol of the Australian economy.This bill will help to administer a $1,000 million a year slash to road transport costs and a $160 million a year slash to rail transport costs. This is far more than anything the Labor Party has done or attempted to do for country Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, as the member for the country electorate of Page, you are well aware that regional Australia relies heavily on the transport industry. The New England Highway, which is the main transport artery through my electorate, is used extensively by this industry. We need to transport the products we grow and manufacture to the market. We need to bring out to the country, via transport arteries such as the New England Highway, those inputs that help these businesses become more competitive and therefore far more profitable.The transport industry has been hit hard over the years through the taxes it pays to the tune of 2½ times the taxes paid by other industries. As I have stated in this House before and repeat now to remind honourable members, the diesel excise, for example, has gone from 3c a litre in 1983 to 34.7c a litre, plus a further 8.1c a litre which is collected on behalf of the states. Every rise of 1c a litre in the price of diesel adds about $115 million a year to the cost of road transport in this nation. But the opposition voted against any reduction in the price of diesel. The rate of diesel excise rose by 16c a litre in the 10 years between 1987 and 1997. Labor, the so-called party for the working people, has again let the working people down. It has let regional and rural people down but, most of all, it has tried to cripple the industry that by no mean feat has opened the regional areas of this country up so that they are able to trade world wide.I close tonight by saying that the Howard-Anderson government is putting into place policies that are helping regional and rural Australia to grow. What a pity the Labor Party has fought these policies every step of the way. When the member for Batman spoke, he reminded me of something I have said before in the House. The Labor Party is out of touch, out of date and—thank goodness—out of government.20:48:0011355Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I thought this was a serious show; I did not realise it was a comedy. Like the member for New England, I also represent a regional electorate, and the people of my electorate are also going to be affected negatively by the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 . I will tell you why.The government went to the people of Australia at the last election and promised a more certain transport industry which would effectively work towards reducing costs and pollution within our country. The rejuvenated transport system was going to be the panacea for all regional ills and result in a reduction in cost for consumers. Cheaper transport was going to be the solution for all exporters. Exports were going to be cheaper. That is what the government promised us. They also promised this to their new bedfellows, the Democrats, in return for the Democrats' support of their GST. Unbelievably, the Democrats accepted this proposal. I say `unbelievably' because I happen to have here a media release from Senator Meg Lees when she was Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats and the party's environmental spokesperson. This is the person who did the deal with the Prime Minister, and this is what she said of the then Minister for Resources and Energy:Energy and Resources Minister Warwick Parer has won the New Scientist inaugural Lowe Point Award—and the Australian Democrats are not surprised.The award (NS, December 14, page 50) is presented for the most technically inept statement made this year by a minister or an official. Democrats Environment Spokesperson Senator Meg Lees said Senator Parer was a worthy recipient.. . . . . . . . .In a recent interview with Pru Goward on the ABC, Australia's Minister for Resources, Warwick Parer, was asked whether we should be trying to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. "Oh yes," he said, "and I think you're finding that we are. There's enormous growth, for example, in gas in Australia. Gas has risen quite substantially in recent years and is predicted to rise further."A Howard government minister said that by using natural gas as a fuel you were not increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Is there need to go any further? The Australian Democrats have done the deal with the government over greenhouse gas emissions and over delivering certainty to our transport industry.This is an ineffective piece of legislation. It does not move towards either a more certain future for the transport industry or a more environmentally friendly industry. It does not guarantee any reduced costs. All we are left with is uncertainty. The first aim of this legislation is to deliver to the transport industry a more certain future. The same government that promised our transport industry a more certain future has delivered it the most uncertain future it has faced in years. This bill is an utter joke when it comes to making the transport industry more certain. I really thought you were the friends of business. You claim you are. I often sit here in question time and listen to a variety of ministers come up in the usual charade and say, `We look after business. There'll be less paperwork. It'll be so much easier for them under the GST.'Let us have a look. I do not know whether any of you over there have read this legislation. I can see a couple of paragraphs that are quite constructive, but then I see `Record-keeping requirements'. There is a page and a half on that. I see `Disqualification for fraud'. There are three pages on disqualification for fraud; it must be very important. I see `Civil penalties'. I am going through the legislation that has been drawn up by your side that you have just exposed as the greatest thing for the transport industry and for the people of rural and regional Australia that we have ever seen. Then I see `Recovery of scheme debts', `Information-gathering powers' and `Self-incrimination'. This is wonderful stuff, and I am sure the trucking industry is going to be very pleased to read through this at length and find out what they are going to be submitted to. Then we come to `Access to premises' where, if officers of the Australian Taxation Office feel that a trucking company has acted improperly, they can go onto the premises and can inspect the trucks. They can inspect the goods that have been carried. The goods may be concrete, they may be anything, but those officers will want to know.Then I come to `Power to stop and search vehicles'. I find the power of officers of the Australian Taxation Office to stop and search vehicles very interesting. I go down to a paragraph that says those officers can `detain the vehicle for such period as is reasonably necessary to carry out a search or inspection of the vehicle and to take fuel samples from the vehicle'. If they are going to take fuel samples from the vehicle, I wonder whether there are going to be various types of diesel fuel. I wonder whether there is going to be, say, diesel fuel in the city that is dyed with a red dye and, out in regional Australia, diesel fuel that is dyed with a blue dye. Most of these trucks are fitted with dual tanks. When the driver passes from the city region to the rural region, is he going to swap over tanks? Is he going to record that in a logbook?You probably think I am mad for suggesting it, but you have it in the legislation that officers of the Taxation Office can take samples of the fuel. What are they going to learn from that? My understanding is that diesel fuel that is sold in Sydney is the same as diesel fuel that is sold in Broome. What is the purpose of the Australian Taxation Office having those powers? Who is that favouring? Is that favouring small business? Is that favouring the transport industry? And you have the audacity to stand up here tonight and say, `We are doing small business a favour.'84BST CLAIRMr St Clair—You voted against it!UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—And I will continue to vote against that sort of rubbish because that is what it is. It is your legislation, and nine-tenths of it is out there to punish small business. It is not to serve small business. You have the audacity to stand up here tonight and say, `We are the saviours of country Australia.' You have not read that legislation one bit. You have been indoctrinated by your party machinery. You do not know what is in the legislation.I am a primary producer. I own a farm. I am a cattle producer. I have spoken to stock carriers, and I have asked, `What is in this for me? Are you going to cut your transport rates?' You have already closed the meatworks in Aberdeen where I could get my cattle slaughtered. If I now want to send them to a meatworks I send them to Dinmore in Queensland, and it costs me $80 a head. It used to cost me $16 a head to send them to Aberdeen. And you say that you are the champions of regional Australia! Let's be fair dinkum. You have not even read the legislation. You have no idea what this means for regional Australia, and you come in here and speak for the bill. You are a joke, and it is a shame for regional Australia that you claim to represent it.I will give you a few other sums. You can work out the saving for, let us say, a B-double of vegetables from Bathurst to Sydney—that is a fairly reasonable distance to carry a truckload of vegetables—or from Shepparton to Melbourne or from the Darling Downs into Brisbane. That is reasonable. How many kilometres a litre does a B-double do if it is carrying about 30 tonnes? Most householders do not buy vegetables by the tonne; they buy them by the kilogram and they might buy them by a part of a kilogram. When you extrapolate the savings in diesel per kilometre over 30 tonnes—I know one of your ministers got it wrong today, but 30 tonnes is 30,000 kilograms—you are talking about a fraction of a cent saving per kilogram. Is that going to be passed onto the consumer? Is that going to be a saving for the producer? Is that going to be a major driving force for our export industry? If you believe it is, you are deluding yourselves because it is not. All the transport industry of Australia will say is, `This saving that you are talking about is so minute that we can't pass it on, and we will save it.' But I have been distracted from my speech.This government claims to be the most transparent in Australia's history, but the only thing that it is transparent about is not accepting responsibility. This is a government that will pass on responsibility wherever it can, and in this legislation we see a classic example of the government passing responsibility from government ministers to the Australian Taxation Office. All of the responsibilities that I mentioned, which were identified in the legislation earlier on, will no longer be responsibilities of government once this legislation goes through. Instead, they will be responsibilities of the Australian Taxation Office.So we see exactly what the Howard-Anderson government wants to do. It does not want to be responsible and it does not want to live up to the promises it made at the last election. Instead, it wants to pass the responsibility over to the policeman, and that is the Australian Taxation Office. That is what this government wants to do—make no mistake about it—because it is clearly identified there. It will be the responsibility of officers of the Australian Taxation Office. The Commissioner of Taxation will have new powers to redraw borders that decide what is metropolitan and what is not. I live in a regional area and I represent a regional area. The regional area that I represent is just outside a metropolitan area and there are a number of large truck operators located within it. They are on my side of the border and there are a number of truck operators just on the other side of the border. Who will get the benefit of this legislation and who will not? The nature of their business is essentially the same. They carry goods from virtually the same areas to the same areas; they are competitors. But this government has not had the commonsense to sit down and say, `Where do we draw the line? We are giving some people a distinct advantage over others.' This is the ridiculous part of this legislation: not all Australians under this legislation are equal—and certainly not all participants in the trucking industry are the same. It will not be the government that decides who has the right, it will be the tax office that decides. You are elevating that tax office to a very high status, way above the status of government.I would like to conclude by saying that there is a hidden cost here, and that is something that this government has neglected. This legislation increases Australia's transport dependency on diesel technology. I know what Senator Parer thought about this legislation three years ago and I know what Meg Lees, who has supported this legislation, thought about it three years ago. I am not sure what converted her on the road, but something must have because she suddenly thought that greenhouse gas emissions were no longer important. But the major cost here is that we have a trucking industry, a transport industry, that will now be thoroughly and completely hooked on diesel technology, and that is a shame. Here was an opportunity for the government to really take Australia into the next millennium with a new technology.MP6BAIRDMr Baird—Why didn't you do it when you were in government?UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—I am glad that you interjected and said that, because in 1994 and 1995 we did. We brought in the ethanol fuel bounty to promote the use of a new and sustainable fuel, one that had zero effect on greenhouse emissions. But what did you do? In 1996, Senator Parer scrapped it. One of the first things that he did was to wipe the ethanol fuel bounty. I guess there are not too many people on the other side that understand—Ms Worth interjecting—UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—I know that you asked me to be quiet, but I am quite emotional about this. I saw this as an opportunity for our children and for future generations of Australians, an opportunity that this government has let slip, to introduce a whole new fuel technology. Australia has one of the foremost scientists on ethanol technology in the world, Dr Russell Reeves from Apace Research, and he is Australian. Do you know that Brazil, Sweden, Germany and other forward-looking nations use ethanol as a fuel and mix it with diesel? It just so happens that Russell Reeves and Apace Research have the world patent for emulsifying ethanol and diesel into diesohol. That reduces greenhouse emissions and makes us more sustainable through our fuel economy because diesel is mainly made from introduced crude oil—that is, imported crude oil. Australian crude is not suitable.Over the past four years, you had the opportunity right there in your hand to make Australia more sustainable in its energy requirements for transport and less dependent on imported technology, and you failed. You will be condemned for that forever. You have said to the people of Australia, `You must use diesel and we are going to make it so that the cost factors alone drive you to use diesel.' We cannot prove that these costs are going to be passed on—we cannot prove that at all—and nothing will show that until time shows that they will not be. We will wait and see. I am quite happy to wait and see what happens in the next 12 months. But I think it was a golden opportunity that went missing.This government has abolished the very scheme that would have helped to develop a more ecologically friendly transport industry, yet the minister would have us believe that this is exactly what the government is trying to do. So how can we believe this government—I think this is the question that most Australians are asking—when every measuring stick we use to measure its performance shows that it has not come up to scratch?There were two main aims with this piece of legislation. The first was to promote a more certain future for the transport industry. In that, it dismally fails. The second was to reduce pollution. Again the legislation fails, as does the Howard government in that it provides only ineffective rhetoric—and ineffective rhetoric does nothing to reduce pollution. In fact, this government had the chance to reduce pollution with the ethanol bounty scheme, but that was sacrificed in its budget. This bill shows that the Howard government can do nothing but provide ineffective legislation that is covered in hypocrisy; legislation that does not achieve its aims but encourages the opposite. (Time expired)21:08:0011359Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It is my pleasure to rise in support of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 . It is a great piece of legislation. In following the member for Paterson, I have to say what a sad, tired speech he gave purporting to represent regional Australia. How much he has let them down tonight. This legislation is about providing real incentives for people in the bush, it is about providing real incentives for people in the country. And what do you do? You hark back to the past.Mr Horne interjecting—MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—We are surprised that you did not bring back Paul to remind us what it was like. You said that we have not lived up to our promises—I suppose in the way that Paul did in 1993 when he promised that the tax cuts that would come were l-a-w. `Absolutely,' he said, `you're going to all have tax cuts.' But as soon as the election was over, what happened? He took them away.This government has stated what it would do. It said to the bush, `We're going to provide reductions in diesel fuel taxes,' and it has delivered on that. You want to start talking about the administration costs and how we are going to implement the exemptions. But you are the ones who stand responsible. You had the opportunity to say, `This is a great initiative; this is the way to help regional Australia.' But what did you do? You held up your hands and said, `No, we don't want to do it. We want to condemn regional Australians to paying 43c a litre.'FK6KELLYMrs De-Anne Kelly—The old Labor Party.MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—That is right. The old Labor Party, the old Paul Keating style—keep them paying the high taxes. What we are doing is offering them a deal, paying 20c a litre—a real incentive for regional Australia. You would think that the member for Paterson does not understand some of the problems that are facing regional Australia.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Where is your region again? I live in regional Australia. Where do you live?MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—That is a very good example of why these incentives are there. In my electorate of Cook, we have 2.3 per cent unemployment. But when I go out to regional Australia, I recognise that a lot of Australia is hurting. This is what this bill is about.