1999-12-073914REPS1292501999-12-07Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 3.00 p.m., and read prayers.Ministerial Arrangements1292515:01:0012925Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Minister for Health and Aged Care will be absent from question time today. He is travelling to Tasmania to launch the Tasmanian drug diversion initiative jointly with the Premier of Tasmania. In addition, the Minister for Aged Care has had to take suddenly urgent personal leave today due to a serious family illness. I will endeavour to answer questions on behalf of both ministers.Questions Without Notice129251292512925Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you explain why the New South Wales Thoroughbred Racing Board has been given more than $1 million from the GST Start-Up Assistance Office, while charities will get an average of just $2,000 each? Why is the organisation representing the thoroughbred racing market worth 500 times more to this government than organisations trying to help the poorest Australians and their children?12925Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am not aware without further inquiry of the details of individual decisions by the start-up office. I am quite certain that the Leader of the Opposition is fully aware that I would not carry that sort of information around with me, so I will undertake to have a look at the matter, as I did yesterday when I was asked a like question.As I have been asked a question on charities, I think it might be appropriate if I fulfil the undertaking I gave to the parliament yesterday and that was to investigate the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition that the contracts required to be signed by people getting assistance were in some way analogous to cash for comment arrangements—an absurd suggestion. The Leader of the Opposition asked whether I could confirm that charities are being forced to sign contracts to receive financial assistance from the GST Start-Up Assistance Office. Seeing that he has asked me a question about the GST Start-Up Assistance Office, it does seem relevant that I should take this opportunity of talking on that very subject, thus anticipating any question of a point of order on relevance—the GST Start-Up Assistance Office requiring them to favourably acknowledge the contribution of the Commonwealth.I undertook to investigate what the Leader of the Opposition put to me and I can inform him that requiring organisations in receipt of government assistance to acknowledge Commonwealth assistance is hardly new. In fact, I have come across a grant contract concluded by the Department of Employment, Education and Training on 19 January 1996 when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was in fact the minister.UNKNOWNA government memberA government member—Cash for comment.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Yes, this is cash for no comment, Mr Speaker, and I will explain to you how it works. It has a very interesting clause. This contract contains a section on acknowledgment and publications which contain the following:Where contract material is to be used for publication or dissemination of information or material in any form, and where at any time during or after completion of the project, the grantee—that is, the people getting the grant—publishes a book, article, newsletter or other item or material which relates to the project, the grantee shall ensure (a) no comment is made that is party political in nature . . . In other words, you cannot talk about the policy. All our contract obliges you to do is to acknowledge the source of the money, but what Labor did was to put a political gag on organisations that got money from the Labor government. It was a political gag. It goes on in (b), which is more normal, to acknowledge the support of the Commonwealth.For the Labor Party to criticise the government for including a standard acknowledgment clause is absolute nonsense. By way of further clarification, I would add that the contracts relating to funding assistance through the GST Start-Up Assistance Office are negotiable—they are not mandated—and to date 17 contracts have been signed. There has been no difficulty with the clauses with acknowledgment and publicity. Any suggestion of cash for comment is, of course, ludicrous.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Mitchell will resume his seat. I have not recognised the Leader of the Opposition, but I am prepared to do so, given that some leniency was extended to the Prime Minister. What is the matter that the Leader of the Opposition seeks to raise?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I seek leave to table the contract which says that the organisation shall favourably acknowledge the contribution of the Commonwealth to the organisers in any correspondence, because it will enable people to see how very different it is from that absurd defence.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is seeking leave to table the contract and will resume his seat. Is leave granted?Leave not granted.1292612926Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question is directed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of the results of the ACCI-Westpac survey of industrial trends released this morning. What economic policies are important for continued economic growth in Australia? Would the Treasurer also advise the House of any alternative economic policies which exist?12926Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Mitchell for his question. He would be aware, I think, that ACCI-Westpac released its survey of industrial trends today which showed that industrial conditions are very, very strong. Listen to this: Mark Patterson, the Chief Executive of ACCI, said this—DT4CREANMr Crean—Yeah, he's really independent!2V5SWANMr Swan—How much did he get?CT4Mr COSTELLO—I welcome the endorsement of the business community that comes from the Labor Party by their interjections. Perhaps they could take a leaf out of the book of the Victorian Labor Premier. He does not mind mixing with business down in Melbourne at $1,000 a head. Mark Patterson, the Chief Executive of ACCI, commented as follows:This is the last survey of this century. Once again, it is very good news. We are crossing over from the 20th century into the third millennium on a confident note. The best actual results for new orders and output in five years, a recovery in capital expenditure plans and high level of capacity utilisation indicate that, after five consecutive quarters of robust economic recovery, we can look forward to sustained growth in the year 2000.What economic policies have given Australia this sustained economic growth? They were the policies which were important for stabilising our fiscal position, taking Australia out of deficit and debt and putting the budget back in surplus. They were the policies of entering into an agreement with the Reserve Bank of Australia to give it a focused monetary policy objective in keeping interest rates low. They were the policies of reducing government debt. These have been the policies of privatisation in relation to Telstra, and industrial relations reform and competition, which have given Australia low inflation and high productivity.The member for Mitchell asks of me, `What are the alternative economic policies and what effect would they have?' We might ask ourselves: is there an alternative fiscal policy to the government's? Has the Labor Party announced a position on fiscal policy? Has the Labor Party announced a position on monetary policy? Does the Labor Party have a policy on privatisation? Does the Labor Party have a debt retirement policy? Does the Labor Party have a tax policy? Is there an alternative tax policy? I was very interested to read the Sydney Morning Herald of Wednesday, 1 December 1999 where Michelle Grattan reported:The Opposition Leader, Mr Beazley, conceded yesterday that in promising to "roll back" the GST the Labor Party was travelling an uncharted road with an unknown destination.. . . . . . . . ."You don't have to see the end of the process when you start down the road. The point is to start the journey. "We're committed to rolling it back; you'll have to give us time as to what this means."That is what Mr Beazley said. Here is the old John Lennon Nowhere Man on an uncharted road with an unknown destination—and this is modern leadership in the Labor Party. The thing that keeps them together is not policy, because they do not have any of that. The reason why you hear these incessant detailed questions is that that is the one thing that can keep the Labor Party together.I want to speak up today in defence of the member for Hotham because he has been under sustained attack in his party room for supporting the government policy on capital gains tax cuts. In his party room today he got flak from MPs that were kept in the dark on the business tax deal. We went back to see if he had ever made a speech on the economy, which he has not done yet after over 12 months in the job. He made one speech on capital gains tax back on 19 February 1999. I think it is his piece de resistance. At that stage, he extolled Labor's capital gains tax policy. He said:It was Labor that introduced capital gains tax in 1985 as a direct base broadening and equity measure . . .UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—Hear, hear!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Hear, hear! He continued:It raised $2.4 billion in 1996-97 and would be considerably higher now . . . Here was the pledge on 19 February 1999:Labor will not support any weakening of the capital gains tax base.That was on 19 February. By the end of November, contrary to what the backbench thinks, the member for Hotham took a brave and decisive stand. It was his most economically responsible stand—he supported the Liberal Party. A Labor frontbencher that supports the Liberal Party is a Labor frontbencher taking an economically responsible position every time.We would recommend more brilliant strategies to the Labor Party such as supporting Liberal Party policy. It is a brilliant strategy from the Labor Party. It gives you a position on things. It indicates that there is some depth of thought, and we congratulate you, as your backbench congratulates you, on a brilliant decision to support the government on business taxation.1292712927Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you explain why the National Farmers Federation and its affiliates, a group which supported the GST, has been given $15.25 million from the GST Start-Up Assistance Office—the largest single amount given to any organisation and its branches? Is it a coincidence that the group which vowed they `would continue to press for a broad based GST and strongly oppose any further narrowing of the base to which the GST applies' has done better than any other organisation out of the GST cash for comment scandal?12927Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Lilley. I am not advised as to the reasons for particular decisions but, given the basis on which the start-up office has been organised and given the rationale behind the funding of the whole process of explaining the implementation of the GST, I would defend a decision to give money to an organisation like the National Farmers Federation on the grounds that it has a capacity to facilitate the explanation of the implementation of this policy change to a very significant section of the Australian community.The coalition believes in giving advice and help to Australia's farmers. The coalition believes that it is responsible use of taxpayers' funds to put them in the way of organisations that in turn will be part of the education process in relation to the new taxation system. As I said in answer to the first question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, I naturally do not carry around the details of every single decision made by the start-up office. But for anybody in the Labor Party to suggest that there is something odd, something indefensible, something to be criticised, about using an organisation like the National Farmers Federation as a way of ensuring that the farmers of this country—which generate an enormous amount of export wealth for Australia—get the benefit of explanation regarding the implementation of the GST strikes me as odd, even if it is somebody who is so insensitive and so indifferent to the plight of rural Australia.At a time when the farmers of Australia have been done in the eye by the World Trade Organisation negotiating process, at a time when difficulties are being imposed, I think it is entirely proper of the government to use such an organisation, which I think has a very fine track record of advocating intelligent changes and being willing to argue the case of important changes to its constituents. I think the farmers of Australia will take note of the fact that once again the Australian Labor Party is hostile to their interests.1292812928Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister advise the House of the likely impact the introduction of Virgin Airlines would have on the Australian domestic airline industry? At what stage is the government at in considering Virgin Airlines's application to operate within Australia?12928Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—There has been quite a bit of interest, of course, in recent days in Virgin Airlines and its proposals for setting up a subsidiary here in this country. I can confirm that the government has granted Virgin foreign investment approval to establish a new domestic airline, subject to it meeting our other regulatory requirements. In particular, of course, and most importantly, that means our safety requirements. Airport Coordination Australia has provisionally issued Virgin with departure and arrival slots at Sydney airport, including slots during the peak periods.In terms of making some other comments about this very interesting development, the House will recall that the Treasurer and I announced in June of this year that the government would allow foreign companies to own up to 100 per cent of an Australian domestic airline or establish a new airline—unless, of course, it was somehow contrary to the national interest.It ought to be also understood that it is as a result of our policy initiatives that this new entrant is possible. This could not have happened under Labor Party policy. I believe that there will be benefits for the travelling public and Australia. We do welcome the prospect of increased competition on the domestic airline market. The deregulation of our domestic airlines provided very real benefits to the travelling public. But, as a matter of interest, air fares have been moving upwards in real terms—in quite substantial terms—in recent times. Economy class alone has increased by about eight per cent in recent years.Increased airline competition offers, I think, the very real prospect of reduced prices for the travelling public. It offers the real prospect of further jobs, particularly in regional areas, with the further growth of tourism. As Virgin confronts other issues—negotiating terminal access with the private sector operators of the major airports and so forth, clearing up the key regulatory approvals before it can start operating—I think that we have a real prospect here to look forward to greater access to reasonably priced air fares, which can be of substantial national interest. Whilst we acknowledge that Virgin Airlines has a lot of work still to do, this is a welcome development and one that, if handled properly, will indeed benefit the travelling public.1292812928Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Prime Minister. Do you recall yesterday dismissing concerns about the damage the GST will do to fundraising groups, like school P&Cs, in the following words:Most of the pie drives and lamington drives I have been involved in have raised a great deal less than $100,000?Prime Minister, are you aware of the evidence by the Australian Parents Council to the GST committee that:More than 50 per cent of school organisations would get over the $100,000 turnover if you look at the uniform shops, the tuckshops and other fundraising activities that parents engage in? Prime Minister, why did you imply that the $100,000 threshold applies to the individual lamington drive, when it really applies to the annual total of all the various drives—the raffles, the tuckshops and the uniform shops—run by P&Cs? Prime Minister, do you not understand your own legislation, or have you distorted the facts because you realise how much damage the GST will do to these charities?12929Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I stand by what I said yesterday. Most of the pie drives and lamington drives I have been associated with have raised less than $100,000. I want to make that perfectly clear. Obviously, I do not move in the exalted, more elite circles of the opposition; my pie drives have had considerably less success. The principle that was enunciated yesterday remains true: any operation that has a turnover of less than $100,000 is not in the GST.There is, as the Treasurer reminds me, a capacity to run the fundraising activities in relation to fetes and other things quite separately from an organisation's other activities. The whole structure of this has been designed to ensure that small organisations are not caught up in any way with the operation of the GST. I think the $100,000 limit is a very, very generous one. The principle is that, if you are carrying on an operation which is in commercial competition with the business sector, then, obviously, another principle applies. But, if the activities are of a charitable kind, the legislation has been designed in a way to ensure that the application of the GST is as I have outlined.There is, of course, a great deal of misinformation around about the GST and, while I am on my feet, I might draw the attention of the House to an article that appeared on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald which referred to World Vision's finance director, Mr Greg Hempenstall, who said:that he would seek clarification on whether child sponsorship programs would be subject to the GST, after a Taxation Office ruling that any charity sponsorship where the donor received `consideration' would be taxable. I am advised that, because these arrangements are in the nature of donations, they will not in any way be subject to the GST. And, as the Treasurer reminds me, they are income tax deductible as well.1292912929Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister advise the House of the effects on Australian farmers—that is, farmers producing for the world market—of the breakdown in discussions at the World Trade Organisation meeting in Seattle?12929Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—Australian farmers certainly are very disappointed that the Seattle round of World Trade Organisation talks did not herald the beginning of a new, vigorous round of discussions to achieve fairer and freer trade, particularly in agricultural products. There would be no group of farmers more disappointed at the breakdown of these discussions than sugar producers, such as those who are represented, very effectively, by the member for Hinkler. The sugar market is perhaps the most corrupt of all of the agricultural markets around the world and it is an industry where there is a crying need for international trade reform.I acknowledge the efforts of our trade minister in Seattle because, in spite of all the odds, it seems that more progress was made in relation to agricultural discussions than in any other field. Indeed, as the minister reported yesterday to the House, an agreement could have been reached on agriculture had it not been for the fact that some other countries, particularly the United States and those in the European Union, were determined to introduce into the discussions a whole lot of non-trade type issues—issues such as employment, food security, investment policies and the like. It is unfortunate that those non-trade issues should appear at trade talks. These talks were essentially about achieving a better trade regime and there are other forums for those sorts of matters to be discussed. It is unfortunate that by dragging these items across the agenda a satisfactory agreement could not be obtained to proceed with worthwhile talks in relation to agricultural trade.Australia will continue to press for reforms in this area. We will continue to reject programs like the huge US farm subsidies in the last farm subsidy bill. We will reject concepts like multifunctionality—the European objective that farmers fundamentally have a role in making the hillsides look attractive, keeping cows there so the tourists can have pretty pictures. This concept that farmers are just actors in a Disneyland style theme park is not consistent with fair and free world trading regimes. Farmers can be effective traders and effective contributors to the national economy by supplying goods in a reasonable and fair way.It may be of interest to the House that farmers in countries in the European Union where subsidies are high are leaving the land at a greater rate than those in non-subsidised countries. It is a fallacy to suggest that this sort of protection guarantees income for farmers. Australia will continue with the efforts that were introduced by the previous Minister for Trade, the member for Farrer, and followed on by the current minister in bilateral discussions with various nations. We will be tough negotiators. We have already taken substantial steps to liberalise our own markets and we now have a right to expect better outcomes in these discussions in the future.1293012930Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Isn't it a fact that, if charities do not register because their turnover is under $100,000, they will have to pay GST on all of their inputs, thus facing significant embedded taxes; but if they do register because they are over $100,000 they will face the administrative nightmare of complying and will have to collect and pay tax on many of their fundraising and sponsorship activities? Doesn't your GST harshly impact on charities no matter what they do and doesn't your GST get charities both coming and going? 12930Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I believe that the overall impact of the tax package is beneficial not only for the economy but also for those sectors of the Australian economy engaging in charitable activities. I think the exemptions proposed are fair and reasonable. I believe the carve-out is justified and I think that, when the full ramifications are known and understood—there is of course a process involved which is going on at the moment; it does not start up until 1 July next year—that will be widely known in the Australian community.1293012930Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. How is the Job Network performing for job seekers of non-English speaking background? How will the Job Network assist these and other job seekers in the second tender round?12930Mr ABBOTTMr ABBOTTUNKNOWNUNKNOWNUNKNOWNUNKNOWN00—I thank the member for Forde for her question and for the interest that she takes in all the employment services in her electorate. The Job Network has obviously been good for job seekers generally because it has been performing about 50 per cent better than the old CES at the vital task of getting unemployed people into work. However, there has been some concern at different times that the Job Network might not work quite so well for job seekers from a non-English speaking background. I can inform the House that, of some 400,000 intensive assistance commencements, 93,000 have been job seekers from a non-English speaking background. Fourteen per cent of job seekers overall are of a non-English speaking background but 21 per cent of intensive assistance commencements are job seekers from a non-English speaking background.The system has successfully targeted disadvantage factors in referring job seekers to intensive assistance. I can also tell you, Mr Speaker, that three months after leaving intensive assistance 39 per cent of non-English speaking background job seekers have been in paid employment or further education or training. Three months after leaving Job Search Training, which is another one of the Job Network programs, 49 per cent of non- English speaking background job seekers are in paid employment or further education or training. These are actually slightly better outcomes than for job seekers generally.The good news from Job Network 1 should improve further in Job Network 2. In areas where 10 per cent of job seekers are of non-English speaking background, all providers must demonstrate a capacity to help non-English speaking background people. Under Job Network 2 there is also the capacity for specialist providers. I am pleased to say that there will be five non-English speaking background specialist providers under Job Network 2. As well, there will be specialist providers for indigenous job seekers, job seekers with disabilities and other special categories of disadvantaged job seeker. This performance based competitive Job Network is going to go from strength to strength in the months ahead and provide even better results for Australia's disadvantaged job seekers.1293112931Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to your statement this morning on how charities can avoid the GST by staying outside of the system:They can structure their affairs so that they can take advantage of it on individual fundraising activities so that if a charity wants to stay outside the system, it's up to it how it structures its activities.Isn't this the same sort of advice you gave on how to avoid the GST on books by buying them over the Internet? Is your solution every time a GST problem arises to advise on how to avoid the tax? Wouldn't it be easier just to keep your promise and make all charitable activities GST free?12931Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—All charitable activities are GST free. That is in the legislation.Mr Crean interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—I notice that the member for Hotham—the Duke of Hotham—is now worried about embedded taxes. He has never been worried about embedded taxes—wholesale sales taxes—in things that charities have been buying for the last 70 years. You never worried about embedded taxes before and today you got worried about embedded taxes. You have been happy for the last 70 years for charities to be buying things with embedded taxes and, all of a sudden, because you lack a policy, you got worried about embedded taxes today.I often ask myself: if this government wasn't engaging in tax reform, what possible questions would the opposition be asking in question time? What possible policy would you have? After 1 July of next year, what possible questions will they be asking? Here they are on an uncharted road with a destination unknown—self-described, the leader of the Labor Party.The government set up a thing called the Charities Consultative Committee, which went through all of these matters with the charities. It resolved some hundreds of them. From 350 questions they got down to 60. They resolved nearly all of them, and one of the ones they resolved was this point. The point I was making on ABC radio this morning was the way in which this was resolved between the Taxation Office and the charities, whereby the tax office said that entities have the option to run events as arms-length unregistered activities, the proceeds being a donation and paid across tax free. What I said on the radio is what the tax office had said. A donation does not have a GST, I am afraid.Mr Swan interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—He just said a donation has a GST. Here is a man who is engaged in the biggest campaign against something he yet doesn't understand. A donation does not have a GST. And there it is in the report which I referred to on AM —Mr Snowdon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat.Mr Snowdon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for the Northern Territory. If the member for the Northern Territory wants to represent the Northern Territory, he will heed the chair or find himself outside the chamber.2V5SWANMr Swan—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: those organisations with a turnover of less than $50,000 pay the GST.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is the member for Lilley's point of order? The member for Lilley is warned. The member for Lilley knows that that was an abuse of the standing orders and of the particular standing order under which points of order are taken. It is important that that standing order not be abused or the capacity for members of the opposition to take points of order would be severely eroded.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Here we have the question about what I say on AM this morning, which happens to be the ruling which the Commissioner of Taxation gives—and that is some kind of heinous sin. Then he raises the question of books or anything else that comes under the de minimus rule—the de minimus rule which had been enacted by the Labor Party—and that was a heinous sin as well. Here you have the opposition on a stunt a minute—no policy, an uncharted road to an unknown destination, from a nowhere leader who has no policy. The only leadership they ever showed in the last year was in following the Liberal and National parties—the best decision they ever made—and they ought to do a lot more of it.1293212932Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. What progress has been made in the government's initiative to outsource the information technology and telecommunications needs of departments and agencies? In particular, what are the benefits to Australia's IT sector and especially regional Australia?12932Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I welcome the opportunity presented by the honourable member for Barker to indicate that the government's program in respect of information technology outsourcing is continuing down an outstanding path and bringing enormous benefits for the whole of government. This program is designed to attract jobs, to attract investment, to help small and medium businesses in Australia and to generate substantial savings for its taxpayers.Yesterday, the government signed contracts with IBM Global Services Australia for the provision of IT services to the Department of Health and Aged Care and the Health Insurance Commission. These contracts will deliver about $70 million in new business to Australian small and medium enterprises. At the same time, they will improve service levels and save taxpayers $30,000 a day for every day of the five-year contracts.The winning bidder not only had to deliver improved services and to provide an immediate windfall for taxpayers but also had to commit to delivering significant long-term benefits for the Australian IT&T industry. Those benefits include: some $260 million worth of products and services, which will be sourced and developed in Australia; new business initiatives which will generate over $100 million worth of exports, of which $24 million worth of exports will be generated for small and medium Australian businesses; some strategic investment worth $9.5 billion; and, best of all, the creation of 282 new jobs, of which 160 will be located in regional Australia.The new contracts will see IBM Global Services Australia create 105 jobs in Brisbane, and I am sure the honourable member for Griffith would welcome that particular decision. They will result in ASI Solutions, an Australian SME, establishing its manufacturing operations in the Northern Territory. These contracts will deliver some $600,000 in cash and computing equipment to the University of Ballarat, and I know the honourable member for Ballarat welcomes that decision in this outsourcing initiative. These results, once again, validate the government's strategy to outsource the Commonwealth's IT infrastructure needs. They demonstrate, once again, that the government is determined to use its purchasing power to promote the growth of the Australian IT&T industry.1293212932Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware of the concerns raised by the Royal Life Saving Society of Queensland yesterday that the cost of implementing the GST, including hardware, software, staff training, employment of additional staff and printing, will be in excess of $50,000 in the first year of the GST's operation, leading them to believe that:John Howard is aiming to totally destroy the work of volunteer based charities.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Capricornia will come to her question.83AMs LIVERMORE—Prime Minister, now that the evidence of the extent of the GST's application to charitable activities has emerged, will you exempt all charitable organisations from the GST net?12933Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the first part of the honourable member's question is no, but I will find out exactly what the Queensland branch of the Royal Life Saving Society has had to say. I will very carefully check it against everything that has been attributed to that organisation.In relation to the more general point raised by the honourable member, I do not accept for a moment that the application of the GST will be damaging to the charitable sector. I believe that the arrangements that have been put in place, including the arrangements that were alluded to by the Treasurer in the answer that he gave a few moments ago, clearly indicate that, once we get rid of this scare campaign that is being engaged in by the Australian Labor Party—Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition! The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Labor Party have only one policy, and that is a policy to go down on their bended knees and pray and hope that the GST falls over. That is the only policy. They are bereft of any alternative. That is the only policy they have. The Leader of the Opposition made it very clear that one of the reasons why they signed up to the capital gains tax changes was so that they could focus in an entirely and completely negative fashion on the introduction of the GST. By this line of questioning, they are revealing themselves as total political frauds. They are revealing themselves as a group of men and women who, after four years in opposition, have no policy.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and it goes to relevance. He was asked a set of questions about the impact of this on a surf lifesaving organisation which performs valuable work, particularly at this time of the year. He is getting up here with his usual political blah because he uses obfuscation to defend—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has made his point and will resume his seat. The Prime Minister was responding to a question about the GST, and I invite him to continue.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition, by his interjection, merely confirms the negative approach that he is taking to politics. The Labor Party has now had almost four years in opposition. In that four years in opposition, it has developed no employment policy.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on another point of order. Maybe he does not like the questioning but, nevertheless, questions will flow. They will flow from the experience of these organisations. He was asked a specific question about the application of it to surf lifesaving clubs, and we are entitled to an answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister was responding to questions about the GST. It is fair to say that the last sentence he uttered was unrelated immediately to the question of the GST but, prior to that, his answer had been in order and I invite him to continue.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition has had almost four years to develop an alternative philosophy. He tells us in general terms that he is going to roll this tax back. He does not say how he is going to roll it back. He does not tell us where the money is coming from.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—He can make available an opportunity to debate this if he wants to. But he has been asked a very specific question to which we are entitled to an answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is raising a matter of relevance. I have already ruled on the matter of relevance. The Prime Minister is obliged to respond to a question on the GST. Apart from his one comment that he made specifically about opposition policies, he has been relevant.ZD4Mr HOWARD—As I understand it, it is part of the position of the Australian Labor Party to roll this tax back. We would like to know where they are going to roll it back. We would like to know where the money is coming from.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—We'll roll it back on charities, roll it back on education and roll it back on health, if you really want to know.