1999-10-203914REPS1191701999-10-20 The House met at 9.30 a.m.Miscellaneous1191710001CLERKThe Clerk—I inform the House of the absence of the Speaker on parliamentary business. The Speaker will be in attendance later this day. In accordance with standing order 14, the Deputy Speaker as Acting Speaker will take the chair.Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) thereupon took the chair, and read prayers.Bills11917r90411917Consideration resumed from 12 October.Senate's amendment—(1) Clause 6, page 5 (lines 5 to 14), omit subclauses (2) and (3), substitute:(2) A grant of financial assistance to a State must be made on such terms and conditions as are set out in a written agreement between the Commonwealth and the State.(3) A grant of financial assistance to a person, or a body, other than a State must be made on such terms and conditions as are set out in a written agreement between the Commonwealth and the person or body.09:31:0011917Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the amendment be agreed to.This amendment was moved by the opposition in the Senate and agreed to by the government. The government now moves that this amendment be accepted in the House also, accepting the reality of numbers in the other place. The amendment specifies that all grants be paid with terms and conditions set out in a separate written agreement with each grant recipient.The government is prepared to accept the Senate's amendment in the interests of providing certainty to business and other taxpayers so that Australia's new tax system will commence on 1 July 2000. However, the government remains concerned that the Senate's amendment will place an unnecessary compli ance burden on recipients and add to administration costs, particularly for grants paid in arrears, leaving less money for the book plan itself. For instance, if a citizen seeks to obtain a grant in arrears that is made by way of reimbursement, the Commonwealth may have no real interest in receiving a post-grant report and the citizen may find preparing a post-grant report to be unduly burdensome.This highlights that it is unnecessary to have terms and conditions for grants in arrears because relevant matters have already occurred, or relevant activities have already been carried out before the grant is made. The government will address the administration and compliance issues in the context of finalising detailed program design and implementation arrangements.It is worth stating that there was certainly no intention in the original legislation introduced by the government for grants to be made without restriction. The bill always provided for grants to be paid and, I want to stress, only for the limited purpose specified. The government wishes to make it explicit that there was never any attempt to rort funds or to avoid accountability for assistance to book producers, textbook purchasers, authors and people in supported accommodation. In all the circumstances, however, I am very pleased to commend the amendment to the House.09:34:0011917Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The opposition will not be opposing the Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 as amended and, in fact, is pleased to see that the government has accepted its amendment from the Senate.This bill is designed to implement various aspects of the dirty deal done between the government and the Democrats with respect to the GST package, particularly regarding assistance for the book industry, and also to salve the conscience of the Democrats with respect to their outrageous betrayal of the people involved in that industry, they having promised never, ever to put a GST on books or to support a GST on books. It is also to salve the Democrats' conscience with respect to the massive reduction in the excise on diesel fuel, which, of course, has substantial negative environmental consequences, particularly for people living in electorates like mine in urban areas that already have to put up with very substantial health problems as a result of particulate pollution and other associated matters. So this is basically about implementing the deal that the Democrats did with the government.Labor pursued amendments to the bill, which was totally open-ended in its original form. It in fact had a clause which would have allowed the government to hand over money to any organisation without terms and conditions as to how that money could be used. So in its original form, when the bill went to the Senate, it actually had clauses which gave the government carte blanche to provide money to anybody without terms and conditions and without any effective capacity for proper accountability. Fortunately, the government has seen the wisdom of the Labor Party's amendment and has agreed to delete the relevant sections of the bill that otherwise would have permitted it to simply hand out money without any conditions at all. That in effect would have opened up the possibility of a slush fund that could have been used for pork-barrelling purposes along the lines of the infamous Federation Fund.In those circumstances, had that occurred, the elements of accountability that do exist with respect to the Federation Fund—limited and difficult though they may be—would not have been in place with respect to this particular program. Audit would have been virtually impossible, in the way that we understand it.The other issue worth noting in the context of this legislation is the impact on the disappearing surplus. We have seen a steady flow of measures over the past six to 12 months that are bit by bit eroding the surplus. Some of them are entirely reasonable measures that the opposition supports; some of them are avoidable; some of them are measures that the opposition does not support. Nonetheless, there is an emerging issue here that the government will have to give serious consideration to.We have seen the GST deal with the Democrats lead to a projected erosion of the surplus of a maximum of $2.2 billion in one financial year—from memory, 2001-02. Similarly, the first tranche of measures arising from the Ralph business tax reforms will cost a maximum of $1.5 billion—in the same financial year, from memory. If the government squibs on the second round of reforms, that will effectively be a permanent additional slice off the surplus.We are all aware of the impact that the commitment to East Timor—a commitment which the opposition wholeheartedly supports—will have on the surplus, and we are aware of the difficulty that we have in estimating precisely what that impact will be and, indeed, how long it will be for. There are a number of other smaller measures that have been introduced in more recent times—including matters regarding illegal immigration, the lamb assistance package and the like—which are chipping away bit by bit at the surplus. There is considerable pressure in many quarters for increases in defence spending, arising from the commitment in East Timor.On top of this we have the Deputy Prime Minister saying only recently that we should spend the surplus on infrastructure. I happen to agree with his concern about the need for infrastructure in regional Australia; but he is forgetting that the surplus is already being spent and that you cannot spend it twice. The underlying cause is that the government is handing out $8 billion per year in net terms to sweeten the GST package, in big tax cuts to high income earners. It is robbing the poor to pay the rich. I believe that by 2001-02 there will be a negligible surplus or that we may even be in deficit. (Time expired)09:39:0011918Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—Homelessness is one of the issues facing Australians today, but at least there are some contingency plans to help them, despite the fact that this government has been involved with savage cuts to many of the providers. The Kosovars are indeed homeless, and most of them have grave concerns about their future back in their country of birth—through no fault of their own. They have asked me, as one of their co-patrons, to help them.I have already written to the minister on two occasions and I have also been to see him to plead for him to exercise his right to allow them to apply under the exceptional circumstances provisions that he spelled out in his second reading speech in May of this year. The minister has kept saying that the arrangement with the United Nations has some sort of status. In fact, this organisation is consulted as to whether it is safe to return and the sort of assistance that is available; but it is the minister who decides whether the refugees can stay or whether they can go. The minister has basically said,`Go home.'0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—I rise on a point of order. I am reluctant to interrupt my colleague opposite in full flight; however, this is a very specific amendment and, while it does relate to an appropriation bill, the debate needs to be confined to the particularity of the Senate amendment which I have moved be accepted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—These bills present a certain degree of problem for the chair in that, whilst the standing orders allow for appropriation bills to allow discussion of a wide range of matters, in this particular case, because of the way in which money has been appropriated by this bill for certain purposes, the debate is more defined. I could assist members by saying that they should also perhaps look at the amendment that has come back from the Senate and which is the subject of discussion, where it allows for discussion of, indeed, Commonwealth-state arrangements. With those comments in mind, I hope that the member for Lyons will keep to the amendment.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is rightly so. Only last night I was at a meeting of the joint committee dealing with specific state migration issues—which goes to the very heart of grants and financial assistance to assist with migration in the states, in a specific matter. That goes to the heart of the question that I was raising in relation to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, which states:UNHCR seeks durable solutions for the problems of refugees through repatriation to their homeland, integration in first countries of asylum or resettlement to third countries. Refugee problems can be solved. Most refugees leave their home countries only under extreme duress, and are keen to return as soon as circumstances permit. UNHCR aims to ensure that the solution to a refugee's plight will be a lasting one. It begins by helping refugees return home—voluntarily, in safety and with dignity. Where voluntary repatriation isn't possible, UNHCR helps refugees integrate into a country of first asylum, or to resettle in a third country, where they will be able to earn a living and resume their lives.The first step is to understand that refugees are not a threat. They themselves are threatened, and they need help and protection. Refugees are people just like you and your family, but they have lost their home, job and community, and perhaps family members and friends. They are ordinary people who have suffered inordinately and who often have no-one to whom they can turn.You cannot to return to them what others have taken by force. But you can welcome them with a smile and an open mind. Refugees are not just victims: they also have skills and enormous personal strength and resourcefulness. They are survivors, and they are potential assets to your community.The principle behind this charter is that refugees from all over the world can find a peaceful and safe haven in which to build a new life or simply to take shelter until they can go home. It appears that they are happy to help both options, but there is no compulsion on either side. I remind the minister of his second reading speech on 11 May, in which he said:We are also committed to work with UNHCR using our existing refugee and humanitarian program to offer permanent resettlement to others who may not be able to return to Kosovo.The bill will provide the minister with a non-compellable power to allow a particular non-citizen who holds a temporary safe haven visa, or who has not left Australia since ceasing to hold such a visa, to make a valid visa application for another type of visa. This will only be exercised where the minister believes it is in the public interest to do so in exceptional circumstances on a case by case basis. This power may only be exercised by the minister personally.(Time expired)09:45:0011919Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—I rise on another issue: a program which is administered by the states but funded by the Commonwealth, the National Respite for Carers Program. Under this program, $80 million will be allocated for dementia respite over the next four years as part of the coalition election 1998 platform—or at least that is what it said. This was a very clear and specific promise: `The coalition will allocate $80 million over four years to expand community based respite care options for carers of people with dementia.' I am informed that this initiative was announced on World Alzheimer's Day in September 1998 with this statement:A re-elected coalition government would boost support by $80 million over four years, which will provide more than 130,000 days of additional in-home respite care every year for carers of people with dementia.That statement was put out by the Hon. Warwick Smith, the then Minister for Family Services on 20 September 1998. Unfortunately, that commitment seems to have expired with him. The initiative was also included in the coalition's policy paper called Older Australians: a secure and stable future . The coalition clearly says—GT4TRUSSMr Truss—I must raise again a point of order on relevance. Whilst I appreciate that in appropriation debates there is normally a right to have a general debate, this is an amendment coming back from the Senate. It deals with things like the book bounty; it does not deal with the broad question of Commonwealth-state relations or any program that the Commonwealth might happen to fund through the states. This amendment deals with the way in which the Commonwealth pays the book bounty through the states. I submit that the speeches being made are simply out of order and not relevant to the subject matter before the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—On the point of order, standing order 81 says that no member may digress from the subject matter provided that:(b) on the motion for the second reading of an Appropriation or Supply Bill, except an Appropriation or Supply Bill for expenditure that is not expenditure for the ordinary annual services of the Government, matters relating to public affairs may be debated.So there are actually two matters. This appropriation bill is for expenditure for certain purposes, and this is not a second reading debate but a debate about an amendment that has been returned from the Senate. I hope that the honourable member for Kingston might have those thoughts in mind when he continues his remarks to the question that the amendment be agreed to.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—The issue at hand with this amendment is the relatively unrestricted way in which the Commonwealth can provide many of these grants to the states. I am demonstrating by means of the amendment being dealt with here that there is some dissatisfaction with the lack of accountability of the government as a result of the way the bills have been framed. The matters I am going to are a further demonstration of why the government's cavalier attitude to the way it uses appropriations needs to be examined and why there needs to be more clarity in the legislation. That is why this amendment is important. The issue I am going to is the way the government says it is going to do one thing with a program and then swiftly changes it to do another. The guidelines for submissions for these moneys have become available—and those guidelines now demonstrate a notable alteration to the original statement. In the way that the government is relatively unfettered at the moment in how it changes arrangements for the provision of funding for books, the provision of funding for dementia care has been changed unilaterally by the government according to its own wishes. These funds can now be used for respite for carers of any person with a challenging behaviour resulting from any disability. While there is no doubt that there is a large unmet demand for respite for carers of people with challenging behaviours—(Time expired)09:51:0011920Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise on this debate because we are dealing with an amendment which has come back from the Senate which deals specifically with the allocation of particular appropriations relevant to Commonwealth-state financial arrangements in a number of areas. A presupposition which underpins that—of which the parliamentary secretary and the minister at the table would be fully aware—is the capacity of the Commonwealth to actually fund a consolidated revenue fund in the first place in order to deliver finances and appropriations to the programs to which my colleagues the honourable member for Kingston and the honourable member for Lyons have just referred. These comments are germane to the observations made by the shadow minister, the member for Melbourne, when he made these simple points: that if you are going to have a consolidated revenue fund capable of delivering expenditures it must have revenue. What you have done with your goods and services tax is launch a $2.2 billion assault—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order which relates to relevance. We are not talking about whether the Commonwealth has the capacity to make the payments provided for in the legislation; we are simply referring to a fairly minor amendment which has been returned to this place from the Senate concerning the terms and conditions on which the payments can be made. There is no question that the Commonwealth does have the ability to make the payments, and the matters being raised by the honourable member for Griffith are in a sense an abuse of the standing orders of the House and well removed from the very specific amendment which the House of Representatives is today debating.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—On the point of order, the honourable member for Griffith, I felt, was developing a case towards the amendment before us. It was very early days.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The question arises in terms of the point just made by the parliamentary secretary at the table, which is that there does exist a consolidated revenue fund, which the Commonwealth is capable of drawing on in order to make these appropriations. That, in fact, is germane to the entire debate, because your assertion is that it can; our concern in terms of the future appropriation requirements which the Commonwealth will face is that its capacity to so deliver is being fundamentally undermined—undermined by the assault on revenues which will be occasioned by the introduction of the goods and services tax and the enormous compensation packages which arise from that, and an assault on revenues over time of some $20 billion cumulatively or, in a given year, as the member for Melbourne referred to before, some $2.2 billion. Ralph, as he mentioned before, at present will make an annual assault on revenues of $1.5 billion. The consolidated revenue fund and its capacity to execute social programs of relevance to all members in this place is therefore entirely germane to the debate.We then go to the application of the consolidated revenue fund to the programs which are outlined in the bill and those which are relevant to it. We have an enormous range of programs which the states are responsible for which depend for a large part on the Commonwealth's ability to deliver the money. One which is entirely germane to the bill before us is, of course, the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program.We have, though, a consistent pattern—almost a serial pattern—of Commonwealth behaviour since this government was elected to office whereby it makes a series of policy pronouncements in terms of what it is prepared to do in Commonwealth-state arrangements and, on the other hand, it does not financially deliver. This, of course, extends across a range of other programs.We have had in this place in recent days an extensive debate on the future of the university sector, a joint Commonwealth-state initiative. Yet we have had the Commonwealth denude that sector of some $2 billion in funding—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Mr Deputy Speaker—83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—which obviously the parliamentary secretary at the table is somewhat sensitive about.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Mr Parliamentary Secretary, I think I have the point.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—On relevance, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Griffith is straying just a little too wide of the mark.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for that entirely appropriate—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Admonition.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—admonition about the breadth of my interpretation of the amendment before us. But the amendment's reference to the future of SAAP grants from the Commonwealth to states is germane to the university sector, the school education sector, the Australian scholarship and traineeship fund, and right across the provision of public infrastructure, which the member for Melbourne referred to before in his remarks—I must say, uncommented on by the parliamentary secretary at the table. The principle at stake is simply this: we have a government high on policy pronouncement, high on policy rhetoric, high on political rhetoric, but on the delivery of funds through the consolidated revenue fund a complete hypocrisy, a complete noncommitment to the delivery of real programs on the ground. (Time expired)09:56:0011922Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—This amendment to the Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 are particularly important. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is presently having an inquiry into the new Financial Management and Accountability Act. One of the issues that has been raised by one of the very expert witnesses to that committee, Maurice Kennedy, who in fact wrote most of the act when he was an officer of the Department of Finance and Administration, is the way in which the government is appropriating moneys under very broad categories and, with accrual accounting, appropriating moneys which will be expended over a number of years, and the risks that are entailed there by the government down the track possibly not expending those moneys actually in accordance with those appropriations.The amendment that we are debating today is somewhat related to that. One of our chief concerns is that moneys can be expended according to either agreements with conditions or agreements with the states that do not attach to them any conditions. We are getting to a situation where there is less and less accountability by the executive for the expenditure of public moneys. As I was saying earlier, this executive has shown itself prone to making promises about how it will expend public moneys which are simply not kept. In the case that I was referring to earlier, money that was put aside for respite care for people with dementia is now being disbursed over a much greater range of people with other client needs—in particular, those with challenging behaviours and children and young people with disabilities ranging from autism to mental illness. This change in policy reduces markedly the amount of respite available for carers.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a further point of order. You have made rulings to earlier points of order very clear: this is a very specific debate, and members must remain relevant to the matters under consideration. I must say the honourable member for Kingston, regrettably, appears to be ignoring the very specific rulings you previously made. I ask you to bring him back to the question before the chamber.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—On the point of order, the honourable member for Kingston must use his comments only to draw a comparison between what he believes to be the case about, in this case, a Commonwealth-state agreement and how the Senate amendment which relates to Commonwealth-state agreements would relate to assistance to the book industry.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Is this about books now?83UCox, David, MPMr COX—It is about books; the principle of the—Mr Slipper interjecting—XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—It would be the first time if it was.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—I think it is a perfectly relevant consideration, that the government have chosen—XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—You have absolutely no idea what this amendment is about.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—This amendment is about you being able to make arrangements with the states that do not have any conditions attached to them. In this case it is about books. But it is a very general principle of accountability that this parliament does not allow you the kind of latitude that you seek for the finances of the Commonwealth.Mr Slipper interjecting—83UCox, David, MPMr COX—I take the parliamentary secretary's interjection. I am making a very valid comparison between the way that this government acts in relation to the promises that it makes and the way that it provides money to the states. (Time expired)10:01:0011923Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration seeks to stifle debate, and it is quite obvious why he is trying to stifle debate on this issue. It is because the government has been caught out trying to establish a slush fund of $896 million.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is quite clearly totally unrelated to the matter before the House. I challenge the opposition members to actually mention the word `book' once in their speeches. This is clearly out of order.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The honourable member for Rankin hardly had an opportunity to commence his remarks.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—I will mention books, because that is part of the scam that this government has been trying to set up. The headlines in the Canberra Times today are: `Slush Fund Legislation Blocked in Senate'. The amendment in front of us deals with the application of terms and conditions that the government did not want to apply to a total of $896 million—no terms and conditions whatsoever. That would have given the government of the day, the minister of the day, entire, unfettered discretion to allocate funds to whomever they wish in return for favours, support or anything else.Their attention was drawn very well to this problem by Senator Cook, who spent five hours teasing this out with the government, haranguing and cajoling them and shaming them into putting back into this place an amendment that does require them to apply some terms and conditions to this almost $1 billion slush fund. The Australian National Audit Office, in its 1996-97 report No. 32, in talking about the application of terms and conditions, says:An essential component of effective grant administration is a well drafted document providing evidence of the grant. It provides for accountability— that is a word the government does not have in its dictionary—for and protection of Commonwealth funds, legal protection of the recipient and the grants giving organisation, agreed terms and conditions of the funding assistance, including performance information and access requirements and clearly defined roles and responsibilities of all parties.And a couple of other things. The point is that the government has been caught out. Senator Cook, on behalf of the Labor opposition, shamed them into putting this amendment. The Democrats were going to go along with it in yet another dirty, sleazy deal that would have allowed the government to give out money in a completely unfettered way—in whatever way it wanted. Senator Cook worked for hours and hours in the Senate and, finally, at the end of this shameful episode, Democrat Senator Lyn Allison said, `Oh, I'm persuaded by the debate.' I do not think she was persuaded by the debate. She was shamed into it, because they knew that we would have taken this right through to the next election. They had no choice but to bring into this House an amendment which applies at least some terms and conditions, or at least provides for them. The government said, `Oh, we don't want a debate on this.' They did not want to talk about the fact that they had in their minds and in legislation a provision which would have allowed them, with the complicity of the Democrats, to make $896 million worth of grants without any terms and conditions.Has this government ever heard of the word `accountability'? Day by day they become more arrogant. They think they can get away with anything. We have got the minister for MRI scams, and here we have got the same pattern of a government wanting to get away with anything that they possibly can get away with, with no accountability whatsoever.The reason that they have agreed to some sorts of payments in relation to books is simple: they are applying a GST to books. The Democrats said, `No, we are totally opposed to the application of a GST to books. We will go to the wall.' Then the government went to them and said, `But we do want to apply a GST to books.' They said, `Okay. Well, let's set up a little fund with no terms and conditions, and we'll tell our constituents that that's good enough.' It is not good enough. Education is not GST free. School uniforms are not GST free. School shoes and stationery—all those essential items for education—are not GST free. There is another misrepresentation by the government and the Democrats. At least some sanity has prevailed because the only virtuous party in relation to this is the Australian Labor Party. (Time expired)10:06:0011924Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—This has been a very interesting debate, interesting in the sense that the Labor Party members have entirely misread the standing orders, either deliberately or unintentionally. They thought they could come in here and talk about matters other than the very specific amendment that is currently before the chamber. The honourable member for Rankin in his contribution clearly did not listen to what I had to say earlier.83VEMERSONMr Emerson—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. I spoke entirely to the clause that is in front of us, to the amendment that is in front of us. The parliamentary secretary seeks to portray that I have done nothing of the sort. He is shamed, and this government has been shamed into accepting this amendment.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The honourable member for Rankin might feel aggrieved, but that is not a point of order.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If, as the parliamentary secretary says, the member for Rankin was not relevant, then there is no point in introducing his argument further into the debate. Get a job.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I will concede that the member for Rankin was more relevant than his colleagues, but there was an absolute paucity of relevance during the debate. The member for Rankin clearly did not listen to my initial contribution when I pointed out, on behalf of the government, that there was certainly no intention in the original legislation introduced by the government for grants to be made without restriction. The bill always provided for grants to be paid for the limited purposes specified.I want to reiterate, as I did when I spoke earlier, that the government wishes to make explicit that there was never any attempt to rort funds or to avoid accountability for assistance to book producers, textbook purchasers, authors and people in supported accommodation. So the improper motives being imputed to the government are entirely rejected, as you would expect, Mr Deputy Speaker, by the government at this time.The honourable member for Melbourne suggested that the fact that there was a provision for no terms and conditions indicated that this was akin to a slush fund. As I said before, it was always intended that grants would only be made for the limited purposes specified. There is no question that there would be an absence of accountability.The honourable member for Griffith referred to an allegation that the government might not have revenue to meet the particular commitments given in this legislation. I think the people of Australia are well aware that this government has been a government of sound economic managers. We have removed the $10.3 billion deficit we inherited. I hate to think what this country would have been like had we not been prepared to take difficult economic decisions to bring the budget back into the black in making sure that this country does indeed have a proper future. So it is unquestioned that the Commonwealth does have the ability to make the payments provided for in this amendment.The member for Griffith deviated, as he himself admitted—in fact, he even got lost—and simply did not address the matter which he should have addressed in debating the amendment before the chamber. He also claimed that the government was guilty of policy rhetoric and political rhetoric. The only rhetoric in this place is from the Labor Party—rhetoric where it is trying to avoid debating the very important changes which this legislation brings about.I do also want to defend the Australian Democrats. I think it is absolutely appalling that Labor members come in here and criticise the positive approach of the Australian Demo crats. They, unlike the opposition, recognised that the government has a mandate to bring in a new tax system to take effect from 1 July 2000. The whole community appreciates that the Democrats have been constructive and that they have played a key role in legislating for the new tax system. I move:That the question be now put.Question resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bills11925r90311925Consideration resumed from 12 October.Senate's amendment—(1) Clause 5, page 4 (lines 15 to 24), omit subclauses (2) and (3), substitute:(2) A grant of financial assistance to a State must be made on such terms and conditions as are set out in a written agreement between the Commonwealth and the State.(3) A grant of financial assistance to a person, or a body, other than a State must be made on such terms and conditions as are set out in a written agreement between the Commonwealth and the person or body.10:11:0011925Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the amendment be agreed to.This amendment was also moved by the opposition and provides exactly the same intent as that amendment with which the House dealt a moment ago. This amendment specifies that all grants be paid with terms and conditions set out in a separate written agreement with each grant recipient. The government obviously preferred the legislation as it previously was. However, we do accept the reality of the numbers in the Senate. For the reasons I have indicated, I commend this amendment to the House and ask that it be agreed to forthwith.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills11925r91211925Debate resumed from 19 October, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Ms Macklin moved by way of amendment:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading the House expresses its concern about the nature of the bill and its contribution to the stripping back of Government support for Australian women and the community organisations that represent them, in particular: (1) the weakening of industrial relations legislation and organisations that aim to improve women's employment prospects and workplace treatment, particularly through the Workplace Relations Act and reductions in the power of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission; (2) the weakening of organisations that exist to provide women with suitable avenues of redress for discrimination, including the Affirmative Action Agency and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission; (3) failure to respond to major reports, particularly the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Report, Pregnant and Productive ; (4) failure to send appropriate representation to international forums discussing women's policy, particularly to the recent International Labour Organisation's conference on maternity leave provisions; (5) the weakening of the role of government organisations that aim to improve the sensitivity of government policies to women, particularly the Office of the Status of Women; (6) the de-funding of community groups which represent women, including the Girl Guides, the Women's Electoral Lobby, the Older Women's Network and the Catholic Women's League; (7) failure to consult with a wide range of women's organisations, particularly through the reduction in the numbers now attending the national round table consultations; (8) cuts to child care, education and health-services which women depend upon to be able to work, to raise a family and to improve their living standards; (9) the development of taxation policies which do not deliver an equal benefit to women and which redistribute more of the burden of taxation onto women through the Goods and Services Tax; and(10) the de-funding of the social safety net by stealth which impacts significantly on women as women are more dependent upon social security and the Government's refusal to release a secret welfare discussion paper containing plans to cut payments to sole parents and people with disabilities."10:14:0011926Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—I will continue with the points I was making last night. Last night I was addressing the question of gender pay equity in looking at the setting in which this Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 is to be considered. I had just referred the House to an excellent paper that has been generated in Western Australia called `The future is bleak: enterprise bargaining and gender wage equity'. I was saying that this paper, when looked at closely, gives us a good window on what will happen on the question of gender pay equity should the second wave industrial relations legislation of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business pass through this place.This analysis is a decomposition analysis. That is a statistical method whereby you look for a difference, you control for the variables that are known and you then get the truly unexplained difference. So you look at the gender gap in wages, control for the variables that are known and get the unexplained difference. Then you are able to look for the factors that might explain that difference. This decomposition analysis has been done in respect of pay rates for men and women in 1991 and 1996. As we know, Richard Court's legislation, which was the forerunner to the kind of legislation this minister is seeking to inflict on us nationally, was passed and became operative in the period between 1991 and 1996.This analysis looks at the question of pay differentials between men and women and then goes through a relatively complex statistical process. I will not delay the House with too many details of that—not everybody has the same passion for statistics that some of us might. It controls for explainable factors: for example, human capital endowments—that is the difference predominantly in education levels and labour market experience between the male work force and the female work force—demographics, overtime, the sector of the labour force in which people are engaged, industry and occupation. So all of the things that might explain a gender wage differential are statistically acknowledged and taken out.But, even when you go through all the factors that might explain why women continue to earn less than men, you are left with an increasing gender wage differential. That is, in the period between 1991 and 1996 in Western Australia, the gender gap—the amount which women earn less than men—has become worse. The conclusion of this study is as follows:In this paper we—that is, the academic authors—take a `peek' at the future through the window of Western Australia. Western Australia has already implemented many of the reforms proposed in Reith's (1999) recent discussion paper and legislation amendment bill.That, of course, is a reference to the second wave industrial relations legislation. It continues:Developments at the state level therefore provide an excellent indication of what to expect in a more decentralised Federal environment. For women the future is bleak. The results in this paper show that since 1991 the gender wage gap in Western Australia has increased 5.5 percentage points, from 17.5 per cent at August 1991 to 23 per cent at August 1998. Analysis of Census data from 1991 and 1996 shows that changes arise entirely as a result of adverse wage structure effects and not because of changes in the productivity characteristics of males and females. Women in Western Australia have, in fact, improved their relative human capital endowments but the gains made here were not enough to offset the deterioration in their relative returns brought about by institutional transformations. The clear conclusion of this study is, even if other labour market factors, and in particular the question of education levels, are getting better for women in the work force, we can expect the gender pay differential to increase if the institutional setting—that is, the degree of industrial relations regulation—is rolled back.The experience in Western Australia is that women in Western Australia are going back in relative pay levels as opposed to their male counterparts. That is exactly the same conclusion that we will get to should this minister's industrial relations legislation pass this place. That is, once we have the second wave industrial relations legislation in place, once the institutional setting is changed, we can expect to see women, in relative terms, go backwards in their earnings compared with men. For a government that is seeking actively to impose that agenda on working women in Australia to present to this House something boldly titled Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 I suggest is bordering on the ironic.If we are going to seriously talk about the question of equal opportunity in the workplace in this debate, clearly fundamental to that is the question of equal pay. But also fundamental is the question of accessing the workplace. As we all know, for many women whether or not they can access the workplace depends entirely on the availability of accessible, affordable, quality child care. When we look at the record of this government on the child-care question, once again we see policies in place which do anything but ensure that there is equal opportunity in the work place.I recommend to every member of the House a recent excellent study by the Australian Services Union on child-care provision throughout Australia. I focused on the Victorian results, but there are results in that survey which detail what has happened in other states. This survey by the Australian Services Union shows just how detrimental this government's approach to child care has been, particularly in lower income areas such as Melbourne's west where my seat is located.The survey identified that in Victoria 70 community child-care centres have closed in the last two years, with further centres identified for closure in December this year. Disturbingly, the survey has identified that the highest level of closure has occurred in Melbourne's west, an area of high disadvantage. Specifically, the survey has found that in the local government district of Hobson's Bay, which is one of the municipalities located within my electorate, the cost of long day care has increased by 10 per cent. This increase has been in circumstances where 70 per cent of the families accessing local government long day care earn less than $35,000 per annum. So there has been an increase in child-care costs targeted at or specifically impacting on those who have the least capacity to pay for it.Indeed, of the families who seek access to long day care services, 55 per cent are single parent families and 35 per cent are from non-English speaking backgrounds. It seems to me incredible that, when this government is clearly winding up for an assault on single parent families and will be putting to single parents that they ought to move back into the work force as soon as possible—as soon as they are able to leave their children—and when they are going to rejig the benefits structure to force people back into the work force, it could be knocking out from under them one of the fundamental supports to allow them to go back into the work force, which is access to affordable child care.Let there be no mistake: the Australian Services Union survey shows in stark detail that cost is a key factor affecting people's ability to access care, sufficient hours of care or quality care. Of the child-care centres surveyed, 99.3 per cent said children had been withdrawn from their child-care centre because of cost; 59.3 per cent reported that some families had had to give up work to care for their children at home because the rising cost of child care made the work equation no longer economical; 68.7 per cent reported families had reduced working hours because of increasing child-care costs; and 71.8 per cent said families had decreased booked hours because of costs.That is the child-care setting we are dealing with. What can that boldly titled piece of legislation, Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill, possibly be about if it is not being dealt with in a setting where women seeking to access the workplace can get affordable, accessible and quality child care? As we see very clearly from the survey, in Victoria—and the equation holds true for the other states—that is not happening under the policies of this government.Turning to the specific provisions of the bill, against a general record of failure for women in the area of equal opportunity in the workplace we find this bill contains another litany of failures. The bill waters down the requirement of employers to promote equal opportunity. Employers will now have to only contribute to the achievement of equal opportunity—quite a different thing. The minister has decided to lock unions out of the process, irrespective of their expertise in dealing with equal opportunity issues.The reporting regime has been cut back so you can report less frequently. And, indeed, you can report confidentially, when always key to the equal opportunity programs in the workplace has been the threat of public exposure if you do not do the right thing. Now you will have the ability to sneak in confidential reports. There is no continuing requirement that a senior manager run the equal opportunity plans in the workplace. This bill is a record of another round of failures for equal opportunity for women in the workplace. This legislation is therefore flawed. It comes from a government with a bad and worsening record on equal pay, a bad and worsening record on child care and, if this bill is passed in its present form, a bad and worsening record on equal opportunity for women. (Time expired)10:24:0011928Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 is about anything other than developing a working environment that will ensure equal opportunity for women. How can we trust a government that actively legislates to support the most powerful businesses, the most powerful organisations and the most powerful people in this country at the expense of ordinary Australians and those Australians who are disadvantaged in any way? This is a government that actively pursues anything but equal opportunity for anyone other than their friends in high places.The government has a sorry record when it comes to empowering and providing services for women. It has failed in the past, and this legislation is doomed to fail again for women. The government has actively discouraged women from entering the workplace by cutting child care and making it accessible only to the wealthy in our community. This is a government with an elite approach to every area of government. It cannot be trusted to create an environment that will deliver equal opportunity to women in the workplace.The elitist approach of this government is evident in every area. As the previous speaker noted, the cost of child care has now become something that only those people who earn a substantial amount of money can afford. We have viewed the education debate that has taken place in this House over the last week, and we have seen the direction in which this government would like to push education—once again making it the prerogative of only those people who have a lot of money, who are wealthy, who are their friends and who do not need extra assistance to be able to access that education.One of my first experiences after being elected to federal parliament was being involved in a 60 Minutes program that looked at women in politics. That was a very interesting experience because, whilst I think the program itself should be condemned, it showed the very strong difference between the attitudes of members on this side of the House to women and the attitudes of members of the other side of the House to women. We on this side appreciate that women need a little extra assistance to be able to succeed. On the other side, women strongly argued that if a woman were good enough that woman would succeed.How can members of a government that puts forward that sort of an ideology—that is committed to the philosophy that a person will succeed if they are strong enough—be prepared to make a commitment to equal opportunity for women in the workplace? Members on the other side of the House are locked into a cult of the individual and a philosophy of the survival of the fittest. We definitely cannot trust a government that puts forward legislation saying, `We're about equal opportunity for women in the workplace, but we're going to erode the current legislation to make sure that women don't actually get that equal opportunity.'It was a Labor government—the Hawke Labor government—that was responsible for the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunities for Women) Act 1986. The Labor government recognised that women were at a disadvantage and that action was needed to create an environment that would lead to equality for women in the workplace. That is the history of this legislation and that was why it was introduced. It is also interesting to note that it was under Labor that women actually ended up getting equal pay. I remember when I first started work. I did the same job as a male who may not have performed at the same level as I did in my HSC. That same person received a higher salary than I did, not because they did a different job but simply because they were male and I was female.Over the years, the Labor Party has had this commitment to creating an environment where women can achieve equal opportunity. The Liberal philosophy really works against this because it is dictated by the belief that, if you are good enough, you will achieve—if you are good enough, you will be able to have that equal opportunity. The members on the other side of this parliament, the government of this country, do not recognise that anybody needs extra assistance, be it women, somebody who is looking for a job or a pensioner. That really goes against their ideology.The aim of this legislation is to make the equal employment opportunity for women act more effective and efficient for business and for women. I can see a conflict there. How can this legislation make the act more effective and efficient both for business and for women? I see that there can often be a conflict in achieving these two goals. The aim of business is to decrease costs and increase profit. I also see that there can be a conflict for the nation as a whole because, if women are not in a position where they achieve equal opportunity, a significant proportion of our population will be underutilised. For women to obtain equality in the workplace, there may be a cost involved with training, maternity leave and supplying child care. For a government to make a commitment to ensure that women do get this equality, it may require business to make a commitment that may increase their costs.How can both business and women achieve that effectiveness and efficiency? I thought this bill was about creating equal opportunity, not about effectiveness and efficiency. Equality for this government is not about creating an environment that is conducive to equal opportunity. What it means to this government is competing on an equal footing with men. Equality with men means that you are allowed to go in there and compete with men. It does not take into account the old-school syndrome and the meeting at the club syndrome, and it does not take into account all those extra things that women need to reach that point where they can actually compete equally with men in the workplace.This legislation also states the goal of creating flexibility. We all know that for this government flexibility means looking after their friends. And who are their friends? Their friends are business, the elite and those people in powerful positions in our community—not women and not workers. We have only to look at the recent legislation that passed through this House—the `More Jobs, Better Pay' legislation.Dr Lawrence interjecting—83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—Yes, a most inappropriate title. Under this legislation women are particularly disadvantaged, because what group in the work force is more involved in the lower paid jobs, the casual jobs, the part-time jobs and the jobs where there are fewer unions? It is women. That is a demonstration of how this government attacks the least powerful people in the community, how it seeks to erode the conditions of workers and lower the pay of workers. The people who will be bearing the brunt of that are women. You just have to look at the percentage of women who are in permanent employment. It is 68 per cent for women as opposed to 77.4 per cent for men. Thirty-two per cent of women are working in casual positions as opposed to 22 per cent of men. You can really see the imbalance that exists there in the workplace. No action that this government can take will bring about any change that will benefit women in the work force because, let us face it, it is philosophically opposed to it.This legislation is also about complementing a workplace relations framework based on cooperation. What does cooperation mean to the government of Australia? Cooperation means the workers agreeing to everything that the employers want. The government is anti-union. It has locked the unions out of the process of industrial relations and every decision it takes is to move away from protecting workers in this country.Similarly, this legislation does that to women. It is an attack on women. It is about creating an imbalance of power by putting more power in the hands of employers and businesses, which really opposes the whole philosophy behind equal opportunity. It is also about reducing the employer's obligation to women. The changes made by this government are generally—I think you would almost say exclusively—about looking after employers and big business. They are not in any way about women, people who are unemployed or anyone who suffers any disadvantage within the work force or within our society, and that is very sad.Since the introduction of the original legislation in 1986—which, I might add, a number of members on the other side of this House opposed when they were in opposition—there has been an increase in the number of women in SES positions, on boards, in management positions and in CEO positions. But since this government has come to power this move has stagnated and, in many cases, declined. There are still no female CEOs in Australia among the top 25 older or newer CEOs. That would be a logical progression. You would assume that if this government had a commitment to equal opportunity then this would change.As recently as January this year, an article in the Financial Review stated that the glass ceiling was still firmly in place, `with only 12 per cent of firms reporting that half of their senior managers were women'. The government has done nothing to encourage businesses to make that commitment to women, and this legislation will be a disincentive.Women earn 61c compared to every dollar men earn. Once again, this is not acceptable. It is anything but acceptable. It is also interesting to look at the Australian financial industry. This government is always talking about its commitment in the areas of finance and business. The Australian financial industry executive commitment to promoting women to senior executive ranks has declined remarkably, because the government has done nothing to encourage businesses to move down that path.It is interesting to compare the academic record of young girls in the HSC with that of boys. Sixty-five per cent of the top 99 students in 1999 were girls. Fifty-four per cent of the total enrolment were girls. But the figures that I have just quoted do not transfer in any way to the most highly paid positions and the positions of power in our community. They are not reflected in the number of women on boards or in SES positions, they are not reflected in the number of CEOs, and they are certainly not reflected in the ministerial positions on the other side of this House.This amended legislation will not facilitate an increase in the number of women in these positions. It will go no way towards encouraging any firm in this country to lift their game. It does nothing to create equal opportunity for women. The government's record is appalling in the area of equal opportunity for women and workers in Australia. The government has been very silent on the recently released Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report, Pregnant and productive. The most notable feature of the government's response to the report is its inaction. It has done nothing. If its action in relation to equal opportunity reflects anything, I think we can continue to expect inaction.The report highlights the appalling treatment of women, treatment that has not changed since I was a young woman in the work force. I remember when I applied for a job not long after I had been married the first questions I was asked were, `Will you get pregnant? Are you going to have a child?' Some nine months later I actually became pregnant and very silently left that job because there was that pressure on women. I think that pressure is still there. Unless the government picks up all of the recommendations of that report, that pressure will still be there and will still disadvantage women. It will make sure that pregnancy disadvantages a woman, her family and her career.The government does not understand what equality of opportunity means. It does not understand what it means for workers and people with disabilities, and it certainly does not understand what it means for women. It has no commitment to equality of opportunity for women or any worker who is not part of its elitist clique. Any government that promotes the goal of creating efficiency and effectiveness in the workplace as conducive to creating an environment that will lead to equality in the workplace for women does not have the slightest understanding of the concept. It is a 1950s government that believes a woman's place is in the home. That is why it will not remove the artificial barriers that prevent women competing with men on an equal footing.10:44:0011931Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—What we see in the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 is another example of the coalition government's retrograde steps in policies and programs affecting women. Whether borne out of malice or neglect, the effect is the same. We have seen significant cuts to child care, which have made child care more expensive, especially for the least well off in our community. We have also seen cuts to labour market programs of nearly $2 billion that again affect women trying to re-enter the work force. We have seen cuts to university funding and a higher HECS, and now there is the monster scheme we have heard about in recent days, which may be amended but which would have created—and probably still will in due course—insurmountable debts, and they would fall particularly heavily on women leaving the work force for some period of time to have children.We have also seen threats to universal health coverage, an additional cost to the family budget in this area. We are also about to see the introduction of the GST, which falls heavily on those who are on low incomes, represented by a preponderance of women. We have seen too a combination of income tax and social security changes which mean that women are hit with very high effective marginal tax rates when they attempt to return to work or to increase their hours of work. We have also seen movement around the country under conservative governments to individual workplace agreements, and that has been particularly deleterious to women. The second wave, which is threatened, will leave women even more exposed to the much greater bargaining power that employers have.Part of this government's agenda also has been the threats to single mothers exercising their choice in balancing paid work and family responsibilities—threats to force them into the labour market prematurely. We have also seen an effective neutering of the Office of the Status of Women, if I can use that word in relation to the office. Funding has been halved and the office has been sidelined; its advice is simply not listened to—and we have seen a series of calculated insults to women and women's organisations. I think women are seen by this government as a noisy minority. It is a funny minority—52 per cent of the population.We saw the significant delay in the appointment of a Sex Discrimination Commissioner. We have seen the delay, and then the cancellation, of invitations to key women's groups to roundtable discussions. There are people who are insiders and outsiders with this government. We have seen significant cuts to funding to those community organisations, and the funds have actually gone to groups who can afford to raise funds themselves, like the business and professional women, who have indicated they could quite happily raise the money themselves.We have seen a failure to include a woman, at least one, in the delegation to the ILO conference considering the issue of pregnancy in work force participation. Perhaps not surprisingly, therefore, we saw them support the employers' right to pregnancy test a woman before taking her on as an employee. The fact that it was in breach of our own antidiscrimination laws appears to have escaped them. We have seen some recent publicity about the Prime Minister's confusion of women's netball with hockey and of hockey with cricket. He does not seem to make those mistakes when it comes to men's involvement in sport. All of this shows that the cuts to the Office of the Status of Women and the appointment of a compliant CEO have all had their effect.This legislation further threatens the position of women in the work force by diluting the responsibility of firms to promote equal opportunity in the workplace, by removing the requirement for employers to consult with trade unions and employees on the development of affirmative actions plans—you would have thought that was central really—and by weakening the reporting provisions and any public consequences of failing to perform. It is all to go underground.This legislation and these changes that we have seen to date ignore women's views about what the government should be doing. Surveys around the country tell us that women are much more likely to support government involvement in the economy and community development and that they are more likely to be alarmed at the roll-back of government that we have seen here, and in Victoria most recently, in services like education and health, in contracting out and in the sale of community assets.Women are more likely than men to report that their personal economic situation is worse as a result of four years of a Howard government. In a recent poll on the quality of life undertaken by the Australia Institute, fewer women than men reported that life was getting better—indeed, only 19 per cent of them thought it was. Asked in the same survey what was important in improving the quality of their lives, women indicated that spending more time with family and friends, being under less pressure and being able to do more for the community were more important to them. Women have all experienced the effects of the Howard government policies on our work and family lives.The most significant changes, of course, have resulted from the prescription to deregulate the labour market—we have seen this experiment carried out around the country now—to make the work force more `flexible', to contract out and to privatise the public sector, and all this in the face of the fact that Australia was already the most exposed to market forces of all the OECD countries. As early as 1987, Australia already had a very flexible labour force, with one of the shortest lengths of stay in jobs of any OECD country. Women are the most exposed to these pressures, which are accelerating under the current regime—and there are threats of more.Michael Pusey, as part of his middle Australia project, interviewed 400 of what he called `middle Australians'—people in the work force, people at home, people with families. Of these, 63 per cent said that their incomes and job prospects were falling, half thought that the quality of life was declining generally, and 60 per cent thought that ordinary people—not the elites but the people out there slogging it out—were losers. As Pusey puts it, they were really asking the question: if the economy is up, why is the country down?While the government have been intent on delivering what they call workplace flexibility to management, effectively to improve competitiveness and their profit bottom line, this has often been achieved by eroding many of the working time standards achieved over the last century of struggle within the union movement, and women have typically been at the blunt end of these changes. As the polling I outlined earlier suggests, they are aware of this decline but not always of the reasons for it.We need to understand that both the structure and the number of working hours in Australia have changed profoundly and in a way which disadvantages most workers but particularly women with family responsibili ties. These changes have seriously eroded the time available for recreation and for leisure pursuits that I think are essential to optimum physical and mental health. Many of the changes have also compromised health and safety in the workplace.This so-called flexibility has often failed to deliver the promised balance between work and family life—it has given flexibility to the employer but not to the employee. In fact, it has increased unpredictability for workers, with workers having less control over the hours worked, the shifts and their periods of employment and unemployment. The feelings of helplessness which are engendered in this case are characteristic precursors of illness and depression, and there is a lot of research to show that that is what eventuates. Increased stress levels have been reported in a lot of recent studies and they are not compensated for, by and large, by any proportional increases in income.There is a lot of evidence that women are increasingly having to choose between having a job and having a family: it should not be a choice that they have to make. As a result, the age when a woman has her first child is steadily increasing while her fertility rate is declining. The irony is that this trend is likely to accelerate—indeed, it is accelerating—under the regime of the very government which purports to cherish families and family values. As Australian demographer Professor McDonald points out:Economic policies . . . such as cuts to government expenditure of family services and increased insecurity of employment, tend to depress fertility even further by making family life even less sustainable.It is a warning this government should heed. Of course, this is exacerbated by discrimination, as reported in the HREOC investigation into pregnancy and work. Women are being discriminated against either because they are pregnant or because they might become pregnant, and the government contributed to that in its recent ILO decision. This clearly requires remedy by amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act as outlined by our shadow minister. I think it is worth having a look at how these legislative changes we are talking about today feed into the working time changes that women are experiencing in this country.Our current labour market is characterised simultaneously by high unemployment, especially for older workers, and by overwork for others. We also see increasing numbers of full-time workers working longer and longer hours. A recent survey by the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research found that a third of full-time workers surveyed worked over 49 hours a week. In general, over a third of the total labour force work excessively long hours. On the other hand, a third want more hours and they cannot get them. There has also been a steady increase in the proportion of employees required to take part in shift work, and that is not good for families.A recent survey of the manufacturing and service industry employees commissioned by the ACTU showed that almost half of the nearly 3,000 respondents had undertaken unpaid overtime each week. Other surveys have reported proportions as high as 60 per cent working overtime for free. As a result, for all of those people, there is a reduced connection between hours worked and earning—they simply have to work overtime to keep their jobs. Generally speaking, and this is also true for women, unpredictable, irregular and insecure hours are increasing. One employee in four is now casual—that is up from 15 per cent in the mid-1980s. For women, of course, the rates are even higher, increasing from 28.4 per cent in 1995 to 32 per cent in 1998—a rapid escalation. For many, the hours that are worked are increasingly intense—typically, there are fewer workers to do the same job.In 1995, over 50 per cent of workers reported an increase in the intensity of work over the previous 12 months; they are working harder. They reported that these changes were, for them, creating illhealth, fatigue and a poor quality of working life. This intensification, as the academics are inclined to call it, results from staff cuts and a failure to recruit at appropriate skill levels. In the survey referred to above, the most common perceptions of workers about change in the workplace were that there had been an increase in the amount of work: 65 per cent of them said that. Two-thirds said there was an increase in stress and the pace of work. They did indicate that there was an increase in total pay but that they were working more overtime to achieve it. Overall, a third reported a significant decrease in job satisfaction, a decline in job security and a decline in employee numbers in their workplaces.Together with these observations about change, 56 per cent of employees surveyed said they were concerned—and this is very important for the wider community—that they were unable to provide the right amount of service or the quality of performance because of increases in the workload. They are working harder and producing a lower quality, in their own eyes. They also reported that, with increasing amounts of overtime, they had no time for sports, hobbies, community activities and family life. Women, as a group, are the most susceptible to these forces. All women take part in the paid work force at some time in their lives—whether before they have children, during or after—and they often have to juggle work and family responsibilities so they can support their families and provide for their own and their family's future economic security.Given the recent push for reform of the workplace that we have seen around this country, and I use the word `reform' in inverted commas in many cases, it is timely to examine whether the momentum toward equality in women's wages and conditions that we saw in the 1980s and early 1990s has been maintained. Australia's pay gender gap was, until recently, one of the smallest in the world, second only to the Nordic countries and well ahead of the USA and Japan. Over recent years, changes to state and federal laws have removed many of the measures designed to advance wage equality and protect all workers' conditions. They were deliberately designed to do that. We have been told that individual workplace agreements would enable `greater flexibility' and help us to better balance work and family responsibilities—as I have outlined, that clearly is not the case—and all without making anyone worse off. What is the reality? Unfortunately, data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that women still earn less than men do. Indeed, despite the introduction of equal pay provisions 30 years ago, women earn 66 per cent of the male average.Part of the reason for that gap, obviously, is the higher percentage of women who work part-time—44 per cent of females, up from 26 per cent in 1970, and 13 per cent of males. Even so, when you look at the average full-time female wage, it is $128 a week less than men's—a gap of 16 per cent. That position has deteriorated since this time last year and is getting worse as we speak. In the hospitality industry, there has been a 4 per cent increase in the gap between male and female full-time earnings—11 per cent when overtime is added. We are seeing a deterioration, not an improvement, in that gap. In my own state, which now has the least regulated wages system in the country—courtesy of the conservative government there—women are the worst paid group in the whole of Australia, worse than the female average. Women in Western Australia earn a whopping $300 less than their male colleagues. At the same time, the figures show that 13,000 women left the labour force in January 1999. They simply gave up looking for work. As I found in a survey of my electorate, one of the reasons for this exit is that child-care costs have rocketed and financial assistance has been withdrawn. There is clear evidence that both men and women are working longer and less predictable hours without increased pay. I think it is fair to conclude that there are worrying signs that many of the gains made in the last 30 years since the first successful equal pay case are being eroded. Women are working longer and more fragmented hours, with reduced security of employment and less government support. Their position relative to male workers has deteriorated; the evidence shows that it has. It is time to press governments to pay a lot more attention to equality in the workplace and a fair go for working women. We have heard all the rhetoric but we have not seen any results. Gregory suggests that as Australian incomes become more unequal—and they are—and cash and non-cash benefits are being withdrawn to exacer bate that, the male-female gap will widen, with women on lower incomes likely to come out the worst of all.I want to briefly look at some of the effects of these changes and the intensification of work, not just on the working and family lives of women but on workers generally. Research that I am well aware of suggests that both overwork and unemployment are likely to have very deleterious effects on health. This is not just a matter for the individual; it is a matter for the community. As well as the social and economic effects, sustained unemployment, as we are well aware, has been linked to increases in stress and anxiety and to various health risk factors like smoking, obesity, poor diet and lack of social support. Similarly—and I hope the ministers responsible understand this—the experience of losing a job through so-called outsourcing and downsizing can produce devastating health consequences for both the employees and their partners, and their families are affected as well.There is a lot of evidence as well that fear of unemployment—something that this government uses as a weapon and that is a common feature of contemporary labour markets—is also related to poor health. Of concern to me is the observation that those with the greatest anxiety about unemployment are the ones most likely to avoid visiting doctors and taking care of themselves for fear of missing out on work and therefore losing their jobs. This fear of unemployment is fed by the current economic imperatives of downsizing and contracting out. We are seeing it in one of our major banks at the moment. Media reports of business closures and worker lay-offs, and persistent unemployment and evidence of insecure employment all play a role in this.There is no doubt that there are detrimental effects from unregulated increases in hours worked and shift work. People are not pieces on a chessboard; they react to these changes. A lot of these changes in working conditions include declining occupational health and safety because people are working excessive hours. We see it in the mining industry in Western Australia with bizarre shifts. This results in fatigue, stress, ill health and a sense of isolation. We see a decrease in and degradation of common leisure time; families cannot actually find time to get together. There is less time with others and less capacity for group activities. If you want to see why the community is declining, it has a lot to do with our patterns of work.The reduction in the value of wages—as hours increase without a proportionate increase in wages—means that people have a distinct sense of unfairness about the arrangements. There is a reduction in the premiums paid for unsocial and irregular hours, and this generally underestimates the real costs associated with shiftwork and irregular work. We have seen an increasing encroachment of work into family, community and social life with things like mobile phones and computer link-ups. Of course there is then a corresponding deterioration of the quality of life and civil society. These things are all linked; we cannot ignore those links. We have seen a loss of control by workers as managers assume greater control over the hours of work and shifts and pit workers one against the other.I hope it is clear from what I say that I think it is time for a change. We should not be accelerating these work force changes; we should be moving in the other direction. These trends in our economy and our workplaces are not inevitable. They are about ideology, and they can be modified by sound public policy. They have been in the past and they are being modified in other places. It is also important to recognise that measures which improve the economic status of the least well off, particularly amongst women, which increase employment, reduce inequality and civilise the workplace are likely to produce significant improvements in our society as a whole, and particularly for women and their families.11:04:0011935Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank honourable members who have spoken in the debate on the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 . This bill had its genesis in an independent review of the effectiveness and efficiency of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986. The regulatory review was part of a review of Commonwealth legislation undertaken in order to meet the 1995 competition principles agreement which was put in place by the previous Labor administration. After a process of broad-ranging consultations, the committee developed a comprehensive report on its findings titled Unfinished business: equity for women in Australian workplaces . This bill gives effect to the majority of recommendations made in the report that required legislative amendment.The opposition has criticised the bill and attacked the government's commitment to ensure that women's rights to equal opportunity in the workplace are protected. The opposition refuses to recognise that legislation that is more business friendly and flexible will actually improve equal opportunity for women, because it will be well understood and easier to put in practice at the workplace level.The opposition have proposed delaying the progress of the bill. How serious is the opposition's commitment to equal opportunity when they propose to deliberately delay sensible progress for women and workplaces in achieving equal opportunity? The opposition have clearly signalled that they are not very interested in protecting women at work. Their proposed knee-jerk reaction to implementing the HREOC Pregnant and productive report by delaying the progress of this bill is demeaning to the very cause they purport to support. The Pregnant and productive report contains 46 recommendations and, in my view, they deserve careful consideration. The government will, of course, sensibly and appropriately respond to that report.On the other hand, the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill has been the subject of extensive consultations—including with the advisory board, which has a diverse membership—and is a well thought out, balanced and responsive piece of legislation. It is ready for passage in the parliament. There seems no sensible reason why this particular legislation should be delayed.Unlike the opposition's rhetoric, this bill will secure real and enduring protection and promotion of women's rights in the workplace. The opposition has suggested that the bill will water down the act and reduce the powers of the agency. How can the opposition seriously suggest this, when the sanctions for employers who breach the act will remain the same and include the capacity to name those employers in parliament; when the target audience of the act will remain the same, in that all employers covered by the existing act would be covered by the act after the making of the proposed changes; and when those employers who meet the criteria for having their reporting requirements waived will continue to be covered by the act—and waiving is not to be open-ended but will only be able to be granted for a specified period? The list of employment matters, as the opposition acknowledges, has actually been extended to take in termination of employment, work organisation and arrangements for dealing with sex based harassment.The rating system is not being removed from the legislation. It was never in the legislation to begin with. It was only ever an administrative measure. In addition, the independent review committee reported perceptions that the rating system could be `arbitrary in its application, with no transparent relationship to the requirements of the act'. The disuse of the rating system does not, as the opposition argues, mean that incentives for achievement in this area will be reduced. The agency will continue to publish a list of high achieving employers and to publicly recognise leading practice.The opposition has a short-sighted focus on affirmative action representatives. The opposition appears to confuse the seniority of the officer responsible for equal opportunity with the commitment of a chief executive officer to equal opportunity. The government believes that its amendments, which will enable organisations to integrate equal opportunity with other organisational strategic planning priorities, are a much more effective way of gaining chief executive officer commitment and involvement. The opposition has failed to substantiate this aspect of its claim. We are quite happy to have an open debate about it. But, when you make claims which are simply not right and which are easily refuted, it is only fair for us to assume that you are simply opposing for the sake of opposition.Likewise, how can the opposition seriously suggest that the bill is watering down the act? It is clearly not; and the claims that you have made are clearly refutable by reference to the proposal. Employers are still required to develop workplace programs. The opposition has presented these changes as if they allow free rein to employers to walk away from equal opportunity for women. The government does not want this, nor do most businesses—PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—You are watering it down.