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Fifteen per cent.MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—Exactly. Having said that, you should be the first one to realise the need to provide real incentives to country Australia—instead of paying 43c, paying 20c. Instead of reducing or getting rid of red tape, you want to increase it. You did nothing in terms of this legislation. You talk about the ethanol proposals. Tell me how many proposals saw the light of day when your government was in power?Mr Horne interjecting—MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—Absolutely. How many companies took advantage of this when it was in place? This is an absolutely limited and pathetic effort. You make claims about how much it has been used in Germany. Provide the figures. If you want to find where diesel fuel is used in spades, go to Germany. I lived there for 3½ years. You will find cars on the road use diesel as well as the trucks and buses. So, if you want to use Germany as an example of where ethanol fuel is up and running, there is a very small usage there indeed; most of it is in terms of diesel. Go and check your facts. If you are going to come into the House and claim all these things, you ought to get your facts right. More important is the way you failed regional Australia.This is about providing real incentives to regional Australia. This is about a new tax system that is going to assist in a very significant way. This is about a government that lives up to its promises. Sure we made some changes as a result of the agreement with the Democrats. But you could have come along and made the difference and agreed so there would be no changes. The recommendations the Democrats have made we have supported. This is what part of the bill is in regard to today. You talk about the Australian Taxation Office determining what is there. You talk about people not reading the tax bill. You have not read it yourself. In fact what will be defined as `metropolitan' for the purpose of this scheme is going to be determined by regulation. The member for Batman made the same mistake. He said, as you did, that the boundaries will be determined by the tax commissioner. In fact, the reality is that it will be determined by regulation and it will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. So it is clear what it is about. It is to be clearly spelled out. You go on with all this rhetoric about how the Australian tax office is going to do it. You will have the ability to scrutinise it right here in the parliament. This is what this government is about: being transparent, the ability to be scrutinised, saying things up-front. We did not hide the fact that we would bring in a GST. We told people up-front. We told them about the diesel fuel tax rebate, and people were delighted.I challenge the member for Paterson to come to the road transport industry forum in Canberra next week. The opposition spokesman on transport should come along to hear what the industry thinks about providing real incentives to the transport industry. You would if the labor Party cared about transport around Australia. You would find a great deal of support for our government DAFG Scheme. This real incentive is introduced by the government and you lot oppose it. You are not concerned about what happens to regional Australia. You are not concerned about the incentives to the trucking industry. You are not concerned about how to make our economy more efficient. I challenge you to bring your rhetoric out to a forum of the road transport industry and tell them about what great initiatives you have. I would love to see your speech: `Ladies and gentlemen, I come before you tonight on behalf of the Labor Party and have I got a great deal for you. I want to continue charging you 43c a litre for your diesel fuel. The government might want to charge you 20c a litre, but I have a better deal; I want to charge you 43c.' I am sure they will give you huge applause; you would go down extremely well with the road transport industry, I don't think.This is about getting real in terms of industry. This government is assisting industry right across the board. This is about the election promise given in 1998. It will certainly come into operation on 1 July next year. As we know, the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 was brought into this House and passed. These are the prescriptions for how it will be enacted. The grant is to be used for carrying on an enterprise. It is only for those conducting a business. This is why it is being welcomed by business.I do not think the member for Paterson can give great examples of where business is saying, `Gee, thanks very much, but we don't want it. Please give it back.' I am sure we would all be interested in those letters. Please bring them forward. Certainly the trucks are eligible if they weigh between 4.5 and 20 tonnes and are used for journeys between a point outside the metropolitan area and a point inside the metropolitan area or between different metropolitan areas. All these requirements where it is going to operate are spelt out.The legislation indicates what sorts of records are to be kept to make a claim. It sets out a formula for arriving at a claim figure. It identifies that DAFGS grants are taxable and allows the commission to determine what constitutes a claimable journey. It gives the commissioner powers to administer the scheme, including the allotment of appropriate penalties. Because of concerns about equality that the Democrats have raised, it is not available to city transport. As far as I am concerned, that is appropriate if the primary reason is to assist country and regional Australia, where there is so much need for assistance to be offered.On the issue of substantiation, I notice that Senator Schacht said it will be terribly difficult to comply. The whole question of compliance was brought up. He criticised the requirement for truckies to keep diaries of their travel and the employment of inspectors to undertake random checks. Just like the member for Paterson, he offered no real alternatives as to how it might be done. This bill provides a real balance between the complexities of compliance which normally would go with it and trying to reduce the red tape. It is a reasonable balance. You keep a diary of where you have travelled, which is not too difficult to undertake. Having met those requirements, the rebate is available to you. The Australian National Audit Office indicated that, in terms of the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme, $23.4 million has not been able to be substantiated. So the guidelines are provided to make it easier to administer the scheme.The bill also provides the boundaries of the metropolitan areas in which subsidised fuel cannot be accessed for freight and passenger transport. It is fairly easy to identify where they are. They are the major conurbations that exist around Australia. In terms of equality, which the Democrats have indicated is a high priority for them, those areas are exempted from eligibility in the scheme.Other members have said that there may be an asymmetry in the definition of what is an eligible journey. Concern was raised that an applicant driving a 4.5- to 20-tonne vehicle is entitled to a grant for the entire journey from a non-metropolitan to a metropolitan destination but not the other way around. I have been informed that the Australian Taxation Office does not consider there is a problem here and will ensure there is symmetry.There has also been debate about what the word `between' means. The tax office says that it simply means between. It cannot be that hard to work out how this is to be interpreted overall. Likewise, there is concern about the word `point' and, hence, what constitutes a journey. For example, a trip from Wagga to Sydney may entail several delivery destinations in Sydney as part of a continuous journey. Some members have stated that it is not clear whether `point' means the first or the final delivery point of such a journey. The precise definition of a point thus seems likely to give rise to some dispute. Much will depend on how `point' is interpreted by the Australian Taxation Office. Members from the opposition in the upper house mentioned this when speaking on the bill.The fact is that, under the terms of this bill, the Commissioner of Taxation will decide what is and is not a journey and will assess on a case by case basis whether a company is misrepresenting the true starting and ending point of a journey. Importantly, the tax commissioner must consult all the following organisations: the Bus Industry Federation, the Australian Trucking Association, the National Farmers Federation and any other organisations specified in the regulations. Tonight, bus industry representatives are in this place meeting with members. They understand the need for this incentive. They are glad that their members in rural areas will benefit from the reduction in diesel fuel costs.Again, there is an incentive to country operators, which is what we on this side of the House want to see. There are real incentives to rural and regional Australia and to tourism right across Australia. This is what we want. This is the type of initiative that creates employment. This is the type of initiative that creates real incentives in regional Australia.The member for Paterson claims he represents regional Australia, but all he can talk about in terms of any initiative is an ethanol plan, which represents about 0.001 of what is actually used in world production of fuel. It is such a nonsense to claim to represent regional Australia and have no idea how to provide real incentives. I tell you what, member for Paterson, if you want to talk about real incentives, try on 43c a litre compared to 20c a litre. That is real incentive. You do not need to talk about ethanol. You do not need talk about what you might have done. You had 13 years to actually bring it into operation, but the fact is that you did nothing about it—nothing at all for regional Australia—and that is why you are sitting on that side of the House. It is this side of the House that provides the real incentives.It is also true that the bill does not prescribe the exact form of records required to claim under the DAFGS, as it does not want to add further to compliance costs—contrary, of course, to the member for Paterson's and the member for Batman's claims that this is going to add to compliance costs. However, it specifies that applicants must keep records which will enable them to substantiate a claim for fuel grants. This would include issues such as kilometres travelled, fuel used, receipts, details of journey—including when and for what purpose—distance travelled on public roads, distance travelled in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas and route taken. This is not exactly the most difficult thing in the world to comply with—a few notes jotted out about the route and the kilometres travelled.At this stage the compliance strategy has yet to be fully developed by the Australian Taxation Office, but will be based on two things. Firstly, it will assist claimants to understand their obligations through an information and education campaign right across Australia. They will be provided with details of that. Obviously, the road transport industry will be involved in providing their members with details. So it will not be hard to get the message out. Secondly, there will be an enforcement strategy to remove unscrupulous operators, illegitimate operators and contrived schemes. A registration system is intended to identify eligible claimants in the first instance.In terms of the resources of the Australian Taxation Office, which has been raised before, the tax office is currently assessing the deployment of inspectors and evaluating how best to employ these resources. They also providing penalties for false statements, whether made knowingly or recklessly. I am sure that all members would agree with these proposals. I also note that Senator Schacht in the upper house was questioning the use of geopositional satellites to monitor the movements of trucks. That is a sci-fi approach and will not be pursued. The Labor Party are the first to talk about privacy issues—we quite agree this would exceedingly invade individuals' privacy. Surely there is an easier way to do this. It is a straightforward exercise.We have legislation before us tonight which shows the government's credentials on several grounds. Firstly, the promises they made before the election are delivered after the election. Secondly, they promised that they would deliver for regional and rural Australia, and they have done so. This bill also provides real incentives for truck operators, which will be passed on to rural producers; real incentives for bus operators, which will be passed on to tourism operators throughout the country; and real incentives for those who run their own private trucking operations from farms.This is about real incentives for rural Australia. This is about creating jobs. This is about creating an environment for a more efficient economy. This is the type of legislation that the Labor Party should be supporting. The Labor Party claims to be supporting the workers of Australia; it takes this government to show how it is done. This is a can-do piece of legislation, which is being applauded right across rural and regional Australia. I am sure that the road transport operators will be screaming in the streets, demanding that the member for Paterson come and speak about how he plans to solve their problem, when right there in front of them they have the solution. It is a simple solution, and it reads, `43c a litre compared to 20c a litre.' Everyone who operates a truck throughout Australia and every rural producer will understand how it works. They know it is the coalition government that has delivered such incentives and it is the Labor Party that, once again, has let them down.21:28:0011363Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—Reaching a position on the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 , which puts in place the administrative framework for the Diesel and Alternative Fuel Grants Scheme, requires analysis of a number of factors—an analysis that has been somewhat lacking in much of this debate. There has been far more rhetoric than research in many of the speeches, as far as I could hear. These are the factors that do need analysis: the ability of the scheme to achieve its stated purpose—that is, reducing the cost of goods and services in regional Australia by reducing transport costs; the cost of the scheme and whether it justifies any benefits that might flow; the environmental impact; the impact on rail as opposed to road transport; the workability of the scheme for business and government in terms of enforcing compliance; and, the scope for the scheme to be abused.Before dealing with each of these factors, it is important to remember how the government handled the passage of the main grants scheme bill back in June of this year, after securing its deal with the Democrats. That bill was introduced into this place late on 22 June and listed for debate early the next morning, giving members totally inadequate time to consider the proposals. The government treated the House of Representatives and the proper process of debate with contempt not only in the way it rushed the bill through but by requiring members to vote on it without knowing how the proposed scheme was to work—and both sides in this place want Australians to believe that they can deliver a people's President.That contempt, that lack of any decent study and debate, is why I voted against the passage of that bill back in June, pending more information, more detail. Since that bill's premature passage I have had time to consider its provisions in more detail and now, with this bill, which should have accompanied the other, I can better assess the ramifications. I must note, however, that some glaring gaps still remain.At this stage, no compliance strategy has been developed by the ATO. I can understand the tax office being a bit coy about what compliance measures it will put in place when it probably does not even know how much money it will get to administer the scheme. It is unclear from the explanatory memorandum what resources will be made available to the ATO to put in place a compliance regime. I note that the explanatory memorandum states that as the measures contained in this bill are `of a machinery and administrative nature' there are `no additional financial impacts'. It goes on to say that the financial impact of the scheme was contained in the explanatory memorandum to the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill.According to that EM, all we are told is that the scheme will cost $600 million in the first year and $690 million in the second, with a compliance cost impact described as `medium'—whatever that means. But, if a scheme such as that proposed is to work and not be open to widespread rorting like that which has plagued the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme, it will require a very active compliance regime, and the only way that can happen is if the ATO is provided with adequate resources.I hope that, in summing up the debate, the minister will be able to explain to the House what financial commitment the government will be making to enforce the compliance measures. If we in this place had been given adequate time to assess the other bill, the government's attention could have been drawn to potential problems—problems such as that which formed the basis of my question on notice to the Deputy Prime Minister on the 27th of last month. That question is as yet unanswered, and that is not unreasonable, given that it was lodged only late last month. The problem that question refers to relates to the application of section 10(2) of the act, which sets out the types of journeys for which the grants can be claimed for vehicles above 4.5 tonnes and below 20 tonnes.On my reading of that section, while it is clear that a grant will be available for the entire journey from a regional to a metropolitan destination, it is unclear whether an identical journey in the opposite direction will be eligible for the whole journey or only for that part of the journey which falls outside the metropolitan area. There is also ambiguity in that section about what constitutes a `point'. For example, a trip from Orange in my electorate to Sydney may comprise several delivery points in Sydney as part of a continuous journey.The question is whether the grant will be available only for the trip between Orange and the first drop-off point or whether it will be available for subsequent travel between other drop-off points. If it is available for subsequent trips, then it would seem to make the grants available for trips within the same metropolitan area—which conflicts with the stated intent of the government's agreement with the Democrats to not allow the grants within those metro areas.The problems with this section also highlight the administrative difficulties the ATO is likely to face. It points to the type of holes in the system that will be able to be manipulated for financial gain. For example, for trucks of 4.5 to 20 tonnes, a trip from Newcastle to Wollongong, in the same metropolitan area, would not attract a grant, but a trip from Newcastle to Lithgow and then from Lithgow to Wollongong might attract a grant. I wonder if we are going to have trucks ducking in and around metropolitan areas—perhaps damaging local roads—to enable access to this scheme. And who is going to police it?If these sections are to be read literally, for them to work, on every road out of a metropolitan area the ATO will have to specify where the city ends and the bush starts. Not only that, but every transport provider travelling from city to country will have to know where these points are. That might not be so bad for operators who travel back and forth on the same route all the time but, for those who haul stuff all over the place—and especially for those smaller companies—it is not hard to see the compliance problems that could arise.I draw the minister's attention to these issues, which have also been touched on by the Parliamentary Library's researchers. In fact, we pointed out some of the apparent anomalies to those researchers and they have picked that up in their research work. I hope that these can be clarified and rectified, if not in this place then in the Senate.Quite obviously, the compliance burden of this scheme, will, like the GST, fall most heavily on small business. It will be regressive in that sense. Disregarding these administrative problems, the more important issue is whether the scheme will deliver tangible benefits to people living in rural and regional Australia. While the government has made much of how the scheme will reduce the cost of diesel, we have not seen anything about how the proposal will actually benefit people in rural and regional areas in terms of reducing the price of goods.The scheme assumes, as does the GST package, that where costs are reduced they will be fully passed on to consumers and that competition will force the savings to be passed on. But I have read one interesting analysis of the diesel fuel scheme that questions its ability to provide cost benefits to regional consumers. That analysis uses Bureau of Industry Economics figures to estimate the flow-on benefits of the scheme. When the GST input credit is added to the diesel fuel grant, the price of diesel will fall by some 32 per cent. That is good. But, according to the bureau, fuel and oil costs represent only about one-fifth of the total costs of transport providers. This means that, rather than reducing transport costs by one-third, total transport costs will be reduced by about six or seven per cent. But transport costs represent only a fraction of the total shelf cost.According to that analysis, the bottom line is that, if the cost savings are fully passed on to shelf prices, $10 worth of groceries would be 3.3c cheaper—and that is if the benefits are totally passed on. It ignores the additional compliance costs of the GST for small business. It ignores any inflationary impact of the GST. If this analysis of the scheme's likely flow-on benefits is correct, if the government's GST inflation estimates are as far out as some reputable commentators are saying they could be, and if the New Zealand post-GST inflationary experience is anything to go by, then it seems likely that any benefits flowing from the diesel scheme will be more than wiped out in the short, two-year life of this scheme.Contrary to what the government would have us believe, the real issue in rural and regional Australia, at least in my rural electorate, with regard to fuel is not the cost of diesel fuel for business but the cost of petrol for ordinary people. In recent times, the price of petrol has increased substantially, due to world crude oil prices and a lack of transparency and rigorous competition in rural and regional Australia.The Bureau of Statistics 1993-84 household expenditure survey showed then that, while the average Australian household spent $30.63 on petrol a week, only 99c was spent on diesel. That gap would have narrowed only marginally in the past six years—so huge is the difference between diesel and petrol usage. Mining and farm commodity transport would obviously benefit from this proposal, but the government is claiming that the major beneficiaries will be ordinary rural dwelling Australians who will be delivered significant cuts in their cost of living, courtesy of transport cost cuts passed on. That will not be the case, according to my examination of this.The government's plan to reduce the excise on fuel by an across-the-board amount when the GST is added on 1 July next year will obviously widen the differential between city and country petrol prices. Why? If the excise is reduced by 7c, as is being widely speculated, it will be a 7c reduction on city petrol at 70c, which provides a greater percentage benefit than reducing the excise on country petrol at, say, 80c or—heaven forbid—89c by July next year. And, of course, the GST will then impact more on country fuel prices for the same reasons.If the government were serious about providing a real benefit to the bush, it would do two things. First, it would look at how to introduce real competition and transparency into the petrol industry from terminal to bowser. On this point, I welcome the government's backdown on the planned deregulation of the petroleum industry. If those changes had gone through, I have no doubt that the long-term outcome for country people would have been even higher fuel prices. Second, rather than putting money back in the pockets of the major operators in the trucking industry, it would reduce the petrol excise on fuel used in country areas by substantially more than it is reduced in city areas. I certainly do not begrudge a lessening of costs to smaller local trucking companies and operators, but I have to question the benefit of these changes to the end user—the consumer—and the compliance costs which will affect those small operators far more than they will affect big trucking companies.If the government reduced petrol excise by a greater margin in the bush, people in country areas might see direct benefits through cheaper petrol for personal as well as business use. This