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition will resume—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Oh, not a policy!10000Mr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat!1293412934Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the government's response—Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Batman! The member for Aston will repeat his question.UT4Mr NUGENT—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the government's response to North Korean developments?12934Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member for Aston always shows a very real interest in the serious side of international issues and, in particular, important policy questions. Honourable members will of course be aware that the Korean Peninsula is a security flashpoint in a region which is of immense importance to Australia. We have very much welcomed the advances that have been made in dialogue between the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea over the last few months in the context of what is sometimes called the Perry review. I am especially pleased that a policy objective of the United States, which is certainly shared by Australia and other regional countries, that North Korea suspend long range missile tests has apparently been endorsed by the North Korean government. As a result of that, the United States is proposing to lift certain trade sanctions against North Korea.When I was in New York on 27 September I met with the North Korean Foreign Minister, Mr Paek. That was the first ministerial level meeting between an Australian and a North Korean foreign minister in 24 years. During that meeting I did urge North Korea to do what it could to reduce tensions in North Asia. As a result of that meeting, North Korea has since invited Australian officials to Pyongyang for a further round of talks. We are discussing dates at the moment, but those talks are likely to take place some time during February.Whether Australia moves in time towards the recognition again of the DPRK, and, importantly, the re-establishment of diplomatic relationships with the DPRK, is a matter which is still under consideration. What we absolutely want to do is to maintain the pressure that we can maintain on North Korea to make a very serious contribution to enhance regional security not only through the suspension of plans to conduct long range missile tests but also by abandoning various programs that North Korea has considered over the years for the development of weapons of mass destruction.Let me say in conclusion to the honourable member's question that the Australian government has been of the view that we should make a humanitarian contribution to North Korea given the very serious humanitarian problems that certainly have existed there. I remind the House of the visit by the former member for Holt and the member for Griffith to North Korea during this year and their representations to me about the particularly dire situation of food supplies in North Korea. We announced on 16 May a $10 million humanitarian assistance program for North Korea. We will of course consider, as the months unfold during next year, whether there will be a need for us to provide any addition al assistance over and above what we are already committed to.North Korea is not only a problem in terms of the regional security architecture but also an important component of our region. It is, I think, appropriate that Australia should, at the very least, have a constructive dialogue, or as constructive a dialogue as we can maintain, with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.1293512935Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will a GST be paid on dolls sold by the Adelaide Central Mission's dolls hospital, which has been run for over 50 years by volunteers, many of them in their 60s and 70s? When these volunteers repair and clean up broken, donated dolls, making them almost new again, and then sell them to raise proceeds for charitable work, will the government be skimming 10 per cent off the proceeds?12935Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The principle is that any donated goods are not subject to the GST and any second-hand goods are not subject to the GST.1293512935Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Can the minister inform the House of the extra measures that this government is undertaking to ensure that consumers get the full benefit of the implementation of a new tax system for Australia?12935Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Parramatta for his question. In the last sitting week I was asked a question about the monitoring of prices during the introduction of Australia's new tax system; perhaps on that occasion I was a little conservative with some of the figures that I was using. On that occasion I said that over one million prices would be monitored during the transition to the new taxation system. After having received updated advice from the ACCC, I can advise the House that over three million prices will be monitored between December 1999 and December 2001. That will comprise seven different collections of prices and will cover between 8,000 and 9,000 outlets right across Australia, including outlets in the electorate of Parramatta and in the electorate of a number of my colleagues on both sides of the House. This will mean that in the first collection of prices there will be over 610,000 assessments, so 610,000 prices will be considered in the first round.The ACCC is likely to have access on a monthly basis to information on up to 80,000 prices for browngoods—which are TVs and stereos and so on—and whitegoods and approximately 30,000 grocery prices. The ACCC is further developing details in relation to prices on petrol, motor vehicles and bank fees. In addition, I can advise the House that the ACCC is sending out to more than 1.3 million businesses information about GST price exploitation in a fact sheet called `Price exploitation: what every business must know'.It is timely to remind the House that, if businesses seek to exploit the transition to the new tax system, they may be fined up to $10 million per company per offence and up to half a million dollars per person per offence. If you are going to cheat during the transition to the new tax system, you will pay the price.1293512935Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister, and having got the previous one wrong, let us see if he can get this one right.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—My question is this: Prime Minister, can you confirm that a sponsorship made by a financial institution like a bank to a charity will have a 10 per cent GST siphoned off it, so if a bank sponsored a charitable event to the tune of $220,000, the government would take $20,000? Isn't it true that this $20,000 cannot be claimed back by the bank, because they are not entitled to claim GST input credits? What kind of social coalition is it that makes it less attractive for banks to give some of their profits to charities and harder for charities to attract corporate sponsorship—turning money that was meant to help the poor into taxes collected by the government? Would this not arise if you had stuck with your promise to keep the GST off charities?12936Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The Leader of the Opposition asked me about a social coalition. Before I come to the detail of the Leader of the Opposition's question, I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that this government has provided unprecedentedly generous incentives for business to give to charitable organisations. This government has been far more generous, so this is the last thing that the Leader of the Opposition can suggest.As far as the Leader of the Opposition's question is concerned, the principle that I have enunciated remains true; that is, if the activity is under a certain level, then they are not caught in the GST net. In relation to any commercial activities, so far as the charity is concerned, there is no application. When you apply those principles, it is perfectly obvious that 10 per cent will not be payable.1293612936Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Could the minister inform the House what the government is doing to further facilitate the entry of business to Australia and to make Australia more attractive to short-term business travellers? Could the minister also assure the House that any measures of this nature will not compromise the integrity of our immigration system?12936Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Deakin for the question, because I know that honourable members are very interested in issues relating to the expansion of tourism markets and making Australia a more attractive destination for those who come on short-term business arrangements, particularly where they are likely to enhance not only our economy but also a range of opportunities for Australians through the initiatives in which they may be involved.Tourism is one of the largest export earners and it is important that we do develop it, but we need to do so in a way which maintains the integrity of our immigration system. To that end I would like to advise the House of the way in which the government is seeking to do that. I recently asked a former colleague, along with a former Labor minister, to participate as part of a reference group to look at the steps that might be able to be taken to make it easier for employers, for instance, to identify people who are working in Australia without a legal right to do so.Employers can already check with my department if they need information, and we are going to expand that arrangement with the addition of a toll-free number. We are going to implement a revised employer awareness campaign to ensure that employers are aware of their obligations when seeking to engage staff. But for employers who ignore the services and the information available and continue to employ people who are either here on tourist visas with no work rights or who are unlawful and have no entitlement to work in Australia, the reference group in the department that have assisted in relation to this have recommended a range of sanctions that might now be imposed.The proposals envisage that first offenders would be given a written notice and that there would then be an opportunity to focus on their obligations. However, employers who repeatedly and persistently take on people who are unlawful or who are on visitor visas will face sanctions including fines of up to $66,000 and up to two years in jail. The object here is to ensure that employers who are able to meet their legal obligations and to uphold the law are not at a disadvantage in relation to others who are seeking to exploit people's vulnerability.With this in mind, I am very conscious of the seasonal and short-term requirements of some industries. I have agreed to expand the working holidaymaker program this year to about 78,000 places, with an increase of something in the order of 13,000 places from the numbers issued this year. That should make it easy for a number of people in agribusinesses, as well as in some of the casual opportunities that exist in the Australian labour market, to be able to access people who can lawfully work on a casual basis.I have also decided to offer a fee waiver to all short-term business entrants travelling on the electronic travel authority. This will be a significant breakthrough for business travellers and will be of particular benefit to meeting the needs of conventions and exhibitions and the like that are held within Australia. Conventions generate something in the order of $3 billion for Australia's economy. The ETA system can work effectively to help in expanding that range of opportunities.Finally, I do intend to introduce a new sponsored visitor class with an optional security bond. This should further open up opportunities for family and business visitors and, I am sure, will be welcomed. The measures I have outlined today will be a boost to Australian industry. They do occur in a way which enables us to maintain the integrity of our immigration system and our border arrangements.1293712937Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the new GST kit distributed to all members of parliament yesterday, which is over 850 pages long. Prime Minister, given that you demonstrated in question time today that you do not understand your own tax, how do you expect the thousands of volunteers in my electorate to spend the hours necessary to read and comprehend this material so they can administer your complex new tax?12937Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I do not accept the premise on which the question is asked. But while I am on my feet, could I take the opportunity—8I4MARTINMr Martin—To correct an answer?ZD4Mr HOWARD—No, to correct a question asked by none other than the Leader of the Opposition. He asked me a question about the Thoroughbred Racing Board. I think he was referring to the Australian Racing Board; we will put that aside.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—How about answering the question you were asked?ZD4Mr HOWARD—He asked me a question about the tax system.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I was about to ask the Prime Minister, before I was so rudely interrupted, whether he was adding to an answer that he had earlier given and to invite him to do so at the conclusion of question time.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I would be perfectly happy to do it at the end of question time, Mr Speaker.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Answer this one!ZD4Mr HOWARD—The answer to the first question is: I do not accept the premise on which the question is based.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I heard the Prime Minister make that comment.1293712937Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the steps the government has taken to deal with any possible effects of Y2K on Australian travellers during the busy holiday season?12937Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the member for Boothby for his question. During this last sitting of the parliament before the year 2000, I think it is appropriate that he should ask such a question and that I have the opportunity to say something about Y2K preparations overseas. My department has been monitoring very carefully what other countries have been doing to prepare for the Y2K problem, including in discussions with foreign governments and representatives of key sectors in those countries and also with Australian telecommunications, aviation and power sectors and, over and above that, with the relevant UN specialised agencies. Since February, my department has provided advice to the Australian community on the international dimensions of Y2K. We have issued a large number of consular advices so that the public are aware of what the problems might be.On 7 October, in particular, an assessment was issued by my department on the impact of Y2K on key sectors in 70 countries in which the Australian government is represented. That information, for the information of the House, is available on the Internet. The media have also been briefed and the department has written to the travel industry, airlines and other relevant people. All Australian missions overseas have completed extensive Y2K checks and all key systems have been certified as compliant—so I hope they are. They have also put contingency plans in place to minimise the effect of Y2K disruption on essential consular services.In Canberra, a departmental task force will be operating on a 24-hour basis from 31 December 1999 to assess difficulties if and when they arise. In particular, it will address the impact on Australian exporters and also on consular services. So the department is doing all that it possibly can to ensure that the interests of Australians who are travelling at the time of the beginning of the millennium are properly protected. I would urge Australians who are thinking of travelling at that time to ensure that they keep in contact with my department's web site because that will be regularly updated to reflect information on major Y2K developments overseas.1293812938Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister and I refer to your promise that the GST will not increase any petrol prices. When you decide how much to cut the excise, are you going to base it on the highest pump price in regional Australia so there are no GST increases anywhere or are you going to base it on an average price, inclusive of the metropolitan price, so that it does not cost you revenue? Which promise will you keep, Prime Minister: no price rise anywhere or no more cost to revenue?12938Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Once again, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has misrepresented what was said by the government during the campaign. We said that the introduction of the system and the application of the GST of itself would not lead to price rises. No government can ever give a guarantee that, for market reasons, prices will not fluctuate—and you know that.DT4CREANMr Crean—You fraud!Honourable members interjecting—Mr Costello interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made an unnecessarily inflammatory remark which he in fact chose to repeat. I ask him to withdraw it.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.Government members interjecting—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I am trying to raise a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, you have not as yet been recognised. In fact the only reason that you were not recognised was because of some unfortunate remarks being made by those on my right. I now call the Manager of Opposition Business.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, if the word `fraud' is the word that has to be withdrawn, I have to say to you that it is not the first time that word has been used in question time today. It was used by ministers on the other side referring to the opposition. We do not accept that words used by the government about us are okay but that words used by us about the government need to be withdrawn.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—And nor does the chair. In fact, had there been any matter that had caused the Manager of Opposition Business—as he knows—to feel any indignation, he could have drawn the chair's attention to it and he would have been dealt with on an even-handed basis. On the instance to which I am just referring—that the Treasurer rose to draw my attention to—I am not suggesting that the word `fraud' should be regarded as a word that is always required to be withdrawn, but this was an instance where the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had, I thought, interjected in such a way as to not elevate the parliamentary standards. For that reason, I ask him to consider withdrawing it in the interests of parliamentary standards.DT4CREANMr Crean—The remark was not directed to the Treasurer. It was directed to the Prime Minister because of his answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I understand that.DT4CREANMr Crean—But, in respect to your position, I withdraw it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.1293812938Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The House has a choice as to how many times it wishes to hear the member for McEwen's question.JT4Ms BAILEY—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Mr Albanese interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler is warned!JT4Ms BAILEY—Is the minister aware of any attempts to roll back recent training reforms? What impact would this have on the ability of young Australians to access New Apprenticeships?12939Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for McEwen for her question. One of the reasons why apprenticeships have increased to record levels in Australia—they are now standing at about a quarter of a million—is that New Apprenticeships gives employers choice about who provides the off-the-job training. This is through the so-called user choice element of the New Apprenticeships system. Under this element, employers and apprentices can choose whether the off-the-job training will be provided by a TAFE or a private training provider. This means that the training meets the needs of the business and the needs of the employer. It has been a powerful factor in driving up the quality of off-the-job training under the New Apprenticeships system. Why businesses are so supportive of New Apprenticeships is that it is an enterprise friendly system that gives them training which increases their productivity and profitability.I am very disturbed to report to the House that last week the Victorian Labor government, under union pressure, decided to freeze user choice in Victoria. This means that no private training provider in Victoria will be allowed to increase the number of apprentices in the coming year. It also means that no new private training provider can enter the training market.Let us be very clear about this: employers like user choice. Victoria has reneged on the national policy agreed to by the ministerial council on training. As a result, many employers in Victoria will not be able to get the training they want for their employees. And it is very likely that many employers will be discouraged from taking on new apprentices next year in Victoria because of this ideological policy forced on the Labor government by the trade union movement.This illustrates what happens to training opportunities for young Australians when policy is controlled by a political party dominated by the trade unions. It is a lesson to all Victorians about why the Labor Party, when in office federally, strangled the apprenticeship system, what it is likely to mean in the future and what it would mean for a Labor Party led by a leader on an uncharted road, heading nowhere, waiting for the trade union movement to deliver training policy to that party.It is this government to which young Australians and businesses turn to create new opportunities for young people to get skills. It is the Labor Party and its supporters in the trade union movement who are choking off those opportunities.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice129391293916:16:0012939Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I seek to add to an answer. I think it was the Leader of the Opposition who asked me a question about the Thoroughbred Racing Board—the Australian Racing Board. In the course of question time, after inquiry, I was informed that the grant in question is $1.23 million. It covers 47,412 small to medium enterprises in the industry—I repeat: 47,412—and the amount involved is $1.23 million. I have also been informed that, in relation to the charitable sector, a number of major contracts are still in negotiation and they total $14 million, including a number of contracts for charities that are well known and respected in the Australian community.I would simply make the further point that the whole purpose of this approach in relation to the funnelling of funds through umbrella organisations such as the Australian Racing Board and the National Farmers Federation is recognising the reality that these organisations represent thousands upon thousands of small businesses. One of the purposes of the exercise is to use the good offices and the communication skills of these organisations to disseminate information. So far from there being anything odd about it, it is a matter of elementary commonsense that a government would do it. The figures that I have given indicate that there is no undue imbalance; there is no discrimination against the charitable sector, which was the implied allegation of the Leader of the Opposition. Once again, he is demonstrating how bereft he is of any alternative policy.Questions to the Speaker129401294012940McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—Mr Speaker, I address a question to you. On behalf of the opposition, I wonder whether I could raise with you whether you could take some initiative to restore one of the traditional courtesies in the House. We all know of the formalities which we accept at the start of question time: the Prime Minister comes in and advises of ministers who will not be in attendance. We accept that. That is the appropriate time for it to be done. By my understanding and advice is that, in the past, it has been traditional for the shadow minister and the opposition to be advised in advance of the likely absence of a minister.Government members interjecting—5I4Mr McMULLAN—No, I am not talking about the Senate. I will explain those procedures to you, if you like.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business has a question to me.5I4Mr McMULLAN—Thank you. That has not been the case. This has not caused the opposition any inconvenience to date, and we do not object to the proper process that it is officially advised when question time starts. That is what has always happened and that is how the whole House is informed. But we would ask you to see whether you can re-establish a process by which, if a minister is going to be absent, at least the shadow minister concerned might be advised in advance.12940Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will take up the matter raised by the Manager of Opposition Business. There are a number of important courtesies that are normally extended in the House that we might all be usefully reminded of on both sides. It might be useful to put out a note to that effect before parliament resumes next year. I am thinking of not only the matter raised by the manager, which I will take up, but also the matter of people entering and leaving the chamber and recognising the chair, not the occupant of the chair. That is a matter that seems to have slipped a little. A former Prime Minister in fact raised it with me in the lounge of the Melbourne airport recently. I thought I had better take action on it.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, in the context of the point raised, if the opposition wants to have a short seminar on courtesies on both sides, I think it might be productive.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Okay. We will sign you up to a contract.12940Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I remind the House that the Manager of Opposition Business has raised a valid point that I am happy to pursue. There are some other matters in which no-one intends to be other than courteous but which are sometimes simply overlooked. I will pursue those as well.Documents1294012940Reith, 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 .Questions to the Speaker129401294012940Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—There was a matter raised yesterday by the member for Cunningham that I thought it probably useful for me to address. The member for Cunningham asked me whether I had seen some media reports indicating that the Westpac branch at Parliament House was to close. I undertook to investigate this matter and report back to the House. The Joint House Department informs me that the current licence agreement with Westpac runs until 7 July 2000. The department has also advised that they have received no approaches from Westpac regarding closure of the branch. In fact, Mr David Lording, Head of Media Relations and Issues Management at Westpac Banking Corporation, issued a statement yesterday afternoon advising that Westpac `wish to make it absolutely clear that the bank has no plans to close the branch'.16:23:0012941Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Mr Speaker, thank you for your prompt response. Your response was far more courteous than the one that I received from Westpac.Matters of Public Importance129411294110000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Lilley proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The adverse impact of the GST on the not-for-profit sector which will seriously undermine their ability to deliver services to the community, and particularly to the most disadvantaged Australians.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—16:23:0012941Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—There are some 10,000 charities in this country worth approximately $25 billion that have literally millions of members and every one of those charities under this government is going to become a tax collector. But what is worse than that is that we had the Prime Minister and the Treasurer come into this House today and either deliberately mislead this House or, through sheer ignorance, display the fact that they are completely unaware of the impact of the GST on the charitable sector. The Prime Minister said that sponsorships would not attract the GST; they will. The Treasurer has come into this House yesterday and today and implied that charitable organisations with a turnover of less than $50,000 will not be affected by the GST; they will. They will literally pay hundreds of millions of dollars to this government, because this government is turning them into tax collectors.This government is going to tax compassion. This government is putting a tax on helping people. That is what happens when you apply the GST to the charitable sector. If the Prime Minister does not understand his own tax system, how can he expect those tens of thousands of volunteers right around this country who are about to be saddled with this enormous administrative burden to administer this system? We on this side of the House say exempt those charities because at the moment they are exempt—they are exempt from the wholesale sales tax.But this government will tax them coming and going. It is irrelevant whether they are worth $100,000 or more or less. What we have seen in this House in the last 24 hours is a government that is weak in taxing the strong and very, very strong in taxing the weak. The government will go to any lengths in this House to deny that that is what it is doing. It will go to any lengths in this House to mislead the community. This government is going to turn around and say to all those small P&Cs out there in the community, all those groups that help the homeless—by the way, there are over 100,000 homeless in this country—all of those groups where people go out to work for their community simply for the sheer joy and satisfaction of making their community a better place to live, `Some of you have to become accountants and the rest of you are going to have to work a lot harder in terms of administration, and you are going to have to raise a lot more money because we are going to take our share. We are going to take our take.'You are going to turn all those people into tax collectors, because what you are really on about is a fundamental change in how society is organised and who pays the tax. Rather than trickle down, which is the economic theory that you follow, what we have is this great flood up. We have a great flood of wealth that is just being sucked upwards, and part of sucking that wealth upwards is putting the GST on the charities of this country. So the wealthier get wealthier. And what happens? The poor and everybody else gets the GST. What could demonstrate that more than applying the GST to those organisations that devote their mission, their purpose in life, to looking after those who lose.This government go around saying that they are really good at defending the battlers. The Prime Minister used to talk about the battlers. All he does now is create them. What we see is a flood of poverty in this community. At the same time as we supposedly have great economic outcomes, homelessness is going up—we had the ABS figures recently—youth suicide is going up and the number of children who live in households where neither parent works is going up. In all the organisations that are supposed to look after those people, the reward for that is the GST. That is what you give them: it is a GST.Mr Anthony interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! Minister.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—We live in a community where a prominent family can spend $10 million on a wedding, where 100,000 people are homeless each night and where this government is so strapped for cash that it says, `We need some more so we better apply the GST to those 10,000 charitable organisations throughout our community.' It is so strapped for cash that that is its solution. Let us get through some of the technicalities. What you are doing is taxing people who help people. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and everybody else—and no doubt Larry over there—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, the minister. You try it every time.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—No doubt the minister over there will say, `It is not a problem because you will not pay the tax if your turnover is less than $50,000.' That is a lie! It is a lie, and everybody knows it, because those or ganisations with a turnover of less than $50,000 will pay the GST on all the services that they purchase. And they do not get it back. That is why they are becoming tax collectors. Of course, if the organisation has a turnover of over $100,000, it will get to contribute even more. While it can claim its credits back, those organisations get to pay the GST on the final product. So more money is sucked out of the charities. In addition to that, all those organisations will have to invest considerable resources in the administration of this dastardly tax. They will have to invest a lot more.Who was going to protect us from this? The Democrats were. They said their mission in life was to keep the bastards honest. At this stage, with the government, they are out there imposing this bastard tax on the charities. Nothing has changed.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I am prepared to allow you to quote something that has entered the language of the country, but you are not entitled to use unparliamentary language and you will withdraw that.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker, whatever it is. They are going to impose this illegitimate tax on 10,000 charities worth $25 billion. We heard what the horse breeding industry was given—fair enough; I am a big supporter of the racing industry—but the 10,000 voluntary organisations, which are worth $25 billion, get only $20 million while the racing industry gets $1 million and the Farmers Federation gets $15 million. Doesn't that really say a lot about your priorities, Minister. Doesn't that really say a lot about how you are so strong in attacking the weak and so weak in attacking the strong. It sums up the whole approach of this government across every area of policy: education, health and, of course, social security, but we have not got time to talk about that at great length.We have the ATO rulings. Here is the ATO ruling that the Prime Minister was either unaware of or deliberately misled the House about. He was asked about the impact on sponsorships. The truth is that the GST applies to sponsorships. The Prime Minister was in La-La Land; perhaps he has been spending a bit of time in the Tweed. The ATO ruling says:Sponsorships usually require the recipient to do something, for example, provide naming rights or advertising. The provision of these rights is a taxable supply. The sponsor generally will be entitled to input tax credits where it has been made as part of carrying on their enterprise.But of course if you are a financial institution, you do not get any credits back either, which was the whole point of the question. We have not had a more bumbling performance by a Prime Minister or a Treasurer in this House since Billy McMahon; since your father's day.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—My father has never been in that situation. You will address your remarks through the chair.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—In truth, he was a Deputy Prime Minister.XJ6ANTHONYMr Anthony—Your father?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, your father! If the member for Lilley could observe the standing orders, we could make some progress.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—I am suitably chastened. What every Australian needs to know is that this government, this Prime Minister, this Treasurer and this Minister for Community Services are just pickpockets. They are going to have their hands in the pockets of every charity in this country—all 25,000 of them. That is all summed up by these rulings, which are available on the Net. That is the tragedy of this. The Prime Minister comes in here today—we have been talking about these issues for the past three days—and he is completely unaware of the how and the why of taxing the charitable sector. God help us all if that is the extent of the understanding of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Community Services. This will only get worse. Hall Chadwick, Chartered Accountants, for example, have estimated that the administration cost alone of the GST will be between $500 million and $1 billion.I will quote some facts and figures. Let's look at the impact on Uniting Church services in Queensland. Blue Care has a net turnover of $210 million. They estimate the impact of the GST on them will be $2.6 million—that is, $2.6 million into your coffers. They have been turned into tax collectors. The Wesley Central Mission in Victoria has a turnover of $26 million. The impact of the GST on them will be $800,000—that is, $800,000 into your coffers, through your picking of pockets.NV5FORRESTMr Forrest—I raise a point of order in regard to what you have just been accused of, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member for Mallee, and I encourage the member for Lilley to proceed with a little more caution in his speech.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—I am inexperienced, Mr Deputy Speaker. In New South Wales, Burnside is a very well recognised and reputable organisation. Its turnover is $12 million; the impact of the GST on it will be $500,000. This is a tax on generosity, and they get you coming or going. There is a great furphy about charities whose budgets are beneath $100,000. I will quote from a letter I received today from the Council of Social Service of New South Wales:The Prime Minister's defence that community organisations with budgets beneath $100,000 per annum, will not have to register for the GST, does not offer much joy.In NSW, the majority of Government grants, whether solely State sourced, or provided through Commonwealth/State programs, would be close to or exceed $100,000 per annum.Once memberships, sales of publications and donations are taken into account, the $100,000 figure is readily breached.That brings us to the classic, where La-La Larry did not know what was going on a week and a half ago.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member will address the minister correctly. We have gone through this before; let's not have it again.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Certainly. I withdraw. The GST also applies to all government grants—Commonwealth, state and local—to charities. In my state of Queensland, the Queensland government makes something like $213 million worth of grants a year. All will have the GST applied. In Tweed, in the minister's electorate of Richmond, the Tweed Shire Council's grant to the local family centre will have the GST applied. The minister has told this House he will not assist the Tweed Shire Council with the problems that causes for his local family centre, and that is a real problem for him.Then we come to cash for comment. What a sting: when you pick the pockets of good hearted people, you can be bloody sure there is going to be a response.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Pardon?2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have to watch you today.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—You can be sure that very good hearted people involved in the charitable sector who work damn hard to help those more vulnerable are going to get fairly angry about this, and they have. So we have cash for comment, and we have the contract that they want them all to sign up for. It is not a standard contract; it is the one that says that they have to favourably comment if they want the money to give them a hand.This is blackmail; this is reprehensible. It is not the first time that the government have done this. It was only a few weeks ago that we were debating in this House the defunding of 12 women's organisations. Around that time they introduced this new contract, which ACOSS and a whole lot of peak organisations had to sign, and in it they had to say that they would not issue a public statement which was critical of the government if they signed the contract and got the money. So this contract is in that tradition, but because it comes from Treasury it is even harsher.83MPLIBERSEKMs Plibersek—It's censorship.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—That is exactly what it is—it is censorship. But it is not going to work because decent, hardworking Australians who volunteer their time, who do not get paid, who just want to make their country a better place to live in, are not going to be treated like this by the government. They most certainly will not. We have basically had an attempt to muzzle the agencies. This government claims it has a social coalition—government, business and the voluntary sector. It is supposed to be a three-legged stool, but they have cut one leg off. They have attacked the charities through the GST. They have applied this administrative problem. They are still mucking around with the FBT. They are taking resources away and so the stool falls over because it is just an attempt to make them look like they are compassionate conservatives—but that is an oxymoron.Under this government the meek do not inherit the earth; the greedy take it. That is their principle: hand it over to the top. You have only one favourite minority and that is the wealthy. That is demonstrated in this whole approach to the charitable sector, and you should be condemned. (Time expired)16:38:0012944Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—It is unfortunate that the member for Lilley uses fear and greed to prosecute his case today and quite scurrilously bring in a number of issues, including the suggestion, which I think is disgraceful, that this government is somehow responsible for the increase in youth suicide. That is disgusting and you should apologise. The member for Lilley should apologise to all the parents and loved ones, particularly those who came here the other day, for his irresponsible comments.To get onto the subject, the shadow minister has shamelessly distorted the facts, which is his stock-in-trade approach, to scare the most vulnerable in our community. The ALP tends to forget—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—We've learned off your old man.