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The interjecting continues, but it is clearly not right and, when you put the facts to the shadow minister she just says,` Oh, that's not right.' I am quite happy, Jenny, to debate it with you—10000ACTING SPEAKERMr ACTING SPEAKER—No, no. Debate it through me, please.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I am happy to debate it with you, Mr Acting Speaker; but, quite frankly, you would be prepared to debate it on what we are proposing and not on a figment of the imagination of the shadow minister. All productive businesses recognise that the relationship with their employees is fundamental. What employers require is clear objectives but flexibility in ensuring how those objectives are met in the employer's workplace—and that is what this bill provides. The clear objective will be set out in section 6 of the amended act:Relevant employers will be required to develop and implement a workplace program that is designed to ensure that appropriate action is taken to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women and measures are taken to contribute to achieving equal opportunity for women in relation to employment matters.Further direction is given in section 8 of the amended act and I again ask the shadow minister to read the proposal so that she might understand it. In preparing a workplace program, relevant employers are required to prepare factual information about the employer's work force, analyse the issues that need to be addressed to achieve equal opportunity, take actions in relation to the priority issues and evaluate the effectiveness of actions. Flexibility arises because it is the employer who analyses issues and identifies priorities about what needs to be fixed or improved at the particular workplace. Even the opposition should recognise that these issues can only be effectively identified and implemented at the workplace level.How can it be said that the act is being weakened? The bill will not remove requirements on business to take action to support equal opportunity but it will remove the overly prescriptive approach used in the earlier act and replace it with requirements that will encourage attention to the real issues that are identified at the workplace level. This government is not interested in requiring glossy but ineffective policies. We want to ensure an outcome focused process where genuine issues are addressed and equal opportunity for women becomes a workplace reality.The opposition has chosen to overlook the benefits of our proposed reforms. One benefit for business will be that the programs which are in place and which are ongoing will only have to be reported on biennially. This will reduce the paperwork for business without diminishing the effectiveness of the programs. By only having to report every other year, employers will be able to put more effort into actually implementing the programs at the workplace level. Surely this is an objective even the opposition would accept. However, the opposition has conveniently forgotten that a move to biennial reporting was a key recommendation of the independent review committee's report.While the changes to reporting requirements are less onerous in terms of paperwork, they are no less onerous with respect to the need for organisations to demonstrate actions taken in respect of equal opportunity for women. In addition, the bill provides a safeguard for cases where an employer's report or workplace program appears to be flawed. The agency is entitled to request information from an employer about any aspect of a workplace program or a report or the preparation of a report.Much has been said about the revised provision for waiving employer obligations to report under the act. The provision allows waiver for a specified period if the agency is satisfied that the employer has taken all reasonably practicable measures to address the issues relating to equal opportunity for women in the employer's workplace. This is a balanced legal test using the objective standard of a reasonable employer but recognising that what is practicable for that employer may depend on the constraints and limits arising at a particular workplace. In deciding whether to grant a waiver, the agency can be expected to consider the workplace program that has been developed and to consider the factual issues relevant to each particular organisation.The opposition claims that the powers of the agency are being weakened. These claims are absolutely groundless. Far from reducing the powers of the agency, the bill preserves and strengthens its powers. The director's discretion in relation to evaluating reports for naming and for waiver is retained. Similarly, the discretion to identify best practice companies in the agency's annual report is retained. How is the director's power being reduced? In fact, the bill will broaden the agency's capacity to require information from employers, from after an employer has failed to comply with the act to any stage of the process.In addition, the introduction of biennial reporting will increase the agency's discretion to redirect its resources away from processing forms and towards activities that educate and assist employers with the implementation of equal opportunity for women in the workplace. This is what the agency does best, as the opposition has acknowledged, and where change—both cultural and procedural—can be best brought about. I think that is a sensible approach. It would be in everybody's interests if the opposition took a more constructive attitude to the issues.In recognition of this enhanced role, the government has provided the agency with an additional $700,000 over three years. This funding is supplementary to the agency's existing funding arrangements. Of the $700,000, $310,300 is being provided to implement measures directly related to changes to the legislation, such as the marketing and promotion of changes to the act, the design and dissemination of guidelines to assist employers to comply with the revised requirements of the act and the development of a new optional report form. The remaining $390,000 will fund activities relating to the establishment and support of the new advisory board and to assist the agency in refocusing its activities in the area of education and client service. So how is the agency being weakened? On any reasonable basis, we have maintained the strength of the agency and continued the constructive approach which characterises much of its work.The new Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999 will be capable of delivering substantial gains to women and desirable outcomes for business in an efficient and effective way. The act, of course, does not act alone. Antidiscrimination law at the federal, state and territory level continues to make discrimination in employment unlawful and the Workplace Relations Act 1996 also has a role to play in helping to eliminate discrimination. This bill will assist business in identifying and addressing systemic issues within their businesses that may be working against equal opportunity for women. It will also assist in meeting the government's commitment to cut paperwork for business. The bill is designed to ensure that employers will develop workplace programs that deliver real outcomes in terms of equal opportunity for women. I therefore commend the bill to the House.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Ms Macklin's amendment) stand part of the question.11:21:00The House divided. 0Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth0Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BevisMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr ZahraMr HowardMr BeazleyMr DownerMr McLeayMr ProsserMs Burke* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the bill be now read a second time.11:26:00The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)73Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth61Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BevisMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr ZahraMr HowardMr BeazleyMr DownerMr McLeayMr ProsserMs Burke* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.11940Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Reith) read a third time.Miscellaneous119401194011:29:0011940Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I move:That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Jagajaga moving forthwith:(1) requires the Minister for Health and Aged Care to immediately make available his letter to the Auditor-General requesting him to conduct a probity audit of the 1998 MRI budget decision and, further, requires the minister to ensure that the probity audit be empowered to summons people against their will, obtain documents, require answers under oath, allow cross-examination and investigate the action of the minister and his staff as well as other ministers and staff involved in this scandal;(2) further resolves that, if the inquiry to be conducted by the Auditor-General is not to be provided with these powers, there be established a properly constituted and resourced royal commission to investigate the MRI scan scam.It is critical that this Auditor-General's inquiry begin—WI4REITHMr Reith—The letter has already been provided to the parliamentary committee.Motion (by Mr Reith) put:That the member be not further heard.11:34:00The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)74Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth62Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BevisMr BreretonMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr ZahraMr HowardMr BeazleyMr DownerMr McLeayMr ProsserMc Burke* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.11:38:0011941McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I second the motion—Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That the member be not further heard.Original question put:That the motion (Ms Macklin's ) be agreed to.11:40:00The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)62Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BevisMr BreretonMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr Zahra74Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs WorthMr BeazleyMr HowardMr McLeayMr DownerMs BurkeMr Prosser* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bills11942r92711942Debate resumed from 30 September, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.11:45:0011942Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—As I have predicted to this House before, the GST deal done between the Prime Minister and Senator Lees has produced a dog's breakfast for the so-called new tax system. That deal has delivered a complex nightmare for small business and all businesses in some sectors, particularly the retailing sector. I said when we were dealing with the final passage of the original GST legislation through this House that there would be nothing surer than the fact that the government would be back here seeking many amendments to fix up the dog's breakfast they have created. Today we have a further helping.People should remember that this GST package has already been amended a total of 302 times in 36 different pieces of legislation—those figures according to Chamber Research—but that was done via a slow and tortuous process that lasted weeks, and it involved much toing-and-froing between the houses. It would seem that the government has become a bit more efficient in its amending process, because in this one bill alone, A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 , there are a further 454 amendments—more amending than even it managed through the whole original GST debate. That is 454 amendments in one hit. Incredible but correct! The great new simpler tax system is not three months old and already we have 756 amendments. It is a bit like the Bruce Springsteen song `57 channels and nothing's on'. Today it is Peter Costello's 454 amendments and he still has it wrong. The only difference is Bruce Springsteen is the boss and Peter Costello just wants to be. This bill proposes to fix up hundreds of mistakes and anomalies in the original legislation with 454 amendments. If the government cannot get it right now, how is small business supposed to be able to get it right? How can people plan for their new way of business life under a totally uncertain taxation environment? The answer is they cannot. But it is not just the GST which is full of mistakes; the Treasurer has also mucked up on the luxury car tax, on the wine equalisation tax and on the ACCC's price monitoring powers. Make no mistake: the reason the GST has become such a dog's breakfast for Australian business is the way in which the government went about it—with excessive secrecy and overblown rhetoric.Australian businesses are hoping it will not be the same with business tax reform. We have called for bipartisanship on business tax reform for months now. It is pleasing that the government has finally conceded, at least on the surface, the importance of such an approach. The Treasurer and I had a useful meeting last night. But the truth is that business needs the certainty in its tax arrangements that goes beyond one electoral cycle, and that can be achieved only through support by the only two parties that can form a government. We will see if the government is genuine about trying to reach that agreement.The trouble with business tax reform is that we do not yet have a complete package. We will get legislation for stage 1 tomorrow. How far it goes in relation to the announced items remains to be seen. But the problem is that we do not have stage 2 yet—the government's response to literally hundreds of Ralph recommendations. We will be looking closely at this legislation to see if it passes the test that not only Labor but also the government has set. Labor has said the full response to the business tax package must pay for itself. It must be revenue neutral. As the government's response stands at the moment, it does not pay for itself. What the government calls stage 1 is $3.8 billion short over six years, $2 billion short over four years, on the Treasurer's own admission.However, the package could pay for itself if the government bites the bullet on the hard decisions needed in stage 2. We need more than assurances that it has a `disposition' to take those decisions. We need to know, for example: will the government water down the trusts legislation? Will it put in place general antiavoidance measures to prevent conversion of income to capital gains? And will it act sufficiently on the alienation of personal services income and on the treatment of non-commercial losses? These are all-important policy considerations and integrity measures to underpin the proposed package.If the government does all of these things properly the package could pay for itself and, if it pays for itself, Labor can support it. But we will not be fobbed off by vague promises. We will not accept the proposition that will allow the government to hand out all of the lollies to the business community and sort out how they pay for them later. It cannot just be a wing and a prayer and a `Trust me I am the Treasurer' approach. When has it ever been the case that revenue is counted in the bottom line for measures the government has not yet decided to do? That is why stage 2 is so important—not just what is in it but also when it is announced—because we want the announcements made in time for the Senate inquiry to build those decisions into its investigations. And, finally, we will be carefully scrutinising the stage 1 legislation to ensure that it includes appropriate integrity measures.Returning now to the detail of the bill, it is not feasible to examine each amendment in detail in this speech. There are simply too many of them—454, as I indicated before. The explanatory memorandum runs for 79 pages simply to describe the measures. This was a government that was going to simplify and shorten the tax system. They are the amendments and the explanatory material just from this little number alone.However, I want to touch on a few of the major details that are contained in the proposals. First, in the area of rules for small business, in order to minimise the administrative nightmare that small business is facing—the nightmare on main street, to use the Treasurer's phrase—there will be a special regime for small retailers selling both tax-free and taxable items. This is for the mixed business—what is in, and what is out, including the cooked chook with a thermometer, the bagged lettuce, the canned soup and all of those things.The government is proposing to introduce so-called simplified accounting measures. This is at item 111 of schedule 1 of the bill and is briefly explained at page 25 of the explanatory memorandum. A small business operator can elect to be covered by the system, which simply applies a percentage figure to his or her total sales. This percentage is supposed to be a reflection of the average proportion of sales which are taxable without the need to separately account for each sale. The benefits of such an approach are simplicity and, therefore, a reduction in otherwise unsustainable compliance costs.However, a number of problems still remain with this approach. For example, this system applies only to dealings between the retailer and the Australian Taxation Office. It does not affect the law regarding whether or not a particular item is taxable or non-taxable. All actual pricing of items will have to be on the correct basis—either with GST or GST free. But how will consumers know whether a particular product is subject to the GST? The answer is: they will not, because the Democrats and the government conspired to ensure that they should not know. They together, in doing this dirty deal, took the conscious decision to dud consumers by denying consumers the detail on receipts of the GST component of what they pay.The Democrats and the government deliberately voted down Labor's amendment to give consumers the right to know how much GST they are paying when they purchase their goods and services. They took the position that they have created a nightmare for small business; now they want a nightmare for consumers but they want to hide this nightmare. We will give the coalition members in this House the opportunity to revisit this issue. We want to see how representatives of the coalition government in this House—in particular, those who hold marginal seats—vote when it comes to Labor putting that amendment back up in this House. Having imposed this unfair tax that the majority of Australian people do not want, they now want to hide it. They want to vote down any proposals that seek proper disclosure. We are going to try again to get that disclosure.We opposed the GST, but if you are going to have it you at least ought to be game enough to tell people what they are paying. If you are going to have it, at least tell them the amount that they are incurring each time they go into a shop or a supermarket and each time they have to pay a bill for services. At the moment, they will get no disclosure, because this government does not want it. They want to introduce this so-called fair tax, and then they want to hide it.Mr Hockey interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—We know the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation is getting excited: it is getting close to lunchtime, and that is when he does all his important business. He is on the record as having said that, so I am surprised he is still here wandering around.Mr Hockey interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Oh, he is going to do us over on that. I wait to see it. I am living in fear. I am trembling in my boots. It will be after lunch, Minister?DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Question time!10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the minister will both restrain themselves.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Will we have the so-called simplified system for small business? As is usual from this government, we do not have the rules at all. Having said that they are going to introduce the simplified measures, they do not even lay the rules down in this legislation. Just as the diesel grant scheme was the nightmare on highway 1, just as it was completely unclear in defining the boundaries of the conurbation areas in which this grant does and does not apply—which is a piece of information you would have to accept is vital for truckers and trucking companies in determining whether they have to pay the diesel tax—and just as the previous legislation did not define those boundaries, neither does this legislation define the proportions.The proportions of sales that small business will have to pay GST to the Taxation Office on are not defined in this legislation. It is the same incompetence that is associated with the diesel grants legislation duplicated in relation to small businesses and the proportions they have to pay to the Taxation Office. Apart from this legislation, there will be power—under a new division—for the commissioner to determine those proportions. But the determination, when it is made, is not a disallowable instrument. Understand this point: what may be the most important piece of a regulation under the whole GST mess for many small businesses will not, according to this legislation, be reviewable by the parliament. So much for a government that calls for greater accountability.There will apparently be more than one option for small businesses, but the bill does not say how many there will be. There are also rules about when taxpayers can and cannot elect to use options and when they can and cannot revoke options. This so-called simplified system is very complicated indeed. But we still do not have the crucial details so that our many small retailers and charities can examine whether or not the options suit them. They have more legislation and more complexity to deal with, but they have no greater certainty.On the food anomalies, three specific issues are addressed. First, still water will be GST free irrespective of the packaging in which it is sold. Get this: currently, the legislation—this dog's breakfast of tax—says that bottled still water is GST free but that if that same brand of still water is in a cask it gets the tax. I could be standing here with two glasses of water—essentially the same product—and asking the minister to tell me under their previous legislation which one is taxed and which one is not. This sounds like a very complicated system to me. It is a ridiculous situation in fact.But while that particular anomaly is being addressed—now, if the water comes out of a cask, it does not attract the tax either—there remains another anomaly. Carbonated—bubbly—water, such as soda water, cops the tax under the new tax arrangements whereas the still water is exempt. That is a great simplification. That is the great streamlining that the Treasurer has claimed will be delivered. We will now have to have the bubble meters, together with the thermometers, and the dipsticks for the diesel, to work out when this tax applies and when it does not. What a farce!The second food anomaly that this bill seeks to correct concerns milk. Unprocessed cow's milk is to be made subject to the GST, although processed milk will be GST free. This will put milk processors in a cash flow negative position in the same way that meat processors are already. Dairy farmers will not be penalised in a cash flow sense. However, this means that unprocessed cow's milk will be taxable, while other unprocessed animal milks, such as goat's milk, will be GST free. It is another example of this growing mountain of anomalies that demonstrates that this dog's breakfast of a tax has different rules depending on the type of milk—whether it is processed or unprocessed, whether it is flavoured or not and whether it is for human or animal consumption. This is not simplification; it is a farce.There are literally hundreds of other issues dealt with in the bill. The small business cash accounting threshold is to be increased from $0.5 million to $1 million. This is consistent with the figure announced in the business tax review and is supported by Labor. This will reduce the cash flow disadvantages which can accrue to businesses with a turnover of between $0.5 million and $1 million, but it will not protect those with a slightly higher turnover. They will still face the nightmare of being liable to pay GST on the goods and services they have invoiced to a client where they have not been paid for that invoice. This is a recipe for a cash flow crisis for these businesses.The income tax treatment of GST is `clarified' on pages 49 to 59 of the explanatory memorandum. Some clarification: it takes 10 pages to clarify! This was supposed to be the simple system, but much of it was very complex. The general intention is that the GST should not impact on income tax liabilities for GST-registered taxpayers. The original provisions were supposed to achieve this, but the Treasurer mucked it up, as usual. This point was picked up by tax expert Geoff Lehmann, writing in the Australian some months ago. The point was that the existing provisions are deficient in a number of technical ways. This legislation will hopefully fix them but, given the track record of the government, do not bet on it. They said that the original legislation achieved the objective and they were wrong.But the mistakes do not end there. This government cannot even get the exemptions right. Specifically, as the law currently stands, many health services will be subject to GST. There are technical drafting flaws in the exemptions for medicines which render such supplies as taxable at the moment. The bill claims to address these, but that is what the government said months ago. It does not end there. There are also technical flaws in the medical aids and appliance provisions which have rendered them taxable. A new credit is to be provided for vehicles leased prior to 2 December 1998—that is, when the GST legislation was introduced into the parliament—which are disposed of after the GST commences. This is estimated to cost around $150 million. This is at least partial recognition of the damage that the GST is doing to the leasing industry and to the motor vehicle industry in general. There have been many reports attesting to that fact. I am sure that my colleague the member for Kingston will be elaborating on that issue later in the debate.In addition, the government has been forced to relax the 50 per cent market value test for supported accommodation supplied by charities. The new test will be 75 per cent—that is, only rents 75 per cent or more of market rental will be affected by the GST. Others will be GST free. Labor obviously welcomes this as a small recognition of the harsh treatment that charities and other non-profits get with the GST. It is in this area that the Democrats showed how weak and unprincipled they really were on the GST. They had every card in the negotiations with the government. They were essentially dealt a hand of nine no trumps. They bid six and won one. That is how good they were in the game that they found themselves in. They could not even negotiate any benefits—or rather any lessening of penalty—from the GST for the charitable and not-for-profit sectors. These are not businesses; these are organisations that provide essential community services, even more so these days given the government's cutbacks in vital areas.We saw the impact in Victoria, where a change of government has been confirmed today because the previous government was cutting services everywhere, particularly in regional Victoria, and the electors showed their displeasure. Here the Democrats were in a position to get some relief for these charitable and not-for-profit sectors, but they chose to run dead. As the reality of the impact of this capitulation by the Democrats arrives on the sector, even the Democrats who voted for the deal are starting to realise how dudded they were.Because of the growing concerns of the charitable sector about the impact of the GST, Labor said the other day that it requires a full inquiry, and we will be seeking the support of the Democrats for such an inquiry. The impact of the GST on this sector is going to hit the charitable sector hard, and that means services are going to be hit hard. We need that factor properly inquired into. The diesel experience that the Democrats went through will reinforce those feelings as well, as transport operators come to understand the nightmare that they will inherit. They have to inform the Democrats, just as the charitable sector does, of the impact of their dirty deal.On the question of insurance, item 12 to schedule 5 proposes an amendment to address a technical flaw in the election provisions concerning GST credits associated with insurance. That is on pages 71 and 72 of the explanatory memorandum. The provisions concerning the claiming of credits for GST paid on insurance policies are extremely complex, but they also have a potentially serious trap for the unwary. The claiming of GST credits on insurance policies by small business can lead to significant liabilities for the business concerned if the policy is actually activated, as payouts on the policy will be taxable to the claimant, not to the insurance company.Before the election, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer said to small business, `Don't worry about the GST because you can claim a credit for it.' But they did not tell them that they could potentially face financial ruin if they did so. It has taken the insurance industry to alert their clients to the risks associated with this complex, unfair system. Indeed, insurers are now starting to offer insurance for the potential cost of claiming GST credits. This is the new growth industry from the GST. This is a new service to advise on the horrendous impacts that no-one was ever told about. It is straight out of Monty Python.The final area I want to explore is that of taxes and the imposition of the GST on top of existing taxes. Currently, under division 81, all taxes are subject to the GST unless the Treasurer makes an order to exclude them. The government always try to deny this, but it remains the case. Instead of clarifying what is in and what is out, the bill actually broadens the scope from taxes to also include all fees and charges. It is not just taxes; it is all fees and charges levied by Commonwealth, state, territory or local governments. The real agenda of the government is out. They want to have the power to increase all of the fees and charges, whether large or small, that other governments raise. Of course they will deny it, but that is what this bill gives them the power to do.By definition, imposing a tax on a tax involves tax cascading, which is one of the reasons the government used to justify the GST being introduced. They wanted to stop tax cascading. They have created an environment for the new cascade—waterfalls breaking out all over the country in terms of local charges and levies. There will literally be hundreds of other provisions, many of which are very technical and not easily understood except by experienced technicians.There is one other very serious matter that I want to touch on, and that goes to prices surveillance. There is a serious flaw in the powers of the ACCC to stop anticipatory price rises. The ACCC may monitor all prices throughout the transitional period. However, its enforcement powers with respect to all goods and services other than those where the sales tax has already been reduced do not commence until the GST implementation date—that is, 1 July next year. Therefore, if a business unreasonably raised its prices in anticipation of the GST before 1 July, the ACCC could not exercise its enforcement powers until 1 July next year. Clearly, the horse would have well and truly bolted by then. The proposed amendments will bring forward the date of effect of the ACCC's enforcement so that it can exercise those powers immediately. (Time expired)12:15:0011947Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It was interesting, but not terribly illuminating, to hear the member for Hotham's speech on the new tax system legislation. He mentioned Bruce Springsteen and the Treasurer. One of Bruce's songs was about a working-class man, and the honourable member makes pretensions of being the real working-class man, but it is this side of the House that is in fact looking after the working man, that is providing the tax cuts they are all applauding and that is changing our tax system to provide the reforms for an efficient economy and for a private sector which will be able to operate without the complexities of the wholesale sales tax.The member for Hotham has the audacity to come into the House and criticise some changes we have made in response to the community. As concerns are raised and as issues need to be addressed, we are refining the taxation system. But the reality is that, if you look at the changes that were made to the wholesale sales tax, these changes were in fact minuscule in comparison. These address some of the valid concerns that have been brought to the Treasurer. I am sure that every member of the House would applaud the fact that the government is listening to those concerns and making the changes.Questions were raised by the shadow Treasurer in relation to tax cascading and tax on tax. One of the great advantages of a GST is that you will remove the whole question of tax on taxes, which is one of the distorting factors in the current system. This is the system in which those provisions of tax on taxes will be removed. It is effective, and I am not quite sure what he is proposing. In his criticisms, he is saying, `We want to avoid any possibility that this could happen'—when clearly he is saying it will not—`by keeping this amazing system that we currently have, which is often a tax on a tax on a tax.' These proposals are very sensible and logical and will make the GST even more effective.Criticisms were made of the changes. The opposition did have the opportunity to join with the government to make changes that they saw as necessary; instead it was the Democrats who took that opportunity. If they have criticisms now in terms of the arrangements that were made, it is a bit too late—the horse has bolted. They stand as an aside to the whole process; they are totally irrelevant and constantly criticising. All they can do is criticise. They have bagged the whole concept right from the start and they have criticised anything that has been put up.It is very rare to hear the opposition support anything—everything is criticised because it goes to the whole crumbling edifice of saying that there is something wrong with the GST when the debate has moved on. The community has accepted it. Obviously there will be debate about various aspects of the implementation of it, and that is only appropriate when there are such significant and far-reaching reforms as we have seen. They are the most significant changes to the tax act for some 50 years, so it is appropriate that we make some minor changes to keep it in line with community expectations. These issues have been brought forward, and we believe the amendments are necessary.As small business and community groups get to know the requirements of the exemptions and of bringing forward their suggestions, the great majority of small business will not have any problems complying with them—80 to 90 per cent of businesses will deal only with the basic provisions. The special provisions contained in this bill which have been designed to fit certain industries will not be hard for people operating in those industries to understand. Obviously, the amendments that are contained in this bill are appropriate to that particular sector.A charity supplying accommodation will not be concerned with the wine equalisation tax. A car lessor will not be concerned with unprocessed cows milk being subject to a GST. But those people involved in the sectors for whose benefit these amendments have been brought do not find their particular section difficult to understand. Now that the Australian people have rejected Labor's outdated tax system, it is appropriate that they should focus on the aspects of the GST.One of the important aspects mentioned in this bill is charities. There are some changes in terms of the way in which the ANTS bill will operate, and the bill also contains a number of provisions relating to charities. The bill identified which charities would be tax exempt and how they would apply for that status through the Australian business number registration system. So only those charities which are mentioned in the act will be subject to it. They have to apply for that registration, and then those donations will be tax deductible.A charities consultative group, with the agreement of the Australian Democrats, has been set up to oversee the new taxation system and how it will affect the charities. It will make sure that charities are not disadvantaged overall. The Vos report, which looked hard at the general impact on charities, and the recommendations that were made by David Vos, who is a senior tax partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers, have been very much accepted by the charities operating in Australia.In terms of the way in which the charities operate, part of the coalition's social policy is about contracting out, wherever possible, the requirements that government has undertaken in the past but which could be more appropriately handled by charities. They are very much part of the mainstream in terms of the administration of welfare across-the-board. The bill will extend the definition of non-commercial suppliers of residential accommodation by charities. For organisations providing emergency accommodation to receive a tax benefit, they need charge only 75 per cent of the market value. The government realised that a 50 per cent requirement was too restrictive and would rule out many worthwhile groups.The measure only applies to non-commercial supply of residential accommodation by charities, because the client income base contributions associated with residential accommodation are often only marginally above the current 50 per cent market value test. To not meet this test would make the supplier's input taxed as residential rents or taxable as commercial accommodation for some boarding houses, which would significantly increase compliance costs. This is an important measure which will reduce compliance costs while maintaining the principle that all commercial supplies should be subject to GST. The 50 per cent market value test remains for other non-commercial supplies.The next aspect I want to refer to is the question of preventing unfair price rises. Of course, part of the legislation provides the ACCC with the ability to review prices across-the-board and to impose significant penalties where it is clear that the implementation of the GST is being used by companies, both large and small, to exploit the opportunities for price rises that are not justified in terms of the introduction of the GST. Penalties of up to $10 million are provided for those who are clearly rorting the system and misusing the introduction of the GST for an increase in profitability of their operation.Under the ANTS legislation, the ACCC can take action, and undoubtedly will take action in the future. The government has done its utmost through seminars across Australia and through booklets, ATO visits and support to ensure that there is little confusion in the community as to how the GST should be implemented. Those who deliberately try to profiteer will be penalised as a result of actions taken. The ACCC can issue a notice asking a company to explain their pricing policies under section 75AX. The commission can specify the maximum price the business can charge, but it will be up to the Federal Court to issue a penalty of up to $10 million for corporations or $500,000 for individuals who abuse the system.Some concerns have been expressed, in this period before the GST is implemented, about signs going up saying that, due to the introduction of the GST, prices will go up as of 1 November—by seven per cent, 10 per cent or whatever. Clearly, that is not justified on any basis. It is about exploiting that opportunity to increase their profit base. This is unacceptable to the government, it is unacceptable to the community, and appropriate penalties will be introduced. To put the issue beyond any doubt, the government will amend the Trade Practices Act to ensure that the ACCC, in addition to its post 1 July 2000 powers, will have powers to take immediate action in respect of any unreasonable price rises before 1 July 2000. So companies are very much put on notice that there is to be no price gouging, and this will certainly be of great benefit to the Australian consumer.The next important aspect is helping business—particularly small business—operate with a mixture of tax systems. For small businesses that have some items which attract a GST and others that are GST-free, the problems of compliance will add to the difficulties of their operating. Therefore, the government will provide special rules so that the Commissioner of Taxation will be able to determine alternative, simpler methods of calculating GST liability for retailers selling such goods. For example, we know that the average corner store has a mixture of goods—whether it is sandwiches, which attract the GST, or fruit and vegetables, which do not, or confectionery, which does, or whatever. This is about providing an easy away of determining the general GST liability. I think that is appropriate. It will simplify the system. It will enable the average small retailer to go about their business without undue burden from compliance.There is also a clarification in this bill of the definition of wine products so that the wine equalisation tax extends, as was intended, to fruit or vegetable wines and grape products such as wine cocktails, flavoured wines and a range of cream drinks. Of course, the wine equalisation tax amendments ensure that there is no windfall gain to suddenly increase the consumption of alcohol in Australia through wine being given special assistance in these measures.There are a range of sensible measures in this bill which indicate that the government is listening to the community and which are in line with the overhaul of the taxation system. Several things are very clear. The first is that the government is listening to the community and making these changes. The second is that, at the end of the day, we will have an efficient tax system which will provide the most significant reforms in taxation that this country has ever seen, and will receive community support. Not only will it provide for a new way of taxing, which will include in the net the service area; it will also provide significant reductions for exporters. It will provide significant reductions in the cost of cars, for example, which, for the average household, are a major expenditure. It will provide real incentives to employees by way of tax cuts and tax changes so that 80 per cent of the community will pay no more than a 30c tax rate. It will abolish some of the inefficient taxes such as BAD and FID and the bed tax.These tax changes will be welcomed in the Australian community and in the business community. They will do much to stimulate economic growth and development in this country for the longer term. They will provide the basis to service the social security needs in this country. They will provide a system that is more easily understood which will not provide the distortions of the current system and of the wholesale sales tax system, with its many variations, inequities and unfairness. I support the provisions in this bill. They indicate a government that is concerned about economic efficiency and a better tax system and also one that responds to the needs of the community.12:30:0011950Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 is an extraordinary bill. It is designed to fix up hundreds of mistakes and anomalies in the original GST legislation—that legislation that we were told would give us all a simpler tax system. In fact, if we look at schedule 1, it has 255 amendments, schedule 2 has 32 amendments, schedule 3 has 93 amendments, schedule 4 has four amendments, schedule 5 has 10 amendments, schedule 6 has 14 amendments, schedule 7 has 20 amendments and schedule 8 contains 26 amendments. All up, the government has before us 454 amendments, and you have to ask: when is it going to stop? I invite the government to tell the House when they think they have got their GST legislation correct. My colleague the member for Rankin has taken to referring to the new simplified tax system by weight of the legislation, so it is certainly not giving us simpler legislation.It is certainly not possible to examine legislation of this character in detail, because the explanatory memorandum alone takes some 79 pages simply to describe the changes. We hear rumours that the government intends to gag debate on this legislation and that would be a matter of great concern. We have 454 amendments and 79 pages in the explanatory memorandum and we may not get the opportunity to debate it in any detail.Let me come to some of the things that are more significant in this legislation. The first are the provisions dealing with small business. In order to do something to address the administrative nightmare that the GST unquestionably will be for retailers selling both tax-free and taxable items—for example, shops selling food and beverages—the government is proposing to introduce simplified accounting measures. Under these so-called simplified accounting measures a small business operator can elect to be covered by a system which simply applies a percentage to his or her total sales. The percentage is supposed to be a reflection of the average proportion of sales which are taxable without the need to separately account for each sale. The benefits of that approach would be simplicity and we would hope for a reduction in what are going to be otherwise horrendous compliance costs.Nevertheless, there are some problems with this approach. The system only applies to dealings between the retailer and the tax office. It does not affect the law regarding whether or not a particular item is taxable or non-taxable. All pricing of items will have to be on the correct basis and there could be a problem here if some businesses decide to apply the GST to all sales and seek to reap a windfall by only remitting the proportion determined by the so-called simplified accounting measures. This is one of the reasons why Labor endeavoured to ensure that consumers would be protected by separately identifying the GST on receipts so that consumers would know exactly what they were paying by way of GST. It is something that we want to pursue again when we get this bill into its committee stage. Putting a similar GST percentage across industries assumes that all retailers have the same profit margins on similar goods. That is just plain wrong and it would therefore benefit some retailers at the expense of others.Once again, the legislation does not actually provide the detail to small business about what the percentages will be for separate industries. Indeed, it does not give us the definition of what the industries will be. It simply sets up a framework for the tax commissioner to issue such a determination. The determination is not, as things stand, to be a disallowable instrument and that is an issue that might be pursued either here or, indeed, potentially in the Senate. Once again, with the GST legislation we see the government not providing the sort of detail that businesses actually need in order to go about conducting their businesses.Some of the comments concerning the impact of the GST on small business as it gets closer and small businesses are faced with the implementation of it are quite instructive. For example, the National Tax and Accountants Association has said:Confusion reigns supreme as businesses attempt to calculate their new pricing policy under the GST . . . Mr Ray Regan, the President of the National Tax and Accountants Association, says:Small businesses are in the worst position. Large businesses can obviously afford to pay for economic modelling to help them estimate their cost savings, but small businesses cannot.He goes on to point out that:The cost savings estimates published by the Government in its ANTS are now no longer relevant. When the savings estimates were published by the Government, 10 taxes were to be abolished once the GST was introduced. The problem is that the savings estimates fail to consider that 8 out of the 10 taxes will still apply once the GST is introduced.Mr Regan points out:. . . this means the savings models provided by the Government are WRONG and cannot accurately be relied upon by businesses anymore!He says:. . . small businesses are crying out for help from the Howard Government because they want to do the right thing but there is no cost effective way for them to do it. Similar concern on behalf of small business has been expressed by the Certified Practising Accountants who recently conducted a small business survey which was released in the October edition of the CPA journal. The survey was conducted in Melbourne, as well as in some other cities, but they reported their Melbourne results. They indicated from this survey that many Melbourne based small business operators are overestimating their GST readiness and are, indeed, quite unprepared for the introduction of the new tax. Some 47 per cent of small businesses said they felt GST ready; nevertheless, key operational elements of the GST have not yet been announced and there is a lack of educative information. Kerrie Clayton, the small business adviser for the CPA, says that while half the businesses surveyed nationally said they were ready for the GST, that figure conflicts with the number of businesses which have actually sought advice, undertaken a review of their business operations, taken staff training into account or allocated funds. Small businesses are expressing some concern about the GST and its impact on them. Some 72 per cent of small businesses surveyed nationwide have not as yet spent any money in their preparations for the GST. For those that have spent money preparing for the GST, the national average was $553, with the Melbourne average almost double that at $1056.The survey indicates that some 49 per cent of businesses did not know what their estimated total expenditure to get their business GST ready was going to be. For those that could give an estimate, average expected expenditure to get business GST ready was $2,618. Once again, some 48 per cent of businesses could not estimate how much time they will spend getting ready for the GST. For those that could give an estimate, the average time they expected to spend to become GST ready was 64 hours. They further say that some 72 per cent of businesses believe that there will be some staff training required for the GST.That is something of the background of the effect of implementation of the GST on small business. In terms of giving even more of a backdrop to the problems facing small busi ness in this area as they endeavour to prepare for the GST, it is regrettable that the government has done so little by way of supporting small business in the GST area and in preparing them for the implementation of the GST, because small business really is doing it tough and finding the environment increasingly competitive and increasingly difficult. I regret that the best that the government seems to be able to do is to come into the House today with a bill of some 454 amendments and say to small business, `Here are some more amendments that we want you to deal with.' As an example of the background of difficulties that small businesses face, I draw to the attention of the House the present situation in the Healesville community, where Coles Myer has given very generous terms to Australia Post to remove its post office from the place where it presently is, in the main street of the town, and take it along to the Coles Myer redeveloped area. Of course, securing the Healesville Post Office as a key tenant increases the resale value of that complex when the Coles Myer property development is put up for sale. Nevertheless, it is a move regarded by the Healesville people as anti-community and anti-rural Australia and as a sign that Australia Post is turning its back on a community that has funded it for generations and that, instead of allying itself with the small businesses in the main street of Healesville, it is allying itself with a large and powerful chain, to the detriment of the local community.This has been a matter of concern to the Healesville Chamber of Commerce and Industry. We had Bob Treller from that chamber saying that if this leads to empty shops in the main shopping strip, this will be very bad for the town and have a ripple effect on the town, with small traders struggling as a result. Originally we saw Coles Myer say, back in February of this year, that in developing this project the company would be looking at growth potential under existing circumstances and not at the expense of established businesses. What they then went on to do was to poach one of the most longstanding of established businesses, Australia Post—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—The honourable member for Wills does seem to be drifting away from the subject matter of the bills before the House.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do think that this is an important backdrop, because it helps us to understand the sorts of problems that small businesses are facing in towns like Healesville, as they prepare for the introduction of the GST. I note your ruling, and I conclude on this area by expressing concern that Australia Post has been unwilling to listen to the views of local Healesville residents, some 300 of whom marched recently against what Australia Post has been doing, and they have not accepted Australia Post's compromise proposal for a licensed post office in the main street. They think that may indeed even lead to the end of their post office full stop, and be privatisation by stealth. That is something that the Healesville community is rejecting. I hope that the government, through Australia Post, is prepared to revisit this issue and do the right thing by the Healesville community.A second issue which is addressed in this legislation concerns what might best be described as food anomalies. The first of those is that still water will be GST free, irrespective of the packaging in which it is sold. Currently, the legislation specifies that only bottled water is GST free, making water in a 4-litre cask subject to tax. This is an absolutely extraordinary situation where, if the still water is in a bottle, no GST is applicable but, if the water is in a cask, it is subject to GST.A second anomaly concerns unprocessed cow's milk. This is to be made subject to GST. On the other hand, processed milk will be GST free. This puts milk processors in a negative cash flow position, in the same way that meat processors are. This means that unprocessed cow's milk will be taxable but that other unprocessed animal milk, such as goat's milk, will be GST free. I point this out as simply yet another of the anomalies in the GST.The third food issue which is being dealt with in the legislation is the fact that in order to obtain GST-free status for food the food will now have to be for human consumption. So, for example, meat bought from a butcher to give to a dog would be taxable, even though that same food would be GST free if bought for human consumption. This is an extraordinary situation. We have the Treasurer intending to make meat bought from a butcher for the family dog subject to the GST when the same meat bought for human consumption will not be subject to the GST. I want to ask the Treasurer: is it now his intention that giving Fido scraps under the table will constitute tax avoidance? Is it now not the case that not only is the GST a dog's breakfast but that the dog's breakfast has become subject to the GST? I think it is an extraordinary state of affairs that, once again, demonstrates the anomalies we have found developing within the GST.In terms of other major items in this bill, the small business cash accounting threshold is to be increased from $0.5 million to $1 million. This is consistent with the figure announced in the business tax review. The income tax treatment of GST is clarified—I use that term advisedly; much of this is very complex—to the extent that GST should not impact on the income tax liabilities for GST registered taxpayers. The original provisions were supposed to achieve this but are deficient in a number of technical ways.There are a number of other significant areas of the legislation that I want to touch on briefly. One concerns powers being given to the ACCC to monitor prices going up before the introduction of the GST. In the original legislation the ACCC had no power to stop anticipatory price rises. This is naturally a matter of concern because, if you have the ACCC's powers with respect to goods and services not commencing until the GST implementation date of 1 July next year, it would be in the situation where it could not do anything about businesses unreasonably raising their prices in anticipation of the GST.This draws to my mind an issue I have taken up with the ACCC concerning advertising in advance of the GST. In August I happened to notice a sign in Brisbane at a Volvo car dealer's, Volvo Austral Motors, saying `Beat the GST'. Most people in this House will be aware that not only are car prices not supposed to rise as a result of the GST; they are supposed to fall as a result of the GST—or at least as a result of the departure of wholesale sales tax. So it was my concern that that advertising might be misleading, deceptive and foul of the provisions of the Trade Practices Act. Accordingly, I wrote to the ACCC drawing this issue to their attention.They responded to me saying that they had discussed the issue of introduction of goods and services tax and that Volvo had responded that they had made a commercial decision to pass on savings resulting from the impending tax change to consumers prior to the introduction of the goods and services tax. So consumers who purchase a Volvo now rather than after 1 July 2000 will not be any worse off, as the price has already been reduced to reflect savings resulting from the tax change. That is all very well—and we all welcome Volvo's doing that—but that does not justify a sign saying `Beat the GST'. Words like `Beat the GST' imply that motor vehicle prices will rise after the GST comes in. It is not sufficient support for such a claim to be able to say that prices will not fall. So I certainly do not accept that the statement `Beat the GST' is an accurate one. I would still contend that it is misleading and, on that basis, I have pursued this issue further with Professor Fels and the ACCC. I hope that the ACCC uses the powers that are available to it and that are given to it in this legislation concerning anticipatory price rises to make sure that this is not an area which is abused. I know a lot of people have been expressing concern to me that prices have been going up in various places in anticipation of the GST, as some people seek to recover GST costs in advance.The other area I mention in the remaining moments concerns claiming of credits for GST paid on insurance policies. This may emerge as a significant issue over time. The Insurance Council and the insurance industry have been subject to ACCC monitoring, and I know from discussions with the insurance industry that it has a great many concerns about how the government has approached insurance policies and the calculation of their GST liability.In conclusion, it is extraordinary that the government has to come into the House with some 454 amendments to its GST legislation. We hope rather than expect that this will be the end of it. (Time expired)12:50:0011954Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—This A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 contains measures that will ensure that the new tax system will better serve the people of Australia. As well as minor policy and technical amendments, this bill makes a number of significant amendments concerning the fairer implementation of the GST. This bill is indicative that this government is listening to the community and interest groups and is prepared to implement measures to address various concerns when such concerns can fairly be accommodated in the overall reform program.We are living in a time of rapid change, and our tax system must equip Australians for the coming decades, not simply respond to those that have passed. The new tax system will come into effect in July next year, and it has been designed to do just that. This historic reform was not simply an incremental change but a giant leap forward to catch up with the forces placed upon us by globalisation and to take a competitive Australia into the 21st century. The tax reform undertaken by this government was never for the faint-hearted but for those who have the courage to take on a challenge of major proportions. That probably explains why it was left to a coalition government to implement and why the opposition has fought this reform at every turn.Inherent in every reform measure are considerable challenges, and a responsible government should allow a certain flexibility of response. I am pleased to see that our government has moved quickly to consider informed opinion and constructive suggestions that have come from industry and state government and has made adjustments to help smooth the path to the new system which will follow. For that reason, I anticipate that these amendments will receive a positive response across the broader community. This will be especially so among small businesses, Australian exporters and primary producers, including the producers of grape wine and cider products and the providers of charitable residential accommodation.The amendments do contain some bad news—bad news, that is, for any unscrupulous businessmen who undertake unreasonable price rises before 1 July 2000. This government is concerned that there be no opportunity for Australian families to be unfairly charged increased prices because of the introduction of the GST. One of these amendments will bring forward the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's price exploitation enforcement power. This will arm the ACCC and enable it to take immediate action against those who would seek to cheat their fellow Australians and use the tax change as a cover for a price rip-off or to make a quick dollar. This amendment is important if consumers across Australia are to have confidence in the impact of the introduction of the new tax system, and I am sure that it will gain support in the wider community. Certainly consumers in my electorate will appreciate in this amendment measures which will assist in the protection of their interests and which will implement these important measures as the government intended.The amendments will also be well received by retailers who supply a mix of taxable and exempt food products. One of the amendments allows for the new special rules under which the Commissioner of Taxation will be able to determine alternative methods—such as retail schemes—of calculating the goods and services tax liability. This will reduce compliance costs for many small businesses. It will simplify accounting methods—which, again, will lead to reduced compliance costs. These measures will go a long way towards alleviating the concerns of some constituents who have had apprehensions about the compliance costs of the new tax system and their ability to absorb such costs.Australian exports are vital to Australia's high standard of living and underpin our assurance that we will be able to maintain our high living standard and be able to continue to deliver to our future generations. Our export potential underpins our confidence in our future ability to prevail as a successful nation. Another of the amendments in this bill will ensure that exports are GST free when ownership of goods passes to an overseas purchaser who is not registered or required to be registered before the goods are exported free on board. This amendment will be good news for Australian exporters, who must fight hard for a share of sales in a highly competitive international marketplace.Other supporters of this bill will be the producers of grape wine and cider products. The amendments provide for greater clarity in the definition of wine products so that wine equalisation tax extends, as it was intended, to fruit or vegetable wines and grape wine products, such as wine cocktails, flavoured wines and Irish style cream drinks. These amendments will also ensure that private importations of wine are subject to the wine equalisation tax.In the long and arduous debate that has led to the introduction of the new tax system, the government was often accused of heartless intentions with regard to charities and the people who depend on their services. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mindful of the concerns of many charitable organisations, the government established a charities consultative group to assist in clarifying the effect of the GST on the charity sector and to develop Taxation Office rulings well in advance of the introduction of the new tax system.This government has listened to representations from the charities sector and in this amendment introduces the definition of non-commercial supplies of residential accommodation by charities. This will include supported accommodation and community housing. The market value and cost supply tests will be expanded for the non-commercial supplies of residential accommodation by charities from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. It will have the added benefit of reducing compliance costs while maintaining the principle that all commercial supplies should be subject to the goods and services tax.This bill also clarifies what are assessable income and allowable deductions in certain circumstances. The goods and services tax received from customers when making taxable supplies will not be assessable income, but any decreasing adjustments arising under division 129 or 132 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act will be assessable income. Goods and services tax creditable as an input tax credit will not be deductible for income tax purposes. Any increasing adjustments arising under these divisions will be deductible to the extent the underlying activity is not of a private or domestic nature.Currently, the legislation allows businesses to choose to claim an input tax credit on their business insurance premiums at the end of a quarterly or monthly tax period. These amendments will allow businesses the option to elect to claim the input tax credit at the time of registration or, subsequently, at the time of lodging the business activity statement. This legislation also provides that a full input tax credit is available provided a business's annual turnover of financial supplies does not exceed the $50,000 or five per cent rule. This amendment also intends to make it clear that in working out the value of the supply of a loan of money the principal amount of the loan is excluded.There is some good news in this amendment for the constituents of my electorate, because these measures also allow GST-free status for first aid and lifesaving courses. In my electorate I have a significant number of lifesaving groups and people who are interested in resuscitation. I refer particularly to the Sutherland Shire resuscitation committee, which is conducting courses now, as the swimming season is upon us. This news means that section 195 of the goods and services tax act includes first aid or lifesaving courses as education courses. That section allows for such courses to be GST free under section 38-85.However, under the legislation the GST-free status is currently limited to courses which provide training in lifesaving and resuscitation and which are provided by non-profit bodies. These restrictions exclude such activities as lifesaving and education and training, lifesaving safety and aeromedical retrieval and rescue training from being provided on a GST basis. They also mean that courses in lifesaving and resuscitation offered by profit bodies are subject to GST. This approach is inconsistent with that taken more generally through the goods and services tax act where the focus is on the activity undertaken. Item 143 appeals the definition of the first aid or lifesaving course and substitutes a new definition which includes surf lifesaving and aeromedical rescue. Item 144 will bring profit bodies into the ambit of these entities able to offer first aid or lifesaving courses on a GST basis by omitting `non-profit' from the definition of first aid or lifesaving courses. That will be welcome news.Not only has this government the vision and determination and commitment to tackle the huge task to modernise the Australian tax system but these amendments testify to a government that is prepared to listen and to consider the opinions and concerns of its constituents. These amendments also show that our government can tackle those concerns in a sensitive and flexible manner, acting quickly when justifiable reasons emerge for adjustments and finetuning. I am sure that many of these amendments will be welcomed by consumers in small business enterprises and other key groups within the Australian community, especially in my electorate of Hughes. I commend this bill to the House.13:01:0011956Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 contains 454 amendments. I have tallied up the amendments that have been made to date to the GST legislation. There are 302. In total, the streamlined new tax for the new century—here it is—contains 756 amendments, and this is the streamlined new tax for the new century!Motion (by Mr Hockey) put:That the question be now put.13:06:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr F.W. Mossfield)76Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth62Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr AndrenMr BevisMr BreretonMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr ZahraMr HowardMr BeazleyMr DownerMr McLeayMr ProsserMs Burke* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.11957Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.13:10:0011957Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 to 5:(1) Schedule 1, Part 1, page 12 (after line 13), after item 43, insert:43A After section 29-80Insert:29-90 Tax receiptsWhen a business provides a consumer with a receipt or docket issued in respect of a taxable supply the receipt or docket must separately include: (a) the price of the goods or services excluding the GST; (b) the amount of the GST; and (c) the total price including the GST.(2) Schedule 1, Part 1, page 26 (after line 16), after item 111, insert:111A Subsection 126-10(1)Omit after the words from and including " total monetary prizes is the sum of:" to and including "(whether or not the supplies takes place during the tax period).", substitute: total monetary prizes is the sum of *monetary prizes you are liable to pay, during the tax period, on the outcome of *gambling events (whether or not any of those gambling events, or the *gambling supplies to which the monetary prizes relate, took place during the tax period).(3) Schedule 1, part 1, page 26 (after line 16), after item 111, insert:111B Section 126-32Repeal the section.(4) Schedule 1, part 1, page 28 (after line 14), after item 121, insert:121A Subparagraph 165-5(1)(c)(ii) omit "the principal effect", substitute " a principal effect".(5) Schedule 1, Part 1, page 28 (after line 14), after item 121, insert:121B Subparagraph 165-5(1)(d)(i)omit "2 December", substitute "13 August".The circumstances in which we find ourselves in the consideration in detail stage ought to be understood as the Treasurer scurries from this chamber after having just congratulated his deputy minister, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, on the sham and the shonk they have perpetrated on this parliament this morning. We have 454 amendments to their GST bill, to the dog's breakfast of a tax, and they have allowed less than 130 minutes to debate them—that is, 20 seconds an amendment. What a disgraceful performance from a government that says it wants greater accountability.There was no mention to the opposition of their intention to gag this debate. There was no indication to me leading this debate on our side that that was their intention. In fact, my office got an indication that this was the intention only whilst I was on my feet during my speech in the second reading debate. This is unheard of in this place, and it goes to show the extent to which this government will go to hide the details of this unfair tax.One of the amendments that I have just moved seeks again to get this House to consider a requirement that if we are going to get the GST it should not be hidden. At the moment the government has said that it wants to get rid of hidden taxes and that that is what the GST will replace. The problem is that the way its legislation has been introduced the amount of the GST will be hidden. We have moved an amendment in this place that all receipts should show the amount of GST that a person pays whenever they make a purchase. We know that every time people go into a shop, into a supermarket, Peter Costello's and John Howard's hands will be there in their pockets taking 10 per cent of almost everything purchased, but they do not want to put that on the receipt.The amendments that they are putting here today create an environment in which small businesses can have a proportionality determined for the purposes of what they pay the tax office—not in terms of what individuals know they are paying GST on but in terms of what the small business pays. `We have not got detail of the proportionality, but certainly there is no requirement in this for consumers to know what they are paying.' They have been dudded. Just as small business has been dudded by this tax, consumers in particular have been dudded. So the amendments that we have moved seek to put before this House again a requirement that if we have this tax its details should be disclosed on all receipts.We will see how members sitting opposite who hold marginal seats—and I see the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, Mr McGauran, sitting opposite, who after the Victorian election is getting very close to a marginal seat—Government members interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Quite safe in Gippsland, is it? Ask him. Who represents Gippsland now in the parliament? It is an independent; it is not the government, this invincible government of Jeff Kennett. It was a massive vote against that government. Mr McGauran is the minister from Gippsland. He is a minister who has been complicit in imposing a 10 per cent tax on just about everything you buy, but he wants to hide it. Well, we will be campaigning down in his seat outside supermarkets and outside shops, saying: what is Peter McGauran hiding from you? Having intro duced this brave new vision of a tax, why does he want to hide it?And we will not be stopping with you, brother. We will be doing it with every marginal seat in this parliament, because whilst you think that this issue has died it has not. The consequences of this GST still have to be felt. They will be felt when people have to pay this insidious, unfair tax from 1 July next year, when businesses between now and then have to expend fortunes without knowing what compensation they will get, if any, from the government to implement compliance procedures. They have already had to go through such an exercise with the Y2K, and they have copped it again with the GST. We will be requiring every member in this House to stick up their hand as to whether they want to hide it, and we will campaign against them on that basis. (Time expired)13:15:0011958Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—We are not going to cop the rantings and ravings of the member for Hotham on this issue. Why don't you apologise to the people of Australia for not disclosing wholesale sales tax? Why don't you apologise to the people of Australia for all the wholesale sales tax that the Labor Party put in place over a number of years at six different rates—zero per cent, 12 per cent, 22 per cent, 32 per cent, 41 per cent, 45 per cent? Why didn't the Labor Party ever have that disclosed by business? I will tell you why: because the Labor Party knows, as we know, that the additional cost to business of displaying two prices is intolerable. So the hypocrisy of the member for Hotham, the hypocrisy of the Labor Party, have yet again come to the fore as Labor members come into this House and talk about transparency.Where was the transparency on wholesale sales tax? Where was it? All those who believe that wholesale sales tax was transparent put up your hand—not one hand. What a surprise! There are six different rates of wholesale sales tax going up to 45 per cent and the Labor Party, for 13 years in government, never once tried to have a proper display of prices in relation to wholesale sales tax. QI4PRICEMr Price—Why would you? It is wholesale, not retail.