is dependent, of course, on the constitutionality of such a scheme. I understand that such constitutional questions have been raised to some degree about this. If it does have constitutional problems, maybe it should be investigated in terms of some grants program for rural and regional Australia vis-a-vis petrol pricing. With this scheme, the risk is that any savings will not go to the end consumer but will be pocketed by transport providers and retailers. That is a real risk, especially in areas where there is no real competition.As far as the environmental impact of this proposal is concerned, it is hard to know who to believe. The Democrats argue that the revised scheme, along with the air pollution measures, represents a substantial improvement on the original ANTS package. On the other hand, the Australia Institute's analysis of the revised package found it would still result in significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions and urban air pollution in Australia—with a critical factor being the reduction in the prices of diesel fuel for heavy vehicles. In response, the government, relying on the analysis of its consultant economist, Dr David James, discredited the Australia Institute's findings, saying they were based on flawed modelling. The institute estimated that the revised package will result in the addition of 5.2 megatonnes of carbon dioxide and 1.5 gigagrams in particulate emissions on top of `business as usual' projections by 2010. But Dr James found that the revised package will result in greenhouse gas emission savings of 5.5 megatonnes by 2010 and substantial reductions in particulate emissions.Given these massive differences in analysis, it is difficult to reach a conclusion on that aspect of the package. If one takes a middle line between the Australia Institute and Dr James's report, by 2010 the environmental impact will be close to what it would have been, had nothing been done. On that basis, given Australia's Kyoto greenhouse commitment, I am not convinced that the revised package does enough environmentally.This is quite apart from the question of diesel quality in this country which, as I understand it, falls well short of acceptable standards—any incentives to use more will not help promote improvements in air quality. The member for Paterson alluded to the need to press on to new technologies in the new millennium. As I walked into the House for this debate he mentioned the ethanol bounty program, which had a particular resonance in my own electorate where the Manildra Group was the beneficiary of such a scheme and had set in train a very bold project to produce ethanol from its multimillion dollar projects at both Manildra and Nowra on the South Coast. There was an opportunity there for rural Australia and for all of Australia to have a win-win in new fuel technology.The Alternative Fuel Conversion Program is part of the government's program now, and I draw to the attention of the House that, according to expert analysis, the cost of converting a heavy-duty diesel vehicle to CNG-LPG could range from $13,000 to $70,000, while the cost of converting a diesel vehicle to an ethanol-diesel blend can range from $200 for a Euro 2 engine up to $1,600 only for an American diesel. One wonders about the bias of this government in favour of fossil fuels. We should be leading the world in new technology. Here was an opportunity for rural and regional Australia to be at the very forefront and cutting edge of the technology—and that has been thrown out and burnt on the altar of financial rectitude and crazy economic rationalism. Again, we look at the cost of doing something rather than the cost of not doing it.It cannot be denied that the range of short-term measures the Democrats have won with regard to this bill are far better than anything contained in the original ANTS package, but it is not hard to improve what was originally so detrimental to the environment. One component of the revised package I strongly support, however, is the extension to rail operators of the full rebate of excise on diesel—as much as I wish we were still moving to alternative energies that really mean something in terms of environmental standards. As we know, rail had a small comparative advantage to road transport in terms of the excise applying to diesel. Under the original ANTS package, that comparative advantage would have been removed. The Democrats are to be congratulated for securing this extension to rail and, by so doing, actually increasing rail's comparative advantage over road transport.As I have just mentioned, too often governments—and the previous one too—think only of the cost of doing something rather than the cost of not doing something. There is no better example of this than the rail versus road argument. The more our goods can be transported by rail the less wear and tear on our roads, the fewer accidents, lower insurance premiums and so on. I hope the inclusion of rail transport in the off-road scheme, combined with a positive response from the government to the rail task force report into the future direction of the rail sector, will deliver the boost our rail industry so desperately needs.In concluding, it is important that the scheme this bill puts in place is not viewed in isolation. As I have pointed out, both pieces of the diesel fuels grants scheme have problems. I hope this second bill will be given a closer examination by the Senate than the first one. It is arguable that the benefits the government claims will flow from this change have been overstated and that they can be, and probably will be, illusory. If international experience is anything to rely upon, any benefits that flow to regional communities from the scheme are likely to be quickly eaten up by the inflationary impact of the GST.Rather than blindly supporting the scheme, members of the National Party should look closely at ways of reducing the cost of petrol in regional areas. That is the real issue for people living in regional areas. I look forward to necessary amendments to this legislation and will support its passage with a warning that the expectations the government has built up in rural areas about the benefits that these changes will deliver will come back to haunt coalition members if those benefits prove as illusory as I suspect they will be.21:47:0011367Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise tonight to speak on the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 . Firstly, I wish to give an overview of the bill and its aims and then talk specifically about the implementation of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme and what it is going to mean for rural and regional Australia. This bill, which will enact the administrative arrangements, including compliance mechanisms for the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme, is the final legislative chapter in the implementation of this innovative and popular scheme.The main framework of the scheme was contained in the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Act 1999, which received royal assent on 8 July. This act is conditional upon the commencement of this legislation, thus reflecting the government's commitment to put in place rigorous enforcement measures. I will shortly get to why these are necessary, particularly when one compares the efforts of this government as opposed to that of the previous government.I cannot overemphasise the critical importance of the scheme to regional and rural Australia. While the full measure of the original scheme, as outlined in the new tax system policy, has not been possible, nonetheless, the compromise negotiated by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr John Anderson, with the Australian Democrats has preserved for regional and rural Australia the key benefits. I am extremely grateful to the minister for achieving so much in these no doubt difficult and sensitive negotiations. Equally, credit is due to the Australian Democrats and their leader, Senator Meg Lees, for their willingness to seek a satisfactory and beneficial outcome.I mentioned in my opening remarks that this bill reflects the government's determination to ensure that there are rigorous enforcement mechanisms to ensure the scheme is not rorted. Undeniably, the compromise scheme, which will apply from 1 July 2000 and which has a detailed eligibility for entitlement, does not have the broad simplicity of the original plan. However, with a sense of understanding and fairness, appropriate and effective compliance measures can and will be put in place. I found it ironic, to say the least, that the Labor Party sought to criticise these enforcement and compliance measures before they were even given a chance to prove their worth, given the hopeless administration of the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme when they were in office.The member for Hotham, who spoke earlier, talked about the diesel police with a dipstick. The dipsticks were the previous government, and I am going to go on to show their record when they were in government administering the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. The Australian National Audit Office—just to digress for a moment—gave record rentals to the Australian Labor Party. As I understand it, it was twice the going rate of any other business in Canberra, a contract arranged by somebody in the Department of Finance, as it then was. Anyway, the Australian National Audit Office, which has I guess the iniquitous position of renting space commercially from the Labor Party at twice the going rental, reviewed this scheme in 1991 when the Labor Party was in office and again in 1996, shortly after the election of the coalition government.The 1996 report found that the risk based approach to ensuring compliance was lacking, with little substantiation of grant claims or targeting of claimants. The Australian Customs Service, the administrator of the scheme, had also—in the words of the damning report—`virtually discontinued' imposing administrative penalties or prosecutions for those abuses of the scheme that had been detected. The result, according to the Audit Office, was that at least $23.4 million was overpaid to complainants in 1994-95.Who are the dipsticks? Who could not run a diesel fuel rebate scheme and who saw $23.4 million lost to taxpayers because of overpayments? The member for Paterson went on about compliance and the power to stop and search vehicles. It is a pity the Labor Party did not stop and do a bit of searching and do the right thing by the taxpayer. They could not run a chook raffle! They could not run a fuel rebate scheme, and they are not even going to vote for the compliance measures we have put in place.I would like to go on because there is even more. What is even worse is the fact that the 1996 report revealed that what were described in the earlier 1991 report as `significant deficiencies' in the administration of the scheme had not been remedied in 1996. They had five years—in fact, they had 13 years overall—and they still could not get it right.The Labor Party in government presided over a scandalously wasteful, inefficient rort that they knew about for five years and that they did nothing about. The member for Batman talked about a dirty little deal. I just refer to the arrangement with the Australian National Audit Office. If there is a dirty little deal, it has to be that one. The deal we are offering rural and regional Australia is a saving of 23c a litre. What is the Labor Party offering? They are offering 43c a litre. They are trying to muddy the waters and pretend that they are helping regional and rural Australia, that they are going to save them from our generous offer of 23c a litre reduction in fuel costs, and they could not run the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme from 1991 to 1996.Under the coalition, the appalling, shoddy and careless administration that we were left by the Labor Party will be overhauled and tightened up, and a great deal has been done already. The Customs Service has implemented a modernisation project, which has included redeploying staff away from claims processing to what are described by the service in its 1997-98 annual report as `more critical audit and compliance activities'. Let us hope it is $23.4 million worth of more critical audit and compliance activities.This bill addresses these issues by providing guidelines on eligibility, entitlements and record keeping, thus providing the scheme's administrator, the Australian tax office, with extensive powers to impose penalties, recover overpayments—which the previous government never could and never attempted—and gain access to claimants' records and premises. They are complaining about onerous compliance, but they could not run a Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme.While a compliance strategy is yet to be fully developed by the ATO, my advice is that it will be based on two key areas. Firstly, there will be an information and education campaign to help claimants understand their obligations, and I very much welcome this initiative. When I reflect upon the many truck owners and operators in my electorate who will benefit—a great deal—I can say with assurance that none would willingly and knowingly engage in any rorting. However, education and information is certainly needed about the new guidelines and will avoid any inadvertent errors. The information and education campaign is welcome.The second area to be developed for the compliance strategy is understood to incorporate risk management approaches, including developing sector and user profiles against which claims can be monitored. In other words, there will be figures to indicate when a particular business may have gone right outside the typical user profile and give the ATO not the sort of scaremongering the Labor Party is talking about but a profile to compare and then perhaps ask some questions of the particular user.The risk for inadvertent error is always considerable when any new scheme is introduced, even with the best will in the world. I know the tax office will adopt a fair and reasonable approach to meet its enforcement responsibilities and be judicious in its approach. We have to get a better result than the previous government. It is significant that the government has recognised in this bill that there will be some grey areas, and those are yet to be defined—for example, what constitutes a point and hence a journey for the purposes of an entitlement?Under the provisions of this bill, however, the taxation commissioner must consult with the Bus Industry Confederation, the Australian Trucking Association Ltd, the National Farmers Federation and a range of other organisations. This is a most sensible provision and should go a long way towards ensuring that disputes and disagreements are ironed out before they become a major source of aggravation.I would like to recount to the House the extent of the benefits in this scheme. As the minister for transport said when introducing the main bill in June, there will be large and enduring benefits to regional Australia, to the environment and to transport operators in the road, rail and marine sectors. In the second reading speech, the minister said:Businesses across Australia will all pay less for fuel than they do now because they will get back the GST paid on inputs . . . It is expected that businesses should save around 6c to 7c per litre by this measure alone, although the actual amount will not be determined until next year after the final pre-GST half-yearly CPI adjustment to excise rates.In addition to the GST input tax credits on fuel purchased, the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grant Scheme will provide a further major cut in costs, with grants in the order of 16c to 17c per litre of diesel used for a wide variety of Australian businesses that provide transport services to country areas.Importantly, the government is also extending concessions available under the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme by recognising rail as an off-road user of diesel—a big component of the transport industry in rural and regional areas, certainly in my electorate of Dawson—and therefore extending to the railways the full excise rebate, and by also extending this full rebate for diesel and like fuels to marine use and other qualifying uses, including agriculture, fishing and mining.Broadly speaking, eligibility for grants under the scheme is limited to vehicles weighing between 4.5 and 20 tonnes operating outside metropolitan areas and all vehicles weighing more than 20 tonnes operating in all areas. They are the trucks that go up and down the Bruce Highway in Queensland bringing goods from Melbourne and Sydney to our towns and taking melons, mangoes and tomatoes from Dawson to the markets down south. It is going to be a tremendous boon, and I will go into the figures very shortly that will accrue to businesses right across my electorate.There has been criticism of those cut-off points which were agreed in the negotiations between Minister Anderson and the Australian Democrats, but it is a much better deal than we were ever offered by the Labor Party. They are still offering 43c a litre, and we have cut that back by 23c a litre to 20c a litre diesel excise.I will talk about the cut-off points for vehicle classes for a moment. The fact is that 4.5 tonnes is a natural cut-off point for vehicle classes because different licensing requirements apply at this level—a truck drivers licence is needed to operate such vehicles and very few vehicles use petrol at this threshold. Some 99.9 per cent of articulated vehicles and 90.5 per cent of rigid trucks already use diesel, as do a similar percentage of the bus fleet. These figures demolish some of the wilder claims that there will be a wholesale switch from petrol to diesel in these heavier vehicles thus contributing to environmental damage.The Australian Conservation Foundation claimed last March that reducing the price of diesel would in fact lead to increased diesel usage. Let us examine that claim. The National Farmers Federation President, Mr Ian Donges, rightfully responded by pointing out that it was just absurd to try to claim that farmers would want to spend more time and money than they already do harvesting grain and planting crops. Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, you come from a regional electorate. You do not harvest your crop twice just because fuel is cheaper. You do not haul the same product twice to market just because diesel fuel is cheaper. Nor do truck drivers happily take the long route between two points because diesel fuel is cheaper.In fact, the NFF President pointed out that if the view that cheaper fuel means greater vehicle usage had any merit at all then there would be greater usage in Brisbane than in the other capital cities because of lower fuel prices there due to the absence of a state fuel tax. I am happy to advise that this is not the fact. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Brisbane motorists actually drive 10 per cent less than the national average, travelling 10,300 kilometres a year compared with the national average of 11,400 kilometres. Mr Donges also pointed out last March that in the previous two years the pump price of petrol and diesel had fallen dramatically, yet consumption was 48,178 megalitres in 1996, 47,813 megalitres in 1997 and 48,025 megalitres in 1998. The facts do not support the Australian Conservation Foundation's assertion. Farmers do not drive their product twice to market. In Brisbane, where fuel is cheaper, motorists drove less than the national average of kilometres. The reality is that there is no correlation between fuel prices and usage.83VEMERSONMr Emerson—Oh, come on!FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—I have given you the facts, but you do not want to hear them. That is typical of the Labor Party. They do not want to offer a diesel fuel rebate of 23c a litre. In fact, it can be well argued that the benefits from the tax package, including cheaper fuel and cheaper vehicles, will have a very positive economic and environmental impact because businesses will be better able to purchase new and more fuel efficient and less polluting vehicles. As the Minister for Transport and Regional Services said in June when introducing the main bill for this scheme, `In fact, viewed in the context of the full set of environmental commitments made by the government, particulate emissions in cities will actually fall dramatically.'Road and rail transport is the very lifeblood of rural and regional Australia. It moves produce to markets and it delivers the necessities of life. Thus the cost of this transport impacts heavily on the price of that produce on domestic and international markets and on the cost of virtually everything needed for day-to-day life. Cheaper fuel means lower costs which, in turn, means enhanced prospects for our exports and a dampening on the cost of living for regional and rural Australians.I would like to share with you some figures that have been done on the benefit for a business in my own electorate of the substantial cut in diesel fuel excise offered by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. This exercise was undertaken by the National Truck Association for a trucking business in my electorate of Dawson. It is a moderately sized family business with a turnover of $2 million a year. It is probably not an atypical business in the transport industry, but it is for a family run business. Their diesel fuel bill per annum is in the order of $400,000. On the Truck Association's figures they are going to save—and I hope the Labor Party are listening because they were not going to deliver it—$132,500.84BST CLAIRMr St Clair—How much?FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—$132,500. If you include the wholesale sales tax on parts, oil, tyres and so on, they are looking at a saving in addition to that of $75,260. They are not my figures; they are the National Truck Association's figures. So for that one small business, the total sum of the savings is $207,760. That money will go right throughout the electorate, not into the coffers of Canberra for the Labor Party to waste.83VEMERSONMr Emerson—We will be in government pretty quickly.