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—He certainly didn't learn off the member who was in the New South Wales lower house, I can assure you. What the members are interjecting on at the moment is the fact that, if we do not have a major reform in our taxation system, it will be impossible, as we move into the next century, not only to have a sustainable Commonwealth income base to provide social security—whether it is to people on pensions, Newstart, Youth Allowance or a whole range of government services, and particularly payments to charities, benevolent societies, religious organisations and non-profit organisations—but also to have a sustainable growing economy that can fairly raise revenue to ensure that you can then apportion it to people who are in need and their families to ensure that we have an equitable society.We do not want the type of society that we inherited when Labor left here in 1996. I think that is a point that we have to return to. If we had continued with the totally reckless policy platform of the Australian Labor Party, we would now have a Commonwealth debt that not only would be well over $100 billion but probably would be close to $150 billion. We would perhaps still have record interest rates—and let us not forget that they went to 18 per cent—but we would also have record unemployment, which had peaked at 11 per cent. You would still have a constant increase by stealth of taxation through the antiquated wholesale sales tax system.They are trying to tell us in this parliament that if the Australian Labor Party were in government it would be different. But with the policies they had there is no way that they could possibly sustain a proper incomes and retirement policy, let alone raise revenue into the next century under the mess of their 13 years of economic stewardship. That is precisely why the new tax system was put into place.We have made substantial accommodation for charities and non-profit organisations, despite what the member for Lilley is saying. The greatest thing is that we actually have a growing economy. We have the lowest unemployment for years and the lowest inflation rate for about 30 years. These are very positive for the battlers, for the people who are actually improving their livelihood rather than the vernacular that the member for Lilley uses on the actual expansion in poverty. Remember the phrase `No child shall live in poverty'? It was not made by a conservative Prime Minister. And of course we have seen an exploitation of the problem.We have ensured that, under the new tax system, we will put in a threshold of over $100,000 for charities. That means that if you are earning revenue, whether it is through lamington drives, the Scout movement, the lifesaving movement or other charitable organisations, if you have a turnover of under $100,000, you do not have to register within the system. By not registering within the system you do not have to charge the GST.One of the big benefits is that, for people who are in charitable organisations or people who rely on charitable organisations, down the track it might be more of an incentive for them to improve their living standards because of the benefits coming out of the new tax system—principally, that 80 per cent of Australians will pay no more than 30 per cent tax. There will be the abolition of seven wholesale sales taxes. All those taxes were there before. This MPI was actually on non-profit organisations and all non-profit organisations paid the wholesale sales tax. They could not claim it back. For the first time, they will be able to claim it back as a legitimate business input. That is a good thing for those organisations.In the past, most non-profit organisations did not have an exemption from the wholesale sales tax system, but now, if they have a turnover of $100,000, they can claim that back. They never had that before. If we look further on and look at some of the turnover figures, where a GST registered charity charges a fee for providing goods and services to people with a disability, to the aged or for child-care services, this fee will not be subject to a GST. Similarly, when goods and services or other services are provided on a non-commercial basis as part of the agency's charitable work, any fee will not be subject to a GST. So it is rather perplexing that the Australian Labor Party resort to their standard line of fear and scare tactics.JT4BAILEYMs Bailey—They've got nothing else. They've got no policies.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—Precisely as the honourable member says, they do not have any other policies. We are still waiting on their employment policy. But we have to ensure that under this new tax system we do broaden the base, that we do give incentive for people to work, that we can reduce the cost structure. By those means alone, perhaps there will be less reliance on some of those wonderful charities that all work in our electorates. That is, of course, the ultimate big picture of what we want to achieve. Nevertheless, we have put in specific concessions in specific areas to assist charities.Now let us look at the tax consultative committee that we have put in place. We have gone out to the charitable sector, to distinguished people, like Father Brian Lucas from the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney; Paul Bird from the Brotherhood of St Laurence; Lieutenant Colonel John Hodge from the Salvation Army; David Thompson from Mission Australia; Janet Kahler and John Landau from ACROD; Peter Davidson from the Australian Council of Social Service; Mike Myers from the Community Housing Federation of Australia; Chris Thorpe from St John Ambulance, who also represents Surf Lifesaving Australia and the Royal Lifesaving Society; the Australian Taxation Office; and many others.We have these people on board working though these issues with us. We are making terrific progress to ensure that we can look after charities, because of the special work that they do. But, no, of course the principal tactic of the Australian Labor Party is to put out fear and confusion, because they have no policies themselves.I would like to just acknowledge some other work that the Australian Taxation Office is doing to ensure that people do understand the system. The Australian tax office has consulted with the GST committee to provide seminars, train the trainer programs, books and facts sheets. It is good to see that the opposition indeed has plenty of that information, which perhaps they might like to pore over in the Christmas period.The Australian Democrats, I must admit, have been far more cooperative. That party, like the coalition, does have a sense of compassion and a sense of social justice in this cohesive social coalition that we are prosecuting. They have said that the committee has `significantly improved' the tax office's understanding of how the new tax system will affect charities and not-for-profit organisations. Senator Woodley even stated that the Democrats `are pleased with the progress that the committee has made' with GST-free status and increasing the range of goods and services that these organisations would receive tax free compared with the existing narrow sales tax exemption certificates.It is important that we actually have increased substantially welfare payments in this term of government, at a time when the unemployment level is dropping. Unemployment is going down but, because of our good policies—whether it is through the family payments, whether it is through aged care, whether it is the whole range that is covering the social spectrum—we are actually increasing expenditure. Why? Because we believe that every Australian should share in the economic growth of this country, and part of that of course is looking after those people who are in need.It is interesting that in 1997-98 the coalition spent almost $2.8 billion more in income support payments than was spent in 1995-96. This was at a time of dropping unemployment. That is almost an eight per cent increase in payments, despite the fact that, as I mentioned, unemployment is going down. In 1996 the government income support payments to families increased by almost 15 per cent. We are being extremely responsible to the vast majority of Australians—most of them being the 6.1 million customers of Centrelink—by increasing government payments, by ensuring that those Australians are given a hand up and also by ensuring that there is less demand put on the terrific work that volunteers and charities do in all electorates across Australia, probably even in the member for Lilley's.What are we doing for charities? We have actually allocated $10 million further towards helping them. Part of this is for the process of managing through the transition. There is $13 million in funding over four years to develop strategies which will encourage best practice partnerships and raise awareness of the value of partnerships. There is $51 million a year that the government is expected to forgo by implementing tax changes which encourage corporate giving. We have been quite open about this. We expect from this social coalition that business, communities and government will have a responsibility to those who are less fortunate than most of us in this parliament. Of course, part of that is the giving of generous income tax deductions.But what does bother me, though, is this crude comment that has come out, that this is a `cash for comment' deal. It is a cheap shot—but that is nothing unusual, of course—as is some of the language from the member from Lilley in this parliament that you quite correctly pulled up, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl.The fact is that we have said if you are a charitable organisation or a non-profit organisation and you are receiving a grant from the ATO specifically to help you to enhance your membership's knowledge of GST compliance issues, then we would like you to say, `Yes, the Commonwealth government gave me the money.' Is there anything unreasonable about that? This is taxpayers' money—let's face it—being utilised to help educate other taxpayers.JT4BAILEYMs Bailey—This is accountability.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—Of course, it is all about accountability. What we have said is, `Yes, we do want to see the material.' Why shouldn't we? Why should an organisation be lecturing on GST when they could be giving totally incorrect information to their members? We want to ensure that they get the correct information and certainly do not rely on listening to the Australian Labor Party.Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—`Rightfully', you have said. We would like to have a look at this material before you put it out, to ensure that there is adequate compliance, to ensure that when members walk away they do understand the new tax system that will come in and ultimately of course the benefits that will occur into the next century.Even, as I have quoted a few times in this parliament, Michael Raper—who is not known to be an enthusiastic supporter of the coalition, but who does a robust job in his role with the Australian Council of Social Service—said that similar contracts have existed before and that he did not believe that they would stop charities from attacking the government. That is totally the opposite of what the member for Lilley was trying to spin. The contracts are about community education and, in that context, are fairly standard. On this `cash for comments deal' I think perhaps they are getting totally confused. Maybe the member for Lilley could better spend his time being a desk jockey, like some of the others. We do know that he is elbowing his way through to the frontbench, and obviously having a bit of difficulty in the process.We are running a number of seminars, funded by the Commonwealth, on tax compliance, and this will of course go to non-profit organisations. As I have explained, we are putting in place a number of measures to assist charities to ensure that they can comply with the new system. Quite frankly, $100,000 is a very high threshold. How many lamington drives would reach $100,000? I mean, there would have to be a vast consumption of lamingtons or other items to knock that out. For the first time, as I mentioned, non-profit organisations can claim back a lot of the embedded taxes, which they cannot claim back now, and the direct taxes that used to exist under the old wholesale sales tax system.Let us face it, this system is working in 156 countries around the world and, of course, all charities and volunteer groups operate in those nations. What the Australian Labor Party is doing, and has been doing for the last couple of days, is running a concerted campaign of fear and greed and confusion. It is confusing the most vulnerable people at a time, in the lead up to Christmas, that for many Australians is not a happy time—maybe because they are on their own or because their families are a long way away. That is precisely why we are making those accommodations for charities. We want to make sure that in the next century we have an adequate tax system so that we can fund charities and non-profit organisations. (Time expired)16:53:0012947Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—The Minister for Community Services spoke in an MPI on charities on 23 November—I have read that speech which runs to a number of pages—and basically the speech he just gave was incredibly reminiscent of that earlier speech. He could have simply tabled it and saved us about 15 minutes. The impact of that speech on 23 November was about the same as the impact of this one.I have a few things to tell the Minister for Community Services. Newspeak, which this government makes an absolute day by day practice of—that less is more—was encapsulated in your speech and it has been encapsulated in every government announcement relating to this. It was in a speech by the Treasurer today in question time and one by the Prime Minister in question time. For this government, less is more—`Give them $100, take $10 tax out and, effectively, they get $90', but that is more. People out in the community do not believe that. They are not dumb. Most of them have heard of Nineteen Eighty Four. They have heard of newspeak and they have certainly heard of doublespeak, because we have had a lot of that since 1996 in this place from this government.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—They have heard of cash for comment too.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—They have heard of cash for comment as well. If cash for comment was mentioned, the minister did not like it because it is a newspeak government. One of the points the minister made about this was that you need a new tax system because you have to raise a lot of revenue because the Commonwealth government has to be able to provide a lot of new services. Here is another piece of news for the minister: all of the revenue raised from this GST goes to states. We are told by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer—if we can believe them—that not one penny or cent will go to the Commonwealth. It is all raised by the Commonwealth for the states. It is a fallacious argument, and we have had a few of those from the minister before.The Treasurer, however, specialises in specious arguments. In every answer that he has given to every question about these issues, both this week and in previous weeks, the specious argument he has used is that wholesale sales taxes have been embedded in the costs that charities paid under Labor. He might have added under the Fraser government, under the Menzies government, under all other governments which collected moneys through the wholesale sales tax system.I have said it before, and I say it again today, that what this government has imposed is a 10 per cent goods and services tax which is not fair and is not simple. The only simplicity in it is that it is 10 per cent on everything—all goods and all services except fresh food. The driving force of this tax is that it hits the disadvantaged hardest. That is where the great burden of it falls, and it falls there deliberately because that is part of the government's design. We see it in no better example than in this area of the not-for-profit organisations.The minister may have gone to the matter of the MPI and may even have been relevant to it. What does it say? It says:The adverse impact of the GST on the not-for-profit sector which will seriously undermine their ability to deliver services to the community, and particularly to the most disadvantaged Australians.We were told on 23 November and again today, and I am sure it will be repeated, that the Labor Party is just scaremongering, that it is worrying groups in the community who have nothing to worry about whatsoever because the Labor Party simply does not understand what the legislation means and what its impact is.The shadow Attorney-General was good enough to hand me a press release just a few minutes ago from a group called Learning Links. That group is in Peakhurst in the electorate of Banks. Learning Links put this press release out today. They are worried. They have not been scared by what the Labor Party has said; they have been scared witless by what the Australian Taxation Office has said and by the rulings that it has made—rulings which have been reinforced today by the government.Before I go to that press release, and I will shortly because it gives their direct response, I want to make a couple of points about the Prime Minister's and the Treasurer's performance in question time dealing with the issue of these entities. They said, `You do not have to worry about charities and not-for-profit organisations. If they are under $100,000, they will not have to register and they will not have to put in for a GST return. They will not have to worry about any of those things.' The Prime Minister said, `That principle is clear. What they will have to do, and I am advised by the Treasurer that this is the case, is organise themselves so that they set these things up separately.' We were told later that the tax commissioner is the person who has helped to organise this through rulings.We mostly hear about associated entities in regard to things like the Greenfields Foundation, which is very close to the Liberal Party of Australia. They have finally admitted that that is an associated entity. In all my experience of the tax office, the tax office's attitude to associated entities is that, if you deliberately set up your organisation with a series of activities that are designed to either minimise or avoid tax, then the Australian Taxation Office will go after those associated entities. If their purpose and design is to deliberately get out of this new GST, it is passing strange if there is an Australian Taxation Office commissioner in there making the ruling when all past tax practice has regarded those kinds of approaches as being inappropriate.We know that the Prime Minister was Treasurer of this nation from 1978 to 1983. We know his attitude to reports from Treasury in relation to tax avoidance and evasion. We know about his laxity and the lack of speed with which he moved on the bottom of the harbour funds and schemes. We know all of that. He has got form in regard to this, so he may know a little about people who manipulate the taxation system. But if what he and the Treasurer said today is correct, basically they are advising the not-for-profit and charitable sector to organise itself to avoid and evade this tax by setting up associated entities.It will be interesting to see what happens over time with Australian Taxation Office rulings—if that is the case—because it is unprecedented in this parliament and in this country. What do Learning Links have to say for themselves, on their own and unprompted except on the basis of their discussions with the ATO and the ATO's rulings? Their media release reads:GST hits charities and the people they help.Charities have been hit hard by recent GST rulings that will further tax their already stretched resources.The ruling that all Government Grants to charities will be subject to GST has serious consequences for people dependent on their help. Like all charities, Learning Links will have to return one-eleventh of every grant to the Government, effectively representing a loss of income of this amount.This means less funds to provide speech therapy, special tuition, occupational therapy, family counselling and other vital services for children who have difficulty learning.In dollar terms, Learning Links will lose $16,850 next year and in a full year over $33,000. This translates to a loss of 308 hours of therapy and educational and family counselling as well as the possible cancelling of one of our services.This is a shame. It is a direct outcome of this government's imposition on not-for-profit organisations of the most regressive, flattest and most brutal tax they could have thought of. What is this organisation asking for? And what are the other organisations—like the St Vincent de Paul Society, who have argued with the government, who have been in those counselling services, been in the councils with them and argued with the tax office—asking for? They are asking for something very simple: `Leave us out of the GST, exempt us, let us be as we were, don't put this enormous administrative burden onto not-for-profit organisations and charities, onto the volunteer groups who help to keep this country running and functioning. Leave us out of it! Make the exception, don't bring us into this massive net.' The government's specious argument that the wholesale sales tax nobbled these groups before is utter and complete nonsense. They were exempt. When they bought goods, they put in an item 63(a) tax exemption form and paid zero wholesale sales tax. The notion that there was a long, stringing line of embedded taxes that would massively impact on them is entirely ludicrous. An organisation such as this with two workers would make nearly $100,000 a year. This should be condemned. Just exempt them, Larry. (Time expired)17:03:0012949Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—As I was listening to the honourable member for Lilley at the beginning of this MPI, I was reminded of Benjamin Disraeli's remarks that it is easier to be critical than correct. If hype, raised voices and personal abuse were a substitute for a convincing and sustainable argument, the member for Lilley might have made some progress. But in the end that is all he offers: raised voices and hype and some personal abuse. Looking at what the opposition is saying by way of their various questions at question time today and their contributions to this debate, I think you can narrow it down to about three topics that ordinary Australians will understand. They can be summarised as cakes, clothing and donations.Let us deal with cakes first since we have heard over the last couple days that the lamington sale, the cakes that are sold at the local fete, the school or outside the church will be subject to the new horrendous reign of the GST. Let us take what currently happens with a cake. If somebody is making a cake for the purpose of donating it to a fete and that person goes out and buys the ingredients, contrary to what the member for Blaxland would have us believe in his contribution of a moment ago, a whole range of ingredients going into that cake are subject to wholesale sales tax. Whether it is the milk, the flour, the eggs or the transport costs involved in getting those products from the farm gate through the supermarket chains to the kitchen of the person making this cake, we know today that they are subject to wholesale sales tax.It may well be that they are donated by the person making the cake, but nonetheless wholesale sales taxes are embedded in that cake at the present time. In fact, a person making a cake to donate to the local fete, under the new system after 1 July next year, will be making a cake with products which are largely, if not entirely, free of GST because a range of fresh goods are exempt from the GST. The flour, the eggs and the milk that go into making that cake are not subject to the GST. The person donating the cake will undoubtedly be in a situation on and after 1 July next year where the product that they are donating to the local fete is less expensive for them to donate than it is at the present time. Moreover, the sale of that cake, when it is undertaken by the local kindergarten, child-care centre, preschool or primary school, is not subject to GST if the activity—running the fete in this instance—does not involve a turnover of more than $100,000.So when one calmly and carefully looks at the actual situation which has been raised in this overblown hype by the opposition this afternoon in relation to one of the precise examples they raised in question time—the sale of a cake through a fete—one finds that it in fact is not subject to the GST. In fact, the charities that are involved in this situation are not subject to the GST at all.The point has been made that somehow there is a whole range of lamington stalls and cake stalls out there that are turning over more than $100,000. If that should happen to be the case, it is entirely open for the entity to separate their activities so that none of them exceeds the $100,000. The member for Blaxland was incredulous about this, but may I refer him to some comments made not by a member of the government but by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation for the GST, Mr Matthews, on Sydney radio this morning. He said in his comments that the charitable sector will now have a choice. Where a fundraiser, like a lamington drive, is under $50,000, they can choose whether they want to bring that into the system. But, if they have three lamington drives, and if they wish to, they can account for them separately. They can apply the rate to different events.So, contrary to what the member for Blaxland was suggesting, here is a senior officer of the Australian Taxation Office—not a member of the government—Mr Matthews, the deputy commissioner for the GST component within the Australian Taxation Office, saying quite clearly on public radio in Sydney this morning and broadcast right throughout that state and other parts of the country too that the scaremongering, if I can put it that way, by the honourable member for Blaxland is precisely that. It is not a matter which the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation agrees with. That is dealing with cakes and dealing with the entities concerned.Let me take very simply and very calmly the second issue that has been raised by the opposition: clothing. The honourable member for Kingston asked a question in question time today, along with other questions that were asked, relating to clothing. If donated second-hand goods are supplied—by the op-shop run by the St Vincent de Paul Society or a whole range of other such charitable institutions right throughout this country who do a wonderful job—whether it is clothing, dolls, furniture or whatever, the GST simply does not apply. Nor does the GST apply if they sell those goods.Opposition members interjecting—HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—If the honourable members would just take it easy, they would find that those entities can be divided. So you can have different branches or chapters, as you do, of St Vincent de Paul and other organisations within the total structure of such organisations within a state or within the nation. So, just like cakes, when one actually applies some logic to what is being spoken about, one can see that the claims made by the opposition are, once again, without foundation.The question of donations was raised—the third issue—and the simple answer to that, in language which members of the opposition can understand, is that donations are not subject to the GST. So when one takes the precise three items that have been identified by the opposition throughout question time today and yesterday and in this MPI—cakes, clothing and donations—and one looks at the way in which the system operates, one can see simply that this GST does not apply to charities in the way in which they say.I was interested in the fact that the honourable member for Lilley's matter of public importance spoke about the adverse impact of the GST on the not-for-profit sector. The not-for-profit sector is much broader than the charitable sector. I wonder whether the honourable member for Lilley is suggesting to this House that all the commercial activities and all the merchandising carried out by not-for-profit agencies and organisations within the Australian community should not be subject to the GST. Is he seriously suggesting to this House and to the people of Australia that the huge commercial merchandising activities of the National Rugby League, the Australian Football League, the Australian Cricket Board or the Australian Soccer Board are not-for-profit—84GWILKIEMr Wilkie—They're not charities. Charity—C-H-A-R-I-T-Y.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—I am sorry, the honourable member interjects, but can I read for him what the MPI, written by the honourable member for Lilley, his shadow minister, actually refers to. It refers to the not-for-profit sector. The not-for-profit sector is not just charities, and I take it from this MPI that the member for Lilley is proposing that somehow the GST should not apply to the Australian Football League, the National Rugby League, the Australian Cricket Board, the Socceroos and all those other organisations which are involved in multimillion dollar merchandising activities right throughout the country. That is what his motion before the House today says.You ought to actually understand what the not-for-profit sector is. A not-for-profit organisation is one which does not distribute its profit, but that does not mean that some of them are not running major commercial operations. The reality is that this debate is, once again, the sort of hyped-up, over-the-top expression by the opposition, who have no policies, who have nowhere to go so far as actually putting forward something positive for Australia is concerned. So they come in here nitpicking, scaremongering and trying to raise fear amongst people. When it is explained in simple, understandable logic, as I have tried to do this afternoon, it simply indicates that what they are proposing is a load of nonsense.This is just another example of the scaremongering which the opposition is engaged in. It ought to be condemned for that because it is worthless debate in this place. Those opposite should come in here with some policies, come in here with some proper proposals, sit down and actually debate real matters of substance to the Australian people rather than what they have come in here with this afternoon.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion is now concluded.Miscellaneous1295210000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 8 December 1999, at 9.40 a.m., as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Miscellaneous12952Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—agreed to:(1) the following Bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration: War Crimes Amendment Bill 1999, and Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 1999, and(2) the following order of the day, committee and delegation reports, be referred to the Main Committee for debate: Procedure—Standing Committee—Report on community involvement in the procedures and practices of the House of Representatives and its committees—Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate, and motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate.Bills12952r82912952Consideration resumed from 25 November.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 52, page 37 (line 5), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; (k) special benefit.(2) Clause 129, page 107 (line 5), omit "and section 130".(3) Clause 130, page 109 (lines 1 to 7), omit the clause.(4) Clause 143, page 118 (line 10), omit "sections 144 and 146", substitute "section 146".(5) Clause 143, page 118 (line 17), omit "sections 144 and 146", substitute "section 146".(6) Clause 144, page 119 (lines 16 to 23), omit the clause.(7) Clause 164, page 135 (lines 4 to 7), omit subclause (1), substitute:(1) The Executive Director may direct that a hearing be conducted without oral submissions from the parties if: (a) the Executive Director considers that the review hearing could be determined fairly on the basis of written submissions by the parties; and (b) all parties to the review consent to the hearing being conducted without oral submissions.(8) Clause 171, page 138 (lines 4 to 13), omit the clause.(9) Schedule 3, clause 11, page 211 (line 20), omit "3", substitute "4".17:15:0012952Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.The Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 was passed by the Senate with amendments. The government is prepared to accept the amendments made by the Senate. It is disappointing that the recommendations of the Guilfoyle report that were contained in this bill were not received more favourably by the opposition and the Democrats. Indeed, the recommendation set out by Dame Margaret Guilfoyle gave a clear blueprint for positive change. Giving the Social Security Appeals Tribunal the ability to consider matters without having to convey an oral hearing if not required provided a means for prompt and precise decisions to be made. Furthermore, the 52-week limit on lodging appeals on reviewable decisions of the Centrelink authorised review officer to the SSAT would have provided a more consistent approach. Nevertheless, the government accepts the amendments.17:17:0012952Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—This cave-in by the government represents a victory for the Labor Party in our determination to represent those ordinary working class Australians who most need assistance from government. We have helped to stem the tide of government hostility towards those less privileged than members of parliament: the poor, the unemployed, the elderly, those Australians from non-English-speaking backgrounds—all those people who this uncaring, selfish government regard as the enemy. This government has an attitude that the more vulnerable you are the more open you should be to attack and discrimination.It is ironic that the government keeps claiming that these bills, as amended by the Senate and which will now be passed, are about simplifying social security legislation in Australia. The government seems to have absolutely no idea about the history of social security legislation in this country. The fact is that for over 50 years we have had one Social Security Act. Everything you needed to know about social security was in that act. The government seems to be under the misapprehension that by pulling this act apart and replacing it with three separate acts it will simplify social security legislation. It is a bit like its simplification of the new tax system where we see hundreds of pages of legislation to make it so-called simple.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—So simplified the Prime Minister cannot answer questions.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—As the member for Batman correctly points out, it is so simple that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer this week have both been caught out.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Imagine if we asked Larry.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—We have done the right thing; we have not even bothered asking the Minister for Community Services because that would just be too hard. The fact is nothing could be further from the truth. In some cases it will be necessary to go to all three acts to work out whether a person is eligible for a payment. How the government think ordinary Australians will be able to keep up with these complicated changes is beyond me. The government are not interested in helping people claim their entitlements. They want people to miss out. That is their idea of budgetary constraint: take people off benefits, attack people for what they are entitled to. They do not understand these regulations and they do not want people to be able to appeal if they discover they have been wronged.There are a number of amendments successfully agreed to by the Senate and which have now been accepted by the government. I want to outline those. The first is on time limits. The government wanted to restrict access for people to appeal against Centrelink decisions. They wanted to place a time limit of 52 weeks for an internal review by an authorised review officer and a time limit of a mere 28 days if you wished to seek an appeal from the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Labor and the Democrats defeated these draconian policies that would have helped bar Australians with language difficulties or Australians with literacy and numeracy difficulties from successfully appealing against Centrelink mistakes.The movement by the government to set time limits for appeals was not only opposed by the Labor Party but also strenuously opposed by ACOSS, the community and charitable sector who were all outraged by this proposal. St Saviour's Neighbourhood Centre in Goulburn wrote a letter to my colleague the shadow minister for family and community services, the member for Lilley. In it they said:Many social security recipients have literacy, numeracy and language barriers . . . Not surprisingly, many low income people face situations of crisis—for example homelessness, illness or domestic violence. Under these circumstances it is unreasonable to provide a short period in which to appeal.What the government and many tabloid newspapers around the country forget is that it is not easy—in fact, impossible—to claim benefits to which you are not entitled, and the opposition is very clear about only wanting people to be eligible who are properly entitled. But it is not easy to live comfortably on social security payments. It is a constant struggle for these people. We should be ensuring that they do get what they are entitled to.The second raft of amendments which we moved related to the process of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. (Extension of time granted) Labor's amendment allowed people to present submissions to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal by oral submission rather than by purely written submission, as was wanted by the government. This was totally consistent with the nature of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. It is not a judicial body. It is a body which is about giving ordinary people access to justice. The coalition, it would appear, simply do not care if an elderly pensioner is wrongly robbed of their social security payment. They want to place barriers to this person seeking review, seeking justice before the system.Purely written submissions would have been an enormous disincentive to many Australians—for example, those from non-English-speaking backgrounds, those with literacy difficulties, the aged—seeking review of Centrelink decisions. It is an important principle that we have ensured will remain in the system by allowing that informal dialogue to occur before the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.The third area which we were successful in amending was that of fresh evidence being allowed to be presented at the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Our aim was to get the quickest and fairest result from the appeals system. All available evidence must therefore be presented at the time of the appeal. Labor believes the tribunal should be able to make a decision on the spot, on the basis of the evidence before the tribunal. The government's original legislation required, upon the acquisition of new evidence, the applicant and the department to go back to square one and start all over again. What a stupid proposal. The Social Security Appeals Tribunal operates under a merits review process. It is not a chamber of judicial review. All applicable evidence must be before it so that it can operate according to the principles of natural justice. Labor has delivered this through our amendments in the Senate.The other question that comes up there is: how would the appellants have known that they were not able to introduce fresh evidence? Most of these appellants appeal only once. They are appearing before the tribunal for the first time. They are not lawyers, they are not QCs; they are people who have missed out on their rights to proper social security benefits. Therefore, had this been allowed, it would have been an extremely discriminatory provision.The fourth amendment which has been accepted by the government in this complete cave-in by the minister is to maintain the maximum number of members to constitute an SSAT hearing at four people. This amendment does not require four people at every hearing but it ensures that, in difficult cases, this can occur. That is important, so that you have a broad range of people present. You can have someone from the department, you can have someone with health expertise, and you can have someone with judicial expertise. You thereby ensure that the appellant gets a proper and fair hearing. That is also an entirely appropriate amendment.Before we successfully amended this legislation, it represented a backward step. It represented an attack on people's rights. They were going to restrict the time limit in which they could appeal. They were going to restrict the way in which they gave evidence: it had to be written evidence. They were going to change the way that the hearings occurred so that fresh evidence would not be allowed to be presented. And they were going to restrict the number of people who could actually sit on the SSAT during the hearing. It was draconian, it was unfair, and it was rejected by the Senate.It is systematic, perhaps, that you have a government which has now accepted our amendments. Perhaps I will make this offer to the minister: next time, just accept it first time around in the House of Representatives. Take our experience from government in creating a social justice system that Australia can be proud of. Take the advice and cop it sweet and we will save a lot of debate in both the Senate and the House. What we have seen here is your attempt to take away people's rights. Entrenched discrimination against people who are social security beneficiaries has been defeated in the Senate and is now being defeated by the fact that you have acquiesced to our amendments in this House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills12954r83012954Consideration resumed from 25 November.