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—The member for Chifley interrupts and says, `Why would you?' Well, you are sitting next to the member for Hotham—ask him. Whisper in his ear—instead of blowing in it, whisper in it. Ask him why he did not disclose it for 13 years. Was it coming in the 14th year or the 15th year?Already the humour has started to filter into the Labor Party about Victoria. Already they are crowing about their magnificent victory in Victoria. Well, we will wait and see how Steve Bracks copes with a hung parliament, how Steve Bracks copes with a hostile upper house. We will wait and see when the bad old days of Labor mismanagement of the economy start coming home to the people of Victoria. And here is another example of the hypocrisy of the Labor Party in opposition. In opposition they say one thing and in government they do another.Let's talk about transparency again. Let's go back to that favourite theme of the Labor Party—transparency. Let's get them to explain why they did not tell the people of Australia about the increase in wholesale sales tax on products from 10 per cent to 12 per cent, from 20 per cent to 22 per cent. They come in here again and talk about compensation for tax increases. The Labor Party are masters of compensation; I do not recall any compensation package put in place by the Labor government when they increased wholesale sales taxes from 10 per cent to 12 per cent, from 20 per cent to 22 per cent, from 30 per cent to 32 per cent. Where was the compensation for everyday Australians in that? There was none—none at all.So in yet another great example of hypocrisy in comes the member for Hotham ranting and raving in his usual fashion, playing up to the backbench, playing up to the numbers—there are a few opinion leaders there in the backbench. We can see them. The member for Lowe is new in the game but a bit of an opinion leader in caucus, I hear. The member for Hotham comes in here, playing up to the backbench and the new rising star of the Labor Party over here, the member for Hunter. I even offered to count his numbers for him in his leadership ambitions because he has the talent that the member for Hotham missed out on at birth.The bottom line is that business does not want further complication. Business wants a very simple formula. The simple formula is this: of every price displayed one-eleventh is tax.DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, yeah.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—You cannot even count in your caucus. How could you work out a price in a supermarket? You would not have a chance. What we are saying is that we want simplification for business. We want to have an easy system that consumers understand: they pay one price, they have one price displayed. They know they are paying a tax because they are damned happy they are not paying the Labor Party's wholesale sales tax.13:19:0011959Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation said that business does not want any more complications. This bundle of papers is the so-called streamlined new tax for the new century—here it is. The member for Lowe is in mortal danger if I happen to drop this because we have done an official weigh-in and this legislation, this streamlined new tax for the new century, weighs 4.4 kilograms. Up until this legislation came in, it weighed 4.2 kilograms. But if you add in the explanatory memorandum and the legislation itself, we are now up to 4.4 kilograms. And they complain about the 1930s ramshackle Botswana style wholesale sales tax. I have had an opportunity to read the Botswana sales tax and I can tell you that it is a lot simpler than this. This is it—the streamlined new tax for the new century and the minister says, `Oh, business doesn't want more complications.' They are going to get a headache. They are going to have to take Panadol just to read this legislation, to comprehend it.Just this morning I was talking to a chemist. In this legislation there are new rules for chemists: pharmaceuticals are GST free if they are pain relief products available in smaller packet sizes with a single active ingredient. Panadol does have a single active ingredient but Panadeine does not. So if you have a really big headache, if you are a business person reading this legislation and you have a really big headache, and you need some Panadeine and not some Panadol, you will pay GST. But if it is only a small headache and you need only Panadol, you will not pay GST. How ridiculous! This government is out of control.The total number of amendments that the government is making to the streamlined new tax for the new century is 756. It has already made 302 amendments and in the legislation that we have been debating there are 454 amendments. That is right—454 amendments. This legislation is creating more and more anomalies, not solving them. I will point to some of the ridiculous provisions in this legislation: `Beverages must be for human consumption.' Are we getting into tax avoidance if you buy some milk, take it home and give it to the cat? Are we going to have the ACCC and the price monitors coming to our home saying, `That beverage was not for human consumption; you have just breached the law'? This is the nightmare on main street.I have already talked about the Panadeine and Panadol fiasco. I will talk now about the payment of taxes, fees and charges. This is a very interesting amendment because they have added in the words: `any tax, fee or charge will be consideration for a taxable supply'. What that means is that any state government charge or any tax or fee is going to be subject itself to GST unless the government announces that it is not.In my home state of Queensland, here are some of the fees: motor vehicle registration fee, fire levy fee, transport and traffic fees, other fees and levies, including land title fees, court fees, workplace registration fees and registration of business names fees. All of those will be subject to the GST. They say it is not a tax on a tax, but it is a tax on a tax unless the Treasurer deems that it is not a tax on a tax.What happens to those fees, charges and taxes that apply now but go through past 1 July next year? State governments should be applying GST to those because, as it stands, none of those fees and charges is exempt, nor are local council fees and charges—for exam ple, fees to hire swimming pools, community halls or sporting fields. When people want to hire a sporting field, they will pay a GST on it. The government says this is a fair tax. It is a ridiculous tax and it should be thrown out completely.What about the application for a building approval? If someone wants to put an extension on their home, they have to apply to a local council for a building approval and that will be subject to the GST because the Treasurer has not ruled it out. What a ridiculous piece of legislation this is. It defies belief that this government could come in here and say, `We have a streamlined new tax for a new century,' that weighs 4.4 kilos, involves a total of 756 amendments and measures, by the way, 16 centimetres high. So there you are: a streamlined new tax for a new century! (Time expired)13:24:0011960Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—I have a few questions about transparency that I would dearly like the minister to answer. `Taxes will be subject to the GST unless the Treasurer declares them exempt'—that is in the original act. That raises the related issue of double taxation and the GST treatment of some state levies and charges. We have had a bit of confirmation in this bill that all of those state taxes and charges may be subject to the GST.While the government has from time to time indicated its policy on the GST treatment of taxes, to date the Treasurer has made no declarations that any state taxes are exempt. Until lawful declarations are made in relation to some taxes, it will be difficult to say with any certainty that they are exempt. The Treasurer did say in parliament on 25 August this year:. . . those services which are rendered for a fee are taxable. A fire service which is rendered for a fee can be taxable. I would have thought it was obvious.Nowhere in this legislation is the test that a service is rendered for a fee specified. Normal practice is to classify as a government charge any payment which covers a reasonable assessment of the cost of providing a service. If the payment substantially exceeds the cost of providing the service, then it is treated as a tax. Essentially, that is why state liquor, tobacco and petrol franchise fees were struck down by the High Court. They were not a fee for a service; they were an excise, a tax.With the mechanism that taxes which are exempt from the GST have to be declared by the Treasurer, that test may be somewhat arbitrary. But it is not just a case of the Treasurer being reluctant to declare taxes exempt. With the states receiving the GST revenue, they will have an incentive—at least the Liberal states will—to convert what are currently state taxes into fees for services. That way they can boost their own revenue.Nowhere is there a more spectacular example of this process than South Australia's new emergency services levy. There was a fire services levy attached to insurance premiums which was collected by the state government and used to defray the cost of the state's fire services. Emergency services were also funded from consolidated revenue, from state taxes. Now the emergency services levy is being raised on the value of real estate and on motor vehicles, including cars, trucks, caravans and boats. On Mr Costello's definition of 25 August 1999, this will be treated as a fee for service and be taxable. The emergency services levy will be subject to GST. If these services had continued to be paid for from taxes which are declared exempt by the Commonwealth Treasurer, they would not be subject to the GST. In effect, the states will be getting an extra rake off of 10 per cent through the GST by converting services that are presently paid for using GST-exempt taxes into user-pays services with a fee or a charge which is subject to the GST.The South Australian emergency services levy contains an anomaly with respect to its GST treatment. The levy covers a range of emergency services, including the Metropolitan Fire Service, Country Fire Service, State Emergency Service, parts of the surf lifesaving and coastguard operations, police rescue, parts of the state government communications network and the ambulance service. The ambulance service is a health service and therefore exempt. If the GST is levied on the full amount of the state government's emergency services levy, the GST will be being applied to a health service. I ask the minister whether he can come to the box and give me an answer on whether that will be the case. If it is not going to be the case, what administrative arrangements will the government institute to stop it being the case?13:29:0011961Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—The introduction of the GST continues to concern most Australians. The Howard government and the Democrats continue to tell the Australian people that the GST will reduce their tax burden. Moreover, Australian voters are now beginning to understand what a regressive tax it is. They are beginning to understand that the regressive taxes they have to pay before they have earned a wage will make life very difficult for them. The story that a regressive tax will mean people paying lower tax over time will go down in Australia's history as one of the great confidence tricks of all time. Philosophers like Adam Smith proved a long time ago that regressive taxes will cause much pain and suffering to many people, especially to those who have only their labour to sell as well as to welfare pensioners and poor people. In fact, Smith said:The middling and superior ranks of people, if they understand their own interest, ought always to oppose all taxes upon the necessaries of life, as well as all direct taxes upon the wages of labour. The final payment of both the one and the other falls altogether upon themselves, and always with considerable overcharge.The Howard government has not learnt from history. However, the Treasurer may have learnt from history. In this regard, I quote from an article by Tracey Aubin entitled `The nervous lieutenant: Could his own tax package kill Peter Costello's chance to follow the leader?' on page 49 of the first issue of The Eye Doesn't Lie dated 6 to 20 October 1999. By the way, Ms Aubin is also the author of the book titled Peter Costello Biography .In her report, Ms Aubin says that the member for Higgins, Peter Costello, is afraid that the goods and services tax, the centrepiece of his extensive tax reform agenda, will cost him his chance to become Prime Minister. In recent weeks he has told friends and colleagues that he could become a scapegoat for the GST to be implemented on 1 July next year and he worries that a voter backlash will affect the coalition's re-election chances and his personal standing.According to one confidant, a friend since university days, he sees a certain irony in the situation. `He said taxation reform was so necessary for the good of Australia, but he is worried he might now be forced to pay the price,' the friend said. Although the government is now in a strong position, it has a much reduced majority and the next election must be held by January 2002, when Australians will have had a year and a half of their new tax system. To use biblical parlance, of which the Treasurer is so fond, he may have to reap what he has sown.The worry for the Treasurer is that the GST's impact will be immediate and dramatic, but the tax cuts designed to offset that impact will take time to flow through to taxpayers. A number of Mr Costello's friends and associates report that the leadership issue is a theme which he constantly returns to in conversations. With Mr Howard reportedly setting his sights on outlasting Malcolm Fraser's term of seven-plus years in office, the Treasurer is growing increasingly concerned that the opportunity to take the leadership may have passed him by.The article leaves one with a very serious question mark about the Treasurer's bona fides regarding the GST, in that it says the Treasurer is acutely aware of the GST's potential to wreak havoc over Australia. He saw governments in New Zealand and Canada—countries with many similarities to Australia—lose office after introducing a GST.An honest approach by the Treasurer would surely have resulted in full disclosures about the regressive tax to enable a reasonable person to say, `I like this regressive tax. I can see it doing me and my family and future generations a great deal of good,' or on the other hand they could respond to the proposal in the most honest and direct way as expressed by Senator Harradine.Many Australians at this very moment live in deep fear of the GST. Australians are universally very serious about fairness, honesty and justice and expect their parliamentary leaders to conduct governance on this basis. If our current system of government is to endure, the decision making must be carried out with honesty, integrity and some empathy for ordinary Australians reeling under this government's uncaring economic policies. The term `mutual obligation' is already sounding like a clever facade to cover policy failure.The Australian people require an honest and open answer from the member for Higgins about his reported fears of the GST. The idea that the Treasurer can implement such wide-ranging and regressive tax changes and at the same time harbour substantial doubt about his decision making is very serious. The article suggests that the Treasurer has serious misgivings about making Australians pay the GST. I call on the Treasurer to provide this chamber with an honest reply to Ms Tracey Aubin's report. After all, `The eye doesn't lie', and he cannot hide behind a facade. (Time expired)13:35:0011962Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I rise in support of the amendments moved by the member for Hotham. I have to say that the government's form is getting pretty bad when it denies the shadow minister for small business—XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. With the greatest of respect, I was actually on my feet when the honourable member for Lowe sat down. I would therefore expect the call.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—It is the custom to alternate speakers, but I did catch the honourable member for Hunter's eye first, or he caught my eye. I would be happy to call you on the next occasion.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a further point of order, with the greatest respect to you, Sir, a nod between you and the member for Hunter really has little or no relevance as to who should get the call. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would expect the call, in accordance with the custom of the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have ruled on the point of order that I did see the honourable member for Hunter rise first. There have not been speakers on the government side for a couple of occasions now; I would be more than happy to call the honourable member for Ballarat on the next occasion.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted by the Chief Government Whip, it is pretty ordinary form on the part of government when it denies the shadow minister for small business an opportunity to make a contribution during the second reading debate on a bill the effect of which goes right through the small business community.Mr Hockey interjecting—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—Maybe the minister at the table wants to talk about speaking orders. We have three frontbenchers with an intense interest in this bill, the first being the shadow Treasurer; the second being the shadow Assistant Treasurer; and the third being the shadow minister for small business. It is pretty poor form when you deny the shadow minister for small business an opportunity to speak on this bill.There are few certainties in life beyond taxes and death, but there is one certainty surrounding the GST: it is absolutely bad for small business. That is a view held by not just me but the small business community itself. Every time I am in here the minister for financial services is at the dispatch box—I do not know what the story is; it seems we are on the same House order roster—and he is raving and ranting about the opposition. He has got personal views about the GST and its impact on small firms, but he comes in here with the same mantra every day. You have really got to wonder whether he ever speaks to a small businessperson.I began by talking about certainties in life. This bill is not about certainties; this bill is about uncertainties. It will significantly contribute to the already significant amount of uncertainty that exists at the moment in the small business sector. Where do you go for evidence of my point that this is again adding to that uncertainty? You first go to the 107 pages of the bill itself, and then you could go to the 79 pages of the explanatory memorandum, and then you could go to the latest Yellow Pages small business survey, which shows that some 74 per cent of small firms in this country are concerned about the impact of the GST. Why wouldn't that be the case?These latest changes, coming only a matter of weeks after the passage of the GST bills through the Senate, are on top of the changes being proposed by the Ralph Review of Business Taxation, on top of new FBT arrangements, on top of changes to do-it-yourself insurance, and on top of proposed entity taxation arrangements. I could go on and on and on. When will this come to an end? When will this government stop placing layer upon layer upon layer of complexity on the small business community and keep its pre-election promise to cut red tape by 15 per cent, a commitment which is now nothing less than farcical?13:39:0011963Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—Members of the House may not be aware of the way in which the speakers lists operate in this place. The Chief Opposition Whip and I, along with our staff, swap the names of those who are going to be speaking on the bill so that we know roughly what the program is going to be. Mr Deputy Speaker, it may be of interest to you and the House—I am sure it will be of interest to one person in particular, whom I am just about to mention—that when that list came across to the Chief Government Whip's office yesterday, outlining who was going to speak on the bill, guess whose name was not there?8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Chief Government Whip should be required to authenticate that document. We grant him leave to table it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. I call on the Chief Government Whip to address his remarks to the question before the chair, which is that the amendments be agreed to.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—What a scurrilous point of order from the shadow minister for small business. Indeed, his name was not on the list of speakers who were originally going to speak on this matter. Guess what happened this morning? All of a sudden we had a new list, and guess whose name was on that list? The shadow minister for small business. This is the man who expressed anger and outrage that he was not allowed to speak in the second reading debate. He was so concerned about the matter, he did not even put his name down originally to speak on the bill. So I think that that is probably a fair indication of where the ALP are coming from in relation to this matter. This is not a matter about the GST. The Labor Party know full well that the debate about the GST has passed them by. This is about their relationship in the political system and this is about the Australian Labor Party—VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order on the basis of the comments by the member himself, going to relevance. The member is saying that this bill is not about what this bill is about so, on his own point, he is out. Sit him down.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. I call on the speaker to continue his remarks.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—I do not see the name of the honourable member who just took the point of order on the speaking list either. It is an indication of how important this matter is to the honourable member, along with the shadow minister for small business. The Labor Party's debate today is about their irrelevance in the political process. What they cannot come to terms with is the fact that the Australian Democrats are now the other political party in the main political game in this country. That can be the only reason why the member for Lowe—Mr Murphy interjecting—XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—who would be most unwise to interject, because he is not in his seat—would talk about leadership in the context of these amendments moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Why would he talk about leadership in that context?83DMURPHYMr Murphy—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order relating to relevance, because the article that I was referring to expressed the grave reservations that the Treasurer had in terms of the GST, and it was very relevant.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. I call on the member to continue his remarks.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—I cannot believe that the Australian Labor Party are trying to deny me my right to speak on these amendments. I am quite appalled by the fact that they would be taking this course of action. The matter at stake here is the Australian Labor Party's failure to accept that this tax legislation is now part of Australian tax law. If they are genuinely going to play a part in the tax debate, it is incumbent upon them to start talking about it in the generalities of the Australian good. It is simply not appropriate to stand up in this place and start addressing anything except the nuts and bolts of taxation reform in Australia. You have got a choice: you either deal yourself back in or you are permanently dealt out. (Time expired)13:45:0011964Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—It was very interesting to hear what the previous speaker just said. He tried to make a point about who was not on the speakers list in this debate. It so turns out that the member for Hunter was on the list in terms of what is circulated in the parliament. But who was not on it? The member for Ballarat was not on it. Why did he feel obliged to get up and speak in this place? Because there is not one other backbench member in this parliament prepared to defend the government's GST. We know why the member for Ballarat is standing up in this place—because at the last state election, his party lost every seat in Ballarat. This is a person whose presence in this House is now dated. And he is a person who has said that the amendments before the House are irrelevant to constituents. We will tell you how relevant these amendments are.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I cannot see how the election result in Victoria is relevant to the amendments before the House. I ask that you bring the member for Hotham back to the substance of the bill, which he is not familiar with.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I draw the attention of those on both sides of the House to the question before the chair, because I think there has been a bit of diversion from the question from those on both sides. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—There are 454 amendments that this government has introduced to the GST bill. That is on top of 302 amendments that have already been introduced in this House. That totals 756 amendments—one less than one of those Boeing aircraft flying around this country, the 757. This, from the new simple tax system. This is a government that does not know what it is doing on tax.The member for Ballarat, who has now left the chamber, has got three amendments which Labor wants to consider, one of which would require disclosure of the GST on receipts. This is a member who, with every other marginal member on that side, is going to vote against our amendment, we presume, that would require receipts to show what the GST is. If you are proud of the tax, Minister, why don't you disclose what it involves? If you think this is a great thing for the Australian people, why are you hiding it from them? Why do you hide it?Between now and the next election, the member for Ballarat is going to have to deal in his seat with people outside his supermarkets and his shopping centres asking, as they go in and have their 10 per cent taken out by John Howard and Peter Costello, why he wants to hide it. That is one amendment that we are dealing with.At the same time as this person and this government is responsible for imposing a 10 per cent tax on almost everything, do you know who they have given special exemption to? The high rollers in casinos. This is a great set of values, isn't it? Every ordinary punter in this country will have to pay 10 per cent on almost everything, but the high rollers in the casinos will get an exemption. We have an amendment before the House to reverse that decision. It is an absolute disgrace. We know which side these people's bread is buttered on. They are making special exemptions for them whilst they are imposing an iniquitous, unfair tax on the broad Australian public.The other amendment we have moved goes to the question of antiavoidance. In this legislation and the previous legislation they watered down antiavoidance procedures. Previously, the legislation required it to be a principle of effect that a scheme entered into was there for the purpose of tax avoidance. They have changed one word—`a' to `the'. To get a tax avoidance scheme caught now, under their legislation, `the' principle purpose must have been tax avoidance not `a' principle purpose. So the Christopher Skases of the world can well devise a scheme which they can argue has as its principle purpose something other than tax avoidance and this legislation lets them off the hook. What you are putting before the parliament is an absolute disgrace and that is what we are trying to redress. That is what our amendments are about. The whip goes out of the House talking about a lack of procedure, where was due process in this regard? (Time expired)13:50:0011965Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—In summary—DT4CREANMr Crean—In summary? You're gagging debate, are you?DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—You bet we are. We reject the Labor Party's assertions about tax receipts. I want the people of Australia to know this: for 13 years the Labor Party never disclosed on any receipts the wholesale sales tax they charged on goods. I want everyone to know that they were paying tax rates of zero per cent, 12 per cent, 22 per cent, 32 per cent, 41 per cent, 45 per cent under the Labor Party and they were never, ever disclosed. In fact, instead of delivering the l-a-w tax cuts, Keating came back into government and increased wholesale sales taxes from 10 to 12 per cent, from 22 to 30 per cent and from 30 to 32 per cent without one dollar of compensation for Australians—without one dollar of compensation for the tax increases imposed by Labor. They come in here and lecture us and bore Australians to tears with their hypocrisy about transparency.It is simple. With a GST, one-eleventh of everything you pay will be tax. Australian consumers do not want to go the American way and have one price on the shelves and another one at the cash register. They have made that perfectly clear. The Labor Party have a history of high regulation. They say we should get businesses to run two cash registers. The Labor Party endorse that. Why? Because when you look across their front bench you find that no-one there has ever run a business.The shadow minister is putting up his hand saying, `Why did I not get the call?' Because the Labor Party put five backbenchers before the shadow minister for small business. I know he sits at the end of the front bench, but he should not be forgotten there.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Given the procedural point of order that was taken on me, I can hardly understand what the purpose of the process of people in debate has to do with the detail of the amendments that are before the House. I would suggest to you that you require him to address the matter that is before the House. I am reluctant to take this point of order because I believe in freedom in this place, but they took it on me so it should go against them.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the member. Resume your seat.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—We have a jail-keeper over there who believes in freedom. There are two issues. One is that the honourable member for Rankin and the honourable member for Kingston raised the issue of the application of the GST to state charges. We are waiting on the states to provide us with advice on what services they want the GST applied to. We are waiting on the states to give us that information. The other is that, in relation to gambling, it is a fact that under the initial recommendation a higher tax rate would have been applied in individual hands. Under this circumstance we apply the appropriate level of tax.Finally, I come back to the issue of disclosure—an issue that the Labor Party is very nervous about. We reaffirm that we want Australian taxpayers to understand that when they go to their supermarket and their deli they know what they are paying for. One-eleventh of every price they pay will be tax, unlike the situation with the Labor Party where it could have been zero, 12, 22, 32, 41 or 45 per cent and then it depended on the mark-up of the retailer. It could have been every distortion. That is the great fallacy of the Labor Party's arguments in this debate, Accordingly, I move:That the question be now put: Question put.13:59:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)75Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth60Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr AndrenMr BevisMr BreretonMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr HowardMr BeazleyMr DownerMr McLeayMr ProsserMs Burke* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the amendments (Mr Crean's ) be agreed to.14:04:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)64Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr AndrenMr BeazleyMr BevisMr BreretonMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr Zahra76Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMr HowardMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs WorthMr McLeayMr DownerMs BurkeMr Prosser* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Consideration interrupted.Questions Without Notice119681196811968Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Aged Care. Isn't it a fact that section 63-2 of the Aged Care Act requires you to table in the parliament by 30 September a report which provides the following information: unmet demand for nursing home places; waiting times; accommodation bonds; building, upgrading and refurbishment of nursing homes; and the adequacy of Commonwealth subsidies? Has your department prepared this report? If so, why have you not tabled it? Have you got something to hide from older Australians, or is this just another example of incompetence in another portfolio area?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order under standing order No. 144. The first part of that question asks for a legal opinion; the last part quite clearly is of a frivolous nature and does not seek an opinion. I ask that you rule the entire question out of order.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: I put it to you that no question could be more quintessentially in order than the parliament asking a member of the executive whether she has complied with a piece of legislation for which she is responsible. It is quintessentially what question time is for, and it must be in order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—As I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is aware from the eye contact I attempted to have with him, I deem the question to be in order but the latter part of it, in fact, to be unnecessarily provocative, and I think he was well aware of that. The question is in order, and I invite the Minister for Aged Care to respond.11968Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—Thank you, Mr Speaker, but I do not mind a bit of provocation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will respond to the question.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Subject to checking whether or not the particular section referred to by the Leader of the Opposition is accurate—because I, like my other colleagues here, would never take their word for it—I can say that there is a draft report which covers that sort of material which will be tabled in the parliament. I am sure that you will be looking forward to reading it.1196811968Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister inform the House of the status of the Health Insurance Commission's investigation into magnetic resonance imaging units?11968Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I received some advice just before question time from the Health Insurance Commission. When I finish with it, I will be happy to table it for the benefit of honourable members. The Health Insurance Commission tells me that it has completed investigation into 29 MRI units. One matter has already gone to the Director of Public Prosecutions. A further 15 are to be cleared for referral to the DPP over the next two weeks on the basis of backdating or conditional nature of contracts. Thus, with over 50 per cent of the contracts examined, there has actually been found sufficient evidence to warrant referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Of the remaining 13 contracts, only six have been cleared and seven are expected to be cleared. With some of these there may be a degree of suspicion, but not enough to warrant referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am happy to table this document for the benefit of honourable members.1196811968Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Aged Care. Minister, why has Aged Care Queensland been forced to take out paid advertising condemning your inaction in responding to the Productivity Commission report into nursing home funding? Are you aware that Uniting Community Services have said, `Your inaction is a time bomb.' Minister, why is the aged care sector still waiting for your response nine months after the report was handed to the government? Doesn't this show just how arrogant you have become in not protecting the interests of frail aged Queenslanders?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley knows that he is advancing an argument in that part of the question.2V5Mr SWAN—Minister, have you become—and I quote the Prime Minister—`too big for your boots'?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Aged Care will respond to the first part of the question only.11969Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I have been waiting for a question from the opposition on the Productivity Commission for some time. Obviously you have not wanted to know the information, otherwise you would have asked earlier.Mr Sidebottom interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Braddon has been a persistent interjector since question time started, which I admit was only a few minutes ago. I ask him to desist.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Let me say that unlike the Labor Party, who commissioned the Gregory report into the need for capital funding and never responded to it ever, this government is responding to the Productivity Commission report which was commissioned by this government prior to the last election, delivered to the Treasurer and subsequently published on 31 March. Since that date, we have been consulting with the industry—and I might say two important discussions took place on Monday of this week—regarding aspects of that report so that when there is a published response, which I would remind the Labor Party they never did to the Gregory report, it will be one that has been thoroughly researched and consulted on.Let me say in the interim that one of the things mentioned in that report is the question of so-called coalescence, which is bringing to a national rate the subsidy that is paid for nursing homes, as they were called. The fact is this is yet another matter that we are having to fix up after the Labor Party, which funded every state at a different rate on the basis that it cost a different amount of money to run a facility in different states. This government decided that it was better to come to a nation al rate, as was done for hostels, and indeed the Productivity Commission has agreed with that proposition. How one achieves the national average rate is the point that is under discussion.I simply say that in the period since the commission brought down that report this government has increased funding to residential aged care facilities. In the case of Queensland, since 1995-96—which is your last budget—we have increased funding to that state by 58 per cent. In other words, an enormous amount of additional money has gone in through the resident classification scale, which is delivering more money to all providers right across Australia. In your last budget you spent $2.5 billion, and in our last budget we are spending $3.5 billion—an increase of $1 billion into the residential aged care sector. That is commendable by anybody's yardstick.A lot of that money has been put in since the report of the Productivity Commission. Nonetheless, we take seriously the matters raised in that report. We are consulting with industry; we are consulting with consumers. When the response comes down, it will not be an ad hoc response but properly researched and meeting the needs of the aged care community.1196911969Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—What is the government's response to the decision on East Timor taken overnight by the Indonesian People's Consultative Assembly?11969Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As I am sure all honourable members are aware, last night the Indonesian People's Consultative Assembly took a decision which effectively grants independence to the people of East Timor. It is a very important moment in the history of that country. It is a decision that will be widely welcomed throughout the world. It gives effect to the popular will of the people of East Timor. It will begin a new era in relations between the people of that territory and the people of what will soon be to them the rest of what used to be the same country; that is, Indonesia. The House will be aware of the backdrop against which this decision was taken. They will be aware of the leadership played by Australia in assembling a multinational force. They will be aware of the tragic circumstances in East Timor that led to the need for the assembly of that force. What we must now all do is look to the future. When Xanana Gusmao met me last week I indicated to him that, despite the difficulties that would be involved in the process of reconciliation and moving forward together, it was desirable that East Timor see its future as lying in a closer relationship with the people of Indonesia. East Timor in the near future—a small, fragile, highly vulnerable but nonetheless free country—will need the help of Australia; East Timor will need the help of the rest of the world; and East Timor, Indonesia and Australia, forever together in this part of the world, will need to work out a way of cooperating together into the future.I believe that the decision taken by the Indonesian constituent assembly will make a positive contribution towards improving relations between Australia and Indonesia. It is inevitable that those relationships are strained at present because of Australia's proper role in East Timor. It is equally important and also inevitable in our own interests that we try to rebuild our relationship with Indonesia on a proper basis of mutual respect. I believe that, as the irritant of East Timor begins to recede into the past so far as the relationship between our two countries are concerned, we can start to build a better relationship with Indonesia. But it will be a different relationship. It will be a relationship instructed by the circumstances of our involvement in East Timor. It will be a relationship instructed and conditioned by the fact that Indonesia is now historically in the process of embracing democracy. As we meet in this question time, the same People's Consultative Assembly could well be voting on who will be the next president of that country, and whoever wins that ballot will be a person with whom the government I lead will seek to cooperate. That person will be installed as president as a result of a democratic process.Whatever criticism may have been offered of Indonesia's conduct in recent times, it is a remarkable thing that a country of 211 million people, that has passed through many decades of authoritarian rule, should have embraced democracy. We should, as friends and neighbours, do all we can to facilitate the entrenchment of the democratic process in Indonesia.I also take the opportunity of saying that Dr Habibie, the current President of Indonesia, is not a candidate for election as the next president of Indonesia. He has had his critics around the world, and he has had his critics within Indonesia, but it would be unfair and churlish of this House not to record the fact that it was Dr Habibie's decision which led to the ballot being held in East Timor that led to the people of East Timor voting for independence. For that, he does deserve acknowledgment and respect. He also deserves acknowledgment and respect for the fact that, after taking over from his predecessor, President Suharto, he did take Indonesia down a democratic path. It is very easy in retrospect to say that he had no alternative. It is even easier in retrospect to turn around and say, `Well, he shouldn't have done this, or he should have done it at another time.' The reality is that he did two very important things for which he will forever be entitled to credit—he gave the people of East Timor a vote on their future which their leader, Xanana Gusmao, said they would readily embrace, no matter what the pain and travail, and he also gave to the people of Indonesia the opportunity to embrace democracy.At a time when in other parts of the region nations are unfortunately turning away from democracy, it is a very welcome trend indeed that Indonesia should be embracing it. All of us, whatever our politics and whatever our views about the minutiae of the debate on East Timor, who care about a close relationship between Australia and Indonesia based on mutual respect will hope that the democratic experiment succeeds. We will wish the new Indonesian President well, and it will be the obligation of this government and future governments of this country to work closely with the people and the government of Indonesia on a proper basis of mutual respect but, nonetheless, recognising that we have a destiny together forever in this part of the world.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!1197111971Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Minister, I refer you to an article in today's Bulletin , headed `Telstra: how we were short-changed' and `Telstra: the float that sank billions'. Do you still reject the Auditor-General's finding that the first sale of Telstra was clearly underpriced and that you effectively lost billions of dollars of taxpayers' money? Is it true that the independent advisers for the first Telstra sale, BZW, advised the government to sell Telstra at $3.30 and one day later were advising clients that Telstra shares were a good buy at $4.07? Don't you effectively admit in this article that you knew in advance that the price would be set too low because the firms running and advising the government on the sale were also advising clients to buy Telstra shares?11971Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I am delighted that the honourable member for Melbourne has asked me a question on Telstra because I noted some articles in the media in the last day or two which indicated very clearly that Mr Blount, the former CEO of Telstra, came to Australia only because he was promised by Labor that Labor would privatise Telstra.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The House will come to order, and the minister will come to the question.HQ5Mr FAHEY—In fact, I think he indicated that the honourable Leader of the Opposition was present when that particular discussion took place. But what this government has done in any privatisation of Telstra and all of the other assets was to ensure that Labor's debt was paid off from the proceeds. Labor sold and used their money. They frittered it away on current programs. When it comes to Telstra 1, the price that was received at that time was the optimal return for that particular stock at that time. I do not criticise Labor who, under the now Leader of the Opposition, in June 1994 sold Commonwealth Serum Laboratories for $2.30 a share when the price of a Commonwealth Serum Laboratories share today is $18.Mr Tanner interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne has asked his question.HQ5Mr FAHEY—I do not criticise, because you should have sold it. That is $2.30 to $18.Mr Tanner interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne is defying the chair.HQ5Mr FAHEY—I do not criticise Labor for what happened when they entered the market on the sale of the Commonwealth Bank. The shares of the first tranche were sold at $5.40. These shares are trading at the present time at around $24. I accept the manner in which the market operates. I can recall some quotes from the former shadow Treasurer in the week leading up to the sale of Telstra 1 when he was out there saying, `This will be a fire sale. They will get $8 billion for it. They should pull it.' When it came to that sale a week later—and this is indicated very clearly by the process in the book build—the proceeds that were received for the sale of Telstra 1 were some $14.3 billion. That is on top of a recapitalisation a couple of months earlier whereby the taxpayers of Australia received the amount of $3 billion. That is a total of $17.3 billion.When you see a live market created and that spike, it is interesting to note that, in a comparison between Labor's sale of CBA 1 and this government's sale of Telstra 1, the increase over about the first 50 or 60 days ran parallel. CBA 1 went up about 24 per cent—but, of course, you had created a live market. When it came to setting the price, a range was stated—in order to generate the demand for Telstra 1—of between $2.80 and $3.30. Six days prior to the actual striking of the price in Telstra 1, I increased that by 10c. That was because, quite clearly, the demand had been created, and I was interested in getting the optimal return for the taxpayers of Australia. I have little doubt under the process that was adopted with an independent adviser—and the Labor Party never received independent advice on these matters—that the taxpayers of Australia received a maximum return. Sadly, as I have said so often, those proceeds had to be used to pay off Labor's debt, as have the proceeds of Telstra 2, which have been received as a result of those shares going to the market earlier this year.So the taxpayers of Australia have been well served by the sale of both Telstra 1 and Telstra 2. It is all very well for someone coming in a few years later to talk about a price that can be explained on the basis of telcos around the world going up. They are a growth stock around the world, and Telstra is at the very top of the tree when it comes to that because it is a very dynamic Australian company. That is what brought out demand again on this occasion. Telstra is improving the telecommunications of this country and it is taking its rightful place at the head of the very solid companies that exist in this country. It is part of what has been a phenomenon around the world in recent years. As more and more of these telecommunication companies are going to the market, there is a demand in whatever that market might be.1197211972Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer to the government's proposals to reform Australia's business taxation system. Would you advise the House of the likely impact of these reforms on compliance costs for small businesses?11972Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Makin for her question. The great news is that legislation will come into the parliament tomorrow to cut company taxes and capital gains taxes, including the capital gains of all of those people who, incidentally, became shareholders in the Commonwealth Bank as a result of Labor's privatisation. The good news for all of those people—who have obviously had rather large capital gains under the Labor Party's policies; I think it was $5.40 to $22—who were introduced to privatisation by the Australian Labor Party is that, if the government's legislation goes through, the capital gains tax on that increase will be halved. If the Labor Party does not support this legislation, it will be taxing all of those millions of shareholders, which it introduced to the market on very generous terms, at double the rate which they need to pay. So on this side of the House, we say that Thursday could be a great day for small business and the shareholders of Australia, if we can only get on and pass legislation to reform the business taxation system.In addition to that, not only will small businesses get a reduction in their company rate to 34 cents in the dollar and then to 30 cents in the dollar but, if the government's legislation—which comes as part of a simplified small business taxation system—is passed, they will also be able to write off all assets of $1,000 or less and to pool and depreciate all of their assets at standard rates, and up to 75 per cent of small businesses will no longer have to do an annual stocktake, which will be a dramatic simplification for the small businesses of Australia.There are also two other great benefits that will go through the parliament in this legislation, if the Labor Party can bring itself to support reform. The first benefit is that small business people when selling a business can have 50 per cent of the assets of the business taken out of capital gains tax and then pay the half rate on the remainder, which has the effect of making only 25 per cent of the small business taxable. The second benefit is that those people in small business who have held an asset for 15 years and are approaching 55 years of age can sell that asset capital gains tax free. These are great reforms—this is great simplification and this is a major improvement for the small businesses of this country.If the opposition can support reform, this is a benefit that we can give small business—along with lower interest rates, improved indirect taxation, improved industrial relations changes, more jobs and the good business conditions that prevail for small businesses at the moment. It is going to take some leadership from the Leader of the Opposition to support reform; it is not something that he is used to. But if he can reach out and support reform, we will commend him for doing so, and I am sure that the business community of Australia would be pleased to see a change from the opposition at all costs to something that is creative for this country.1197311973Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Do you recall on Monday refusing to reaffirm the National Party's election commitment that, until an independent inquiry certified that Telstra service levels were adequate, there would be no full sale of Telstra? Are you aware that, while you were going soft on full privatisation, the federal president of the National Party's women's section, Pam Stallman, slammed the push by the Minister for Finance and Administration for full privatisation, saying on regional Queensland radio that it was `insane' and that it was time that the National Party stood up to the Liberal Party? If Pam Stallman can stand up to the Liberal Party, why can't you?11973Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I note with some interest that that question, or a large slab of it, was simply read off a press release issued by the shadow minister on Monday afternoon. I made it quite plain on Monday afternoon that our policy, which I think has been widely circulated and is widely understood on this matter, still stands. I thought it was quite irrelevant to have to restate the proposition that that includes a public inquiry into the adequacy of service levels—the service levels that we have dictated; that you did not dictate—and the obligations that we have put on Telstra being met before a further sale took place. Plainly, I add that that inquiry would involve input from the country people of the sort that I met in Texas last weekend, who had expressed some concern. The member for Maranoa and the member for New England were also there. The people of Texas in Queensland expressed concerns about service levels, which I will be taking up with the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts.But I would have thought that it was quite sufficient to point out that our policy position on this matter has not altered. It does mean us meeting the commitments that we have made but, more particularly, I think it is worth stating that this really belongs in the category of useful contributions to the debate about regional services and the needs of rural communities that we get from the opposite side—such as questions asking me to name the regional universities that are facing some financial difficulties. What a useful thing for me to be asked in this place—name them for the benefit of country parents so that these universities will be exposed! This is an absolutely absurd proposition.It is worth recalling that the opposition's lack of commitment to services in rural telecommunications extended to the deal they did with Vodafone which would have shut down the analog mobile phone network from the end of this year and would have left huge areas of Australia without any mobile telephone coverage at all. I really believe that this question reflects a pathetic attempt on that side—by a group of people who have opposed every worthwhile reform and policy prescription that we have put forward to help rural and regional Australia—to now paint themselves as having discovered some latter-day concern for the wellbeing of country people.1197311973Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, would you inform the House of the government's commitment to improve the conditions of the workplace for all Australian workers? What obstacles have been placed in the way of the government reforming workplaces to the benefit of all Australians?11973Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Page for his question. Actions speak louder than words. If you take the ACTU's estimate, real wage increases for Australian workers are up by 9.1 per cent since we have been in office. I am not using our figures but the ACTU figures. Over the 13 years Labor was in office, the real wages of low income people actually fell. Not only have those people enjoyed higher wages; they have had a better chance of getting a job. Over 500,000 jobs have been created since this government has been in office. In respect of basic rights for workers, under this government all workers are guaranteed freedom of association, the right to join a union and, furthermore, the right to not join a union if that is their choice.The honourable member asks: what are the obstacles in the way of further reform? He has only to listen to the interjections from the other side to see the obstacles sitting there giving us their usual response. The loudest one, typical of the frontbench, is a former trade union official. He is a former trade union hack who outlasted his usefulness and so was sent to the federal parliament—former ACTU president, Lord Hotham—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Minister!WI4Mr REITH—Mr Speaker, would you like me to name them all?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, Minister.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I do not believe it is necessary for the Speaker to rise in order to get members in a responsible position on the frontbench simply to listen in silence. The minister has the call. He also has an obligation to generally raise the dignity of the place by making appropriate references to members.WI4Mr REITH—Talking about members, if you want to go to the statistics, 58 per cent of the frontbench of the Labor Party are ex-union hacks. If you go to the Senate, 69 per cent of the senators on the Labor Party side are former trade union officials. In the House, 40 per cent—nearly half of them—are former trade union officials. It is no surprise that, when the unions have a few problems with declining membership, who do they turn to to help them? They turn to none other than the frontbench and backbench of the Labor Party on the basis that all the members shall use their offices for the purposes of boosting trade union membership. We know now from the TWU that they want their parliamentary offices, paid for by taxpayers, to be used as branch offices of the trade union movement.DT4CREANMr Crean—You didn't get this up yesterday, did you?WI4Mr REITH—Do I have your invitation to continue, Mr Speaker?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I did not interrupt the minister. WI4Mr REITH—Thank you. You were obviously paying close attention, Mr Speaker. I do not suppose there is any chance you would ever use your office as a branch office of the Transport Workers Union.Mr Tanner interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Melbourne. I have put up with persistent interjections from him.WI4Mr REITH—It demonstrates how close the two are. The Transport Workers Union, which now wants to use opposition offices as branch offices, is the same union that tipped more than three-quarters of a million dollars into the Labor Party between 1995 and 1998. That does not even include donations to local members. Of course, it has always been a two-way process. When Labor were in office, they were funding the TWU using taxpayers' money and getting it back as a dividend. When you look at the Senate, you have in person Nick Bolkus, formerly of the TWU; Steve Hutchins, a past president of the New South Wales branch of the TWU; and Stephen Conroy. They are not only pulling the strings from outside; they are running the Labor Party from within. How can the public have faith in a political party that basically sold its soul to the trade union movement?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: is it relevant for the minister to be bringing into play the fact that a number of us here have represented ordinary working Australians? Minister, perhaps you might like to explain how 19 of your colleagues have family trusts—something that two per cent of Australians have.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition knows that the chair was extending to him the courtesy it should in that point of order and it was abused.1197411974Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. I ask the minister whether he agrees with these comments by Minister Reith in his secret employment agenda of 3 December 1998:Most long term unemployed will benefit from the assistance received under the Job Network arrange ments and this will continue to be the main vehicle through which public assistance is provided.Can the minister explain why, if the Job Network is as successful as he says it is, six out of every 10 unemployed people have now been out of work for longer than two years—the highest figure on record?Mr Griffin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Bruce!SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.Mr Griffin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Bruce is warned!SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—The other day you instructed the House that questions were to be consistent with the standing orders and not be speeches. You have been defied as nearly every question today has breached that, and I believe some action is necessary.QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Speaker, point of order: I draw your attention to page 277 of House of Representatives Practice , in particular to what is referred to as frivolous and dubious points of order.Ms Hoare interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I remind the member for Chifley—and the member for Charlton—that, if I were to act on frivolous points of order, very few of them would in fact see the light of day. In the case of the point of order from the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, in 16 years the chair has heard a lot of questions from both sides of this House, and a large number of them have advanced a good deal more argument than that advanced by the member for Dickson. I do not like the tone of some questions, but I have endeavoured to be consistent in my ruling, and I deem hers to be in order.11975Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Dickson for her question. Naturally, I do support what was said by my friend and senior colleague the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. He made excellent sense in that letter. As for the performance of the Job Network, I have never said that the Job Network was perfect. I have simply said that it is better than the CES and the Working Nation programs that it replaced. I repeat what I have said to the House before: in terms of getting unemployed people into work, the Job Network is at least 50 per cent better than the old CES. I also hope to be in a position very shortly to give the House some more detailed figures on the performance of intensive assistance which show that intensive assistance is comprehensively outperforming the Working Nation programs of the former government. Rather than taking pot shots at members of the Job Network, which comprises some of the greatest organisations this country possesses, the member for Dickson should get out around the country, travel a little bit, get out of Dickson and see some of the other people around the country, and then she will discover just what sort of job the Job Network is doing.1197511975Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Are there areas of regional Australia that are growing and making a success of building new economic and employment opportunities, despite the challenges they face? Will the regional Australia summit, being convened next week, provide an opportunity for successful regions to share their experiences and help build a better future for all regional Australia?11975Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I must say I like the colour of his tie, and I should add I am looking for an invitation to visit Toowoomba to talk to all those people from my electorate who have retired up there to see what they are doing.Mr Howard interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—No, but we might counsel them on this issue, Prime Minister.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Question time would be facilitated if the minister came to the question.4K4Mr ANDERSON—I was provoked, Mr Speaker. ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—I'm sorry, Mr Speaker, I provoked him.4K4Mr ANDERSON—All of us are concerned about seeing the best possible future for our rural and regional communities. There is an understandable highlighting of the difficulties that much of the bush faces at the moment. It is important to remember, though, that many communities are finding new and innovative ways forward. Next week we will be having a summit here, and I welcome the opportunity to say to the House that one of the things we will be doing is looking to those communities that really are making a go of it. I could name several, in fact. One that comes to mind is Dubbo, in the member for Parkes's electorate. It is a larger centre with very high growth rates. It is interesting to note that, in part, it is able to attract people there for lifestyle issues. People want to know about things like crime rates, education, restaurants and so forth. There are positive answers to those sorts of questions which help encourage people to go and invest there, and they have been very good at extolling those pluses. Just a little while ago, there were 100 hectares under wine grapes in Mudgee, in my own electorate, and now it is 4,000 hectares. Tourism and a whole range of local activities are seeing that community grow.Leeton, in the member for Riverina's electorate, has a growth rate of around 1½ per cent. I was there recently and they are looking at a new industry based on pectin. That has come about in part because of the Commonwealth government's contribution to research and development. Leeton is a forward-looking community. Longreach, in Queensland, last year generated more money from tourism than it did from agricultural pursuits. Many new jobs are emerging in a very good way in that community. Moree, in northern New South Wales, is turning around a tendency towards quite serious decline in recent times by actively seeking new businesses in a range of ways. They are addressing problems. They have been actively pursuing culturally relevant jobs for the Aboriginal communities. They have created 75 jobs in the cotton industry alone—jobs that did not exist until very recently. There is a serious main street program going on there to make it a more attractive town for people to live in, to come to and to invest in. In the town of Beechworth, in the member for Indi's electorate, we have seen an innovative fellow grow a bakery, in a decade or so, from just two employees to something like 64.These sorts of success stories need to be highlighted, and we will be doing that next week. It needs to be said that the investment climate that we have created is a very sound one for growth in rural and regional areas in these times of difficulty. The Ralph report, for which we are looking for some leadership and support from the other side—CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—You will never get that.4K4Mr ANDERSON—We might yet, Treasurer. Do not be too pessimistic; we may yet see some leadership. There is no doubt that the changes to capital gains tax will really make a difference to the attractiveness for small businesses of investing in rural areas. Then there are the huge reductions in transport costs that will come next year with the abolition of wholesale sales tax and there is the slashing of the fuel tax.It is worth making the point that we have seen a transition in the position of the spokesperson for rural and regional issues on that side of the House. The test as to whether the member for Batman is fair dinkum about his commitment to rural and regional Australia might be in a simple repudiation from him of the view of the previous spokesman, the member for Dickson, that our slashing of the diesel costs was nothing more than a $7.8 billion boost to pollution. We might believe he has some credibility when he repudiates that and acknowledges that it is a valuable reform for rural and regional Australia.There are a range of very valuable tools—whether it is Rural Plan, the Rural Assistance Program, which the minister right behind me runs, the tourism grants, Invest Australia, the TradeStart offices, Networking the Nation and the rural transaction centres—that we are giving rural communities to help them find a way forward. One of the objectives of the summit next week will be to establish the criteria for success by looking at what successful communities have done and then seeking to more widely spread that success across rural and regional Australia.1197711977Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Does the minister stand by his proposal for a lower wage rate for the long-term unemployed, outlined in his secret employment agenda? In particular, does he still believe, and I quote:Discounting wages would also likely require complementary action on the social security entitlements for this group if adequate work incentives were to be provided.Minister, isn't this code for the welfare cuts that are contained in Senator Newman's welfare discussion paper that the government is refusing to release? Which payments does the minister think should be cut, and by how much?11977Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Well, I would ask the honourable member if she stands by her statement back in—Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—I would be very happy to answer the question, but she was the one who said that a gap had opened up under the leadership of the Prime Minister back whenever it was that she came into the Labor Party. The fact of the matter is, as one of her colleagues said the other day, `Cheryl has become a weight around all of our necks; you never know what she is going to say or do next.'PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order and it goes to relevance. The minister was asked a question about the continuity of his views that low income earners need to be forced onto discounted wages and deprived of social security entitlements. That is what he put in his secret report. We want to know: is this what is in Newman's welfare discussion paper and what does he want to cut?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House was not responding directly to the question. His introductory remarks were not out of character but I invite him now to come to the question. WI4Mr REITH—Thank you, Mr Speaker—neither out of character nor out of order in any way.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am not sure about that. I will determine the latter.WI4Mr REITH—I did write to the Prime Minister—in fact, it was not a secret document because I was the one who, in due course, released it.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—It is a fact. What it demonstrated is that on this side of the House we are genuinely interested in policy. In terms of policy development, since that letter you have seen this government adopt a number of important policy initiatives which have been to the benefit of all Australians. For example, we enhanced the Work for the Dole Program, which was raised in that letter and which provides real benefits.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order and it goes to relevance. It was a specific question: which wages and which payments does he want to see cut?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I listened to the question. I have already called the minister to respond to the question. I believe he is doing so and I invite him to continue his answer.WI4Mr REITH—That letter also talked about what we would do for indigenous employment and today I launched another aspect.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—The question was about the letter and I am answering the elements in the letter. The Leader of the Opposition asks about wages—RH4KERRMr Kerr—Mr Speaker, twice the Leader of the Opposition has raised relevance and twice you have asked the minister to return to the substance of the question. This is plainly defiance. He is seeking to avoid answering a question which is plainly relevant to the conduct of this parliament and he should be required to answer it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison may not have heard my first admonition to the minister, which was to ask him to come to the question. He is now responding to correspondence related to the question, but I expect he will, of course, come to the question asked as well.WI4Mr REITH—As I was saying, we announced an expansion of the Work for the Dole scheme. That letter also referred to unfair dismissal issues and in that regard—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—What did it say about reducing wages?WI4Mr REITH—I am happy to get to all of these matters. In respect of unfair dismissals, that is still a problem for the small business community, and flowing out of those discussions there are amendments currently before this chamber which the Labor Party is opposing which would provide benefits for small business and which would mean more jobs.Mr Speaker, the other significant issue—and I will then move on—was the corporations power. That was contained in the letter to the Prime Minister and I have spoken on that publicly since that letter was released. That is an issue which I think we do need to consider more carefully and I am having my department continue to advise me on aspects of that.In respect of wages and the award system, the government's policy is absolutely clear. That is a matter for the commission. In terms of safety net wage increases through awards, it is my view that—where we can reasonably within the government's general macroeconomic management—we ought to be arguing for higher wages based on higher productivity. That is our approach to wages. The opposition asked me about wages and I will tell them what the policy was when they were in government. They have boasted about reducing people's wages and they did reduce their wages.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order.OK6NAIRNMr Nairn—A frivolous point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—It is not a frivolous point of order; it goes to relevance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will determine whether it is frivolous or not, as the Leader of the Opposition knows.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The precise paragraph said:Discounting wages would also likely require complementary action on the social security entitlements for this group if adequate work incentives were to be provided.