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—You wasted your money plenty. Do not forget the black hole you created with your debt. We all remember.83VEMERSONMr Emerson—Don't be nasty.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Can I just say to the member on the other side—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—No, I would rather you did not. Just say it to the chair and ignore the member on the other side.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—I would much rather direct my comments to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. But I thought the events of last week were very significant when the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, went on radio and television making the statements that he did. Many people had forgotten what the Labor Party was really like. I had people stopping me in the street all day saying, `Remember Keating—God save us.' It all came back—political deja vu. Boy, did it come back. They had not forgotten; the memory had dimmed. But it all came back, as you can see by the poll results. They remembered the 22 per cent interest rates. They remembered, as my colleague the member for New England so rightly said, the constant increases in the diesel fuel excise and petrol excise starting from 6c going right up—climbing and climbing. They remember the wholesale sales tax. They remember the l-a-w tax cuts. It all came back—political deja vu. Just look at your poll results. So while you are over there crowing about that, remember that we are the ones delivering. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am not crowing about anything.22:07:0011371Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—Just as the GST will prove to be, in the prophetic words of the Treasurer, a nightmare on main street, so too will the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme prove to be a nightmare on Mount Lindsay Highway, for Mount Lindsay Highway is a major road that travels through the electorate of Forde and into my electorate of Rankin. This scheme will be wide open to rorting.The member for Dawson spoke euphemistically about grey areas. What she is referring to is opportunities for rorting of this scheme. In response to those opportunities that are created by this hastily cobbled together scheme, the tax commissioner has been given very strong powers indeed because the government knows that the arrangements that have been put in place through this legislation are wide open to rorting.I draw the attention of the House to some of the provisions of the enforcement scheme that is being put in place through this legislation. On production of an identity card to an occupier, authorised officers must be given entry at any reasonable time to land or premises where those officers have reason to believe that there are documents, goods or any other property relevant to the operation of the act. The officers are to be given full access to documents, computer files, goods or other property. The occupier of the land or premises will be obliged to provide the officers seeking access with reasonable access and assistance, including advice, as to where relevant information is kept. If an authorised officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a vehicle is involved in obtaining fuel grants, the officer may stop the vehicle for the purposes of searching it or for taking a fuel sample. That is where the dipsticks come in. They have moved from thermometers in chooks to dipsticks in diesel fuel tanks. An officer of the government can follow a truck driver into his or her house and demand the production of documents and can get out the dipstick and put it in the fuel tank to seek to enforce what is an ill-conceived and hastily cobbled together scheme.I point to some of the anomalies that already appear to be in this legislation. For example, it appears that an applicant driving an eligible vehicle is entitled to a grant for the entire journey from a non-metropolitan to a metropolitan destination. Yet an identical journey in the other direction seems to be eligible only for that part which is outside the metropolitan area. The consequence of this is that it would increase the cost of goods transported to regional areas compared to identical trips in the opposite direction. Surely this is not an intention of this legislation. The intended consequences of this legislation are bad enough as they are, but, if this is correct, this is one of the many unintended consequences of the legislation, where trips one way are given the full diesel fuel rebate but only part of the trip coming the other way would be given such a rebate. This is a hastily cobbled together scheme.I would like to commend the member for Calare, representing a rural electorate, who spoke eloquently of the shortcomings in this legislation and predicted—I believe quite accurately—that the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme will not reduce the cost of goods and services delivered in rural and regional areas very much, if at all. It is being hailed as a great boost to rural and regional Australia, but when you look at the impact of this so-called reduction in the cost of diesel fuel and trans late that to the cost of a typical good or service delivered in those areas, it will be infinitesimal at best. There are legitimate grounds for fearing that the operators will appropriate those gains anyway and they will not be passed on to consumers. So what are we going to have? We will have the dipsticks and the ACCC out there monitoring the passing on of any savings to consumers. This is a nightmare on Mount Lindsay Highway. This scheme was cobbled together for one reason and one reason only: to obtain Democrat support for the GST.This legislation is completely silent on what constitutes an urban conurbation. In my own electorate of Rankin, I am already receiving calls—some of them outraged—at the lack of definition of it. One call has come from a truck operator from the suburb of Algester, on the southern outskirts of Brisbane, but still within the boundaries of the Brisbane City Council. This person said, `It appears I may not be eligible for this rebate scheme.' I would say that it is highly likely that that operator will not be eligible for the rebate scheme, because he lives in what may well be defined as an urban conurbation.When we go further south towards the New South Wales border, where will that line be drawn? Will it be drawn at the border, at the Tweed River and the New South Wales-Queensland border? If it is, then an urban conurbation will include one of the largest world heritage areas in Australia—the scenic rim rainforests. Is this a definition of an urban conurbation? We do not know yet, because this legislation is completely silent on that. I am already getting calls from people saying, `Under this scheme, will I get the rebate or not?' The answer I must give is, `I have no idea, because the government has no idea as it has not grappled with the difficult task of defining what an urban conurbation will be in south-east Queensland.' Will trucking operators just south of the border get a competitive advantage over trucking operators located in places like Beaudesert, Boonah and Kalbar? I do not know, because the government does not know as it has not addressed this issue.There is no doubt that this scheme will increase greenhouse gas emissions. As an offset to the impact of this scheme on greenhouse gas emissions, the Democrats demanded and obtained a fuel conversion program. Questions have been asked about this in the Senate in the last 24 hours, because the government has appropriated $75 million over four years to convert 800 buses and 4,000 trucks, which is out of a population of 1.9 million eligible vehicles. That works out at a cost of around $15,000 each.The important point is that the government's target estimate is that converting these trucks and buses from diesel to compressed natural gas will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 400,000 tonnes per year. It is not just a target. The Special Minister of State, Senator Ellison, said last night:We have said in this program that we have a target of 400,000 tonnes less emission after four years. That is a target we intend to meet. If we are to meet that target, we will have to spend these funds wisely, because if we do not, we will not meet the target; and if we do not meet the target, we will be criticised. There is no greater court than the court of public opinion.The minister was asked how the government calculated the 400,000 tonnes. His answer was:Vehicle numbers and rates of conversions were sourced from the Bureau of Transport Economics. Other key assumptions, such as fuel consumption rates and conversion costs, were sourced from the submission by the Australian Natural Gas Vehicles Council to the Senate inquiry into the new tax system. That is, the government relied on the submission by that council.They were the basic sources. The relevant shadow minister asked the minister to provide detailed figures on how the 400,000-tonne saving of greenhouse gases was calculated. His response was:I indicated the source of the data relied upon in relation to the calculation of 400,000 tonnes. I will undertake to get more detail in relation to that. I am not sure what there is available to me . . . Before I entered parliament, I worked as a private consultant on issues such as greenhouse gas emissions. We had occasion to do some work for Brisbane City Council. We were asked what the savings in greenhouse gases would be of converting the Brisbane City Council bus fleet from diesel to compressed natural gas. We did all the calcula tions, and the savings were negligible. They were close to zero. The reason for that is the different fuel efficiencies of the vehicles. There are other reasons as well, but that is the main reason.There are no major greenhouse gas savings to be made by converting buses from diesel to compressed natural gas, and yet the Democrats have bought the argument and the bodgie figures from the government that say we are going to make the great saving to the environment of 400,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases as a result of this conversion program which they insisted upon to offset the greenhouse gas increasing impacts of the legislation, the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 , which is before us tonight. When the minister's response finally comes, we will be very interested in the basis of those calculations. I am quite confident that those calculations are wrong. There are no net greenhouse savings from converting buses in that manner.The legislation before us tonight and the dodgy program that I just spoke about of converting buses from diesel to compressed natural gas had one purpose only for the government: to purchase the support of the Democrats for the GST. We did get a very grubby deal as a result of that. I have in front of me a booklet entitled The New Tax System—Here's what you need to know . Lurking out in the Australian electorate is a dark, sullen mood about the GST. There is fear and apprehension about the GST purchased through the deal with the Democrats. That fear and apprehension will become a reality when people start looking at this document. I will go through some of the claims.Page 3, which is the major summary page, says that there is no GST on basic food, health or education. Yet foods taxed by the GST include sandwiches—are they not a basic food?—pies, pasties, sausage rolls, ice-cream, fish and chips, McDonald's, Hungry Jacks, Burger King, KFC, Red Rooster, frozen and takeaway pizzas. The list goes on. The Democrats want to be the nutritionists of Australia. For low income people, these are basic foods, and yet this document says that basic foods will not be subject to the GST.The booklet goes on to say that health will not be subject to the GST. That will be news to people because, from 1 July, non-prescription pharmaceuticals will be subject to the GST. Contraceptives, for example, will be subject to the GST. It also says that education will not be subject to the GST. The Australian people are in for a shock from 1 July next year when they learn that school shoes, school uniforms, shirts and skirts, shorts and trousers, books—except for textbooks—and stationery will be subject to the GST. Are these not education expenses? Yet this document has reassured people that education will not be subject to the GST.The booklet boasts that the GST will replace wholesale sales tax and other taxes such as financial institutions duty. The Australian people were promised before the last election that 10 taxes would be replaced. In fact, four will be replaced, and they include a small bed tax in New South Wales and the Northern Territory that certainly has no relevance to people in other states.I will go through some of the taxes that will not be replaced by the GST. Again, the people of Australia will be rudely shocked from 1 July next year when they realise that the following taxes will not be replaced by the GST: income tax, alcohol excise, cigarette excise, petrol excise, diesel excise, stamp duty on cheques, stamp duty on hire purchase, stamp duty on insurance, stamp duty on buying a house, stamp duty on mortgages, payroll tax, bank account debits tax, customs duty, gambling taxes, other state fees and charges and local council rates, fees and charges. None of those will be replaced by the GST.We are told in this glossy document that has gone to every household that there will be dedicated watchdog powers to ensure price reductions are passed on. That is going to be done through 40 additional staff for the ACCC—ineffectual at best. The document goes on to boast that typical families will gain $40 to $50 a week. I draw the attention of the House to analysis by Access Economics, a very reputable organisation. Here are some typical families that are supposed to get $40 to $50 a week. A two-income family with two children between five and 13 years of age on a combined income of $45,000 is not going to get $40 to $50 a week. At best, under optimistic assumptions, it will get $13.01 a week.Here is another typical situation: a single income couple—is that not a typical family?—with no children on $30,000 will get $4 a week. They are being told by the government that they are going to get $40 to $50 a week. They will get $4. A single person—not a family, so a single person must not count—on $30,000 will get $5.51 a week, according to this analysis. A two-income family with no children on $45,000 is supposed to be a typical family getting $40 to $50 a week but will in fact get $3.76 a week at best. A single age pensioner obviously does not fall into the category of a typical family as far as the government is concerned, because a single age pensioner will get at best $3.33 a week.We have false claim after false claim from the government, which thinks it is clever in misleading people by producing documents like this and sticking them in letterboxes. But people will not be misled by the reality that, from 1 July next year, the GST is going to be a big crunch on family incomes and on pensioners.This document goes on to say that pensions and allowances will go up four per cent on 1 July next year. It fails to reveal that, a few months later, half of that four per cent will be clawed back. I think it would be reasonable for a pensioner to read that and say, `I'm going to get a four per cent increase.' The age pension will go up on 1 July next year when the GST comes in, and the increase will be four per cent—which works out at about $7.25 a week for single pensioners and around $6 a week for each member of a pensioner couple—but from March 2001, when the pension is automatically adjusted for inflation, half of the initial four per cent increase will be taken off. That is not revealed in the document that has been put in the letterbox of every Australian household. The real increase in the pension will therefore be two per cent, not four per cent as is glibly claimed by the government.It goes on to say that this is going to be great for small business and that GST registration is optional for small businesses with a turnover under $50,000. People may say, `That is pretty good.' It does not, of course, confess the fact that anyone who does not register for GST purposes will not get any credit on the GST paid on the inputs that business uses. That is missing somewhere in the fine print of page 15 or 16. I still have not been able to find it. Wait until small businesses work that out.Then the government says, `But we're going to give up to $500 million for GST start-up costs for small and medium businesses, charities and education.' For the 1.6 million taxpayers—businesses, charities and so on—that will be caught in the GST net, that works out at around $300 per organisation. So the government is saying, `Look, we may give you $300. We may use it on seminars and all sorts of other things. We may pay favoured friends and clients a lot of money to go around conducting seminars and information programs.' I do not think many businesses will see anything like $300, nor do I think $300 will be anywhere near enough to cover the enormous compliance and paperwork burden of this tax.So there we have it. The Democrats did a deal on the legislation before the House tonight. They said, `Oh well, this is the deal that has convinced us to pass the GST.' The Democrats will live to rue the day that they did that deal. The government will live to rue the day that they did the deal with the Democrats because, from 1 July next year, that lurking sullenness that is out there in the community right now will become a very harsh, sharp reality for the government. The community will realise the extent of the government's betrayal by this sort of rhetoric and by this sort of cheap and misleading publicity, and the government stands condemned for producing it. (Time expired)Debate (on motion by Mr Truss) adjourned. Adjournment11375Motion (by Mr Truss) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.1137522:27:0011375Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—I take this opportunity to remind members in the House that tomorrow in the Great Hall between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. there will be an exhibition entitled Showcasing Melbourne's West . It has been organised by the Western Melbourne Metropolitan Regional Economic Development Organisation and will provide, through stalls and information displays, all sorts of information about the very many advantages of both living and doing business in Melbourne's west. If members have time tomorrow, I would urge them to drop through the Great Hall at any time between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. to have a look at those exhibitions.DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—We'll make time!83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—Good. Members can be treated to a celebrity putting competition between the Minister for Sport and Tourism, the member for Maribyrnong and, I believe, some journalists at 11 a.m. People might want to put some bets on. Tonight I am not talking just about that exhibition, although that is part of Melbourne's west, showing that it has a long industrial history and that today it is a hub of manufacturing and distribution in Victoria. My purpose tonight is really to talk about another feature of Melbourne's west—perhaps a lesser known feature than its industrial history—and that is its great tourist attractions. I particularly want to urge the government to seize a historic and unique opportunity to add to those tourist attractions by facilitating an appropriate development at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Point Cook.The tourist attractions in Melbourne's west currently are many, but I will just mention a few of them. There is the Werribee Park Mansion, the State Rose Garden, the Werribee Open Range Zoo, the Scienceworks Museum, the Point Cook Metropolitan Park and Homestead and the National Equestrian Centre. Indeed, today already a tourist could get off a plane at Melbourne airport, walk out the door of Melbourne airport and, 45 minutes after leaving the airport, be staring eye to eye with a hippopotamus at the Werribee Zoo or marvelling at the vista at the Werribee Park Mansion, which is already a very beautiful site but is currently being developed into a prestige hotel and conference facility.Against this backdrop, it would be a marvellous venture if the government would show the vision to deal with the future of the Point Cook Air Base, which has been marked for sale as part of developing a tourist strategy in Melbourne's west. The air base was marked for sale as part of the 1997 Defence Reform Program, and the government is considering the sale now.Why is an air base a marvellous potential tourist site? Quite simply, Point Cook Air Base is the oldest operational airfield in the world and it still has many of its original features, including hangars and buildings. It was established in 1913 as the Central Flying School and the airstrip has been in continuous usage ever since. To get some perspective about what this means, we need to remember that the first manned flight in history took place on 17 December 1903. So a mere 10 years later, Point Cook was operating a flying school, and planes have been using that airstrip ever since. It is the birthplace of the Australian Flying Corp and the Royal Australian Air Force. It was the departure point for the first north-south and the first east-west crossings of the continent by air and the first aerial circumnavigation of the continent. The air base has been associated with some of Australia's most famous aviators including Williams—the aviator for whom it was named—who was the first Marshal of the RAAF and the first Director-General of Civil Aviation. It is currently the home of the RAAF museum.The potential for this site therefore seems crystal clear. It could be a tourist facility which celebrates aviation, where you could go and learn about the history of flight and the history of our air force, go and see planes in the RAAF museum and take a flight yourself or at least watch a functioning airstrip in operation. The proposal to turn the site into that kind of facility is well supported by the local community and