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 4, page 38 (after line 4), before item 1, insert:1A Subsections 107(1), (2) and (3)Repeal the subsections. Note: The heading to section 107 is altered by omitting "time limits and ".(2) Schedule 4, item 1, page 38 (lines 5 to 13), omit the item.17:28:0012955Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.Once again, the government is prepared to accept the amendments made by the Senate to the Social Security (Administration and International Agreements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 . However, it must be said that the amendments to the bill are more problematic. Amendments (1) and (2) to the bill would have the effect of removing time limits for payment of arrears and dispute debt recovery for family assistance law. This opens the way for unlimited arrears of family assistance payments.The removal of time limits for seeking review under social security law has a different effect. The social security law contains specific rules that limit social security arrears payments. The removal of the time limits therefore only relates to disputing social security debt recovery. The government feels that this distinction has not been fully appreciated.While the government is prepared to accept the Senate amendments at this time, the issue of arrears of family assistance will need to be revisited before the commencement of the new family assistance regime. I would like to thank the member for Grayndler for his contribution to the debate. He is not known for his modesty; nevertheless, he made a worthy contribution to the debate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills12955r84712955Debate resumed from 28 June, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.17:29:0012955Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—On behalf of the opposition, I propose to outline the opposition's response to the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . This bill has been hanging around for a couple of years. This bill was presented to the previous parliament and lapsed with the last parliament at the 1998 election. It was presented in substantially similar terms and has previously been the subject of consideration by a Senate committee.Last week, the government indicated at short notice that it proposed to ensure passage of the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 through the House and the Senate this week. I first saw a copy of the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 on Friday last week but, since that time—through discussion with industry and between the government and the opposition—we have got ourselves into a position where we ought to be able to see the passage of these two bills through the House tonight. Whether the Senate passes them in the course of this week is a matter for the exercise of the Senate's discretion. We would hope that they exercise that discretion wisely.The government has requested that these two bills be passed through the House tonight. As a consequence, I will not take as much time as I would otherwise in outlining the opposition's response to the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 , so as to ensure that my colleagues have plenty of time to deal with their own contributions. Amendments have been circulated on behalf of the government and amendments have been circulated in my name to the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . But, on the basis of discussion outside the chamber in the last couple of days, my understanding is that these amendments will be agreed all round.The Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 as presented to the parliament deals essentially with three separate subject matters. The first is the anti-hoarding provisions. These buttress the anti-siphoning provisions which were introduced by the previous Labor government. The anti-siphoning provisions have the effect that iconic or classic sports events continue to be shown on free-to-air TV and are not only available on pay TV. The anti-hoarding provisions do precisely that: they seek to ensure that a commercial free to air operator who has the rights to broadcast live a particular listed sporting event—an event or series of events which is listed under the anti-siphoning regime—cannot hoard those. If they have the rights, they are obliged to show those events live. If they do not show those events live, there is a regime which is proposed in accordance with this bill, which I will come to subsequently.The second discrete subject area in the bill as presented to the House is in respect of retransmission—what regime ought to apply to the retransmission by pay TV or the subscription TV industry of free-to-air channel broadcasts, what are the underlying rights of the copyright holders and what regime ought to be put in place for retransmission. The current law, reflected by both the Broadcasting Services Act and a Federal Court decision, has the effect that the pay TV industry can effectively retransmit free-to-air commercial broadcasts without requiring permission or consent or payment of any fee either to the free-to-air commercial station or to any underlying copyright holder.The third discrete area is in respect of broadcast by pay TV into regional free-to-air areas. A pay TV provider or a member of the subscription TV industry may well, as part of its channel selection, seek to broadcast by way of retransmission free-to-air channels from a metropolitan area into a regional market. The bill proposes restrictions to be placed on that retransmission so as to ensure that a metropolitan free-to-air channel rebroadcast or retransmitted by a pay TV channel does not disturb the sanctity of the regional television market. I think that is known as `sectoral industry policy', which has abounded in public policy approach to media and broadcasting for a considerable period of time.As I indicated, these substantive provisions were contained in the bill presented to the 1998 parliament and were the subject, subsequently, of a Senate committee report. In the course of that report, Labor senators recommended—as far as the retransmission provisions were concerned—that, in the absence of a commercial agreement between a free-to-air commercial TV and a subscription TV industry player, there ought to be some arbitration or conciliation mechanism and that, in the anti-hoarding areas, there ought to be timetables put in place so as to ensure the timely arrangements for decisions in respect of anti-hoarding.I will deal with retransmission first because the government amendments which have been circulated have the effect of excising or deleting the retransmission provisions in this bill. That is because the free-to-air industry, represented by FACTS, has failed to agree on any of these matters with the subscription TV industry, represented by ASTRA, which has failed to agree to any of the suggestions I have made outside the chamber in respect of appropriate arrangements.In the absence of any agreement between the industry—in the absence of any divine inspiration which has seen the opposition able to agree with the pay TV industry, the pay TV industry agree with the free to air industry or any of the above agree with the government—a sensible course has occurred. It is proposed that this area be excised so as to ensure the effective non-contentious areas, which make a positive benefit to public policy in the areas of anti-hoarding and transmission into regional areas, can be enacted in the course of this year. The effect of the government amendments as circulated, as far as the retransmission parts of the legislation are concerned, is to effectively withdraw that part of the bill from the House's consideration.Retransmission will of course come back to confront the parliament as early as next year. The Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999 , which has previously been before the House, was the subject yesterday of a report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. It deals with retransmission in the digital age, so the parliament and the members of this House will be confronted with the retransmission issue, as will the industry, pay TV and free-to-air TV—both in its analog and digital variety—before too much more time expires. I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we support the government's amendment to excise the retransmission provisions from the current bill.As I indicated, the anti-hoarding provisions complement and buttress the anti-siphoning arrangements put in place by the previous Labor government and they are supported by the current government. The substantive and simple effect of the anti-hoarding provisions is that, if a commercial TV free-to-air operator has the live to air rights for a particular sporting event or series of events which are in the list of events contained in the anti-siphoning regime and it proposes not to show that event live, the free-to-air commercial broadcaster is obliged to offer that event to the national broadcasters for a cursory fee of $1. If either of the national broadcasters—the ABC or SBS—fail or refuse to take up, or exercise their discretion not to take up, the prospect of broadcasting that event live, then effectively, by default, that event can go to the pay TV industry.The amendments which have been, or shortly will be, circulated in my name reflect the minority report of Labor senators that there ought to be timely consideration of these matters. The effect of these amendments is that, at least 30 days prior to the commencement of an event or series of events covered by the anti-siphoning and anti-hoarding provisions, a free-to-air commercial broadcaster must exercise a decision as to whether it is proposing to broadcast live or not. If it decides not to broadcast live then, not less than 30 days prior to the event, it must make the offer to a national broadcaster and the national broadcasters have seven days within which to make a decision as to their own transmission of that live event. That timely mechanism is in order to give the pay TV industry or the relevant subscription TV provider the opportunity to alert its customers to the proposed subscription TV broadcast of a particular live event. I understand that the government has no difficulties with the amendments circulated to that effect.The third area covered by this bill is, as I indicated earlier, the provisions to ensure that regional free-to-air TV markets are not disturbed by a retransmission by a subscription TV operator of a metropolitan broadcaster. As I have indicated, those provisions are supported by the government. The government has also circulated amendments relating to the anti-siphoning provisions. The insertion of the anti-siphoning provisions causes one to grapple with the fact that we live in a big country where the sun comes up on one side and takes a long time to go down on the other side. This is the cause of the different time zones between Western Australia, the Northern Territory and South Australia, and some regional areas of New South Wales. The government has circulated amendments which have the effect of compartmentalising a western and a southern time zone, which consists of Western Australia, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Broken Hill.The problem arises in the following way. One of the events, or series of events, covered by the anti-hoarding and anti-siphoning regime, as it exists and as is proposed by the bill, is one-day cricket. If you are an avid cricket fan—which I understand is contagious in this place—and a one-day World Series cricket game commences in Sydney at 2 p.m. and concludes at 10 p.m. Sydney time and you happen to be interested in watching that game in Western Australia and that game was broadcast live in Western Australia during daylight-saving hours, which generally apply in the eastern states around the festive season, then the transmission of that game live into Western Australia would see it conclude at 7 p.m. The obvious argument here is: do you advantage the consumer by insisting upon a live broadcast into Western Australia or do you disadvantage the consumer by not insisting upon a live broadcast into Western Australia? The road which the government's amendments go down seeks to effectively confirm what occurs at the moment in practice—that is, if there is a one-day game commencing in Sydney at 2 p.m. and concluding at 10 p.m. Sydney time, then it is shown in Western Australia commencing at 2 p.m. Western Australian time and concluding at 10 p.m. Western Australian time. It is shown as if it were live but with the two- or three-hour gap, depending upon daylight saving. I must say that one tends to pick up two completely different views as far as consumers are concerned, and I have experience only from a Western Australian point of view. My view as a consumer is that, if the game is happening live, I would prefer to see it live. If I listen to it on the radio live—which is invariably the case with an ABC radio broadcast—once I know the result I am not interested in the outcome and will not watch it on TV. I find it impossible to isolate myself—put myself in a cone of silence—and therefore put myself into a position where I do not know the outcome of the game prior to its telecast. The contrary view is that people do put themselves in a cone of silence, and they would prefer to get home from work, discharge their obligations to their spouses and their children and sit down at 7 p.m. western standard time and watch the last three hours of the game, either in blissful ignorance as to the outcome of the game or with complete indifference as to the outcome of the game.In Western Australia, we have been trained on delayed broadcasts of West Coast Eagles and Dockers games. People will avidly listen to the radio broadcast of a live West Coast Eagles or Dockers game on a Sunday afternoon from Subiaco Oval, hear the result and then walk straight into their lounge rooms to watch the beginning of the game on a delayed telecast from Subiaco Oval.I have no objection to the course that the government proposes to go down. It is of convenience to the programming of the free-to-air television industry and, whilst that is a relevant consideration, in the end there is a relevant consideration for consumers as well. Whilst I have no objection to the government's amendment in this regard, I do think that it would be appropriate, after a period of time of consumer experience of this regime, to review these provisions to see whether the consumer might have a different or contrary view.As part of the amendments which I have circulated, there is a provision for the anti-hoarding provisions of this bill to be the subject of a review by the minister after two years and a report to parliament. The minister has indicated to me that he has no difficulty with that amendment. I was quite happy to confine the review to the western/southern time zone amendments. But the minister, as I understand it, was entirely happy to have a general review, and I am grateful in that respect.To draw those threads to a conclusion, the opposition supports the bill as presented and as proposed to be amended by the government. We support the anti-hoarding regime as a complement to the anti-syphoning regime. We support the notion of the protection of a regional free-to-air TV market in the face of retransmission of a metropolitan TV market via a subscription TV provider. We understand the reasons for the effective withdrawal of the retransmission provisions of this bill.I again urge the two arms of the industry, the subscription television industry and the free-to-air television industry, to seek to do their best to come to an amicable agreement on this matter. If they do not, as sure as night follows day, sooner rather than later, the parliament will find a solution for them. In this area, in my view, it is always better for the industry to find a solution which suits them commercially and in practice which is in the public interest rather than for the parliament or the Senate to find a solution which they may well discover is imposed upon them. So they are effectively on notice both so far as concerns retransmission in analog and retransmission in digital, with the digital agenda to be presented to us in the course of next year.Concerning the government's amendments, in respect of the anti-hoarding western/southern time zone provisions, they are supported but supported on the basis that the government supports the review of these provisions, which I understand to be the case, and on the basis that the government supports the timely mechanisms which would seek to ensure that orderly decisions are made in this way. That approach should see this bill pass through the House tonight. Hopefully, we will then see the Senate, before it rises at the end of this week, do the right thing to enable the enactment of these provisions, which I do think add to better public policy and better broadcasting and media arrangements in this country.17:49:0012959Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I would like to address two of the main provisions of the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 and touch on a third raised by the shadow minister for communications—namely, the anti-hoarding regime designed to improve the opportunities for live television coverage of designated events and series; and regional area program restrictions on pay TV operators to protect regional broadcasters from look-alike metropolitan programming. In the spirit of tonight's debate, I do not intend to take my full time. It is pleasing to see that the government and the opposition are in broad agreement on this as a matter of good public policy.I would like to deal firstly with this bill's anti-hoarding amendments. They will prevent free-to-air broadcasters from obtaining and not using the rights to show certain sporting events and events of national significance. Under the current provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act, free-to-air broadcasters are given priority access to the purchasing of broadcasting rights to a wide range of major sporting events. However, there is nothing to actively encourage broadcasters to use these rights, and they can delay coverage or televise only a small portion of the event. A notable example of alleged hoarding that sparked public outcry recently was Channel 9's purchase of the live rights to the 1997 Ashes cricket series. Although it had purchased the rights, Channel 9 decided not to show the first session of the test matches because it would disrupt prime time programming.The amendments address the hoarding issue by placing a `must offer' obligation on the free-to-air broadcaster who has the live broadcasting rights. If the broadcaster does not intend to use the rights, it will have to offer the unused rights to the ABC or SBS for a nominal charge. If the ABC and SBS do not have any need for these programs or do not have the desire to use them, then they can be made available to other segments of the industry.Amendments to the anti-hoarding provisions will enable the minister to make a determina tion to allow television coverage of a designated event or series in Australia's central and western time zones to be delayed by no more than the time difference with the eastern time zone. The shadow minister outlined that very clearly. In short, where a day-night match begins at 2 p.m. in Sydney, a delayed televising of the match could be allowed in Perth so that Perth viewers would enjoy the same viewing as Sydney in the same time slot. As the shadow minister pointed out, that may be a two- or three-hour delay, depending on daylight saving.The second provision in this bill that I would like to deal with is designed to ensure that TV operators give precedence to retransmitting regional signals where there is an overlap between regional and metropolitan licence areas. Television consumers in rural and regional areas are already disadvantaged from their metropolitan counterparts because of the lack of diversity of content and less choice. Currently, in the six places where metropolitan and regional licence areas overlap, pay TV operators can retransmit the metropolitan programming. While regional and metropolitan licensees broadcast a lot of the same programs, regional licensees also have to televise their local news, sport and special advertising. If these local broadcasts were replaced, it could have a detrimental effect on advertising revenue for the regional broadcaster and could threaten the integrity of the licence area concept.The amendments address this problem by preventing a regional pay TV operator from providing a free-to-air metropolitan television service if three or more consecutive program items are identical to any three or more consecutive program items broadcast by the regional broadcaster in prime viewing hours—that is, between 6 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. This reflects an industry agreement on regional protection. It is not something the government is imposing on people; it is something that is broadly agreed.The Broadcasting Services Act 1992 currently allows retransmission of free-to-air television services without permission or compensation to the originating broadcasters. Schedule 3 of the bill was to have introduced a new retransmission regime where those wishing to retransmit a free-to-air signal would generally require the consent of the originating broadcaster. The government is removing the retransmission provisions in schedule 3 of the bill to allow for further consultation, as the shadow minister outlined.This ensures that the current retransmission rules override the digital agenda bill provisions dealing with broadcaster rights which would come into effect on the passage of the digital agenda bill. However, provision has been made so that the current retransmission provisions and this amendment would not override the digital agenda bill provisions dealing with underlying rights. Retransmitters will be required by the digital agenda bill to pay remuneration to rights holders in underlying program material. As a result of this, another proposed change to the bill is an amendment to vary the commencement of schedules 2 and 3 of the bill from three months after royal assent to 28 days after royal assent.I would like to speak briefly about the retransmission regime. When pay TV licensees began operating in Australia in 1995, Foxtel added free-to-air programs to its services offering subscribers a one-stop shop. The commercial free-to-air broadcasters took action in the Federal Court to try to prevent this but were unsuccessful. The practical outcome of this decision is that almost any person can retransmit the programs of a free-to-air broadcaster without restraint. The pay TV industry undoubtedly derives a commercial advantage by rebroadcasting the signals of a free-to-air station. The availability of free-to-air signals on pay TV adds to pay TV's attractiveness for potential subscribers. Clearly then the pay TV industry is benefiting from a property right without consent or without compensation.But there are mutual benefits to both the free-to-air and pay TV sectors in retransmission. While the free-to-air broadcasters' audience share may be diminished if pay TV subscribers choose other channels, free-to-air stations retain access to a viewing audience that they would otherwise lose if retransmission ceased. While the pay TV industry may be damaged if retransmission ceased, the commercial networks could also lose viewers and would harm themselves and their advertisers if they prevented retransmission, because obviously that segment of the market would probably be gone for all time.Provisions in schedule 3, which permit the ABA to authorise broadcaster transmissions beyond the licence area to address black spot reception problems, are expanded in the bill. These provisions implement the spirit of the government's black spots TV funding program, which we hope will come into practice early next year. I would like to speak briefly on that because I have two classic areas of black spots in my own electorate. One is the area between Bundaberg and Gladstone right on the Queensland coast where some 4,000 to 5,000 citizens have very poor television transmission, if any at all. They are forced into pay television or to put up with this indifferent service. At most they get one or two channels.The other area is at Mount Morgan, which is on the outskirts of Rockhampton. Because of its topography—it is a very hilly area—great areas of the township cannot pick up a TV signal from Rockhampton, which is less than 50 kilometres away. That is also a problem area for me. And, to a lesser extent, a third area—the Boyne Valley—also suffers from poor transmission, and this black spots program will be a great boon to it.The legislation recognises that there are special public interest considerations relating to remote areas. Thus the bill contains exemptions from consent requirements for self-help providers and people in remote areas. Under these exemptions, organisations such as councils, community groups, bodies corporate of blocks of units, hotels and remote Aboriginal communities can legally transmit free-to-air signals without the broadcaster's consent. These provisions are intended to assist people in situations where signal quality is poor or non-existent. It could help this black spots problem, though it may not solve it completely.So, in winding up, the new provisions will establish a consistent process by the ABA to approve both out-of-area transmission by broadcasters of their own signal in the black spot areas and out-of-area retransmission by self-help groups and others. In particular, the new provisions will permit the ABA to approve direct-to-home-satellite out-of-area transmissions to address the black spot reception problems. I and my electors have suffered from this long held inconsistency in delivery of television broadcasting services and we look forward to both the provisions of this bill and the full implementation of black spot funding in the coming year.18:01:0012961Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Sport has come into the centre of media policy not just in this legislation—the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 —and its anti-hoarding provisions but in public concerns about the creeping commercialisation of sport. Media companies are trying to buy up and control sporting content. This is inevitably compromising the public's control of sport. Supporters and spectators—the people who commit themselves emotionally to their team and their code—feel like they are losing control and ownership. Emotionally, they are the owners of rugby, AFL and cricket teams. They want sport to act in their interest, satisfying their passionate commitment to the game. When they see their team or code controlled by commercial interests, driven not by emotion but by profit, they naturally have cause for concern.Historically, sport has come from the people. It has been community based and community controlled. Now in a world of mass entertainment and mass commercial media, it is becoming a big business. The mass media needs to be understood as commerce. When it gets a commercial interest in the ownership and broadcasting of sporting events, then sport becomes just another form of commerce.As the House knows, I am not someone with an irrational opposition to market forces. In its right and proper role, the market is a creative force for economic prosperity and efficiency. There is not, however, a market solution for every social issue and problem. Part of the art of good public policy is to know the limits of the market. Indeed, I often feel that to know the market is to know its limits. It is not a good way of running those parts of our lives where we have a strong emotional commitment. The market is not good at managing emotional investments. It creates problems of inequity and alienation whenever it gets hold of social capital—the relationship and bonds between people. For this reason, we do not let the market run our family lives and, wherever commercialisation has crept in with things like prenuptial agreements, there has been a great deal of public concern and unease. We do not let the market run our friendships or control our relationships. So too we should not allow our emotional commitment to sport to be controlled by commerce.I say that we should be winding back the creeping commercialisation of sport in this country. I am greatly concerned by this trend, which is driven by the mass media and I suppose, to a lesser extent, by the cult of the celebrity. If the Olympics had not become just another form of big business, then today it would not be plagued by IOC corruption scandals, premium ticketing controversies and widespread public disillusionment. If rugby league had not sold itself out with a long-term contract to Channel 9, it would never have been taken over by another media company—News Ltd. If Australian cricket had not been captured by the commercial interests of Channel 9, then perhaps there would have been no need for the anti-hoarding provisions in this particular piece of legislation. The public interest is not served by the media's ownership and control of sport.This was seen in the recent cover-up by Channel 9, protecting Shane Warne in the `can't bowl, can't throw' sledge against Scott Muller. Fantastic excuses were invented to preserve Channel 9's commercial interest in Mr Warne. All those years that I have been watching cricket, all those years when I thought it was Dennis Lillee with the raucous, bellowing, loud appeal, all those years when I thought it was Ian Healy yelling out `Bowled, Shane', and now I find out it was actually the cameraman.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—It was Joe the cameraman.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—It was Joe the cameraman, as the member for Moreton points out. In 30 years of watching cricket, I have never heard a cameraman offering commentary, but this is the fantastic claim that we are now expected to believe. One thing for sure is that Scott Muller has no doubt about the source of the sledge. In the cricket fraternity, this view, I am sure, is widely shared. It strikes me that Joe the cameraman is in fact Joe the patsy. Channel 9 has a bad habit of treating the cricketing public as mugs. How else could they have offered us Ray Martin as an expert commentator during the World Cup?WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—That's a bit hard on Ray.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Order! The member for Werriwa has the floor.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Maybe the member for Corio has more confidence in Ray than I do. Maybe Ray is okay at ACA but not fronting the cricket commentary. How else could they have told us during one of the World Cup telecasts that it was live to air when in fact it had been delayed several hours. I believe broadcasting companies should be prohibited from owning sports codes, sports teams and sports content. The danger to the public interest is too great, the risk of a commercial conflict of interest is also great and the possibility of anticompetitive behaviour is all too clear.I draw the attention of the House to the decision of the United Kingdom Monopolies and Mergers Commission earlier this year to block BSkyB's merger with Manchester United. This gained international attention. It was an attempt by BSkyB to effectively take over the famous internationally successful Manchester United soccer team. The ruling that was offered by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should be a model for competition policy and sports broadcasting in Australia. Let me quote the relevant ruling to the House. It says:. . . we have concluded that the merger may be expected to reduce the chances of anyone other than BSkyB winning the Premier League rights in the foreseeable future, [and in these circumstances] the barriers to entry to the sports channel market may be expected to be even greater as a result of the merger. BSkyB told us that its prices were constrained by the threat of entry. Because this threat would be reduced by the merger, it follows that the prices for Sky sports channels may be expected to increase by more than would otherwise be the case. In particular, any reduction in the price that BSkyB paid for Premier League rights as a result of its bidding advantages would be unlikely to be passed on to consumers.The finding goes on:We have based our public interest conclusions mainly on the effects of the merger on competition among broadcasters. However, we also think that the merger would adversely affect football in two ways. First, it would reinforce the existing trend towards greater inequality of wealth between clubs, thus weakening the smaller ones. Second, it would give BSkyB additional influence over Premier League decisions relating to the organization of football, leading to some decisions which did not reflect the long-term interests of football. On both counts the merger may be expected to have the adverse effect of damaging the quality of British football. This adverse effect would be more pronounced if the merger precipitated other mergers between broadcasters and Premier League clubs.The Monopolies and Mergers Commission was basically saying that it is not healthy for broadcasters to own sporting teams. In the Australian context, it would not be healthy for a broadcaster to own the great Geelong football club, which is supported by the member for Corio, or the great West Tigers Rugby League Club in my electorate. The two points that have been made in Britain, and I believe they apply here, are as follows: first, ownership of a club obviously makes it easier—and, indeed, anticompetitive—for the broadcaster to get the exclusive broadcast rights for that code; second, the broadcaster, in owning a club, would run the club more in their own interests than in the public interest.To wind back the creeping commercialisation of Australian sport, that is the sort of rule we should be writing into our statutes. That is the sort of rule—the separation of sporting club ownership and broadcasting rights—which should be written into the brief of the ACCC. It gives rise to the question: who should own sporting clubs in Australia? I believe the members should own them. We should be looking at mutual and cooperative ownership structures so that the people who commit themselves emotionally and passionately to their club and their code can have a direct say in the ownership and management of their particular passion.Mutual and cooperative structures are not unusual in the world of sport. Even in what is probably the most commercialised sporting code in the world, United States gridiron, there is one mutually owned club—the famous Green Bay Packers, which is actually owned by the people of Green Bay. That particular team stands out as a beacon of community control, community aspiration, community emotion and community ownership. I dread the day when, in Australia, all the sporting teams in our major codes are commercially owned. More so, I dread the day when—and, unfortunately, it has happened in rugby league—a broadcasting interest is a major stakeholder. We need to change the rules, not just to guard against anti-hoarding, so there is a clear separation of the ownership and content of sport from the broadcasting rights in the Australian media environment.This particular provision is not just on these questions of sport. This piece of legislation and the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 , which is to be debated later on, deal with content quotas. I see the separation of sport ownership and broadcasting rights as an effective way of dealing with this issue. It certainly adds to the argument. We need to face up to the fact that, whether we like it or not, technological change is wiping out the effectiveness of content quotas. It is doing it in three significant ways. First, with the advent of pay TV, quotas do not seem to make as much sense in a pay-as-you-go market. The second technological change raises the question: what do we do about Australian content quotas if the broadcast is piped in from overseas, as is a very real possibility in the television industry? Third, how do we place content quotas on the Internet? Members would know it is an impossibility to place content quotas on the Internet. It is hard enough to regulate the Net without going down the path of an Australian content quota. The same argument applies to datacasting, and datacasting is now exercising the minds of many members as they grapple with various decisions about digital TV.The truth is that these converged technologies open up a new era of choice and mobili ty—enormous choice for consumers but also greater mobility of information and broadcasting across national boundaries. For that reason, content quotas of the old kind are becoming redundant. The parliament needs to devise new principles on this issue of cultural integrity, and I would argue that we need to do it now. Now is not the time for incremental thinking on broadcasting policy. We are facing a revolution in the communications world; we need framework thinking to respond to it. We do not need an incremental course; we need a framework of public policy.I advocate the following framework when it comes to the issue of Australian content quotas. Five principles should apply. The first of those is to recognise that our culture will evolve over time. Our culture is alive in the choices and interests of our people. This is what we celebrate as a pluralistic society. It is good to expose Australians to culturally diverse choices in the world of entertainment and their various information options. This is what, in another context, we call multiculturalism: people being exposed to many cultures, many options, many choices and many sources of information. It is indeed the great promise of the information age—the promise of unlimited choice and unlimited possibility. We should not restrict access to alternative cultures.The second principle is that it is getting very hard to define Australianness in the commercial and media world. Commercial TV, I believe, has made a mockery of this argument of content quotas. It is very hard to define Sale of the Century or 60 