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has made his point and will resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—We want to know what he is doing about it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has been in this House even longer than the chair. He is aware that there is an obligation to have questions framed in a particular way. Ministers are free to answer any question in any way they choose, and the obligation that ministers face is the obligation to be relevant. The Leader of the House has in fact come to the very point of the question asked, and I call him to conclude his answer.WI4Mr REITH—I certainly will, Mr Speaker. I conclude by saying that we are in favour of higher real wages and we are not in favour of discounting wages, and have no such proposal currently or in the future on the books. Our policy is higher wages and, furthermore, we have got the reforms to ensure that our businesses through higher productivity can pay higher wages.1197811978Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Mr Zahra interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan is a persistent interjector. He was elected, I would have thought, to represent the electors of McMillan. He will shortly face a choice between remaining here and representing them, or leaving the chamber and leaving them unrepresented.HK5Mr ANDREWS—My question to the minister is: is the minister aware of reports in the media that the costs of early school leaving are as high as $2.6 billion? Would the minister advise the House of government initiatives to improve education and training opportunities for young Australians?11978Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Menzies for his question. I am aware of reports that have appeared in the press on the Dusseldorp Skills Forum study on the cost to Australia of early school leaving. The precise figure of $2.6 billion is dependent upon the particular assumptions made in that report, but it is a report which draws attention to the losses in income and opportunity that are suffered by young people who leave school early. This was a very serious problem when the government came to office, because the 70 per cent of young people who do not go from school to university had been appallingly neglected during the years of the Labor Party's government. Indeed, an earlier report by the Dusseldorp Skills Forum in 1998 based on 1996 data—that is, data referring to the period of the Labor government—said:Young Australians have gained a few substantial benefits from the dollars, words and policy efforts expended on them over the last decade.Those words amount to the statement that the Labor Party failed young Australians.Opposition members interjecting—BT4Dr KEMP—There is an effort to deny it on the other side of the House now, but it is in fact an admitted failure by the Labor Party itself.MG4LEEMr Lee—No-one believes you.BT4Dr KEMP—Peter Baldwin in his Lighthouse discussion paper in 1997 said:Accommodating the needs of those not intending to proceed directly on to university education in the final years of school is something we didn't do enough about in government.Mr Lee interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell is warned.BT4Dr KEMP—John Dawkins was reported in Neal Blewett's book as referring to Labor's `awful record on the subject of vocational education'. Young people were simply expelled from school onto the unemployment queues. It has fallen to this government to care for the interests of those young Australians, the generation of young Australians, the 70 per cent who do not go on to university. As a result of this government's actions we have greatly increased the opportunities for vocational education in the senior school curriculum. In 1995, under the last year of Labor, there were some 26,000 students doing vocational education in schools. This year, as a result of this government's initiatives and concern for these young people, 130,000 school students will be undertaking vocational education and training in schools. There are now some 90,000 more apprenticeship opportunities for these young people than there were when Labor drove apprenticeships into the ground. Indeed, this year some 5,000 part-time apprenticeships are being undertaken by young people while they are still at school. We would like to see those numbers go up substantially. If every state in Australia were observing the best practice state, that number would be not 5,000 but 13,000; and we want to see those numbers go even higher. This year, the Jobs Pathway program will be assisting some 62,000 young people to make a successful transition from school to work. It has been up to this government to remedy the betrayal of a generation that took place under the Labor Party in office.1197911979Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, I refer to your answer earlier today. If 16 out of 29 MRI units are accounted for by either backdating or conditional contracts, what accounts for the remaining 13? When you say that these contracts have been cleared or are expected to be cleared, are you saying they have only been cleared of backdating or of being conditional contracts, or have they been cleared for insider knowledge as well?11979Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I am saying that the Health Insurance Commission believe that there is sufficient reason to refer more than half of the cases to the DPP. Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence, but they believe that through their investigations they have uncovered sufficient material to do that. For the ones that they say have been cleared, that means that they will not be sending them to the DPP. It does not mean that there is not still a suspicion that there is a possibility of backdating or that there may have been a non-binding contract that had supposedly been binding. It is not just that they cannot find evidence to do it: they have no evidence whatsoever that there was any leak.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—By any measure, a great deal of tolerance has been exercised during question time today. I now issue, reluctantly, a general warning.Mr Price interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Of course it is to both sides, the member for Chifley.1198011980Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Will the minister inform the House of the recent developments in Australia's export performance for cars and components?11980Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the member for Deakin for his question. Of course, everybody in the House recognises the great job that the member for Deakin does as an advocate for Australia's automotive industry. The member for Deakin has been an active participant in the processes of reform that this government has implemented over the past few years, to the great benefit of Australia's automotive industry. I would like to inform the House, in response to the member's question, that Australia's automotive exports increased to a record $2.77 billion in 1998-99, a nine per cent increase on the previous year. This is in spite of the economic recession that we experienced in the region of South-East Asia, and it is during a period when Australia's exporters have shown that they are quite entrepreneurial in their activities in finding new markets.Those new markets have yielded some unbelievable statistics as far as the automotive industry is concerned. Those new markets, particularly in the Middle East and South America that had not been opened up prior to this, have been opened up in recent years. The Middle East market now accounts for about $560 million worth of Australian automotive exports, especially Toyota Camrys and Holden Commodores. The statistics in a couple of countries in the Middle East are quite compelling. Exports in the past 12 months have seen a 339 per cent increase to Saudi Arabia and a 480 per cent increase to Kuwait.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Off what sort of base?SU5Mr VAILE—Those statistics pale into insignificance when you see the increase in South America. In South America, where Holden has commenced shipments of cars to Argentina, we have seen a 2,500 per cent increase in the marketplace. There was an interjection, `Off what sort of base?' Well, the base was fairly low, and we inherited that base from the Australian Labor Party. We have introduced a policy of pragmatic tariff reform that has given consistency and certainty to Australia's automotive industry and has encouraged that automotive industry to invest in what it is doing and to invest in that export effort. It is producing these sorts of export figures in an automotive industry that is being increasingly recognised around the world for its ability and for the R&D that is taking place in that export industry.Mr Cox interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingston clearly does not want to represent the car workers in this place, and so for the next hour I will accommodate him. He will excuse himself from the House under standing order 304A.SU5Mr VAILE—I wanted to inform the House that just recently the Prime Minister's special automotive envoy, Mr Ian Grigg, visited the US and, while there, had a meeting with Mr Jac Nasser, the chief executive of Ford. Mr Nasser has offered to host an exhibition to promote Australian auto technology in the Ford Technology Centre in the US. I understand that the automotive industry will take that up, and we will be looking at facilitating that from a government perspective. These export gains flow from our government's efforts in putting in place a market access and development strategy that has been underpinned with funding of $20 million over four years.More importantly, these export efforts have been underpinned by our government's pragmatic approach to tariff reform and our government's sound economic management of the economy, which has provided the industry with a sound economic base in the domestic circumstance from which to launch into the export marketplace. We have now announced and are going to implement taxation reform across Australia that will greatly benefit the export industries, including Australia's automotive exports. As the Treasurer has announced today, we will also be introducing legislation into the parliament later this week to improve the corporate taxation system and the capital gains tax system in Australia. With the support of the Labor Party, that will further underpin the domestic economic circumstance of Australian manufacturers so they can challenge the rest of the world.1198111981Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, do you recall telling the House yesterday:I believe the majority of cases will be shown by being backdated or by being non-binding contracts that were shown to be binding.Minister, if backdating or non-binding contracts account for the majority of pre-budget MRI contracts, what accounts for the remainder? Of the 13 that you say today have been cleared or are expected to be cleared, have these contracts been investigated for insider knowledge?11981Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The Health Insurance Commission have turned up no evidence at all that anyone had any inside information. What they have turned up is what I have been saying all along: that there appears to be evidence in a majority of cases—enough to warrant a reference to the DPP—and a very high degree of suspicion in other cases but not enough, and absolutely no evidence at all that anyone had any inside knowledge.1198111981Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Will the minister please detail when the temporary protection visas for unlawful arrivals will come into effect?11981Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Hindmarsh for the question, because last week I announced a number of decisions the government had taken to deal with the very large number of unauthorised arrivals. Since I spoke on that occasion, two more boats have arrived with 36 passengers from Iraq and Afghanistan. We have been experiencing a huge increase in the level of unauthorised arrivals. They are people who are not local to our region; they have travelled halfway round the world from places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Turkey to seek protection here. In many cases they are relinquishing situations of security they are now in or passing other countries where they can properly make asylum claims in order to come to Australia.Just to give you some idea of the dimension of it, there are 2.5 million Afghans living in countries neighbouring Afghanistan. There are 700,000 Iraqis living in neighbouring countries—many of them people for whom we make arrangements within our special humanitarian program or within our refugee program so they can come to Australia. That is in situations in which they are judged by the UNHCR to be in urgent need of resettlement in a country like Australia. What is happening is that people who are making essentially family reunion commitments are seeking to have their relatives jump the queue over those who are more vulnerable. One person even had the audacity to ring me at my office and to ask whether his relative had yet arrived in Port Hedland. The fact is that the Port Hedland facility is full. There are 300 places at the Curtin air base which have been put in on a temporary basis. That capacity will be expanded to 400 shortly, but we are reaching the point where the numbers of people we have to detain are such that we are under enormous pressure. It is obvious that there are incentives there that are bringing people to Australia rather than their waiting, as they may have in the past, for places within a proper refugee and humanitarian program.The temporary protection visa that I announced is to be introduced by regulation. The regulations were proclaimed this morning. This is one element of a range of measures we are working on. I welcome the in- principle support we have had from the opposition. I hope it will be maintained. I welcome the support we have had for this measure, because it is important and in the national interest. I hope it will be maintained in the way in which the opposition shadow minister has said it should on a number of occasions—that is, tough action is required and if he were in my place he would be tougher than me.1198211982Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, do you recall telling the parliament yesterday:I was told on 5 May—that is, 1998—by the department that we may need a supply measure. That was the first I knew about it.Isn't it the case that these confidential minutes of the council of the College of Radiologists reveal that, prior to 5 May and as far back as 21 April, the college was actively in negotiation with the government about the need for a supply measure and what form it would take? Don't these minutes prove that you misled the parliament yesterday?11982Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—They certainly do not suggest what the honourable member says. What I have said is absolutely correct. The first time I was alerted to it was 5 May—the same day that I wrote to the Prime Minister. I have not seen the minutes that the honourable member has, but it would not surprise me at all if the College of Radiologists internally had been speculating on a supply measure. But my department officials tell me—and they were the ones conducting the negotiation—that they had not discussed that with the College of Radiologists. The College of Radiologists may have put some positions to us, but the first I knew of the supply measure was when it was put to me very late in the process, the day before I went to talk to the college itself.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the minutes of the council meetings of the College of Radiologists.Leave granted.1198211982Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, what is the importance of the new Public Service legislation? In what way will the government's reforms allow Australia to build a high performance into the Public Service?11982Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Mitchell for his question. Today is a historic day for the Australian Public Service, with the passage of the government's Public Service Bill through the Senate this morning. This legislation provides a new modern framework for the Australian Public Service which will take it into the next century. It is the biggest overhaul and reform of Commonwealth Public Service legislation in 75 years. Compared to the 1922 act, it is a short act in plain English underpinned by values and not by rules and prescriptions.The philosophy of this act places the onus for the management of Public Service departments squarely on the shoulders of secretaries and agency heads. The agency heads have gained all of the powers and responsibilities of employers and access to all the flexibilities under the workplace relations legislation. They will exercise similar rights, duties and powers as their counterparts in the private sector. The legislation brings employment in the Australian Public Service into line with employment in the private sector. It nevertheless recognises the special character of the Australian Public Service. The red tape has been stripped away, but parliamentary scrutiny and public accountability of the Australian Public Service has been enhanced.At the very end of this process members will be aware that the opposition, under pressure from the Commonwealth Public Sector Union, sought to amend the legislation in an unacceptable way. The final amendment that the Labor Party inserted in the Senate would have effectively ruled out temporary employment, except when the Senate agreed to each individual circumstance. That would have made flexibility in the area of temporary and casual employment impossible within the Public Service. The government could not accept this, and I am pleased to say that the Labor Party has backed away from this amendment and we now have a bill which provides a significant new level of flexibility in relation to temporary employment. Temporaries can now be employed for up to three years to meet agency needs and can be employed indefinitely to undertake specific tasks.Agencies now have a big job ahead of them to get themselves ready for the implementation of the new Public Service Act. I believe that they will be able to use this act to further enhance the quality of the public service offered to the people of Australia. In concluding, I would like to thank the members of the Australian Public Service, who have been waiting a very considerable time for this reform. I am pleased that we can now move into the next century with a new act with new opportunities to continue to build a world-class Public Service in Australia.1198311983Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, are you aware that at the college council meeting of 21 April Dr Dubois, who chaired the MRI task force negotiating with the government, raised his concern that MRI rebates should not only be available to existing sites? Are you also aware that at the council meeting on 29 April it was minuted:. . . this being an election year, the Government has been generous and it would be wise for the College to act quickly to advance this issue.Minister, is this why you sided with the radiologists against your technological advice? In the light of these extensive minutes, how can you be believed when you say that you knew nothing about the need for a supply control measure until 5 May?11983Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I first of all have to refute part of the question. The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting I did something against technical advice. I have already mentioned in the parliament, back in February, the process by which we came to this, and I am prepared to stick by that. In fact, I can probably give you the exact Hansard reference. I was checking it earlier today. In fact, it was 11 February 1999. My answer then— and I will read it to the House, because it is still correct—was:My department said in Senate estimates that I made the decision—this is the decision about the supply—That is correct. Let me tell you the process of my making the decision. The department advised my office that there may be a problem. I asked my department for proposals that could address that problem. I discussed them with my department. I asked my department which was their preferred option and I made a decision along the lines of—in fact, identical with—the preferred option put to me by my department. So the notion you are suggesting that I somehow came over the top—of the department—and put something in myself is not correct.That is in fact the advice that was put to me by the department, and I took my department's advice. So somehow suggesting that I have overruled technical advice is simply not correct.To come back to the College of Radiologists, I am not responsible for the College of Radiologists. I would not be at all surprised if they were speculating as to what was going to happen. It would not surprise me at all that they were speculating on a supply side measure. When I had my meeting with them on 6 May, it was discussed in the most general terms at the end of the meeting, as backed up by the two statutory declarations I have tabled in the parliament and as backed up in my comments back as early as February of this year. They did raise the issue with me, so they had obviously been talking about it amongst themselves. But they did not know the exact detail—I am assured of that by my department—and they certainly did not learn it from me. If they have taken a speculative position, they need to look at that themselves. They need to look at their own internal processes to see how they stack up.While I am on the College of Radiologists, we had earlier today a suspension of standing orders to get my reference to the Auditor. I would have been happy to give it to you if you had just asked, but I am happy to table it. The Auditor, under section 20—I understand it is under section 20—is able to inquire as widely as he wishes. I will be asking the College of Radiologists to cooperate with the Auditor. If the College of Radiologists does not cooperate with the Auditor, I expect he will comment as such when he gives his report. Finally, on the issue of generosity: yes, it was very generous. It was generous to the 100,000 Australians who were having to pay $400 to $800 each to get a scan.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I remind members of the general warning.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—It was generous to those people who had been neglected by Labor. This was a long overdue reform. It has been excellent for the Australian public.1198411984Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister please inform the House what the federal government is doing to assist the development of young leaders in rural and regional Australia?11984Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—May I thank the honourable member for Longman for raising this question because it draws attention to a gathering of 130 young farm leaders who are currently in Parliament House attending the National Farmers Federation 20th Anniversary Conference of Young Farmers. The interesting thing about this 20th anniversary event is that the National Farmers Federation have chosen not just to recall their achievements over the past 20 years, even though they are considerable, but to use this year to invest in the future of farm leadership. So they have brought together, with sponsorship from the federal government and a number of other agencies, some of the young people who will be the farm leaders of the future.I have to say that I have been very impressed with the calibre of these people, and they give us a great deal of confidence about the capacity of rural Australia to continue to produce in a way which will benefit our nation. These young people are very important in helping to develop the sorts of policies that will be necessary to keep Australian agriculture strong and viable, but they are also important for the role that they can play at a leadership level in country communities. This government is very keen to support rural Australia, and one of the best investments we can make is in its young people, because our rural young people certainly have the capacity to contribute to building strong agriculture in this country to ensure it remains competitive and to ensure that rural Australia remains strong in the decades ahead.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions to the Speaker119841198411984Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question for you. Are you aware that page 8409 was omitted from the proof copy of Hansard on Monday, 11 October 1999? What steps have been taken to rectify this, and how often are members' speeches, especially if they are controversial, omitted from the copies of Hansard ?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Yes, I am aware of this omission. Such was the nature of the member for Throsby's speech that I looked it up myself. May I be forgiven for observing that I wondered if there had been divine intervention in the absence of a couple of pages. But, all frivolity aside, I should indicate to the member for Throsby that this is an extraordinarily rare occurrence. In fact, what happened on the night in question when the proofs were being printed was that the two Docutech machines that the House uses for printing the proof Hansard were running simultaneously. One of them was producing perfect copies and the other was producing copies in which the page referred to was missing.As all members will be aware, the proof Hansard is available by about 9 a.m. When the absence of the speech referred to was noted, the printing office then re-ran the Hansards and made, I think, 150 copies of a reprinted edition available to all members and made 180 available around Australia to those various outlets that it was thought may have missed out.Normally, if an error occurs, an erratum page is inserted or provided the next day. By reason of the fact that this was not merely an error but a page missed altogether, a reprint was determined to be justified. I think it is fair to say that all that could reasonably be done to cover the error was done.Personal Explanations1198515:34:0011985Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I claim to have been misrepresented in an article this morning which appeared in the Age , in remarks in a press release put out by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and then in question time by the Minister for Finance and Administration. In the article, in that press release and in the question time intervention it was alleged that I was a government official or in a meeting with government officials in which Frank Blount, prior to his taking up his appointment as CEO of Telstra, received advice that the government intended a privatisation of Telstra or that official policy tended in that direction.I have already denied that once in parliament, and when I denied it on that occasion it was following a conversation that I had had with Mr Blount because that rumour had been out there circulating at that point in time. I now say that I deny those allegations again, and I quote from Mr Blount supporting my position.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order—CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—The finance minister is telling lies in the parliament. Let him get it straight. The finance minister is telling lies in the parliament.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will withdraw the statement he just made—unconditionally.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—I withdraw, Mr Speaker.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—I just wish to take a point of order relating to personal explanations. The Leader of the Opposition is now debating the point and seeking to quote something to support that debate.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would remind members of the general warning. The Minister for Forestry and Conservation, it has been the practice of the chair to be even-handed with personal explanations, and a good deal of liberty was extended to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation yesterday. I did it in a way that I thought no-one could take offence at. No-one knows better than the Leader of the Opposition the standing orders in this place. I will hear his quote. If he advances an argument, obviously I will be obliged to sit him down.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—This is a quote taken from an interview by Phillip Satchell of Mr Frank Blount at 11.25 this morning on Adelaide 5DN:SATCHELL:Was he amongst those who was saying it should?BLOUNT:I'm going to say that the answer to that in those meetings that you referred to, the meeting before I came, is no. I've had subsequent discussions with him—that is me—but that subject was not one that we brought up at the time. But . . . the answer to that is no.15:37:0011985Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—I do.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga may proceed.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister for Health and Aged Care misrepresented me in question time today when he said that he would have provided me with the terms of reference to the Auditor-General if I had asked. In fact, my office did ask his office for the terms of reference, and they were not provided.Documents1198611986Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers:Employment Advocate—Annual Report 1998-99Affirmative Action Agency—Annual Report 1998-99Australian Industrial Relations Commission and Australian Industrial Registry—Annual Report 1998-99Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—Annual Report 1998-99Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation—Annual Report 1998-99Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance119861198610000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Jagajaga proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the Minister for Health and Aged Care to follow prudent policy advice and correct procedure in making the 1998 Budget decision to extend Medicare rebates to Magnetic Resonance Imaging services.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—15:39:0011986Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—What we have here is a cover-up of massive proportions, and we saw the Minister for Health and Aged Care continue this cover-up today in question time, slip-sliding away, not answering the questions at every turn. This minister for health started negotiations with the Royal Australasian College of Radiologists in February 1998 to extend Medicare rebates to MRI machines. The Australian Health Technology Advisory Council had recommended—and this was the point the Leader of the Opposition was making in question time—that the number of machines that existed in Australia back in 1998 in public and private locations was sufficient to meet Australia's needs. So the number of machines that we had back in February 1998 already operating in public hospitals and in the private sector were adequate to meet Australia's needs. This is a very important point in the policy debacle that is now before us. There was no need for any more machines to be brought into this country.Some relocation of machines was needed and it is correct that there were some problems in regional Australia. AHTAC had recognised that. In fact, the government had recognised that some of these machines needed to be moved so that access would be improved for people in the country. But we now know today that this advice, originally provided by an independent body, the Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee—an independent committee of the government—has been completely ignored.The minister, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question today, once again tried to ignore that fact so that he is not hoist on this extraordinarily bad policy judgment. He tried to wriggle around and say that he did not ignore his department's advice, he did not ignore technical advice; that in fact he accepted the department's advice about a budget night cut-off for new contracts. But what he forgot to mention in his answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question is that the department's original advice, the department's original position, was to have geographic planned control over the numbers of MRI machines. The minister now is deliberately blurring these two pieces of departmental advice. The original advice was not appreciated by the College of Radiologists. They did not want to see the extension of Medicare rebates limited only to those machines currently in operation.If I go to the minutes of the Royal Australasian College of Radiologists of 21 April 1998 that I tabled today, those minutes say that the doctor in question commented on the `negotiations'. Remember that was the other word we had a bit of stumbling over in question time—`negotiations'. Who do we think they were negotiating with? Each other? They were negotiating with the government. He commented on the `negotiations leading to the consideration of a possible 18-month freeze on new sites' and `concerns which had been raised if MRI rebates were to be available initially only to existing sites'. So it is quite clear that the College of Radiologists had made it plain to the government that they did not like the department's preferred option, that they did not like AHTAC's original recommendation. The college go on to say that the task force—that is, the task force of the college—believes that `it is essential to get MRI onto the MBS schedule initially and then to make modifications over time'. What sort of health minister do we have who does not have any idea that these negotiations are going on? The minutes of 29 April of the College of Radiologists talk about `being scheduled to meet with the minister next week'. This is extraordinary, given the minister apparently did not let on about anything. Of course, he made the decision; it did not come from the College of Radiologists. It says:. . . he was scheduled—that is, the radiologist in question—was scheduled to meet with the Minister next week if Council—that is, the council of radiologists—supported the MRI proposal developed by the MRI Task Force.What the government was negotiating about was not AHTAC's original policy proposition, not the department's original policy proposition, but the policy proposition developed by the College of Radiologists. That is what was going to be discussed at the meeting held between the minister and the College of Radiologists.I agree about one issue with the minister and the College of Radiologists which goes along with the original recommendation of AHTAC: there was a need for better access for all patients but, of course, there was no need for extra machines. The College of Radiologists say that the objectives of the task force were to increase funding for MRI, both public and private, and that they wanted that done in a mainstream way by having a Medical Benefits Schedule item for private providers and an increase in grants for the public.Then over on page 3 of the minutes of 29 April—this really goes to the point made by the Leader of the Opposition in question time—it says this:Particular concerns were expressed about the Government's control of MRI supply.So at this point we are still having concerns raised by the College of Radiologists about what the government's control measure might be. However, it goes on:It was mentioned that, this being an election year, the Government has been generous—past tense—and it would be wise for the College to act quickly to advance this issue.Of course it was not the case that the college had anything other than the MRI rebate in mind when they were talking about generosity. The minutes then said the college supported the MRI proposal and went on to say:. . . the College cannot walk away as we will not have this opportunity again for some years.Of course the `next years' not necessarily being election years. It then goes on—and this is very serious indeed: . . . Council . . . empowers the President and Chairman . . . to proceed with direct negotiations, with the understanding that Council would have input into the matter of supply control. In particular, Council has reservations about any proposal that control should be by site restriction.These are very serious matters indeed. This was reiterated in their minutes of 4 May where they again raise concerns about a possible site freeze. So here we are just before the critical meeting, and the College of Radiologists are still raising their primary concern about a possible site freeze. The minutes state again:. the time for negotiation is over, it is the best position the College will be able to achieve in the short to medium term.These are very serious matters which show that in fact the government was negotiating for weeks ahead of the meeting that the minister has referred to in question time about this critical issue of supply control.It is interesting to also look at the important message that was put out by the College of Radiologists the day after the budget. Once again we have reference to that critical report that was written by the Australian Health Technology Advisory Council. It says:The AHTAC report has formed the basis for the college proposal and fellows—that is, fellows of the college—should note relevant aspects of the record of interview, including the current oversupply.This is their recognising back in May the current oversupply that existed back then and the maldistribution of MRI capacity in the community. This is the piece of advice that radiologists did not take, because the president of the college went on to say:I would strongly urge fellows to exercise caution with regard to their proposed involvement in any new MRI ventures.Some obviously did not take the sensible advice that was put forward to them by the president of the college at the time.These are very serious matters indeed that the minister refers to the Auditor-General today. Of course we had a bit of trouble getting the letter to the Auditor-General that set out the nature of the inquiry that this minister has instigated not at the earliest opportunity—not the first time that problems were raised with him. That is not when we had the first Auditor-General's report. But, of course, what else could we expect from this minister.What is interesting is the nature of the letter that the minister has written to the Auditor-General, the nature of the reference. What you would expect in the nature of a reference to the Auditor-General is an outline of the problem that the minister is asking the Auditor-General to report on. Given that the minister will be one of the people that the Auditor-General will have to call to examine his involvement in this very messy and sordid affair, what do we see in this letter to the Auditor-General? We see the argument put forward by the minister to support his side of the case. He says:While the negotiations were of a confidential nature, it was recognised that formal confidentiality agreements for the college's negotiators would be inappropriate because of their need to consult the college membership more widely on aspects of the agreement.That is a matter for the Auditor-General to investigate, not for the minister to put in argument in his first letter setting out the terms of reference for this essential inquiry. He goes on at the end of the first page to further justify his case:This measure—that is, the supply control measure—was not discussed in the negotiations.Once again, Minister, this is a matter for the Auditor-General to inquire into, not for you to put argument about when you are giving the Auditor-General a reference.The piece de resistance comes at the end of the letter. He says to the Auditor-General:As you would appreciate, there is a significant dilemma facing governments negotiating agreements such as the diagnostic imaging agreement with professional organisations. It is difficult to negotiate agreements around potentially commercially sensitive issues without revealing information that could be advantageous to some members of the group.I read that as a confession. That confesses that what we have been putting to this minister for eight months is exactly what happened—that the information got out, people took advantage of it and they have taken this government and the taxpayers of Australia to the cleaners. Of course they had inside information. Otherwise why would they have gone out and invested $150 million of their own money? They put their own money up. Why did they put it up? Because they knew that, from the minister's own letter to the Auditor-General, the information they had received could be advantageous.It was advantageous all right. It was extremely advantageous to a very large number of radiologists who have benefited to a very large degree as a result of this minister letting the cat out of the bag, making sure that the proper processes were not followed—the processes to make sure that the budget and the taxpayers were protected and that we did not have the outrageous scan scam that we are confronted with today.This Auditor-General's report will be very useful when it is done, but we are still calling for a royal commission. That is the only way we are going to get to the bottom of this minister's involvement. It is the only way we can make sure that the public purse is protected because, for the last 15 months, he has been trying to cover up, to not answer questions and to make sure that this issue just goes away. It will not. (Time expired)15:54:0011989Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for the option to participate in this debate. The opposition makes a number of allegations, most of which we have gone over before and none of which have any substance, but I am happy to repeat and refute the allegations. I am pleased that the honourable member for Jagajaga is prepared to concede that the Auditor-General's report will be useful. I believe it will be. I have said that I am happy to cooperate in all ways with the Auditor-General.I assume that, were I not to do that, he would comment unfavourably on that in his report. My department can be compelled to cooperate. I cannot be compelled, but I am more than willing to give an undertaking that I, my current staff and my former staff will give him all available assistance. I will also seek similar assistance from the College of Radiologists. The reason I am prepared to do that is very simple: the procedure that we followed on this was meticulously careful because we knew it was of a commercially sensitive nature.Speaking generally, I am pleased the opposition has decided to move back from making allegations about people not in this House who are known to me. As one gets on in this job, one sees things repeat themselves. In the past, I have not found those sorts of allegations to ever benefit anyone. I think everybody loses from them. Because the two people involved are not able to defend themselves, I feel I should defend them.Dr Best was mentioned yesterday as arranging dinners for me. It was implied that this had something to do with him being appointed to the National Health and Medical Re search Council. It is true I appointed him to a subcommittee of the National Health and Medical Research Council, but so did the Labor Party. When Graham Richardson was health minister he did exactly the same thing. Graham Richardson appointed Dr Best to a subcommittee in 1994 for a period of three years, Dr Best carried out that job in a distinguished manner, and I reappointed him to the Strategic Research Development Committee.Dr Best is not a radiologist. He does not have anything to do with MRI. He is a public health physician, which is about as far away from MRI as you can get. He did tell me that at one stage he did have something to do with MRI, and that was in negotiations with Neal Blewett, a former Labor Party minister. He has worked for state and federal Labor governments as well as working for state and federal Liberal governments. He is a past president of the Faculty of Public Health Physicians. He is a distinguished member of the medical profession. Before question time, Dr Best provided me with a letter that he has written to the Manager of Opposition Business. It says:Dear BobI read with some surprise, bordering on disappointment, the question you directed to the Minister today concerning fundraising functions I am supposed to have organised. Let us get the record straight.Over the past 15 years as a consultant I have worked for both Liberal and Labor Governments. I have never organised a fundraising function for Michael Wooldridge, whom I value as a friend.Therefore the rest of your impugning my reputation behind the cloak of parliamentary privilege is irrelevant. If you were worth your salt you would at least have checked your facts.I would therefore seek your public apology.I table the letter. By way of explanation, I did say that I thought Dr Best had organised a dinner for me. Like most members of this place, I attend a very large number of dinners. They are a chore from time to time, but they are a part of parliamentary life. Over the last 6½ years, since I was Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I have attended literally hundreds of dinners with hundreds of people. I thought it was safe not to deny the allegation when I could not prove my position without any warning but, on checking, Dr Best has never arranged a dinner for me.The second person whose reputation was impugned was Dr Meikle. Dr Meikle is overseas, but he was previously in the Victorian Imaging Group. I had a letter today from the Victorian Imaging Group, which states:Dr Meikle notes some matters of fact that may be relevant to the Minister's situation:. Dr Ron Meikle ceased work practising as a Radiologist for the Victorian Imaging Group at the end of March 1998;. Dr Ron Meikle has not acted on a Royal Australasian College of Radiologists Committee;. The association with Dr Jack Best and Dr Ron Meikle in relation to a fund raising dinner may be related to Dr Best's involvement with the Howard Florey Foundation and a donation of $20,000 made by Medical Imaging Australasia/Victorian Imaging Group to the Howard Florey Foundation to assist in its promotion of medical science. Dr Best and Dr Meikle attended a fund raising dinner in Adelaide at which the Minister spoke.That was a fundraising dinner for the Howard Florey Foundation, not for the Liberal Party. There were several hundred people in the audience. The letter continues:Dr Meikle has no record of organising any fund raising dinners for the Minister.That is true, because he has not. He has attended a dinner, he tells me. It was a Melbourne Cup Calcutta in 1995. I think I stung him for $100. So to impugn a person's reputation with no basis in fact at all is a very serious thing. I table that letter as well.The shadow minister went on to talk about the Victorian Imaging Group. She seems to like talking about this group because I notice that she talked about it in a debate in parliament last week. Radiology is an area where there are a lot of intraprofessional rivalries. It is a rapidly changing profession and it contains a lot of very decent and honourable people, but it is also a profession where there is much jealousy. I suggest that whoever is feeding the shadow minister information she should ignore them in the future because the information that she is getting is simply not correct. She talked yesterday about the Victorian Imaging Group having an MRI at the Monash Medical Centre. The MRI at the Monash Medical Centre is owned by the Monash Medical Centre itself. It is in a public hospital. It is not the Victorian Imaging Group's machine. The shadow minister chose to mention the Victorian Imaging Group in Hansard on 14 October 1999, saying:I recently had cause to look at the web site of one of Victoria's larger radiology practices—the Victorian Imaging Group. The VIG boasts no fewer than 28 sites run by 250 staff under the supervision of 12 radiologists. How can the department honestly believe that, with its professional supervision rules, these are being met when 12 radiologists are split between 28 sites?I agree that that would be pretty difficult. I checked today with the Victorian Imaging Group and, in fact, they have 23 radiologists—not 12, as she suggested—and this number has been stable over a long period of time, and they have only 18 sites at which they undertake ultrasound. So 23 radiologists are quite capable of providing supervision to 18 ultrasound sites.I mention this not out of any point scoring but to make the point that at the moment lots of people in the radiology profession are running around with claims and counterclaims, some of them quite scurrilous and almost every one of them wrong. They are doing it because the profession has to come to grips with the fact that there is a significant minority within their profession that appear to have done the wrong thing. I am receiving letters from radiologists actually congratulating me for finally clamping down on some of the cowboys. The behaviour of some people in the profession has been quite unacceptable.To answer the points of substance in the matter of public importance, the opposition makes much of the Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee's report. I have a copy here dated October 1997. I am somehow supposed not to have followed their advice. I am puzzled by this because, for a start, on page 58 it mentions location of units and gives three general principles about location of units. The first principle `requires a sufficient population base'. This is correct. The second principle is:. . . as MRI is only a portion of the specialist consultation and subsequent treatment, locating MRI services in settings which ensure that there is a cluster of these key specialties is appropriate for both quality and efficiency reasons.That we have done. It continues:Thirdly, an MRI service should be located in radiological departments or practices which offer a comprehensive range of alternative imaging modalities and procedures, such as CT scanning, ultrasound, angiography and myelography.We have done that too. So it is hard to see where we have not taken their advice. If we go to the final recommendations on page 69, they talk very little about location of machines and are very fuzzy, so there is no advice there that we could not have particularly taken.The recommendations on the second dot point talk about the number of units, and again the shadow minister makes much of our oversupply. But that misses the point. We have not tried to reach a desired number of scans by limiting the machines; we have done it by limiting the scans themselves. If you have a look at our tax calculations, you will see around that time public hospitals were doing about 50,000 to 60,000 scans a year. They said that we needed another 40,000 to 48,000 scans a year—this is 1997—and then over the next five years we would need another 16,000 to 24,000 scans. In other words, we needed about 124,000 scans a year. In fact, that is just about spot-on what we have funded, with 408,000 scans over a three-year period, starting low and increasing because in the last few years the types of investigations where MRI has been proved to be useful have expanded. So, far from somehow taking or not taking the advice, what we ended up doing was completely consistent with the AHTAC report, a report that we have found very useful.There is much about us apparently not following correct procedure here. That simply could not be further from the truth. One needs to understand the nature of this investigation. It is not what you might do, say, when you are reforming the tax policy—when you bring in some outside experts to have a look at what you have done to give you some practical advice on whether or not it will work. Both sides of the House when in government have done that. This was a formal negotiation with a professional group. I remind honourable members that the government and the cabinet were aware of this. I was specifically authorised to carry out this negotiation with the College of Radiologists. This is something that is minuted in the cabinet minutes.We were negotiating with them as a representative group. We expected them to consult their members and to tell us the views of their members. MRI was one small component of what we were doing. Essentially, we were negotiating a price and volume arrangement with radiology, and that needed the cooperation of the profession. It could not be done without the cooperation of the profession. A similar agreement had been negotiated with the Royal Australian College of Pathologists in 1996. It has contained the growth in pathology and enhanced the professional nature of the profession of pathology. It has worked so well that the college signed a second agreement earlier this year with the government.Much has been made of this being a scam. I was actually the first to use the word, and I believe it is. If you look back in history, the last time this happened was under the Labor Party with pathology in the mid-1980s. Report 236 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts into pathology was the thing that prompted pathology to change. Today pathology is a highly professional group, able to interact with government and run a proper three-year agreement. I hope that what has happened with MRI will prompt radiology to become equally professional and perhaps be the thing that makes people in that profession realise that negotiating with government can be done but needs to be done in good faith with certain probity around it.There was nothing unexpected about us funding MRI. I have said in this House numerous times since February that there was a heavy lobbying campaign, and I had openly stated that I wanted to fund MRI. What was not known—and what was the market sensitive piece of information—was the nature of the supply control. The honourable member has provided minutes from the College of Radiologists. Again, given the internal turmoil in that body, I am not at all surprised that minutes have come out. I am happy to look at them. If I have anything to add to an answer, I will. However, I point out that I have repeatedly been given the advice from my department as late as yesterday that the first time anything came to me about a supply-side measure was 5 May.I believe the investigations we have launched will be completely thorough. The Health Insurance Commission has powers to compel, and I have tabled information from it today that suggests that it is likely to be sending 16 cases initially to the Director of Public Prosecutions—the result of a very thorough investigation. I am happy to look back and have the auditor look at what has happened. I have no reason to believe that there will be any difficulty there whatsoever. I am looking forward because we have to decide what to do with the supply controls at the end of 18 months. I have said that we will have a further investigation to get advice from experts there. I am happy to inform the House that Professor John Blandford, the head of the Health Services Management Development Unit at Adelaide's Flinders University, is going to chair this review. I have asked him to do this as quickly as possible. Professor Blandford was formerly a commissioner of the South Australian Health Commission. I am happy to table that information for honourable members. (Time expired)16:09:0011992Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—In his ministerial statement to the House on Monday, the Minister for Health and Aged Care finally came clean and admitted that there was indeed a scan scam. This happened after months of telling the House that there was no sudden rush for MRI contracts, clearly no insider knowledge and no improper negotiations with the minister. This minister is a real life Homer Simpson with hair. He even has the growl right. Every time he goes to the microphone, he comes out and says, `D'oh. I'm sorry. I think I may be wrong.' The minister stated to the House on Monday that, of the 111 machines notified to have been either in place or on order on 12 May 1998, 48 were ordered between 10 February—when negotiations with the Royal Australasian College of Radiologists commenced—and the budget cut-off date of 12 May. What is worse is that 13 of these machines were ordered in the last two weeks before the budget.The Labor Party has discovered these facts very slowly. It has taken us eight months to get the minister to reveal that 48 contracts were signed between February and May 1998. Before his speech on Monday, the minister steadfastly refused to reveal any of the dates of the contracts, arguing somewhat curiously that by revealing the dates he was endangering the HIC's investigation. Now, on the HIC's own advice, he has revealed that 48 of these contracts were made during that period.If the minister were genuinely open and accountable, he would immediately reveal to this House the specific dates and details of the 48 contracts. More importantly, he would reveal whether any of these contracts involved members of the College of Radiologists' negotiating team that were participating in discussions with the minister from February on. We demand and expect nothing less. These simple pieces of information would assist us to answer the question of whether there was insider information. But this minister is not interested in getting to the truth about this incident; he is too busy ignoring the obvious and hoping it will all go away. This is a minister who has delusions of adequacy.The accumulation of 62 MRI units around the country took 13 years, and yet in three months Australian radiologists suddenly ordered 48 machines at a cost to them of $150 million. They knew that some of that $150 million would come out of the pockets of ordinary taxpayers as a result of the changing policy made at that budget. That was an increase of 77 per cent in three months, yet this minister expects us to believe that there was not a fix on. For eight long months he argued that there was no fix and that the Labor Party simply did not understand health. We have had question after question but no answers—just growling from this minister across the chamber.On Monday, however, the minister was forced to acknowledge a few facts. He finally admitted to the House that there was a $150 million scam played out on the Australian taxpayer. He was forced to notify the House that the HIC was so suspicious of these contracts he would recommend to the Executive Council that a regulation be introduced to limit access to Medicare benefits to those machines already on order on 10 February, but not those ordered between February and May. The minister then explicitly stated:This . . . will ensure that an advantage does not accrue to any person who may have taken advantage of backdating of a contract, a non-binding contract or any form of inside knowledge—These are the minister's own words—as a result of the negotiation process to order a machine before 12 May 1998.His own words were `any form of inside knowledge'; that is where he has been got. Blind Freddy can see that there was inside knowledge. You cannot tell me that 52 radiologists around Australia committed contractual fraud and backdated their contracts after 12 May. Perhaps one or two did, but not all 52. That is why we need a royal commission to find out the facts. It is quite clear that the minister's answers are just not credible.On Monday he admitted there was insider knowledge, but yesterday he backflipped and today again he decided it was all about backdating and non-binding contracts. Let us compare the minister's comments of the last three days with his previous comments on this issue. While we compare these comments, let us not forget that, several days before the budget in May 1998, the minister was warned by his own department that there may be a problem and that `we should address it'—that is, this problem—`ahead of time'.That certainly has not occurred. Unfortunately for him, hoping major fraud will just disappear and the opposition will not notice is not his job. More unfortunate for him is that our shadow minister does know her job, and she has done it superbly. Let us not also forget that this whole scheme of MRI rebates is one of the minister's own devising. The original advice from both the department and the medical technologists was that the government should identify areas of need on a regional basis. So the minister has only himself to blame for the scam. Compare his confessions of the last three days to what he stated in the months previously. On 11 February, he said:I have no evidence, and no evidence has been presented to me or provided by the opposition, that there was actually a rush of orders in the weeks before the budget.It was not a rush, Minister, but a stampede. On 10 February, he said:. . . there has been no massive blow out in MRI numbers—That is right, Minister, no massive blow out, just a 100 per cent increase in machines. Perhaps all the radiation from these excess machines is affecting old Homer's capacity to think straight. It is another case of, `D'oh, ordered too many machines, opened my mouth too early, forgot to take notes of important negotiations'—mistake after mistake after mistake.The minister and his colleague Senator Herron also seem to have a bizarre belief that proper minute taking of meetings and asking for declarations of pecuniary interest is unusual government behaviour. He actually said in the parliament on 28 September, again in response to the shadow minister:I have never told my department to keep minutes or not to keep minutes, and I didn't in this case.The next day, he said:It is not routine or normal to take minutes of every meeting.It might not be routine in Kennett's Victoria, but it is routine in good government and accountable government. The fact that no minutes were taken but everyone was sworn to secrecy is another example of the minister's complicity in this scam.If there was no passing of confidential information in that meeting, why were all the participants sworn to secrecy? What would be the point of that? Did the minister say, `Don't tell anyone what we said because I'm organising a surprise birthday party for little Johnny,' or is it more likely that the line was, `Don't tell anyone what we said because I shouldn't have said it'? I think the latter is more likely. Something happened in that room in May that was secret enough that people were sworn not to repeat the discussion, but heaven forbid that the public or the opposition should ever know what happened. That would be counter to the principle of coalition accountability. The minister should learn from Jeff Kennett's mistakes, not try to emulate them.The minister was forced, yet again, to back down when he realised that not only had his department not taken minutes but also not one of the members of the College of Radiologists had made declarations of interest. There they were negotiating with a professional organisation about Medicare rebates and it did not occur to the minister to maybe think that some of those people had a pecuniary interest, some of them may have had friends who had a pecuniary interest, in making these decisions. They were radiologists. That is their job. It is not surprising that this has occurred. Yet, when asked in the House about why they were not asked to declare any pecuniary interest, his answer then was:If anything like that was to be declared, it should have been at the beginning of the process and not at the end.Hear, hear, Minister! That is the whole point that we make. Dr Wooldridge's handling of this entire process demonstrates the problems coalition governments face. They simply do not understand public accountability. Remember the minister's call to Paul Harley-Green about public accountability where he called him `a rude, something else'—I am too demure to say—`nitwit loser'?They understand about their mates and their mates' business interests, they understand about family trusts, but they do not understand public accountability. They are the handlers and keepers of the public purse. Their decisions have to be above and beyond any allegations of bias or mishandling. In government, they have to keep minutes, they have to ask for declarations of pecuniary interest and they have to stop thinking about money and political donations for one moment and start thinking about ethics. It is often too hard for them. This government is an organised hypocrisy.16:20:0011994Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My intention over the next 10 minutes is to do five things: to examine trends in service delivery and funding of diagnostics generally, to consider the model implemented by the Australian Labor Party for the delivery of these services, to look at the impact of the October 1997 report of the Australian Health Technology Advisory Council, to consider the challenge which that presented to this government and this minister and to examine the allegation of some breach of probity on the part of the Minister for Health and Aged Care.In relation to diagnostics, there is really a great story to tell, and the human story gets lost in the mud which is being slung from that side of the chamber to this. The key diagnostic tools available at the moment are X-ray, ultrasound, nuclear medicine, computerised axial tomography—or CAT—scans and MRI, magnetic resonance imaging. The improvements in diagnostic technologies have delivered absolutely outstanding benefits to Australian citizens and health care users.We have gone from X-ray, which is just a single two-dimensional image, to nuclear medicine, which allows through the use of radioactive isotopes a much more precise diagnosis of problems, to CAT scanning, which allows us to build up a layered picture of a problem, to finally the Rolls-Royce of diagnostic imaging, the magnetic resonance image, which allows us to produce a three-dimensional, high definition image of a damaged piece of soft tissue. MRI has completely superseded older, more invasive, much more uncomfortable procedures for patients such as the myelogram, which required, for example, an injection of dye into the spinal chord and produced days and sometimes weeks of discomfort. All of that is now in the past, and it is no wonder that that created a huge amount of demand for the availability of the technology and a high pressure on the government to include it in the schedule of medical benefits.The ALP's response, which was a fairly characteristic socialist response, was that the technology should only be available in public teaching hospitals, should only attract a benefit if you are in a public teaching hospital. The consequence of that for my constituents in Parramatta, whose only available local service was at the teaching hospital of Westmead, was to wait around in queues of up to five months, when many of them had a potentially fatal illness which needed rapid diagnosis. But that was the Labor response. That is Labor's commitment to patient care—only have it available in a public teaching hospital and do not worry if the poor punters, the mums and dads and kids, have to wait in line for five months for a desperately needed piece of medical intelligence which should be more widely available.It also had damaging consequences for rural and regional citizens in Australia who could not get to those 18 public teaching hospitals overwhelmingly concentrated in the capital cities. The alternative was to spend $400 to $800 to get the procedure available through some 40 private practices. So, again, if you are wealthy, under Labor's policy, you can get access to it, but the poor, the punters and the mums and dads have to wait in line for five months.In October 1997, the Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee, which is the technological source of advice to the Medical Health and Research Council, the principal advisory body to the Commonwealth government, produced a report addressing this problem which Labor policy had created. The critical thing here is the suggestion that this report is a secret piece of information which has been somehow secretly disseminated to a privileged few. This is a public document that has been on the public record since October 1997. Let me quote a couple of paragraphs from its contents:The Commonwealth and state funding arrangements for MRI services have concentrated MRI units in tertiary hospitals. Such a policy inevitably restricts access for both doctors and patients. The resulting delay in diagnosis undoubtedly prolongs patient discomfort and/or uncertainty.That was of course no great concern to the Australian Labor Party. It continues:MRI may be a cost effective replacement for some conditions, but in the absence of adequate MRI supply another modality is used. MRI services should be located in settings where these key specialties are clustered. MRI services should be located in radiological departments or practices which offer a comprehensive range of alternative imaging. This would achieve economies of scale in staff and infrastructure, as well as providing the base for promoting cost-effective use of MRI via substitution. What we have seen the minister do, contrary to the suggestion of the shadow spokesperson, is exactly what the report has recommended. The key recommendation of that report is that there is a shortage of supply of MRI diagnostic services and that the supply needs to be increased. The report also stated that the concentration of MRI services in public teaching hospitals was causing damage to patients, to the quality of care and was leading to a misuse of scarce health resources, by reference to other modalities, because MRI was not widely enough available. The minister then set about coming up with an effective policy response to that set of problems and a process by which it could be implemented that would ensure appropriate health outcomes and observe necessary probity requirements.We are talking here about a $1 billion industry. The idea that there is some simple solution to that set of policy and process challenges, that you could wake up one morning and just issue instructions, is fanciful and demonstrates the opposition's lack of recent government experience—and long may it remain so. The cost to the Commonwealth of diagnostic imaging generally rose by 330 per cent in 10 years. It rose from $279 million in 1984-85 to $1.06 billion in 1997-98. That 330 per cent increase is reflected in the recommendation by the Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee that there had to be greater coordination and greater collaboration within the radiology fraternity to achieve better outcomes. Where there had been an instinctive reach for a CAT scan, for example—regardless of whether the treatment required it—in order to achieve certainty of diagnosis, that was causing a massive blow-out in funds. The minister had to ensure that that experience was not repeated with the MRI.The idea that this could be achieved in isolation from a discussion with the Royal Australian College of Radiologists is, again, fanciful. The only way that a proper, important, necessary policy outcome could be achieved was to have a discussion with the people who were delivering the services. So rightly, properly and completely appropriately, the minister authorised his department in February of last year to enter into what turned out to be a 10-week discussion on how the delivery of services could ensure that Australian people who need to access these services get it at a cost which is affordable to them and at the same time sustainable in terms of ongoing, Commonwealth budget outlays. That was the purpose of that 10-week discussion.The minister rightly points out that there was an expectation in the market that the government would make a supply measure. That expectation was fuelled by the explicit recommendation of the government's own expert advisory body that, in the absence of adequate MRI supply, other modalities are used. Clearly, there was going to be a move to increase the allocation to MRI. The question was how that should best be achieved in a manner which did not involve some breach of probity requirements.What then happened was that the minister, on the night of the budget, on 12 May last year, announced that there would be an allocation of funding, that there would be 400,000 images funded over the next three years but that you could only get a medical benefit for that funding if the machine was in service or subject to a binding legal contract on the night of the budget. That was the minister's chosen instrument to ensure there was not abuse and commercial opportunism on the part of the profession. As it turns out, it was an imperfect instrument. That may well be an outcome of the Auditor-General's inquiry.It may be that we should have said that only machines that were in ships en route to Australia will attract the rebate. In that sense, it was an imperfect response but, nonetheless, it was, I think—and I think any reasonable person looking at it would also think so—a natural and practical response to ensure that there was not abuse of the benefit. Since that time, the government has received 52 claims for access to the benefit on the basis that those 52 machines satisfied the minister's budget night criteria.(Time expired)UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Committees11996119961199616:30:0011996Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the 11th report of the committee for 1999 relating to the refurbishment of 4 Treasury Place, Melbourne.Ordered that the report be printed.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—by leave—The report which I have just tabled concerns the proposed refurbishment of 4 Treasury Place in Melbourne. The building at 4 Treasury Place is a Commonwealth owned building located on the corner of Treasury Place and Lansdowne Street, Melbourne. It fronts the historic Treasury Gardens to the south and Fitzroy Gardens to the east. The building is part of Melbourne's Treasury Reserve Heritage Precinct which comprises a group of public buildings dating from 1858 which are of national significance in their own right. It was the first purpose-built federal building and was designed by the Commonwealth architect, John Smith Murdoch, who is publicly best known as the designer of the provisional Parliament House in Canberra.The building at 4 Treasury Place was constructed in two stages between 1911 and 1913. Construction materials used in the building are also significant. It was one of the first reinforced concrete framed buildings constructed in Melbourne. It has brick walls finished with stucco externally and plaster internally. The original pitched rooves are clad with slate. The building is also notable for its association with the offices of the Prime Minister and the Governor-General, who have been occupants of the offices in the building since 1912. Accordingly, both because of its historic role during the early years of Federation and its location in the Treasury precinct, it is considered by heritage authorities to be one of the most significant heritage properties listed on the Register of the National Estate.The building has been used continuously for ministerial and parliamentary office accommodation since 1913. It currently provides offices and cabinet room accommodation for Victorian based federal parliamentary tenants. At present, there are six ministers and a parliamentary secretary accommodated in the building. There is also accommodation for visiting ministers, including the Prime Minister, the current Governor-General and two former Governors-General and some departmental staff.The extent of the proposed refurbishment includes repair of the render work and application of new finishes, demolition of the non-original fourth floor additions, restoration of the slate roofs, replacement of all building services and refurbishment of amenities throughout the building. The aim of the refurbishment is to restore and protect this valuable heritage asset while providing the building tenants with an efficient and safe working environment with reduced building operational costs. The level of disruption associated with the proposed building works necessitates the relocation of tenants to alternative accommodation for the duration of the refurbishment works. The proposed refurbishment works are expected to take about 14 months and the official opening of the refurbished building will form an important part of the centenary of Federation celebrations in Melbourne early in the year 2001. When referred to the committee, the estimated cost of the proposed work was $15.8 million. During the committee's inquiry the cost estimate was increased by $2 million. The proposed refurbishment is now estimated to cost $17.8 million.The committee's report recommends that the refurbishment should proceed and the committee has concluded that, whilst the building appears structurally sound, there is a need to refurbish the interior and exterior. Internally, the building's finishes and services are showing signs of disrepair and have reached the end of their economic life. Externally, the building requires extensive restoration, the removal of extensions, and roof repairs. The proposed internal and external works are extensive and can be justified to preserve the building and to provide office accommodation of a suitable standard. Occupation of the building during the refurbish ment period is impractical, given the extensive nature of the work to be undertaken. Suitable temporary accommodation for existing tenants has been located at Casselden Place on the corner of Lonsdale and Spring streets. The cost of this accommodation is included in the project budget.The proposal includes refurbishment of the basement, which contains the first Treasury vault. It is planned to lease the basement as a resource or interpretation centre. The committee noted the proposed design of emergency evacuation exits from the basement. The committee has concluded and recommended that the building certifiers have confirmed that emergency egress from the basement will be the subject of a dispensation from the Building Code of Australia. However, the committee believes that the provision for emergency evacuation of basement occupants should be accorded the highest priority and that the suitability of the basement as a public resource or interpretation centre should be investigated further. The views of the Melbourne metropolitan fire brigades should be sought before final plans are developed for the basement.The internal refurbishment of the building services and systems will be extensive. The committee concluded that the scope and design of the building services and systems are appropriate for the operation of the building, subject to basement emergency evacuation requirements being satisfactorily addressed. The building is listed on the Register of the National Estate administered by the Australian Heritage Commission, which raised a number of concerns with the committee. The committee shares these concerns and has therefore requested that it be provided with continuing advice and information about ongoing discussions with the Department of Finance and Administration and the commission to ensure that all options are properly explored to maintain the heritage aspect of the building.In conclusion, the recommendations in the report have been unanimously endorsed by the committee, except for the removal of a lovely stand of pine trees on the eastern side of the building. It would be my personal preference to try to retain these trees as a very important link to the historical landscape design of the area, but I was a lonely voice on the committee on this. The reason given for the removal of these trees was the birds that nest in there. Of course, they foul the building.It is a sad indictment on humanity today that we want to sanitise the world. We have kicked the roosters out of the backyard, and I heard the other day that some Queenslanders want to shoot the crows because they make too much noise. Now we want to evacuate the birds out of their nesting place at 4 Treasury Place. My preference would be to retain those trees as an important part of the historical landscape design. I commend the report to the House.119981199816:37:0011998Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit I present the following committee report entitled Report 371—Aviation security; costing of services; planning of aged care—Review of Auditor-General's reports 1998-99—First half .Ordered that the report be printed.