over 10,000 members of the community have signed a petition about the matter. The minister has before him a proposal to deal with the Point Cook site in that way, forwarded to him by Point Cook Operations Ltd, a company which has put together a very comprehensive proposal to deal with Point Cook as that sort of historic theme tourist facility. I would take this opportunity to urge the Minister for Defence to seriously grasp this issue—to grasp this opportunity with vigour and imagination. (Time expired)1137622:32:0011376May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—The year 1999 marks the 50th anniversary of Australian citizenship. Prior to the nationality and citizenship act coming into being in 1949, Australians were British subjects and had no separate Australian status. Since 1949, in addition to those people becoming Australian citizens by birth or descent, some 3.1 million people have received Australian citizenship. In this milestone anniversary year I would like to pay tribute to our immigrants who have made their mark in this country, who have become Australian citizens and who have been crucial to the development of Australia and our identity.Our strength as a nation is characterised by shared values, basic rights of equality of treatment, equality under the law, democracy and equal opportunity for all. At the heart of all these shared values and unity is Australian citizenship. The number of people who have received Australian citizenship has increased from almost 3,000 in 1949—the first year of Australian citizenship—to over 112,000 in 1997-98. Today, four in every 10 Australians are immigrants or the children of immigrants. Australian citizenship involves much more than the natural culmination of a migration process and much more than the formal membership of the Australian community. It may mean different things to different people, but the concept held by most people is that it reflects an underlying commitment to Australia—to our democratic traditions and values. It is also symbolic of our unity as a nation.Our society is guided by fundamental principles of democracy, tolerance and equality of opportunity. As well, Australians enjoy certain rights that are not available to permanent residents, which enable them to participate fully in all spheres of Australian society. In this way, Australian citizenship provides formal membership of the Australian community and is a symbol of commitment to this great nation. As all Australians contemplate issues such as reconciliation and republicanism, it is timely that there is an increasing interest in what it means to be an Australian citizen.My speech tonight coincides with the launch this week of a new book written by Wendy McCarthy, Chancellor of the University of Canberra. This book, Fair Go: Portraits of the Australian Dream, explores the concepts of `identity' and the `fair go' through profiles of 50 people who have become Australian citizens. Among the 50 people are writer and broadcaster Caroline Baum, winemaker Wolf Blass, boxer Kostya Tszyu, artist Judy Cassab, brewing chief Ted Kunkel and Labor politician Con Sciacca. According to Dr McCarthy this research has confirmed how deeply people feel about Australian citizenship—a precious rite of passage for immigrants. Australians are rightly proud of their distinctive contribution in many fields. Our sense of national unity is strong and we take pride in being Australian.Australians are united by a commitment to a common future and an acceptance of the basic principles and structures of Australian society. Many people believe that Australian citizenship is the basic symbol of this unity. They consider that Australian citizenship lies at the heart of a unified and cohesive Australian nation and they believe that acquiring Australian citizenship is a significant expression of a person's loyalty and commitment to Australia. The common bond is the way of life, values, purpose and vision for a shared future with all other Australians.Australia's heritage has resulted in one of the most diverse nations in the world. Our national identity is characterised by multiculturalism. Australian citizens, regardless of background, have full and equal membership in Australian society, including all the legal and political responsibilities and privileges that go with this. I believe that developing a better understanding of Australian citizenship—what it means to be an Australian citizen—enhances its value to the Australian people. As well, a greater understanding of Australian citizenship can foster and enhance pride in Australia and a true sense of nationhood.Amid activities and media awareness surrounding the 50th anniversary of citizenship, all Australians have the chance to more fully reflect on the significance of citizenship and of being a part of the Australian community. In this anniversary year, I encourage all members of parliament to take any opportunity afforded to them to promote Australian citizenship, and I invite all eligible residents to become citizens of Australia.1137722:37:0011377Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—Tonight I want to express my deep concern at a proposed road train trial to be held through the suburbs of Gosnells, Kelmscott and Armadale in my electorate of Canning. We first started our battle with the state government in 1994, when the first trial was announced. At that stage we were assured that the road trains would never be longer than 27 metres. In fact, the minister assured the community that 27-metre vehicles were not really road trains. To make everyone feel much safer, he changed their name to `long vehicles'. This of course immediately solved all the problems—problems with the `long vehicles' going past schools and down steep inclines and having to mix in with the normal suburban traffic.At one of the community meetings held at that time, I raised a question with the Liberal member about the safety of the long vehicles or road trains and what scrutiny they were placed under. We were told that there was a member of the community, a man who lived in Greenmount, who used to go out at night with a torch and check the road trains driving past. This did not reassure any of us very much. With the checking systems not having been improved over the last five years, and even though the state Minister for Transport assures us that safety is a priority of his, there is no reason for anyone to have much greater confidence now.The new trial will bring road trains of 36.5 metres through on our roads. Combined with this, it is also proposed to bring some high/wide loads through on the same roads. A high/wide load can be nine metres wide, up to 10 metres tall, up to 45 metres in length, with a mass of 300 tonnes. Such a load is not designed to go through normal suburban traffic. It is easy to understand that these road trains or vehicles should never be using roads which were not designed with this purpose in mind. It is unfair to expect the drivers of these vehicles to drive with the normal suburban traffic.The government has not implemented any form of community consultation. If the same process is followed as last time, I dare say that we will be told, `It's a trial,' then the trial will be extended, and then it just becomes a fact. We will probably also be told that they are not road trains or high/wide loads; in fact, they are just slightly longer `long' vehicles and a bit heavier than normal.Naturally, we in the community support any initiative which will help Australian industry and employment, but it cannot be done at the cost of putting our lives at risk. The government has consistently promised extensions to Tonkin Highway which would allow these vehicles to move goods safely to their destinations. The extension keeps getting delayed. Now there is a proposal to make some minor modifications to Albany Highway in the short term to allow these vehicles entry to the roads through Kelmscott, Gosnells and Armadale. This is a totally unacceptable risk to people using our roads.It is not reasonable to expect people to encounter vehicles of up to 36.5 metres when taking their children to school, going shopping or to the library. If the government wants to persist in this unsafe and unfair plan, it should begin community consultation to allow people who will be most affected by this the opportunity to comment. At the very least, the community should be informed by the government of its plans. A series of public meetings should be held so that the local residents can let the government know how they feel about this trial.Experience has shown the people of Armadale, Kelmscott and Gosnells that a `trial' is not really a `trial'. In fact, it is just a way for the government to introduce something without going through any community consultation. We all know that the length of the trial will be extended, and then it will become the norm for road trains to use our suburban roads because the government is not prepared to offer any real solutions to make safety a priority. The real answer to this problem is for the state government to allocate the funds it promised at the last election to extend the Tonkin Highway. Residents driving through the suburbs then need not encounter these vehicles at all but, instead, could use their roads safely each day and the drivers of trucks would not be put under undue pressure.1137822:42:0011378Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I have spoken previously in this House about the work of our talented and dedicated people in the field of health and medical research in this country. Australia is recognised widely for its strengths in health and medical research; our scientists have won Nobel Prizes; our scientific publications have received international attention and are cited frequently. I, along with many others, have applauded the government's interest in, and support for, the recommendations of the Wills review on health and medical research and the government's commitment to doubling the base funding for the National Health and Medical Research Council. It is against this background that tonight I draw to the attention of the House the exceptional work of a number of scientists and researchers at the Centre for Neuromuscular and Neurological Disorders of the University of Western Australia and also the Australian Neuromuscular Research Institute, headed by Professor Byron Kakulus, which operates from the QEII Medical Centre at Sir Charles Gardiner Hospital in Nedlands, both being institutions within my electorate of Curtin.A Western Australian research team, a collaboration headed by Associate Professor Nigel Laing, has made a world first discovery that has received world-wide attention. The team has discovered genetic mutations that cause two rare muscle disorders: actin myopathy and nemaline myopathy. Both of these disorders are congenital genetic muscle diseases present at birth. Both diseases are amongst the causes of floppy baby syndrome, which occurs when there is muscle weakness in newborn babies.Until the work of this research team was completed, no-one knew the cause of these disorders. The findings of the team have been reported in the October edition of the prestigious international scientific journal Nature Genetics, the most recent edition. Dr Laing's team identified several mutations in the gene of a muscle protein that causes the diseases. It involves the gene for the protein actin. Actin is one of the main proteins that make your muscles contract. It is an important finding which will have repercussions for muscle and muscle disease research around the world.The findings were made from the studies of DNA samples sent to Dr Laing's laboratory from elsewhere in Australia, Europe and the United States. After the initial identification of the mutations in Western Australia, the laboratory of Associate Professor Alan Beggs at Harvard University identified mutations in the actin gene in a number of US patients with the diseases. Testing is now available to families around the world with identified mutations in the actin gene. It is now possible to test families of affected persons to determine whether they carry the gene. It allows prenatal diagnosis. The finding has immediate implications for families with the disorder because it allows more accurate diagnosis. Doctors can explain in detail why some people are affected. The first step to developing a specific and successful therapy is understanding how a disease occurs.This is not the first time that this Perth team has made ground-breaking discoveries. Dr Laing is a recognised international leader in the field of inherited muscle disorder research, which is why the overseas DNA samples were sent to him for research. Dr Laing's team has been working on this disorder for a number of years. In 1992, the team produced the first localisation of a gene for nemaline myopathy. In 1994, the team local ised the actin gene in the human genome. It was done in Perth. In 1995, the team identified the first diseased gene for nemaline myopathy. The team has also played a part in the identification of a motor neurone disease gene in 1993.More generally, this type of research is important because neurological and neuromuscular conditions are a major health problem in the Australian community. There are many hundreds of categories of these diseases. It has been estimated that such conditions affect one in eight of the population at some stage. They are disorders such as Alzheimer's, stroke, brain tumours, muscular dystrophy, motor neurone disease and the like.I visited the research institute recently and met with Professor Kakulus, Dr Laing and others in the various research teams. They are an extraordinarily committed group working for the common good of disease prevention and cure. I congratulate Dr Laing and his team for their recent findings and the international recognition that they have received. I know it was a collaborative work. I applaud and encourage the efforts of all the research teams in their important research. (Time expired)1137922:47:0011379Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—At the beginning of the 20th century, the world's population was approximately 1.5 billion. In 1927, it reached two billion; in 1960, three billion; in 1974, four billion; and, in 1985, five billion. Today, 12 October 1999, it hit six billion. Nearly half of the people on earth are under 25.Yesterday, in supporting a motion by the member for Bradford on the day of six billion people, I made a comment on the negative role of the Catholic Church with regard to world population issues and said a throwaway line about priests in dresses dictating to women about how their bodies should be used. Hardly had I returned to my office when the phone started to ring. Since then, it has rung constantly at home, in my electorate office and in my Parliament House office. The media have taken considerable interest not in the issue I was speaking about but in the comments I made about priests. Once more, a serious issue is being trivialised. To my knowledge, the only serious media that has commented on the importance of the day has been the Melbourne Age, which not only had an article but a feature and an editorial.It should be noted that in my speech I did not personally attack any person, least of all any members of this House. The member for Sturt took it upon himself to make comments about how disappointed he was in my speech, but I took this as good-natured banter. Not so the member for Lowe, who claimed that my speech was disgraceful. What I find disgraceful is not the member for Lowe's ignorance but the fact that 70,000 women die each year from unsafe abortion. That is a disgrace. 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. 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 the 130 million births annually are not assisted by a trained delivery attendant. That is the disgrace, not some comment I made about priests in drag.The member for Lowe referred to my speech as a load of rubbish. All I say to that is that there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Eventually the Catholic Church's dogma on birth control will change just as their dogma regarding other unsavoury events, such as the Spanish Inquisition, did. Who today, except perhaps the member for Lowe, would defend the Catholic Church's role in the Spanish Inquisition? So it will be in years to come. I am happy for history to judge my comments regarding the church's attitude on population issues. I think history will be kinder to me than some of the comments that have been made to my staff today.One thing that always impresses me about Christians is just how vicious and vindictive the telephone callers are, especially the anonymous ones, when someone questions the dogma of the faith. I do not know where the member for Lowe got his information when he made his speech yesterday. One of the first duties of any member of parliament is to be accurate in the comments they make in this chamber. I suggest he obtain a copy of the UNFPA publication Six billion: A time for choices published on 22 September 1999, which will show just how wrong he is.It is interesting that he mentioned China and India being accountable and not the Catholic Church. Although both China and India are two of the most populated nations on earth and India adds something like 18 million people each year—in short, another Australia—to its population, both countries have been leaders in encouraging people to choose family size and spacing. China is criticised the most regarding population issues. If India and China had not taken the steps they have, we would not be commemorating the day of six billion people but the day of seven billion people.I was disappointed that neither the media in the main nor those who telephoned me were interested in the points I made in my speech. Access to information on family planning is a basic right. It is the right of every couple to plan their children or to choose to have no children, provided that the choice is made on information available to them. The disgrace is not about what priests are dressed in. The disgrace is that in many parts of the world people are refused access to information on family planning, resulting in unwanted pregnancies, unsafe births and undernourished children. Surely no-one can claim that this is what religion should be promoting. It is not a religion that I want to be part of.1138022:52:0011380Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Last week in Rockhampton I represented the Minister for Defence at the VIP days of the Crocodile 99 exercises. I was in excellent company, comprising Rear Admiral Lord of the Australian Defence Force, United States Ambassador Mrs Genta Holmes, United States Brigadier General Gordon Nash and others of similar rank, my opposition colleague the member for Cunningham, three local mayors and Mr Muir, who is a senior representative of the Aboriginal people who have a cultural connection with the land which we had entered.In all of my years in Australia I have been aware of the proud traditions of our defence forces, but never had I realised just how good these service men and women are. Experiencing them and their work first-hand is a real eye opener. Everyone I met at the exercises was entirely focused. Employers would give their eye teeth for that kind of concentration and dedication.When the United States' forces came to these exercises, they brought absolutely everything with them. Certainly, there was plenty of defence equipment, and all of it was the latest technology. However, with fewer resources, our service personnel work harder, smarter and with a more positive outlook than many others I have met. Regularly, it has been said that our greatest asset in the defence of Australia is our personnel. This is very true. By far one of our greatest strengths is communications. There is indeed envy about the level and amount of equipment and resources available to the United States' forces. Yet our troops took almost a particular delight in using their initiative, inventiveness, innovation and sheer cunning to ensure they got much more out of their equipment.There was a fierce loyalty to each other, to Australia and to the safety of us, the occupants of this great country. Never have I met such a friendly, courteous, committed and disciplined force. Whilst we go on with our political point scoring, they are embarrassed by it. They have a job to do, and we should be standing alongside them. Our troops have the responsibility to do their best for our country. We need to encourage and applaud their magnificent efforts in adverse circumstances.Everything at Crocodile 99 was programmed and ran like clockwork, even when everything was changed without notice. What Australia gets from joint exercises is well documented: opportunities to practise with equipment otherwise unavailable to Australian military forces and standardising procedures for seamless cooperation in difficult times. The ability of our people to work in with troops managed by other administrations is legendary and was again demonstrated admirably in the field at Crocodile 99.One of the things that surprised me was the positive light in which the Americans viewed these exercises as well. For many of the marines it was their first visit to Australia, and they could not get over how well the locals had accepted them. They envied our ability to access training grounds that provided arenas for joint exercises of such magnitude as these. One major plus is the ability of all services to join in the exercises and coordinate realistic scenarios on the one piece of ground.Amongst other things, we witnessed demonstrations of the ability of naval, air and ground troops to pin down an enemy force with 100 per cent accuracy, firing from ships, FA18 Hornets, helicopters, tanks and troops on and in the ground. Many believed that nowhere else in the world did this kind of training opportunity exist. No wonder everyone is so determined to ensure restoration of the grounds after Crocodile 99 is over. As I said earlier, there is no other facility like this anywhere in the world.All of our ADF people have dedicated at least a significant part of their lives to ensuring that nothing is left to chance in the protection of our country. The people on the ground are fit, alert, highly trained, part of a