Minutes as unique pieces of Australian cultural property when we all know that they are cheap remakes of American programs. Commercial TV in this country does not offer choice. Their news, current affairs and entertainment formats basically offer the same types of programs in the same format of entertainment and information. In many cases, we all know they have lifted programs from the United States and stuck some Australian people in front of the camera. There is very little on commercial TV in Australia which can be defined as a unique piece of Australian cultural property.The third principle is that Australian cultural products, of course, have an in-built competitive advantage. We all know that nationalistic sentiment in our country is strong. We want it that way. If Australians are strongly supportive of our nation's cultural products, then of course those products will have a good chance to stand on their own legs commercially.The fourth principle is that we need, more than ever, a strong role for the ABC. This turning point, this time of cultural revolution, is the time to make the ABC stronger. If we want quality Australian drama, quality entertainment, distinctive information and production coming out of the Australian TV sector, we need it from the ABC. Of course, that is not just for TV; it is also for the vital radio programs of the ABC. Our argument about Australian content and Australian production quality now relies very much on expanding the services, the funding and the opportunities for the ABC to further develop its role.The fifth and final principle I would bring to the House's attention is that we need to make innovative use of competition policy. I believe we would foster integrity and public access to unique items of Australian interest, such as sport and the arts, by separating the ownership of their content from the broadcasting rights that might apply to them—that is, no broadcaster should own Australian sport or artistic content. That, I believe, in an era of converged technology and information revolution, is the most effective way of preserving this notion of Australian cultural quality and integrity.This is an era of broadcasting revolution. The dumbest thing we can do is be incremental. We do need framework thinking, rather than the incremental approach which has dogged this parliament for decades, really, on communications policy. Digital TV is very much a watershed in the convergence of technology. It has the potential to bring computer, TV, radio, newspaper and Internet technology into the one format. Now is the time for a framework of policy on these big issues. The digital TV decision brings to gether the three big ones in communication policy—the technological convergence, the pressure on the content rules and, of course, the longstanding and vexed question of cross-media rules in this country.We need a framework. We need guiding principles to take us through this communications revolution. If I could advocate three framework principles, they would be as follows. The first is to find a way to make the converged technology affordable and accessible. If we need a guiding light in the digital TV decision, I believe it should be three rules: choice, choice and more choice. This is a chance to massively expand the choices available to Australian television consumers, to broaden the competition for commercial TV and to bring more competitors into that market. This should happen without a restrictive datacasting definition and also with the full use of multichannelling.Digital TV is an important decision, and it is my great belief that we need to follow the recommendations of the Productivity Commission. I will not have the time to give the full detail, but I refer honourable members to page Nos XXXI, XXXII and XXXIII of its recent report on broadcasting services. Among all the bombardment of material we are receiving on digital TV, they are the three pages you need to read. They offer the basis of choice, choice and more choice on digital TV in an affordable way which can bring this technology within the reach of the average Australian and give them the advantages of the information revolution.The second principle would be to preserve the impact of the existing cross-media rules—that is, the separation of old TV and print technologies. I note the recent comments of the President of the Australian Democrats, Michael Macklin, who said that those provisions should be grandfathered. It is probably the first time in this parliament I have ever quoted someone from the Democrats. It is probably the first time I have ever seen them say anything sensible or worthy of consideration. I think Mr Macklin's policy on cross-media rules needs to be seriously considered in that regard.The third principle is the one I have tried to emphasise in this speech: to separate the ownership and commercial broadcasting rights when it comes to unique items of cultural interest and importance in this country. If we followed those three principles through in policy, we would do a lot better than with the current incremental approach. We would also do a lot better than the current proprietor driven approach, which of course is an issue under this government, which has a very close relationship with the Packer organisation.For politicians, of course, media policy is a fascinating issue. It is one of those public issues—perhaps the only one—which tends to turn strong men and strong women into jelly. It turns hardened backroom operators into nervous puppies, wetting themselves in fear of the political power of the media giants. I would argue—as Dick Morris in his great book The New Prince has argued recently—that in a world of unlimited information and choice these media giants are in fact paper tigers. The last thing this parliament needs is another round of proprietor driven media policy from the Howard government. The last thing we need is further incrementalism down that path. We need framework thinking not just on this piece of legislation but on the huge issues facing us in coming months on digital TV.18:20:0012965Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I welcome the contribution from the member for Werriwa to this debate on the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . A number of aspects of what he has contributed today I would readily agree with; some I would like further discussion with him on. Nevertheless, we do have a multi-point plan, a framework on which we could make some judgment of his contribution to this debate. I must say, out of all those opposite, at least the member for Werriwa is working on something called policy. We do not hear that from the opposition on virtually any matter. At least there is in the comments of the member for Werriwa some semblance of critique of the previous Keating and Hawke government eras of media policy based on a proprietor driven approach. That is certainly not an approach that has been adopted by this government, which is very, very conscious of the converging atmosphere in which technology has now driven the media—print, radio, television and, of course, the emerging media, the new media, of the Internet.The converging atmosphere that the member for Werriwa spoke about certainly does start to make redundant questions about cross-media ownership. There is no doubt about that. It is important, though, having agreed with that concept and that approach, we do not rush headlong into any sort of `what keeps one person happy' versus `what keeps another person happy' kind of debate. The government is not involved in that kind of process.I think the government's approach in this whole area of broadcasting services has been very much that of the gate opener rather than the gate keeper to recognise that new technology is driving the debate in a way that none of us in this place can possibly hope to keep up with. You cannot hope as a legislator, listening to the various arguments that are put to you by the various and rather heavily vested interests that exist, to try to crystal ball where the media is going to be tomorrow let alone where it is going to be in 10 years. I believe what the government has been doing, particularly in the area to do with digital television in recent times, has been to say, `This is where it should be going, this is where it could be going. We will leave a number of the doors open and see where those things go. We will then have an open field where we can make an assessment.'Inherent in the government's television industry legislation—the legislation that governs this industry that has been discussed in the matter to do with digital television—there is the provision for review. The important contribution that the government has made is to hasten slowly, to provide some direction based on the best advice of those who are involved in industry today about where the industry may go tomorrow. I think that is a sensible approach, and I am always pleased to endorse it.The bill before us today is all about, as we head down those paths, protecting the people, ensuring that the hoarding of certain content does not retard the opportunity for all Australians—be they in South Australia or Western Australia or regional and rural Australia—to see some of the things that people down the eastern seaboard see, generally more live shows than those in other parts of Australia because of the time zone shifts. So this government is protecting Australians in regional Australia. It is making sure that regional Australians do not miss out on certain content that would automatically be made available in the more lucrative and larger markets of Sydney and Melbourne and, I suspect, Brisbane.The owners of content and the owners of the means of distribution of that content are at the heart of any argument about the media. The member for Werriwa contributed to the debate with some interesting observations about the owners of sport content. I suspect there is a lot of merit, in an emotional sense, to what he had to say today. I contributed to the debate about the unfortunate situation with South Sydney fighting for their very life not because I am a great fan of Souths but because the principle of that club, owned by the club members and supported by so many hundreds of thousands of people over the years, is now being threatened simply because of the commercial reality of selling sport coverage, be it in paper or television form.The fact that the owners of content and the owners of distribution are the powerbrokers in the media is something that is not going to go away. All of the major players today are themselves lining it up. You only have to look at exactly what is going on with News Ltd now owning 20th Century Fox—they are loaded to the gunwales with content. They do not have the means to distribute so currently they are trying to get access to some means of distribution. The Packer organisation obviously have great means of distribution and have been acquiring content—in fact, hoarding a lot of content. So, while this bill today handles one aspect of the hoarding of material, there are other aspects that need to be debated and discussed as we go along. There is a great responsibility on media owners to play fair. We can provide legisla tion to try to protect people but, at the end of the day, the media owners themselves have to try to play fair in this regard.In the few moments left before we all head off for dinner, I want to raise the serious matter of the responsibility of a fair press in the content that television puts to air. I think we should also be debating that matter in this place. I am sure all members would defend the right of a free press but I say there is a responsibility of a fair press. It concerns me greatly that content is not going to air, debate is not being heard, views are not being expressed through television stations in this country because of the daily caucusing of journalists, and it happens in this place. I said it a few years ago and I had the president of the press gallery come down on me like a ton of bricks, but it does happen in this place. That journalists, daily, decide what is and what is not the story of the day and decide what is and what is not going to go to air is a statement of fact.It is a matter of grave concern to me that people who legitimately would like to hear a range of views expressed and have those reported so that people can get some understanding are not getting that. It concerns me greatly that this caucusing of news has brought about a narrowing rather than a widening of the debate that occurs in this country on a range of things. There needs to be some serious work done on exactly how the people of Australia gain some feeling of empowerment over the media. When the media reports on something occurring, Australians feel totally powerless to comment one way or the other about whether that report was fair or otherwise.It is interesting that, as an exercise, a few weeks ago I promoted the concept of a media ombudsman to see whether there could be some process by which people could bring their views to an independent organisation to make some assessment about whether media responsibility—fair press as well as free press—was being upheld. Of course, not one journalist has bothered to report it, which in itself probably proves my point that there is a demonstration—Mr Latham interjecting—CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—It is true—as the member for Werriwa is gesturing to me—that only the Australian Associated Press journalist is here right now, and more strength to that organisation for being in the parliament and suffering with the debate that is occurring right now. It is a matter of grave concern to me that an exercise of power, keeping things off the agenda, happens every day in this country—be it because of the vested interests of certain media organisations who want to get a certain line up or be it because of the lethargic nature of those who defend the right of the press instead of promoting the responsibility of the press. I do not know what it is, but it is a debate that we need to keep raising in this place because a free society depends on a free press. Unless we have proper and open debate on the range of issues that are demonstrated daily, from the views that are put in this place, then I believe this country has a threat to its basic core democracy.The contribution of the member for Werriwa has inspired me to perhaps raise again the question of whether it is a media ombudsman or some other mechanism that we need to give the people of Australia some empowerment, some feeling that they have a way of calling to account the conduct of those who report daily the news and views of this country and that shape opinions. In a lot of ways that then becomes the basis by which historians log the history of this nation.This bill goes a long way to protecting sport and other matters but, as I have said in my contribution today, there are other matters that we need to continually raise in this place. I, for one—and I would welcome the member for Werriwa's contribution any time—will continue to raise these matters, because they are important to all Australians.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:0012967Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—The Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 is another piece of very good government legislation brought forward as part of an election commitment. It will put in place policy which is not only good for Australia but particularly good for regional Australia. Regional Australia is at times seen as the part of Australia that misses out. It is important that, as the government puts in place legislation, we take into special consideration the needs of our rural people and of our people who live outside the large metropolitan centres and away from the coast.The seat that I represent is particularly blessed in media and infrastructure but, at the same time, we still have people who look for a greater variety of television programming and better introduction of programs which, at this stage, they do not always get. Further west, we have difficulty at times in even getting the really important things of life—some might say the necessities of life—such as the cricket and State of Origin broadcasts. This bill will start to ensure that those sporting programs and other programs of cultural and community interest are available through our regional television networks.Looking at the opening part of the bill, the anti-hoarding regime will prevent free-to-air television broadcasters from obtaining but not using the rights to certain sporting events. This will be of great comfort to those people who live away from our metropolitan centres, who do not have the opportunity that many of our city cousins enjoy of slipping down to the Gabba, the WACA or the MCG to watch the cricket, or taking in an afternoon at Ballymore or the Sydney Football Stadium. It is important to these people in regional areas that they have access to programs which will provide them with both entertainment and value in a cultural sense.The anti-hoarding provisions will require that commercial free-to-air broadcasters who acquire the rights to programs are obliged to use them or offer them to the ABC or to the SBS for a nominal fee of $1. There is no particular onus on the ABC or SBS to then rebroadcast these programs, but it is hard to see that they would let the opportunity pass them by, particularly if they are given enough notice. The failure of the free-to-air networks to abide by this legislation will result in a $220,000 fine.Regional people rely heavily on their media and on their television broadcasts to maintain links with other areas in the outside world. The advent of television, which happened in my region when I was just eight years old, has certainly given us an insight that we want to improve on. We have seen in regional areas the introduction of what is commonly or euphemistically termed `cable television', and whilst that has certainly brought new programming and entertainment options to our regional areas it is important that this step does not in any way jeopardise the regional television networks that are there.Regional television is a very tough game. It needs to ensure that the programs it offers are not siphoned off. The opportunity that a commercial regional television station has to gain a good level of commercial advertising from the region's businessmen needs to be maximised. Commercial television, apart from running local ads—the value of which we, as consumers, might argue about—certainly gives local business men and women a great opportunity to promote their businesses, but that is only a part of what is important in regional commercial television.Regional commercial television, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, also provides a great local perspective. I think too often in this decade we have seen the media moguls of Australia centralising media to the capital cities. Where you have a local regional broadcaster, such as I have in Toowoomba in the form of WIN, which broadcasts not only local news, current affairs and sporting information but also local community information, it is important that we continue to give it the confidence and support it needs to maintain that sort of programming. All too often regional commercial operations try to centralise those operations in one of their provincial cities. I think this legislation will be added encouragement for them and for stations like WIN to continue to broadcast on a local regional basis. Also important to the constituents that you and I represent, Mr Deputy Speaker, is the local weather information that goes out via these regional television stations. It is important that people feel as though they are getting news which is important to their community.Communities in regional Australia are under a great deal of pressure. As we well know, it is something that our government is doing a great deal about. To have access to normal entertainment—as people in the city would term television programming—and to have a strong and commercially viable broadcasting system in the regions are going to be important in keeping our people in those regions up to date and entertained. The government's action in this regard also goes further, but as yet we are still negotiating on the parts relating to the retransmission of programs. Retransmission of programs in outlying areas is sometimes done by local councils which take a very strong leadership role in their communities. Rebroadcasted commercial television across their towns and local communities is something that we will also be keen to see continue and something that this bill in time will facilitate.If we look at where regional communities have sought their entertainment and watch how broadcasting in those regions is going to continue, it is obvious that this sort of legislative change is certainly going to be welcomed. These days there is not a lot of good news out in the bush. Therefore, it is important that, when the government has the opportunity such as we do have here with this legislation, we do the job properly. It is also very heartening to see that the Labor Party are not opposing this legislation to any great extent. While they will certainly raise issues, and they have been very constructive in some of the negotiations that have taken place already, the overall result will be a win for regional Australia and for all of Australia because, as I said at the outset, this legislation is very good for all of us.In regional Australia, television is also going to play an important role, as we move into the next century, in providing information, particularly marketing information, both through the free-to-air commercial facilities and through the Internet to backup those facilities which are now being used more and more in the bush by our farmers and primary producers. Again, the government is playing a very strong role in that area to ensure that people who live away from the coast, particularly west of the Great Divide, are getting better access to the Internet through upgrades in the technical facilities that are supplying what we used to know as a standard telephone service. They will be able to get that sort of market information on a daily basis. In fact I find it fascinating that farmers are now dialling up that sort of information from the cabs of their tractors and from the saddles of their horses and making marketing decisions based on the information that is being provided to them.This legislation will also send a clear message to commercial broadcasters of free-to-air television that the government has their interests at heart. Whilst we will certainly make sure that normal commercial principles remain, we will also ensure that fair competition remains, and I guess that has been very much the aim of this legislation.I hope that, as a result of this legislation being passed and free-to-air programming being used more greatly, we will see the gap that exists at times between the city and the bush start to close. It is important that all people in Australia have access to basic forms of services and entertainment, and information is certainly one of them. We in Australia have enjoyed a great uptake of technical data and facilities—we are amongst the world leaders in the uptake of new technology. It is important that we then have the backup in terms of the broadcasting facilities to ensure that the programming on television, in particular, is of a standard that people will enjoy watching.I certainly commend this legislation to the House. As I said at the outset, it is legislation that gives a clear indication that this is a government which has a commitment to the bush, has a commitment to regional Australia and, of course, has a commitment to all Australians. It is a government which continues to look at what needs to be done to improve the lot of all Australians. I commend this legislation to the House.20:11:0012969McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—in reply—I wish to thank all the members who participated in this debate on the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . I might start off with the member for Groom while he is still in the chamber. That was a very vigorous explanation of the government's policy objectives as they apply to his rural constituency, based on Toowoomba and even further afield. It was a very useful contribution to the debate. I liked the way he emphasised the need for regional commercial television to remain competitive and broadcast on a local regional basis. Representing a rural constituency myself—Gippsland in Victoria—I can only strongly agree with these sentiments. After all, local regional services are extremely important to keeping people in regional areas informed and entertained.He also mentioned the role the government is playing in helping people in regional areas to gain access to other services like the Internet. With members like the member for Groom pushing the government to continually build upon and expand the access and enjoyment of telecommunications services for people in rural areas, we will continue to deliver.I turn now to the contribution of the shadow minister for telecommunications, the honourable member for Perth. I thank him for his support for the bill on behalf of the opposition. In fact, it was almost embarrassing to hear his praise for the government's constructive policy and good governance and how we worked well with stakeholders. He was quite glowing in his endorsement of the government's legislation.I have no doubt at all that that bipartisanship should extend to the government's tax reform—the way we have cut back capital gains tax, which is such an impediment to information technology and high-tech companies starting up. What about the abolition of sales tax, which has bedevilled the telecommunications and information technology sectors? We look forward to his support on those issues. He must be taking his lead from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Hotham, in his endorsement of government policy.Nonetheless, as always, he has very thoughtfully considered the legislation, and he noted the importance of the anti-hoarding provisions to buttress the operation of the anti-siphoning regime—a very shrewd point of his to highlight. The government is willing to accept the amendments circulated by the member for Perth and touched upon during his address, and I would like to make some comments on those amendments.The opposition's amendments to the offer time provisions of schedule 1 aim to provide greater certainty for the commercial and national television broadcasters in the operation of the proposed anti-hoarding rule. Under these amendments, the national broadcasters will normally receive an offer of unwanted broadcast rights at least 30 days before the commencement of an event. At the same time, the proposed amendments will provide the minister with a measure of flexibility to reduce this offer time to no less than seven days. Such flexibility may be necessary, for example, when broadcasting rights become available only at relatively short notice.In effect, the opposition's amendments will require any offer to the ABC and SBS to remain open for at least seven days. In practice, the offer period would normally be at least 30 days, given the offer would be at least 30 days before the start of an event. This will maximise the opportunity for a national broadcaster to accept an offer. The opposition is also proposing that the effectiveness of the anti-hoarding provisions should be reviewed after two years. The government has no problem with the concept of a review of the effectiveness of the anti-hoarding provisions within that time line. I thank the honourable member for Perth for his very constructive contribution to the debate and indeed betterment of the legislation before the House.The member for Hinkler always speaks on these issues. There is one thing about communications legislation before the House, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, as I am sure you appreciate as well if not better than all, and that is that you have to make a fairly substantial contribution. This is not the sort of legislation where you can come in here at the last moment and hope to win. Consequently, our speaking list on this often complex and complicated legislation is short; nonetheless, there is no doubt of the quality by most if not everybody who contributes to these matters, even if the government does not always agree with one point or another by one speaker on the other side or sometimes by a speaker on our own side.Returning to the member for Hinkler, who speaks invariably on these communication issues with experience and authority, he made an important point in drawing the attention of the House to the significance of the out-of-area broadcaster transmission provisions in schedule 3. These provisions will allow the Australian Broadcasting Authority, the ABA, to approve the transmission of a broadcasting service beyond the originating licence area where this is the most practical solution to a black spot reception problem for an individual household or community. This provision could be used, for example, to permit the reception of satellite delivered remote area broadcasting services, better known as RABS, to viewers in small pockets of inadequate reception in terrestrial licence areas.In so doing, this provision will also support the black spot program under the government's $120 million television fund. I do remind honourable members, particularly those in rural and regional areas such as me, that the guidelines and administrative processes for this extremely worthwhile and extremely well-funded program are currently being finalised so that the implementation of the program can commence early next year. I think we should all be quick off the mark on behalf of our electorate.The member for Werriwa is one of the deep and original thinkers on the opposition side and therefore, apart from the member for Perth, basically stands alone. I would like to thank him for his contribution to the debate. He talked about the importance of sport for Australians. The government naturally also recognises that Australians love sport—both participation and watching it on TV. The anti-hoarding provisions in the bill before the House will maximise the opportunities for Australians to see sport on free to air television. That is the major objective of the government's policy initiative. The government agrees with his comment that consumer equipment for new technology should be affordable and accessible and consumers should have choice.The member for Moreton and the member for Hinkler are something of a specialist duo on communications matters on this side of the House—the member for Hinkler being the chairman and the member for Moreton being a participating member of the government's communications committee. I would like to thank the member for Moreton for yet another vigorous contribution to communications policy. I particularly appreciated his comment on the benefits of the anti-hoarding regime for regional viewers. As the honourable member pointed out, these provisions will apply equally to regional commercial broadcasters and to their metropolitan counterparts. I do reiterate the points made by the member for Moreton that the government's media policy is not driven by the proprietors and is made with full awareness of the converging communications environment and also that the government is a gate opener, not a gate keeper.I should draw my comments to a close. It is a delight to see this legislation go through the House with such strong bipartisan support.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.12971Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.20:20:0012971McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos (1) to (26):(1) Clause 2, page 1 (lines 10 to 12), omit subclause (2), substitute:(2) Schedule 2 commences on the 28th day after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.(3) Part 2 of Schedule 3 commences immediately after the commencement of the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 .(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (before line 15), before the definition of commercial television broadcasting service , insert: Central-Western time zone means: (a) the area consisting of: (i) South Australia; and (ii) Broken Hill (within the meaning of the Standard Time Act 1987 of New South Wales); or (b) Western Australia; or (c) the Northern Territory; or (d) the Territory of Christmas Island; or (e) the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands.(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (after line 32), after section 146C, insert:146CA When event or series is eligible for delayed televising in the Central-Western time zones(1) The Minister may, by writing, determine that a specified designated event is eligible for delayed televising in the Central-Western time zones. Note: For specification by class, see subsection 46(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .(2) The Minister may, by writing, determine that a specified designated series of events is eligible for delayed televising in the Central-Western time zones. Note: For specification by class, see subsection 46(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .(3) To avoid doubt, the Minister may make a determination under subsection (1) even if the event concerned is part of a series of events.(4) A determination under this section has effect only for the purposes of paragraphs 146KA(1)(b) and (2)(d) and 146R(1)(b) and (2)(d).(5) A determination under this section is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .(6) A copy of a determination under this section is to be published in the Gazette . Note: The following is an example of a situation in which the Minister might make a determination under this section: in a case where a day-night cricket match begins at 2 pm in Sydney, delayed televising of the match in Perth would allow Perth viewers the same evening viewing time as viewers in Sydney.(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (line 14), omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (after line 14), at the end of subsection (1), add:Note 2: For delayed televising in the Central-Western time zones, see section 146KA.(6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (after line 2), at the end of subsection (1), add: Note: For delayed televising in the Central-Western time zones, see section 146KA.(7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (after line 2), after subsection (1), insert:(1A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), a licensee is taken to have televised live the whole of an event if the licensee televises live all but an insubstantial proportion of the event. Note: For example, interruptions by way of commercial breaks, news breaks, program promotions, announcements or brief crosses to other live events would amount to an insubstantial proportion of the event being televised.(8) Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (after line 25), after section 146K, insert:146KA Delayed televising in the Central-Western time zones(1) For the purposes of paragraph 146E(1)(c), if: (a) a commercial television broadcasting licensee televises, in the licence area for the licence: (i) a designated event or a designated series of events; or (ii) a part of a designated event or a part of a designated series of events; and (b) the event or series is eligible for delayed televising in the Central-Western time zones; and (c) apart from this subsection, the televising mentioned in paragraph (a) is not live; and (d) the licence area is wholly or substantially within a particular Central-Western time zone; and (e) assuming the event or series, or the part of the event or series, as the case may be, had been televised live in Sydney—the event or series, or the part of the event or series, as the case may be, is televised, as mentioned in paragraph (a), not later than the local time in that zone that is equivalent to the time at which the event or series, or the part of the event or series, as the case may be, was televised live in Sydney;the event or series, or the part of the event or series, as the case may be, is taken to be televised live by the licensee in the licence area.(2) For the purposes of paragraph 146K(1)(c), if: (a) a commercial television broadcasting licensee has the right to televise live, in the licence area for the licence, a particular designated series of events; and (b) during a particular period, 2 or more events in that series wholly or partly overlap; and (c) the licensee televises in the licence area one of those events; and (d) the series is eligible for delayed televising in the Central-Western time zones; and (e) apart from this subsection, the televising mentioned in paragraph (c) is not live; and (f) the licence area is wholly or substantially within a particular Central-Western time zone; and (g) assuming the event had been televised live in Sydney—the event is televised, as mentioned in paragraph (c), not later than the local time in that zone that is equivalent to the time at which the event was televised live in Sydney;the event is taken to be televised live by the licensee in the licence area during that period.(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), a licensee is taken to have televised live the whole of an event, or the whole of a series of events, if the licensee televises all but an insubstantial proportion of the event or series, as the case may be. Note: For example, interruptions by way of commercial breaks, news breaks, program promotions, announcements or brief crosses to other live events would amount to an insubstantial proportion of the event or series being televised.(4) If a commercial television broadcasting licensee has a right to televise live a substantial proportion of a designated event, this section has effect, in relation to the licensee, as if that proportion were a designated event in its own right.(5) If a commercial television broadcasting licensee has a right to televise live a substantial proportion of a designated series of events, this section has effect, in relation to the licensee, as if that proportion were a designated series of events in its own right.(9) Schedule 1, item 1, page 14 (after line 16), at the end of subsection (2), add: Note: For delayed televising in the Central-Western time zones, see section 146R.(10) Schedule 1, item 1, page 16 (after line 23), at the end of subsection (1), add: Note: For delayed televising in the Central-Western time zones, see section 146R. (11) Schedule 1, item 1, page 16 (after line 23), after subsection (1), insert:(1A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), a national broadcaster is taken to have televised live the whole of an event if the broadcaster televises live all but an insubstantial proportion of the event. Note 1: For example, in the case of the ABC, interruptions by way of news breaks, program promotions, announcements or brief crosses to other live events would amount to an insubstantial proportion of the event being televised. Note 2: For example, in the case of the SBS, interruptions by way of commercial breaks, news breaks, program promotions, announcements or brief crosses to other live events would amount to an insubstantial proportion of the event being televised.