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—by leave—Report 371 informs the parliament of the committee's examination of the Auditor-General's reports on aviation security, the costing of services, and the planning of aged care services. The committee held a public hearing in May this year to discuss these issues with the relevant Commonwealth agencies. I will briefly discuss each issue in turn.The audit report on aviation security noted that the department had established a regulatory regime which ensured Australia's compliance with international standards. However, the report also identified areas where Australia's aviation security regime could be strengthened. The JCPAA focused on risk management practices and auditing and compliance procedures. It is vital that security procedures address the danger presented by criminal behaviour at airports. Currently, the focus is on politically motivated violence, but criminal activity is actually more of a prob lem. Our report recommends that security arrangements be reviewed by relevant Commonwealth agencies so as to maximise the effectiveness of police forces and airport authorities in combating crime.The committee also examined Audit Report No. 19, into the planning of aged care. The quality and availability of aged care services is a very important issue for many Australian families. It is critical that the Commonwealth plan effectively to provide these services where they will be most needed. This is why the JCPAA has recommended that the input of local communities be harnessed when planning is undertaken. Local communities, particularly local councils, are uniquely qualified to advise the Commonwealth of their future needs in this area. Currently, state offices of the Department of Health and Aged Care can choose whether to consult local communities. The JCPAA believes that this approach is inadequate. We have recommended that local council input become an integral component of the planning process.Audit Report No. 21 reviewed the costing of services in Commonwealth agencies. With the adoption of accrual budgeting and the increasingly contestable environment in which agencies operate, it is vital that Commonwealth services are costed appropriately. The audit report found that there was scope for substantial improvement. Indeed, committee members are concerned that costing systems are not sophisticated enough for the new public sector environment.The JCPAA has recommended that the Department of Finance and Administration actively facilitate the development of appropriate costing methodologies. We support the contention that each agency should prepare a methodology that is suitable for its business needs. However, in the interests of both quality and consistency, we also encourage the Department of Finance and Administration to provide a suitable level of assistance.I conclude by thanking on behalf of the committee those people who contributed their time and expertise to the committee's review hearings. I am also indebted to my colleagues on the committee who have dedicated much time and effort to reviewing these Auditor- General's reports. As well, I would like to thank the members of the secretariat who were involved in the inquiry: Dr Margot Kerley, the committee secretary; Ms Rose Verspaandonk; Ms Maureen Chan; Ms Tiana Gray; and Ms Maria Pappas. I commend the report to the House.16:41:0011999Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—by leave—The aspect of the JCPAA report that I wish to focus on is aviation security. This is going to be an increasingly important issue over the next couple of years. There is no doubt that considerable resources are being expended in dealing with the possibility of terrorist activity around the Olympics, and other politically motivated violence. By way of more relevant local interest, I am more concerned in the general case about deficiencies in dealing with criminal related activities at Australian airports. There have been some significant changes in jurisdiction over the past few years. The actual airside security at domestic airport terminals is conducted in almost all cases by Australian Protective Services officers and at Canberra airport by the Australian Federal Police. Most criminal activity that takes place at airports is more likely to be of interest to state police forces and there is a significant need for an improvement in the coordination between state police forces in their dealings with Australian Protective Services, in the case of most airports, and with Australian Federal Police with respect to Canberra airport.There are also issues relating to significant issues relating to criminal activity that passes from one jurisdiction into another. There was one notable incident earlier this year that involved the member for Bonython and me where there was a miscommunication between police in South Australia and the Australian Federal Police in Canberra—which resulted in some embarrassment ultimately for both police forces, I think. There was some focus on this in the inquiry to which I am referring. I was very pleased that the committee has seen fit to make a couple of recommendations to the government which I hope will be taken up with some expedition, namely:2.27 The Committee recommends that the Department of Transport and Regional Services and the Attorney-General's Department review arrangements for cooperation between airport authorities and police forces in dealing with criminal activity at airports.The Committee recommends the Department of Transport and Regional Services review passenger and hand luggage screening, including: the training, capability and responsibilities of operators; and the effectiveness of response by relevant authorities (Federal Police or Protective Services officers) in the event of contraband being detected, or other critical events occurring during screening procedures.I hope that the government will take up these matters with a degree of thoroughness which it has not heretofore employed.11999Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—by leave—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks when the debate is resumed.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills11999r92711999Consideration resumed.16:46:0011999Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I rise because of the circumstance which has this motion being put at this time of the day. This is a bill that contains 454 amendments and we have been allowed only two hours for debate. This performance is shameful on the part of the government.Motion (by Mr Hockey) put:That the question be now put.16:51:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)76Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth60Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr AndrenMr BevisMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs OByrneMr OConnorMr OKeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr ZahraMr HowardMr BeazleyMr DownerMr McLeayMr ProsserMs Burke* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill agreed to.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—I seek leave of the House to move the third reading forthwith.Leave not granted.Motion (by Mr Hockey) proposed:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.16:55:0012000Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I oppose this motion, because of the shameless way in which this government is treating the House. This is a bill of 454 amendments, with two Houses to—Motion (by Mr Hockey) put:That the question be now put.17:00:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)76Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth60Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr AndrenMr BevisMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr ZahraMr HowardMr BeazleyMr DownerMr McLeayMr ProsserMs Burke* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Question put:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay17:04:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)76Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth60Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr AndrenMr BevisMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr ZahraMr HowardMr BeazleyMr DownerMr McLeayMr ProsserMs Burke* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.12002Motion (by Mr Hockey)—by leave—proposed:That the bill be now read a third time.17:06:0012002Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I oppose the bill being read a third time at this stage because this House has been treated with contempt.Motion (by Mr Hockey) put:That the question be now put.17:10:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)76Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth60Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr AndrenMr BevisMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr ZahraMr HowardMr BeazleyMr DownerMr McLeayMr ProsserMs Burke* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bills12003r67012003Consideration resumed from 19 October.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 4 to 9), omit subclauses (2) and (3), substitute:(2) The following provisions commence on a day or days to be fixed by Proclamation: (a) section 3; (b) the items in Schedules 1 to 7 (other than item 12 of Schedule 7); (c) the items in Schedules 10, 11 and 12.(3) If any of the following provisions does not commence under subsection (2) within the period of 6 months beginning on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent, it commences on the first day after the end of that period: (a) section 3; (b) an item in Schedules 1 to 7 (other than item 12 of Schedule 7); (c) an item in Schedule 10.(3A) If an item in Schedule 11 or 12 does not commence under subsection (2) within the period of 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent, it commences on the first day after the end of that period.(2) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 13 and 14), omit subclause (5), substitute:(5) The items in Schedule 8 (other than item 2A) are taken to have commenced immediately after the Managed Investments Act 1998 .(5A) Item 2A of Schedule 8 is taken to have commenced immediately after section 27 of the Corporate Law Reform Act 1992 . (3) Clause 3, page 2 (line 24), omit "6 and 8", substitute "6, 8 and 11".(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 30), omit "in what they believe to be".(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (lines 8 to 16), omit subsection (1), substitute:Good faith—directors and other officers(1) A director or other officer of a corporation commits an offence if they: (a) are reckless; or (b) are intentionally dishonest;and fail to exercise their powers and discharge their duties: (c) in good faith in the best interests of the corporation; or (d) for a proper purpose.Note: Section 187 deals with the situation of directors of wholly-owned subsidiaries.(6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 9 (lines 23 and 24), omit subparagraph (b)(ii), substitute: (ii) after making an independent assessment of the information or advice, having regard to the director's knowledge of the corporation and the complexity of the structure and operations of the corporation; and(7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 65 (line 3), omit "a payment", substitute "the making of, or an agreement to make, a payment".(8) Schedule 1, item 5, pages 124 and 125 (table item 5), omit the table item.(9) Schedule 1, item 5, page 129 (line 9) to page 130 (line 23), omit section 614.(10) Schedule 1, item 5, page 130 (line 30) to page 131 (line 3), omit paragraph 615(a), substitute: (a) the company must appoint a nominee for foreign holders of the company's securities who is approved by ASIC; and(11) Schedule 1, item 5, page 135 (lines 16 to 20), omit paragraph (3)(a), substitute: (a) the bidder must appoint a nominee for foreign holders of the target's securities who is approved by ASIC; and(12) Schedule 1, item 5, page 137 (lines 7 to 14), omit subsection (2).(13) Schedule 1, item 5, page 137 (lines 21 to 31), omit subsection (4), substitute:All bids—minimum consideration if bidder purchased securities in the 4 months before the bid(4) The consideration offered for securities in the bid class under a takeover bid must equal or exceed the maximum consideration that the bidder or an associate provided, or agreed to provide, for a security in the bid class under any purchase or agreement during the 4 months before the date of the bid.(14) Schedule 1, item 5, page 138 (line 1), after "consideration", insert "offered or".(15) Schedule 1, item 5, page 138 (line 3), after "consideration", insert "offered or".(16) Schedule 1, item 5, page 138 (line 5), after "consideration", insert "offered or".(17) Schedule 1, item 5, page 138 (line 7), after "consideration", insert "offered or".(18) Schedule 1, item 5, page 138 (line 11), after "relevant", insert "offer,".(19) Schedule 1, item 5, page 139 (lines 18 to 23), omit subsection (2).(20) Schedule 1, item 5, page 140 (lines 10 to 19), omit subsection (2).(21) Schedule 1, item 5, page 140 (lines 20 to 28), omit subsection (3).(22) Schedule 1, item 5, page 142 (lines 10 and 11), omit the note.(23) Schedule 1, item 5, page 157 (lines 29 to 32), omit paragraph (g).(24) Schedule 1, item 5, page 158 (lines 5 to 7), omit paragraph (i).(25) Schedule 1, item 5, page 158 (after line 19), after paragraph (j), insert: (ja) if, during the period of 4 months before the date of the bid, the bidder or an associate gave, or offered to give or agreed to give a benefit to another person and the benefit was likely to induce the other person, or an associate, to: (i) accept an offer under the bid; or (ii) dispose of securities in the bid class;and the benefit is not offered to all holders of securities in the bid class under the bid—details of the benefit(26) Schedule 1, item 5, page 162 (lines 26 and 27), omit "or" and paragraph (d).(27) Schedule 1, item 5, page 187 (line 6), omit "This subsection does not apply to a mandatory bid.".(28) Schedule 1, item 5, page 198 (lines 3 to 12), omit subsection (2), substitute:(2) The Panel may only declare circumstances to be unacceptable circumstances if it appears to the Panel that the circumstances: (a) are unacceptable having regard to the effect of the circumstances on: (i) the control, or potential control, of the company or another company; or (ii) the acquisition, or proposed acquisition, by a person of a substantial interest in the company or another company; or (b) are unacceptable because they constitute, or give rise to, a contravention of a provision of this Chapter or of Chapter 6A, 6B or 6C.The Panel may only make a declaration under this subsection, or only decline to make a declaration under this subsection, if it considers that doing so is not against the public interest after taking into account any policy considerations that the Panel considers relevant.(29) Schedule 1, item 5, page 198 (lines 14 and 15), omit paragraph (3)(a), substitute: (a) must have regard to: (i) the purposes of this Chapter set out in section 602; and (ii) the other provisions of this Chapter; and (iii) the rules made under section 658C; and (iv) the matters specified in regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 195(3)(c) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989 .(30) Schedule 1, item 5, page 198 (line 17), omit "602(c)", substitute "602(1)(c)".(31) Schedule 1, item 5, page 198 (line 22), after "acquisition", insert "or proposed acquisition".(32) Schedule 1, item 5, page 202 (after line 8), after section 657E, insert:657EA Internal Panel reviews(1) The following may apply under this section for review by the Panel of a decision of the Panel made on an application under section 657C: (a) a party to the proceedings in which the decision was made; or (b) ASIC.For these purposes, decision has the same meaning as in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 .(2) If the decision is not: (a) a decision to make a declaration under section 657A; or (b) a decision to make an order under section 657D or 657E;the person may apply for review only with the consent of the President of the Panel. (3) The regulations may provide for the time limits within which an application may be made for review of a decision.Note: Regulations made under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989 deal with the constitution of the Panel for the purposes of conducting a review under this section and the procedures to be followed in conducting the review.(4) After conducting a review under this section, the Panel may: (a) vary the decision reviewed; or (b) set aside the decision reviewed; or (c) set aside the decision reviewed and substitute a new decision.In conducting the review, the Panel has the same power to make a declaration under section 657A, or an order under section 657D or 657E, as it has when it is considering an application under section 657C.657EB References by Courts(1) A Court hearing proceedings in relation to a decision of the Panel made on an application under section 657C may refer the decision to the Panel for review.Note: Regulations made under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989 deal with the constitution of the Panel for the purposes of conducting a review under this section and the procedures to be followed in conducting the review.(2) After conducting a review under this section, the Panel may: (a) vary the decision reviewed; or (b) set aside the decision reviewed; or (c) set aside the decision reviewed and substitute a new decision.In conducting the review, the Panel has the same powers to make a declaration under section 657A, or an order under section 657D or 657E, as it has when it is considering an application under section 657C.(33) Schedule 1, item 5, page 202 (lines 12 to 21), omit section 657G, substitute:657G Orders by the Court where contravention or proposed contravention of Panel order(1) If a person contravenes, or proposes to engage in conduct that would contravene, an order made by the Panel under section 657D or 657E, the Court may make any orders it considers appropriate to secure compliance with the Panel's order, including: (a) 1 or more remedial orders; and (b) an order directing a person to do, or to refrain from doing, a specified act.Note: Section 9 defines remedial order .(2) An application for an order under this section may only be made by: (a) ASIC; or (b) the President of the Panel; or (c) a person to whom the Panel's order relates; or (d) a person who was a party to the proceedings in which the Panel's order was made.(34) Schedule 1, item 5, page 202 (after line 28), after paragraph (c), insert: (ca) review under section 657EA of a decision of the Panel; or(35) Schedule 1, item 5, page 204 (after line 7), after section 658B, insert:658C Panel's power to make rules(1) The President of the Panel may, after consultation with members of the Panel, make rules, not inconsistent with the Law or the Regulations, to clarify or supplement the operation of the provisions of this Chapter.(2) In making rules under this section, the President of the Panel must consider the purposes of this Chapter set out in section 602.(3) A rule under this section must be in writing and the President of the Panel must: (a) publish notice of it in the Gazette ; and (b) give the Minister, and ASIC, a copy of the rule as soon as practicable after it is published in the Gazette .(4) Within 28 days after receiving the copy, the Minister may disallow the whole or a specified part of the rule.(5) If a person contravenes a rule made under this section, the Court may give directions for compliance with the rule to: (a) that person; or (b) if that person is a body corporate—the directors of the body corporate.The Court must give the person against whom the order is sought, and any person aggrieved by the contravention, an opportunity to be heard before giving directions under this subsection.(6) The Court may give a direction under subsection (5) only on application by: (a) ASIC; or (b) the President of the Panel; or (c) a person aggrieved by the contravention. 658D Inconsistency between Panel and ASIC exemptions or modificationsIf there is an inconsistency between a rule made under section 658C and an exemption or modification given by ASIC under section 655A, the rule made under section 658C prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.(36) Schedule 1, item 5, page 204 (after line 11), after section 659A, insert:659AA Object of sections 659B and 659CThe object of sections 659B and 659C is to make the Panel the main forum for resolving disputes about a takeover bid until the bid period has ended.(37) Schedule 1, item 5, page 210 (lines 12 to 14), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) prepare a notice in the prescribed form that: (i) informs the holders of the securities that the bidder is entitled to acquire their securities under that subsection; and (ii) informs the holders about the compulsory acquisition procedure under this Part, including: (a) their right under section 661D to obtain the names and addresses of everyone else the bidder has given the notice to; and (b) their right under section 661E to apply to the Court for an order that the securities not be compulsorily acquired; and(38) Schedule 1, item 5, page 219 (after line 5), at the end of section 663C, add:(3) If the Court makes a determination under paragraph (2)(b) in relation to the terms of sale for a holder's securities of a particular class, the determination applies to all holders of securities in that class who have applications to the Court pending for a determination under that paragraph in relation to the terms of sale of their securities.(39) Schedule 1, item 5, page 221 (after line 24), after section 664A, insert:664AA Time limit on exercising compulsory acquisition powerThe 90% holder in relation to a class of securities of a company may compulsorily acquire securities in that class under section 664A only if the holder lodges the compulsory acquisition notice for the acquisition with ASIC under paragraph 664C(2)(a) within whichever of the following periods ends last: (a) the period of 12 months after the commencement of this section; or (b) the period of 6 months after the 90% holder becomes the 90% holder in relation to that class.(40) Schedule 1, item 5, page 227 (after line 25), after subparagraph (i), insert: (ia) sets out the information that was included in the compulsory acquisition notice given in relation to securities in the main class under paragraphs 664C(1)(d) and (e); and(41) Schedule 1, item 5, page 229 (after line 21), at the end of section 665C, add:(3) If the Court makes a determination under paragraph (2)(b) in relation to the terms of sale for a holder's convertible securities of a particular class, the determination applies to all holders of convertible securities in that class who have applications to the Court pending for a determination under that paragraph in relation to the terms of sale of their convertible securities.(42) Schedule 1, item 5, page 229 (after line 21), at the end of Part 6A.2, add:Division 3—Notice that person has become 85% holder of a class of securities665D Notice by 85% holder to company85% holder—holder of 85% of securities in particular class(1) A person is an 85% holder in relation to a class of securities of a company if the person holds, either alone or with a related body corporate, full beneficial interests in at least 85% of the securities (by number) in that class.85% holder—holder with 85% voting power and 85% of whole company(2) A person is also an 85% holder in relation to a class of securities of a company if: (a) the securities in the class are shares or convertible into shares; and (b) the person's voting power in the company is at least 85%; and (c) the person holds, either alone or with a related body corporate, full beneficial interests in at least 85% by value of all the securities of the company that are either shares or convertible into shares.Person becoming 85% holder to give notice to company(3) A person who becomes an 85% holder in relation to a class of securities of a company must notify the company in writing that they have become an 85% holder in relation to that class. The person must give the notice within 14 days after the person becomes aware of the information.Person continuing to be 85% holder to give notice to company(4) A person who: (a) gives a company a notice under subsection (3) in relation to a class of securities; and (b) is an 85% holder in relation to the class on any anniversary of becoming an 85% holder in relation to the class;must notify the company in writing that they continue to be an 85% holder in relation to the class. The person must give the notice within 14 days after the anniversary.665E Notice by company to other membersCompany to notify members(1) A company that is given a notice by a person under section 665D in relation to a class of securities must notify its members in writing that: (a) the person: (i) has become an 85% holder in relation to the class; or (ii) continues to be an 85% holder in relation to the class; and (b) the person will be able to acquire the securities in that class under this Part if the person becomes a 90% holder in relation to that class.Time for notifying members(2) The company must notify its members before, or at the same time as, whichever of the following it first gives to its members after the company is given the notice under section 665D: (a) a notice under another provision of this Law (b) a report under a provision of this Law.Information about 85% holder to be prominent if included in other material given to members(3) If a company notifies its members under this section by including the information referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) in: (a) a notice given to members under another provision of this Law; or (b) a report given to members under a provision of this Law;the information must appear prominently in the notice or report.(43) Schedule 1, item 5, page 232 (before line 5), before paragraph 667A(1)(a), insert: (aa) be prepared by a person nominated by ASIC under section 667AA; and(44) Schedule 1, item 5, page 232 (after line 21), after section 667A, insert:667AA Expert to be nominated(1) A person who proposes to obtain an expert's report for the purposes of section 663B, 664C or 665B must request ASIC in writing to nominate a person to prepare the expert's report.(2) Within 14 days after receiving a request under subsection (1), ASIC must nominate: an appropriate person to prepare the report; or up to 5 appropriate persons, one of whom the person making the request may choose to prepare the report.In determining whether a person is an appropriate person to prepare an expert's report, and without limiting the matters that ASIC may consider, ASIC must consider the nature of the company to be valued.(45) Schedule 1, item 5, page 233 (after line 25), at the end of section 667C, add:(2) Without limiting subsection (1), in determining what is fair value for securities for the purposes of this Chapter, the consideration (if any) paid for securities in that class within the previous 6 months must be taken into account.(46) Schedule 1, item 5, page 265 (lines 22 to 31), omit paragraph (8)(c).(47) Schedule 1, item 5, page 266 (line 4), omit "Note", substitute"Note 1".(48) Schedule 1, item 5, page 266 (after line 4), at the end of subsection (8), add:Note 2: Paragraph (c)—A dealer has obligations under Division 3 of Part 7.4 when making recommendations about securities and ASIC has power under section 826 to revoke a dealer's licence if the dealer contravenes paragraph 708(8)(c).(49) Schedule 1, item 5, page 266 (after line 8), after subsection (9), insert:(9A) An offer of a body's securities does not need disclosure to investors under this Part if: (a) the offer is made through a licensed dealer; and (b) the dealer is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the person to whom the offer is made has previous experience in investing in securities that allows them to assess: (i) the merits of the offer; and (ii) the value of the securities; and (iii) the risks involved in accepting the offer; and (iv) their own information needs; and (v) the adequacy of the information given by the person making the offer; and (c) the dealer gives the person before, or at the time when, the offer is made a written statement of the dealer's reasons for being satisfied as to those matters; and (d) the person to whom the offer is made signs a written acknowledgment before, or at the time when, the offer is made that the dealer has not given the person a disclosure document under this Part in relation to the offer.(50) Schedule 1, item 5, page 268 (after line 26), at the end of section 708, add:(20) An offer of a body's securities for issue does not need disclosure to investors under this Part if the body is an exempt public authority of a State or Territory.Note: Debentures, stock or bonds issued by a government are not securities for the purposes of this Chapter (see subsection 92(3)).(51) Schedule 1, item 5, page 283, table item 6 (column 2), omit "or quotation".(52) Schedule 1, item 5, page 290 (lines 20 to 33), omit subsection (3), substitute:Issue or transfer void if quotation condition not fulfilled(3) If a disclosure document for an offer of securities states or implies that the securities are to be quoted on a stock market of a securities exchange (whether in Australia or elsewhere) and: (a) an application for the admission of the securities to quotation is not made within 7 days after the date of the disclosure document; or (b) the securities are not admitted to quotation within 3 months after the date of the disclosure document;then: (c) an issue or transfer of securities in response to an application made under the disclosure document is void; and (d) the person offering the securities must return the money received by the person from the applicants as soon as practicable.(53) Schedule 1, item 5, page 292 (lines 14 and 15), omit subparagraph (b)(ii), substitute: (ii) 1 month to withdraw their application and be repaid; or(54) Schedule 1, item 5, page 292 (lines 19 and 20), omit subparagraph (c)(ii), substitute: (ii) 1 month to withdraw their application and be repaid.(55) Schedule 1, item 5, page 294 (lines 9 and 10), omit subparagraph (b)(ii), substitute: (ii) 1 month to withdraw their application and be repaid; or(56) Schedule 1, item 5, page 294 (lines 13 and 14), omit subparagraph (c)(ii), substitute: (ii) 1 month to withdraw their application and be repaid.(57) Schedule 1, item 5, page 306 (line 11), after "708(8)", insert "or (9A)".(58) Schedule 1, item 5, page 306 (line 27), after "708(8)", insert "or (9A)".(59) Schedule 1, item 8, page 334 (after line 4), at the end of section 1481, add:(5) On commencement, each of the provisions required by section 260FB is taken to be included in a trust deed that: (a) is required by section 260FA; and (b) is in effect immediately before commencement; and (c) would not otherwise include that provision.(60) Schedule 2, item 1, page 339 (line 12), omit "Chairman", substitute "Chair".(61) Schedule 2, item 1, page 339 (lines 22 to 30), omit paragraph (f), substitute: (f) to monitor the development of international accounting standards and the accounting standards that apply in major international financial centres, and: (i) to further the development of a single set of accounting standards for world-wide use with appropriate regard to international developments; and (ii) to promote the adoption of international best practice accounting standards in the Australian accounting standard setting process if doing so would be in the best interests of both the private and public sectors in the Australian economy; and(62) Schedule 2, item 1, page 340 (after line 21), at the end of section 225, add:Restriction on powers(5) The FRC does not have power to direct the AASB in relation to the development, or making, of a particular standard. (6) The FRC does not have power to veto a standard formulated and recommended by the AASB.(63) Schedule 2, item 1, page 341 (lines 20 and 21), omit paragraph (d), substitute: (d) to participate in and contribute to the development of a single set of accounting standards for world-wide use; and(64) Schedule 2, item 1, page 341 (after line 28), after subsection (1), insert:(1A) In carrying out its functions under paragraphs (1)(a) and (d), the AASB must have regard to the interests of Australian corporations which raise or propose to raise capital in major international financial centres.(65) Schedule 2, item 1, page 342 (line 11), at the end of subsection (3), add "and, in particular, to ensure that any disclosure and transparency provisions in the standard are appropriate to the Australian legal or institutional environment.".(66) Schedule 2, item 1, page 344 (after line 23), at the end of section 231, add:(4) The Minister may direct the AASB to give the Minister details of a cost/benefit analysis carried out under this section. The AASB must comply with the direction.(67) Schedule 2, item 1, page 346 (after line 4), after subsection 235B(1), insert:(1A) The report must include details of any change to the AASB's priorities or business plan that was made as a result of action taken by the FRC.(68) Schedule 2, item 1, page 346 (lines 23 to 27), omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".(69) Schedule 2, item 1, page 347 (line 12) to page 348 (line 9), omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".(70) Schedule 2, item 1, page 348 (line 10) to page 349 (line 21), omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".(71) Schedule 2, item 1, page 349 (line 22) to page 350 (line 21), omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".(72) Schedule 3, item 13, page 354 (lines 2 and 3), omit the item.(73) Schedule 3, page 355 (after line 7), after item 22, insert:22A Section 9 (definition of securities law )After "6", insert ", 6A, 6B, 6C, 6D".(74) Schedule 3, item 89, page 366 (lines 22 to 28), omit the item. (75) Schedule 3, item 123, page 375 (lines 23 and 24), omit the item.(76) Schedule 3, page 379 (after line 15), after item 165, insert:165A Paragraph 601CE(c)Omit "242(2)", substitute "205B(3)".(77) Schedule 3, item 180, page 382, item relating to section 200B, omit the item.(78) Schedule 3, item 180, page 383, item relating to subsection 81(3), omit the item.(79) Schedule 3, item 193, page 386 (lines 22 and 23), omit the item.(80) Schedule 3, page 403 (after line 4), after item 266, insert:266A Section 9 (at the end of the definition of chargeable matter )Add: (i) the making of an application under that Law to the Panel; (j) the doing of any act by the Panel in dealing with an application under that Law to the Panel.(81) Schedule 3, item 267, page 403 (lines 5 to 7), omit the item, substitute:267 Section 9 (definition of class )Repeal the definition, substitute: class has: (a) in relation to futures contracts—a meaning affected by subsection 72(3); and (b) in relation to shares or interests in a managed investment scheme—a meaning affected by section 57; and (c) when used in relation to securities for the purposes of Chapter 6, 6A or 6C—a meaning affected by subsection 605(2).(82) Schedule 3, item 283, page 405 (line 26) to page 406 (line 2), omit the item.(83) Schedule 3, item 308, page 411 (line 21), after "9 ", insert "(definition of voting share ) ".(84) Schedule 3, item 308, page 411 (line 22), omit "Insert:", substitute "Repeal the definition, substitute:".(85) Schedule 3, item 363, page 418 (lines 12 to 21), omit the item.(86) Schedule 3, item 371, page 420, item relating to subsections 623(1), (2) and (3), omit the item, substitute:Subsection 623(1) Penalty: 25 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both.(87) Schedule 3, item 371, page 423, after the item relating to subsection 665A(2), insert:Subsection 665D(3) or (4)Penalty: 25 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both.Section 665EPenalty: 25 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both.(88) Schedule 4, item 15, page 428 (lines 6 and 7), omit the definition of Panel proceedings , substitute: Panel proceedings means proceedings before the Panel on: (a) an application made to the Panel under the Corporations Law; or (b) a reference of a decision to the Panel for review under the Corporations Law.(89) Schedule 4, page 429 (after line 8), after item 24, insert:24A After subsection 184(4)Insert:(4A) The regulations may make provision in relation to the constitution of the Panel for the purposes of conducting a review under section 657EA or 657EB of the Corporations Law.(90) Schedule 4, item 39, page 430 (line 20), omit "at an inquiry", substitute "in Panel proceedings".(91) Schedule 4, item 42, page 431 (lines 5 and 6), omit the item, substitute:42 Section 194Repeal the section, substitute:194 Legal representation in proceedings before the PanelA party to Panel proceedings may be legally represented in the proceedings only with the leave of the Panel.(92) Schedule 5, item 11, page 436 (line 31), omit "what he or she believes to be".(93) Schedule 5, item 11, page 438 (lines 10 to 20), omit subsection (1), substitute:Good faith—officers(1) An officer of a Commonwealth authority commits an offence if he or she: (a) is reckless; or (b) is intentionally dishonest;and fails to exercise his or her powers and discharge his or her duties: (c) in good faith in what he or she believes to be in the best interests of the Commonwealth authority; or (d) for a proper purpose.Note: Section 187 of the Corporations Law deals with the position of directors of wholly-owned subsidiaries of Commonwealth authorities. Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.(94) Schedule 5, item 11, page 447 (line 19), omit "company", substitute "authority".(95) Schedule 5, item 12, page 454 (lines 8 and 9), omit "or that Act as applying as a law of this jurisdiction".(96) Schedule 5, item 14, page 462 (lines 1 and 2), omit subsection (1A), substitute:(1A) Chapters 6, 6A, 6B, 6C and 6D of the Corporations Law of the Capital Territory: (a) bind the Crown in right of the Commonwealth; and (b) do not bind the Crown in right of any State, of the Capital Territory, of the Northern Territory or of Norfolk Island.(97) Schedule 5, page 462 (after line 7), after item 15, insert:15A Section 30After "Chapter" (wherever occurring), insert "6D,".Note: The heading to section 30 is altered by inserting "6D, " after "Chapter ".(98) Schedule 6, page 465 (before line 13), before item 3, insert:2A Before paragraph 66A(6)(c)Insert: (a) the Cullen Bay Marina Management Corporation;(99) Schedule 7, page 469 (after line 10), after item 11, insert:11A Section 123Repeal the section, substitute:123 Members to disclose certain interests to Minister(1) A member must, in accordance with this section, disclose to the Minister: (a) any direct or indirect pecuniary interest that the member has or acquires in: (i) a body corporate carrying on business in Australia; or (ii) a business in Australia; and (b) any direct or indirect pecuniary interest that the member has or acquires in interests (including securities, futures contracts or other financial products) regulated by the Commission; and (c) any agreement, understanding or expectation that the member will: (i) resume a previous business relationship (whether or not that relationship existed immediately before the member's appointment); or (ii) enter into a new business relationship;when the member ceases to be a member; and (d) any severance arrangement or ongoing financial arrangement that takes account of an agreement, understanding or expectation that must be disclosed under paragraph (c). (2) For the purpose of paragraph (1)(b), interests are regulated by the Commission if the Commission has a function or power in relation to any aspect of the acquisition, holding, disposal or provision of the interests, or of interests of that kind.(3) In disclosing an indirect pecuniary interest in securities, futures contracts or other financial products, the member must identify the particular securities, futures contracts or products.(4) Paragraphs (1)(c) and (d) apply to agreements or understandings entered into, or expectations arising, before or after the member's appointment.(5) Paragraph (1)(c) does not require a member to disclose an expectation to enter into a new business relationship unless the member can identify the other party, or one or more other parties, to the relationship. Disclosure is required whether or not the field of business or legal nature of the relationship has been determined.(6) A disclosure under this section must be made in writing.11B Paragraph 124(1)(b)Omit "or other interest", substitute "interest, or a direct or indirect interest of any other kind,".(100) Schedule 7, page 469 (after line 10), after item 11, insert:11C Paragraph 127(1D)(c)Repeal the paragraph.11D Subsection 135(4)Repeal the subsection, substitute:(4) This section and subsection 18(3) of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 have effect subject to a provision that a national scheme law of this or any other jurisdiction makes about money or property that vests in the Commission under such a law.(101) Schedule 7, page 469 (after line 10), after item 11, insert:11E At the end of subsection 138(1)Add:; and (d) describe the performance indicators used by the Commission and the Commission's performance against those indicators.(102) Schedule 7, page 469 (after line 10), after item 11, insert:11F After subsection 243D(5)Insert:(5A) If a cash dealer communicates to the Director, under subsection (1), information about the cash dealer's suspicion in relation to a transaction to which the cash dealer is a party, the cash dealer must not, unless required to do so under the ASC Law, the Corporations Law or an Act of the Commonwealth, disclose to anyone else: (a) that the cash dealer has formed the suspicion; or (b) that information has been communicated to the Director; or (c) any other information from which the person to whom the information is disclosed could reasonably be expected to infer that: (i) the suspicion had been formed; or (ii) the first-mentioned information had been communicated.(5B) If a cash dealer gives further information pursuant to a request under subsection (4), the cash dealer must not, unless required to do so under the ASC Law or an Act of the Commonwealth, disclose to anyone else: (a) that the information has been given; or (b) any other information from which the person to whom the information is disclosed could reasonably be expected to infer that the first-mentioned information had been given.(5C) A cash dealer who contravenes subsection (5A) or (5B) is guilty of an offence punishable, upon conviction, by: (a) a fine of not more than 120 penalty units or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both, if the cash dealer is a natural person; or (b) a fine of not more than 600 penalty units if the cash dealer is a body corporate.(5D) Neither subsection (5A) nor subsection (5B) prohibits a cash dealer from communicating or disclosing a fact or information referred to in either of those subsections: (a) to the Australian Stock Exchange Limited; or (b) to the Commission; or (c) to a body corporate approved under section 769 of the Corporations Law as a stock exchange; or (d) to a body corporate approved under section 770 of the Corporations Law as an approved securities organisation; or (e) in accordance with conditions imposed by the Minister when approving under section 770A of the Corporations Law a stock market for electronic trading of interests in a registered scheme; or (f) in accordance with conditions imposed by the Minister when declaring a specified stock market to be an exempt stock market under section 771 of the Corporations Law; or (g) to a body corporate approved under section 779B of the Corporations Law as a securities clearing house; or (h) to a body corporate approved under section 1126 of the Corporations Law as a futures exchange; or (i) in accordance with conditions imposed by the Minister when declaring a specified futures market to be an exempt futures market under section 1127 of the Corporations Law; or (j) to a body corporate approved under section 1131 of the Corporations Law as a clearing house for a futures exchange; or (k) to a body corporate approved under section 1132 of the Corporations Law as a futures association.(5E) Neither subsection (5A) nor subsection (5B) prohibits a cash dealer from communicating or disclosing to any court any information, or matter, referred to in that subsection, but this subsection does not affect the operation of subsection (5F).(5F) In any legal proceeding (other than a prosecution for an offence against subsection 29(1) or 30(1) of the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (which relate to false and misleading information or incomplete information) as applied by subsection (7) of this section): (a) none of the following is admissible in evidence: (i) a report prepared (whether before or after the commencement of this subsection) under subsection (1); (ii) a copy of such a report; (iii) a document purporting to set out information contained in such a report; (iv) a document given under subsection (4); and (b) evidence is not admissible as to: (i) whether or not a report was prepared under subsection (1); or (ii) whether or not a copy of a report prepared under that subsection, or a document purporting to set out information contained in such a report, was given to, or received by, the Director; or (iii) whether or not particular information was contained in a report prepared under that subsection; or (iv) whether or not particular information was given under subsection (4). (5G) In subsection (5F): information includes the formation or existence of a suspicion referred to in subsection (1).(103) Schedule 8, page 470 (after line 8), after item 2, insert:2A Subsection 243V(2)Omit "(1)(d)", substitute "(1)(e)".(104) Schedule 8, page 470 (after line 8), after item 2, insert:2B Paragraph 309(3)(b)Omit "(d), (e) or (f)", substitute "(b), (c) or (d)".(105) Schedule 8, page 470 (after line 8), after item 2, insert:2C At the end of section 314Add:(3) If the accounting standards made for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a) require a discussion and analysis to be included in a concise financial report: (a) the auditor must report on whether the discussion and analysis complies with the requirements that the accounting standards lay down for the discussion and analysis; and (b) the auditor does not otherwise need to audit the statements made in the discussion and analysis.2D Paragraph 334(4)(b)After "ending", insert ", or starting,".(106) Schedule 8, page 470 (after line 17), after item 5, insert:5A Paragraph 601CE(c)Omit "242(3)", substitute "242(2)".5B Paragraph 1085(1)(c)Omit "constitution", substitute "constitution (if any) and any replaceable rules that apply to the company".(107) Page 472 (after line 13), at the end of the bill, add:Schedule 10—Amendments consequential on amendment of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 19891 Paragraph 40(7)(e)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".2 Paragraph 44(5)(a)Omit "21", substitute "27J".3 Subsection 44(13)Omit "21", substitute "27J".4 Paragraph 143S(6)(e)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".5 Paragraph 144E(5)(a)Omit "21", substitute "27J".6 Subsection 144E(14)Omit "21", substitute "27J".7 Paragraph 165(2)(c)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".8 Paragraph 167(3)(a)Omit "21", substitute "27J".9 Subsection 167(11)Omit "21", substitute "27J".10 Paragraph 192H(2)(e)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".11 Paragraph 192J(3)(a)Omit "21", substitute "27J". Note: The heading to subsection 192J(3) is altered by omitting "21 " and substituting "27J ".Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 199212 Paragraph 24(2)(b)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Australia Council Act 197513 Subparagraph 14(2)(a)(ii)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".14 Subsection 15(6)Omit "section 21", substitute "sections 27F to 27L".15 Paragraph 19F(2)(e)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".16 Subsection 27(2)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act 199117 Paragraph 52(2)(b)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 198318 Subsection 17(1A)Omit "21", substitute "27F".19 Subparagraph 18(2)(a)(ii)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Australian Communications Authority Act 199720 Section 30Omit "section 21", substitute "sections 27F to 27L".21 Section 30Omit "which deals with disclosure of interests", substitute "which deal with disclosure of interests, restrictions on voting and access to records".22 Paragraph 37(4)(d)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Australian Film Commission Act 197523 Subparagraph 23(2)(a)(ii)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Australian Film, Television and Radio School Act 197324 Paragraph 18(c)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".25 Paragraph 29(1)(c)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Australian Heritage Commission Act 197526 Paragraph 18(2)(c)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".27 Section 19Omit "section 21", substitute "sections 27F to 27L".Note: The heading to section 19 is altered by omitting "section 21 " and substituting "sections27F to 27L ".28 Paragraph 21(3)(a)Omit "section 21", substitute "sections 27F to 27L".Australian Horticultural Corporation Act 198729 Paragraph 24(2)(b)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J". 30 Subsection 73(5)Omit "Section 21", substitute "Sections 27F to 27L".31 Subsection 73(5)Omit "applies", substitute "apply".32 Subsection 115ZB(5)Omit "Section 21", substitute "Sections 27F to 27L".33 Subsection 115ZB(5)Omit "applies", substitute "apply".Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Act 198934 Paragraph 21(2)(b)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Act 198735 Paragraph 13(2)(b)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".36 Subsection 14(3)Omit "Section 21", substitute "Sections 27F and 27J".37 Subsection 14(3)Omit "does", substitute "do".Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 197238 Paragraph 16(c)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".39 Paragraph 28(d)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Australian Law Reform Commission Act 199640 Paragraph 17(2)(b)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Australian Maritime Safety Authority Act 199041 Paragraph 21(2)(d)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Australian National Maritime Museum Act 199042 Paragraph 21(2)(c)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".43 Subsection 23(6)Omit "subsection 21(3)", substitute "section 27J".44 Paragraph 36(2)(e)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Australian National University Act 199145 Paragraph 15(1)(e)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 198746 Paragraph 14(2)(c)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".47 Subsection 16(6)Omit "subsection 21(3)", substitute "section 27J".48 Paragraph 21C(2)(d)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Australian Postal Corporation Act 198949 Subsection 67(2)Omit "21", substitute "27J".50 Section 71Omit "Section 21", substitute "Sections 27F and 27J".51 Section 71Omit "does", substitute "do".52 Paragraph 79(2)(b)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 199853 Paragraph 31(2)(e)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".54 Paragraph 40(1)(e)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 198955 Subsection 124(7)Omit "Section 21", substitute "Sections 27F to 27L".Australian Sports Commission Act 198956 Paragraph 19(2)(b)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".57 Subsection 22(7)Omit "Section 21", substitute "Sections 27F to 27L".58 Subsection 22(7)Omit "applies", substitute "apply".Australian Tourist Commission Act 198759 Paragraph 21(2)(b)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".60 Subsection 23(8)Omit "21", substitute "27J".Australian Trade Commission Act 198561 Paragraph 20(2)(d)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Australian War Memorial Act 198062 Paragraph 14(2)(c)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 198063 Paragraph 20(4)(b)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".64 Subsection 21(4)Omit "section 21", substitute "sections 27F and 27J".Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation Act 199365 Subsection 30(3)Omit "section 21", substitute "sections 27F and 27J".66 Paragraph 33(2)(c)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".67 Paragraph 42(4)(c)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Broadcasting Services Act 199268 Paragraph 9(3)(e) of Schedule 3Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Civil Aviation Act 198869 Paragraph 42(2)(d)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Act 199270 Paragraph 28(2)(c)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Dairy Produce Act 198671 Section 35Omit "section 21", substitute "sections 27F and 27J".72 Paragraph 38(3)(c)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".73 Subsection 46(2)Omit "Section 21", substitute "Sections 27F to 27L".74 Subsection 46(2)Omit "applies", substitute "apply".75 Paragraph 47(4)(d)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Defence Housing Authority Act 198776 Subsection 20(4)Omit "section 21", substitute "sections 27F and 27J".77 Paragraph 21(2)(b)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".78 Subsection 26(6)Omit "Section 21", substitute "Sections 27F to 27L".79 Subsection 26(6)Omit "applies", substitute "apply".Employment Services Act 199480 Paragraph 87(2)(e)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".81 Paragraph 89(3)(a)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 199182 Paragraph 42(3)(c)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Family Law Act 197583 Paragraph 114J(2)(d)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Fisheries Administration Act 199184 Paragraph 21(2)(b)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 197585 Paragraph 16(2)(e)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Health Insurance Commission Act 197386 Paragraph 17(2)(b)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".87 Paragraph 26(2)(b)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Hearing Services Act 199188 Paragraph 31(2)(b)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".89 Paragraph 46(2)(b)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Horticultural Research and Development Corporation Act 198790 Paragraph 23(2)(b)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".91 Subsection 54(5)Omit "Section 21", substitute "Sections 27F to 27L".92 Subsection 54(5)Omit "applies", substitute "apply". Maritime College Act 197893 Paragraph 17(2)(b)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".National Gallery Act 197594 Paragraph 17(2)(c)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".95 Paragraph 29(2)(aa)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".National Health Act 195396 Section 82BAOmit "21", substitute "27F to 27L".97 Subsection 82ZRAA(2)Omit "Section 21", substitute "Sections 27F to 27L".98 Subsection 82ZRAA(2)Omit "does", substitute "do".National Library Act 196099 Paragraph 15(1)(e)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".100 Paragraph 17E(1)(aa)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".National Measurement Act 1960101 Paragraph 18AC(2)(c)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".National Museum of Australia Act 1980102 Paragraph 17(2)(c)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".103 Paragraph 27(2)(e)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Act 1985104 Paragraph 14(3)(b)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".105 Subsection 14(6)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975106 Subsection 15A(2)Omit "Section 21", substitute "Sections 27F to 27L".107 Subsection 15A(2)Omit "does", substitute "do".Pig Industry Act 1986108 Paragraph 14(2)(b)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".109 Subsection 15(1)Omit "section 21", substitute "sections 27F and 27J".Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1989110 Paragraph 73(1)(c)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".111 Subsection 100(2)Omit "Section 21", substitute "Sections 27F to 27L".112 Subsection 100(2)Omit "applies", substitute "apply".113 Paragraph 138(1)(g)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Reserve Bank Act 1959114 Paragraph 18(1)(e)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988115 Subsection 90(1)Omit "section 21", substitute "sections 27F to 27L".Science and Industry Research Act 1949116 Paragraph 10E(2)(b)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".117 Paragraph 22(2)(c)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act 1949118 Subsection 26(1)Omit "section 21", substitute "sections 27F to 27L".Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991119 Subparagraph 27(2)(c)(ii)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".120 Paragraph 37(2)(d)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".121 Subsection 40(2)Omit "subsection 21(3)", substitute "section 27J".Wheat Marketing Act 1989122 Paragraph 8(2)(b)Omit "21", substitute "27F or 27J".(108) Page 472 (after line 13), at the end of the bill, add:Schedule 11—Amendment of the Corporations Law to deal with ASC Law and ASC Regulations referencesPart 1—ASC Law references1 Amendment of the Corporations LawThe specified provisions of the Corporations Law listed in this Part of this Schedule are amended by omitting "ASC Law" (wherever occurring) and substituting "ASIC Law".2 Section 23 Section 9 (definition of Commission delegate )4 Section 9 (paragraph (b) of the definition of law )5 Section 9 (paragraph (b) of the definition of scheme property )6 Section 9 (definition of scheme property ) (note 2)7 Subparagraphs 88A(1)(a)(i) and (ii)8 Paragraph 246AA(1)(b)9 Paragraph 461(1)(h)10 Subsection 464(1)11 Subsection 553(2)12 Subparagraph 583(c)(iii)13 Paragraph 589(2)(a)14 Paragraph 601(b)15 Subsection 1271(2)16 Subsection 1317R(8)17 Paragraph 1323(1)(a)18 Paragraph 1438(2)(a)Part 2—ASC Regulations references19 Amendment of the Corporations LawThe specified provisions of the Corporations Law listed in this Part of this Schedule are amended by omitting "ASC Regulations" (wherever occurring) and substituting "ASIC Regulations".20 Section 9 (paragraph (b) of the definition of law )(109) Page 472 (after line 13), at the end of the bill, add:Schedule 12—Amendment of other Acts to deal with ASC Law and ASC Regulation referencesPart 1—ASC Law references1 Amendment of ActsThe specified provisions of the Acts listed in this Part of this Schedule are amended by omitting "ASC Law" (wherever occurring) and substituting "ASIC Law".Note: The heading to section 40A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 is altered by omitting "ASC Law " and substituting "ASIC Law ".Acts Interpretation Act 19012 Section 40AAdministrative Appeals Tribunal Act 19753 Paragraph 27A(2)(e)Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 19894 Subsection 1B(1)5 Subsections 1C(2) and (3)6 Subsections 1D(1), (2) and (4)7 Paragraphs 1E(a) and (b)8 Subsection 5(1) (paragraph (b) of the definition of examination )9 Section 6A10 Subsections 6E(1), (2) and (3)11 Paragraph 88(1A)(b)12 Paragraph 243A(a)13 Subsections 243D(5A) and (5B)14 Subsection 251(3)Corporations Act 198915 Subsection 4(1) (paragraph (b) of the definition of applicable provision )16 Subsection 4(1) (definition of ASC Law and ASC Regulations )17 Subsection 4(1) (definition of Commonwealth law )18 Paragraph 9(1A)(c)19 Paragraph 37(b)20 Section 38 (paragraph (c) of the definition of corresponding law )21 Subparagraph 50(2)(a)(ii)22 Subparagraph 63(2)(a)(ii)23 Paragraph 75(c)Evidence Act 199524 Subsection 8(3) Financial Transaction Reports Act 198825 Subsection 3(1) (paragraph (b) of the definition of FTR information )Part 2—ASC Regulations references26 Amendment of ActsThe specified provisions of the Acts listed in this Part of this Schedule are amended by omitting "ASC Regulations" (wherever occurring) and substituting "ASIC Regulations".Note: The heading to section 251 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989 is amended by omitting "ASC " and substituting "ASIC ".Acts Interpretation Act 190127 Section 40AAustralian Securities and Investments Commission Act 198928 Subsection 1B(2)29 Subsection 1C(3)30 Subsections 1D(2) and (4)31 Paragraphs 1E(a) and (b)32 Subsection 5(1) (definition of regulations )Corporations Act 198933 Section 4 (paragraph (b) of the definition of applicable provisions )34 Section 4 (definition of ASC Law and ASC Regulations )35 Paragraph 9(1A)(c)36 Section 38 (paragraph (c) of the definition of corresponding law )37 Subparagraph 50(2)(a)(iii)38 Subparagraph 63(2)(a)(iii)39 Subsection 80(1) (definition of national scheme regulations of the Capital Territory )17:13:0012016Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.The Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 is part of the government's corporate law economic reform program. The objective of the program is to provide efficiency in the Australian economy, while facilitating market integrity and providing appropriate investor protection mechanisms.The reforms contained in the bill mark a significant change in the regulation of fundraising, takeovers, accounting standards and directors' duties under the Corporations Law. The reforms modernise the regulation of business in Australia and will ensure that Australia's corporate laws meet the challenges of the present and future market in a forward thinking, responsible and innovative way. In addition, the reforms contained in the bill are integral to the government's broader objective of boosting Australia's international competitiveness and building Australia as a centre for global financial services. The reforms send a clear message to the business community that this government is serious about reform and serious about making Australia a leading financial centre.I am very pleased that the bill is now in its final stages of passing through this parliament. A number of amendments were made to the bill in the Senate. The government is a little disappointed that some of these amendments have been made, particularly in light of the extensive program of public consultation and discussion which was a hallmark of the development of these reforms. Nevertheless, the central reforms proposed by the bill are largely intact. Whilst the government would have preferred that the bill not be amended, it believes it is preferable to pass the bill as amended by the Senate rather than delay the implementation of these valuable reforms any further.I will now turn to the details of the amendments. The Senate amendments include a number of amendments which address the recommendations of the report into the bill by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities. These amendments will include the implementation of almost all of the recommendations of the majority report and a number of the recommendations contained in the supplementary report. The committee's recommendation that rollover relief from capital gains tax be provided in relation to turnovers and compulsory acquisition was not implemented. Instead, that recommendation is being dealt with in the context of the review of business taxation where it has been recommended that, subject to certain conditions, capital gains tax rollover relief should be allowed for scrip for scrip transactions allowing takeovers. The government has accepted that recommendation.The government also took the opportunity to make additional amendments to the CLERP Bill in the Senate which will facilitate the effective operation of the Corporations and Securities Panel. The amendments are in keeping with the government's previously stated policy objectives of making the panel the primary forum for the speedy resolution of takeover disputes during the takeover bid period. For example, the amendments will introduce an internal appeal process within the panel. As the panel is to become the sole forum for resolving takeover disputes, it is appropriate that an appeal process is available to any party who is not satisfied with a panel decision.The amendments will also give the panel a rule making power, enabling it to make rules which would apply in addition to the takeover provisions. The rules will be subject to ministerial disallowance. The rules must not be inconsistent, obviously, with the Corporations Law or its regulations. The government also took the opportunity to make a number of minor technical amendments to the CLERP Bill in the Senate.The bill was subject to a number of amendments by the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats. I must say that I am disappointed at the Labor Party's continued opposition to the CLERP reforms which have, by and large, been very well received with almost unqualified support from the business and investor communities. On the other hand, the Democrats were very constructive in the discussions and in the debate. I reiterate my thanks to Senator Murray for his constructive role in this process.The government's position has always been that the bill represented a balanced package of reforms. We were therefore very reluctant to see amendments to the bill without the benefit of consultation. However, we considered that the bill contains reforms which both the business and investor communities have been waiting for since the plan was first flagged in 1996. (Extension of time granted) Therefore, we accepted that it would be better to accept the bill in its amended fashion rather than pulling the bill totally.The Democrats' reforms to the compulsory acquisition provisions will require the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to nominate experts to be used in valuing securities and will require a company to notify its shareholders when a person is reaching a position where they may become a 90 per cent holder capable of compulsorily acquiring the remaining securities. Whilst the government considers that these changes are unnecessary, it is pleased to see that compulsory acquisition reforms come to fruition, particularly in light of the very extensive consulta tion process which accompanied the development of these provisions. Similarly, Democrat amendments to the sophisticated investor exemption in the fundraising provisions and to the accounting standards provisions while considered unnecessary by the government will not significantly alter the basic thrust of the reforms in these areas.One final point I would emphasise is that the removal of the mandatory bid rule from the takeover provisions of the bill by the Democrats and the Labor Party is deeply disappointing. Neither the Democrats nor the Labor Party has been able to convince the government that the mandatory bid rule does not deliver significant benefits to investors and to the market as a whole. The mandatory bid rule would have provided an additional avenue for takeover activity in Australia. It was subject to a number of safeguards designed to ensure that all target companies shareholders had an opportunity to sell their shares at a fair price and to benefit from the control premium that a bidder places on the securities. The mandatory bid was to be an additional means of ensuring that Australia has a competitive market for corporate control. A competitive market for corporate control places pressure on managers of all corporations to perform at the highest standards, thus benefiting all shareholders. The government will be pursuing the implementation of the mandatory bid proposal, and I will be referring it to the parliamentary joint committee for further consideration.Finally, this bill was the result of an extended period of consultation, and there are a number of people I would like to thank. Firstly, I would like to thank the Treasurer, Peter Costello, who set down in 1996 the guidelines for the development of the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program and who as shadow minister for corporate law had a significant hand in a lot of the policy issues and developments that are the background to this bill. This is as much his bill as anyone else's, and I commend him for it. Similarly, I commend Senator Ian Campbell in the other place for his vast amount of work in developing this bill. He conducted the consultations right around Australia. I congratulate him for all his efforts and thank him for guiding this bill through the other place.I would also like to thank the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Corporations and Securities and, in particular, Senator Grant Chapman, the chair of that committee. The committee took a very constructive approach to this bill. I would also like to thank the members of the Business Regulation Advisory Group, which is chaired by Catherine Walter and includes Peter Barnett, Leigh Hall, Rohan Jeffs, Jeffrey Lucy, John Murray, Robert Nottle, Malcolm Starr and my friend Les Taylor.Similarly, I would like to thank the Treasury officers who have put in an extended amount of work in this area. Jim Murphy, with Senator Ian Campbell, travelled Australia on the consultations and, whilst no longer in Treasury, made a substantial contribution, as did Jennifer Wells, who has gone on to greener pastures after being my DLO for some period of time. I would like to thank the current unit—Michael Willcock, Veronique Ingram, Phillip Lynch, Emma Armson, Sandra Patch, Les Pascoe—and the other members of the Financial Markets Division and the Corporate Governance and Accounting Policy Division in Treasury. Finally, I would like to particularly thank Kersten Wijeywardena from my office, who has done an absolutely outstanding job during this very extensive and very draining debate. It gives me enormous pleasure to commend the amendments to the House.17:23:0012018Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, both yesterday in question time and again in introducing these amendments, accused the opposition of opposing the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 . Yesterday in question time he said:It defies logic that the Labor Party would choose to oppose this bill and the principles behind it at every point. Every political bone in your body would make you wonder why the Labor Party would oppose it.Frankly, he was misleading the House because the facts are that we did not oppose the second reading or the third reading here, we did not oppose the second reading or the third reading in the Senate and we will not be opposing the bill going through now. So the minister has been regrettably misleading the parliament in relation to this.We have moved amendments to this bill because it needs fixing. The bill does little for shareholders—in fact, it subverts the rights of shareholders, particularly minority and mum and dad shareholders. The opposition assessed this bill critically because that is our job. We moved amendments to it because it is skewed too much in favour of certain vested interests at the cost of many other people in this community. When we considered the bill, we considered a number of very important and critical questions: do the propositions encourage managers to be accountable to shareholders through consultation and disclosure in a timely manner? Do the propositions help define the role of the board of directors as active participants in the governance of the corporation? Do the propositions help define shareholders' rights and treat all shareholders of the same class equally?Unfortunately, this bill fails to satisfy these questions. Yesterday in question time the minister wanted to quote the Australian Financial Review as saying that this was good stuff and that, if the government were serious about making Australia a global financial markets player, some of these things needed to happen. The minister was keen to quote the Australian Financial Review in relation to that; I do not know whether he was so keen to quote the Australian Financial Review when it reported how the minister was going with his idea of Australia becoming the region's chief financial centre. Hans van Leeuwen from the Australian Financial Review reported back on Friday, 8 October that the minister's strategy essentially involves Mr Hockey sitting down to a lot of lunches, dinners and boardroom meetings with multinational bankers. No-one denies, Minister, that you have been having the lunches, but we think spending money on lunches, dinners and boardroom meetings with multinational bankers is perhaps not the best way to spend the $7 million allocated in last May's federal budget.This government has said that it wants to make Australia the biggest shareholder nation on earth, but it is not prepared to secure or protect the rights of mum and dad shareholders. Indeed, Telstra shareholders ought to be watchful of their company directors. This bill will make them immune from negligence liability. Telstra shareholders and other shareholders will have little recourse should company directors lose or mismanage their money.The opposition at least succeeded in the Senate in correcting some aspects of this bill to allow some measure of accountability. But the issue of the directors' duties business judgment rule—about which we are very concerned—is nevertheless only one of a number of faults in this bill. Other issues of concern that the opposition has raised here and in the Senate concern the mandatory bid rule, compulsory acquisition and accounting standards.So, yes, we have moved amendments to this bill. We do not apologise in the slightest for doing that. Our amendments have improved the overall balance of the bill, and the minister ought to be grateful instead of complaining about this. Despite what the government might have said about the opposition simply being contrary in relation to the bill, it should look again at how much of this bill we did support. We supported all of the fundraising provision, except for a one-line provision, we supported the whole proposal on the takeover panel, and there are many other provisions which we did not touch.I turn specifically to the directors' duties business judgment rule. The bill includes a provision called the business judgment rule which would give company directors what is described as a safe harbour from negligence liability. This so-called initiative from the government is supposed to encourage directors to take more risks in their activities. (Extension of time granted) It will encourage directors to take more risks in their activities because external scrutiny will be restricted. It will encourage directors to be careless, reckless and deceitful, to the detriment of the company and its shareholders.The government argues that there is currently a level of uncertainty in case law about directors' liability and responsibility, particularly in terms of their duty of care and diligence, that has constrained them from working to the best of their abilities. The opposition strongly disagrees. I think few could dispute the fact that court judgments have been fair and consistent. The courts have, in the main, exercised restraint. They have avoided second-guessing directors' decisions. I therefore believe the government's attempts in this regard will not add value and will not deliver clarity but rather will add complexity to the current arrangement. Moreover, far from clarifying matters, these proposals on directors' duties represent a Trojan Horse for watering down directors' standards of responsibility.These proposals encourage directors to be careless, reckless and deceitful to the detriment of the company and its shareholders. They are totally irresponsible proposals designed purely to placate vested interests. The majority of Australian company directors would not benefit from these proposals. On the contrary, they will suffer. Those who would benefit are the directors who lack skills, are irresponsible or are dishonest. The government is sending the wrong message to directors and to the market. Shareholder interests and good corporate governance have been forgotten in the process.The opposition is generally supportive of the principle of statutory derivative action, but the process put forward by the government is unclear and we expect that exercising statutory derivative action will remain confusing. We therefore believe that this provision should also be open to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, to take action on behalf of shareholders. Labor has moved such an amendment, but the government has not been prepared to accept it. Consequently, the statutory derivative action rule proposed by the government is likely to remain onerous for individual investors to utilise. It is doubtful whether many shareholders will be able to meet the onerous requirement of applying for leave from the court to take action.I think it will be interesting to see, in the months and years ahead, whether shareholders or investors really do take advantage of the statutory derivative action in the way in which the government has put it forward or whether it becomes something of a dead letter. The ineligibility of ASIC from being able to apply for leave from the court is difficult for us to understand or support. As the government-created consumer protector, ASIC should surely have the power to act under these provisions. Labor accepts that it would be appropriate for the right to take a statutory derivative action to be extended to ASIC because small shareholders may not have the resources to take such action. The opposition's amendments are designed to ensure that this can occur.While the government claims that its proposal to allow shareholders to take a statutory derivative action will balance the so-called safe harbour provisions, it is clear that its proposal does not balance the ledger at all. Labor's amendment will go some way towards achieving appropriate rights for shareholders. With the government trumpeting its support for Australia as a shareholding nation, I would have thought that it would have supported a regime that provides an appropriate level of protection for thousands of new and mostly, by definition, inexperienced shareholders who have entered the market. I think it is regrettable that the flip side of saying that you want to have a shareholding democracy—and the Prime Minister talks about us being the world's greatest share owning democracy—is that you need proper consumer protection measures. We are concerned that the government's proposals do not provide this and do not balance the ledger.On the mandatory bid rule, which the minister made some reference to in his introduction, the provision to allow for easier takeovers by veiling the process from the wider market should not be there. We are pleased that the Senate has accepted Labor's amendments and that the government is now doing this as well. The tax concession on scrip for scrip takeovers is the solution that the government is really looking for, and we will have that. There is no need for the mandatory bid rule as the cost to market transparency and integrity are too great. The opposition understands the arguments for the mandatory bid proposal, but we believe that the arguments against it clearly outweigh the arguments for it. We acknowledge that there are economic efficiency considerations or arguments for increasing takeover activity—or at least the threat or prospect of it—but it comes at a cost that is potentially more than the opposition is willing to risk. (Extension of time granted) Those costs will come from the subversion of good corporate governance principles such as transparency, accountability and equity.No longer will there be an appropriate competitive regime for corporate control and, despite the proposed safeguards, shareholders will not get a better price than that obtained from an auction process. We move to omit the mandatory bid rule so as to ensure that transparency in the market is maintained. We moved our amendments because we strongly questioned the need for such a new rule. We believe that it would have led to significant disadvantages and few benefits. On the other hand, the government's position was one which would have given takeover bidders control of a target company before the market had been advised of the takeover bid. The government wished to encourage bidders to try to lock up key blocks of shares before launching their takeover bid. The result of such a proposal was that it could grant the bidder effective control of a target company before they had to reveal their intentions. That would give some takeover bidders a mechanism to discourage competitors emerging in the takeover process. Under such an arrangement, competitive bidders and directors of target companies would have less time to appropriately respond to takeover bids. Discovery of fair prices would also be restricted as there would no longer be an auction process.The mandatory bid rule would go against the Eggleston principles—the principles on which the proposed takeover panel would consider and make judgment on takeover disputes. The Eggleston principles require that, first, shareholders of a takeover target company know the identity of any person who proposes to acquire a substantial interest in the company; second, the target shareholders and directors have sufficient time to consider the offer; third, sufficient material is provided to them to make proper assessment of the offer; and, fourth, all shareholders have equal opportunity to participate in the benefits of the takeover offer. The mandatory bid rule breaks these principles.The government is effectively sacrificing a great deal in terms of good corporate governance practices for potentially little gain in takeover activity. As I said before, the opposition is willing to support the capital gains tax concession on scrip for scrip takeovers. This, more than the mandatory bid rule, will raise takeover levels. If the new tax arrangement does not deliver, then we could reconsider our position on the mandatory bid rule. But the arguments being put forward on the mandatory bid rule simply do not wash with the opposition. We remain concerned that such a rule would lower the share price of takeover targets and simply allow takeover bidders to pay a lower price.The government is proposing to extend the compulsory acquisition provisions to allow a 90 per cent majority shareholder in a company to compulsorily acquire the remaining 10 per cent share at any time. All that would be required is a notice of acquisition accompanied by an independent expert's report qualifying the value of the remaining securities. The government claims that the proposition is designed to remove so-called greenmailers, but this concern over greenmailers is dubious. Simply, this proposal is something that is about scrapping the rights of minority shareholders. Some people have even described it as allowing a legal means to expropriate another person's property. It is fascinating that the conservative side of politics are interested in this and are into expropriating property.Mr Ted Rofe from the Australian Shareholders Association stated as much in a submission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and Securities. He stated: Compulsory acquisition involves the expropriation of the property of the shareholders whose shares are to be acquired. Minority shareholders in a partly-owned group of companies are in a particularly vulnerable position. It is therefore essential that any compulsory acquisition of their shares can be seen to be fair to both the majority and minority shareholders. As the courts have pointed out on a number of occasions, fairness in this context involves both fair dealing and a fair price. The proposed new compulsory acquisition power in its present form tips the scales too much in favour of the majority shareholders.Since the government has been encouraging more and more mum and dad shareholders, it is indeed surprising that it is not making the appropriate efforts to ensure that the rights of shareholders, particularly minority shareholders, are protected. As more and more Australians become shareholders, change to compulsory acquisition becomes a significant concern.A survey by the Australian Stock Exchange earlier this year estimated that 4.4 million Australians now hold shares directly. That is about 32 per cent of the population. The majority are likely to be inexperienced first-time shareholders who may not be able to best represent their own interests. (Extension of time granted) The government says that it wants to make Australia a nation of shareholders, but if mum and dad investors get in the way of the interests of big business then the government wants those mum and dad shareholders to move aside or be done over.