close-knit team and very disciplined and professional in their approach. Their backgrounds varied from farming to the public service to mechanics to school leavers and small business operators.On a personal level, I did not know what to expect from Crocodile 99 when asked to attend on the minister's behalf, and I must say that nobody in my office worked to allay any concerns I might have had. There was, however, no need to worry. Everything was explained several times in very thorough briefings prior to each segment of the visit. We sampled various modes of transport, from helicopters to planes to armoured vehicles to ships, and ate from ration packs. We visited sites at Rockhampton, Shoalwater Bay, Townshend Island, Gladstone and places in between. The trip provided an excellent opportunity to gain some more understanding about the rigours of military life and to learn first-hand about the quality of our men and women out there in uniform. I also have a message for the Prime Minister from the Aussie troops at Crocodile 99:He's doing a great job. We support him in his stance, and will do what we have to to defend this country Australia and her reputation overseas.They are steadfast in their loyalty, and I definitely want to be on their side.Question resolved in the affirmative.House adjourned at 10.57 p.m.Notices11381The following notices were given:Mr Williams to present a bill for an act relating to the effect of international instruments on the making of administrative decisions.Mr Tuckey to move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent a Minister moving amendments to the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 during the consideration of Senate's message No. 192.Mr Cameron Thompson to move:That this House:(1) notes the reported discovery of Cook's ship Endeavour off Newport, Rhode Island;(2) acknowledges that if it is indeed the Endeavour , this wreck is the most important single artefact in Australia's history;(3) notes that the United States and British Governments are preparing for a legal battle over rights to the wreck;(4) calls on the Government as a matter of urgency to immediately notify the world community of the importance of the wreck to Australia and stake our claim to its ownership by virtue of its significance to our nation;(5) calls on the Government to support a fundraising campaign to enable the recovery and eventual return of the wreck to Botany Bay; and(6) ensures that plans for this important venture are in place and that the public fundraising and community awareness campaign is made a centrepiece of Australia's Centenary of Federation celebrations in 2001. Mr Baird to move:That the House:(1) commends the Government for its efforts in promoting domestic and international tourism which has resulted in a 10% increase in international visitors during the last 12 month;(2) notes the significance to the economy of the number of jobs created by tourism; and(3) notes the foreign exchange earnings resulting from international visitor travel to Australia.Answers to Questions in Writing11383The following answers to questions were circulated:11383(Question No. 701)70111383Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 7 June 1999:Has a Department or agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility entered a contract with or made a grant or payment to an organisation registered under subparagraph (a) 188(1)(a) or (b) 188(1)(b) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996; if so, in each case, (i) which organisation, (ii) what sum was received and (iii) in what State or Territory is the organisation located.11383Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:In responding to the question the period involved is taken from 31 December 1996, being the date of effect of the relevant criteria for registration of organisations under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, to 7 June 1999. The relevant organisations are taken to be those registered as at 7 June 1999.I am advised that contracts, grants or payments made by the Department of Health and Aged Care and agencies include:(a) 188(1)(a)ORGANISATIONSTATE or TERRITORYAMOUNT PAIDThe Pharmacy Guild of AustraliaNational1996-97 $167,953.001997-98 $4,649,545.001998-99 $507,452.00National Association of Nursing Homes and Private Hospitals IncNational1996-97 $3,547.101997-98 $1,560.30The Pharmacy Guild of Australia *A.C.T1998-99 $300.00The Pharmacy Guild of Australia *WA1997-98 $3,300.001998-99 $2,300.00The Pharmacy Guild of Australia *SA1997-98 $1,598.001998-99 $1,398.00The Pharmacy Guild of Australia *QLD1997-98 $65.001998-99 $4,325.00The Pharmacy Guild of Australia *NSW1997-98 $169.001998-99 $6,569.00The Pharmacy Guild of Australia *VIC1997-98 $1,755.001998-99 $2,403.00(b) 188(1)(b)ORGANISATIONSTATE or TERRITORYAMOUNT PAIDAustralian Nursing FederationVIC1998-99 $27,500.00Community and Public Sector Union *NSW1997-98 $633.481998-99 $2,246.34* This information was provided by the Health Insurance Commission and covers the period May 1998—June 1999. That organisation's earlier records have been archived and are not readily available.11384(Question No. 752)75211384Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 21 June 1999:Does the Minister's Department operate a library or libraries; if so (a) what sum was spent on purchasing new books for departmental libraries in (i) 1996-97, (ii) 1997-98 and (iii) 1998-99 and (b) will the Minister provide a list of the title and author of each book purchased by departmental libraries in 1998-99.11384Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Department operates two libraries. In addition to the Central Department library, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) maintains its own library. The following amounts were spent on book purchases:(a) (i) 1996-97 $61,999.04(ii) 1997-98 $139,978.92(iii) 1998-99 $80,564.57(b) The requested details of books purchased during 1998-99 are included in the attached lists.THERAPEUTIC GOODS ADMINISTRATIONLIBRARYList of authors and titles purchased 1998/99TitleAuthorCommonwealth government directoryAusInfoInternational health: how Australia comparesde Looper, MichaelSystems thinking basics: from concepts to causal loopsAnderson, VirginiaCommission E monographsBlumenthal Mark ed.Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical ChemistsAssociation of Official Analytical ChemistsMartindale : the extra pharmacopoeia (32 ed)Martindale, WilliamThe Trial Investigators GCP handbookHutchinson, DavidMRECs, LRECs and GCP ethics requirementsHutchinson, DavidHelp! The GCP auditor is coming: investigator's guide to ensure GCP complianceHutchinson, DavidWhich documents, why?: a guide to essential clinical trial documentation for investigatorsHutchinson, DavidHow to write to selection criteria: improving your chances of being shortlisted for a jobVillers, Ann D.Concise DictionaryCollinsTeacher yourself Lotus 4.6 in 24 hoursRichards, Cate Visual basic for applications unleashedMcfedries, PaulUsing M/S word & excel in office `97Person, RonThe 20th century year by year: the family guide to the people and events that shaped the last hundred yearsFive Mile PressConcise encyclopedia of biochemistry & molecular biologyKroschwitz, Jacqueline I. (ed)Analytical profiles of drug substances & excipients (vol. 25)Brittain, H. G.Yeasts: characteristics & identification Barnett, J.A.Bioavailability bioequivalenceTipnis, H. P.Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States & adjacent CanadaGleeson, H.Australian concise Oxford dictionary thumb indexMoore, B. (ed)Medical toxicology: diagnosis & treatment of human poisoningEllenhorn, M. J.Essential oil safety: guide for health care professionalsTosserand, R.Immunology (5th ed)Roitt, I.Biomaterials science: introduction to materials in medicineRaner, B. R.Practical cell culture techniquesBoulton, A. A.Oxidants antiocidants & free radicalsBaskin, S. (ed)Disinfection sterilisation and preservationBlock, S. S.Contested ground: public purpose & private interest in the regulation Davis, P. (ed)Highly efficacious chines patent medicines Zhang, Enquin et alMicrosoft project 4 for windows: step by stepMicrosoftMicrosoft PowerPoint version 4.0 for windows: step by stepJohnson, S. M.British pharmacopoeia 1998BPPathogenesis of infectious disease Mims, C.New & resurgent infections: prediction, detection & management of tomorrow's . . . Greenwood, B.Current contents: life sciences—print & diskInstitute for Scientific InformationHealing power of herbsMurrey, T.Monoclonal antibodies: principles & practice Goding, J.W.Catalogue of teratogenic agents Shepard, T. H.Dermatotoxicology (5th ed)Marzulli, F. N.OECD guidelines for testing of chemicalsOECDAdvances in virus research—Vol. 51Maramorosch, K.Working knowledge: how organisations manage what they knowDavenport, T. H.Biomaterials science: an introduction to materials in medicineRatner, B. D.Knowledge management: a competitive assetSpecial Library AssociationGood universities guide to postgraduate & Carer upgrade courses & servicesAshencen, C.Sterilisation: health tech memc 2010 : part 4 good practice guideNHS EstatesBergey's manual of determinative bacteriology: 9th ed.Holt, J. G.Vaccines vaccination & the immune responseAda, G. L. Ramsay, A. J.American herbal products association's botanical safety HB: guidelinesMcguffin, M.Australian resume guide: 2nd ed.Stevens, P.Herbal medicines: a guide for health care professionalsNewall, C. A. et alNatural products in medicineDewick, P. M. Concise kirk-othmer encyclopediaKroschwitz, J. I.Systematic reviewsChalmers, I. AltmanStatistics at square one: 9th revised ed.Swinscow, T. D. V.British pharmacopoeia 1999BPHB of ayurvedic medicinal plantsKapoor L. D.Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for health care decisionsMulrow, C. D. Detection of new adverse drug reactions: 4th revised ed.Stephens, M. D. B.The secrets to getting a jobGarside, PIntroduction to database systems: vol. 1-6th ed.Date, C. J.Guide to APS pay & conditions of employmentDept. of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small BusinessDirectory of Australian AssociationInformation AustraliaESCOP monographsEuropean Scientific Cooperative on PhytotherapyASTM—13.01American Society for Testing and MaterialsBenefit-risk balance for market drugsCouncil for International Organisations of Medical SciencesBasic texts for drugs: pharm. Substances etc.WHOQuality control methods for medicinal plant materialsWHOGuide to the preparation use & quality assurance of blood componentsCouncil of EuropeCE marking for medical devices: a handbook to the medical devices directivesIEEESpice: the theory and practice of process improvement and capability determinationIEEEWho's who in Australia 1999Information Australia GroupFood standards codeANZFACommonwealth Stats annotationsLBC Information ServicesPharmacokinetics BirkettEuropean reportMedical Technology ConsultantsMIMS bimonthly (14 copies)MIMS MIMS annualMIMSMIMS KoreaMIMSMaterial MedeicaNational herbalists Assoc. of Aust.NLN 35 GCP inspectionNordiska Australian Pharmaceutical formulary and handbook (16th ed)Pharmaceutical Society of AustraliaGlobal harmonisation for medical devices industrySalamon, Daniel D. J.Australia at workAccirrt/BuchananNeonatal pharmacopoeiaRCH Pharmacy Dept.Paediatric pharmacopoeiaRCH Pharmacy Dept. 3 Sacher management manualsSacher Associates New green pharmacyGriggs, BarbaraBiophysical measurement series book, electrocardiographyRawlings, Charles A.Biophysical measurement series book, Blood pressureNara, Andrew R.Biophysical measurement series book, RespirationBerghuis, PaulBiophysical measurement series book, Cardiac outputBowdle, T. AndrewBiophysical measurement series book, Advanced electrocardiographyAnderson, Stanley T.Biophysical measurement series book, electroencephalography/electromyographyIsley, Michael R.Clinical information and technology series: networksBourke, MichaelClinical information and technology series: neonatl intensive careAlpert, BruceClinical information and technology series: clinical information systemsBall, Marion J.ANU handbook 1999ANUUniversity of Canberra handbook 1999UCANResearching online for dummiesBasch, RevaAdapters and innovators Kirton, MichaelMicrosoft office 97 visual basic programmers guideMicrosoft PressMerck index—encyclopedia of chemicals & drugsBudavari, Susan (ed)What happened whenBarker, AnthonyWeb site useability: a designer's guideSpool, Jared M.1 Jul 99(Revised 27 Aug 99)Title and Author of Books Purchased by the Central Office Library, Dept Health and Aged Care in FY 1998-99TitleAuthor175 High impact resumesRichard H. Beatty1998/99 NHS handbookedited by Peter Merry1999 World Health ReportWorld Health Organization44 Activities For Interpersonal Skills TrainingSue Bishop and David Taylor75 years of management ideas and practiceHarvard Business ReviewA basic guide to planning community servicesJohn MurphyA better place to work : a new sense of motivation leading to high productivityAdolf Haasen and Gordon F. SheaA briefing on public health in AustraliaQueensland Health. Public Health ServicesA consumer societyEditor: Kaye HealeyA dictionary of epidemiologyedited by John M. LastA good day to die: the story of palliative careLisa BirnieA long way to goSANE AustraliaA manager's guide to elder care and workJohn Paul MarosyA medical practitioner's guide to aboriginal healthAustralian Medical Association. WA Branch,A National Aboriginal Health StrategyNational Aboriginal Health Strategy Working Party,A not so perfect matchBob Birrell and Virginia Rapson A social policy research agenda to take the Territory, and the nation, into the 21st century; and, What is good social policy?Senator Grant Tambling & Cliff WalshA step-by-step guide for improving access to your service for people from a non-English speaking backgroundMaria TsapogasA survival guide for project managersJames TaylorA survival guide to critical path analysisAndrew HarrisonA Working Relationship : the job development specialist's guide to successful partnerships with businessEllen S. Fabian, Richard G. Luecking and George P. TilsonABC of work related disordersedited by David SnashallAboriginal Primary health careSophia Couzos and Richard MurrayAbuse of older people : crime or family dynamics?Pamela Kinnear & Adam GraycarAccess Database Design & ProgrammingSteven RomanAccess to experimental drugs in terminal illness : ethical issuesUdo SchuklinkAccessible workplacesPhillip O'DonoghueAdobe web design & publishing unleashedDave Brown . . . {et al.}Advanced nursing practice for rural and remote AustraliaNational Rural Health AllianceAdvanced oracle PL/SQL: programming with packagesSteven FeuersteinAgeing and social policy in Australiaedited by Allan Borowski, Sol Encel, Elizabeth OzanneAgeing EuropeAlan Walker and Tony MaltbyAges ahead: promoting inter-generational relationshipseditors: Sik Hung Ng . . . {et al.}Aging, social inequality, and public policy (sociology for a new centuryFred C. PampelAlternative medicineEditor: Kaye HealeyAlzheimer's disease: a carer's guideDr Bill GrantAn Aboriginal health workers' guide to family, community and public healthCentral Australian Aboriginal CongressAnalysis of Human Genetic LinkageJurg OttApplying for jobs and winning at interviewsGeorge SternAppraisal: routes to improved performanceClive FletcherApproaching the corporate heart:Margot CairnesAssessing needs for mental health in culturally and linguistically diverse communitiesAnn Larson . . . {et al.}Asthma services in rural and remote New South Walesedited by Dr George Car, Tony Kilbe and Peter DunnAt Your Service—Calamities Catastrophes & Other Curiosities Of Customer ServiceHal BeckerAustralia at work : just managingAustralian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and TrainingAustralian code for the transport of dangerous goods by road and rail (6th edition)Australian Transport Advisory Council.Australian illicit drug reportAustralian Bureau of Criminal IntelligenceAustralian Politics In The Global EraCapling, M. Ann (Margaret Ann) Australian services: marketing and managementLinda McGuireAustralian Social TrendsAustralian Bureau of StatisticsAustralian Standard 4804—Occupational health & safety management systemsStandards AustraliaAustralian women's health handbookGore & OsmentAustralia's children their health and wellbeingLynelle Moon; Naila Rahman: Kuldeep BhatiaAustralia's youth : reality and riskDusseldorp Skills ForumBalance of powerJames R. LucasBanker to the PoorYunus, MuhammadBasic and clinical pharmacologyedited by Bertram G. KatzungBasic epidemiologyR. Beaglehole, R. Bonita, T. KjellstromBecoming a learning organisationHarvard Business SchoolBenchmarking basicsSylvia CodlingBenzalkonium chloride—toxicity profileBIBRA InternationalBest practice for rural & remote health servicesNational Rural Health AllianceBest practice guidelines for contracting out government servicesOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,Best practice guidelines for outsourcingKPMG Impact ProgrammeBest practicesRobert Hiebeler, Thomas B. Kelly and Charles KettemanBetter State of Health: Facts About the NHS's Failings and a prescriptionJohn WillmanBeyond success: why everything you've ever dreamed of won't bePaul BlackburnBeyond the IT Productivity Paradoxedited by Leslie Willcocks and Stephanie LesterBeyond the myths and magic of mentoringMargo Murray with Marna A. OwenBillibonk and the thorn patchPhilip RamseyBlueprint for rural developmentNational Rural Health AllianceBoom bust and echo how to profit from the coming demographic shiftDavid K. Foot; with Daniel StoffmanBorn to win : transactional analysis with Gestalt experimentsMuriel James and Dorothy JongewardBreaking the patterns of depressionMichael D. YapkoBreakthrough customer service: Best practices of leaders in customer supporteditor and contributor Stanley A. BrownBreast cancer: can you prevent it?Amelia Lawson, James LawsonBringing them homeAustralia. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission,Building a better team: a handbook for managers and facilitatorsPeter MoxonBuilding team spirit: activities for inspiring and energizingBarry HeermannBuilding the learning organisationMichael J. MarquardtBuilt to Last : Successful Habits of Visionary CompaniesJames C.Collins and Jerry I. PorrasBusiness Reference Services and SourcesKatherine M. Shelfer, editorCanada Health Action: Building on the Legacy 5 volsNational Forum on Health (Canada) Cancer : principles & practice of oncologyedited by Vincent T. DeVita, Samuel Hellman, Steven A. RosenbergCarcinogenicity: Testing Predicting & Interpreting Chemical Effectsedited by Kirk T. KitchinChallenges in environmental human dimensions researchEditor: Mats RolenChange power capabilities that drive corporateDennis Turner and Michael CrawfordChanging paradigmsThomas Clarke and Stewart CleggChemistry & Mode Of Action Of Crop Protection AgentLeonard G. Copping, H. Geoffrey HewittChildhood immunisation in England : issues from the researchedited by Marycke Veltman and David SalisburyChildren Australia—a social reportAustralian Bureau of StatisticsChildren with disabilities: a medical primer 4/EMark L. Batshaw and Yvonne M. PerretChildren, domestic violence and refugesGill Hague . . . <et al.>Chronic disease epidemiology and controledited by Ross C. Brownson, Patrick L. Remington, James R. DavisChronic Pain : Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Prevention and ManagementHooshang HooshmandClinical Biochemistry Of Domestic Animals:edited by J. Jerry Kaneko, John W. Harvey, Michael L. BrussClinical epidemiology : essentialRobert H. Fletcher, Suzanne W. Fletcher, Edward WagnerClinical futuresedited by Marshall Marinker & Michael PeckhamClinical Governance: Making It Happenedited by Myrian Lugon, Jonathan Secker-WalkerClinical psychology of religioneditors: Valerie DeMarinis and Owe WikstromCoaching for development: skills for managers and team leadersMarianne MinorCoaching: winning strategies for individuals and teamsDennis C. KinlawCollaborating to improve community healthKathryn Johnson, Wynne Grossman, Anne Cassidy {editors}Community service obligations—meaning, impact & applicationNational Rural Health AllianceCompetent caring: a health and procedures manual for carersRoyal District Nursing Service of SACompetitive Tendering & Contracting : Framework & GuidelinesPublic Sector Management Office (WA)Competing agendas impacting on community serviceedited by Robyn Evans and Karen StruthersCompetitive tendering and contracting: guidance for managersDepartment of Finance and AdministrationComplaints handlingStandards Australia Comprehensive toxicologyeditors-in-chief, Glenn Sipes, Charlene A. McQueen, A. Jay GandolfiConfronting AIDS: Public priorities in a global epidemicWorld BankConsulting on the side: how to start a part-time consultingMary F. CookConsulting the public : guidelines and good practice (see remarks)John Seargeant and Jane SteeleContaminated Land And Its Reclamationedited by R.E. Hester and R.M. HarrisonContract management in the public sector—proceedingsIIR ConferencesContracting out in Australia: an indicative historyKylie McIntosh, Jason Shauness and Roger WettenhallContracting out: contracting for Australian aidAustralian Agency for International DevelopmentCo-operatives and Public PolicyCo-operative Federation of VictoriaCore Java 2, Volume 1: Fundamentals, 4/eCay S. Horstmann and Gary CornellCorporate amnesiaArnold KransdorffCorporate Practices in Diversity Measurement : a research reportMichael L. WheelerCorrecting the blueprint of life : an historical account of the discovery of DNA repair mechanismsErrol C. FriedbergCorrosion of character the personal consequences of work in the new capitalismRichard SennettCosting and pricing in the digital ageHerbert Snyder, Elisabeth DavenportCosting turnover : implications for work / family conflictJacqui Abbott, Helen De Cieri and Roderick IversonCost-justifying useabilityedited by Randolph G. Bias and Deborah J. MayhewCounselling for managersNigel MacLennanCreating the corporate future plan or be planned forRussell L. AckoffCreative leadershipA. S. Migs DamianiCrop protection agents from nature+A156edited by Leonard G. CoppingCry of pain understanding suicide and self-harmMark WilliamsCulture, perceptions and environmental problemsJakob Bue Bjorner ..{et al.