(12) Schedule 1, item 1, page 16 (after line 27), after section 146Q, insert:146R Delayed televising in the Central-Western time zones(1) For the purposes of paragraph 146L(2)(c), if: (a) a national broadcaster televises, in a coverage area: (i) a designated event or a designated series of events; or (ii) a part of a designated event or a part of a designated series of events; and (b) the event or series is eligible for delayed televising in the Central-Western time zones; and (c) apart from this subsection, the televising mentioned in paragraph (a) is not live; and (d) the coverage area is wholly or substantially within a particular Central-Western time zone; and (e) assuming the event or series, or the part of the event or series, as the case may be, had been televised live in Sydney—the event or series, or the part of the event or series, as the case may be, is televised, as mentioned in paragraph (a), not later than the local time in that zone that is equivalent to the time at which the event or series, or the part of the event or series, as the case may be, was televised live in Sydney;the event or series, or the part of the event or series, as the case may be, is taken to be televised live by the national broadcaster in the coverage area. (2) For the purposes of paragraph 146Q(1)(c), if: (a) a national broadcaster has the right to televise live, in a coverage area, a particular designated series of events; and (b) during a particular period, 2 or more events in that series wholly or partly overlap; and (c) the broadcaster televises in the coverage area one of those events; and (d) the series is eligible for delayed televising in the Central-Western time zones; and (e) apart from this subsection, the televising mentioned in paragraph (c) is not live; and (f) the coverage area is wholly or substantially within a particular Central-Western time zone; and (g) assuming the event had been televised live in Sydney—the event is televised, as mentioned in paragraph (c), not later than the local time in that zone that is equivalent to the time at which the event was televised live in Sydney;the event is taken to be televised live by the national broadcaster in the coverage area during that period.(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), a national broadcaster is taken to have televised live the whole of an event, or the whole of a series of events, if the broadcaster televises all but an insubstantial proportion of the event or series, as the case may be. Note 1: For example, in the case of the ABC, interruptions by way of news breaks, program promotions, announcements or brief crosses to other live events would amount to an insubstantial proportion of the event or series being televised. Note 2: For example, in the case of the SBS, interruptions by way of commercial breaks, news breaks, program promotions, announcements or brief crosses to other live events would amount to an insubstantial proportion of the event or series being televised.(4) If a national broadcaster has a right to televise live a substantial proportion of a designated event, this section has effect, in relation to the broadcaster, as if that proportion were a designated event in its own right.(5) If a national broadcaster has a right to televise live a substantial proportion of a designated series of events, this section has effect, in relation to the broadcaster, as if that proportion were a designated series of events in its own right.(13) Schedule 2, item 1, page 18 (line 17), after "more", insert "consecutive".(14) Schedule 2, item 1, page 21 (line 1), after "more", insert "consecutive".(15) Schedule 3, page 22 (after line 2), after the heading to Schedule 3, insert:Part 1—Amendments commencing on Royal Assent(16) Schedule 3, items 1 to 4, page 22 (line 5) to page 23 (line 16), omit the items.(17) Schedule 3, item 5, page 23 (table items relating to section 205P), omit the table items.(18) Schedule 3, item 6, page 24 (line 1) to page 46 (line 10), omit the item.(19) Schedule 3, item 7, page 46 (lines 11 and 12), omit the item, substitute:7 Subsection 212(2)Omit all the words after "subsection (1)".7A At the end of section 212Add:(3) A reference in this section to a re-transmission does not include a reference to: (a) a re-transmission by a commercial broadcasting licensee of the programs transmitted by the licensee's commercial broadcasting service; or (b) a re-transmission by a community broadcasting licensee of the programs transmitted by the licensee's community broadcasting service; or (c) a re-transmission by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation of the programs transmitted by any of its national broadcasting services, being national broadcasting services covered by paragraph 13(1)(a); or (d) a re-transmission by the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation of the programs transmitted by any of its national broadcasting services.(20) Schedule 3, items 14 to 20, page 49 (line 6) to page 55 (line 23), omit the items, substitute:14 Transitional—re-transmission of programs by licensee outside licence area(1) This item applies if: (a) a permission was given to a commercial broadcasting licensee or a community broadcasting licensee under subparagraph 212(1)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 ; and (b) the permission was in force immediately before the commencement of this item; and (c) the permission authorised the licensee to re-transmit, outside the licence area of the licence, programs transmitted by the licensee's commercial broadcasting service or community broadcasting service, as the case may be.(2) If, apart from this subitem, the permission would expire before the end of the period of 12 months beginning at the commencement of this item, the permission is taken to expire at the end of that period.(3) Despite the amendments of section 212 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 made by this Part, that section continues to apply, after the commencement of this item, in relation to the re-transmission by the licensee of programs as mentioned in paragraph (1)(c) of this item during the period: (a) beginning at the commencement of this item; and (b) ending at the expiration of the permission; as if those amendments had not been made.15 Transitional—pre-commencement re-transmission of programsDespite the amendments of section 212 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 made by this Part, that section continues to apply, after the commencement of this item, in relation to a re-transmission that occurred before the commencement of this item, as if those amendments had not been made.(21) Schedule 3, item 21, page 55 (lines 25 to 28), omit the item, substitute:21 After subsection 48(4)Insert:(4A) For the purposes of this section, disregard subsection 212(3) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 .(22) Schedule 3, item 22, page 55 (lines 29 to 32), omit the item, substitute:22 After subsection 93(2)Insert:(2A) For the purposes of this section, disregard subsection 212(3) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 .(23) Schedule 3, page 55 (after proposed new item 22), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 2—Amendments commencing immediately after the commencement of the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000Broadcasting Services Act 199223 Subsection 212(1)Omit "subsection (2)", substitute "this section".24 After subsection 212(2)Insert:(2A) However, the rule in subsection (2) does not prevent an action, suit or proceeding against a person under the Copyright Act 1968 for infringement of copyright subsisting in a work, a sound recording or a cinematograph film, where: (a) the infringement is in respect of the re-transmission by the person of programs as mentioned in subsection (1); and (b) the re-transmission is not provided by a self-help provider.25 At the end of subsection 212Add:(4) In this section: cinematograph film has the same meaning as in the Copyright Act 1968 . self-help provider has the meaning given by section 212A. sound recording has the same meaning as in the Copyright Act 1968 . work has the same meaning as in the Copyright Act 1968 .(24) Schedule 3, page 55 (after proposed new item 25), at the end of the Schedule, add:26 After section 212Insert:212A Self-help providers(1) For the purposes of the application of section 212 to a particular re-transmission of programs, a self-help provider is: (a) a non-profit body which provides the re-transmission for the sole or principal purpose of obtaining or improving reception in a small community; or (b) a local government body which provides the re-transmission for the sole or principal purpose of obtaining or improving reception in a community located in the area served by the body; or (c) a company which operates a mine and/or related infrastructure at an isolated location and which provides the re-transmission for the sole or principal purpose of obtaining or improving reception in a community: (i) that is located in the vicinity of the mine or infrastructure, as the case may be; and (ii) that accommodates the whole or a part of the workforce for the mine or infrastructure, as the case may be; or (d) a company which operates a petroleum, oil or gas installation and/or related infrastructure at an isolated location and which provides the re-transmission for the sole or principal purpose of obtaining or improving reception in a community: (i) that is located in the vicinity of the installation or infrastructure, as the case may be; and (ii) that accommodates the whole or a part of the workforce for the installation or infrastructure, as the case may be; or (e) a person who provides the re-transmission within a building or structure for the sole or principal purpose of obtaining or improving reception for persons in the building or structure, as the case may be; or (f) a person who provides the re-transmission within one or more places that are all in the same area (within the meaning of section 36 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 ) for the sole or principal purpose of obtaining or improving reception for persons in those places; or (g) a person who is a declared self-help provider in relation to the re-transmission;other than: (h) a subscription television broadcasting licensee; or (i) a related body corporate of a subscription television broadcasting licensee; or (j) a person who is an excluded provider in relation to the re-transmission.(2) Nothing in subsection (1) limits the generality of anything else in subsection (1).(3) Subsection (1) does not limit the generality of anything in section 212B. (4) In this section: declared self-help provider has the meaning given by section 212B. excluded provider has the meaning given by section 212B. isolated location means a place in a State or Territory that is not at a location in, or adjacent to, an eligible urban area (within the meaning of section 140 of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 ). non-profit body means an incorporated body that: (a) is not carried on for the purposes of profit or gain to its individual members; and (b) is prohibited by its constituent document from making any distribution of money or property to its individual members. related body corporate has the same meaning as in the Corporations Law.(25) Schedule 3, page 55 (after proposed new item 26), at the end of the Schedule, add:27 Before section 213Insert:212B Declared self-help providers and excluded providersDeclared self-help providers(1) The Minister may, by writing, determine that a specified person who provides a re-transmission of programs for the sole or principal purpose of obtaining or improving reception is a declared self-help provider in relation to the re-transmission for the purposes of section 212A.(2) The Minister may, by writing, determine that a specified person who provides a re-transmission of programs for the sole or principal purpose of obtaining or improving reception in specified circumstances is a declared self-help provider in relation to the re-transmission for the purposes of section 212A.Excluded providers(3) The Minister may, by writing, determine that a specified person who provides a re-transmission of programs is an excluded provider in relation to the re-transmission for the purposes of section 212A.(4) The Minister may, by writing, determine that a specified person who provides a re-transmission of programs in specified circumstances is an excluded provider in relation to the re-transmission for the purposes of section 212A.Determination has effect(5) A determination under this section has effect accordingly.Disallowable instrument(6) A determination under this section is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 . Note: For specification by class, see subsection 46(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 . (26) Schedule 3, page 55 (after proposed new item 27), at the end of the Schedule, add:28 Transitional—pre-commencement re-transmission of programsDespite the amendments of section 212 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 made by this Part, that section continues to apply, after the commencement of this item, in relation to a re-transmission that occurred before the commencement of this item, as if those amendments had not been made.I have moved the amendments to this bill on behalf of the government primarily to remove the retransmission provisions in schedule 3. Minor changes are also proposed to the anti-hoarding provisions in schedule 1 and the regional protection measures in schedule 2 and these reflect industry proposals.The proposed broadcaster consent model for retransmission in the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 and associated provisions in the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999 —I remind honourable members that the report on this bill by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs was tabled yesterday—would give broadcasters control over the commercial use of their own signal and provide for copyright remuneration for broadcasters and underlying rights holders. These arrangements are consistent with the approach adopted by the Copyright Convergence Group, established by the former Labor government in its 1994 report Highways to change: copyright in the new communications environment.RH4KERRMr Kerr—A great minister.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—Who was the minister at the time?RH4KERRMr Kerr—I was.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—The member for Denison, who is at the table, was the then minister and self proclaims himself to have been a great minister. He was our Minister for Justice at that time. He was an adequate minister I feel I have to concede.RH4KERRMr Kerr—An overwhelming endorsement.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—It is not a very strong endorsement I have to confess. But despite it being a Labor government initiative in 1994, the opposition has proposed an arbitration regime in lieu of the broadcaster consent model. I understand that the Democrats also intend to support arbitration in the Senate.The government is aware that arbitration is being put forward out of concern for consumer interests, and the government shares this concern. Accordingly the bill provides for a review within two years of whether any changes are required to further protect consumer interests. This approach reflects the conclusions of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee coalition report of December 1998. That report concluded that parties should first be given the opportunity to negotiate without interference from a third party arbitrator. How sensible. Nevertheless, when the opposition foreshadowed its arbitration proposal, the government was happy for the industry to consider whether consensus could be achieved on the basis of an arbitration model.In the event, it has not been possible for the free-to-air broadcasters and pay TV operators to reach agreement, in the short term at least, on arbitration arrangements or any alternative retransmission model, for that matter. Further consultations will clearly be required with the industry and the opposition parties to resolve outstanding issues. Accordingly, amendments (16) to (18) and (20) will remove the retransmission provisions from schedule 3. This will permit the other non-contentious elements of the bill to be progressed—namely, anti-hoarding, regional broadcaster protection, and increased community broadcasting sponsorship limits.Removal of the retransmission provisions in the bill will result in the continued application of the existing retransmission rules in section 212 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. These rules allow retransmissions without the agreement or compensation of broadcasters. However, amendment (23) will ensure that provisions in the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999 which require payment of equitable remuneration to underlying rights holders for the retransmission of copyright material contained in broadcasting services will still have effect on the commencement of the bill. Now you know why this is such a specialist area that does not attract long speaking lists.Current provisions in schedule 3 that allow the Australian Broadcasting Authority to approve out-of-area broadcaster transmissions, including by satellite, to overcome black spot reception problems will be retained. Amendments (2) to (12) make changes to the anti-hoarding provisions in schedule 1 of the bill. These changes will enable the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts to make a determination allowing television coverage of a designated event or series in the central and western time zones to be delayed by up to the time difference with the eastern time zone. These amendments reflect an industry proposal to allow designated events to be shown at a more convenient time for viewers in those central and western time zones. Any determinations will be disallowable instruments.Finally, amendments (13) and (14) make minor changes to the schedule 2 regional pay TV programming provisions to apply the restrictions to consecutive programs shown by metropolitan commercial free to air broadcasters. Again, this reflects industry agreement. I commend the amendments to the House.20:25:0012977Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation has outlined the effect of the amendments. In my contribution during the second reading debate, I indicated the opposition's support for these measures. In his summing up of the second reading debate, the minister has indicated the government's support for the opposition's amendments, which are circulated in my name, which have the effect of ensuring a review of the anti-hoarding provisions, particularly as they relate to the central western time zone matter, which I suspect may be of interest to consumers in the next couple of years. As I have previously indicated, we support the amendments as circulated and as moved by the minister.20:26:0012977McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I wish to table a signed explanatory memorandum to the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999.Amendments agreed to.20:26:0012978Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos (1) to (14):(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 16), at the end of the second dot point in the simplified outline, add:The instrument must also specify an offer time for the event or series. The offer time must occur 30 days or more before the start of the event or series unless the Minister is satisfied that the offer time should occur closer to the start of the event or series.(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 20), after "must", insert ", before the offer time,".(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 22), at the end of the third dot point in the simplified outline, add:The offer must remain open for acceptance for a minimum period of 7 days.(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 27), after "must", insert ", before the offer time,".(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 2), at the end of the fourth dot point in the simplified outline, add:The offer must remain open for acceptance for a minimum period of 7 days.(6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 5), after "must", insert ", before the offer time,".(7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 7), at the end of the fifth dot point in the simplified outline, add:The offer must remain open for acceptance for a minimum period of 7 days.(8) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 10), after "must", insert ", before the offer time,".(9) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 12), at the end of the sixth dot point in the simplified outline, add:The offer must remain open for acceptance for a minimum period of 7 days.(10) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (after line 29), after subsection (4), insert:(4A) The offer time in relation to an event or series of events must occur 30 days or more before the start of the event or the series of events, as the case may be, unless the Minister is satisfied that the offer time should occur closer to the start of the event or series of events, as the case requires.(11) Schedule 1, item 1, page 11 (after line 11), after subsection (5), insert: (5A) The period referred to in subsection (5) must not be shorter than 7 days.(12) Schedule 1, item 1, page 15 (after line 26), after subsection (4), insert:(4A) The period referred to in subsection (4) must not be shorter than 7 days.(13) Schedule 1, after section 146Q, page 16 (after line 27) insert the following heading:Division 4—Review of anti-hoarding provisions(14) Schedule 1, after section 146Q, page 16 (after line 27) insert:146S Review of anti-hoarding provisions(1) Within 2 years after the commencement of this part, the Minister must cause to be conducted a review of the effectiveness of the anti-hoarding provisions enacted by this schedule.(2) The Minister must cause a report to be prepared of the review under subsection (1).(3) The Minister must cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the completion of the preparation of the report.An earlier edition of these amendments, circulated in my name, contained some technical errors which were subsequently rescued as a result of the diligence and vigilance of the minister's department. I have outlined the effect of these amendments in the course of my earlier contribution. The minister has previously indicated his support and I think that brings it to an agreeable score draw.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.12978Bill (on motion by Mr McGauran)—by leave—read a third time.Bills12978r96912978Debate resumed from 6 December, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.20:28:0012978Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I rise to indicate the opposition's position in respect of the Broadcasting Ser vices Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 . A draft copy of this bill was provided to my office on Thursday evening of last week. The Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, who is at the table, presented the bill to the House 22 hours ago at about 10 o'clock last night. When the draft bill was provided to my office, it was with a request from the government that the opposition urgently consider the details contained in the bill with a view to facilitating passage of the bill through the House and the Senate in the course of this week to enable the legislation to be adopted by the parliament this year.The opposition was happy to use its best endeavours to comply with this request, largely because schedule 1 of the bill contains provisions which make mandatory the satisfaction of local content requirements for subscription television. Since the provision of the draft bill to my office on Thursday, this matter has been the subject of conversations between my office and the minister's office, between me and the minister and between relevant industry players—in particular, the subscription television or pay TV industry and the local production content industry or the formal representative association, SPAA, the Screen Producers Association of Australia.Whilst it is the case that late notice has been given of the detail, those interested in this area of public policy—and the opposition itself—have been aware of the particular policy issues that the bill encompasses for some time. In the order in which they appear in the bill, schedule 1 of the bill deals with the requirement that the current voluntary 10 per cent local content contribution of subscription television become mandatory. That has been the subject of consideration by the industry—both the subscription television industry and the local Australian production industry—for some time and has been the subject of various reviews by the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and the Australian Broadcasting Authority.Schedule 2 of the bill deals with some of the implications of what is known famously as the High Court's Blue Sky decision, where the High Court required that the provisions of the Australia-New Zealand CER agreement be taken into account as far as the ABA's local content provisions are concerned. Schedule 3 of the bill contains provisions which originated as a good idea at the time for the previous Labor government and which have now emerged, in the provisions of this bill, as a suggestion that the Minister for Foreign Affairs be introduced into a regime for licensing broadcasters who propose to broadcast overseas from Australia, such broadcasting originating in Australia.The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts released a press statement to that effect some five or six months ago. So whilst there has been some brevity of time available to the opposition to consider the detail of these provisions, the substantive policy provisions and proposals are quite clear and, in a sense, quite stark. If I can deal with the schedules of the bill in reverse order, schedule 3 of the bill contains provisions which would authorise the Minister for Foreign Affairs to be the ultimate arbiter, without judicial or public review, to determine whether international broadcasting ought to be available from Australia, with the test being `in the public interest'.As I indicated to the minister for communications yesterday, in the view of the opposition, this matter is worthy of substantive, serious and considered deliberation rather than being attached to a bill on Christmas Eve. My suggestion to the minister was that, if the government proposed to pursue schedule 3, that might cause some consternation on the part of the opposition, and it might be a good idea if we excise schedule 3 from the bill and consider that in an orderly fashion in the course of next year. To his credit, the minister for communications has acceded to that request, and the government has circulated an amendment which would delete schedule 3 from the bill. The opposition will consider what I assume will be the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 or the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 in substantive terms in an orderly fashion in the course of next year.There are significant issues here which go both to substantive communications policy and to substantive foreign affairs policy. On the one hand, whilst you might regard the power which is proposed to be invested in the Minister for Foreign Affairs as a power invested in the public interest, you might also take the view that it gives an almost unbridled power for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to become the minister for overseas censorship. These issues ought to be given some proper and orderly consideration. I am pleased that the minister for communications, on behalf of the government, has indicated that the government will not propose to proceed with schedule 3 as part of this bill. My undertaking to him has been that we will consider this in the usual way at the first opportunity next year if he introduces a bill to that effect.The remainder of the bill—schedule 1 and schedule 2—goes to broadcasting content. Schedule 1 of the bill makes mandatory and enforceable by way of statute the current voluntary provision that the pay TV or the subscription TV industry achieve 10 per cent local content in drama production channels. When the pay TV industry was born in Australia, these provisions were made voluntary rather than enforceable, with the obvious public policy implementation difficulty. It is clearly the case that public policy ought to require the same local content contribution of the subscription television industry as it does of the free to air industry.Life is never that simple, and the pay TV industry is more complicated than free to air, with the provision of a number of channels, particularly those channels which feed content in directly from overseas. So it has taken some time for the pay TV industry, in consultation with the Australian local content production industry, to come to an agreement as to the way in which this ought to be effected. In what is the most desirable way for these matters to be produced, industry has now jointly come to the government and to the opposition saying, `We have now reached agreement on a way in which we believe these measures can be effectively implemented, and we ask the government and the parliament to effect these by way of statute.' The request of the opposition by ASTRA, the subscription television professional association, and by SPAA, the Screen Producers Association of Australia, has been to not stand in the way of giving effect to these provisions as soon as possible.In terms of public policy, I think that is the correct approach. As I have indicated, we will do our bit to facilitate the passage of this bill through the House and subsequently through the Senate to ensure these provisions become mandatory sooner rather than later. The effect of the provisions was sensibly and appropriately outlined in the course of the minister's second reading speech, which he delivered last night. The opposition supports schedule 1 of the bill. As is always the case, when you deal with local content there is always a view that the local content requirements or provisions ought to be greater rather than lesser and that they ought to be effected sooner rather than later. Just as we are now considering and supporting a proposition to make mandatory the 10 per cent drama requirement of local content for subscription television, equally there is a strong view on behalf of the Australian local content production industry that a comparable provision ought to apply to documentary subscription channels.That view has the in-principle support of the opposition and we would prefer to see that implemented sooner rather than later. Equally, we would prefer to see that effected by way of an agreement between the subscription television industry and the content production industry sooner rather than later. We would urge the industry to effect that and we would urge the government to introduce legislation to give statutory effect to such an agreement. Our strong view about local content and our strong view that the same provisions which the parliament will shortly apply to drama ought to apply to documentaries are reflected by our second reading amendment, which I will formally move and which my colleague the member for Denison and the shadow minister for the arts will speak to in robust terms. In many respects, the content provisions are of as much interest to the constituency of the minister for the arts as they are to my constituency as shadow minister for communications.Schedule 2 of the bill has the effect of dealing in a narrow way with the implications of the High Court decision in the Blue Sky case. The effect of the High Court decision in the Blue Sky case was to say that, as a consequence of an international agreement between Australia and New Zealand, New Zealand content had to be treated as Australian content for the purposes of the ABA local content rules. The effect of the government's amendment is to restrict the consequences of the Blue Sky decision to the New Zealand agreement and exclude the possibility that such consequences might occur as a result of an international agreement that Australia has entered into, or may enter into, with Zimbabwe, South Africa, Indonesia or Guatemala and so on. In terms of the narrow application of the government's amendment, that provision is supported by the opposition.Since the Blue Sky decision, however, it has been the strong view of the opposition—led by the honourable member for Denison, the shadow minister for arts, in conjunction with the honourable member for Canberra, the shadow minister for industry, Bob McMullan, who is also a former minister for the arts and, from memory, was the minister for the arts when this High Court decision was delivered—that the appropriate public policy view for Australia was to seek, consistently with our international obligations and the domestic application of our laws, to effectively overturn the Blue Sky decision as far as New Zealand content is concerned. The second reading amendment, circulated in my name, indicates that, while the opposition supports the early passage of the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 —it will give enforceable statutory effect to the current voluntary requirement on level of Australian content for subscription TV on drama-oriented channels and establish, through the provisions in schedule 2 of the bill, the principle of an Australian content standard—we would like the House to reaffirm its commitment, which is the opposition's commitment, to the highest possible local content standards for both free to air and subscription television.It is a matter of urgency. We believe that the subscription television industry and the Australian broadcast content industry should agree on similarly enforceable provisions for documentary channels and we call on the government to give statutory effect to any such agreement. We note the consequence for the bill of the High Court's decision on Blue Sky, but we call on the government to legislate to overturn the impact of the Blue Sky decision in terms of its precise and direct effect on Australian and New Zealand content. The provisions of the second reading amendment, which I will formally move at the conclusion of my remarks and which will be seconded by the honourable member for Denison, reflect the strong attachment that the opposition has to the notion that Australian local content production for broadcasting matters is a very important part of our cultural character and cultural diversity and something which we have a very strong attachment and commitment to.I just note in passing that, in the course of the minister's second reading speech last night about the content matters, he said:The government recognises the importance of the documentary genre in developing and reflecting a sense of Australian identity, character and cultural diversity, and believes that the extension of the requirement to documentary channels warrants further consideration.I welcome those general remarks and I also welcome the government's indication that the extension of these provisions to documentary channels `warrants further consideration'. We will of course go much further, as the honourable member for Denison will make clear. The minister went on to say:The government is also aware of some industry concerns in relation to the treatment of development expenses under the bill. Therefore, the government will be asking the ABA to consider both of these issues and report back to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, within 12 months.In respect of the industry concerns relating to the treatment of development expenses, the minister would be aware—because he is its recipient—of a letter dated 1 December 1999, jointly signed by the Executive director of ASTRA, the Australian Subscription Televi sion and Radio Association, the industry's professional association, and the Executive Director of SPAA, the Screen Producers Association of Australia. It is effectively an agreement between those two relevant associations in respect of the way in which development funding ought to be taken into account by the ABA in so far as a calculation of the 10 per cent matter is concerned. I indicate for the record that the opposition have no difficulty with the way in which the two associations have indicated their view of the way in which the development funding ought to be contemplated.Public policy in terms of legislation is a matter for the exercise of the discretion of the ABA in its usual way. The ABA, I am sure, without fearing that they might be being directed in any way either by the parliament or the government, would take into account that the minister, on behalf of the minister for communications, has indicated the government's sympathy for the notion jointly shared by the two industry associations of the way in which development expenses ought to be calculated and the view of the opposition that the matters as outlined jointly between the associations properly reflect an appropriate way in which these matters ought to be contemplated.On behalf of the opposition, I indicate our support for the provisions of the bill and for their speedy passage on the basis of ensuring a statutory enforceable requirement for local content. I am happy to indicate our support for the amendment circulated in the government's name for the deletion of the overseas broadcasting provisions of these bills. I look forward to the contribution of my colleague the shadow minister for arts, the member for Denison, in respect of the way in which these provisions impact upon his constituency in the arts industry and community. I now will move formally the second reading amendment circulated in my name in respect of these matters. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst supporting the early passage of the bill because it will give statutory effect to requirements for higher levels of Australian content in drama programs, the House: (1) notes that even though the impact of the High Court's decision concerning Australian content in the "Blue Sky" case will be limited to the Australia New Zealand CER agreement, the implications of the decision remain of great concern and demand further action in the interests of the Australian industry;(2) calls on the Government to introduce measures to ensure higher levels of Australian content in other program areas, including documentary programs".10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Is the amendment seconded?RH4KERRMr Kerr—I second the amendment.20:47:0012982Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—The Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 will ensure that more Australian programs are broadcast on pay television. In the spirit of tonight's contributions, I will not draw this out in a long dissertation, but there are two seminal issues that I want to address. This bill will ensure that more Australian programs are broadcast on pay television. It will do this by making the `Australian content' conditions—conditions which are currently contained in the Broadcasting Services Act—the subject of pay television licences, enforceable. Each pay TV drama service will be required to spend at least 10 per cent of its annual expenditure on new eligible drama programs.There are voluntary conditions in place now, but for a number of years there has been an aura of non-compliance in the industry. Only four of the 16 pay TV drama channels met their obligations in the 1997-98 year. Also, there was an Australian content quota expenditure of only $8 million out of a total program expenditure of $100 million. Quite frankly, they should have been spending another $2 million to satisfy the 10 per cent requirement.This bill addresses that problem. It recognises the distinction between channel providers such as Showtime, TV1, the Comedy Channel and so on, on the one hand, and pay TV licensees such as Foxtel, Optus and Austar, on the other. As the Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association Executive Director, Debra Richards, said in the Australian last week, it is the channels that provide the programming or the packages of programs to the licensees that are ultimately responsible. Thus the bill recognises that it is the Australian based channel providers that are generally responsible for program expenditure rather than the licensees themselves.As a result of this bill, Australian based channel providers as well as licensees will be required to report annually to the ABA on their expenditure figures. If they fail to provide compliance information, they will face sanctions. However, the government recognises that pay TV licensees and channel providers will need time to adjust to these measures. The bill allows for a 12-month period of grace for licensees to prepare for a shortfall in expenditure by providers. This can be made up, if they like, in the following year. The bill also has provisions for protecting the confidentiality of expenditure information provided to the ABA by the channel providers. Thus these arrangements allow sufficient flexibility for the obligations of channel providers and licensees to be met.The bill also recognises the jurisdictional difficulties in obtaining expenditure information from overseas based or pass-through channels such as TNT. These operators package a channel through the licensees but do not actually do business in Australia. The measure of program expenditure in respect of these channels is basically what the licensee pays for the right to screen that particular channel in Australia. Thus the amendments serve to spread the obligation more evenly between the Australian and overseas channel providers on the one hand and licensees on the other. But the licensees remain ultimately responsible for ensuring that the conditions in this bill are met.Possible sanctions that could apply if Australian content expenditure is not made include the suspension or cancellation of a licence. I expect Australian pay TV viewers to welcome these content requirements. Australians have shown in their free-to-air viewing habits that they like to watch Australian programs such as Sea Change, Blue Heelers, Water Rats and the like. These programs regularly rate in the Top 10, according to the Nielsen ratings. The Assistant Director of Programming at Foxtel, Ross Crowley, was recently quoted as saying that his network would definitely be interested in an Australian produced four- or five-part mini series. The CEO of TV1, Marie Jacobson, also said recently, `An Australian profile series for TV1 would really lift it.'The bill's content requirements should create a boost in local film production which is currently going through hard times. New Australian programs on pay TV stations could create employment opportunities for local actors, who are proving they are amongst the best in the world. Actors who now have international prominence—Russell Crowe, Nicole Kidman and Guy Pearce, to name a few—all worked in Australian drama before making it to the big time.Aside from the content requirement, this bill recognises the special relationship existing between Australia and New Zealand and accords national treatment to New Zealand programs. This is consistent with the approach adopted in the Australian content standard for free-to-air commercial television and, as the shadow minister said, it is also consistent with CER—though he does not agree with it.I have an extremely strong view on the matter that I have expressed to the Australian entertainment industry. I have not been slinking around; I have said it quite openly. There are great trade benefits in an agreement that breaks down the artificial and protective barriers between Australia and New Zealand. We can hardly expect the free entry of Australian products to New Zealand and New Zealand products to Australia, then suddenly become very precious over New Zealand drama. More to the point, it is a matter that was tested in the courts—even in the High Court—and it was found that New Zealand film does count as Australian content. The Australian drama and film industry should not feel intimidated by the fact that New Zealand drama is recognised under the CER agreement. If we are a truly competitive nation, we can meet the best standards and in fact, as we have amply demonstrated over recent years, we can do it better than most countries in the world.When the industry came to see one of the committees on which I sit, they put the proposition to us that there was a great cultural divide between Australia and New Zealand. I do not think that holds much water. We live in the same part of the world, we share the same language with almost the same accents and we subscribe to the same form of government. Some 400,000 of their citizens reside in this country. We play the same codes of sport such as rugby league, rugby union, cricket, netball and basketball against each other, and so it goes on. The great proponents of literature, drama and acting have moved freely across the Tasman. We also share a common bond in blood which we celebrate every year on Anzac Day. Our two flags, but for the star of federation and the little pointer star, are almost identical. For the industry then to turn around and try to say there is a huge cultural divide between Australia and New Zealand is absolute arrant nonsense. It did not enhance their case, in my opinion.What real impact do we seriously think 3½ million or four million New Zealanders and a country that has had its fair share of economic difficulties will have on the Australian film industry? If they do turn out product that is good and we want to see it and it comes from our part of the world, why shouldn't it be shown on Australian television and be treated like product of our own and, vice versa, our product be shown in their country?As I said before, I always find it galling when we complain about the treatment we receive from the United States in the various fora of the world where, as the big country, they change the rules by saying, `That doesn't suit us, we're going to impose a tariff or a quota,' or, `We're going to keep something out.' What are we going to do? Are we going to take this agreement—which we signed off on some years ago with great trumpets and waving of flags but which, when it did not suit us, we then tested in our courts right up to the High Court—and say, `We lost that battle, so now we'll change it legislatively'? That is exactly the thing that both sides of the House in this very week in this parliament have chastised the United States for doing. Are we proposing to do it with something like the arts—a field where there are such great synergies and similarities between the two countries?Having said all that, I am not suggesting that this bill should be carte blanche for every country that has some similarity or agreement with Australia to get their film and video in by the back door. I am not suggesting that at all. In fact, the bill explicitly confines the scope of international agreements to New Zealand in the spirit of CER, making it clear that there are no flow-ons under the amended section to treaties with other nations. It also maintains the cultural policy objectives of content regulation.In summary, overall this bill is a demonstration of the positive steps being taken by the government to improve the Australian entertainment industry by ensuring more Australian content. It also makes sure that the content that we share with New Zealand is not diluted in any way.20:59:0012984Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—The shadow minister for communications has set out very eloquently the terms upon which the opposition supports the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 . Our support is not grudging. Our support is consistent with the cooperative and constructive attitude to the communications industry that the shadow minister has demonstrated in this and in other legislation. But nor are the reservations we are expressing trivial; they are important. It is fundamental to Australia and to the way in which we see ourselves that we give strong support to our local content industries. The first principle of our commitment that we express in the amendment that has been moved is that we wish this parliament to reaffirm the objective of obtaining the highest possible local content standards, both for free-to-air and subscription television.Unfortunately, this legislation does not do that, although it is certainly an improvement on the existing arrangements. I will go to the existing arrangements. In 1995-96, expenditure on local content by the 11 predominantly drama channels was 7.1 per cent of total expenditure. In the next year, 1996-97, where figures are available, total program expenditure by the then 15 predominantly drama channels was $64,581,955. Of that, spending on new Australian drama totalled a mere $3,242,754 or 5.02 per cent of the total. It is quite plain that, even in those areas intended to be covered by the ABA subscription provisions, the objective of reaching 10 per cent local content by voluntary arrangement was simply unachievable. This legislation, as far as drama is concerned, makes 10 per cent mandatory. That is important. It is certainly not what one might call the highest possible local content standard—and there will be an opportunity later on for us to address what would be the objective of a Labor government in relation to those standards—but it is a significantly better step than a voluntary arrangement. There are large areas in Australia that have substantial local industry opportunities where the government has not seen fit to move. Neither have SPAA or ASTRA found common ground.The most contentious of the areas, and one which we believe should rapidly become mandatory, is documentary programming on predominantly documentary oriented subscription television channels. That is an area where we have strengths, and there is no reason why we should not expect those who are profiting from the delivery of the service—material being produced on pay TV—to assist in the strength of content production in Australia, the employment it provides and the fact that we can see reflected through the material that is shown on those services our own Australian culture. There is no reason why we cannot expect them to take on some responsibility. I want to turn briefly to the Blue Sky issue. The Blue Sky issue arose out of the negotiations that occurred between Australia and New Zealand in the CER agreement. I have some background in this matter as I was a member of the then House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs—on which both parties were represented—which travelled to New Zealand to settle the terms of arrangements for the CER. The discussions that were held at that time focused predominantly on areas of material trade—fixed objects and the like, production and goods—and on what services would be excluded. At no stage did either party advert to or assent to the proposition that cultural industries would be caught up in the intention of the CER arrangements. It was an entirely unintended consequence not adverted to in the negotiations and not part of any diplomatic or parliamentary exchange in relation to the making of that agreement. Adventitiously, of course, when those who wished to put to air material in Australia were provided with legal advice that there might be a loophole, thereby minimising costs they would otherwise have to incur with new production by being able to buy programs like Xena: Warrior Princess or whatever, some of them naturally chose to do so, and that was the subject of litigation.But there is absolutely no reason why we should not go back to New Zealand—which has recently had a change of government, much for the better—and settle this issue on terms acceptable to both countries. It is clearly a matter of as much concern to those involved in content production industries in New Zealand, in the sense that they do not like seeing Australian programs being regarded or screened as New Zealand content, as it is to Australian content producers that New Zealand material can be brought in under those terms. If we cannot reach agreement—and I do not believe there has been any proper or serious effort from this government on that front—it remains the opposition's position that we do have an obligation to address this through the parliamentary process. I do not accept in any way that that denigrates our relationship with New Zealand.The truth is that we have Australian content rules for two reasons: industry development and, equally importantly, culture. We have those rules to provide Australians with material which is produced and written by Australians, acted by Australian actors and which gives us a sense of being Australians. That material is seen through our television channels, which is where many of us receive the predominant amount of our cultural material. Certainly it is true that we have strong arts companies, theatres, ballet companies and the like, but we have to be realistic and say that, in terms of hours spent, the large majority of our community find the television set a very interesting and stimulating way to receive material and they want to see something of their own culture on it. When they see New Zealand material they are not seeing their own culture. There is not yet a confederation between Australia and New Zealand. We did not choose to federate in that way in 1901. Next year we will not be celebrating the centenary of a federation which includes that country. As Australians, we want to have the opportunity to see Australian culture on television.This government has not effectively grappled with some other issues of Australian content. Those issues are complex. For example, the co-production arrangements that allow programs that are being produced in this country, such as Beastmaster, to be designated as Australian content are not a little unproblematic. They are significant issues. Essentially, whilst such programs are being produced in this country, their intended market is the United States. They are being produced with lead characters from other countries and with the characters speaking with American accents. Whilst they currently conform with Australian content rules, we may need to look at some way in which we can restrict or deal with the amount of such material that can be accommodated in that way.I would like to make some points about copyright. In relation to all these issues, essentially we are working within a framework which was built by the former Labor government. It is fair to say that the foundations for the substantial agenda on this issue coming through this parliament now were laid by the seminal work done during the Keating government, driven by the policies announced by the former Prime Minister on Australia's cultural industries. We introduced the Copyright Convergence Committee to look at how to ensure that the new digital agenda was incorporated into the provision of copyright payment systems; how to ensure that pay TV and the online delivery of services was done in a coherent and integrated way; how to provide for moral rights; and how to expand the copyright agenda through performers rights and collecting societies. All those sorts of things were absolutely essential to the way in which we saw Australia being able to generate employment and get a real sense of national pride from what we do.It should never be forgotten that the arts in Australia are a huge employer of Australians. It should never be forgotten that they generate hundreds of millions of dollars for the economy. It should also never be forgotten that we are amongst the largest exporters of English-language materials, both music and other, of any nation. So we have an opportunity to build from a strong base in this country if we get the legislative and copyright frameworks correct.During the time of the Keating government, when we worked through the initiatives announced in Creative Nation, I had the opportunity to be the Minister for Justice. As part of my allocation of portfolio responsibilities, I had responsibility for copyright law. This government has not introduced a single measure in the area of the digital agenda legislation or in these broadcasting services amendment bills that does not flow directly from the seminal work which was done then. All I can say is that too much time has passed. There have been a lot of delays. While we were well ahead of the game during the Keating government, we have certainly slowed down and are running with the pack.There is a continuing agenda that this parliament needs to address. It is a continuing agenda that the Labor Party will address. We are committed to a policy framework which will see Australian cultural industries become strong and able to play a role in not only the economic value that they provide to the community but also ensuring that, when we watch television in Australia, whether it be on free-to-air or cable television, we are not just watching something produced in other countries, for other audiences and acquired for the cheapest possible price. It needs to be recognised that those who are given the benefit of a legal framework which allows them to take commercial advantage of the spectrum have a responsibility to the larger Australian community to make certain that the economic, cultural and aspirational needs of Australians are not overlooked.I am very pleased to second the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister for communications. I join with him in the call to the government to work towards a quick agreement on broadening the base of provisions that will allow for better and more adequate Australian content provision rules for this new and growing industry. Obviously, some issues should take priority. Amongst those are enforceable Australian content standards in documentary programming. I hope that by the end of this parliament a settlement can be reached on that matter.21:15:0012987Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—Having waited some time for the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 to make it through the House, I am pleased that we have finally reached that point. I am pleased too that the government has introduced some sound legislation in terms of broadcasting services, despite the problems that lie in the future with the digital agenda next year. I am also pleased that the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 will be passed this session. I support the bill, especially with regard to its schedule relating to enforceable Australian content licence conditions for pay TV.Firstly, allow me to draw attention to the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . In the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation's second reading speech on the bill, he professed:The new retransmission regime—presented in this bill—will fulfil a previous coalition election promise to give broadcasters control over their own signal, consistent with the general approach adopted by the Copyright Convergence Group, CCG, in its 1994 report Highways to Change: Copyright in the New Communications Environment .It is disappointing that overcoming the anomaly in the current retransmission rules—which allow pay TV operators to transmit free-to-air broadcasting services without consent or compensation—will be delayed, due to the most recent amendments to the bill. But at least they are still on the agenda down the track. I agreed with the minister when he said: Free-to-air broadcasters and pay TV operators should have a clear mutual interest in agreeing to reasonable terms for future retransmissions, which will also benefit many viewers who receive improved reception of free-to-air services through such retransmission arrangements.However, it is disappointing that we will have to wait even longer for this to occur, due to the government's decision to delay this implementation. The section of this bill allowing provision for black spot areas to access free-to-air signals outside the broadcasters' licence area when they cannot access local signals is absolutely essential. I am grateful the government did not bow under the pressure of FACTS in this area. Otherwise, the Telstra funded TV fund would have had the dollars in place to go some way to solving black spot problems but the unamended Broadcasting Act would not have legally allowed those people access to the signal that they can get via satellite. I think the government is well due for thanks for making sure that some crazy anomaly of `Got the funds for the equipment, but the law will not allow you to use it,' has not eventuated.I am sure many people in regional and rural Australia, who have been patiently waiting for this amendment bill to be passed, would thank the government for not forgetting that, due to lack of infrastructure and problems with bureaucracy, they will not be able to access TV unless this part of the amendment bill is in fact passed into law. This situation has been a problem in some black spot areas for 40 years. Now that the technology is available for these people to access free-to-air TV programming, I am pleased the legal channels provided in the bill will pave the way to enable those people to use that technology.The communities I am aware of which have experienced this problem for some time around and within my electorate include Portland; areas of Lithgow, especially the Hartley Valley area, which is in the western shadow of the Great Dividing Range and very close to Sydney, very close to the major population centres of the central west, but in terms of television reception may as well be back of Bourke; areas like Peel, just north of Bathurst; Tarana, between Bathurst and Lithgow; and then, outside the electorate, places like Mudgee. The list goes on, and it covers areas right across the country. Many members have expressed this same concern in their contributions to the debate tonight. We need to get this legislation through immediately. These people have waited far too long to be able to receive basic television services.On the TV fund, which is entwined with the black spot issue, I understand that the first stakeholder meeting was held more than a week ago. I also understand that if the government wants to look at solving the black spot problem in the long term they have to look beyond subsidising individual households with satellite equipment and get area transmitters in place where possible. This would be ideal in a place like the Hartley Valley, rapidly growing as it is as a satellite suburb of Western Sydney. In the next five to six years, areas like that could not only prove to be an economic boon to Lithgow but take the overflow over the mountains from the burgeoning western suburbs.Having come from the city, these people expect the same level of communications services that they enjoyed in Sydney. They just cannot believe that, having crossed the sandstone curtain, they may as well be 1,000 or 2,000 miles from Sydney, such are their problems with television reception and the installation of infrastructure by Telstra. There is a legion of stories that come into my office about the inability of Telstra to provide this infrastructure. I hear that even now, in recent days, they cannot even provide a mobile phone, unless a doctors certificate is presented. That is the extent to which the community service obligation of Telstra has reached in at least in a couple of cases in my electorate.My office was in touch with one of the people who attended the recent stakeholder meeting. He expressed some concern that there was no thorough consideration of the idea of putting in small localised translators to help solve the problem in the longer term for many communities. Although it is fine to assist individuals by subsidising the cost of satellite equipment—and it is essential in some instances that this be done—in many instances it just scratches the surface of the problem. What happens when the funding runs out? When new residents arrive, they will have to put up with the bill themselves, unsubsidised, for the equipment they require to access television, which most of us take for granted in the areas we live in. I understand that in remote areas community translators will not be the solution and satellite is the way to go. But if the investment can be made where possible on a community level, where the entire community would be able to access local content TV, it should be done that way.I look forward to the report being compiled by Professor John Chudleigh of Orange Agricultural College pulling together the strands of the recent regional summit. Communications is emerging as the issue in the regions. It is looking highly likely that we have to find a way of delivering satellite services in a hurry, that we just cannot rely on terrestrial means to deliver the sort of hook-up that is urgently required to deliver a level playing field in communications.Again, the kinds of communities that have been suffering from this insufficiency are like Peel in my electorate. It is only 15 kilometres from the post office at Bathurst but is unable to access local area signals due to the hilly terrain and is undoubtedly a black spot next to a major population centre. This community has found itself in the position where it can access ABC, SBS, Imparja and Seven Central via satellite but has not been legally allowed to access the commercial content channels due to the regulation in the broadcasting act. Local stations have had no problem with self-help entities accessing signals outside of their local licence area when it is clear that they cannot access the local signal.If the government is committed to networking the nation and allowing all Australians, no matter where they live, to have access to basic communications including television—I will not attempt to document the Telstra difficulties out there—we need to see some action straightaway. We need to get this into the Senate and passed in this session, which I presume is what is happening and will happen quicker if I wind up, I suppose! I share the member for Braddon's sentiments when he expressed his electorate's views on the severe problems regional areas are facing with telecommunications, from TV reception to mobile phone coverage in his grievance speech yesterday.I am sure I do not have to remind the Deputy Prime Minister that, in the context of the regional summit, it was agreed that all Australians have a right to basic communications and services no matter where they live. I have Mudgee residents contacting my office seeking help with this problem—they cannot access a signal from Prime Television at Orange. Although I am pleased we are finally getting this legislation passed, this necessary change is well overdue.I am also pleased with the anti-hoarding provisions of the bill which enable the minister for communications to make a disallowable instrument listing events to which the regime will apply—an anti-hoarding list, if you like. It fairly outlines a `must offer' regime to free-to-air broadcasters who have acquired the rights to show certain events but are unwilling or unable to show them live to the general public.The Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 is essential and I commend the passing of sections 1 and 2 by the House, with urgency to the Senate. The three essential items contained in that bill include enforceable Australian content licence conditions for pay TV, limiting the scope of international agreements applying to ABA functions, and establishing a licence regime for international broadcasting services transmitted from our country. All of these items are worth while, logical and essential and I am pleased to support the bill.Although I share a certain level of disappointment that the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 could not have been passed in its original form—I am also disappointed at the extreme length of time it has taken to get any of it passed—I support this legislation. I do so for the benefit of those people living in regional black spot areas who have been relying on this bill to access TV and will now, finally, be able to access it through their only feasible option at present, via satellite. The second reading amendments from the opposition which seem to me to represent the sort of regime of localism that we certainly require in our television, the sort of protection—XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—Are you sure?KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—Well, I want to examine them in more detail. Are we going to a vote on this, by the way?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Yes.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—Okay. I will examine them in detail in the lobby before I make my decision clear. I doubt that that will be happening in other back bench positions. As we get towards debating digital television, the local regional television industry is anxious for the government to announce its intentions on infrastructure funding. I am very happy to support their claims for assistance in this area but I issue a warning to regional television that it needs to show more commitment to true localism. It should not degenerate into a situation where generic news type items are prepared in Wollongong for distribution through the whole network, more and more watering down their localism and still pleading their local legitimacy.Unless I see more signs of localism—without the closure of offices, like the Ten Network has suggested to fund its digital commitment, and the sending out of news programs for local markets from the other side of the continent, which could also happen in regional television, particularly in the area of local news—I will certainly review what support I am prepared to publicly offer for their cause, given that they have a vital role to play in disseminating the sort of information that those communities, many of them isolated, expect and deserve. I commend this bill to the House.21:28:0012989McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I thank the honourable member for Calare for his contribution. As a good local member ought to, he took the opportunity to range far and wide on other communication aspects but still made the central point that the government's legislation is sound, and he has a long background in the television broadcasting industry. I sympathise that he now has to very quickly consider, in case there is a formal vote, the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Perth, and seconded by the member for Denison, which the government does not support and utterly rejects out of hand as an opposition stunt.I am very disappointed. Just when you think you have this opposition up to the gate on responsible, constructive and worthwhile legislation they back away. We had earlier this evening the honourable member for Perth, very responsibly, supporting the government's Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 but now on Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 he and his colleagues revert to kind, which is just to pull stunts. There could be no other word for this amendment with which they have ambushed the government than to describe it as a stunt.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Ambush!XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—An ambush. We have been in extensive, exhaustive time consuming discussions with the member for Perth over several days and there was no hint that this amendment would come forward to this bill. Under the amendment, clause 5 calls on the government to legislate to overturn the impact of the Blue Sky decision. I cannot believe the member for Perth had a hand in this amendment.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—It is the left.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—Sure, he formally moved it, but it has the character and the touch of the member for Denison of the Labor Party left, as the member for Banks reminds me, all over it. There is no doubt at all that the shadow minister for communications has been led astray by the shadow minister for the arts. Any first-year law student knows that for the government to legislate to overturn the impact of the Blue Sky decision, so as to exclude New Zealand programs from the pay TV requirements, would be in breach of our international obligations to New Zealand under closer economic relations.Opposition members interjecting—XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—It says consistent with CER! Oh forgive me! In the rush, I did not get a chance to pick that up.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You should take a literacy test.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—The opposition has moved a complete sham of an amendment because they say: legislate to overturn the Blue Sky decision so long as it is consistent with CER. I would like them to produce any legal opinion from any qualified person—the member for Banks notwithstanding—to show that you can legislate to overturn Blue Sky and still be consistent with closer economic relations. That is not the government's understanding and it is certainly not the New Zealand government's understanding because they have indicated that they regard the exclusion of New Zealand programs from the requirement as a breach of the CER protocol and that any measure which jeopardises the free trade principles of CER would be regarded very seriously—and isn't that something of an understatement?—by New Zealand.I would like to know from the shadow minister for communications whether or not the shadow minister for trade or the shadow minister for foreign affairs or, for that matter, the shadow cabinet has approved this nonsensical amendment which is inherently contradictory if it requires the government to overturn the impact of the Blue Sky decision but still remain within the protocol of the CER. There is no exemption for audiovisual services in the CER protocol and it is not feasible to renegotiate the protocol. Therefore, in order to honour our obligations to New Zealand, there is no alternative but to admit New Zealand programs into the pay TV requirement.Project Blue Sky—the organisation of New Zealand producers that successfully challenged the free-to-air standard—has argued that there are legal grounds on which New Zealand programs should qualify under the existing pay TV requirement. Failure to amend the act as the government proposes could lead to another lengthy and costly legal battle. The impact of New Zealand programs on the pay TV requirement will be closely monitored and will be considered as part of the review of the requirement in three years time. We believe that the proposed amendment to section 160D, which limits its scope to the CER services protocol with New Zealand and which makes it clear that there are no flow-ons to other treaties, protects the level of Australian content under the amendment on free-to-air television so that foreign access to local content quotas under the section will be explicitly confined to New Zealand. That is the effect of the legislation. We are bound to CER but we can act in regard to other treaties.The government does not resile from its commitment to CER. To ensure no adverse impact on the local production industry, we have a commitment to ongoing monitoring. Moreover, the former Labor government was responsible for the introduction of the Broadcasting Services Act which required that CER and other international treaties were complied with. I am advised that Bob Collins, then minister for communications, wrote to the then ABA Chairman, Brian Johns, in December 1992 asking that the ABA move quickly to amend its local content standard to include New Zealand programs. This flies in the face of a rather unusual comment by the shadow minister for the arts, the member for Denison, that what we have here is an unintended consequence of some negotiations that he was involved in. He never really expanded on his role in what he believes is a debacle and for which he must take a large amount of the responsibility. What we do know as a matter of record is that several years ago—in December 1992—the Labor government urged the ABA to amend its local content standard to include New Zealand programs.Furthermore, the recently elected Labour Party—this will be of some interest to the honourable members opposite—has undertaken to introduce similar content regulations. As the CER is reciprocal, the Australian local film industry is set to benefit if the Labour New Zealand government goes ahead with its pre-election undertakings—and every sign is that they will. So here we have the member for Perth and the member for Denison wanting—impossibly, unrealistically and myopically—to cut New Zealand from accessing local content in Australia when it appears that there is the opportunity for us to have access to local content rules in New Zealand. If I may say so, it is a rather bizarre amendment moved by the two members.I turn quickly to another issue that the member for Denison raised and addressed in his amendment under clause 2. This amendment can best be described as gobbledegook. As best you can understand it, it is so heavily qualified that it really calls on the government to give documentaries the same status as drama in requiring that pay TV's 10 per cent of expenditure be spent. So the legislation requires 10 per cent of expenditure to be on drama, if I understand the opposition—and I will accept being corrected, because forgive me if I do not understand that 60 or 70 word sentence which seems to fall back on itself in different places.The simple fact is that the government is aware that the production industry is very concerned that the provision be extended to documentary. Senator Alston will therefore be asking the ABA, as a matter of priority, to consider the need to extend the requirement of 10 per cent of expenditure on drama to documentary, and to report back to him within 12 months. This is consistent with the Australian Film Commission and the Australian Film Finance Corporation's recent report on the state of the film industry, which I received as minister for the arts a fortnight ago. It recommended that the issue of extending the pay TV requirement to documentary channels be reviewed next year. The government acknowledged the importance of the documentary sector during the ministerial review in 1997. The government's announcement of a formal review of the requirement was intended to provide an opportunity to consider extending the requirement to documentary channels when the industry is further developed.I will draw to a conclusion by complimenting the member for Hinkler on yet another fine contribution, for he raised the concern that many pay TV channels have not been complying with the requirement and that only four out of 16 channels met the obligation in the financial year 1997-98. I agree with the member that the bill allows flexibility for meeting the requirement depending on channel type and allows time for licensees and channels to adjust to the new rules through a 12-month period to make up any shortfall.The government agrees that Australians have a strong demand for locally produced programs and that local content rules have contributed to Australia's world-class television production industry. The government not only acknowledges the special position of New Zealand but also recognises that we need to provide safeguards to prevent extension of access to local content quotas to other nations. I cannot stress that strongly enough. I welcome the member for Hinkler's recognition of the cultural role of local content regulation and that foreign access should be explicitly confined to New Zealand and not extended to other nations.I thank all members who have contributed, but I have to say they have contributed with varying degrees of worthiness. The government fearlessly and vigorously rejects the opposition's amendment.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.12992Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.21:39:0012992McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:(1) Schedule 3, page 44 (line 2) to page 61 (line 31), omit the Schedule.This government amendment will remove schedule 3 from the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 for the reasons summarised in large part by the member for Perth during the early and more constructive part of his contribution to this debate on this bill. Schedule 3 proposed to introduce a new licensing regime for international broadcasting services transmitted from Australia.The measures in schedules 1 and 2 of this bill are expected to proceed through the parliament quickly. However, I understand that the opposition has asked for more time to consider the measures in schedule 3 in further detail. I am very confident that the govern ment, in further discussions with the opposition, can answer some of the initial preliminary concerns raised by the member for Perth earlier this evening with regard to the provisions of schedule 3.It is proposed to reintroduce schedule 3 into the House of Representatives as a separate bill later this week. Introducing schedule 3 as a separate bill will give the parliament more time to consider the measures in that schedule. I commend the amendment to the House.21:40:0012992Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I support the amendment for the reasons outlined in my earlier contribution. I am happy for the minister to be my agent of public policy on this occasion.