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Yes.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Indeed. It is simply not good enough.Mr Kerr interjecting—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—It is true. With little doubt, the extension of the compulsory acquisition rule was conceived and designed to placate vested interests. There is absolutely no need for it. I understand that the ASA is already receiving reports of shareholders being threatened that their shares will be expropriated as soon as this bill becomes law.The CLERP Bill also seeks to revamp the takeover panel based on the UK model. While we are supportive of the principle that a body could act in arbitration to settle takeover disputes as an alternative to the courts, we have some doubts about our ability to emulate the success of the UK's panel. Australia has a somewhat different business culture from that of Britain. Based on evidence provided to the Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities, British corporations are less adversarial and less inclined to pursue litigation compared with their Australian counterparts. Because of these concerns, the opposition is supporting the government's amendments to its own bill on the takeover panel. We hope that these changes will boost the relevance and authority of the takeover panel in considering debates arising during a takeover process.I turn now to fundraising. Fundraising provisions are among the more positive aspects of this bill and are primarily designed to reduce the costs involved with capital raising, especially by small and medium sized enterprises. To reduce the costs of capital raising, the government has targeted costs tied up with the preparation and lodging of prospectuses. The opposition is supportive of all but one of the proposals.We agree, for instance, with a proposal that a disclosure document would not be required if a person made an unlimited number of personal offers of securities that resulted in securities being issued to 20 or fewer persons in a rolling one-year period with no more than $2 million being raised. However, it would be irresponsible for us to agree with a proposal which would allow licensed securities dealers to judge who would be defined as `sophisticated investors'—that is to say, investors not requiring access to prospectus or disclosure documents—and allow such investors to invest less than $500,000.This provision is inconsistent with other criteria which define a sophisticated investor as having the appropriate resources to undertake their own investigation of a venture. We are opposed to the authority to be granted to licensed securities dealers because it may be abused, brought on by commission pressures. The Democrats and the government have allowed licensed securities dealers to declare a person a sophisticated investor and get them to sign a piece of paper to this effect. In those circumstances, there would be no need to provide a prospectus.If the licensed securities dealers define mum and dad investors as `sophisticated', they give up their rights to receive appropriate disclosure documents. People are arguing that sanctions would exist to deter licensed securities dealers from misbehaving. Such measures tend to address events after the fact. Once mum and dad investors lose their money, they usually lose it for good. We hope that the government sees merit in this argument and in the fact that there is a potential behavioural shift involved with the proposal. Entrepreneurs can now raise as much money as they wish through a licensed securities dealer, without having to issue a prospectus; therefore, expect an increase in capital raising through this process and an increase in the number of licensed securities dealers. This proposal completely undermines the current regime, which requires investors to be fully informed of any venture which they put money into.Regarding accounting standards, the opposition is extremely disappointed that the government cannot comprehend the dangers of having the proposed Financial Reporting Council control the agenda of the Australian Accounting Standards Board. The bill gives powers to the Financial Reporting Council, FRC, to appoint the members of the Australian Accounting Standards Board and to approve its priorities, business plan, budget and staffing arrangements. These powers are about more than just oversighting the AASB activities. The FRC will effectively be running AASB.With this bill the government demonstrates a lack of appreciation for the role that the AASB has played to date in ensuring that Australia has high standards of financial reporting and corporate disclosure which have engendered investor confidence and market integrity. (Extension of time granted) The opposition has endeavoured to move amendments to the bill to ensure that the AASB's independence is not compromised and that the FRC does not become just another layer of bureaucracy in the development of accounting standards. Unfortunately, the government failed to accept the amendments.We are concerned by the proposal to introduce formal cost benefit analysis by the AASB for every accounting standard proposed. There are difficulties involved with such a proposition for the standard setter in terms of the compliance costs as well as the technical aspects of determining the indirect costs and benefits to the wider community or economy of a proposed standard.Furthermore, it does not give appropriate regard to the potential conflict that may arise from the fact that, while most of the costs involved with meeting accounting standards are shouldered by the preparers, significant benefits accrue to users and to the wider community. There is also a risk that this proposition would simply give businesses with purely short-term perspective some form of ammunition to discredit a standard when the longer term benefits may be quite significant. It is astounding that the government cannot acknowledge the dangers of this proposal and could not accept the opposition's amendment in this regard.Tom Ravlic in the Age today addresses this very problem and quotes Mr Wayne Lonergan, the President of the Securities Institute of Australia. The article states:. . . the failure to clarify the FRC's powers had the potential to jeopardise the integrity of Australia's capital market.He said a proposed amendment pushed by the Federal Opposition would have ensured the board remained independent and the role of the FRC would have been to advise and monitor, rather than approve the AASB's agenda."The amendments proposed in particular by the Labor Party were in accordance with submissions made by leading industry bodies," Mr Lonergan said.In conclusion, I am glad that the government saw value in Labor's redrafting of part of the accounting standards provisions, particularly that relating to international harmonisation. Australia should adopt only those accounting standards which have been extensively debated both domestically and internationally and which have demonstrated integrity. Australia should also play an active role in the development of accounting standards for worldwide use. Labor has previously been—we have managed investments and other pieces of legislation—and continues to be supportive of sensible corporate law reform, and we will be continuing to support this legislation.17:46:0012024Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I do want to respond to some of the comments made by the shadow Assistant Treasurer. Firstly, he said that I had misled the House about the Labor Party's opposition to the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 . I did nothing of the sort. The fundamental point is that the Labor Party, in their true tradition and true to form, moved a raft of amendments which would have absolutely gutted the corporate law reform bill before the House.It is an old trick of the Labor Party's. They opposed the GST package at the last election but, when the personal income tax cuts dealing with the GST came through the House, they did not vote against it, even though it was a package and it was being paid for out of the restructuring process associated with the GST. I do not accept the proposition put forward by the shadow Assistant Treasurer in relation to this matter.Secondly, the shadow Assistant Treasurer made some comments to me about Australia as a global financial centre and said that it involved lots of lunches, dinners and various other things as part of the marketing. That was reported in an article written by Hans van Leeuwen in the Australian Financial Review on 8 October. I so happen to have a copy of a letter sent by a member of the parliamentary Labor Party to the Editor of the Australian Financial Review, who refused to print the letter. I propose to read out parts of the letter so as not to disclose who wrote it and then seek leave to table the letter, and I wonder how the shadow Assistant Treasurer will react. The letter begins:Dear SirThe only sensible points in Hans van Leeuwen's article . . . on the Australian and New South Wales bid to become a global financial centre were the remarks made by the Minister for Financial Services, Joe Hockey. Hans van Leeuwen's own comments were facile and stupid and in keeping with the undergraduate cynicism that mars much of what passes for journalism in this country.Australia's bid to be a major financial centre is based on a good and improving set of fundamentals.But there is little point in having a good product unless you get out and sell it, even if that does involve people like the Prime Minister, . . . Joe Hockey . . . "sitting down to a lot of lunches, dinners and boardroom meetings with multinational bankers".He goes on to say:Incidentally, where is this "continuing questioning of the Federal Government's regional financial centre strategy" that Mr van Leeuwen talks about. As far as I can see it's only coming from him.It is no wonder that the Editor of the Australian Financial Review did not want to print the letter. I remind the House that this letter was drafted by a member of the parliamentary Labor Party. I now seek leave to table the letter.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Is leave granted?RH4KERRMr Kerr—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the minister wishes to be malevolent and malicious, be it on his own head. He does not require leave.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—My understanding of the standing orders is that, apart from question time and when a ministerial statement is being made, leave in fact is required by a minister. So I repeat the question: is leave granted?RH4KERRMr Kerr—If the minister seeks to pursue a malevolent course, we have means to prevent it. Of course we do not grant leave.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Leave is not granted.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I wait for the day when the Labor Party lets me table this letter and a few other letters that have fallen off the back of a truck in support of our ambitions to become a global financial centre. Isn't it funny that the Labor Party would not give me leave to table a letter from a member of the parliamentary Labor Party in support of what we are doing!17:51:0012025Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation knows that he can table that document if he wants to. That is fine. That is his prerogative. The more interesting issue arising from the minister's response to the Financial Review article of 8 October, the very paper he was quoting from in question time yesterday, is: has the minister run-up the white flag on Australia's bid to be a regional financial centre? Clearly, suggesting that he wants to now share with Singapore seems to ordinary readers of the article to be an acceptance of defeat or some kind of surrender on the minister's part. We are entitled to find out from the minister what his real attitude is on this.We are also very curious to know just how long it will be before we start seeing some return on the $7 million outlaid towards Australia's bid in this area and the minister justifying some of the expenditure that has been going on in this area. I also want to provide some support for the minister and, indeed, congratulate him on getting the bill this far. I feel I need to do this because no-one else in the parliament has. Senator Campbell, in summing up after the long and quite tortuous process of this legislation through the Senate, thanked the senators for their contribution and went on to say:I did miss one person, however, that is Australia's Treasurer, Peter Costello . . . It was one of the great privileges of my life to work so closely with him during that two-year period.We can see quite clearly the intent of Senator Campbell's congratulations for Treasurer Costello—that is, that one day, in a Costello government, he hopes Treasurer Costello will throw out that evil usurper, the present Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, and install Senator Campbell in his place. Then Senator Chapman, talking about the same thing—the CLERP program—places on record his appreciation for the work of Senator Gibson and Senator Campbell on this legislation. So we can see that everybody on the government side, but the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, has had a pat on the back. I do not want him to feel that he has been left out in relation to this matter so, on behalf of the opposition, I note his efforts in getting this legislation through the parliament.17:54:0012025Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I thank the shadow assistant Treasurer for his magnanimous good wishes. In some cases, it is in keeping with his demeanour. He asked a little earlier to see some dividends of what we are doing. The dividends are clear. The Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank announced just a few days ago that it is going to increase its operations in Australia by 300 people. Deutsche Asset Management has announced that it is relocating all of its asset management activities for the Asia-Pacific region from the headquarters in Tokyo to Sydney, and, obviously, I declare an interest in that.A number of others—including Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley—have also indicated that they are significantly expanding operations in Australia. The global links between our exchanges and the exchanges of other nations, including the MOU that I witnessed the signing of in Thailand between the Thai stock exchange and the Australian stock exchange, are part of the partnership arrangement that will deliver us better opportunities in the region.The non-Japan Asia part of the world economy has enormous potential; probably half the people in the world live in non-Japan Asia. However, it represents only a small fraction, about 12 per cent, of the global economy and global market. It has tremendous growth potential. That is why we talk about partnerships in the region. There will effectively be four time zone centres in the world—the Americas, Europe, Japan and non-Japan Asia. We aim to be a major financial centre for the globe in non-Japan Asia. That is our window of opportunity.We have skills that others cannot provide, particularly in back office operations. We can provide, from Australia, the IT support, the accounting support and the telecommunications for the entire Asia-Pacific region. We have excellent people, and that is reflected in the example of Merrill Lynch. They have 1,000 employees in Australia, of which only 18 are ex-pats. They have a further 250 Australians in significant management positions around the world. It is of great credit to Australia and its people that we have this enormous talent. That is having a global impact but we do not appreciate it here. What we want is for them to get into leadership positions around the world and to bring some of that wealth back home to Australia. That is what this push is about. Each step of the way delivers jobs and investment for everyday Australians. We have the opportunity to be a very wealthy nation. We want the regional pie to grow, and that is very important.On that basis, I have no qualms about advising the House of the success. In fact, if the shadow assistant Treasurer has a look at yesterday's Hansard from the New South Wales parliament he will see that it was the Treasurer of New South Wales who was congratulating me on my performance. But I am humble and I will not go into the details of that. I will leave that up to the shadow assistant Treasurer. Given that he is prepared to blow my bugle, I will give him the opportunity to continue to do that.Obviously the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 is a key part of our development as a global financial centre. It is world-class regulatory reform. In fact, in my discussions with the monetary authority of Singapore, the program was referred to as `leading'. They anxiously await CLERP 6. We are going to give it. The best form of flattery for us is the fact that others are copying what we are doing. Unfortunately, the Labor Party is taking a different approach.17:59:0012026Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—The last few years in the Asia-Pacific region have indicated one thing about Australia's comparative strengths with the region, and that has been the comparative integrity and transparency of our markets. In terms of achieving the objective that the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation is on about relating to Australia's developing its capacities in financial services, one of the crucial things that has underpinned the Labor Party's approach on these issues before the parliament under the badge of CLERP—it is a rebadging of the former government's corporate law simplification program—is in fact that question of market integrity and transparency. That is what has principally motivated the sorts of concerns that the Corporations and Securities Committee have put before the parliament.For the minister to suggest that in some way we have been dragging the chain is playing pretty fast and loose with the facts. This minister is particularly sensitive about a few things. Long lunches is obviously one of them. The facts are that if the minister had not been on so many long lunches this legislation may well have passed through the parliament somewhat quicker than has been the case. This has dragged along for three years now under this government. That is not satisfactory.The other area where the minister has been playing pretty fast and loose is the view he expressed earlier, that is, that in some way there is almost unanimous support for the government's position on a number of these measures from the business and investor community. I once again quote the very well respected chairman of the Australian Shareholders Association, Ted Rofe, in respect of compulsory acquisition. He says that compulsory acquisition involves the expropriation of property. This was quoted extensively by the shadow Assistant Treasurer, but to suggest that there is a unanimous view in the business community on the approach the government has taken is factually incorrect. There are a range of areas where there has been very serious concern in the business and investment community about that approach. Some of the aspects have been tidied up in the Senate but not all, and I do not intend to go through all of them. But for the minister to make these suggestions is misinforming the House.The government, with respect to its approach to takeovers, seems to have the view that takeovers are always good. I would suggest that there are an awful lot of shareholders in a number of companies, most notably in recent times the AMP-GIO fiasco, who would dispute that view. What is required is a balanced set of corporate law measures that attempt to balance the interests and protect all sorts of interests, not just the big end of town.If one looks at the rhetoric of the minister when he expresses great disappointment about some of the matters he has before the House at the moment, it is somewhat disappointing that the government still has not learnt the lessons that these balances are necessary. That, I think, bodes ill for the future of some areas of corporate law, which, to come back to my starting point, is absolutely critical in maintaining the strengths and integrity of the Australian financial markets given the sorts of objectives the government has set for this country in terms of international finance. I was inspired to rise to my feet by the minister's misleading the House in relation to the attitudes of both the opposition and also of the business and investment community.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills12027r92812027Debate resumed from 30 September, on motion by Dr Stone:That the bill be now read a second time.18:03:0012027Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—At the conclusion of this address on the Australian Federal Police Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , the opposition will be moving a second reading amendment which will foreshadow certain areas of concern which we had hoped would be taken up in this House through reference to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, but we understand that, in relation to the government's position, they are disinclined to that course. We will subsequently be pursuing the issues we raise by way of specific concern in the second reading amendment by seeking the cooperation of non-government parties in the Senate to have an examination of those issues in that place.The government has stated two main aims in introducing this bill: to provide flexibility in Australian Federal Police employment consistent with the AFP reform program and to recast and to clarify the commissioner's power of command. The bill alters the statutory employment framework so that there can be a greater reliance on industrial agreements—that is, it facilitates the removal of statutory fixed term appointments. The government has also attempted to introduce a regime which separates the commissioner's general employment and disciplinary powers. The commissioner will have a general power of employment, with most employment conditions being determined under the Workplace Relations Act. The commissioner will, however, also retain command powers as set out by the Federal Court in Anderson and Sullivan which will be excluded from the Workplace Relations Act. In addition to arrangements which currently operate by way of agreement with the Australian Federal Police Association on a voluntary basis, the bill includes provision for compulsory drug testing. The bill also removes the statutory entitlement to the Australian Federal Police Adjustment Scheme, which is commonly called AFPAS.I should make a couple of general introductory remarks. Firstly, it was the Australian Labor Party which started a significant reform process within the Australian Federal Police. That reform program has not proceeded smoothly and has been the subject of significant difficulties with respect to the way in which this government has managed its relationship with the Australian Federal Police. The government in the past has decimated the Australian Federal Police regarding funding and support, and it is only now vainly beginning to try to fix the damage it has done.If I might be specific in relation to recent events, the $155 million funding package for the Australian Federal Police announced by Senator Vanstone on 20 September was an example of the government's fudging of figures to hide the fact that they have not been, and still are not now, adequately funding the Australian Federal Police. I will examine the rationale for that statement, but I make the statement now that, of the $155 million referred to, only $5 million will, in practice, be new money to be spent by the AFP in an attempt to redress problems with resourcing, funding and carrying out their core functions. Those are problems which have been caused by the government's fierce slashing of the AFP's budget in the past.The reason I say the $155 million funding package really reduces, on analysis, to $5 million is that there is approximately $100 million that the Australian Federal Police's AFPAS scheme—which is being terminated by this legislation—has in liabilities that will now have to be paid out, most of them within the next 12 months, to officers whose 10-year contracts expire and, in some circumstances, to officers who stay in the force under the new certified agreements provisions and the provisions of this bill. Last year, the government also announced $115 million of funding following the Ayers report, but $50 million of that was to come from savings within the Australian Federal Police. The government has not given any guarantees that these savings were found. In fact, information which has been provided to me from within the organisation and the AFPA suggests that those savings were not achieved—which means that in fact $50 million of this year's $155 million will have to be siphoned off to cover that shortfall.There may have already been some minor savings; but broadly, if you take the $155 million—of which much was made in terms of an assertion that there was increased resourcing for the Australian Federal Police—you have to subtract from that about $100 million for the AFPAS liabilities and about $50 million for the savings which were foreshadowed in the Ayers report but which were not achieved and which will need to be backfilled by that measure. So you actually come up with a very slight amount: in the order of $5 million of new money.The government is continuing to fund the Australian Federal Police in an ad hoc, ineffective and inefficient way. I regret that the government has not yet released—and appears absolutely determined not to release—the Ayers report, so that there can be public debate about our prime enforcement agency.One of the issues which we will take up subsequently and which we will be addressing in the amendments in detail is the advantage that would accrue were this parliament to have greater oversight of the whole area of law enforcement. Currently, this parliament only examines the operations and workings of the National Crime Authority. We conceive that there would be great advantage in having a parliamentary committee charged with much larger responsibilities of looking at law enforcement in general, which would bring within its remit the Australian Federal Police and would also go to long-term strategic planning issues; the proper resourcing of the Australian Federal Police, the National Crime Authority and other associated agencies; the way they work together; and the challenges and threats they face in the future. This government is operating in a piecemeal and quite covert manner in relation to a whole range of issues that really need to have proper public examination and the proper scrutiny of this parliament.Today, in the Senate, the minister for justice made much of some remarks—at which I am sure the Commissioner now squirms when he hears them repeated—of the Commissioner when he unfortunately was taped in a radio interview. I attended the 20th birthday party for the Australian Federal Police, and was delighted to be there; and I do have enormous respect for those who occupy high office in the Australian Federal Police—the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and those who serve right throughout the ranks—because I believe it is an organisation which, under very trying circumstances, has offered a high level of proficiency, admittedly with some difficulties and, I am certain, with a number of errors from time to time. Nonetheless I say that the Commissioner must squirm now, because I thought that the Commissioner suffered from an outburst of enthusiasm of a most uncharacteristic kind when he said in the radio interview that the current government had provided the greatest resources and the best support of any government in relation to the workings of the AFP.I am sure that the Commissioner expressed this hyperbole in response to being pressed in relation to issues that were being put to him at that time, suggesting that the AFP's morale was running down and that it was subject to considerable difficulties. Also probably at the back of his mind was the then pending motion of no confidence that was being brought against him by the Australian Federal Police Association, which went to the then negotiations about the workplace relations agreement that was being proposed and, of course, to the larger issue of the resources of the Australian Federal Police.DG4FISCHERMr Tim Fischer—Some of whom are in East Timor.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—The former Deputy Prime Minister makes that point. Might I say that I have indicated that the opposition, through me as spokesperson for justice, has continually honoured the service of the Australian Federal Police, and nothing that I say is intended to dishonour that. The record of service that has been given overseas in places like Cambodia and Haiti, and that is still being given in the Republic of Cyprus and most recently in East Timor is a distinguished one and will continue to be so.I was trying to put the Commissioner's remarks, which I regard as hyperbole, into some context and to indicate why I am sure when he looks at himself in the mirror he must say, `How did I get myself to say those things?' If you go to the actual formal reports of the Commissioner, as presented to this parliament in the Australian Federal Police's annual reports, a very different story emerges. I might take the parliament first to the annual report of 1997-98, where the Commissioner referred to the previous report of 1996-97, in which he indicated he had identified a number of factors which had hindered the Australian Federal Police's capacity to perform its core functions. He indicated that those factors included resource constraints, high attrition rates and a declining capacity to accept referrals for investigations from other agencies.He indicated that in that year—1997-98—these factors continued to exert pressure on the Australian Federal Police along with the continuation of savings measures introduced in 1996-97. These measures included restricted recruitment, across-the-board application of internal budget cuts, targeted reduction of travel expenditure, limited filling of vacant positions and limited assessment of service levels to client departments. The number of fraud investigations initiated by the AFP continued to decline during the year and the gross attrition rate of staffing levels remained high at 7.41 per cent. He pointed out that the AFP experienced a significant reduction in base funding in 1997-98 as a result of the continued application of the efficiency dividend and a four per cent portfolio base cut and reductions for whole of government telecommunications savings. He indicated that the impact of reductions in base funding was exacerbated by a need to repay significant forward borrowings which had accumulated over a number of years. He mentioned a number of specific purpose allocations which had been given but indicated that they did nothing to address or relieve the underlying structural budgetary problem which threatened continued operational effectiveness and viability. That is an extraordinary thing for the commissioner of the Australian Federal Police to say in a report to this parliament. The nation's premier law enforcement agency in 1997-98 is reporting that its continued operational effectiveness and viability have been threatened by this government.Then we turn to the current annual report. It noted that gross attrition rates to June 1999 were 6.58 per cent, down from 7.4 per cent in the last financial year, but it pointed out that this represented a loss of 173 personnel—112 police members and 61 staff members—while the reprofiling program accounted for the loss of another 57 personnel—49 police members and eight staff members. The report pointed out the difficulties in the rate of progress of some aspects of the AFP's reform program, particularly the implementation of certain human resource reforms, which are always going to be difficult. The report indicated that there remained problems—that, although there were some issues which had been relieved to some extent by funding that had addressed some of those specifics, there were still ongoing difficulties with the management and funding in relation to the organisation.We have just tabled—I think today, but I am not certain; I would not be held to that— the Commonwealth Ombudsman annual report, which points to significant problems in the internal operation of the recruitment program of the Australian Federal Police. The Ombudsman's investigation had found that AFP recruitment processes in the term of this government had lacked professionalism and raised serious questions as to whether there was a conflict of interest and/or undue favouritism in the process.So I am certain that there is not much support in the Australian Federal Police or in the Australian Federal Police Association for the extraordinary comments of the commissioner. I am certain the commissioner looks back on them with some regret as he finds that they are being used and touted by the Minister for Justice and Customs—saying that all is well in the best of all possible worlds in relation to the funding arrangements that this government has put in place and the management regime that currently exists. Frankly, we do not believe it. The Australian Federal Police who are serving do not believe it. The Australian Federal Police Association is actively committed to the contrary proposition. And we are advised—although the details are difficult to nail down—that there continues to be a reduction in the number of referrals that can be accepted by the Australian Federal Police for investigation, whilst at the same time the number of referrals coming forward that require investigation is actually increasing.This is not to denigrate the work of the Australian Federal Police but rather to put this debate and these reforms in a practical context and to get away from the braying self-congratulation that the minister for justice substitutes for analysis. In general, both the Australian Federal Police Association and the opposition support the general direction of this bill. We have consulted with the AFPA. The bill substantially redefines AFP industrial relations arrangements, but there are a number of questions that remain to be settled. It is not immediately clear how the new scheme will operate in practice—and the association and the opposition have concerns about several aspects of the bill, which are iterated in the second reading amendment. For example, the wholesale repeal of the existing part 5 of the act which contains provisions relating to maternity leave, promotions, the operation of the Merit Protection Act and standards and rights with respect to employees seconded as officials of the union are all issues that overlap with the government's approach to industrial relations and employment security.Some of those concerns are not just restricted to the Australian Federal Police, but we are anxious—in this environment where we expect quite a deal of those wearing the uniform or not wearing the uniform but who are agents of the Commonwealth in this important area of Commonwealth responsibility—about the trend of leaving crucial employment provisions and guarantees to the enterprise bargaining process. The removal of legislative provisions relating to maternity leave is particularly concerning for women and particularly concerning for those who, over recent years, have been making a significant contribution to the service and workings of the Australian Federal Police. It is not so long ago that it was a rarity to find a woman entering the Australian Federal Police, and we are concerned that the government has steadily eroded many of the legislative and social safeguards for working women which should be a fundamental part of our society.Having had discussions with the Australian Federal Police Association, we expressed concern about what is believed to be lack of accountability and transparent promotional and advancement systems dealt with under regulations and industrial agreements which relate to existing provisions in part V of the act which are not provided for in this bill; the provisions which allow for dismissal following conviction for an offence which only receives a section 19B Crimes Act bond. The provisions in this bill anticipate that anybody so convicted of an indictable offence will automatically be dismissed from the force, but section 19B provisions apply only to convictions where a bond has been given, and that can only occur where an offence has been held by a judge to be of a trivial nature.Notwithstanding the fact that the offence notionally is one of some seriousness and we would normally expect dismissal to follow, section 19B can only come into effect where the judicial determination is that in fact what has occurred, whilst notionally falling within the terms of indictable offence, is in fact trivial. It may well be that that matter needs examination. It is one of the issues that we will be asking to be looked at whenever this matter does have a committee examination.We also think there needs to be some examination of the process that the merits review of decisions of the commissioners will operate. I think that there does need to be some clarity about the relationship between the command and employment powers of the commissioner and the application of the Workplace Relations Act. It is clear that those two streams will overlap from time to time, and the working through of those issues and exactly how they will work in practice does need clarification. Perhaps some undertakings from the minister in the consideration in detail stage may assist.The opposition is content for the measures in relation to compulsory drug testing to proceed, but we understand from the minister's office that she is content to give assurances that the process will continue in practice as it has under the voluntary scheme—in other words, that the arrangements which operate when somebody is discerned to have at some stage taken an illicit drug will remain as they currently stand. I think that is a matter that can be dealt with simply by the minister giving the undertaking that her officers have indicated that she is content to give.Closer scrutiny of this bill is warranted. I might say that a lot of the concern that is being expressed in the second reading amendment and by the association might not have had to have come before this place had the government been more open in the way it went about the development of this legislation. When Labor was in office, we always regarded significant change to the legislation governing the Australian Federal Police as requiring at a very early stage the engagement of representatives of those who were employed within the Australian Federal Police and their association. That has not occurred in the development of this legislation.Notwithstanding that, broadly, both the opposition and the AFPA are not inclined to throw the baby out with the bathwater; we think that they are, in the main, quite reasonable provisions. But, when you get down to these matters of detail, many of them—which perhaps could have been worked through and concerns alleviated by up-front and transparent discussion at an early stage—which do now need to be the subject of an examination in committee, could have been avoided had the government been minded to follow a less closed process.The issues regarding accountability of the organisation are also important. The restructuring of the Australian Federal Police which is proposed by the bill raises issues of organisational accountability. Commonwealth law enforcement generally needs improved provisions to ensure that the community has a clear understanding of law enforcement's role. We need to be satisfied that there are properly developed and integrated strategic and tactical directions being adopted. After all, the Australian Federal Police, by a very significant order of magnitude, is the largest law enforcement body of the Commonwealth. There are a number of other agencies which have functions in the law enforcement area, but none have the significance and importance for the whole of government that the Australian Federal Police has. The organisation has always been regarded as the pre-eminent law enforcement agency of the national government.It is odd, therefore, in that context, that the parliament has a scrutiny and oversight committee which examines the National Crime Authority and a scrutiny and oversight committee which examines the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation but none which examines the whole issue of law enforcement. Of course, it is not appropriate to bundle ASIO in with law enforcement generally; I am not proposing that.However, the measures that we are proposing, and which we will be moving in the consideration in detail stage of this legislation, are directed towards giving this parliament the capacity to have a continuing relationship with the direction and the objectives of law enforcement, so that we do not address these issues in a piecemeal way, so we can look at the whole range of strategic threats that we face as a community in the future—from organised crime and new technologies as they emerge, which open up new vulnerabilities, to all of those issues that come before this parliament—and so we can look at the organisational structures to best deal with them.We can look at the coordination that needs to exist between the different agencies which have some carriage of different parts of the Commonwealth law enforcement brief—of course, they include a whole range of different agencies including, for example, the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian Federal Police, the National Crime Authority, AUSTRAC and a number of other agencies which do have specific responsibilities—to make sure that the whole package fits together and works well. It is something that this parliament would be very much empowered by. It would give this parliament a significantly greater capacity to be able to look at strategic and non-operational issues which go into the whole law enforcement agenda.In that regard I think there are very few who have served on the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority who have not welcomed the insights that that has provided in relation to that organisation. I see it as being very positive for the Australian Federal Police were the government to adopt these provisions. I might also say that I have had discussions with the Australian Federal Police Association about these proposals. They welcome them. They think it is very important for this parliament to have a proper committee in which the larger issues relating to law enforcement can be discussed, often in private, often outside the partisan debate that currently passes for analysis and serious discussion of law enforcement, and away from some of the rhetoric that clouds the air. This is one of the particular measures which we will be commending to the government.When this matter comes before the Senate we will be asking the Democrats and the other non-government parties—the Greens and Independent Senator Harradine—to support reference of the matters on which we have expressed concern. These are concerns which have been raised by members of the Australian Federal Police. It may be that on some of these issues we need not proceed with specific amendments; undertakings that satisfy those concerns perhaps can be given. Other particulars may require specific amendments to be moved after consideration of those concerns to ensure they are legitimate and, if they are legitimate, you would expect the opposition—and, indeed, perhaps the government—to take the initiative on those particular matters. I conclude this overview of our approach to this legislation.I was pleased with the briefing I received from the minister's office on this. Certainly since the bill has been published I can but commend the cooperation. I only regret that, in common with much of the way in which this government deals with law enforcement, there is often—as with the duck—tranquillity on the surface and much action underneath which the government does not disclose. That does not lead to good decision making in the end because there are interested parties who need to have their concerns addressed, not least the opposition. At some stage we will be back in government and there are important and longstanding issues of common concern that go to having a good framework for law enforcement. The Australian Federal Police Association, civil liberties groups and others want to see greater oversight of these arrangements to make sure that those processes are transparent and proper. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House:(1) expresses its concern about:(a) the level of accountability and transparency of decisions made under the command and employment powers of the Commissioner of Police under the provisions of the Bill;(b) the lack of mechanisms in the Bill for scrutiny and review of dismissal and promotion decisions;(c) the possible unfair operation of the Bill in relation to termination of employment;(d) the repeal of provisions relating to promotional and advancement systems, and to maternity leave; (e) the relationship between the command and employment powers of the Commissioner of Police under the Bill;(f) the operation of the Bill in relation to entitlement to continuous employment;(g) clarification of the application of the Workplace Relations Act to the employment regime as established by the Bill; and(h) the failure of the Government to support the establishment of a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Commonwealth law enforcement to provide a strategic view in respect of all Commonwealth law enforcement agencies; and(2) is of the opinion that the Bill should be referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for consideration and advisory report, given the detailed matters raised in the Bill.18:33:0012033Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—It is important that law enforcement be provided with the resources and the capacity it needs. In a nation which believes in the rule of law it is vital. Also, in a nation which prides itself on the doctrine of the separation of powers, it is important that those of us in this place provide law enforcement officials with the capacity, the resources and the understanding of issues which are important in the enforcement of laws. We wish them well in their endeavours. We look forward to seeing the AFP continuing their tremendous job.It is 20 years since the inception of the current incarnation of the Australian Federal Police, but the idea of a national policing body had its roots back in the very earliest of days of this parliament. It was as early as 1903 when some of the ideas were floated. But it was at the time of the celebrated egg throwing incident in Warwick, in my state of Queensland, when Senior Sergeant Kenny, a good Irishman, told Prime Minister Hughes at the time of the great conscription debate he would not intervene to protect the Prime Minister of the day because he worked for another great Irishman in T.J. Ryan, the Labor Premier at the time, that Hughes thought there needed to be some sort of protective mechanism for the Commonwealth. Out of this sketchy tradition came what we have today.The Australian Federal Police has had, ever since 29 November 1917—it is worth remind ing the House of this particular date; the date of the famous egg throwing incident at Warwick railway station—various incarnations. We had the Commonwealth Investigation Branch from 1919 to 1945. We had the Commonwealth Police Force at one stage, as well. We had the Commonwealth Investigation Service. Since 1979 we have had the Australian Federal Police. The Australian Federal Police do a number of things. One of them is providing police services to the Australian Capital Territory. But it is the provision of police services to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth, to protect the property of the Commonwealth and to safeguard Commonwealth interests in which we in this place are particularly interested.In my contribution today I want to pay tribute to the efforts of the contemporary members of the Australian Federal Police. I also want to acknowledge that this government is providing them with—as has even been noted by the opposition spokesman the member for Denison—in the words of the Commissioner, Mick Palmer, `resources and capacity far greater, far better, than have ever been provided before'. We do so for a number of reasons. There are great pressures on modern society because criminals seem to be, to use the hackneyed phrase, `one step ahead of the law' because of their capacity to use technology. It is always we legislators who have to react to some new idea of breaking the law, therefore criminals tend to get away with things for a while.The influx of drugs into this nation has rightly been met with a solid response from the Howard government of new resources, additional resources and a far greater focus being given to the Australian Federal Police, amongst other agencies, enabling there to be, on behalf of all Australians, a far more solid basis on which to combat this most heinous of crimes, this crime which affects the lives of individuals, this trade in human misery—the trade in drugs.It is important to note for the record some of the great achievements of the Australian Federal Police since the coming to power of the Howard government in 1996. I would like to put those achievements on the record. I admit my source is the Internet, the great electronic device of crime in the late 1990s as well as, one would hope, that great service to humanity where communication is cheap and readily available.The AFP page heralds so many great achievements over the last couple of years. From Operation Anthem, 23.7 kilos of heroin were found in wall-hangings on their arrival at Melbourne airport and three people were arrested. Through Operations Molotov and Calculus, 8.4 tonnes of cannabis resin were seized in Queensland and there were 15 arrests; 5,000 marijuana plants were also seized at premises of the principal offender. There was the discovery of five tonnes of cannabis in shipping containers in Sydney. There was Operation Redgum in 1996 regarding drug related crimes in the ACT region. Operation Abilene in 1997: a long-running investigation into 624 kilos of compressed cannabis found in a shipping container which was sent from South Africa to Sydney. Seizure of 142 $20 bills, counterfeit polymer banknotes, which were passed in Sydney and Melbourne. Further investigation by the men and women of the Australian Federal Police led to larger counterfeit note seizures, with two people being charged with currency, firearms, stolen vehicle and drug offences. Cyclops in 1997: 10 tonnes of cannabis resin was seized from a vessel near Port Stephens in New South Wales. Twenty kilos of cocaine were discovered in the suitcases of two US citizens arriving in Sydney from Argentina. Also, 23.4 kilos of heroin were found in crates of furniture which travelled from Malaysia to Sydney.On and on it goes. In 1998, Operation Stockman: a vessel from China smuggled in 94 kilograms of heroin concealed in three industrial ovens in cargo. Chandelier: a consignment of water pumps arrived in Sydney from France and were found to contain 17.2 kilos of ecstasy. Who would forget Operation Gentle from last year when a Customs-AFP joint operation tracked the movements of an international cocaine trafficking syndicate resulting in the seizure of almost 225 kilograms of cocaine from a yacht at Coffs Harbour in New South Wales. Into this year: more ecstasy, more heroin, more heroin, more heroin.I raise these matters because they go to the heart of what the modern AFP is all about. It is not so much about trying to get some recalcitrant Irishman or a police officer from Queensland in 1917 who would not protect the Prime Minister of the day. It is all about the international linkages and the intelligence which are required to combat crime, to track crime, to use the other agencies which complement it, such as AUSTRAC, the National Crime Authority, Customs and other agencies. This sort of effort by the Australian Federal Police is probably not well appreciated in the broad community.The Australian Federal Police are not out on the beat, patrolling in the way we wish our state police officers would do—and I know there is a great lament in Queensland with it still not being case. Australian Federal Police officers tend to be people who are brought from other jurisdictions and are hired by the Australian Federal Police because of their intelligence and their ability to dissect potential criminal matters, to perfect the technology which may be used by criminals to try to hide those criminal matters and to actually unpick and unravel matters sufficient for charges to be laid, for prosecutions to commence and for the courts to then judge. The Australian Federal Police are a very special lot—they are an extremely special lot—and they deserve the very best of support from government in their activity.This bill before us today aims to simplify so many of the existing complex employment provisions under which these special people are brought together under the umbrella of the Australian Federal Police. The provisions in this legislation provide a framework for greater reliance on clear understandings through industrial agreements. They are consistent with the government's overall stated intentions as far as workplace reforms are concerned. We know what those stated intentions are all about. They are all about reward for effort. They are all about ensuring individuals who work hard get the reward they should get. They are about ensuring there is flexibility in workplace arrangements—that people can trade in and out certain agreed standards of employment for some other standard of employment.Those sorts of basic conditions, those detailed employment conditions, which are determined under the Workplace Relations Act are far more complex than just remuneration alone. It is very important for Australian Federal Police officers to know that the kind of personal individual treatment which can come from the concept of the change to the employment provisions contained in this measure today is all about trying to give them the kind of focus and reward they deserve.I am on the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, like the member for Denison. I am not going to divulge some of the things which we get briefed upon, but when you hear stories about one single Federal Police officer who has dedicated himself to tracking down, with great urgency, some of the details of a crime which he is now able to successfully prosecute and to find great fraud against the Commonwealth because of tax avoidance and those sorts of matters you start to appreciate you here have a person who is not working nine to five, who is not rostered on between eight and four. This is a person who literally broke his emotional back to make things happen. He was not running the sort of bundy clock arrangement of `Clock on, clock off, overtime is now due'. Here is a guy who said, `I've got a job to do. The clock is running, the Commonwealth is losing money, I'm a dedicated police officer and I'm going to work—and I'm going to work until I get this job done.' They are the sorts of people that, to my mind, are at the heart of this bill. The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Mick Palmer in this current case, should be charged with the responsibility to provide the sort of flexibility that should address those kinds of reasonable concerns from ordinary serving officers. We do not want to see a `one size fits all' approach, a bundy clock type of approach, to industrial relations in this area. It is vital that flexibility exists because there is no way that criminals clock in and out nine to five. The bundy clock does not exist in the criminal world. So it is very important that we offer our representatives in the Australian Federal Police the flexibility they need to do the job they are going to do.I submit that the legislation before us is worthy of support, because it is part of the overall package of measures this government is putting in place as a whole of government approach in the fight against the trade in human misery, the fight against the trade in illegal drugs coming into this country. They are the reasons that I commend the bill to the House.18:45:0012035Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—I rise to rise to speak on the Australian Federal Police Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 and, whilst time does not allow me to address all of the amendments, I intend to address some of the issues contained within it. The bill simplifies the existing complex provisions in the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, providing a framework for greater reliance on industrial agreement consistent with the government's workplace reforms. The bill enacts the AFP commissioner's general power of employment, but detailed employment conditions such as remuneration will be determined through agreements in accordance with the Workplace Relations Act 1996.The bill also recognises and preserves the distinct nature of the AFP as a disciplined force by specifically retaining the commissioner's command powers to the exclusion of the Workplace Relations Act. This is a noble objective, but it will only be as effective as the ability of the commissioner and his line commanders to be professionally committed to the support for the backbone of the AFP front-line troops—the dedicated police officers who, given the appropriate resources, will enforce the law in the same diligent way in which they have done for decades now.The public has high expectations of police, particularly the AFP, who in my opinion—which is based on knowledge of other police services at a state level—stand head and shoulders above the rest of them. For many years now, much has been said about the need to allocate more resources to the AFP. But at the same time the imposition of so-called efficiency driven cost saving management decisions has seriously curtailed the effective law enforcement capabilities of the professional, dedicated and committed element of the AFP—that is, the police officers themselves.Governments of all political persuasion have much to answer for in their inability to acknowledge the need to ensure that working conditions as well as adequate resources and remuneration are prerequisites for high morale and motivation not only to achieve the best possible law enforcement outcomes but also to maintain the strength of the force itself, thereby maintaining the incentive to perform to the level expected by the community. Hopefully, these amendments are sufficient to ensure this happens. I do, however, have some reservations about the power carried by the commissioner, because history has shown the top end of management in these organisations have mismanaged the scarce resources at the expense of the front-line officers themselves.Not long after I came into this place, I raised my concerns about the possibility of 80 per cent of AFP officers on statutory fixed term appointments entitled to the Australian Federal Police Adjustment Scheme, AFPAS, covered in these amendments, resigning from the force. This would have created a massive immediate impact on the ability of government to adequately address the illegal importation and distribution of illicit drugs such as heroin and cocaine, despite the government's well-intentioned and financially committed drug strategy, which should have been addressed a decade ago.The Howard government has recognised this imminent threat to the decimation of the finest police service in this country by the removal of the statutory fixed term appointment or FTA system. This has impacted to some degree on the rigidity in AFP staffing arrangements and has also impacted negatively on financial management and forward planning. Although to some degree the latter has more to do with lack of management expertise than financial constraints, this is something the government, through its committee structure, needs to investigate if it is to obtain maximum return from the investment made to address, for example, the massive explosion in illicit drugs in this country.Serving police officers can do the job effectively. However, they need to be guided by forward planning which has both short-term and long-term objectives. The AFP also has to catch up by remunerating its officers in line with salaries comparable with other police services, because salary levels are another element of the disquiet within the force that have to be addressed.I understand the negotiations regarding salaries are part of the certified agreement discussion currently under way between the AFP and the police association. I trust that these certified agreements or wage negotiations, which are an entirely separate issue, are not linked to the AFPAS to the extent that the AFPAS termination arrangements are used by the commissioner as a lever to extract unfair elements within the certified agreement by the commissioner.The AFPAS, which is the Australian Federal Police adjustment payment made under the current act, operated as a major incentive for people not to seek reappointment because the AFPAS entitlement is payable only when a person leaves the organisation. The AFPAS was intended to compensate personnel for the loss of further security of employment arising from the FTA system. It was to operate not only as an incentive for people to complete FTAs but also as a corruption deterrent, because it was forfeited if a person was dismissed for corruption or misconduct.With the replacement of FTAs with a continuing employment regime, the need for an AFPAS disappears. People will make their employment decisions without having to have regard to the artificial constraints imposed by the FTA system and will remove the incentive for a large number of people to leave the AFP in order to access an AFPAS.If there were a distinct possibility that the considerable powers of the commissioner could be used to determine the time of payment of the AFPAS, the government's sensible decision could be negated and resignations could be revisited. The legislation clearly recognises the AFP as a disciplined organisation in which the commissioner has both the role of a public sector chief executive officer and, more importantly, a commander in every sense of the word. The amendments will enable the commissioner and the organisation to adequately respond to emerging management and law enforcement trends in a rapidly changing environment where the pace of change is going to increase.The capacity of both the organisation and the police serving in it to not only anticipate change but also participate in those changes in an environment of high morale and with a commitment to achieve the outcomes expected by the community is essential to maintaining the integrity of what I believe to be the most corruption free and professional police service in the nation. These amendments will enable further development of this capacity while appropriately safeguarding the interests of the members of the organisation.The public—and, I am sure, all members in this place—understand that the extraordinary demands of police work require high ethical standards. We are all aware of the complex and often dangerous circumstances associated with investigating organised crime involved in drug trafficking and related activities and the dangers involved in community policing. This is all the more reason why we have to ensure these amendments not only enforce the integrity of the AFP but also have the ability to attract the right people into the organisation.Last year the government announced its Tough on Drugs strategy. Included in the funding which came with this announcement was a provision to finance the recruitment of about 50 federal agents from within the ranks of serving police officers. Despite advertisements being placed in national newspapers, the response was disappointing given that there are approximately 41,000 police serving in police services throughout Australia. This has everything to do with remuneration and is a classic illustration of why the level of recruitment over the years has not kept pace with resignations.The point I am making here is that we must always keep in mind that any amendments to legislation must not only address the issue of accountability for misconduct, testing for drugs and other employment related matters but always address the issue of adequate rates of pay and working conditions that reflect the nation's appreciation of its front-line national police service, which provides the highly motivated and skilled operators who make up the backbone of the AFP.Obviously, these amendments have focused on the need to lift morale within the driving edge of the AFP by tightening the standards centred around the powers, duties, obligations and responsibilities of AFP employees, including its police officers. In the past, former commissioners and ministers of the Crown have obtained much public political mileage by espousing that the AFP has been underresourced and that the upgrading of police resources and conditions was critical to the development of an effective means for society to not only control and prevent organised crime but allow the AFP to become more proactive in preventing, detecting and destroying it before it destroys the very fabric of our society. As an example of what I am talking about, Major General Ron Grey—who was appointed AFP Commissioner in February 1983—wrote in his first annual report:Organisational change cannot alone compensate for deficiencies in resources . . . Resources need to be brought more into balance with demands of the Force.In the period 1984-85, following a national drug summit in the ACT and the Costigan royal commission presenting its final report, Commissioner Grey wrote:In my view drug trafficking and organised crime emerge as the areas needing more resources . . . I remain very concerned that scarce AFP resources are being siphoned off to support such organisations as the DPP and the NCA . . . Shortages of manpower and funds remain my major concern.We are talking about a decline in attitude towards the AFP and its most precious resource, its front-line police. That decline—despite what the member for Denison was saying, as the shadow minister for justice and customs, about the current government's lack of commitment to the AFP as such—happened in the mid-1980s, and the decline has continued since then. It is a question that needs to be addressed by all governments if we are to be serious about the massive influx of illicit drugs into this country.We only have to look at what is happening in Victoria at the moment. An enormous amount of cocaine is coming into Victoria, and I have absolutely no doubt that it will be coming in elsewhere. Dedicated AFP police officers cannot possibly cope with that sort of pressure unless they are adequately resourced, particularly well-trained and capable police offices. It is important that they use their detection and surveillance skills to get on top of this very serious problem.Let me now refer to a former member of this House, Mr Gareth Evans. When Attorney-General, the then Senator Gareth Evans summed up the conclusions of the 1983 National Crime Commission Conference with the following:I discerned no disagreement about the fact that police are under resourced . . . There was a general acknowledgment that upgrading of police resources, methods and machinery must be part of any solution to the problem of organised crime . . . It is a question of resources that can and should be made available to police . . . A question to which Government, including I acknowledge the Commonwealth Government, must address their collective minds very quickly.These legislative amendments will at least go towards addressing some of the workplace related reforms and will be complemented by the certified agreements reached between the commissioner and the AFP association on behalf of its members.As I said earlier, the commissioner needs to focus on instilling confidence in his organisation, which for years now has been let down because of a continual focus on cost cutting through efficiency programs that tend to curtail the ability of police, for example, to effectively use their considerable law enforcement and investigatory skills to impact on the massive drug trade in this country. There is still a long way to go and, while governments can make the funding available to ensure that their policies on law enforcement are carried out, this will amount to absolutely nothing unless the obvious problems with the management and administrative functions of the AFP are addressed.Today is not the day for me to elaborate on these issues. The bill before the House limits my contribution on matters associated with the failure of the AFP management to focus its energies and forward planning on what has driven the low morale and threatened the mass resignations which this bill, to the credit of the Minister for Justice and Customs, has to some extent overcome. At some time in the future, I will raise these issues. This will hopefully motivate senior AFP managers to address the deficiencies created by what I believe to be inadequate levels of skilled investigators, low levels of operational police, a lack of transfer of highly motivated skilled investigators within their ranks both inter and intrastate and a general feeling of despair created by poor personnel management. I thank the House for its indulgence in allowing me to speak on this issue. It has assisted me in raising matters that highlight the difficulties being faced by the backbone of the AFP—the front-line police officers themselves. I support the bill.19:01:0012038Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It is my pleasure tonight to rise in support of the Australian Federal Police Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . It is significant legislation and I congratulate Senator Vanstone, the Minister for Justice and Customs, in having the foresight to address the particular problems and issues that now confront the Australian Federal Police and in introducing a new era in human resources management in the Australian Federal Police. The AFP has operated very much like a bureaucracy. In terms of the contracts that have been offered to the police, if police officers terminated and took a payout at the end of their contract, this would be a significant blow to the police force in the estimated numbers of police that they would lose. Some 10 per cent of police officers, at least, would be expected to resign within a one-year period if all of the contracts that are now in place were activated in terms of the payout that was expected to be made.The Australian Federal Police is a very fine organisation that deserves the support of every member of this House. As someone with a brother who was a member of the NSW Police Force, I am aware of the issues that confront police on a daily basis. It is an occupation which is very demanding, challenging and, in many cases, dangerous. It has an impact on people and, certainly, as those people who have seen police go through very traumatic events will know, this can often leave an imprint on their life for a very significant time. In recognising the Australian Federal Police here tonight, I think it is important for us to not only see them as upholders of the law—in, for example, ensuring that drugs do not enter the country illegally—looking after policing in all its various aspects in the ACT and nationally, but also to look beyond that and see them as individuals who have similar needs to other Australians in terms of their personal security, financial security and the way in which they are treated.This bill goes a long way towards addressing these issues and implementing them in legislation. This will bring the Australian Federal Police into line with contemporary organisations. Clearly, the normal public service requirements are different from those of the Australian Federal Police—aspects of some of the personal freedoms that we would expect in the public service and in other organisations in the private sector are not present in the Australian Federal Police. Some of those freedoms will be forfeited by people as a result of being in the police force. That aside, however, this bill is about opening up the Australian Federal Police and making it subject to the same types of workplace relations agreements that we have seen in other areas of the economy.It is important to see this bill as about preserving the core values of the Australian Federal Police and the commissioner in achieving the organisation's values of integrity, commitment, excellence, accountability, fairness and trust. The commissioner has a difficult time in meeting all of those requirements in terms of his or her objectives. But that is what this legislation is all about. It is clear to the government that the public expects the organisation to measure up to its high expectations in terms of commitment and excellence. It demonstrated these qualities when 50 Australian Federal Police officers went to East Timor during August and September of this year to take part in CIVPOL, the multinational team ensuring security in East Timor before and during the independence vote.Domestically, the Australian Federal Police's most high profile roles are providing policing services to the ACT, providing witness protection nationally and combating drug trafficking, fraud, organised crime and money laundering. It has had a number of successes in recent years, including Operation Linnet. This operation disrupted the activities of a major international drug trafficking organisation through the seizure of 390 kilograms of heroin in October 1998. It was also involved in an international joint operation with authorities from Canada and Hong Kong. This operation seized a further 163 kilograms of heroin in a number of raids in 1998 and 1999. Operation Bronte, a joint operation between the AFP and DIMA, resulted in the detention in May this year of 83 unlawful non-citizens aboard a specifically modified freighter through the interception of maps and other documents at Sydney airport. I am sure that you would agree that this was an outstanding job. In anybody's language, they should be commended for their great achievements in drug enforcement.The Australian Federal Police are also responding to changing trends. They must relate to those changing trends in criminal activity and, to do that, they must be a flexible organisation. Rapid and easy transportation systems, new communications systems, worldwide financial linkages and the progressive removal of border controls combined with increased trade volumes are factors which increase the challenge faced by the AFP. The dynamic and unpredictable nature of criminal activity means that they need to be constantly changing their approach to be able to carry out the apprehension of crime that we look for in the AFP. In addition to his responsibilities as commissioner of the AFP—as the CEO of the organisation—the commissioner's performance is measured in terms of the overall management and performance of the organisation itself. He also oper ates subject to the requirements of public sector accountabilities.As to the specific reforms mentioned in the bill, an additional $115 million will be provided over three years to assist the Australian Federal Police to increase their staffing, maximise their capabilities and concentrate resources on fighting crime. A particularly important feature is, of course, the flexible employment arrangements. The Australian Federal Police now come under a workplace arrangement, which is the way most organisations now negotiate in the private sector. The commissioner becomes the employer—as he would in the private sector—and they negotiate with him as conditions apply. It is a sensible arrangement. It shows flexible thinking, foresight and good management of human resources.The bill ensures that the commissioner is treated specially where the Australian Federal Police is unique but that the organisation is subject to the same discipline as applies to other bodies where it is not. The amendments recognise the need for a balance between general public sector and workplace issues and the need to recognise the unique situation applying to the Federal Police. The bill invests the commissioner with a general employment power in addition to ensuring that more flexible and efficient workplace arrangements can be implemented. It separates the role of command and discipline from matters relating to employment. It also enables the commissioner to deploy Australian Federal Police employees and to assign duties. This reinforces an important element in commanding a police organisation in both domestic and international activities. There are also strong anticorruption measures in the bill, and I think they would receive the support of every member of the House.One of the major initiatives is the removal of the statutory fixed term appointment system, known as the FTA system. As I mentioned before, this has created a problem with fixed arrangements. It is not unusual in the private sector to have fixed term arrangements and contracts, often for three or five years, but the problem with this piece of legislation is that two aspects of fixed term agreements were untenable. The first one is that the majority of agreements were due for renewal or termination during a one-year period. The second is the incentive attached to the renewal of these contracts which would make it very attractive for people to resign and maximise their own earnings. It allows individuals to take up a lump sum payment which is triggered only on resignation.If a number of people in the Australian Federal Police are due for re-endorsement of their contracts during the one period and then there is the incentive to get out, what do you think is likely to happen? The answer is that you are going to lose a lot of very fine policemen—policemen who have been trained and have been in all types of situations with the enormous breadth of experience that we see in the Australian Federal Police. It is something that the nation should not be subjected to—something that we should avoid. Both the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice and Customs need to be congratulated on recognising the problem and making the appropriate changes to the way the whole system is operated.Whilst it is not possible to provide a definitive figure on how many of the AFP's 2,800 staff would quit following the end of their fixed terms, an educated guess is that it would be around 10 per cent. If 280 people resigned at any one time from the Federal Police it would be a significant loss to the organisation and would jeopardise the overall performance of a very fine organisation.AFPAS was intended to compensate personnel for the future loss of employment security arising from the FTA system. It was to operate as an incentive for people to complete their contracts as well as to add to an anticorruption measure. If they did not reach the end of their contract or were precluded from taking up the contract because they had been involved in some corrupt practices, clearly the financial incentive would be important as an anticorruption measure. This has been replaced as part of a continuing employment regime. Under a new workplace agreement, they can now negotiate how they should operate directly with the commissioner. This has resulted in the renegotiation of their general conditions. The $115 million, which is to be provided over three years, will result in a better human resources management environment.There have been some criticisms by members of the opposition of this particular piece of legislation: firstly, the termination of employment by the commissioner and, secondly, the reasons for dismissal. Proposed section 28 of the bill provides that the commissioner may, at any time by notice in writing, terminate the employment of an AFP employee. Item 1 of schedule 2 to the bill amends the administrative decisions such that, should the commissioner exercise his or her power to dismiss an AFP employee under section 28, the commissioner is not required to give reasons for that dismissal under the act. Of course, it is important to recognise that all rights in relation to unfair dismissal contained in division 3 of part VIA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 apply for dismissals under section 28 of the bill. These rights include and allow for the provision of reasonable notice and reasons for dismissal.Then there is the question of the commissioner's orders not being disallowable instruments. It is proposed that, under section 38 of the bill, the commissioner may, in writing, issue orders with respect to the general administration and control of the operations of the AFP. It re-enacts the power to make general orders and general instructions contained in section 14 of the AFP Act. The power to issue orders with respect to the general administration and control of the operations of the AFP is fundamental to the commissioner's command of a disciplined force. It is essentially a legislative recognition of a common law power recognised by the courts.The parliament has chosen deliberately to operate at arms length from the Australian Federal Police. It cannot on the one hand say that it is operating at arms length and on the other say that it wants to have the disallowable instrument revived. There is a need to be independent. The importance of an independent police force, where command decisions are made by the commissioner, is undermined if the commissioner's orders are subject to parliamentary disallowance. That independence should be sacrosanct. An independent police force means a better operating police force. An independent police force will ensure the integrity overall of the police force and should be supported. These criticisms by the opposition are not sustainable.There was also the question of the partial removal of the privilege against self-incrimination in relation to the commissioner's orders and other integrity measures. Clearly, there is some concern about the obligation to comply with these orders and with any lawful direction, instruction or order presently in the AFP, and that requirement has been moved into the act. Where an AFP employee or special member is required to give information, answer a question or produce a document in relation to the commissioner's order or a lawful direction, instruction or order, they are not excused on the grounds of self-incrimination.On the whole, it is a question of the individual and the rights of the individual as opposed to the importance of having an organisation of integrity which is corruption free and has the ability, where there are suspicions of wrongdoing within the organisation, to compel individual police officers to give evidence. Even if it may affect their employment within that organisation, under the requirements of this act, it does not affect any matter that can be taken to court.It is only an internal provision. It is aimed at ensuring a situation where leads can be followed up and officers can be interrogated. Even if it does mean some self-incrimination, I am sure that, above all, we would want to have an Australian Federal Police which is as corruption free as possible. Living in the real world, we all know that that is always difficult. Despite the fact there are objections from the police union and there may be some concerns, I believe that, on balance, it is an appropriate line of action to take.The integrity measures under the AFP Act are different from those applicable to other public servants, employees generally or members of the public. In the case of the Police Service Board v. Morris, it was identified that the police service is a public service where members voluntarily undertake the curtailment of freedoms they would otherwise enjoy. It is also incumbent on the commissioner to take a proactive approach to the system of integrity.The protections in relation to the powers that the commissioner would have limit the circumstances in which information obtained by compulsion may be used in evidence. The AFP disciplinary regulations create a disciplinary offence for the improper use of information. The Privacy Act 1988 regulates the collection, use, disclosure and storage of personal information. The Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 provides that a complaint may be made to the ombudsman concerning action taken by a deputy commissioner. The protections and safeguards are in place.We have before us a bill which, I believe, is an enlightened piece of legislation. It enables Australian Federal Police officers to be treated in a way that is not dissimilar from the private sector in terms of their ability to negotiate directly with the commissioner. But, of course, it is subject to the Public Service requirements and to the special conditions that relate to police services around the world. It enables flexibility so we do not have the situation where we have fixed contracts and then people being terminated, losing those significant resources. The legislation before us protects individuals appearing before inquiries and will ensure that our Australian Federal Police service is one of integrity and as corruption free as possible. I commend this bill to the House.Motion (by Ms Ellis) negatived:That the debate be adjourned.