}Data management in the APSAustralian National Audit OfficeDeadly feasts: tracking the secrets of a terrifying new plagueRichard RhodesDeath on the menuHarash NarangDefining moments: when managers must choose between rightJoseph L. Badaracco, JrDemanding medical excellenceMichael L. MillensonDemographics and Medical Care Spending: Standard and Non-Standard EffectsDavid M. Cutler, Louise SheinerDermal absorption & toxicity assessmentMichael S. Roberts, Kenneth A. WaltersDesert flowerWaris Dirie and Cathleen Miller Designing and writing online documentation : hypermedia for self-supporting productsWilliam HortonDeveloping a learning organisationBarbara AllanDeveloping quality measures for home and community careAnne Jenkins, Elizabeth Butkus, Diane GibsonDevolution and healthRobert Hazell and Paul JervisDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental DisordersIn collaboration with representatives of American Academy of Physicians . . . {et. al.}Dialogue : Rediscover the Transforming Power of ConversationLinda Ellinor and Glenna GerardDiary of a change agentTony PageDictionary of allusionsJulia CresswellDirectory of hospital pharmacy and pharmaceutical organisationSociety of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia,Disability: a guide for health professionalsedited by John Annison [et al . . . ]Discern Handbook: Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information on Treatment Choicescompiled by Deborah CharnockDiscovering common ground how future search conferences bring people togetherMarvin R. WeisbordDisease and social diversity: the European impact on the health of non-EuropeansStephen J. KunitzDisease and the destruction of indigenous populationsStephen J. KunitzDNA damage and repair: DNA repair in higher eukaryotesedited by Jac A. Nickoloff and Merl F. HoekstraDoing disability researchedited by Colin Barnes and Geof MercerDrugs and alcohol in rural AustraliaNational Rural Health AllianceDrugs and our community: report of the Premier's Drug Advisory CouncilPremier's Drug Advisory Council (Victoria)Dynamic Modelling in the Health Sciences (Modelling Dynamic Systems)James L. HargroveEast and West: China, Power, and the Future of AsiaChristopher PattenEffective Commissioning : lessons from purchasing in American managed careDonald W LightElder abuse : International and cross-cultural perspectivesedited by Jordan I. Kosberg and Juanita L. GarciaElectronic patient records, smart cards and confidentialityEleanor G. Feldbaum and Richard S. DickEmotional intelligence at workHendrie WeisingerEnhancing competitiveness in the information age : strategies and tactics for special librariansSpecial Libraries Association (USA)Enhancing recovery from psychosis: a practical guideBrian JohnstonEpidemiology and health servicesHaroutune K. Armenian and Sam ShapiroEpidemiology in medicineCharles H. Hennekens, Julie E. BuringEpidemiology Kept Simple: An Intro To Classic & Modern EpidemiologyB. Burt Gerstman Epidemiology: an introductory text for medical and other health science studentsDavid Christie, Richard Heller, Ian GordonEthics and political practice : perspectives on legislativeedited by Noel Preston and Charles Sampford with C-A BoisEvaluating health interventionsJohn OvretveitEvaluating Health PromotionPenelope Hawe, Deirdre Degeling, Jane HallEvaluating Palliative Care : Establishing the Evidence BaseMargaret RobbinsEvidence based practice in primary health careedited by Chris Silagy and Andrew HainesEvidence for the ten steps to successful breastfeedingWorld Health Organization. Division of Child Health and DevelopmentEvidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBMDavid L. Sackett . . . <et al.>Evolving Quality in the New NHSSheila Leatherman, Kim SutherlandExistential questions and healthHans Stifoss-Hanssen and Kjell KallenbergExploring outsourcingFrank PortugalFamily caregivers: disability, illness and ageingedited by Hilary Schofield . . . {et al.}Fathertime: enjoying your children—and your jobDaniel PetreFearless and flawless public speaking : with power, polish and pizazzMary-Ellen DrummondFinding a job after 50Terry Harty and Karen Kerkstra HartyFragmentation to integration : national scoping study : the telemedicine in Australiaprepared by John Mitchell of John Mitchell & AssociatesFrankl's thorn patch fieldbookPhilip RamseyFrom juggling to managingChristie BreakspearFrom Research into Practice in health promotion : a review of the literature on disseminationLesley King, Penelope Haw, Marilyn WiseFrom sage to artisan : the nine roles of the value-driven leaderStuart WellsFrom surviving to thriving : promoting mental health in young peopleAndrew FullerFrom workfare state to transfer stateMichael Warby and Mike NahanFundamentals of ecotoxicologyMichael C. NewmanFuture tenseedited by Murray WaldrenGeneral practice accreditation policy & procedures manualAustralian Medical Association (Victoria),Genetic testing : implications for insuranceActuarial FoundationGentle revolution : men and women at work—what goes wrong and how to fix itHelena CorneliusGerontechnology : A sustainable investment in the futureedited by J. Graafamans, V. Taipale and N. CharnessGet your message acrossJacqui Ewart, Gail Sedorkin, Tony SchiratoGetting behind the rhetoric cross-national perspectives on community care of the elderlyChristopher Williams Global environment biotechnologyedited by Donald L. WiseGlobal targets on ageing for the year 2001 : a practical strategyUnited Nations. General AssemblyGlobal warning! Debating international developments in new public financial managementedited by Olov Olson, James Guthrie, Christopher HumphreyGoing digital : legal issues for electronic commerce, multimedia and the Internetgeneral editors: Anne Fitzgerald . . . {et al.}Gone to pot: the no bullshit parents' guide to marijuanaRaelene AllenGood practice in risk assessment & risk management vol 1edited by Hazel Kemshall and Jacki PritchardGood practice in supervision : statutory and voluntary organisationsedited by Jacki PritchardGovernment Information on the Internet (2nd Ed)Greg R. NotessGower handbook of managementedited by Dennis LockGray Dawn : How the Coming Age Wave Will Transform America-And the WorldPeter G. PetersonGreg Chappell's health and fitness repair manualGreg ChappellGrowing up not out: a weight management guide for familiesKate Steinbeck, with Maggie Aitken & Anne Marie DroulersGST : the long, winding roadNeil WarrenGuidelines for managing risk in the Australian public sector (mab/)Australia. Management Advisory BoardGung ho : increase productivity, profits, and your own prosperityKen Blanchard & Sheldon BowlesHand in hand visiting guide to nursingKathleen Mills and Margaret HameyHandbook of cosmetic and personal care additivescompiled by Michael and Irene AshHandbook of food additivescompiled by Michael and Irene AshHandbook of human toxicologyedited by Edward J. MassaroHarvard Business Review on ChangeHarvard Business ReviewHarvard Business Review on Knowledge ManagementHarvard Business ReviewHarvard Business Review on Knowledge ManagementHarvard Business ReviewHarvard Business Review on LeadershipHarvard Business ReviewHarvard Business Review on Measuring Corporate PerformanceHarvard Business ReviewHealth & lifestyle : a report on jobless livingSouth Australian Unemployed Groups in Action,Health care and public policy: an Australian analysisGeorge R. Palmer and Stephanie D. ShortHealth Impact Assessment as a Tool for Health Promotion and Population HealthC. James Frankish . . . {et al.}Health in Europe 1997World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe,Health in rural and remote AustraliaKathleen Strong et alHealth policy in Australiaedited by Heather GardnerHealth Policy Reform National Variations And Globalization (Advances In Politics)edited by Christa Altenstetter and James Warner BjorkmanHealth promotion and prevention :A257 theoretical and ethical aspectseditors: Per-Erik Liss and Nina Nikku Health Reform: Public Success, Private Failureedited by Daniel Drache & Terry SullivanHealth services for a culturally diverse societyNew South Wales. Health Dept.Health Survey for England the Health of Young People `95-97' Vol 1 + Vol 2edited by Patricia Prescott-Clark; Paola PrimatestaHealth system costs of diseases and injury in Australia 1993-94Colin Mathers et alHealthy people 2000 : midcourse review and 1995 revisionsUnited States. Public Health ServiceHearing the Voice of Older PeopleCouncil on the Ageing (NSWHepatitis C virusedited by H. W. ReesinkHeroin crisisforeword by Barry JonesHeroin related deaths in NSW 1992-1996 (Technical report No. 68)Shane Darke & Joanne RossHIV/AIDS and related diseases in Australia annual surveillance report 1998edited by National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical ResearchHow organizations learnAnthony J. DiBella and Edwin C. NevisHow to write a consultancy brief & select the right consultantRob TongeHTML 4 for the World Wide WebElizabeth CastroHuman Development Database 1998United Nations Development ProgrammeHuman Development Report 1998United Nations Development ProgrammeHuman Development Report 1998—Background PapersUnited Nations Development ProgrammeHuman genetics : the science and its consequencesGreat Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Science and Technology CommitteeHuman resource champions: : the next agenda for adding value and delivering resultsDave UlrichIdeas for the new millennium: planning strategies for the 21stPeter EllyardIdon Scenario Thinking : how to navigate the uncertainties of unknown futuresMiriam Galt, Gary Chicoine-Piper, Nela Chicoine-Piper, Anthony HodgsonImages of Organization : The Executive EditionGareth MorganImpact of sunset clause on investigatory powersPaul Nicoll, Hamish Balfour and Alan ChapmanImprove your self esteemAndrew Page and Cindy PageImproving Health in the Community : A Role for Performance MonitoringJames S. Durch, Linda A. Bailey, and Michael A. Stoto, editorsIn defence of the bush : issues confronting rural people in NSW/ACTColin RobinsonIncome distribution report 1996-97Australian Bureau of StatisticsIncreasing Longevityedited by Raymond TallisIndependent inquiry into inequalities in healthChairman: Sir Donald AchesonIndigenous people's health(editors} Sandra Meihubers, Patricia Buckley Injuries : protocol for investment in health gainWelsh Health Planning ForumIntergenerational approaches in aging : implications for education, policy and practiceKevin Brabazon, Robert Disch, editorsInternational health—how Australia comparesMichael de Looper et alInternational health care : a framework for comparing national health care systemsEdward M. Mendoza and Bryn J. HendersonInternet commerce : to buy or not to buy?Australia. Parliament. Joint committee of Public Accounts and AuditInternet Security With Windows NTMark Joseph EdwardsIntro To Environmental Toxicology: Impacts Of Chemicals Upon Ecological SystemsWayne G. Landis, Ming-Ho YuInvented here: Maximizing your organization's growth and internal profitabilityBart Victor, Andrew C. BoyntonIt takes a Community : A Resource Manual for Community-Based Prevention of Fetal alcohol SyndromeAboriginal Nurses Association of Canada,Java distributed computingJim FarleyJava in a Nutshell : A Desktop Quick ReferenceDavid FlanaganJava Servlet ProgrammingJason Hunter with William CrawfordKeep yourself alive : prevention of suicide in young people : a manual for health professionalsGraham Martin . . . {et al.}Keeping sight of the goal: the limits of contracts and competition in community servicesAustralian Council of Social ServiceKey Indicators of Social ExclusionCatherine Howarth, Peter Kenway, Guy Palmer and Cathy StreetKirk Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical TechnologyRaymond Eller Kirk, Donald F. OthmerKnowledge management : a new competitive assetSpecial Libraries Association (USA)Leadership for competitive advantageNick Georgiades and Richard MacdonellLeadership from the Inside Out : Seven Pathways to MasteryKevin CashmanLeading consciously: a pilgrimage toward self-masterDebashis ChatterjeeLeaving Early—Youth Suicide : The Horror The Heartbreak & The HopeDonaghy, BronwynLeveraging the new infrastructurePeter Weill and Marianne BroadbentLewis' dictionary of toxicologyRobert A. LewisLies! lies! lies! : the psychology of deceitCharles V. FordLife behind glass: a personal account of Autism Spectrum DisotrderWendy LawsonLinkage methods or environmental & health analysis : Tech guidelinesWorld Health Organization. Office of Global and Integrated Environmental HealthLinking health outcomes to priority setting, planning and resource allocationGavin Mooney; Marion Haas; Rosalie Viney and Lyn CooperLiving the 7 Habits: Stories of Courage and InspirationStephen R. CoveyLook before leaping: a guide to contracting for community servicesQueensland Council of Social ServiceLotus notes & Domino server 4.6 unleashedRandall A. Tamura . . . <et al>MacroeconomicsRobert J. Barro Mad cows and modernityedited by Iain McCalman with Benjamin Penny and Misty CookMaintaining Prosperity In An Ageing SocietyOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentMaking doctors an institutional apprenticeshipSimon SinclairMaking it happen: a non-technical guide to project managementMackenzie KyleMaking social policy in AustraliaTony Dalton . . . {et al.}Making us crazy : DSM : the psychiatric bible and the creation of mental disordersHerb Kutchins and Stuart A. KirkMalignant Sadness : the anatomy of depressionLewis WolpertManaged Care: Panacea or Palliation?Alan Maynard and Karen BloorManagers As Facilitators : A Practical Guide to Getting Work Done in a Changing WorkplaceRichard G. Weaver and John D. FarrellManagers as mentors: building partnerships for learningChip R. BellManaging an ageing workforceedited by Margaret Patrickson and Linley HartmannManaging diversityLee Gardenswartz, Anita RoweManaging employee stressLesley TownerManaging fairness in organizationsConstant D. BeugreManaging for healthHunter, David J.Managing in a team environmentJohn Robert DewManaging Information Avoiding OverloadTrevor BentleyManaging information overloadLynn LivelyManaging peopleJane Churchouse and Chris ChurchouseManaging people: A competence approach to supervisory managementRoger Cartwright . . . {et al.}Managing the new organisationDavid Limerick, Bert Cunnington, Frank CrowtherManaging to surviveAlun C. Jackson and Frances DonovanManaging Virtual TeamsMartha HaywoodManaging with power : politics and influence in organizationsJeffrey PfefferMastering project managementJames P. LewisMastering the art of creative collaborationRobert HargroveMaverick! : the success story behind the world's most unusual workplaceRicardo SemlerMaybe tomorrowBoori (Monty) Pryor with Meme McDonaldMeasures of quality and high performanceRichard M. HodgettsMeasuring progress: is life getting better?Richard EckersleyMeasuring social capital in five communities in NSWJenny Onyx and Paul BullenMedical sociologyWilliam C. CockerhamMen who beat the men who love themDavid Island, Patrick LetellierMen's healthRonald S. LauraMental health and wellbeing profile of adultsAustralian Bureau of StatisticsMental illnessEditor: Kaye Healey Mentoring and coaching : the essential leadership skillsSue MathewsMetabolic pathways of agrochemicals (vol 1)Editor in chief Terry R. RobertsMicrosoft Excel 97: Visual Basic Step by StepReed JacobsonMicrosoft Office 97 Visual Basic Programmers GuideMicrosoftMicrosoft Visual Basic 6.0 programmers guideMicrosoftMigrants, minorities and health: Historical and contemporary studiesedited by Lara Marks and Michael WorboysMission-based management: leading your not-for-profit into the 21st centuryPeter BrinckerhoffMore secrets of happy childrenSteve Biddulph with Shaaron BiddulphMosby's manual of diagnostic and laboratory testsKathleen Deska Pagana and Timothy James PaganaMother of all myths : how society moulds and constrains motherhoodAminatta FornaMothers babies and disease in later lifeD. J. P. BarkerMotivation, emotions and leadership: The silent side of managementRichard C. Maddock and Richard L. FultonMotor vehicle exhaust gassing suicides in Australia : epidemiology and preventionVirginia RoutleyNaked Truth : an open letter to the Australian working communityFabian DattnerNanotechnologyGregory Timp, editorNational health survey : summary of results (1995)Australian Bureau of StatisticsNational minimum guidelines for incident management, conflict resolution & use of forceR. Hamdorf . . . <et al>New Public Health : an Australian perspectiveFran BaumNew wisdom II: values-based developmentlare Colins and Paul ChippendaleNext : the flow for the futureIra Matathia and MarianNHS costs for the breast screening frequency and age trialsKatharine Johnston . . . {et al.}Not just a doctor : community perspectives on medical services in women's and community health centresMegan Warin . . . {et al.}NSW young people 1996National Youth Affairs Research SchemeNursing home subsidies—final reportProductivity CommissionNuts!; Southwest Airlines' Crazy Recipes for Business and Personal SuccessKevin Freiberg and Jackie FriebergOccupational health and safety in Australia : industry, public sector and small businessedited by Claire Mayhew and Chris L. PetersonOfficial Group on OPs ReportMAFF publicationsOld Age : From Antiquity to Post-Modernityedited by Paul Johnson and Pat ThaneOlder Getting WiserInstitute of Fiscal Studies (UK)Oncology for Palliative MedicinePeter Hoskin and Wendy MakinOnly the Paranoid Survive : how to exploit the crisis points that challenge every company and careerAndrew S. Grove Options for diarrhoea control : the cost and cost-effectiveness of selected interventions for the prevention of diarrhoeaMargaret A. Phillips, Richard G. Feachem and Anne MillsOptions for the ageingLeila HendersonOrganophosphorus esters: An evaluation of chronic neurotoxic effectsDavid RayOur economic systemEditor: Kaye HealeyOur healthier nation : a contract for healthSecretary of State for Health (UK)Our state of mind: racial planning and the stolen generationsQuentin Beresford, Paul OmajiOutpatient Services : Designing and Managing Outpatient ResourcesDuane C. AbbeyPast wrongs, future rights: anti-discrimination, Native Title and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy, 1975-1997Michael WarbyPDQ Evidence-based Principles and PracticeAnn McKibbon with Angela EadyPerformance indicators in Aboriginal healthI. Anderson and M. BradyPerformance of Government Trading Enterprises, 1991-92 to 1996-97Productivity CommissionPerils of progress : the health and environment hazards of modern technology, and what you can do about themJohn Ashton and Ron LauraPerinatal Developmental NeurotoxicologyJennifer Court . . . {et al.}Persuading AristotlePeter ThompsonPhoenix without the ashes : achieving organizational excellence through common sense managementGary EnglishPhysical activity and behavioral medicineJames F. Sallis, Neville OwenPhysiology of health and illnessJudy Hubbard and Derek MechanPhytochemical Diversity: A Source Of New Industrial Productsedited by Stephen Wrigley . . . <et al>Planning the medical workforce (third report)Great Britain. Medical Workforce Standing Advisory CommitteePlanning under pressureJohn Friend; Allen HicklingPlease understand me : character & temperament typesDavid Keirsey, Marilyn BatesPolicyH. K. ColebatchPolitics, Women and Well-being : How Kerala Became a ModelRobin JeffreyPopulation growth and distributionAustralian Bureau of StatisticsPopulation projectionsAustralian Bureau of StatisticsPoverty, income distribution and health : an Australian studyPeter SaundersPower over panic: freedom from panic/anxiety related disorderBronwyn FoxPower tools : a leader's guide to the latest management thinkingJohn NirenbergPreferred futuring envision the future you want unleash the energy to get thereLawrence L. LippettPresent Knowledge in NutritionEkhard E. Ziegler and L.J. Filer {editors} Preventing mental illness: mental health promotion in primary careedited by Rachel Jenkins and T Bedirhan UstunPrimary health care concepts and challenges in a changing world : Alma-Ata revisitedE. Tarimo, E.G. WebsterPrinciples and Practice of Infectious Diseasesedited by Gerald L. Mandell, John E. Bennett and Raphael DolinPrinciples of chemical nomenclatureG.J. Leigh, H.A. Favre and W.V. MetanomskiPrivatisation of Co-operativesCo-operative Federation of VictoriaProblem solving in the public sector ( Reforming the public sector problems & solutionsedited by Colin Clark and David CorbettProceedings "New Directions in Health Reform"Yarran & BaxterProceedings 1998 Integrative Medicine ConferenceAustralian Integrative Medicine AssociationProceedings 2nd National Men's Health ConferenceMen's Health Teaching and Research Unit, Curtin UniversityProgress of nations 1998UNICEFProject managementPatrick L. HealyPsychosocial Effects of Screening for Disease Prevention and Detectionedited by Robert T. Croyle.Public attitudes to the artsAustralian Bureau of Statistics, Australia CouncilPublic policy and program evaluationEvert VedungPublic policy in AustraliaGlyn Davis . . . <et al.>Public policy: a critical approachMark ConsidinePublic sector ethics : finding and implementing valuesedited by Charles Sampford and Noel Preston with C-A BoisPublic sector management in AustCiaran O'Faircheallaigh, John Wanna, Patrick WellerPublic services for the future: modernisation, reform, accountability.Chief Secretary of the Treasury (UK)Putting Children First : Visions for a Brighter Future for Young Children and Their Familiesedited by Elizabeth J. ErwinPutting Families First : America's Family Support Movement and the Challenge of ChangeSharon L. Kagan, Bernice Weissbourd, editorsPutting Families First : An Experiment in Family PreservationJohn R. Schuerman, Tina L. Rzepnicki and Julia H. LittellQuality first : better health care for all AmericansPresident's Commission on Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health Care IndustryQuality of life assessment in clinical trials: Methods and practiceedited by Maurice J. Staquet, Ron D. Hays and Peter M. FayersQuantification of chlorinated hydrocarbons in previously collected air sampleE.D. PellizzariQuantum leaps: Skills for workplace re-creationCharlotte SheltonReal time: Preparing for the age of the never satisfied customerRegis McKennaRelative ValuesEd ShawRelease 2.1 : A Design for Living in the Digital AgeEsther Dyson Report on Government Services 1999Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth/State Service Provision (Aust)Requisite organization: a total system for effective managementElliott JacquesResearch & experimental developmentAustralian Bureau of StatisticsResearch methods in healthAnn BowlingResource sharing possibilities and barriers (proceedings 5th interlending & doc supply . . . )Interlending and Document Supply International ConferenceRespite care—a system in crisisCommunity Services Commission (NSW)Responsible managers get resultsGerald W. Faust, Richard I. Lyles, Will PhillipsResults-Based leadershipDave Ulrich, Jack Zenger, Norm SmallwoodRevved up the psychostimulant use and reckless or violent behaviour studyWendy Loxley and Jude BevanRise of the knowledge workerJames W. Cortada {ed.}Risk assessment and risk managementedited by: M.A. Mehlman and Steven D. LutkenhoffRunning Microsoft Access 97John L. ViescasRural and remote area aged care: an international annotated bibliographyEdited by Anske RobinsonRural and remote Australia: health for all by the year 2000National Rural Health AllianceRural public health in Australia 1997National Rural Health AllianceScience and Judgment in Risk AssessmentCommittee on Risk Assessment of Hazardous Air Pollutants (USA)Secret men's businessJohn MarsdenSecrets of successful step-familiesSue Hart-ByersSecrets of the rainmakerChin-Ning ChuSelected papers from three child development conferencesedited by Shirley R. Wyver, Toni G. Cross and George LewisSelf-rated healthJakob Bue Bjorner ..{et al.}Sexual assault projectFamily Planning Victoria (Vic)Shadow child: a memoir of the stolen generationRosalie FraserShared Services Co-operatives for Community AgenciesCo-operative Federation of VictoriaSharing science : a Swedish program for public dialogue on scienceThe Swedish Council for Planning and Coordination of ResearchSimplicityEdward de BonoSlow down, take a deep breath and relaxLeila HendersonSocial Care Co-operativesCo-operative Federation of VictoriaSocial inequalities in coronary heart diseaseeditor: Imogen SharpSorting it out : an investigation into the needs and experiences of Tasmanians in financial crisisRobyn WolstenholmeSouth Australia's young peoplePeter Gardner and Toni FlynnSpirited leading and learning: process wisdom for the new agePeter B. Vaill Standard economic sector classifications of Australia (SESCA)Australian Bureau of StatisticsStandards in action: practice requirements and guidelines for services funded under the Disability Services ActNSW Ageing and Disability Dept.Statistical methods in medical researchP. Armitage and G. BerryStatistics & Experimental Design For Toxicologists 3rd Ed + DiskShayne C. GadStep by step Word 97 visual basicMichael Halverson and Chris KinataStraight from the CEOG. William Dauphinais and Colin Price (editors)Strategic planning for nonprofit organizationsMichael Allison, Jude KayeStrategic planning workbook for non-profit organisationsBryan W. BarryStrategically Integrated HRD: Partnering to maximize organizational performanceJerry W. Gilley and Ann MaycunichStretched to the limitQueensland Child Care CoalitionStress in social workedited by Richard DaviesSuccessful project management in a weekMark BrownSuicidal behaviours in adolescents and adultsChristopher Bagley, Richard RamsaySupercouple syndrome: How overworked couples can beat stress togetherWayne M. Sotile, Mary O. SotileSuperior teams : what they are and how to develop themDennis C. KinlawSupervising for successTony MogilaSupporting Work Team EffectivenessEric Sundstrom and AssociatesSurvey methods in community medicineJ.H. AbramsonSweaty palms : the neglected art of being interviewedH. Anthony MedleySystematic Reviews : Synthesis of Best Evidence for Health Care Decisionsedited by Cynthia Mulrow and Deborah CookTeach yourself Adobe PhotoShop 5 in 24 hoursCarla RoseTeaching ethics and values in public administration programsedited by James S. Bowman and Donald C. MenzelTechnostress: coping with technology @ work @ home @ playMichelle M. Weil, Larry D. RosenThe 10 natural laws of successful time & life managementHyrum W. SmithThe 7 Habits of Highly Effective People : Restoring the Character EthicStephen R. CoveyThe Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Health Information PlanAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health and Welfare Information Unit.The adult learnerMalcolm S. Knowles, Elwood F. Holton, Richard A. SwansonThe agrochemical and pesticide safety handbookMichael F. WaxmanThe AIDS crisisedited by Douglas A. Feldman and Julia Wang MillerThe argument culture : moving from debate to dialogueDeborah TannenThe art of the long viewPeter Schwartz The Australian family: images and essaysedited by Anna EpsteinThe Banality of Evil : Hannah Arendt and `the Final SolutionBernard J. BergenThe benefits & costs of good child careGordon Cleveland and Michael KrashinskyThe big pictureMental Health FoundationThe bulletproof executivePeter StephensonThe Busselton studyedited by Timothy A. WelbornThe challenge of health care leadership : executive strategies for managing responsible changeEarl A. SimendingerThe Contracting Organisation a strategic guide to outsourcingSimon DombergerThe Co-operative ModelCo-operative Federation of VictoriaThe Corporate FoolDavid Firth and Alan LeighThe creativity toolkitH. James Harrington, Glen D. Hoffherr, Robert P. ReidThe dance of changePeter Senge . . . {et al.}The DCHS review—a case study in organisational reviewUniversity of Tasmania. Centre for Public Management and PolicyThe death and life of great American citiesJane JacobsThe double life of the family: myth, hope and experienceMichael Bittman and Jocelyn PixleyThe economics of Australian health policyedited by Gavin Mooney and Richard ScottonThe Economics of Health ReconsideredThomas RiceThe e-myth manager : why management doesn't work and what to do about itMichael E. GerberThe encyclopedia of medicinal plantsAndrew ChevallierThe family in questionStein RingenThe gap project : psychosocial rehabilitation investigationSANE AustraliaThe General surgery workforce in Australia: supply and requirements 1996-2007Australian Medical Workforce Advisory CommitteeThe Genetics Resource BookRoyal North Shore Hospital. Genetics Education Program of NSWThe Geriatric medicine workforce in Australia: supply and requirements 1996-2007Australian Medical Workforce Advisory CommitteeThe greatest benefit to mankind : a medical history of humanity from antiquity to the presentRoy PorterThe guru guide: the best ideas of the top management thinkersJoseph H. Boyett and Jimmie T. BoyettThe health of the nation : a policy assessedLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineThe heart of Long-term CareRosalie A. Kane, Robert L. Kane, Richard C. LaddThe home office solution: How to work at home and have aAlice BredinThe `how to' guide for managersJohn & Shirley PayneThe human costs of managerialism : advocating the recovery of humanityedited by Stuart Rees and Gordon Rodley The human equationJeffrey PfefferThe Illness Narratives : Suffering, Healing, and the Human ConditionArthur KleinmanThe last mortal generationDamien BroderickThe leader's handbook: Making things happen; getting things donePeter R. ScholtesThe leader's handbook: Making things happen; getting things donePeter R. ScholtesThe leadership engine: Winning companies build leaders at everyNoel M. Tichy with Eli CohenThe loose coupling of jobsNancy DiTomasoThe manager as coach and mentorEric ParsloeThe Merck manual of medical information: Home editionRobert Berkow, editor in chiefThe moral commonwealth: Social theory and the promise of communityPhilip SelznickThe National Aids Strategy 1997White HouseThe negotiator's handbookJohn MulderThe nine myths of aging: maximizing the quality of later lifeDouglas H. PowellThe origins of cultural differences and their impact on managementJack ScarboroughThe performance improvement cycle: guidance for managersDepartment of Finance and AdministrationThe personal efficiency program: How to get organised to do more work in less timeKerry GleesonThe playful self: why women need play in their livesRebecca AbramsThe Politics Of Fat: Food & Nutrition Policy In AmericaLaura S. SimsThe politics of health : the Australian experienceHeather GardnerThe prevalence in the past year of substance use and ICD-10 substance use disorders in Australian adultsWayne Hall . . . <et al.>The quality in customer service packageDept. of Industry, Science and Tourism. Management Advisory BoardThe Quest for ExcellenceRichard Best . . . {et al.}The responsible administratorTerry L. CooperThe seven spiritual laws of successDeepak ChopraThe social context of healthMichael HardeyThe sociology of social problems: theoretical perspectives and methods of interventionAdam Jamrozik and Luisa NocellaThe Spice Islands Voyage : The Quest for Alfred Wallace, the man who shared Darwin's discovery of evolutionTim SeverinThe Stakeholder Corporation : The Body Shop : Blueprint for Maximizing Stakeholder ValueDavid Wheeler and Maria SillanpaaThe state and the family: A comparative analysisAnne Helene GauthierThe Story Behind the Numbers: A Guide to Using Population StatisticsDept. of Infrastructure (Vic)The strategic human resource leaderWilliam J. Rothwell, Robert K. Prescott, Maria W. Taylor The strategic management of intellectual capitalDavid A. KleinThe sustainable corporation : organisational renewal in AustraliaDexter Dunphy and Andrew GriffithsThe tasks of medicine: an ideology of carePeter BaumeThe team leader's idea-a-day guideSusan Fowler Woodring and Drea ZigarmiThe Temporary SocietyWarren Bennis, Philip SlaterThe Three Rs of PerformanceSteve MontagueThe trouble with medicineMerrilyn WaltonThe UK breast screening programme : local organisation and deliveryKaren Gerard . . . {et al.}The unconscious civilizationJohn Ralston SaulThe unified Modeling Language User GuideGrady Booch, James Rumbaugh, Ivar JacobsonThe value enterpriseJohn Donovan, Richard Tullly, Brent WortmanThe virility solutionSteven Lamm and Gerald Secor CouzensThe witch doctors: making sense of management gurusJohn Micklethwait & Adrian WooldridgeThe working parents' handbook : how to succeed at work, raise your kids, maintain a home, and still have time for youKatherine MurrayTheory in a nutshell: a practitioners guide to commonly usedDon Nutbeam and Elizabeth HarrisTill death us do partElizabeth Horvath MobayadToo much medicine?: the business of health and its risks for youRay MoynihanToxic plants and other natural toxicantsedited by Tam Garland and A. Catherine BarrTrends in opioid overdose mortality in young Australians (Technical Report 67)W. Hall, L. Degenhardt & M. LynskeyTriazine Herbicides : Risk AssessmentLarry G. Ballantine, Janis E. McFarland, Dennis S. HackettTricks of the trade: how to think about your research while you're doing itHoward S. BeckerUnderstanding ethicsNoel PrestonUnderstanding health policyThomas S. Bedenheimer, Kevin GrumbachUnderstanding the ICD 10 classification of mental disorders : A pocket referenceN. SartoriusUninformed consentHal. A. Huggins & Thomas E. LevyUnintentional adult eye injuries in VictoriaAnita L. Imberger, Anne E. Altmann, Wendy WatsonUnintentional machinery injury on farms in VictoriaLesley Day and Alicia McGrathUnmasking administrative evilGuy B. Adams and Danny L. BalfourUnzipped: everything teenagers want to know about love, sex and each otherBronwyn Donaghy Usability inspection methodsedited by Jakob Nielsen and Robert L. MackViolence in gay and lesbian domestic partnershipsClaire M. Renzetti and Charles Harvey MileyVirtual teams: reaching across space, time and organizations with technologyJessica Lipnack and Jeffrey StampsVision 2010 : families & health careseries editor Sharon Price; Barbara Elliott, issue editorWasting away: The undermining of Canada's health care systemPat Armstrong, Hugh ArmstrongWe are all living with HIV: how to set policies and guidelines for the workplaceEarl C. PikeWellsprings of knowledgeDorothy LeonardWhat color is your parachute 1999Richard Nelson BollesWhat happened when they were grown up? : outcomes from parenting experiencesAnn Buchanan and JoAnn Ten BrinkeWhat price competition??House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community AffairsWhat you can learn from 100 years of management scienceDavid StaufferWho's bringing up babyDr Gay OchiltreeWhy change doesn't workHarvey Robbins & Michael FinleyWin that jobPaul StevensWith Respect to Old AgeGreat Britain. Royal Commission on Long Term CareWomen from Ethnic Minority CommunitiesDavid White, Keith Phillips, Amina MinnsWomen of substanceSue Jackson, Gael WallaceWorld according to DruckerJack BeattyWorld Employment Report 1998-99 Employability in the Global Economy—- How Training MattersInternational LabourWorld health and world politics: the World Health OrganizationJaved SiddiqiWorld tobacco trends 1998NTC PublicationsWriting Resumes That WorkRobert R. NewlenYou are more than your job : making a living vs. making a lifeEarl HarrisonYoung adult women, work and familyIan Procter & Maureen PadfieldYoung Injecting Drug Users & the Risk of HIV/AidsWendy LoxleyYour guide to understanding and managing stressBarry J. Evans, Greg J. Coman, Graham D. BurrowsZoonosesS.R. Palmer, Lord Soulsby, and D.I.H. Simpson11407(Question No. 790)79011407Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 30 June 1999:(1) How many persons received the Disability Support Pension (DSP) in each year since 1990.(2) What was the total cost of the DSP in each year since 1990.(3) What are the eligibility requirements for the DSP.(4) Do DSP entitlements differ from other forms of income support in (a) payment rates, (b) indexation arrangements, (c) taxation arrangements, (d) income and asset testing, (e) eligibility for concession cards and (f) mutual responsibility arrangements; if so, in each case, how.(5) Are job seekers receiving DSP counted in the official unemployment figures.(6) Do job seekers receiving DSP receive job placement training and assistance.(7) What other measures does the Government take to ensure that persons with disabilities maximise their participation in the (a) workforce and (b) education and training system.11407Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) and (2)YearDSP customer numbers at June (000's)DSP costs $(`000) (a)1989-90316.7N/A1990-91334.2N/A1991-92378.6N/A1992-93406.6N/A1993-94436.2N/A1994-95464.4N/A1995-96499.2N/A1996-97527.5N/A1997-98553.34,599,4521998-99577.75,094,334(b)Notes: (a) Prior to 1997-98 the cost of DSP is not available. Expenditure prior to that date was combined with Wife Pensions and Carer Pensions. Note: Invalid Pension and Sheltered Employment Allowance were replaced by DSP from 12 November 1991. (b) Actual expenses for period 1/7/98 to 30/6/99. Note: the 98/99 figure relates to actual expenditure incurred during the period (accrual-based) while the 97/98 represents a cash figure paid out in that year. Therefore the two figures cannot be directly compared.(3) Eligibility requirements for the Disability Support Pension are set out in Centrelink publications:. Guide to Commonwealth Government Payments. Centrelink Information—A guide to payments and services.(4) (a), (c), (d) and (e) Yes. Differences are set out in the publications mentioned in the answer to question 3.(4) (b) Pensions including the DSP are indexed twice yearly in line with increases in the CPI and adjustments to Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE). Social security benefits are indexed twice yearly in line with movements in the CPI, or annually in the case of Youth Allowance and relevant DSP youth rates.(4) (f) DSP is not currently subject to "mutual responsibility arrangements".(5) DSP customers are included in the official unemployment figures where they have indicated, as part of the relevant monthly ABS survey, that they are seeking work.(6) Job placement, training and assistance are available to DSP recipients. (7) (a) and (b) The Government assists people with disabilities to maximise their participation in the workforce, education and training in many ways including the provision of pre-vocational assistance, rehabilitation, employment preparation, job search and placement, workplace modifications, wage subsidies and on-the-job support, the Employer Incentive Program, Mobility Allowance, the Pensioner Education Supplement and the Continence Aids Assistance Scheme.11408(Question No. 813)81311408McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) Further to the Minister's detailed response to question No. 2088 (Hansard , 24 September 1997, page 8450), what standards apply to regulation of content of advertising material contained in (a) print media and (b) outdoor advertising.(2) What mechanisms exist for members of the public to complain about inappropriate advertising material contained in the (a) print media and (b) outdoor advertising.(3) Is the Government considering amending either the standards or complaint procedures, if so, what changes are being considered.11408Hockey, Joe, MPMr HockeyDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Trade Practices Act 1974 and State and Territory fair trading legislation establish basic standards of fair business conduct, such as a general prohibition on misleading and deceptive conduct, that apply to all commercial advertisements—including advertising in the print media and outdoor advertising.In addition, advertising—including advertising in the print media and outdoor advertising—is subject to a scheme of industry self-regulation developed and administered by the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA). The AANA scheme is based on the Advertiser Code of Ethics, which sets industry standards for advertising material. A copy of the Advertiser Code of Ethics is attached.[There is also specific regulation for advertising of certain goods. For example, specific standards apply to the advertising of products impinging on public health, such as tobacco, therapeutic goods and infant formula, which are the policy responsibility of the Minister for Health and Aged Care.](2) Members of the public can complain to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission or to State and Territory fair trading agencies about advertising material in the print media and outdoor advertising that may breach the Trade Practices Act or State and Territory fair trading legislation.Members of the public can complain about inappropriate advertising material in the print media and outdoor advertising to the Advertising Standards Board (ASB). The ASB is an independent body made up of members of the public who are chosen to reflect prevailing community attitudes. The ASB is an initiative of the AANA and is funded by industry.The ASB applies Section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics; it does not consider complaints about the truth, accuracy or legality of advertisements, referring such complaints to the relevant government agency for action. The ASB determines whether a complaint should be dismissed or upheld. If the ASB upholds a complaint against an advertisement, the advertiser has an opportunity to modify or discontinue the offending advertisement.(3) The Government is not proposing changes to the substantive consumer protection provisions in Part V of the Trade Practices Act at this time.The Government has a commitment to effective industry self-regulation. The Government cannot unilaterally amend a voluntary industry code of conduct or change voluntary industry complaint handling procedures. However, the Government has developed, and continues to develop, policy guidelines on self-regulation and industry based dispute schemes in consultation with industry that shape the development of self-regulatory schemes in Australia.AttachmentAdvertiser Code of EthicsThis Code has been adopted by AANA to be applied as a means of advertising self-regulation in Australia and is intended to be applied to all forms of advertising.The object of this Code is to ensure that advertisements are legal, decent, honest and truthful and that they have been prepared with a sense of obligation to the consumer and society and fair sense of responsibility to competitors.In this Code, the term "advertisement" shall mean matter which is published or broadcast in all of Australia or in a substantial section of Australia for payment or other valuable consideration and which draws the attention of the public, or a segment of it, to a product, service, person, organisation or line of conduct in a manner calculated to promote or oppose directly or indirectly that product, service, person, organisation or line of conduct.1.1 Advertisements shall comply with Commonwealth law and the law of the relevant State or Territory. 1.2 Advertisements shall not be misleading or deceptive or be likely to mislead or deceive.1.3 Advertisements shall not contain a misrepresentation which is likely to cause damage to the business or goodwill of a competitor.1.4 Advertisements shall not exploit community concerns in relation to protecting the environment by presenting or portraying distinctions in products or services advertised in a misleading way or in a way which implies a benefit to the environment which the product or services do not have.1.5 Advertisements shall not make claims about the Australian origin or content of products advertised in a manner which is misleading.2.1 Advertisements shall not portray people in a way which discriminates against or vilifies a person or section of the community on account of race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, age, sexual preference, religion, disability or political belief.2.2 Advertisements shall not present or portray violence except unless it is justifiable in the context of the product or service advertised.2.3 Advertisements shall treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience and, where appropriate, the relevant program time zone.2.4 Advertisements for any product which is meant to be used by or purchased by children shall not contain anything which is likely to cause alarm or distress to those children.2.5 Advertisements shall only use language which is appropriate in the circumstances and strong or obscene language shall be avoided.2.6 Advertisements shall not depict material contrary to prevailing community standards on health and safety.Source: Australian Association of National Advertisers website, (20 September 1999).