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—As your motion has been negatived, you now have the right to speak to the bill as you are on the speakers list. Do you wish to speak?5K6ELLISMs Ellis—No, Mr Deputy Speaker.19:22:0012042Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I am very pleased to be winding up the debate on the Australian Federal Police Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . One thing I regret is that, despite the importance of the bill, there has been little interest shown in it by the members of the opposition. In fact, the member for Canberra, who just sought to change the agenda of the parliament, was down to speak but did not rise to speak on the bill.As I said, this is an important bill. It is a bill designed to modernise and simplify the Australian Federal Police Act. It builds on the existing strengths of the AFP and will deliver flexibility within a framework that will build on the expertise and professionalism of the AFP as Australia's premier police force. In fact, it is part of a package of measures designed to achieve the Prime Minister's objective of having a world-class police force as our Australian Federal Police. The bill recognises the distinctive employment relationship within the AFP, where the commissioner has both command and employment powers, unlike those of other employers. It is incumbent upon police managers of a disciplined force to implement a proactive system of integrity testing to exclude any potential for corruption.The provisions in the bill for drug testing and disclosure of financial information, while they would ordinarily be seen as a restriction on personal freedoms, represent the community expectations of a police force free from corruption and open to scrutiny. I can recall a couple of years ago, when I had the office of Minister for Justice as well as the office of Attorney-General, launching the voluntary drug testing scheme that was instituted by the commissioner with the support of the Australian Federal Police Association. This was something that the members of the Australian Federal Police were happy to support because it gave the appearance of integrity as well as the test for actuality.The bill does not take away any rights in relation to unfair dismissal that are available under the Workplace Relations Act 1996. AFP employees will have a right to reasonable notice of termination of employment under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and also to reasons for termination. The Industrial Relations Commission has made it clear in a number of decisions that in order for a dismissal to be fair reasons must be given. Where an adverse revelation or discovery is made through mandatory drug testing or financial disclosure, the commissioner will continue to have a range of discretionary powers at his disposal—from counselling to opportunities for rehabilitation and investigation through to dismissal. This will allow the commissioner to respond in a manner commensurate with the individual's circumstances yet maintain the commissioner's disciplinary responsibilities.The role of the parliament remains unchanged, with the current convention continuing, whereby ministerial directions under section 13—section 37 in the bill—are tabled. Additionally, such directions will continue to be published in the AFP's annual report. The amendments proposed in the bill reinforce the special nature of policing and provide adequate protections both for AFP employees and the community, to ensure that the AFP continues to maintain its leading role in law enforcement.The member for Denison, in responding on behalf of the opposition, asserted that there was a lack of clarity between dealing with the employment powers and the command powers vested in the commissioner under the proposed legislation. In fact, the purpose of the bill is to achieve clarity in relation to those two categories of power. The current act intermingles command and employment issues to a point of confusion as to where the commissioner's powers of command and his responsibilities as an employer stand. The bill rectifies these inflexibilities and uncertainties by providing a clear distinction between command and employment issues, with the result of greater certainty.The member for Denison raised the question of his request for a referral of the bill to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The member for Denison is well aware, from his former role as Minister for Justice in the Keating government, that I am very keen to see House standing committees consider legislation rather than leaving it to Senate committees. It would have been consistent with my preference that the bill be inquired into and reported on by the House committee rather than leaving it, as is often the case, to a Senate committee to do a rush job.However, in the circumstances of the House committee, the request, coming as late as it did, was not feasible. The House committee is considering a number of references already, including a reference on copyright enforcement, a reference on the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999 and another reference on a matter relating to genetic modification that was given by another minister. On that basis, our inquiries indicated that the House committee would not be able to deal with the matter within a reasonable time frame in order to ensure that this bill was dealt with by the Senate before the end of the year, as the government desires.The result of this aspect is that the bill will be referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for inquiry and report, and I am told that the committee will report by 6 December 1999. The issues nominated by the member for Denison, as the shadow minister, will be considered by the Senate committee. I suggest, therefore, to the member for Denison that any matter to be referred to the House committee, being consistent with my personal preference for matters in my portfolio, be made a little earlier than this one was.Adjournment1204310000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—Mr Speaker, I request that the question be put forthwith without debate.Question resolved in the negative.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the Attorney-General.7V5WILLIAMSMr Williams—I am happy to adjourn debate on the bill at this time.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—We now need a motion.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I will move that the debate be adjourned.Debate adjourned.Miscellaneous120441204419:31:0012044McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I move:That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the adjournment debate from continuing until the Minister for Health and Aged Care attends the House to:(1) clarify the powers of the Auditor-General in his inquiry into the scan scam; and(2) guarantee to the House that the Auditor-General will have the power in the course of his inquiry to (a) compel witnesses to attend and give such evidence; and (b) compel persons to produce information, particularly the minister and his staff and all those with whom he or his staff or department were negotiating and any others who may have benefited from the decision or of any pre-budget leak of the decision.This is a very important motion, because we have a scam here and we have an attempt to nobble a very fundamental inquiry into this matter.Motion (by Mr Williams) put:That the member be not further heard.19:36:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)73Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth60Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BevisMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr ZahraMr HowardMr BeazleyMr DownerMr McLeayMr ProsserMs Burke* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.19:40:0012045Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I second the motion. The minister should come and correct the record—Motion (by Mr Slipper) agreed to:That the member be not further heard.Motion (by Mr Slipper) put:That the question be now put.19:42:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)73Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth60Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BevisMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr ZahraMr HowardMr BeazleyMr DownerMr McLeayMr ProsserMs Burke* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the motion (Mr McMullan's ) be agreed to.19:45:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)60Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BevisMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr Zahra73Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs WorthMr HowardMr BeazleyMr DownerMr McLeayMr ProsserMs Burke* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bills12046r92812046Consideration resumed.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Chair was at somewhat of a disadvantage—and so was the Clerk—because the Chair was unaware that the Attorney-General was concluding the debate when the debate was interrupted for the adjournment. As a result of that sequence of events—and I remind the member for Banks not to be too self-righteous at this point—at the conclusion of the previous item, the Australian Federal Police Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , the member for Fraser purported to move the adjournment of the debate. This was not a course available to him under the standing orders. The House was in agreement for the debate to be adjourned but it may suit the convenience of the House if the Attorney-General is granted leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed. Is leave granted?Leave granted; debate adjourned.Adjournment12046Motion (by Mr Slipper) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.1204619:51:0012046Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Wooldridge, misled parliament today when he said that the Auditor-General's inquiry into the MRI scam would be conducted under section 20 of the Auditor-General Act 1997. Tonight, the Auditor-General, Mr Barrett, has confirmed that the inquiry will in fact be conducted under section 18 of the act.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the member for Jagajaga cast an aspersion on the Minister for Health and Aged Care by suggesting that he had misled the House. If she wishes to make such an accusation, she ought to—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The parliamentary secretary will resume his seat. The member for Jagajaga is aware of the standing orders. Consistent with the ruling I gave yesterday, she has not accused the minister of deliberately misleading the House. It is the term `deliberately misleading' that is unparliamentary.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—It is the case that the Auditor-General, Mr Barrett, has confirmed that he will conduct his inquiry under section 18 of the act, a section which gives him significantly greater information gathering and access powers than he would have had if this inquiry was conducted under section 20 of his act. Dr Wooldridge should have come immediately into the parliament to correct the record and acknowledge his mistake, otherwise he stands tonight accused of trying to restrict the inquiry's powers even before it has begun.Dr Wooldridge has been dragged kicking and screaming into this inquiry. We have been asking questions in this parliament for eight months. This whole mess is the direct result of this minister not taking the advice of his department in the first place. We would not have this scam if this minister had carried out his duties in a proper way. That is why this Auditor-General's inquiry is necessary. That is why it must be conducted under section 18 of the act, to enable the Auditor-General to, in fact, call the minister, to call the minister's staff, to call radiologists, to call the manufacturers of MRI machines. All of these people have to be able to be called and, of course, under section 20 of the act that would have been much restricted.In case anybody thinks that this was an inadvertent slip by the minister, let us go on and see what he said at the start of the MPI debate. Dr Wooldridge asserted in the debate that under the terms of the Auditor's inquiry—this of course confirms that he did intend that it be under section 20—he, Dr Wooldridge, could not be compelled to cooperate, although he is very willing to do so. This would be the case if the inquiry was conducted under section 20, as the minister would obviously prefer. The conduct of the inquiry under section 18 of the act was confirmed tonight by Mr Barrett—confirmed because Senator Faulkner wrote immediately after question time today to Mr Barrett asking for urgent confirmation that in fact this inquiry would be held under section 18 of the act, not under section 20, because we would have been concerned about the restrictive nature of such an inquiry.Dr Wooldridge has clearly tried to restrict this inquiry, just like he has tried to refuse to answer questions. Now we have people being referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions because of this minister's incompetence. Today he tried yet again to restrict the Auditor-General's powers. This minister stands condemned for his policy inaction, for not answering any questions and now—most of all—for trying to restrict the Auditor-General's inquiry to one that would have limited the access of the Auditor-General to many important issues. This minister needs to recognise that these are very serious issues indeed. It is a scam; it is a scan scam, and it is time he came in here and corrected the record.1204719:56:0012047Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise tonight to pay tribute to Herbert Henry Hollingsworth, the last Light Horseman from New South Wales, who passed away on 1 October at the age of 101. He was a resident of the Sutherland Shire. I attended Mr Hollingsworth's funeral on Friday, 8 October with the member for Hughes.Mr Hollingsworth was born on 14 April 1898 at Aberdeen in the Upper Hunter Valley. He was orphaned at an early age. His twin sisters, who affectionately nicknamed him `Mickey Drip', were sent to live with relatives on a dairy farm. In 1917 he was too young to enlist, so he took on his mother's maiden name, `Bowden', and put his age up by two years and became a trooper in the 2nd Light Horse Regiment of the Australian Imperial Force. He served in the heat and dust of Palestine and in the swampy lower Jordan Valley before being sent to Beersheba. He formed a close bond with his horse, whom he named `Mick'.He was among the reinforcements sent to replace casualties from the 12th Light Horse Regiment, which was massively depleted during the famous charge on Beersheba on 31 October 1917. By the time he joined the 12th Light Horse, the regiment already enjoyed a reputation for heroism amongst Allied forces in the Middle East. The attack was an unprecedented charge across three kilometres of open ground against entrenched infantry supported by artillery, machine guns and strafing aircraft. The Turks, expecting the Australians to dismount at 1600 metres, set their rifle sights accordingly, but were surprised when mounted soldiers kept advancing at high speed, eventually overrunning the defences and capturing the vital water supply of Beersheba.The charge on Beersheba has been immortalised in the Simon Wincer film, `The Light Horseman', which recorded how 800 Light Horsemen achieved in one hour what 60,000 British failed repeatedly to do, making legends of many of those involved. Mick Hollingsworth stayed with that regiment and took part in further offensives in Jerusalem and in Syria. After the Armistice, he was transferred to the 7th Light Horse Regiment, which was charged with identifying the bodies of fallen Australians. His regiment also collected much of the material which forms the permanent collection at the Australian War Memorial. This collection is priceless to modern historians studying the period and instilling in young Australians the sacrifices that the ANZACs made for us.As the Prime Minister's message to the congregation—which was read by the member for Hughes, who is with us tonight in the chamber—stated:The Australian Light Horseman has a special place as part of our ANZAC tradition and the history of a young country forging its own independence.Sadly, Mr Hollingsworth was forced to destroy his beloved horse when he was given his orders to return. Although he understood the logistical problems and the threat of bringing disease back to Australia through bringing his horse Mick with him, it was something he truly never got over.Mick Hollingsworth returned to Australia in 1919. He worked for the Aberdeen Meatworks, then from 1926 to 1930 with the Department of Main Roads. From 1939 he worked for the Water Board, before retiring in 1961.He will be sadly missed by the City of Newcastle RSL Club, of which he was a founding member. Mr Hollingsworth is survived by his daughter Joan Rich, his grandchildren Alan and Lorraine and his great-grandchildren Simon, Sarah, Jason and Amy. He is also survived by three other Light Horsemen.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted.House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Notices12048The following notices were given:Mr Hardgrave to move:That this House:(1) expresses its concern for the return of hostilities between Ethiopia and the State of Eritrea;(2) acknowledges attempts by the Organisation of African Unity, the United States, various African heads of state and the United Nations to restore peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea;(3) expresses great concern for the reported deaths of thousands of people in the past eighteen months and for the suffering of tens of thousands more;(4) acknowledges the need expressed by the Eritrean Government for the return of foreign humanitarian NGO groups to provide relief; and(5) highlights the past efforts of Australians, such as Fred Hollows, to help the people of Eritrea.Mr Mossfield to move:That this House:(1) notes that families are the smallest social group and are often underrated;(2) believes the productive work of households has been totally overlooked;(3) acknowledges that surveys have made visible the unpaid work of households and have found it comprises more than half of all valuable economic activity;(4) expresses concern that the tax system does not adequately protect the income of families rearing children and the economic system appears to have forgotten the value of the work of parents rearing children and the whole area of productive work in the household;(5) supports the view that most parents, regardless of social status, educational level or cultural background, are eager to receive and can benefit from information and support in their role as their children's first and most important teachers;(6) draws to the attention of all Members that many studies have shown that families not only make a powerful impact on the way children learn in school but that the influence of family actually outweighs that of the school; and(7) recognises that family-related variables have been overlooked in health promotion and health strategy literature and that if recognised and addressed, these family-related variables offer a new area for health promotion with strong possibilities for further success in reducing the burden of ill-health in the community.Mr Hardgrave to move:That this House:(1) acknowledges the importance of the long-standing friendship and trade between Australia and the Republic of China on Taiwan;(2) expresses its care and concern for the pain and suffering felt by all Taiwanese following the recent earthquake tragedy;(3) acknowledges the generous role and good citizenry displayed by Taiwanese born Australian citizens; and(4) expresses its frustration for the political circumstances which prevent the Taiwanese from playing a full and rightful role in world affairs.1999-10-20Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members120501205012050Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—I have a letter here from Mrs Veronica Nixon in my electorate of Port Adelaide headed `Public hospital system in crisis'. I would like to read into the parliamentary record a few paragraphs that she has written. She says:Dear Mr SawfordYou are well aware that our Public Hospital System is literally ill and the future diagnosis would suggest that under the Federal and State Coalition policy things for `the battlers' will only deteriorate further . . .I write to you as a `survivor' who recently underwent 2 separate heart bypass operations in the past 12 months. My experience is similar to the many other working class of this State in that I suffered what I consider unnecessary stress, inconvenience and exaggerated delay before eventually receiving what is surely the basic right of all tax payers—good Public Hospital treatment on a needs basis.Can you possibly imagine the torment I went through, following a complication with my initial heart bypass operation, to have to wait for 7—that's correct, 7 weeks to have a second procedure? During that difficult time I was admitted to Queen Elizabeth Hospital with angina pain a total of 5 occasions—the Doctors apologising for not admitting me for more intense treatment but having to release me, at some degree of risk, for want of a lack of bed space.My procedure has now been successfully performed at Flinders Medical Centre . . . . . . . . . . . .In the course of my treatment I was informed on numerous occasions that if I had private medical insurance my bypass procedure/s would have been performed within a matter of days!Isn't that a great shame? She continues:As it was, apparently my operations were performed ahead of the normal wait, which at this time is something approaching 7 months . . . For this to happen, there must be a urgent reversal in the current health policy of both Canberra and Adelaide so as to meet the needs of ALL AUSTRALIANS—not one for the wealthy/self insured and a second class public health system for the `rest'. This is nothing short of playing ideology ahead of the lives of Australian battlers, the people you are elected to represent and provide the basics of health, well being and education.By the way, you'll no doubt be interested in the knowledge that the Coalition tactics have forced me through fear to take out private Medibank insurance currently costing $34-36 a fortnight from my Social Security pension. So it's good bye to the occasional `luxuries' previously enjoyed such as vacations visiting my family and the odd night out as I seek to gain peace of mind through financing my future health risks—a disgraceful state of affairs given that I am already through Medicare and taking into account the social responsibility of Government.Mr Sawford, as our local Federal member, I appeal to you to take up the plight of myself and fellow battlers to ensure that we again enjoy our right to public hospitalisation when we need it and not when through the Coalition's manipulation they deem it appropriate.It is very sad that we have a two-tiered hospital system in this country and it is to the shame of all of us in this House. (Time expired)1205112051St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I believe that we in this House, as leaders and major decision makers in this country, need to be strong advocates for change. We need to support, encourage and embrace change in our communities, in our electorates and in this country as a whole in a positive effort to keep abreast of worldwide trends and technology advances. Under whatever name—re-engineering, resizing, cultural change, restructuring or turnaround—change is undertaken almost inevitably to help the changer cope in a new or more competitive and challenging marketplace.I have been involved in making necessary changes in order to compete, both in business and in public life. I know that change is not something that is easy to achieve. I have been fortunate enough to have obtained a copy of a paper by John P. Kotter entitled `Leading change: why transformation efforts fail', which has been of considerable assistance to me in playing the role of a leading figure in the change process as it is required today in business and particularly in rural communities.In this paper, the author identifies eight major steps to successful change, and I take this opportunity today to share them with honourable members. Step 1 is establishing a sense of urgency. This involves removing those involved in the change from their comfort zones in the current system and facing the realities of the future. Step 2 is the formation of a powerful guiding coalition. It involves assembling and encouraging a group with the power to lead the change required. In a business, this group may be a mix of management and workers. In a community, you need to choose innovative, progressive people from different groups within those communities. Step 3 is to create a vision by deciding and defining where you want to go with the change—a direction and a strategy to get you there.Step 4 is to communicate the vision to those whom it will affect. Step 5 is to give others the power to act on that vision, getting rid of obstacles to the change and encouraging risk taking and non-traditional ideas and actions—thinking outside of the square. Step 6 to successful change is to plan for short-term wins and to reward those who achieve those wins. Step 7 is to consolidate the improvements and to produce further change by changing systems that do not fit that vision and encouraging those who prove capable of implementing the vision. Step 8, the final step, is to institutionalise the new approach, making and reinforcing connections between new behaviours and the success achieved. Follow these steps, ensuring success at each level, and more success through change is guaranteed. It has proven to be a method that works as well for small business as it does for a whole community or a multinational company.1205112051Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I rise this morning to congratulate Steve Bracks and the Victorian Labor Party for their election result and, as I understand it, the swearing in today at 11 a.m. of the first Bracks Labor government. I have to admit, though—and I may have said this in the chamber before—I was surprised, one could almost say shocked, at the extent of the swing against Jeff Kennett and the Victorian coalition. I certainly did not expect to see Labor in power in Victoria, and I say that with no disrespect to the various players involved.I certainly thought the swing was much too much to be expected on one occasion. In the lead-up to the election over the last year or two, the public perception of the Kennett government was such that I though they were unassailable. However, with the benefit of hindsight, we can all start to understand what happened and speak with the wisdom of age that comes to all of us as we rejustify what we said in the context of what actually occurred. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would know, many of us are getting better and better at that over time, particularly when we have to explain results such as those in Victoria. But, in the context of what did happen in Victoria, I think there are some lessons for politicians of all persuasions that need to be looked at.Jeff Kennett certainly tried to project an image of being absolutely unassailable—totally in control, totally in charge—but, in the process of projecting that image, in his own way he was also totally out of control and out of anyone else's influence—other than the big end of town—and certainly in a situation where he appeared to be very much running his race rather than anybody else's. So that issue of actually being seen to be representative of the people and in touch with their feelings, aspirations and needs was something that was missing, as was the capacity to be able to govern for all Victorians rather than for just some Victorians.The issue of major concern to the coalition nationally is the rural and regional base of the coalition in Victoria, which effectively deserted them. This follows the situation in the last state election in New South Wales where, again, in rural and regional New South Wales the coalition was deserted. When we look at Queensland and the circumstances surrounding the phenomenon of One Nation, we see there was a serious problem for the coalition in what would normally have been their base.Some years ago John Howard talked about the battlers—the battlers who were, in John Howard's view, Labor voters who were feeling betrayed and deserted by the actions of the federal Labor government. I suppose we are now seeing an extended variation on that theme in terms of the bush battlers—the bush battlers who have historically been very strong coalition supporters and who have now started to realise that in fact the coalition is not delivering at all in terms of the needs of their community. That raises an issue for not only the federal coalition but also the remaining state coalition governments, of which there are now very few. (Time expired)1205212052Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN3E4MoncrieffLP10—I wish to raise a matter which is of great concern to my constituents—my electorate being on the Gold Coast—namely, petrol pricing. Along with all other members, I have received, unbidden, some written material from petrol companies in recent times—a letter dated 11 August from Shell and a media release dated 2 September from Caltex. In both of these communications the petrol companies were trying to justify the sharp rise in petrol pricing and saying that there was no opportunism in it.I have previously corresponded with petrol companies on the subject of the pricing of fuel on the Gold Coast where, typically, prices rise on Wednesday or Thursday and stay high right through the weekend in order, one assumes, to exploit the tourists. Various responses have been received by me when I have said this to the fuel companies. So, to put it beyond any doubt, with some assistance I have managed to put together the morning and afternoon prices of nine petrol stations on the Gold Coast over a five-week period. I shall shortly be seeking leave to incorporate the table in Hansard as a record of how fuel prices vary on the Gold Coast.One of the particular beefs I have had—and I stated this in a letter to the Shell company in August this year—is that, on any day of the week, fuel prices vary significantly, and apparently randomly, between Gold Coast, Brisbane, Ipswich and Sunshine Coast outlets. For example, I made a trip to Nambour in April on a Tuesday when petrol prices on the Sunshine Coast highway were all 5c per litre lower than the prices being charged on the Gold Coast on that particular day. There was a time—over a period of 10 years—when I visited Brisbane every Sunday. You could always buy your fuel for several cents per litre cheaper in Brisbane on a Sunday than on the Gold Coast. I want to refer to some of the justification that was used in Caltex's media release. They say:Pump prices often appear to jump up together after they have been discounted heavily for several days. In fact, the prices do not jump together but closely follow each other. Both the discounting and jumps are the result of a highly competitive market when competitors' prices are readily visible on price boards.The market works in various ways—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Moncrieff has 10 seconds in which to seek leave.3E4Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN—I intend to table these documents, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I seek leave to have incorporated into Hansard a table showing variations in petrol pricing.Leave granted.The table read as follows—Brand A Brand B Brand C(1) Brand C(2) Brand D Brand C(3) Brand C(4) Brand E Brand F ampmampmampmampmampmampmampmampmampmM 30.8.99 68.9(1)nk 67.9nk 67.9nk 67.9nk 67.5nk 67.9nk 66.9nk 66.9nknkT 31.8.99 67.972.967.972.967.972.967.966.567.566.567.966.766.966.766.766.566.972.9W 1.9.99 69.972.967.972.972.972.9 72.972.966.5 72.566.7 72.972.972.966.5 72.572.572.9Th 2.9.9972.972.972.9 71.972.9 70.972.971.572.5 71.572.9 71.972.9 70.971.970.972.9 71.9F 3.9.99 71.971.971.9 72.570.970.9 71.969.971.5 69.571.9 69.970.9 69.370.9 68.771.9 69.9M 6.9.99 69.968.969.968.969.969.969.9 69.565.568.565.568.565.368.568.367.568.967.9T 7.9.9968.968.968.968.9 68.968.9 69.967.568.5 67.568.5 67.567.566.967.5 66.967.9 72.9W 8.9.9968.9 72.968.9 72.968.968.967.5 72.966.972.566.972.966.9 72.966.966.9 66.972.9Th 9.9.9972.9nk72.9nk 72.9nk72.9nk72.5nk72.9nk 71.9nk 71.9nk72.9nkF 10.9.99 71.969.971.968.570.967.970.968.570.570.5 70.966.571.965.971.966.571.966.5M 13.9.99 68.968.9 67.968.967.9 68.966.966.566.566.566.566.565.9 64.765.964.766.965.9T 14.9.99 68.568.967.968.967.568.966.566.566.566.566.566.564.7 64.564.7 64.566.971.9W 15.9.9968.9 72.966.972.966.972.966.5 72.972.972.966.5 72.972.972.564.5 72.566.972.9 T 16.9.9972.972.972.9 71.972.9 71.572.9 69.974.969.972.9 69.972.5 69.572.369.572.9 70.1F 17.9.9972.972.971.9 69.971.571.569.9 67.969.567.969.9 67.969.5 67.969.5 67.970.1 68.9M 20.9.99 (2) 68.968.9 67.967.9 67.967.967.967.9 66.966.967.967.967.9 66.966.966.566.966.9T 21.9.9968.968.967.967.967.967.967.9 66.966.9 66.567.9 66.566.9 66.566.566.566.9 66.5W 22.9.9968.9 66.567.9 66.967.9 66.966.966.966.5 66.966.5 66.966.5 67.966.566.566.5 67.9T 23.9.99 67.972.966.9 72.967.972.966.9 72.566.572.566.566.5 66.572.966.566.5 66.572.9F 24.9.9972.972.972.972.972.972.9 72.972.972.572.5 72.972.972.9 72.372.371.572.972.9M 27.9.99 (2) 69.968.969.968.968.968.9 68.968.9 68.368.3 68.968.9 68.367.968.367.968.968.9T 28.9.99 69.969.968.9 72.968.9 72.968.968.9 67.967.968.9 72.967.9 66.767.366.768.9 72.9W 29.9.9969.9 72.967.972.966.972.972.972.9 72.972.572.972.9 72.972.766.7 72.767.972.9T 30.9.9972.972.972.9 71.572.9 71.570.969.972.5 70.372.9 71.572.369.972.369.972.9 70.9F 1.10.9972.9 70.971.5 70.970.570.569.969.9 69.969.9 69.969.969.9 69.569.9 69.570.9 69.5(1)nk—not known. (2)Queensland school holiday weeks.(Time expired)1205312053Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—A week ago I took up an invitation from the Mount Jerrabomberra Preservation Society to inspect Mount Jerrabomberra. This mountain is on the outskirts of Queanbeyan and is visible from Parliament House. It has never been logged, cleared or grazed and, as a result, its environmental value is extremely high. Indeed, in 1992, as a result of its botanical diversity, the Australian Heritage Commission listed it on the Register of the National Estate. It noted its significant stands of rare and vulnerable native plant species and their communities. It is a beautiful place—a beautiful place, however, which is being cleared for residential subdivisions. Regrettably, it is privately owned and, even more regrettably, it was the subject of a dodgy residential rezoning going back to the time of the New South Wales Greiner Liberal government.I cannot believe or accept that there are no other alternative places for new residential estates. Given the abundance of land in the Queanbeyan area which has been cleared and therefore no longer has much environmental value, surely it is nonsense to suggest that Mount Jerrabomberra has to be carved up to give people somewhere to live. I realise that, in order to protect the mountain, it needs to become a publicly-owned asset. I have spoken to Mr Steve Whan, who is Labor's key activist in the Queanbeyan and Eden-Monaro areas. I agree with his view that perhaps the best way forward for Mount Jerrabomberra may lie in a joint venture between the federal government—using some of those billions of dollars the Natural Heritage Trust now has as a result of selling half of Telstra—the New South Wales state government and the Queanbeyan Council.I have been informed that clearing has been resumed at Mount Jerrabomberra for even more residential subdivisions. This is not good enough and has to stop. Australia really ought to be an environmental showcase, a beacon to the rest of the world, but this is being threatened by reckless and short-sighted land clearing, of which Mount Jerrabomberra is a classic example.The New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service opposed development of Mount Jerrabomberra back in 1988. It noted:The potential impact on fauna will be severe. The bird list appears comprehensive with a surprisingly large number of native bird species so close to a settled area. It would indicate that the area is highly significant for wildlife conservation both locally and regionally, not just for resident species but also as a "resting spot" for migrant fauna.It further observed:The difficulty of finding another site as suitable as this, with a natural community virtually intact and with such good public access, is hard to over estimate.I believe it is necessary that this clearing stop and that the Queanbeyan Council, the New South Wales government and the federal government work together to try to protect what is clearly an asset of considerable value for people in this area and for the nation as a whole.1205512055Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I am very pleased today to congratulate the winners of the Sixth Annual Northside Chronicle Business Achievers Awards, which were recently held at the Kedron Wavell Services Club in my electorate. The finalists and the winners representing our hardworking and dedicated small business community need to be commended. Some 400 people attended this particular event, and businesses and their employees were represented at the awards. The evening was highly successful and professionally organised by Quest newspapers.While I am speaking about Quest newspapers, I think it was highly discourteous of them to, four years in a row, not invite me as the federal member for Petrie who represents half of the businesses in attendance. However, they did have the courtesy to invite the member for Lilley, Wayne Swan, despite the fact that half of the businesses represented were from my electorate. I did get an invitation from my hairdresser, which is the only reason I attended these awards. My hairdresser has won an award two years in a row. Unfortunately, this year he did not win. So Brett Roberts and all of those from Making Headlines, keep trying. I want you to go into the hall of fame, and I am sure that you will.The reason for my rising today is to congratulate those fine businesses from my electorate—despite the Quest's obvious overlooking of the fact that I am the elected representative of that particular area. I would like to congratulate the Yuen family from the Master Health Club. These days, with this job, it is a bit difficult to get there but, on the occasions that I have been there, I have found it to be a wonderful gym and I must praise its professionalism. Congratulations to Robert and Noel Percy from the Aspley Nursery, which is just round the corner from where I live. Ron Payne has the freshest fruit in Aspley and I want to congratulate him for winning that particular section.I also want to congratulate Danny Liddel and his team from the Bracken Ridge Natural Health Therapies, Lone Star Steakhouse and Saloon, and also the Bracken Ridge Tavern run by Michael and Jenny White, who do a fabulous job. I was present at the hoteliers award when they took out the award for the best establishment in the gaming section. So congratulations again for achieving two awards in one year. In the real estate section, Chris Herron and her team from Raine and Horne Carseldine-Bracken Ridge deserve a very special mention.Being in business is very tough indeed these days and the reason that these businesses do well is the dedication and commitment of their staff, and I wish to thank them.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Committees120561205612056Debate resumed from 27 September, on motion by Mr Hawker:That the House take note of the paper.09:58:0012056Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I am pleased to speak to this report on the visit to the defence establishments in northern Australia by the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Although I did not participate in the tour, this gives me the opportunity to make some comment on it. One of the reasons I did not participate in the tour at that time was that I was not a member of the subcommittee—a situation that has since been rectified. But I am very familiar with the establishments visited because I have been a member of the Public Works Committee of this parliament since 1985, and I was chair from 1987 to 1996. I have been involved in developments at all the establishments visited and at many other establishments.Recent events to our north have shown that it was a correct decision to move our forces to the north. That is a process that has been going on over a number of years and it is a process that the Public Works Committee over the years has been very involved in. The group visited Tindal, which is part of the arch of northern air bases from Curtin in the west through to Scherger on Cape York Peninsula. This provides a very important arch in the defence forces of Australia.Robertson Barracks, which was visited by the group, is an establishment of which I am especially proud. I have watched the development of Robertson Barracks over the years. I remember being first taken there by a bus during the dry season. As so often happens in the north, there had just been a fire through that very scrubby and, at that time, very unattractive land. It was pointed out to me that over the years this was going to be the headquarters of the APIN, the movement of Australian forces to the north. I looked at the area and did not say very much, but I thought quite a lot. I wondered, `What could happen there?'Every time I go to the north, I have a look at Robertson Barracks. I have watched its development over the years. One important thing about that is that, right from the very first, the landscaping went in with the buildings. So when the troops were first moved up there, they did not go into a bare area; they went into an area where trees and shrubs were already growing and sporting facilities were already there. That has been developed over the years, as more and more tanks and other elements of the brigade have been moved up there. A lot has been achieved. The facilities there are first-rate, as indeed are the facilities at Larrakeyah Barracks, which were also visited.The Public Works Committee has recently approved work at the naval base. When we were up on the naval base there was some discussion about whether it was too crowded where it is at Stokes Hill Wharf and whether it should be moved out to the new area in Darwin. The decision was made to keep it in Darwin near Stokes Hill Wharf and to expand it. I think that was a very important decision and it is a decision that I would say the subcommittee would agree with, having looked at it there.I do not think members always appreciate the work of the Public Works Committee and the way we have encouraged defence establishments and defence work. We have been doing work under different heads—not only when I was chair but when the present Speaker took over from me as chair, when the current minister for forests took over and when the current chair, the member for Pearce, took over. We have all come with great encouragement for the work of the defence forces, especially the defence forces in the north because we have witnessed that movement of forces to the north. I think that has been a correct decision, which has been supported by both sides of the political fence.A couple of years back we had an inquiry into the range at Bradshaw. I think that is very important. That fits in with the Delamere range just outside Tindal. Those two areas will link up and that will be one of the most impressive ranges anywhere in the world. Unfortunately, there has been some delay in the work at Bradshaw. I hope that difficulty will soon be sorted out. So, as I say, we did recommend that work. Although the subcommittee did not visit Bradshaw, they did have a look at Delamere and the work that is going on there.The decision to move our forces north has been a correct decision. Related to this work has been the Defence Housing Authority. What we were able to do on defence housing is one of the icons of the Labor government. There has been talk in recent times about privatisation. I urge the government not to privatise the Defence Housing Authority. It is a good organisation and it works well, but more importantly it delivers to the forces. It is giving our forces—whether they are in the north or wherever they are—decent accommodation, which for so long was denied the defence forces. If we are going to make these calls on our defence forces, it is appropriate that we have them housed in adequate housing.I first saw the Scherger base, like Robertson Barracks, when it was only an idea and a plan. We went up there and carried out an inquiry. A couple of years later I was delighted to be invited to the opening of Scherger. That base completes the bases going from Curtin in the west, across through Tindal to Scherger. It was an expensive facility but nevertheless an important one. I note that the subcommittee recommended that consideration be given to the conditions of the caretakers on all those bases, and that is a recommendation which I agree with.The subcommittee also visited Townsville. So much defence expenditure has been put into there over recent years because there are elements of the three arms of the services there. Both local members—formerly a Labor member and now a member of the current government—have always given tremendous support to the expenditure, which I suppose is only natural. They both have a very strong commitment to the defence forces.I was a little bit surprised that the committee did not visit what I referred to as the old `Ten Terminal Regiment' which is now actually the Ten Forward Support Battalion. This is the amphibious arm that gives such strong maritime support. It was moved from North Sydney up to Townsville, which was more logical as it was there as part of the support group. Incidentally, in my next speech I will be speaking about Bougainville. The honourable member opposite and I both know, from when we were in Bougainville earlier this year, about the tremendous work that the people from that regiment in Townsville do up there. They did us a great service ferrying us around for the very important parts of what we were doing up there.There has been a lot of money put into defence over the last few years, although some would say not enough. It is generally accepted that more will be needed which will mean more work for the Public Works Committee. Another aspect is how quickly events change. It would be a very different tour of the northern establishment if it was conducted today than it was in July, even though that was only a couple of months ago. I suggest that no-one can visit our facilities—not only in the north but everywhere—and fail to be impressed with the professionalism of our forces. They are a dedicated force from the most senior officers to the newest private. We ask a lot of our forces. Perhaps we do not appreciate them fully until they are called on to do what we ask them to do, as we do currently in Timor.I suspect that this subcommittee will be visiting the north more frequently. The defence subcommittee is very important to this parliament. Parliament must be kept aware of what is happening in the defence field. It is a difficult line between being informed and being too intrusive but the parliament has to be aware. We can only be made aware through the work of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and, especially, its defence subcommittee. Many of the personnel from the establishments visited are now involved in Australia's effort in support of INTERFET. Australia is grateful to them and we wish them a safe return.There is no doubt that there will be changes to our defence forces. We somehow felt conflict was something that happened a long way from Australian shores but, far from this being a peaceful part of the world, we are currently in perhaps the most volatile part of the world. It is a very unstable area. There is great uncertainly in Indonesia. No-one knows what is going to happen. Attention is focused away from PNG at the moment but we hope that, with the new government, stability will be maintained. Nevertheless, it is always a worry. Only two months ago we saw what was in effect a civil war in the Solomon Islands, and who knows what the result will be in New Caledonia.We have to have a well-trained and well-equipped defence force. If that costs more, then perhaps that is a price we have to pay to enjoy the security that we do. Australia can be proud of our defence personnel. We must make sure that we, as politicians representing the people, do not let them down.The East Timor crisis has presented Australia with its most difficult foreign affairs and defence challenge of recent times. So far we have responded well, but some questions have to be asked. Is our budget enough for our defence forces? Do we do enough? We have also got to think about what will happen with the troops after East Timor. There are a lot of questions in the defence area. They are questions that the defence subcommittee of this parliament is well across, but we must be kept informed about what is happening. I commend this report to the House. It is a good report, and I most certainly will be a member of the next visit that goes north.10:11:0012058Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I was pleased to hear the member for Throsby's concluding remarks because one of the disappointing aspects of this visit was that there were not more members present. We do have a lot of Labor members on the defence subcommittee but, unfortunately, only Senator John Quirke was able to accompany the subcommittee for the entire visit, and the member for the Northern Territory did attend for the visits to Tindal and Darwin. It was disappointing because when we met with 1st Brigade and 3rd Brigade, they had gone to a lot of effort with the static demonstrations and the parades displaying their capabilities. I felt it would have been better had we had more people on that trip.I want to touch briefly on a couple of points that are raised in this report on the visit by the subcommittee to our defence establishments in northern Australia at the end of July. There were two overwhelming things that I remember from that trip which have had much more relevance in recent times. Firstly, there was a meeting with the commander of the Deployable Joint Force Headquarters, Major General Peter Cosgrove, and we discussed with him the communications capabilities and so on resulting from establishing a peacekeeping force in a place like Bougainville. We were talking specifically about Bougainville, but within a couple of months he was commanding INTERFET in East Timor.Secondly, I was present at the opening night of Exercise Kakadu IV, a naval exercise involving the navies of Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Indonesia, Singapore and Australia. We were there on the opening night and we got to meet with naval personnel from Singapore and the TNI. A lot of water has passed under the bridge in the last three months regarding Indonesia, but I do express the hope that we will be able to repair the relationship between Australia and Indonesia because it is an important relationship for Australia. We did mix with those officers from the TNI, who were based in Surabaya, and they enjoyed very much being in Australia. And Senator Ferguson had just been in Surabaya for the Indonesian election.We visited RAAF Base Tindal and saw a static display of an FA18, and we had a briefing on the Delamere air weapons range. We did not see the air weapons range but, from the overhead photographs we saw, it is a very outstanding facility. It is one of the few facilities of its type which allows aircraft to target things on the ground. While we were there, the bunkers were being used by the US Marine Corps. That was an example illustrating how both the Delamere air weapons range and the base at Tindal are used by overseas military forces from time to time, and on a commercial basis.We also visited Northern Command. One of the continuing themes of the trip was the involvement of military assets in the prevention of illegal fishing, immigration and crime. We did touch on that in our report and mentioned that there is some legislation that is looking at harmonising the role of the Defence Force. It is thought that the Defence Force does play a very useful role in surveillance, but perhaps if there is a greater need for interception, that would be best left to civil defence.We visited HMAS Anzac, the Anzac class frigate, and were present on the opening night of Exercise Kakadu IV, as I have said. The next day we visited Norforce, which is involved in surveillance and reconnaissance in Northern Australia. It is a locally based and locally raised force which has a history going right back to World War II. Especially in the wet, it has very difficult areas to undertake surveillance and reconnaissance in.We met with the 1st Brigade. Another thing that came out of this trip was how impressed we were at how much progress 1st Brigade had made since they had had their 28-day readiness notice in March. That, of course, had led to an expansion in personnel, equipment and facilities which is still ongoing. The 1st Brigade has been moving from Sydney to Darwin since 1992 and the move is scheduled to be completed next year. The 1st Brigade provides the ADF with its mechanised warfare capability, so that is where we saw the ASLAVs and also the Leopard tanks.We went to RAAF Base Scherger, which is one of the Air Force's bare bases—we have three: Learmonth, Curtin and Scherger. It was opened last year and it really is quite an impressive facility. It is near Weipa, but in the middle of nowhere. It has a massive runway with secondary runways. It is all ready to work as a full-scale aerodrome, but completely deserted. There is a caretaker staff—just one sergeant and two corporals. There is one base activation a year and one aircraft transition per month. They already have all the fuel that they will need on the base, and that does raise problems with fuel going off, so they have to make sure that circulates.We went to Townsville and saw the 3rd Brigade, which is the unit at the highest degree of readiness in the ADF and a major component of the ADF's Ready Deployment Force. We met with 1 RAR and 2 RAR. Of course, they are units which are now up in East Timor serving as part of INTERFET. A good friend of mine who did medicine with me is a doctor with 2 RAR and is now serving on the border in East Timor. I wish him well. We also saw the Black Hawks of the 5th Aviation Regiment and also the Caribous, which are available for tactical mobility.Another point I would raise from this trip is that one of the expertises that the ADF has, with its ally, the DSTO, is in maintaining our military hardware. We have expertise in things like wing stress for the F111s. America does not fly F111s. We are now planning to have an operational life for the F111s of 50 years. The Caribous provide a very specific capability and have been available since the 1960s.Two members opposite, the member for Chifley and the member for Throsby, would remember that when we went up to Bougainville we flew in Iroquois helicopters. One was in service during the Vietnam War and one was in service shortly afterwards. We are happy that they are maintained. One of the problems they found at Townsville was that operating the Black Hawks close to a saltwater environment did create a lot of problems with corrosion.Perhaps the member for Throsby, as a member of the Public Works Committee, has seen the very impressive facility in Townsville. After they have finished with the helicopters, they wash them and they are kept in a vacuum-sealed hangar. It is very impressive; no other country does anything like it. That is the economical approach that we apply to our hardware in terms of getting the maximal life span.For the 3rd Brigade, mission essential tasks include peace and humanitarian operations, as well as operations in a conventional setting. When we met with them in July, I do not think anyone anticipated how soon they would be serving in East Timor. We were also lucky enough to fire the Steyr rifle at the Mt Stuart range. That was a big thrill. We saw the weapon training simulation system which allows soldiers to have a virtual simulation of combat, and also to get a lot of feedback on what their rifle is doing while they are lining up and so on, and on how accurate they are. So it is very useful for training.As I said before, at the Deployable Joint Force Headquarters, we met the Commander of 1st Division, Major General Peter Cosgrove AM, MC. The Deployable Joint Force Headquarters includes two regular brigades, one general reserve brigade and one integrated task force. One of the things that I remember about that meeting was talking about the communications requirements for the Deployable Joint Force Headquarters. It is not like a traditional divisional headquarters; essentially, it is technology based. What they need to do, no matter where they serve—and obviously they were considering serving in the northern arc above Australia—is to maintain access to global data from the national support area.We talked about Internet access. We talked about the experience in Bougainville—how they had gained communications and Internet access there. It is now all available. I recently sent an email to a friend of mine in INTERFET. You send the email; you get it back straight away from Dili. They get it printed out and supplied to them if they are away from Dili.We talked about things like the ADF's Parakeet satellites, the footprint of the satellite assets, and also the bandwidth of the communications channels. Lastly, at Enoggera, we saw the 7th Task Force, which is different from the previous three brigades, which are all full time; this is 67 per cent part time, 33 per cent full time. The 7th Task Force is an outfit which possibly could be expanded for the rotation of INTERFET.I believe that the 7th Task Force, in Brisbane, would be a very good model to apply in my home state of South Australia. I think we all understand the logic behind the Army presence in the north and the shift to the north of all military assets. But what it means, for example, in South Australia, in terms of regular ADF personnel, is that we have the Orions based at Edinburgh Air Base and an anti-aircraft battery based at Woodside. We have the ongoing submarine project, which is based in Perth. Then there are the reserves—9/9 BASB. So most of the army personnel there are reserves. If the ADF were to look at expanding the number of personnel in the ADF, I think it would be worth looking at having units that are close to major recruiting areas, which would be capital cities.Lastly, I want to touch on some issues which were raised and which I think are important. The issue of fringe benefits tax on group certificates was raised during this trip. I am happy that it has now been addressed and, I think, resolved. Another issue that is raised from time to time by members of the reserves is the matter of reserves being able to serve in peacekeeping forces. In medical roles, that is actually the norm. For example, in Bougainville we met an anaesthetist from a Brisbane hospital. He was a reservist but he was up there on a two-week attachment. I am told by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs that, in Bougainville, 20 per cent of the Peace Monitoring Group are reserves. In Canada, the level is also about 20 per cent—not including the medical staff. I understand that is being looked at for INTERFET. People will have the option, to avoid the legal problems that are sometimes associated with reservists serving overseas, of joining up for three months, six months or for whatever time they are wanted.Defence leave as an allowable condition is an issue that has been raised as well. As previous speakers have said, I think it was in only about 150 of 3,000 awards. A number of companies—Telstra and the Commonwealth Bank, I think, from memory—include them in their agreements. It is illegal for someone to be discriminated against for taking defence leave.Another issue relating to the reserves is the common induction training, and I understand there are a number of options being looked at. Instead of having six weeks common induction training, perhaps it could be broken up into two-week slots and some modules could be done by correspondence. I know there is a review going on about the role of the reserves, which should be made public soon, and I am hopeful that that will have a lot of encouraging things for the reserves because we do need to do more to boost the role of the reserves.10:26:0012061Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I am very pleased to speak on this report on a visit to the northern defence bases by the defence subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. The honourable member for Boothby, who has just spoken, has forced a mea culpa out of me; that is, of the three government members and the two opposition members who attended, my name, unusually, did not appear. I do want to apologise to the House: I was serving on the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum. The trip occurred during the now notorious report consideration, and I was faced with what I might call an extreme dilemma. I, regrettably, did not participate. That does not mean that, apart from Scherger, I have not seen all the facilities which were visited on several occasions in the past. So I do apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, and to all honourable members about that.I think I need to set the record straight for the defence subcommittee and say that, although people like the former chairman Senator MacGibbon have given much lengthier service than I, ever since I have been a member, one of the tasks the defence subcommittee has taken on is not a specific inquiry but actually getting out there and having a look at facilities, talking to commanding officers and informally discussing a whole range of issues. I commend this approach of the defence subcommittee to other committees. I think it is a very useful thing that a committee sets itself the target, not of pontificating about matters but of seeking to be informed by the people actually doing the job about what is going well and what the issues are that might be causing some concern.In relation to this report, there was a seamless transfer from the former secretary, Joanne Towner, to the new secretary, Margaret Swieringa. Of course, this is a modest situation compared with the Secretary to the Department of Defence—pity that that had not been more seamless. How extraordinary it is that, in the largest deployment for 30 years, the department would be left without a permanent secretary.I have high regard for Hugh White, the acting secretary; I know he would have done an excellent job. I want to place on the record how delighted I am about the government's appointment of the new secretary, Dr Allan Hawke. He was a former deputy secretary of that department, permanent head of Veterans' Affairs, Transport and I think there might have been one other department—so widely experienced. One of the great things about this committee is that we tend to approach things in the best traditions of bipartisanship, and I think the public can be reassured in the government selecting Dr Hawke for this position. He enjoys the unqualified support of the opposition in his task as secretary to the department.Indeed, Dr Hawke has quite some task, I would have thought. I guess the first thing one might say, in thanking him for assuming the position, is that he can be under no illusions about the competence of his minister. All the more remarkable, I think, for him having taken it on. But on a more serious note, he does need to repair the morale within the department. I hope he addresses this very quickly.The tour actually looked at all those who were going to be deployed to East Timor and I think the fact that they were deployed to East Timor is a very pleasing thing. They have performed magnificently, by the way, and this comes as no surprise to me. At the end of the first week of the deployment, Australian Defence Force personnel made up 92.5 per cent of the deployment. They currently make up 80 per cent. In February next year, it is expected that Australia will have 70 per cent of the forces, Thailand just under 20 per cent and the rest of the world 10 per cent.In this situation, I am really disappointed that the argument is advanced that we have a regional interest when Australia has so selflessly served in such places as Rwanda and Somalia and has so generously donated troops there. You might say that, in our hour of need in our region, the response of the rest of the world was really disappointing. But I give full marks to our ADF personnel for all that they have done so far and for what they will be doing in the future.I was particularly interested in the comments about the 7th Task Force because this is where our rotational forces are going to come from. You have to understand that 70 per cent of Australia's combat forces are in East Timor. Our latent back-up force is completely denuded. I am one of those who hopes desperately that, in February, when the United Nations takes over, our forces there can further decline to about 20 per cent. I am particularly concerned—and the committee has had a briefing on this—about what is going to be required to seal the border between East and West Timor. I am also concerned that we make sure that the United Nations does take over. If we are required to sustain these large numbers of troops in East Timor, we will have a serious problem in terms of rotation.Reference has been made to reservists. The medicos have already established a marvellous tradition of service overseas. I am heartened that a number of them are serving in Bougainville. We have had no explanation from the Prime Minister about why he has called for a report into the reserves—and it is quite unusual for the Prime Minister to call for a report. What was it that prompted his concern so that, as Prime Minister of this country, he called for a report into the reserves? What is the report canvassing?I have the view that the use of specialists in the reserves in these deployments has been absolutely invaluable. I point out that we make practice payments to medical and dental specialists—that is, we ensure that neither they nor their partnerships suffer any financial penalty by virtue of their deployment or attachment overseas. I do not argue with that; I think that is very reasonable. But why should a farmer, who is a reservist and who may lose farm income by virtue of his service overseas, not be so compensated? We live in a society where enterprises and organisations really cannot afford to lose personnel for periods of time.This was alluded to by the honourable member when he said that in terms of the joint training, which I think is particularly important, they are thinking of breaking it up into smaller lumps. I think there is a real need for us to re-look at the reserves to find a role that is practical for them and where they can be utilised. I do not think any member of parliament, and I am not trying to rubbish the reserves, can stand up in this parliament and say that we are able to utilise the reserves in our current situation to the fullest extent and there are no impediments. There are severe impediments. We really do need to rethink the shape and structure of our part-time army. Hopefully the current inquiry that the defence committee is undertaking—DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—When it gets under way.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—When it finally gets under way, having been given the task in March, it will be able to benefit from advice from a whole range of people about this issue because I think that the Prime Minister's request is very timely although, as I say, it is not clear what prompted it. We do, I regret to say, as the honourable member for Throsby has said, need to understand that in our region, as opposed to areas much further away, we may be called on to make significant contributions.I found surprising the comments of the Minister for Defence that we not only currently could sustain 70 per cent of our combat troops being deployed and our latent force being denuded but in addition to that we could mount, if we were required to, a new and additional commitment. I do not want to question his words too much but I have to put on record that I found that very surprising. If it was true, one could speculate that it would be of the order of a platoon or a couple of platoons. I was surprised that he really made that statement. We will be in a position to know I suppose the exact situation on Friday when the CDF and Chief of Army give us their briefing about the capacity that the minister has said that currently we could mount.The issue of fringe benefits was raised. I want to say that we in the opposition welcome the changes that the government has made. But it is also true to point out that at question time, when asked by the shadow minister for defence about the impact of fringe benefits, the Minister for Defence told the House that there was no problem, that all serving personnel would be accommodated by the 1 July changes and that they would be better off. Within 24 hours, of course, his junior minister, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, brought in some changes. As I say, I welcome those changes. I am not sure that we have gone far enough, by the way, welcome as those changes were. I think it would be worth while for us to keep a watching brief on what the impact of those changes is.In relation to the challenges that are facing the defence forces, I have mentioned the issue of rotation. I think there is of course a further issue in that the government has announced a new strategic document, hopefully to be finished by the first half of next year. I sincerely welcome that. I hope Dr Hawke will be able to play a useful role in it. I also need to put on the record my hope that it will be more realistic than the government's first effort and perhaps a little bit longer lived than the government's first effort. I for one am particularly looking forward to that.I should also place on the record an issue that the shadow minister for defence is constantly drawing to attention and that is block obsolescence and all that that involves. There is quite a number of equipments that are reaching their use-by dates, will no longer be economically viable to continue in service and need to be replaced.I want to give credit to the government. They saw a need for greater commitments to peacekeeping than hitherto had been espoused by the former government, although we never resiled from any ask about peacekeeping commitments, other than Bosnia. I am quite pleased that we kept out of that. Peacekeeping is going to have significant impacts on this strategic review. It is also going to have an impact on the structure of the army, and a severe impact on the issue of block obsolescence. I sincerely hope that our new Secretary to the Department of Defence, in consultation with the CDF, will be able to fully address these issues in that strategic paper, and I am very much looking forward to its publication, as I am the report into the reserves that the Prime Minister has requested.Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned.1206412064Consideration resumed from 18 October, on motion by Mr Jull:That the House take note of the paper.10:41:0012064Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Madam Deputy Speaker, do not get the impression please that only the member for Throsby, the member for Chifley, and the member for Boothby are interested in this topic. We got late notice that this matter was going to come up today and we have been the more speedy or the more observant of our colleagues and got our names down quickly to speak on this report on the Bougainville peace process. Nevertheless, the three of us have had a longstanding interest in the defence topics under discussion.I said in talking on the preceding motion that it is surprising how quickly events change. This inquiry into the Bougainville peace process went over two parliaments, the 38th and the 39th. For most of us the focus of the very short trip that each of us was part of, the three of us who are speaking, was Bougainville. When we were in Bougainville, one of the questions that came up—I think it was asked by the member for Chifley, and he I took a slightly different point of view—was, `If events in East Timor unfold more or less the way they have now, would Australia's effort in PNG be diverted to East Timor?' I made the rather grandiose statement that Australia had put too much into Bougainville, or into PNG, both financially and emotionally, for us to walk away from there.When we were doing this inquiry, East Timor was coming to the fore more and more, especially in the latter part of the inquiry. However, it did not have the prominence that it has today. For me the inquiry was a fascinating experience. I do not know if anyone understands present day Bougainville but to even attempt to try to understand it you have to be aware of its past history. We were made aware of that, but that is in no way to suggest that we, or I personally, understand present day Bougainville.The inquiry, entitled Bougainville: the peace process and beyond, was difficult in many respects. It was difficult in that it went over two parliaments. There was a change of membership on the committee, but the three of us served on the committee in both parliaments. It was also difficult in that the situation in PNG and in Bougainville was constantly changing. There were other players in the field—the New Zealanders and others—but the situation was also constantly changing. And, of course, in the middle of this year the peace negotiations were conducted against the backdrop of acute political instability at the central government level which culminated in the sudden resignation of the then Prime Minister Skate in July.We wish the new government, the Morauta government, every success. All Australians look forward to working with that government. From my point of view, I have been very impressed with the approach that the new Prime Minister has taken in the desire for peace on Bougainville and also for the whole situation in PNG. Everyone wants peace, and to say that those people on Bougainville want peace is stating the obvious. But I do feel that there is a genuine desire for reconciliation. The people are tired of war and destruction and the useless waste of life and personal property.Many people are conscious of the fact—and this was put to us—that at one time Bougainville was the most prosperous of the PNG provinces. I am just working from memory but I think it contributed something like 30 per cent to the PNG economy. Am I wrong?TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—Forty per cent.DH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—I said I was working from memory. But it made a tremendous contribution to the economy. Not only that, the training facilities and the educational facilities they had there were first-rate. When we went there, we flew around in a helicopter and wherever we went we saw ruin. It was really very sad. It has been put to me that some people say, `The Bougainvilleans had all this opportunity and they blew it. Why should we in other parts of PNG work towards restoring it?' It was also put to us with regard to Australian aid. People put to us, `Why should Australian aid be specifically into Bougainville when it was such a wealthy province?' I think a lot of people were frightened that aid would be diverted from other parts of PNG into Bougainville.The healing process will take a long time. It has been put to me that until the grieving commences, which it has not yet, there can be no real progress towards lasting peace. Increasingly, people talk about trauma counselling. I really do think—and we are going to find this in Timor as well—that there is a real need in places like Bougainville, which has gone through a tremendously shattering experience, for more and more trauma counselling. I do think that will be very necessary there.Different aspects of our inquiry looked at various things. Our visit to Bougainville was important and was the major part of the inquiry, I guess. There was the question of aid and how it is directed, and whether there has been too much emphasis on large projects. We visited the Bishop Wade school and various other places. Some people say that all the aid had been centred on large projects in or near Buka and it was raised whether there should be much more emphasis on village type projects. This is always very difficult. It is easy for us to stand in Australia and say what should or should not happen. The terrain is extremely difficult, the infrastructure has been destroyed. It is extremely complex.Increasingly, I find that in aid projects there is more and more emphasis on short projects where a dividend can be seen. You can go in there and do some work over a two-month or three-month period and you can write it up and there can be results. I think it is important that we have a long-term approach to some of these aid projects. Of course, there has to be a mix. There is an important place for the large-scale projects, such as hospitals and schools. There is a place for the small, village type projects. But there is also a place for the ongoing and recurrent funding type of project which might go over two, three or four years. It might be four years before we see any tangible results, but it is important that we support those as well.The one thing that is essential—and this was put to us in various ways—is that there should be maximum involvement by the local Bougainvillean people. It is no good, despite how well meaning outsiders are, to come in, take over and run the show. Sometimes with aid projects we have to take a couple of steps back and let people find their own level. It is their country and we have to be prepared to take that step back and have that maximum involvement of the Bougainvillean people.I want especially to highlight the outstanding contribution of the Peace Monitoring Group in Bougainville. I was very impressed with the work that they were doing there. I was impressed not only with their understanding of the process but also with the other forces that were there. Earlier, I mentioned the people who ferried us around the island on barges. We stayed on an island off Buka. There were people who guarded our place at night to make sure that we were not kidnapped, or whatever happens to visiting politicians in these places. Their understanding of and their empathy with the situation impressed me very much.You have to bear in mind that these people are unarmed. We asked the people who guarded us whilst we slept at night, `What will happen if someone comes and takes us?' They said, `Oh well, we will discuss it.' I must say that I had a few worries about whether I was going to be traded off, or something like that. They had been trained in this negotiating aspect, and they are unarmed. There are not only Australians and New Zealanders but also personnel from Vanuatu and Fiji. As I said, I was immensely impressed with the work that they were doing there, and I am full of admiration for our defence personnel serving there.I have a couple of points that I would like to make in my concluding moments. We almost stumbled by accident on the Sohano memorial when we were out on a morning walk one day. Someone had told us about this. This is a memorial to allied soldiers, coastwatchers and the loyal Bougvainvilleans who died during the Second World War. We were a bit upset that it was almost overgrown. We conducted a simple little ceremony there amongst ourselves. We came back and made a recommendation that work should be done on the memorial. It would not cost very much to mow the lawn and keep that small simple memorial in a reasonable condition.There is another aspect that I personally take credit for getting into the recommendations. This was the recommendation that AusAID examine the possibility of allocating aid funding for projects designed to assist in rebuilding the archives and library collections of Bougainville by locating relevant material held in Australian collections and either copying the records or making them available to the Bougainvillean authorities in some other way.Rebuilding a society, which we are doing in Bougainville and which will be needed again in East Timor, is about more than bricks and mortar. It is rebuilding a people's belief in themselves. It is re-establishing their history and their links, and one way we can do this is through archives. We hold many records in Australia and not only government records. I noticed recently there was an allocation of some of the records of government departments to PNG but we hold many records in this country, as indeed do the churches and companies such as Bougainville Copper. Somewhere there are records of their activity.I believe that for future historians and to give these people this extra sense of rebuilding their society, we should do all we can to assist in re-establishing the libraries. Although they are something that a lot of people perhaps do not take all that much interest in, the archives of any society are essential. I had the honour of serving on the archives council here for many years so I have a particular interest in that. I want to see the archives of Bougainville restored and I believe again it would pay great dividends in the long term at not very great cost at all if we could assist in that.Finally, I want to place on record my appreciation of the work of the committee and especially my appreciation of the work of the committee secretary, Cliff Lawson, and the secretariat staff, who did an outstanding job in assisting us to bring this report to the parliament.10:56:0012067Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I am very pleased to be able to speak on this report Bougainville: the peace process and beyond . I think that the report stands alone as an excellent reference on Bougainville. I also pay tribute to committee secretary, Cliff Lawson, and the secretariat. The report not only drew extensively on submissions from DFAT, AusAID and the Department of Defence, but we also received a lot of information from Anthony Regan of the ANU. We also have drawn together a lot of information from Sean Dorney's book, from Mary-Louise O'Callaghan's book about the Sandline affair and from clippings and information obtained on our visit in March.If you look at previous reports by this committee on Papua New Guinea and Bougainville, I think they have been very far-sighted. The 1991 report recommended replacing budget support with program and project aid. That recommendation was implemented and, in fact, next year Papua New Guinea will have their last dollop of budget support.In 1994 they concluded there could be no military solution to the conflict on Bougainville and that armed secession was not an option. That recommendation in hindsight has been very prescient and had that recommendation been noted, then perhaps the Operation High Speed II, the Sandline affair and so on could have been avoided.In terms of this report, broadly, the view of the committee is that, on the terms of reference that we were given, we would say we were able to give a tick to those activities. We were looking at the peace process, the activities of the Peace Monitoring Group and also the delivery of Australian overseas aid to Bougainville. In those three areas, I think we would agree that the Peace Monitoring Group brings great credit to Australia in the way they have carried out their activities. The peace process, while it does not move forward at a constant pace, we believe is moving forward. We did raise some of the issues that were raised with AusAID, but we were also able to see some very successful projects.As the previous speaker noted, the infrastructure and economy of Bougainville have been destroyed. For example, in Arawa, which was a town really established by Bougainville Copper, there are whole suburbs where the houses no longer exist. You can see gates and stairs leading up to where a house was and the house has been completely obliterated. Everywhere we were we saw rusted buildings, we saw buildings that had been burnt, the roads were not complete and there is significant Australian assistance being delivered to Bougainville.For example, $6.7 million is being spent on an 84-bed hospital at Buka—and we visited that hospital—while $9.7 million dollars is being spent on the rehabilitation and upgrading of Bishop Wade High School. When we visited the school 700 students turned out to see us. It was a very impressive visit. Another $8.5 million dollars is being spent on small-scale reconstruction, technical assistance and equipment, with $1.5 million on upgrade of the facilities at Radio Bougainville.Very importantly, $2.3 million is going on support for activities linked to the peace process and another $3.3 million is for support for peace related transport. There is also $7.3 million for basic rehabilitation of the coastal trunk road and $5.5 million for construction of wharves at Kangu beach and Mamagota beach. We were not able to travel on much of the coastal trunk road as it had been destroyed.The third point is that Bougainville has now been peaceful since mid-1997. There is widespread support for the peace process on the island. We did meet with most participants on the island and were also able to meet with members of the opposition and Sam Akoitai from the government. Unfortunately, we were not able to meet with then Prime Minister, Bill Skate. The estimated cost of the conflict is the deaths of hundreds of soldiers and 10,000 to 15,000 civilians.The report also does document very clearly the history of the conflict and of Bougainville's and Papua New Guinea's colonial status. It is important to get an understanding of that. Bougainville was initially part of German New Guinea. In 1921, it was a C-class mandate administered by Australia. In 1945, it became a UN trusteeship. At the same time, neighbouring islands like the Solomon Islands were always British Commonwealth and so on. There have been secessionist sentiments raised in Bougainville from time to time. The Panguna mine, as previously mentioned, did provide 44 per cent of Papua New Guinea's exports and 17 per cent of government revenue. We found in our travels, and from speaking to people who are experts in this area, that there is no widespread support on the island for reopening the mine. That is something that may change as they gain more autonomy under the Papua New Guinea government's package.When the conflict first broke out in November 1988, the grievances were complex. Initially, secession was not an issue. The committee report has charted fairly well how people's sentiments changed in terms of probably being in support of the BRA and then turning against the BRA. There was also a blockade from 1990 to 1994 which caused a lot of hardship to the island.The Sandline affair is important in this whole thing in that it did provide a circuit-breaker in the thinking in Papua New Guinea. It did sour the relations between Australia and Papua New Guinea, but we made it very clear that we were not prepared to tolerate mercenaries in the South Pacific. It was really the Sandline affair that gave impetus to the talks at Burnham. Once the Sandline affair was over, and was unable to be carried out, there was no possibility of any military solution being carried out by the Papua New Guinea Defence Force. A sideline to this is that the MI24s, MI17s and rockets have been at Tindal since March 1997. That relates to what we were talking about previously.Australian development assistance to Papua New Guinea is our largest aid program. Two-thirds of all overseas development assistance to Papua New Guinea comes from Australia. We will also be spending greater than $100 million on aid to Bougainville in the five years up to 2002-03. This is done in consultation with the Papua New Guinea government and recognises Australia's support for PNG sovereignty in relation to Bougainville.The Papua New Guinea economy is commodity based and is subject to external shocks. In recent times they have been subject to the downturn in the East Asian economic crisis, a very severe drought, failed negotiations with the IMF and the World Bank, a decline in the forestry industry, the tidal wave at Wewak in July 1998 and also an obligation to pay $38 million in compensation to Sandline.I have great faith in the new Prime Minister, a former Central Bank Governor, Sir Mekere Morauta, who has confirmed that economic reform and restoration of investor confidence as well as Bougainville will be priorities for his government. As previous stated, we did meet with the Minister of State, Sam Akoitai, who is also a Bougainville MP. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has acknowledged in the committee report that these two individuals were quite flexible in relation to Bougainville and did help to advance the peace process. Under the new government, Sir Michael Somare is the Minister for Bougainville Affairs. Recently this month he announced that autonomy will be given to Bougainville as long as they can come up with something by 25 December.The submission from DFAT, which I agree with, said that most Bougainvilleans were comfortable with remaining part of Papua New Guinea but that they also wanted a greater say in their own affairs than they have so far had. We did have submissions to the contrary, but I think this submission carries more weight.There were a number of parts to the Lincoln Agreement—disarming, phased withdrawal of the Papua New Guinea Defence Force, establishing civil police and law, and also a discussion of Bougainville's ultimate political status. There have been delays in the Lincoln timetable, but we did feel that the peace process was moving forward. During our visit in March we met with the opposition in Port Moresby and also with the Leitana Council of Elders, who were echoing similar concerns to the opposition's: everyone supported a peaceful solution, but they were critical of the process and felt that elections proposed at that time were unconstitutional.Since more recent meetings and the Makatana and Oketaina Understanding in April 1999, the then opposition has been less critical and the process has been moving forward. As I said, on 8 October this year—that is, this month—Papua New Guinea offered autonomy to Bougainville, and they now have a 25 December deadline for the new constitution. I think that is something that will be acceptable to most participants.Another issue touched on by the committee was the disposal of weapons. Some progress has been made there towards an agreement for organising disposal. Perhaps that could also be linked with the phased withdrawal of the Papua New Guinea Defence Force—another part of the Lincoln Agreement. We also talked about basic communications, and one of the recommendations related to the provision of satellite phones to participants in the peace process so that dialogue between them could be speeded up.Australia has made an outstanding contribution to the peace process—facilitating the process, providing the bulk of the Peace Monitoring Group and also assisting with aid. It was encouraging to see peaceful elections in May this year for the Bougainville People's Congress. While we were on our trip we saw the Peace Monitoring Group in action. I think this was a New Zealand adaptation, but they had a little hut there which was neutral ground and various participants would come together to talk in the hut. While we were there we saw that preparations for the elections were well under way. We think the peace process continues to move forward.As previously stated, as well as Australian personnel, the Peace Monitoring Group includes personnel from Fiji, New Zealand and Vanuatu. Their key role is monitoring compliance with the cease-fire and also promoting the peace process. Earlier this year there were 300 members—245 from Australia, 29 from New Zealand, 12 from Fiji and 15 from Vanuatu. The important points are that the Peace Monitoring Group be neutral and be perceived as being neutral. Australia did have some baggage in Bougainville, related to Bougainville's colonial status, Bougainville Copper, and the defence arrangements between Australia and Papua New Guinea which saw Iroquois helicopters used in Bougainville. I think that has been overcome.People do understand that the Peace Monitoring Group is not a permanent presence. At Wakunai, when the Peace Monitoring Group explained that they would be leaving, people said, `We're going to go back into the bush when you leave.' But the members of the group are emphasising that it is not a permanent presence, and I think that they are widely welcomed. We were told that, initially, when they arrived with the helicopters, people would actually run away, but that now, when the orange helicopters arrive, people come out and wave. It is something that you see right across the island. It is important that this is a multinational force and that it is also unarmed. They play an important role in building confidence and trust.We also saw the ADF health element at Loloho in the old tailings shed of Bougainville Copper. That is a very impressive facility and they have made a number of adaptations—for example, a humidicrib made out of just a bit of wire and Gladwrap and costing about $15,000 less than the commercially available alternative. I also believe that the Peace Monitoring Group should limit its role to supporting the peace process. It should not be proactive. Its exit should be event driven with, possibly, a phased reduction and an eventual withdrawal.11:12:0012070Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I want to make a short contribution to the debate on this report on the Bougainville peace process of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. There is nothing that the honourable member for Boothby said that I would not want to be associated with. As we have the deputy leader of the delegation to Bougainville in our midst, it would be remiss of me not to compliment former senator David MacGibbon, who led the delegation, and, of course, the deputy leader of the delegation. It was a very successful delegation and I was very privileged to make that trip, as I am sure all were who did so.The general public do not get to understand how valuable these trips are for members of parliament. The delegation was made up of four different political parties. We were able—and do always, I feel—to work constructively to evaluate the evidence and bring forward worthwhile recommendations that are in no way partisan.I think that the government has a very decent record in terms of the Peace Monitoring Group. Some may say that Australia got gazumped by New Zealand but, in a sense, whilst that may be true, the honourable member for Boothby hit the mark when he said that Australia has a lot of baggage in Papua New Guinea and, specifically, in Bougainville. So it should be no surprise that a neighbouring country and good friend like New Zealand is in a much better position to take some initiatives in this regard. The truth and the reality is that Australia stepped in behind New Zealand and provided all the wherewithal. So I am in no way critical of that at all.The most exciting news is the change of government and the platform of the new Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Sir Mekere Morauta, and his offer of autonomy to Bougainville. I think this is really breathtaking, given the history of Bougainville. It means that Bougainville can determine all matters except defence, foreign affairs and the police. I sincerely hope that the Bougainvilleans will respond to that very generous offer by the PNG government.There are some lessons for us in some of the trouble spots in that the way to hold a country and a central government intact—and PNG is a good example with a huge ethnic diversity amongst its population—is to focus on human rights and to grant autonomy and allow ordinary people to make important decisions through their local government, in this case, a provincial government of Bougainville. I hope that the Bougainvilleans accept this. I sincerely trust that this approach will prove more successful in terms of devolution than the two previous attempts that have been tried in Papua New Guinea.I also wanted to place on record appreciation for the assistance that the government is offering the new incoming government of Papua New Guinea in terms of the extra $80 million for all the important economic changes and reforms that need to be undertaken in that area. We can only hope that the government will go on from success to success. In relation to the contribution Australia and neighbouring countries are making to the Peacekeeping Monitoring Group, it will come as no surprise that the delegation found that they were doing an outstanding and invaluable job. It needs to be remembered that the conflict in Bougainville over nine years has been extremely bloody and costly in terms of civilian lives. Australia and the other countries took the decision to send in unarmed people. That decision with hindsight has proven to be right on the mark, but I imagine that it must have been a very difficult decision for the Prime Minister.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 11.18 a.m. to 11.48 a.m.11:47:0012071Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—It is a great pleasure for me to speak on this report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade entitled Bougainville: the peace process and beyond . This report is one of those excellent and seminal reports of the committee which will probably be read many times over the next few years and be used as a reference in relation to these very important matters concerning Bougainville. It is the crowning report on Bougainville from the committee, coming as it does after a number of reports by the joint standing committee over the years in relation to the Bougainville issue.It was mentioned by one of the other speakers that in 1991 there was a report on Papua New Guinea in which there was a section on Bougainville. I was chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee at the time that report was produced. Obviously, that report was concerned about a number of issues in relation to Papua New Guinea and Bougainville. In 1994 there was a further report from the committee which recommended that a military solution to the crisis was not possible and suggested ways of moving forward with a peaceful solution. And finally, earlier this year I had the honour of being the deputy leader of the delegation which went to Bougainville. We have produced an important report as a result of that visit.The members of the secretariat should be congratulated for their work. I congratulate the secretary of the subcommittee, Mr Cliff Lawson, and the many other people who worked to put together this major report. In fact, it is a great document on the Bougainville crisis.Many speakers have mentioned the wonderful role which our forces are playing in the Bougainville peace process. The Peace Monitoring Group does not get sufficient recognition in the Australian community for the important role which it is playing in this matter. I was so impressed, the whole delegation was so impressed and, indeed, I believe the full committee has been impressed with the great work of the Peace Monitoring Group. They have been able to do their job without arms in a difficult situation and to help keep the peace in Bougainville over the critical period—the last couple of years particularly—when negotiations have been tense and there has been pressure for a break-out of violence once again. Nevertheless, they have managed to do a wonderful job. They ought to be congratulated and the Australian community ought to thank them for this important work they have been doing.Having said that, I think it is obvious that in any conflict of this kind—as we have learnt, unfortunately, by making mistakes in relation to the East Timor crisis—it is very important that we have a process of political negotiation and peace negotiation going on all the time, trying to find a resolution of the differences between people. In this situation, what is most important is that Australia not merely backs the peace monitoring process, which it is continuing to do, but does more to back the peace negotiation process and the development of a constitution for Bougainville. Until we actually have a constitution on the ground which has been agreed to by the people of Bougainville and which fits not only into the general desires of the people of Bougainville but the broader desires of the people of Papua New Guinea and, indeed, the people of the region for a peaceful resolution of this issue, we will not really have resolved this problem.I will talk a bit more about that, but perhaps it is worth explaining why I say that, and I will do that by looking a little bit at the background. If you look at what happened in Bougainville, it was the unknown and unsung civil war. Bougainville was divided, with a very nasty war between its own people, aided and abetted at that time by the government of Papua New Guinea and its forces. We do not know the actual number, but an estimated 10,000 people, probably more, were reported to have been killed. But it was not one of those crises in which the international community took much of an interest. As a result, during those years, and especially between 1989 and 1994, so many people died and there was so much suffering. Indeed, the people of Bougainville were cut off, even to the extent at one point of not having basic amenities such as food and energy.The destruction that took place during that time was also quite awful. Major pieces of infrastructure, the major buildings around the whole country, were virtually all destroyed. Hardly any major buildings were left and people lived in the countryside. A lot of the so-called Revolutionary Army people went to live in the countryside and even in the forests, where they were very difficult to detect, but they were able to carry out an effective campaign for the cause which they believed in.As other speakers have said, it is very sad that the Bougainville crisis was allowed to reach the point where at least 50 per cent, and possibly more, of the people were thinking of an independent state as the only way to solve the crisis. They wanted independence. And one of the reasons for that was that the central government of Papua New Guinea was not sensitive to the needs of the people of Bougainville, to their cultural heritage, to their economic requests, to their development needs and so on.I think what happened was a tragedy—a very big tragedy—and it need not have happened. It was a failure of diplomacy, not just within Papua New Guinea but also within the region. I have to say that I personally believe—and this is a personal comment only—that Australia at that time could have done more to prevent the breakout of the crisis and the suffering. Indeed, Australia's backing in terms of the Panguna mine was one of the catalysts. What happened at the mine, and all of the events surrounding the mine, was one of the catalysts of this crisis.I think we can learn something else, too, from what has happened since 1997, when we attempted reconciliation. I think the government of New Zealand and the foreign minister of New Zealand ought to be congratulated for their efforts in trying to bring the people together in the various agreements that were made, beginning with the Burnham agreement and then the Lincoln agreement and so on. These agreements have helped to bring the parties together.One of the things that they did—which was extraordinary even in a world context—was that, even though they had been fighting in a civil war, even though they had been killing each other, even though so many people had suffered, they decided at a given moment to say, `Stop. No more of this. We are going to find peace. Whatever happens we are going to find a way forward that unites all Bougainvilleans'—or most of the Bougainvilleans, irrespective of which side they took in the question of whether to be independent or not independent.When we went there as a delegation I asked a lot of questions, because I am interested in this matter, about what constitutional arrangements each side had in mind—the side that had preferred independence and the side that had preferred to stay in Papua New Guinea. The thing that came through was that even those who wanted to remain in Papua New Guinea all wanted a significantly increased level of autonomy for the people of Bougainville. In fact, when I asked even the chiefs up in the north of the island, who were against independence, what they really wanted, what they would be prepared to accept, they said, `We want a lot of autonomy. We want a different constitution for Bougainville within Papua New Guinea.' So it seemed to me from that point that, although there was disagreement on the question of independence, there was certainly a lot of agreement about the desire of the Bougainville province to have significant autonomy if it is going to be a state within Papua New Guinea.This point began to be realised by the previous Prime Minister, Bill Skate, and has also been recognised by the current Prime Minister, Sir Mekere Morauta. He and his foreign minister, Sir Michael Somare, have said that they are prepared to move on an agenda for autonomy for the province—a big autonomy agenda.This is a terrific breakthrough. I refer to a report by Mary-Louise O'Callaghan on 8 October in the Australian, which states:Papua New Guinea has offered to grant autonomy to Bougainville ceding all but the powers of defence, foreign affairs and police to the new state in an effort to cast a lasting solution to 10 years of civil conflict. So what has happened here is that through this patient process of two and a half years, supported by the great efforts of the Australian forces as the monitoring group, we have managed to see a situation where the current government—and I believe probably the opposition of Papua New Guinea as well—looks like it will support a very substantial autonomy agenda in which all sorts of powers will be given to the Bougainville people in their new state parliament.That is very important because, as I mentioned earlier, that is partly what this issue has been about from the beginning. If this initiative is going to succeed, then it will require very patient effort to draft an autonomy constitution for the new province. We the Australian community and our experts can help in this process. If we are able to help the people of Bougainville and the government of Papua New Guinea in the drafting process—and our parliament is very good at these sorts of things—of a new constitution for the state of Bougainville, which accepts this autonomy package, and if we are able to give assistance with constitutional experts and the like, then we will be able to press the agenda forward even further.In that regard, I especially commend to the House the first four recommendations in the committee's report that this peace process be supported by Australia through a number of pragmatic and diplomatic measures. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade needs to now take up this initiative, work with it and give Australia's backing to it. We have invested a lot through the Peace Monitoring Group and our armed forces in Bougainville. We need to now invest in the political side with a diplomatic agenda to help the people of Bougainville and Papua New Guinea achieve this package for an autonomous state of Bougainville within Papua New Guinea and, hopefully, to create peace by resolving one of the most difficult problems of our region. (Time expired)Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.1207412074Debate resumed from 18 October, on motion by Mr Andrew Thomson:That the House take note of the paper.12:02:0012074Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—Like all honourable members—and I presume it would be all honourable members—I take my responsibility in this place very seriously: the responsibility to represent my constituents both in the forum of the parliament as well as through ministerial and departmental channels. That is the reason people elect us to this place: we are members of the House of Representatives. The second part of that if you like, in a two-way street arrangement, is that we have an important role to find out how and why things occur and to account to the people whom we represent. I think that is a very important responsibility in itself, and there is no better forum anywhere in the world than the forum of parliament to find out exactly how executive and departmental decision making occurs.I know that statement sounds awfully like a lecture in civics—and I do not want to offend anyone by being overly simplistic—but it does strike me on occasions that those in departments resent the fact that members of parliament occasionally seek information and seek justification as to why certain things occur. Often we ask probing questions that take things down to the nth degree. Sometimes all we seek are some reasonable and general assurances that the pattern that is followed by departmental officials in the decisions that they help the executive make on behalf of the people of Australia and the parliament are the right decisions, that the patterns are the right patterns.All of this is background to my comments about this important report from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, a committee that was convened only a couple of years ago by Minister Downer. He announced the reform treaty making process in May 1996. On that day he stated:The new arrangements—that is the tabling of treaties in parliament and allowing for treaties committee review—will apply to all treaties, bilateral as well as multilateral. They also will apply to all actions which amend a treaty if the amendment would alter obligations with illegally binding impact on Australia.In other words, the role of the treaties committee is to ask some pretty straightforward questions: what is in it for Australia, why are we agreeing to this treaty action, how will it affect us, and have provisions of our Constitution which allow for foreign agreements to override domestic law been considered by those who have negotiated the fine detail of these treaty matters?At the time of the commencement of the treaties committee reform treaty making process in May 1996, the minister contemplated only one exception to the rule. That is that the government—read the executive—would reserve the right to take urgent treaty action in circumstances where it is:. . . necessary to safeguard Australia's national interest, be they commercial, strategic or foreign policy interests.No-one disputes the fact that there are going to be occasions where reference to parliament may not be possible. I also submit the second part of that particular caveat that, where that particular treaty action was urgent, it would be tabled as soon as possible together with an explanation. In other words, the people would be told.This treaty matter deals with the extension of a very long-running agreement with the United States over the use of our territory to site the Pine Gap defence installation, which gathers intelligence believed to be of mutual interest to both countries and of strategic importance in both the Cold War era and since. Our concern to find out exactly what does happen was made virtually impossible because of the direct obfuscation of Department of Defence officials.The frustrating part of that was the committee could find out more from talking to a couple of professors, Des Ball and Paul Dibb, who were both very established in their understanding of strategic and defence matters. We could find out more from talking to them and getting a gleaning of their understanding than we could from talking to the Department of Defence. We could find out more by picking up almost any popular magazine or newspaper article that has been written—perhaps in speculative terms—about what happens in Pine Gap than from talking to the officials from the Department of Defence.This goes to the heart of one of our key jobs as members of parliament. We have a role to account to the people as to why things happen. I think it is a very grave development. The worry I have as a very dedicated member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is that, at the end of the day, it undermines the committee and the parliament and the people and their role in this matter.It is a great tension that needs some resolution. The committee rightly came up with a couple of ideas that we have put to government and through the parliament in this report which we believe will help resolve the matter. We considered that the provision of information which will enable us to have a finding that the treaty action was in Australia's national interest is not an unreasonable request. We could, as some have suggested, have looked at a different committee and the one that looks at national security matters in particular. That has all the security clearances that are required so that whoever finds out whatever they find out can keep it to themselves.We do not go down that track because we think that undermines what the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties should be able to do without caveat, as it was established to cover the full range of treaties. We were particularly disappointed to note that members of the United States Congress are able to virtually freely come and go upon request to this particular installation and find out, from a US point of view, what occurs there.Of course we acknowledge that there are ordinary members of parliament who are also members of the executive, plus the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Cunningham, who is the shadow defence minister, who are given full and comprehensive briefings on this particular installation. So to restate that in a different way: only two members of this parliament who know about what goes on there are not members of the executive.I trust the judgment of the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the people who know about these matters, and I rely on them to make good judgments on the use of this facility. But as a committee of private members of this place representing the people of Australia, we felt we owed the people a little bit more certainty in our agreement with this treaty.It was always our view that there would be a ratification of this treaty recommended out of the report that we are debating today. It was always our view that all folklore and gut feeling suggested to us that Pine Gap was a worthwhile place. We just wanted to get some reasonable understanding directly out of the mouths of the Department of Defence to be sure about that, and it is lamentable that we could not.I raise these matters because I think it is important to state on the record that members of parliament take their responsibility seriously and that television shows like Yes, Minister spring to mind on too many occasions when bureaucrats hide behind convenient codes of secrecy and do not provide even the basic information that the people of Australia deserve to know. I commend this report to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 12.12 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing12077The following answers to questions were circulated:12077(Question No. 807)80712077McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:Will a period of twelve months stability in Sydney transport infrastructure and operations, including Sydney airspace operations, be implemented prior to the heavy demands that are likely to be placed on the transport system during the Olympics in October 2000; if not, why not.12077Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Major rail and road transport infrastructure projects in Sydney, such as the new Airport Link and the Eastern Distributor, and their operation in the lead up o the Games, are the responsibility of the New South Wales Government, and I am unable to comment on these elements of the transport system.In relation to operations at Sydney airport, including airspace operations, Airservices Australia has advised that a period of stability will be put into place following the completion of the transition to TAAATS at Sydney.12077(Question No. 815)81512077Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) Are persons under age 60 but in receipt of income support excluded from the proposed one-off Aged Persons Savings Bonus; if so, why.(2) Are retirees and those on support payments, who are aged under age 60 excluded from the bonus; if so, why.(3) Has he received advice that the age 60 limit is not discriminatory; if so, what are the details.(4) Is it possible to include certain groups of payments within the guidelines so that those genuinely retired under age 60 are included in the bonus provisions; if not, why not.12077Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Persons aged under 60 years in receipt of Commonwealth income support payments will receive a 4 per cent increase in those payments on 1 July 2000. Other associated allowances such as the pharmaceutical allowance and the mobility allowance will also increase by 4 per cent and the maximum rent assistance rate will increase by 7 per cent from 1 July 2000.(2) See answer to (1). In addition, persons aged under age 60 can benefit from significant reductions in personal income tax. If those persons have dependent children they can also benefit from the families package component of the new tax system. Self-funded retirees aged 55 or more who are not in receipt of a Commonwealth income support payment will be eligible to receive the Self-Funded Retirees Supplementary Bonus which provides a one-off, non-taxable payment of up to $2,000 for a single self-funded retiree or up to $2,000 each for a self-funded retiree couple.(3) See answer to (1) and (2).(4) The Government's new tax system is designed so that all Australians share in the benefit of tax reform. Persons genuinely retired under age 60 can benefit from elements of the new tax system such as the income tax cuts; the Aged Person's Savings Bonus; the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate/benefit introduced on 1 January 1999; and redesigned company tax arrangements, whereby excess imputation credits will be refundable to resident taxable individuals and complying superannuation funds.12077(Question No. 891)89112077Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on Monday, 30 August 1999:(1) Has the Australian National Training Authority Ministerial Council considered the 1989 UNESCO Convention on Technical and Vocational Education since his answer to question No. 943 (Hansard , 17 June 1997, page 5513).(2) When will the Council next meet.12077Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) The Australian National Training Authority Ministerial Council will next meet on 12 November 1999.12078(Question No. 899)89912078Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 2 September 1999:(1) Will the term of the Race Discrimination Commissioner expire at the end of September 1999.(2) Will the Government replace the Race Discrimination Commissioner; if not, is it the Government's intention to have the functions of the Race Discrimination Commissioner performed by one of the commissioners of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission as an additional responsibility; if so, why.12078Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The term of appointment of Ms Zita Antonios as Race Discrimination Commissioner expired on 25 September 1999.(2) The Government has appointed Dr Bill Jonas, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, to act as Race Discrimination Commissioner for a period of twelve months. The appointment of currently serving members of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to act during vacancies in office of members of the Commission is consistent with the Government's proposals to restructure the Commission and to create positions of Deputy Presidents. Under the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) 1999 which is currently before this House, there will only be three Deputy President positions. There are currently five Commissioner positions which will be replaced by the Deputy President structure.12078(Question No. 902)90212078Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 September 1999:(1) Has his attention been drawn to the Government publication entitled "Tax Reform—Not a New Tax, a New Tax System of August 1998" which refers to $500m for small and medium businesses to minimise the start up costs of a GST.(2) Will he provide (a) a breakdown of the organisations, small businesses, or other purposes to which the $500m has been allocated and (b) details of the criteria that have been used in determining how the $500m has been allocated. (3) What sum is going to (a) individual small businesses, and to which individual small businesses, and (b) business associations, and to which business associations.(4) How do small businesses that are interested in accessing the funds go about applying for it.(5) What action has the Government taken to advise small businesses around Australia of the availability of the funds.12078Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) See my press release of 13 and 29 August and press statements by the Chairman of the New Tax System Advisory Board.(3) See answer to question 2.(4) Details are being publicly announced.(5) Information has been widely disseminated by the Australian Tax Office, the New Tax System Advisory Board and the GST Start-Up Assistance Office.12078(Question No. 907)90712078Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) How many (a) refugees or (b) other categories of migrant has Australia received from Africa in each year since 1990.(2) Is he able to provide the details referred to in part (1) by country of origin: if not, why not.(3) Does Australia submit prospective refugees and other individuals seeking permanent entry to HIV/AIDS tests; if so, (a) when did the Commonwealth begin testing and (b) are other medical conditions tested for.(4) How many (a) refugees and (b) other categories of migrants have been refused entry on the basis of being tested HIV positive or suffering from full-blown AIDS since testing began by (i) year and (ii) country.(5) Have there been incidents related to the Commonwealth's insistence that prospective refugees and other categories of migrants from (a) African or (b) other nations submit themselves to HIV/AIDS and other medical testing before being granted entry to Australia; If so (i) what form did the incidents take, (ii) when and where did the incidents take place, (iii) was violence or the threat of violence involved and (iv) were individuals involved in carrying out the testing procedures (A) in danger or (B) evacuated or replaced because of threats or danger to their well-being. (6) Has the government received (a) complaints or (b) representations, either in official or unofficial capacity, from representatives of (i) African or (ii) other governments regarding the Commonwealth's policy on testing prospective refugees and migrants for HIV/AIDS and other medical conditions; if so, (c) what governments made complaints or representations, (d) when were they made and (e) what was the Commonwealth's response.(7) Is he able to say whether the NZ Government submits refugees and other individuals seeking permanent entry into that country to (a) HIV/AIDS tests or (b) testing for other medical conditions; if not, why not.(8) If the NZ Government does not submit refugees and other individuals seeking permanent entry into that country to HIV/AIDS tests, has the Australian Government approached New Zealand at any level and in any official or unofficial capacity in order to suggest that such testing should take place; if not, why not; if so, (a) when were approaches made, (b) by whom and (c) what was the response of the NZ Government.(9) Does the Australian Government provide New Zealand with assistance in regard to testing prospective (a) refugees and (b) other categories of migrants to that country for various medical conditions before they enter that country; if so, (a) what form does this assistance take, (b) when did provision of assistance begin and (c) did the NZ Government request Australia's assistance in this regard or did the Commonwealth offer it.12079Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Since 1990/91 financial year, Australia has received from Africa 3063 persons under the Refugee Program. Other closely related humanitarian entry programs also operate, with 5733 persons settled under the Special Humanitarian Program and Special Assistance Category. This provides a total of 8796 persons through the combined Refugee and Humanitarian programs from African countries. By financial year:Settler Arrivals by Country of Birth (Africa Region) By Eligibility Category for Financial YearsYearRefugeeSHP SACTotal Humanitarian1990/91197172141991/92267693361992/933804658451993/9435681511711994/9530891212201995/96303113814411996/972496969451997/9845276712191998/995518541405Total306357338796Source: Dept Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Research and Statistics Unit(b) Since 1990/91, Australia has received 40946 persons from Africa under other categories within the Migration (non-humanitarian) Program. By financial year:Settler Arrivals by Country of Birth (Africa region) By Eligibility Category (Non-Humanitarian Migration) for Financial YearsYearMigration Total (excluding Humanitarian)1990/9144351991/9235911992/9325411993/9429861994/9547171995/9650471996/9749241997/9858631998/996842Total40946Source: Dept Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Research and Statistics Unit(2) See tables below. Please note that these tables cover all settler arrivals who were born in Afric but, by definition, do not include on-shore change of status. (3) (a) As part of the National HIV/AIDS strategy, mandatory HIV/AIDS testing was introduced on 19 December 1989 for applicants who wish to migrate or remain permanently in Australia and who are 15 years of age and over, including prospective refugees and onshore Protection Visa applicants. Younger children who are being adopted by an Australian, or who have a history of blood transfusion or other clinical indications are also required to undergo HIV/AIDS testing.(b) Yes.(4) (a)—(b) Statistics on the number of applicants, whether refugee or other categories of migrants, who have been refused on the basis of being tested as HIV positive or suffering full AIDS are not available. Privacy considerations constrain my department for the retention of data on persons who have been found to be HIV positive of this obviates comprehensive statistics.(5) (a)—(b) If it is to be inferred from the question that an `incident' is when a person has been the subject of violence or threats of violence, I am advised that there has been one, unconfirmed, report of an incident concerning an individual involved in carrying on medical test procedures for prospective refugees and other categories of migrants. As this is an unconfirmed report of an isolated occurrence, I cannot divulge comprehensive details, except that a laboratory technician engaged in HIV testing in a non-government institution, was allegedly harassed by government agents, in particular, police.(6) (a)—(e) I am advised that my department has no record of any recent complaints or representations, either in an official or unofficial capacity, from representatives of African or other governments regarding the Australian Government's policy to test prospective refugees and migrants for HIV/AIDS and/or other medical conditions.(7) (a)—(b) The New Zealand Government does not submit refugees and other individuals seeking permanent entry to New Zealand to routine HIV/AIDS tests, although tests are conducted for other medical conditions. The rationale behind the policy and procedures for these tests are a matter for the New Zealand Government.(8) (a)—(c) Officers from my department have had informal discussions with New Zealand Government counterparts regarding the procedures that the two governments have in place for all medical screening. These discussions are part of on-going contract with New Zealand authorities with a view to achieving greater harmonisation of our approaches to immigration criteria. Ultimately, however, the actual policy and procedures of either country are a matter for each sovereign government.(9) (a)—(b) The Australian Government does not provide the New Zealand Government with assistance in regard to testing for various medical conditions. Officers from the New Zealand Government have discussed with their counterparts in my department arrangements on the possible shared use of Australian overseas infrastructure for such testing. These discussions are on-going and no final decisions have been made at this stage.DIMA Settler Arrivals—Africa—1990/91 (By region/country of birth)CountryFamily MigrationSkill MigrationHumanitarian—RefugeeHumanitarian—SHPSpecial EligibilityAlgeria1214000Angola88001Botswana42001Burundi01000Djibouti10500Egypt5542241417Ethiopia413101104Gabon10000Ghana2931000Guinea-Bissau02000Ivory Coast04000Kenya781214014Lesotho01000Libya117001Madascar21000Malawi36102Mauritania40000Mauritius19859002Morocco288002Mozambique98000Namibia00001Niger35500Nigeria1226000 Reunion Island23000Rwanda02000Sao Tome04000Senegal70000Seychelles219002Sierra Leone11000Somalia2804521South & East Africa02000South Africa96910367061Sudan2511904Swaziland35300Tanzania1830012Togo00100Tunisia63000Uganda18141000Zaire01400Zambia3164109Zimbabwe1832740014SUB TOTALS2310199019717138TOTAL4649DIMA Settler Arrivals—Africa—1991/92 (By region/country of birth)CountryFamily MigrationSkill MigrationHumanitarian—RefugeeHumanitarian—SHPSpecial EligibilityAlgeria1416000Angola46010Botswana12000Cape Verde50000Djibouti00100Egypt695223076Ethiopia564168421Ghana6032004Kenya7099626Lesotho10000Liberia03200Libya72000Madascar10001Malawi98100Mali10000Mauritius234440013Morocco227001Mozambique98001Namibia30000Niger25000Nigeria1346000Reunion Island10000Rwanda00300Senegal10000Seychelles218000Sierra Leone51000Somalia50240132South & East Africa01005South Africa6485661059St Helena10000Sudan53201531Swaziland21100Tanzania2430000Tunisia42002Uganda1692413Zaire04501Zambia2227001Zimbabwe126119008SUB TOTALS2181129526769115TOTAL3927DIMA Settler Arrivals—Africa—1992/93 (By region/country of birth)CountryFamily MigrationSkill MigrationHumanitarian—RefugeeHumanitarian—SHPSpecial EligibilityAlgeria114001Angola60051Botswana20001Cameroon10000Cape Verde10000Congo10000Djibouti70280Egypt4132091225Ethiopia5822642292Ghana5911001Ivory Coast20000Kenya34767910Libya42001Madascar11000Malawi44002Mauritania02000Mauritius9314002Morocco155002Mozambique33080Namibia22001Niger30000Nigeria1542002Reunion Island10000Rwanda00200Sao Tome00020Senegal00001Seychelles80000Sierra Leone10000Somalia4872612811South & East Africa10000South Africa4574700094St Helena01000Sudan29525530Swaziland02000Tanzania99001Togo10000Tunisia32001Uganda674012Zaire101200Zambia2130101Zimbabwe77780013SUB TOTALS1398988380465155TOTAL3386DIMA Settler Arrivals—Africa—1993/94 (By region/country of birth)CountryFamily MigrationSkill MigrationHumanitarian—RefugeeHumanitarian—SHPSpecial EligibilityAlgeria84102Angola10000Botswana103290Burundi10000Cameroon11000Djibouti40010Egypt4014114397Eritrea3010190Ethiopia23122580Former Ethiopia5501381930Ghana556000Ivory Coast01001Kenya41456126Lesotho20000 Libya55000Malawi20001Mali10000Mauritius967005Morocco260003Mozambique23001Namibia62000Niger48000Nigeria1920003Reunion Island01000Rwanda00100Seychelles111004Sierra Leone11000Somalia6751051712South & East Africa2436004South Africa71679739129Sudan230352802Swaziland03002Tanzania114001Tunisia63001Uganda531741Western Sahara00002Zaire21100Zambia2118005Zimbabwe6767009SUB TOTALS17111084356815191TOTAL4157DIMA Settler Arrivals—Africa—1994/95 (By region/country of birthCountryFamily MigrationSkill MigrationHumanitarian—RefugeeHumanitarian—SHPSpecial EligibilityAlgeria193011Angola11000Botswana4139681Comoros00001Djibouti30010Egypt35720144513Eritrea181459914Ethiopia1603571839Gabon00001Gambia10001Ghana10825003Guinea-Bissau10000Ivory Coast20000Kenya551339814Lesotho03000Libya69030Madascar11000Malawi56002Mauritius6818001Morocco264002Mozambique74000Namibia37000Niger711000Nigeria1634005Reunion Island20000Senegal20000Seychelles91002Sierra Leone75002Somalia43013519511South Africa1105157320112Sudan265153087Swaziland02001Tanzania1420004Togo41101Tunisia91001 Uganda1011011Western Sahara10006Zaire41101Zambia4127007Zimbabwe135900011SUB TOTALS22802202308912235TOTAL5937DIMA Settler Arrivals—Africa—1995/96 (By region/country of birth)CountryFamily MigrationSkill MigrationHumanitarian—RefugeeHumanitarian—SHPSpecial EligibilityAlgeria148032Angola10010Botswana13654862Chad10000Djibouti20000Egypt3804406515Eritrea320431100Ethiopia1956661731Gambia10000Ghana8910002Kenya471211394Lesotho01000Libya123001Madascar11000Malawi32000Mauritania20000Mauritius9216012Morocco279003Mozambique42000Namibia85003Niger65000Nigeria3213003Reunion Island10000Rwanda50000Senegal71000Seychelles119002Sierra Leone40001Somalia1360932902South Africa1229185200109Sudan232293971Swaziland02001Tanzania1812003Togo10000Tunisia31010Uganda1510022Zaire91401Zambia2336102Zimbabwe1211180021SUB TOTALS256822963031138183TOTAL6488DIMA Settler Arrivals—Africa—1996/97 (By region/country of birth)CountryFamily MigrationSkill MigrationHumanitarian—RefugeeHumanitarian—SHPSpecial EligibilityAlgeria186001Angola70000Benin10002Botswana41113351Burkina Faso10000Burundi10000Cameroon01000Cent. African Rep. 01000 Comoros20000Congo00001Djibouti10020Egypt30948311610Eritrea4016840Ethiopia1715221122Gambia40000Ghana8327008Kenya59731886Lesotho20000Liberia10000Libya93102Madascar10000Malawi22001Mauritania20000Mauritius7422002Morocco233000Mozambique42000Namibia32000Niger92000Nigeria239005Reunion Island01000Rwanda20000Senegal61000Seychelles86000Sierra Leone23000Somalia1690961653South Africa999205200160Sudan2611582720Swaziland11000Tanzania811004Togo10000Tunisia24000Uganda810320Zaire83100Zambia1650005Zimbabwe801340016SUB TOTALS21902505249696229TOTAL5869DIMA Settler Arrivals—Africa—1997/98 (By region/country of birth)CountryFamily MigrationSkill MigrationHumanitarian—RefugeeHumanitarian—SHPSpecial EligibilityAlgeria293003Angola01000Benin10000Botswana3833242Cameroon10000Cape Verde10000Djibouti10000Egypt1508929339Eritrea1757371Ethiopia170238700Gambia20000Ghana7710000Guinea10000Ivory Coast20001Kenya2011113156Liberia40000Libya75111Malawi11001Mauritius5232000Morocco177000Mozambique413000Namibia214001Nigeria2517001 Nigeria86001Senegal80000Seychelles05001Sierra Leone32000Somalia165716234410South & East Africa10001South Africa3933669015204Sudan2681682271Swaziland25000Tanzania618012Tunisia101000Uganda85100Zaire11002Zambia1560004Zimbabwe402140019SUB TOTALS12734319452767271TOTAL7082DIMA Settler Arrivals—Africa—1998/99 (By region/country of birth)CountryFamily MigrationSkill MigrationHumanitarian—RefugeeHumanitarian—SHPSpecial EligibilityAlgeria1426100Angola03000Botswana18030Burundi10000Cameroon10000Congo12000Djibouti00270Egypt17112044914Eritrea55071250Ethiopia1793581283Gambia31000Ghana12111032Guinea-Bissau00001Ivory Coast20000Kenya31213182510Liberia11000Libya44000Madascar43000Malawi59001Mauritania01000Mauritius1053001Morocco231001Mozambique37000Namibia520002Niger01000Nigeria2549062Reunion Island04001Rwanda01000Senegal20000Seychelles78002Sierra Leone22011Somalia89119920513South Africa324442700273Sudan14122153233Swaziland110001Tanzania810020Tunisia83000Uganda26241Zaire12031Zambia5540013Zimbabwe392540028SUB TOTALS11625306551854374TOTAL824712087(Question No. 916)91612087Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) As at 30 June 1999 what total funding had been provided to each State and Territory since March 1996 under the Farm Forestry Program component of the Natural Heritage Trust.(2) What is the allocation for Farm Forestry Program funding for (a) 1999-2000 and (b) subsequent years under (i) the Natural Heritage Trust and (ii) other Commonwealth programs.(3) For each region what is (a) the Commonwealth identifier, (b) title, (c) proponent, (d) location of proponent and (e) funding amount of all Farm Forestry Program grants made to 20 September 1999 under the Natural Heritage Trust.12087Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Total funding provided to each State and Territory as at 30 September 1999 is listed in Attachment A.(2) Allocation for Farm Forestry Program (FFP) funding for:(a) (i) 1999/2000 is $11,459,000; (ii) in 1999/2000 $3,540,000 is being provided under the FFP Component of the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy (WAPIS). This program finishes this financial year; (b) (i) subsequent years under the Natural Heritage Trust: 2000/2001—$15,641,000; 2001/2002—$9,207,000; (ii) subsequent years under other Commonwealth Programs: Nil.(3) Funding for One Stop Shop projects for 1997/1998 and 1998/1999 are listed in Attachment B. I also announced funding for 1999/2000 One Stop Shop projects on 4 October 1999, but these have not been attached as they fall outside the scope of your question.In addition I have provided around $4 million for national farm forestry research and development projects to be managed by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation. Details of these projects were announced in my press release of 27 January 1999 and 24 May 1999.Attachment ANHT Expenditure for Farm Forestry Program—One Stop ShopACTNSWNTQLDSATASVICWA1996/1997no funding1997/1998$50,630.00$566,283.00$58,340.00$363,468.00$167,400.00$198,228.00$654,241.00$369,850.001998/1999$38,700.00$1,053,963.00$104,710.00$1,398,669.00$297,093.00$388,734.00$1,260,095.00$1,071,447.0 0* This does not include funding provided for administration, the Commonwealth Component of the Program and the WAPIS Component of the FFP.Attachment BFarm Forestry Program—One Stop ShopStatus Code: APPROVED1977/19981998/99State CodeCwth IDTitleOrganisation NameACT11978Plantation Firewood Harvesting and Marketing TrialACT Forests$50,630.00$38,700.00NSW11635North Coast Education and Training in Regrowth Forest and Plantation Farm ForestryDepartment of Land and Water Conservation$21,000.00$1,750.00 NSW11640Northern Tablelands Farm Forestry ProjectGreening Australia NSW Inc.$31,335.00$32,901.00NSW11644Murrumbidgee Farm Forestry—Mid-Catchment Farm ForestryState Forests of NSW$112,960.00NSW11646Optimising Growth of Trees on FarmsGreening Australia NSW$60,400.00NSW11649Management Evaluation of Direct Seeding for Farm ForestrySouthern Tablelands Farm Forestry Network$13,400.00$2,000.00NSW11652Central Tablelands Farm Forestry TrialsGreening Australia NSW Inc.$127,600.00$48,175.00NSW11655Farm Forestry Demonstration Sites for the Southern TablelandsSouthern Tablelands Farm Forestry Network$35,064.00$3,600.00NSW11658Farm Forestry Demonstration Site for the Boorowa RegionSouthern Tablelands Farm Forestry Network$7,117.00NSW11663Windbreak/Shelterbelt Design Demonstration for the Southern TablelandsSouthern Tablelands Farm Forestry Network$3,852.00NSW11666Sustainable Land Management Through Adoption of Native Species IndustriesGreening Australia NSW$92,630.00$64,313.00NSW11667Native Food Species Research and Demonstration—Central WestNative Food Growers Group Inc.$45,925.00$5,182.00NSW11670NSW Integrated Native Vegetation Management Feasibility StudyMid North Coast Regional Development Org Inc$15,000.00NSW11673The Development of a Farm Forestry Strategy for NSWNSW Agriculture$22,850.00NSW14299Murrumbidgee Mid Catchment Farm ForestryMurray Regional Development Board$55,832.00NSW14331Eucalyptus grandis Flooded Gum Provenance Trial and Demonstration for Farm ForestryMurray Riverina Farm Forestry$14,799.00NSW14433Macquarie Catchment Farm Forestry for Dryland Salinity ControlCentral Western Regional Development Board Inc.$161,295.00NSW14603Hunter Farm Forestry ProgramGreening Australia NSW Inc.—Hunter Region$72,359.00NSW14633Southeast Sustainable Bushfood Industry ProjectSapphire Coast Producers Association Inc$34,270.00NSW14655Integrated Commercial Timber and Habitat Demonstration ProjectSouth East New South Wales Regional Plantation Committee Inc.$85,108.00NSW14695Private Native Forest Management and Value Added ProjectSouth East New South Wales Regional Plantation Committee Inc.$179,770.00NSW14814Eucalyptus saligna Provenance Test and Farm Forestry DemonstrationMurray Regional Development Board$12,066.00NSW14828Integrated Farm Forestry Demonstration in the Murray Riverina RegionState Forests of NSW$107,868.00NSW15013Farm Forestry Acacia Melanoxylon TrialsDorrigo Mountain Top Landcare Group$3,780.00NSW15124Better Biodiversity and Timber Outcomes Through Native Regrowth ManagementGreening Australia NSW Inc.$85,495.00NSW15128Environmentally Sustainable Commercially Driven Private Native Forest ManagementNew England North West Regional Development Board Inc.$60,550.00NT12385Top End Regional Tropical Hardwood Forestry ProjectGreening Australia NT, DPIF, NTFTPN$58,340.00$78,533.00 QLD8812Private Forestry Plantation ProgramNoosa Hinterland Forestry Cooperative$60,500.00$56,339.00QLD8813PMP—Farm Forestry PlanningPMP Farm Forestry Steering Committee$79,670.00$89,560.00QLD8814Establishment of Treegrower CooperativesForestry Industries Development—QDPI$109,000.00$109,000.00QLD8815The Demonstration of Silvicultural Systems for Farm ForestryQueensland Forestry Research Institute—QDPI$48,300.00$78,200.00QLD11940Dry Area Plantation Forests for Diversification and LandcareDepartment of Natural Resources$36,000.00$31,000.00QLD12094Cape York Farm Forestry Landcare Demonstration and Assistance Program (FFP)Queensland Department of Natural Resources$10,000.00$10,000.00QLD13224Sustainable Private Native Forest Management in the Wet TropicsQDPI—Queensland Forestry Research Institute$59,300.00QLD13276Community Rainforest Reforestation ProgramQueensland Department of Natural Resources$200,000.00QLD13290Sustainable Management of Native Forests by LandholdersDepartment of Natural Resources$67,685.00QLD13336Sustainable Native Forest Management on Private Lands—Mary River Sunshine Coast RegionMary Valley-Sunshine Coast Farm Forestry Association$80,830.00QLD13338Red Cedar Growth and Protection from Shootborer ProjectNoosa and District Landcare Group Inc$20,000.00QLD13359Training Course for Sustainable Management of Native ForestsQld Department of Primary Industries and Qld Beef Industry Institute$45,551.00QLD13378Upper Logan, Albert and Bremer Farm Forestry DevelopmentGreening Australia Queensland$91,639.00QLD13452Developing Sustainable Forestry Industry in Arid Northern AustraliaGreening Australia Queensland$82,345.00QLD13477Sewage Effluent Disposal onto Commercial Tree PlantationsQueensland Forestry Research Institute—QDPI$81,390.00QLD13490Choosing Native Hardwoods for Commercial Plantation in Farm SystemsQueensland Forestry Research Institute—QDPI$110,000.00QLD13496Eucalypt Hybrids for Commercial Farm Forestry in South East QueenslandQueensland Forestry Research Institute—QDPI$105,000.00QLD13505Landholders Sustainably Managing their Native ForestsDepartment of Natural Resources South Region$80,830.00SA10914Mount Lofty Ranges Regional Farm Forestry Industry Development ProgramPrimary Industries South Australia$25,000.00SA10915Capitalising on Demonstration Plantings and Promoting Farm ForestryPrimary Industries and Resources South Australia$31,200.00$56,700.00SA10916Species Selection and Genetic Improvement for Farm ForestryPrimary Industries and Resources South Australia$46,200.00$69,400.00SA10917Low-Rainfall Farm Forestry Industry DevelopmentPrimary Industries and Resources South Australia$65,000.00SA13808Sustainable Firewood Supplies for Visitors to the Flinders RangesFriends of Flinders Ranges National Park Inc$9,900.00SA14040Farm Forestry—Applying a Property Management Planning FrameworkPrimary Industries and Resources South Australia$39,562.00 SA14136Farm Forestry—Growing More Self ReliantPrimary Industries and Resources South Australia$63,156.00SA14137Farm Forestry—Stimulating Major Investment in the RangesPrimary Industries and Resources South Australia$58,375.00SA16464Accelerating Regional Implementation of NHT in SA (FFP)Primary Industries and Resources South Australia$237,000.00TAS9877Tasmanian Farm Forestry Marketing and Financial Analysis ProjectPrivate Forests Tasmania$19,500.00$15,500.00TAS9879Working Farm Agroforestry Models, Midlands, TasmaniaGreening Australia (Tasmania) Inc$40,000.00$30,000.00TAS9884Tasmanian Farm Forestry Strategy Development WorkshopPrivate Forests Tasmania$17,500.00TAS9889Health Surveillance of Privately Owned PlantationsForestry Tasmania$33,228.00$55,547.00TAS9898Tasmanian Farm Forestry—Farm Forestry NetworkPrivate Forests Tasmania$31,000.00TAS9907Inventory of Privately Owned Disturbed or Degraded LandPrivate Forests Tasmania$20,000.00TAS9915User Friendly PC Tree Modelling PackagePrivate Forests Tasmania$37,000.00TAS13034Treegrower Cooperative Marketing Development OfficerTFGA/FARMWOOD P/L$78,750.00TAS13058User Friendly PC Package—Farm Forestry Economics and Financial Analysis ModulePrivate Forests Tasmania$47,000.00TAS13119Training and Networking for Farm Forestry Industry ProfessionalsPrivate Forests Tasmania$31,600.00TAS13120Farm and Plantation Strategy and Regional ProfilePrivate Forests Tasmania$84,592.00TAS13121Sea Elephant Revegetation and Provenance TrialsKing Island Natural Resources Management Group$9,945.00TAS13189Key Farm Forestry Demo Sites for Education, Awareness and Training ProgramsPrivate Forests Tasmania$35,800.00VIC10964Managing Small Scale Woodlots for Sustainable LanduseDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment (Victoria)$69,841.00VIC10997Wimmera Farm Forestry ProjectDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment (Victoria)$30,000.00$30,000.00VIC11024Practical Farm Forestry in Victoria—Video ProductionDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment (Victoria)$19,700.00$7,800.00VIC11025Ironbark Provenance Trial and Demonstration for Farm ForestryDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment (Victoria)$8,250.00$1,350.00VIC11059Farm Forestry for the Mallee Irrigation ZoneDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment (Victoria)$60,000.00$34,500.00VIC11080Extension of the Corangamite Farm Forestry ProjectDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment (Victoria)$26,500.00$37,000.00VIC11094Pruning Equipment For Cooperative Learning—Dundas TablelandsCombined Dundas Tablelands Land Management Group$6,450.00$81,324.00 VIC11095South West Agroforestry Network—Project OfficerDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment (Victoria)$28,500.00$47,500.00VIC11104Farm Forestry—Buloke ShireBuloke Shire Council$20,000.00$40,000.00VIC11106Decreasing Salinity Through Establishing Alternative Native VegetationSouthern Bushfood Association$25,000.00VIC11108Feasibility of Private Forestry Options Within 30-100 kms of MelbourneDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment (Victoria)$55,000.00$45,000.00VIC11123Farm Forestry Strategy/Feasibility Study and Extension, Education, Training and Implementation ProgramDNRE/Box Ironbark Farm Forestry Network$165,000.00$249,275.00VIC11178Overcoming Information Barriers to Farm ForestryDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment (Victoria)$140,000.00$90,000.00VIC15278Affect of Understorey on Biodiversity in Farm ForestryDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment (Victoria)$11,950.00VIC15394Undertake a Timber Industry Roading Evaluation Study—SW VictoriaGreen Triangle Regional Plantation Committee$10,000.00VIC15395Operation of Regional Plantation CommitteeGreen Triangle Regional Plantation Committee$51,325.00VIC15406Site Visit Program, Resource Inventory and Marketing StrategyOtway Agroforestry Network$49,400.00VIC15413Expansion and Continuation—CVFPCentral Victorian Farm Forestry Committee Inc$49,022.00VIC15417Industry Development for Black Wattle ProductsCentral Victorian Farm Plantations$40,000.00VIC15520Wimmera Agroforestry ProjectWimmera Agroforestry Network$35,000.00VIC15567(Green Triangle) Bush Food Demonstration SiteGreen Triangle Bush Food Network$4,600.00VIC15615Demonstrate Appropriate Landuse Options—North CentralBox Ironbark Farm Forestry Network Inc$40,000.00VIC15713VFF FTLA Farm Forestry Development ProjectVFF Farm Trees and Landcare Association$43,500.00VIC15748Muckatah Catchment Farm ForestryBurramine-Tungamah Land Management Group$32,472.00VIC15757Improving Private Native Forest Management—West GippslandGreening Australia Victoria Inc$80,000.00VIC15764Improving Private Native Forest Management—East GippslandEast Gippsland Catchment Management Authority$50,000.00VIC15789Commercial Tree Growing for Land & WatercareCentre For Forest Tree Technology (CFTT)$66,000.00VIC16293Mallee Agroforestry InitiativeGreening Australia Victoria Inc$33,077.00WA11320Maritime Pine Farm Forestry: Yield Prediction and DemonstrationDepartment of Conservation and Land Management$141,750.00$56,000.00WA11321Development of Pinus Pinaster Genetic DeploymentDepartment of Conservation and Land Management$128,100.00$103,873.00WA11325Southern Region Farm Forestry Project, WAGreen Skills Inc$40,000.00$67,000.00WA11328Establishment of Western Timber Cooperative in Export MarketsAgriculture Western Australia$60,000.00$20,000.00 WA12681Investigation of the Social and Economic Opportunities for Farm Forestry in the Dandaragan ShireDandaragan Shire Land Conservation District Committee$86,000.00WA12840Improvement of the Drought Tolerance of Commercial Tree Crop SpeciesDepartment of Conservation and Land Management$180,000.00WA12843Putting Trees in Their PlaceDepartment of Conservation and Land Management$308,574.00WA16201Regional Integration of Oil Mallee into Revegetation Practice (FFP)Upper Great Southern Oil Mallee Association$50,000.00WA16576Selection and Development of Multiple Purpose Species for Large Scale Revegetation (FFP)Department of Conservation and Land Management$200,000.0012092(Question No. 917)91712092Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) What is the estimated total area of old growth forest in each State and Territory, according to data held by the National Forest Inventory for the most recent reporting period.(2) What is the estimated (a) range and (b) average amount of carbon stored, in tonnes per hectare, in Australia's old growth forests.12092Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Area of old growth forestForest management and therefore inventory and mapping are responsibilities of State Governments.The National Forest Inventory (NFI) is a compilation of state data made available for national reporting purposes. Growth stage is not a core forest attribute provided by the States and therefore the NFI does not have complete information on growth stage for all Australian forests at national or state level.Comprehensive Regional Assessments of forests are being undertaken as part of the Regional Forest Agreement process. These are providing more complete information on old growth forests for those regions where assessments have occurred. This information is currently being collated and it is expected that the Bureau of Rural Sciences will release an updated report in late November. A summary of old growth forests in Australia from this report is tabled below.AREA OF OLD GROWTH IN RFA REGIONSRFA REGIONAREA OF OLD GROWTH (ha)EAST GIPPSLAND 224 362CENTRAL HIGHLANDS25 993NORTH EAST VICTORIA259 465EDEN NSW98 326UNE NSW654 599SOUTH EAST QLD301 526SOUTH WEST WA347 082TASMANIA1 246 290(2) Carbon stocks in old growth forestsThere are few published estimates of carbon stocks in old growth forests, therefore it is not possible to provide an estimate of the average stock of carbon at this stage. The stature of old growth forests varies considerably due to variation in growing conditions and to variation in fire or other disturbance history of particular sites. Consequently the range in per hectare estimates of carbon stocks in old growth forests is likely to be great, but cannot be quantified at this stage.Responsibility for reporting on greenhouse gas fluxes in Australian vegetation resides with the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO). The AGO is currently developing a National Carbon Accounting System that aims to provide a comprehensive overview of carbon stocks and fluxes in Australian forests and woodlands. This project is in the developmental stages. It will take some years before a complete picture of carbon storage and flux is available for Australian vegetation.12094(Question No. 949)94912094Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Sport and Tourism, upon notice, on 29 September 1999:(1) Was a budget devoted by her Department to the promotion of the Australian Sports Medal; if so, what was the total allocation.(2) Were allocations devoted to individual electorates; if so, (a) which electorates received allocations and (b) how were the target electorates determined.(3) Were template advertisements prepared for use by Government Members; if so, what was the cost of doing so.12094Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss Jackie KellyGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) All Senators and Members received an equal allocation.(3) No.