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.12992Bill (on motion by Mr McGauran)—by leave—read a third time.Miscellaneous12992Motion (by Ms Worth)—by leave—agreed to:That the parliamentarians' travel paid by the Department of Finance and Administration be tabled.Bills12992r96512992Debate resumed from 25 November, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.21:42:0012992Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The Appropriation (East Timor) Bill 1999-2000 , which is before the House tonight, provides for some emergency appropriations for the 1999-2000 budget to provide for the government's commitment to the East Timor troops and also the aid to help in the reconstruction of East Timor.The appropriations involve a figure of approximately $860 million for defence purposes for the 1999-2000 period, which is broken down into $431 million with respect to the actual deployment costs associated with the troops that are currently in East Timor, a further $135 million associated with equipment and related capital costs that emerged from that deployment, $279 million that applies to the expansion of the force that is currently under way as a result of decisions taken by the government recently and, finally, a provision of $15 million with respect to the capital use charge, which is now, of course, following the introduction of accrual accounting, a standard component of all parts of the federal budget which is returned centrally at the end of the relevant fiscal period and is a way of measuring efficiency of use of capital.I say at the outset that Labor supports the legislation, as we do very strongly support the commitment of troops and aid to East Timor. I will make some remarks later in my contribution with respect to the situation in East Timor, but I do want to make some observations first about the situation with respect to the budget, which is of course the backdrop to this particular legislation.It is interesting to note that the government is as yet unable to say how much of the cost of our commitment to East Timor is going to be borne by the existing Defence budget. So in many respects we have been flying blind in our commitment as far as the fiscal impact of that commitment is concerned. One of the reasons we have this special appropriation is that the extent of that commitment is quite considerable; nonetheless, it is rather troubling that the government is as yet unable to say how much of our total commitment is being borne by the existing Defence budget and how much has to be borne by additional appropriation in this case or further drawing on the surplus in future fiscal years.The reason why we have to have a special appropriation in the first place is that it is deemed inappropriate to wait for the supplementary appropriations early into the new year, and certainly I think there is reason in that position. But it is also, in substantive terms, very much the case that we have this appropriation legislation before the parliament because of a major fiscal deterioration which has occurred in recent months that the government is still really not coming clean on.We have seen in the mid-year economic and fiscal report for the 1999-2000 period, which has been tabled recently in the parliament, that it is projected that the expenditure for 2000-01 will be $5.9 billion higher than was estimated in the budget in May this year. So within little over six months the estimates of expenditure for the next financial year have blown out by almost $6 billion. We have also seen in the same MYEFO document that the estimate of revenue for 2000-01 that was made in the May budget this year has increased by $3 billion. So there is a net deterioration in the fiscal position of roughly $2.9 billion.This consists of a number of factors. They are, by and large, associated with the deal that the government did with the Democrats to get their GST legislation through the Senate. Firstly, the impact of the failure of the government to sell all of Telstra or to get Senate approval for the full sale of Telstra. You will recall that it was factored into this year's budget that all of Telstra would be sold with no reference to the government's own commitment in their own legislation that the second half of Telstra would not be sold without an independent inquiry into the prospective impact that that would have on rural and regional Australia. Of course they were being a little too optimistic from their point of view. Secondly, the Senate would not pass the legislation even though the budget was based on the assumption that it would be passed. So that is another factor which has contributed to this blow-out. Thirdly, the East Timor commitment clearly will have an impact, although this bill reflects the government's commitment to introduce the East Timor levy for the 2000-01 year, which will soak up, one assumes, the vast bulk of the commitment that will apply in that financial year with respect to our East Timor commitment.It is also important to note in the deterioration of the budget that has occurred that roughly $879 million of higher expenditure is attributable to blow-outs in particular programs. There is $303 million additional estimated expenditure for the private health insurance rebate, which means that that will now be in the vicinity of $2 billion in the financial year 2000-01, which I would suggest is an incredible amount of money to be paying to ensure that a tiny additional percentage of Australians take out private health insurance—surely one of the least efficient government programs of all time.The blow-out also relates to underestimates of the number of claims that would be made for service and war widows pensions. It is estimated now that the cost of those programs will be $179 million higher than was previously estimated, and it is also estimated that the cost of youth allowances that will apply in the 2000-01 year will actually be substantially higher than was estimated in the budget this year. This unfortunately does not have a figure associated with it as yet, but it would appear that it too will be in the several hundred millions of dollars.So in overall terms we have a fiscal situation that is rapidly deteriorating, and we now have a government caught in a position where a very legitimate and very important additional fiscal burden has emerged—namely, the commitment in East Timor—and, as a result of its deteriorating fiscal position, it has had to levy an additional tax in order to assist in financing that commitment.It was, you will recall, estimated in the budget this year that the cash surplus based on the old accounting mechanism of cash accounting for the year 2000-01 would be $3.1 billion. In the MYEFO documents that we received the week before last that figure is now $0.5 billion—in other words, a net reduction in the estimated surplus for the 2000-01 year of $2.6 billion. Therefore, it is hardly a surprise that the Prime Minister came into the parliament in the previous sitting week to announce that the East Timor levy was necessary otherwise the budget would go into deficit in the next financial year. So much for the spectacular fiscal rectitude that this government portrays itself as having.When you particularly consider that this is in a period when growth has generally been slightly higher than expected—and clearly in overall terms the growth rate of the economy has been robust and has been delivering substantial revenue—this indicates that we have a significant problem on the fiscal front which the government is loath to admit. I should add, in case those who are aficionados of accrual accounting are wondering, that the figures for the accrual budgetary situation for 2000-01 have changed from a net estimated surplus of $5.2 billion, which was the figure estimated for 2000-01 in the 1999 budget, to a figure of $3.4 billion. So on both the cash basis and the fiscal balance basis, which is the new surplus or deficit term for the accrual based budget, we have had a very substantial deterioration.It is perhaps in this context highly significant that we have seen only in the past week or so the release of the Vertigan report that was commissioned by the government. The committee which handed down that report was chaired by Michael Vertigan, with a distinguished group of senior public servants assisting, to examine the introduction of accrual accounting in the budget in 1999 and to consider precisely how effective or otherwise the new accrual framework was and whether there were issues that needed to be dealt with in terms of improving the budgeting of the Commonwealth under the new accrual system.This report makes interesting reading. It is a well written report, it is not particularly long, and it certainly does get to the gist of what are clearly substantial problems that have arisen in the introduction of accrual accounting in the federal budget. This report indicates that there should have been and there is still a need for a whole of government budgetary strategy, budgetary approach, to ensure that accrual accounting actually works in a meaningful way; that there is a need for better information systems within government departments and between government departments to ensure that there is a much better mechanism for tracking commitments and expenditure and these can be inculcated within the overall accrual framework.The report found that the adjusting tracking module which is used by the department needs to be better understood by the people who are using it; that there are inadequate expertise and systems within the department of finance; and that there is a lack of clarity of roles on the part of the department of finance and the Treasury and the individual departments in the production of estimates.It is probably significant to recall that, as part of the budget process this year, I and my then adviser, Dr Warren Mundy, spent quite a bit of time liaising with the office of the minister for finance about the introduction of accrual accounting. We were given dummy estimates, dummy budgets papers and the like, and were generally provided with appropriate information as to how the new system was going to work. There was a lot of effort put in on our part to understand the new system. The budget indicated the new format and indicated that there would be forward estimates for the forthcoming financial years in the new accounting language. We were shocked to discover on budget night that, for virtually all portfolios, no forward estimates were made available. We were, as you can probably guess, rather unimpressed about this and rather dismayed that the government chose to treat the opposition and, indeed, the media and the Australian public in this cavalier fashion.Subsequently, we discovered why this had happened. It was not a conspiracy. It was a stuff-up. What had actually happened was that many of the departments simply had proved unable to get their accrual accounting based estimates into sufficiently good order that they could actually be published in time for the budget itself. A decision was made at the last minute that this would have to be deferred because things were in too much of a mess. Therefore it is not surprising that the Vertigan report has recommended that there is a lack of clarity in the roles, the obligations of the two central departments—Treasury and Finance—as opposed to the roles of the individual departments, and also that there is a need for greater expertise in the department of finance and also greater effort and expertise on the part of individual departments.The report recommends that a budget coordination committee be formed from within the various departments and that this committee should prepare a whole of government plan for the implementation and operation of accrual accounting. It recommends that agencies themselves be directly responsible for the process of producing budget estimates in the accrual accounting language. One would hope that, after the rather unfortunate experience in May this year, the various departments are now up to speed and that we will not have the same fiasco in the budget next year. But I suspect to a certain degree that that will depend on the willingness of the government and the various departments involved to take and act upon the recommendations in the Vertigan report. It is also recommended in this report that the information that is provided be improved and that there be more comprehensive budget portfolio statements as part of the overall budgeting process.The net outcome of all of this is that we now have a budget process which we cannot trust in terms of the veracity of the figures. We have a situation where substantial doubt is now hanging over the figures that are in the budget. And we clearly have initial evidence of the rubbery nature of those figures arising from the MYEFO statements, the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook statements, which we have just received. They do indicate a very substantial variation—both in revenue and expenditure terms—for 2000-01 from the estimates that were made in the budget this year. They particularly indicate very substantial blow-outs in a number of major programs. It is true to say that these were estimates, so this is not a variation on this year's budget. We must accept that these changes do occur from time to time when you have further information and the like. It may well be that there is an entirely reasonable explanation for each of the blow-outs that have occurred. We have seen some explanation in some cases and we will reserve judgment on precisely how reasonable they are.Nonetheless, it does give rise for concern that a high powered committee, which has been reviewing the process of accrual accounting that has been introduced by the government, supported by the opposition, in the budget this year, has recommended that a whole lot of changes need to be made and has basically made a very damning assessment of the government's introduction of accrual accounting. What that does is cast a pall over the entire budget process; it casts a pall over the veracity, the accuracy, of existing budget figures. Only time will tell as to what extent the doubt that is now there will actually be proved to be correct.It is something that I think gives us cause for reflection when we contemplate that the legislation before us tonight is providing for an additional appropriation of around $900 million or thereabouts and also entails giving authority to the minister for finance to draw upon the existing budgetary item for unusual expenses or the finance minister's advance in order to fund East Timor related expenses. If it were not for the levy that the Prime Minister announced to the parliament in the last sitting week, and other changes to the budget situation, then the budget would be going into deficit next year.This is important because of the significant prospect of a renewed bout of inflation in this country in the next year or so. It is acknowledged by the government and by everybody else that there will be a one-off impact on inflation from the introduction of the GST and that inflation will hit, for a period of time, 5.5 per cent to 5.75 per cent as a result of the GST. It is important to remember that, in the last quarter's figures, inflation went from 1.1 per cent to 1.7 per cent on an annual basis. There has been a very significant jump—the biggest jump in three years.The GST will therefore be added to a situation where inflation is already starting to revive just a fraction. Theoretically, the GST should be washed through the system and the inflation rate should return to where it was fairly quickly. In practice, that is unlikely to happen. To what extent there will be an ongoing addition to inflation arising from the GST will depend on the pricing behaviour of companies, on wage settlements and on activities within the labour market, which are difficult to predict. Other factors in the system add to this concern. I raise this because it relates to the fiscal situation, it relates to appropriations and it is something we need to be concerned about.As part of the GST package, a very substantial fiscal stimulus is occurring. There is some debate as to the magnitude of that but, in a discussion I was involved in today, a representative of Treasury indicated that, in their view, it could be as high as 0.5 per cent of GDP whereas a senior academic economist indicated that, in his view, it could be about 0.8 per cent of GDP. Nonetheless, a substantial fiscal stimulus is arising from the tax cuts and the social security compensation package for the GST—particularly the tax cuts, which will clearly have some inflationary impact. How much is yet to be seen. The current account deficit is still at a pretty much record level, which may at some stage have an impact on the value of the dollar and thereby have an additional inflationary impact.There are already signs, as Glenn Stevens from the Reserve Bank indicated recently, of skill bottlenecks in the economy and possible wage settlements in a number of areas which also could be part of an increase in the total wages bill. The skill bottleneck problem is something that people have paid insufficient attention to. Those factors are clearly there as well, plus we have the prospect of the increased growth of many of our trading partners, broadly increased growth on a global basis and, finally, a few smaller factors in total terms—such as the Olympics—which are likely to give expenditure a bit of a kick along.When you add to this the pattern that has been emerging in recent times of a massive growth in consumer debt—particularly credit card debt, which has gone up by 40 per cent in little over 12 months—then we have a whole range of prospective inflationary factors gradually coming into the system. None of them by itself is particularly dramatic. None of them by itself is likely to send things off the rails in a big way. Nonetheless, we do have a substantial list of factors, all of which threaten to have some degree of inflationary impact. When you add all of these factors together, there is a very significant prospect that we will have inflation back as a serious problem in our economy over the next 12 to 18 months. Time will tell.I raise this as a warning because of the deterioration in the fiscal situation which is now occurring. For all the government's posturing on its fiscal behaviour, it is worth pointing out that we are now at a very substantial high point in the level of economic growth. Clearly, if the fiscal situation is allowed to deteriorate further and the blow-outs that are occurring do continue, the pressure on interest rates will escalate, the pressure on inflation will escalate and we could have a very different economic situation in the not too distant future. Finally, I will turn to the question of our commitment to East Timor, of which the opposition is fully supportive and has been from day one.8I4MARTINMr Martin—From before day one!YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—In fact, as the honourable member for Cunningham points out, from before day one. Our relevant shadow ministers have called this issue correctly from day one and have sought an appropriate Australian commitment to deal with these issues. It is important to note that, so far—and that is a big qualification—Australia's commitment, our willingness to take the lead on the issue and our willingness not to be diverted by the possibility of some serious consequences have been justified. So far, the threat of massive military engagement against INTERFET and Australian troops by the militias has proved to be a hollow threat. That may not be the case in the future; I sincerely hope it continues to be a hollow threat. So far, the decision of the government, supported by the opposition, to take a leading role in the peace force in East Timor has been justified. So we are fully supportive of the legislation before the House tonight for appropriation that provides part of the cost for that.In closing, I cannot resist making one observation. A number of people—and I will not be too partisan about this, but some of them are on the other side of the House—have been very recent converts to the cause of the East Timorese. Quite a number of people on this side of the House have a long history of support for the cause of the East Timorese for justice and for the right to self-determination. This is in spite of the fact that previous Labor governments adopted a position that I felt at the time was wrong—and I said so, as did a number of other members on this side of the House at the time. There are probably only two members from the government's side who can claim any substantial honour on this question prior to the fall of the Suharto regime. I am happy to be persuaded otherwise, but I refer particularly to the member for Menzies and Senator Julian McGauran.So I have noticed, with some degree of cynicism, that there have been quite a lot of people from the other side of the House who have been very happy in recent times to proclaim themselves as great supporters of the cause of the East Timorese. I am pleased that they are now doing so and that the government has made the commitment that it has. But I recall the fact that, at a time when the world was rather different—when we had a Labor government that was, in my view, at the time perhaps not as strong in its positioning on Indonesia as it might have been—we had the now Prime Minister, who was then in opposition, attacking the Labor Party as being a hostage to people like the honourable member for Banks and me by being too anti-Indonesian. That was the overwhelmingly prevailing view of the coalition parties at the time. I think that is worth putting on the record.My personal view is that, in government, Labor did not get it exactly right on East Timor. There are plenty of examples on the record of me saying that at the time but, unfortunately, I was in a minority. But whatever mistakes we may have made, the position of the Liberal and National parties at the time, with the current Prime Minister at the forefront, was far more anti-East Timorese and far more supportive of Indonesia's role in East Timor, irrespective of what that may have involved. I think that is worth keeping in mind. I applaud the government for the commitment it has made, including the commitment in this legislation. I think it is really worth while that, finally—after all these years—the debt that it is widely acknowledged Australia owes to East Timor arising from the Second World War is being repaid. It is a very substantial debt and the repayment that we are making as a nation is very substantial. I applaud our troops and all of those people involved in the aid effort who have been participating in the initial stages of providing security for East Timor and in the early stages of rebuilding East Timor.In commending the bill to the House, I trust that we can approach this issue in the future as a basis for learning from what occurred in the past, that we try to ensure that we can make a substantial contribution to the future of East Timor as an independent nation, and that we also move on in our relationships with Indonesia. As has been remarked in the media on a number of occasions in recent weeks, Australia and Indonesia need to be on friendly terms with each other. In a sense, we have no choice. So it is vital that we move beyond the problems that have arisen as a result of the issue in East Timor. Australia can contribute to the East Timorese building a nation and finding genuine freedom and peace and rebuilding a strong, healthy relationship with a new democratic Indonesia.22:11:0012998Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I am pleased to note that the opposition supports the position that the government has taken in its support of and leading role in INTERFET and in the revenue raising measures that have been necessary to support our involvement in East Timor in seeking a suitable resolution to the problems that have bedevilled that country now for some time. The shadow finance spokesman can trawl back through time and shine a light into various crevices of policies adopted on either side of the House. I am sure that either side can be presented in a bad light, if that is what you wish. However, I do not think this is the time or place to be going back and doing that. We have embarked on a tremendous undertaking in East Timor, shining tremendous credit back onto Australia, particularly on our troops and the people who are participating in that activity.In this context, I would like to refer to something that I noticed myself. Located within the electorate of Blair is RAAF Base Amberley and the other evening I attended a dine-in night at the base. The tremendous pride that is being shown for Australia's armed forces as a result of our involvement in East Timor is really something to witness. Those people are very proud that we have RAAF members from Amberley in East Timor, and their activities and their performance are really first class. What people in the armed forces really relish is not the involvement in military activity per se but the opportunity to evaluate their performance. At RAAF Base Amberley people were tremendously proud of the capabilities they have discovered since being called upon to perform in this very difficult situation and there was a lot of discussion about it. In fact, the whole night revolved around developments in East Timor and the immense pleasure they are getting from discovering their tremendous capabilities. But on top of that, there is also a willingness now—an internal reflection—to look at where the problems may lie and to get out there and confront them. That is a tremendous driving force now in our armed forces and it is good to see. It was certainly wonderful to see that at RAAF Base Amberley. Subsequent to that dine-in night, there were also Christmas carols to raise money for the troops in East Timor and the effort that is going on up there. Many of the families of people in Timor were there. The goodwill that is being generated by this activity reaches right down to the grassroots of the armed forces and it has reminded them of the tremendous calling they have answered in taking up this role. That having been said, however, I return to the discussion at hand.I think we should begin by remembering that this is the first time that Australia has been asked by the United Nations to build and lead a multinational force and to provide the largest component of that force. Australia's deployment at full strength to the East Timor effort is 4,500 troops. Our role really is front and centre in this exercise. We have been leading it and we have been demonstrating to the world just what we are made of—and we have come up trumps as a result.Our effort in East Timor is as a result of United Nations resolution No. 1264 of 1999, which was adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 15 September this year. I will not read the whole of that resolution because it is very long, but I will read a couple of points that are relevant to what we are talking about. The United Nations:Authorises the establishment of a multinational force under a unified command structure, pursuant to the request of the Government of Indonesia conveyed to the Secretary-General on 12 September 1999, with the following tasks: to restore peace and security in East Timor, to protect and support UNAMET in carrying out its tasks and, within force capabilities, to facilitate humanitarian assistance operations, and authorises the States participating in the multinational force to take all necessary measures to fulfil this mandate.Further along in the resolution, the United Nations:Welcomes the offers by Member States to organise, lead and contribute to the multinational force in East Timor, calls on Member States to make further contributions of personnel, equipment and other resources and invites Member States in a position to contribute to inform the leadership of the multinational force and the Secretary-General.Further, the United Nations:Agrees that the multinational force should collectively be deployed in East Timor until replaced as soon as possible by a United Nations peacekeeping operation, and invites the Secretary-General to make prompt recommendations on a peacekeeping operation to the Security Council.The last part I will read is that the United Nations: Invites the Secretary-General to plan and prepare for a United Nations transitional administration in East Timor, incorporating a United Nations peacekeeping operation, to be deployed in the implementation phase of the popular consultation (phase III) and to make recommendations as soon as possible to the Security Council.Those are the relevant parts, I believe, of resolution No. 1264. The import of that is to put Australia at the very centre of a very crucial process in leadership in this part of the world. We have carried with us not only the hopes of the Australian troops who have gone over there—and, of course, their families here in Australia—but also the hopes and dreams of the people of East Timor and I think many other people in that region who desire peace and a future for this region that is reflective of the general potential of our region.The statement that the Prime Minister made on this matter referred to the fact that, of necessity, due to our heavy commitment in East Timor, we will now be establishing a further two battalions of the Australian Army; that we are establishing a temporary revenue measure to fund that. I think also I should reflect on the fact that the Prime Minister in his statement also reported on the tremendous progress that INTERFET had made.On 21 September, the Australian Parliament was advised of our deployment into East Timor. As I have said, INTERFET had three basic goals: to restore peace and security, to protect the UN mission and to help humanitarian relief. We are, I think, tremendously fortunate in that the United Nations not only commanded our activities but also, it appears, was listened to very closely by the leadership in Indonesia. On 19 October, the People's Consultative Assembly of Indonesia agreed to separate East Timor from the rest of Indonesia. That was as a result of a ballot that was held on 30 August—and we can all remember the tremendous death, destruction and violence that flowed from that ballot.INTERFET will perform in its role only as long as it takes the United Nations to establish this transitional authority which hopefully will, within two or three years, hand over to East Timor its own leadership. East Timor then will be established as a completely independent nation. As I have said, INTERFET has been a tremendous success. We have seen Australia's professional capabilities on display. I think they have been particularly demonstrated by the leader of the force, Major General Cosgrove.I think I should also update members. In his statement the Prime Minister referred to the number of nations that were participating in INTERFET. On the latest advice I have been able to glean from the Internet, there are now 19 countries committed to INTERFET. That is two more than when the Prime Minister made his statement on this issue. The personnel involved now number 9,400, including about 4,500 from our coalition partners. The two new additions since the Prime Minister spoke, I believe, are Denmark and Kenya. They join Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand, the United Kingdom and the United States. I think we should add as a bit of an afterthought that the Japanese are providing $100 million to support activities in East Timor.Until recently there had been no casualties there, although I must say that I am aware certainly of at least one very senior officer from RAAF Base Amberley who was injured in an unfortunate accident there. Recently we unfortunately have had one casualty, a New Zealander; however, there have been six militia deaths and some militia casualties. INTERFET is, however, firmly in charge in the area. As the opposition finance spokesman stated, things really have moved on from the sense of threat and imminent danger that initially affected our concerns about operations in East Timor. On 31 October, the last of the Indonesian troops left. Since then, the humanitarian effort really has got into full swing. It is well advanced now, with organisations such as Red Cross, World Vision, CARE, Catholic Relief, et cetera fulfilling their admirable function and getting out to the people of East Timor the aid and support they need.Australia had provided an additional $14 million in aid to the region; that is, to East and West Timor. We have then added $23 million in humanitarian aid and, further to the statement issued by the Prime Minister, $60 million will be provided in aid to the area. As a result of the admirable efforts of both our troops and our coalition INTERFET partners over there, hundreds of thousands of East Timorese are now returning home to the area and re-establishing their lives. We have all now seen the wonderful TV footage of that taking place. In progressing towards the third phase of the exercise where we will hand over to the transitional UN mission, we would be aware that Sergio Vieria de Mello, who is designated as the head of UNTAET—which is the transitional authority—has been active in the area and has been having regular talks with Major General Cosgrove about the direction and move towards the transitional UN control. We must recall that Australia has acted not because of any of those lingering concerns that were referred to by the shadow finance minister about our position but basically for two reasons: firstly, it was the right thing to do to save people who were in a very difficult situation—it was a humanitarian action—and, secondly, it is in the national interest of Australia for us to seek to stabilise the region. They are the two most important factors.Even once INTERFET is complete, our contribution will continue because our involvement in UNTAET is to be 1,500 troops. Therefore, our proposal to bring these additional two infantry battalions online is something of a priority. It will increase the number of operational battalions in Australia from four to six and the number of personnel from 23,000 to 26,000 over a two-year period, although this may be extended. The RAAF—RAAF Amberley being my local military base, I am most interested in what is happening there—is going to increase in numbers by about 500 or 550 to a total of 13,500 members to provide extra combat support and to increase the number of airfield defence guards. These airfield defence guards are based at Amberley. It is good to see them being expanded because they have certainly proven their capability over there in East Timor.The cost of this exercise in the 1999-2000 year is $907 million. The costs are estimated to be $1.089 billion in 2000-01 and $901 million in 2001-02. That big lump for 2000-01 does create difficulty for the government, and that is why it has been necessary to seek the additional funding through this legislation. I fully support this measure. We have seen the opposition and even the Democrats supporting this measure because, at the base of it all, we see the advantages to Australia in practically every sense through this positive involvement in the INTERFET operation.But, were we not to seek the additional funding, it would mean that Australia would have an underlying deficit in that year of some $500 million. That is something that we needed to address. This government has gone too far and worked too hard to correct the budgetary problems and underlying difficulties that have been there in the past—ensuring that we entrench the surplus, keep interest rates low and all those kinds of things that have been achieved on the back of the government's activity. It is far too important for us to let that slip on the basis of a rela tively short, although very important, deployment of people into East Timor.Therefore, the government has applied a temporary levy at 0.05 per cent for taxpayers with an income between $50,000 and $100,000 and at one per cent for taxpayers with incomes above $100,000 for a strictly limited period of 12 months. This levy will be removed in the same way that the previous levy, which funded the gun buyback after the Port Arthur tragedy, was removed. The impact on average Australians is worth considering: a single taxpayer on $60,000 will have their tax cut, which was to have been $62 per week, reduced for that one year only by about $6. Along the way, I should also mention that somebody in the upper echelons of income, someone earning say $150,000, will see their tax cut reduced by half in order to fund this levy. But that will be for a one-year period only. It will deliver up to Australia a tremendous opportunity and it is something we should all support.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Miscellaneous13001Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration:National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 1999Adjournment13001Motion (by Dr Stone) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.1300122:29:0013001Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—Tonight I want to speak about two people in my electorate of Canning. To begin with, I want to pay tribute to the life and work of Glenda Caughlan. For the past 10 years, Glenda has been the manager at Bedingfeld Park, which is a senior citizens facility in Pinjarra. Sadly, last Wednesday, Glenda passed away suddenly. I spoke to Glenda only last Monday. She was in high spirits because Bedingfeld, after a long struggle, had finally been allocated 10 nursing home beds. It seems tragic that she died so shortly after this news, before she could put into practice something she had wanted so desperately to do.Glenda's contribution to aged care in my area is to be admired. She tackled each task and hurdle with enthusiasm and optimism. Her loss is a huge one. Not only are we all going to miss her friendliness and kindness but her skills and dedication to aged care are not going to be easily replaced. I certainly appreciated over the last 18 months the way Glenda welcomed me into Bedingfeld, and I am going to miss her very much.A demonstration of the loyalty and affection the staff held for Glenda was that they all returned from leave, holidays and shifts to comfort the residents when Glenda passed away. I pass on to Glenda's family the deepest sympathy of all those who cared for Glenda, and they can have comfort in the fact that Glenda was admired and loved for the work she did in aged care. I also pass on the sympathy of my office to the board, staff and residents of Bedingfeld.The second person I want to speak about tonight is Stuart Cassey. I was very pleased on 26 November to become a part of the Adopt a Politician scheme. I appreciate the fact that Stuart and his family are opening up their lives to me to assist me in learning more about and understanding the problems that a family with a child with a disability can experience.Stuart turned 16 years of age on Monday of last week. When he was born he did not have any difficulties. Just before he turned four years of age, he had the flu with the rest of the family. He developed complications, and it became meningitis. He now has what is termed as an `acquired brain injury'. This means he has a learning disability, epilepsy and attention deficit disorder. He attends Corpus Christi School, and his family were so proud of him when he received a prize at the end of the year for the hard work he put in. He is a happy and friendly young man who loves anything to do with speed, like racing cars. I certainly enjoyed my time in improv ing my basketball skills with him, and I think I have a lot to learn in that area as well.His family have been very generous in the time that they have allocated to me, and I thank them for that. One of the pressures that is really noticeable immediately is the need that the family have for respite care, particularly during school holidays. Because of Stuart's disability, he needs constant supervision; he cannot be left alone. It makes it difficult to find activities outside the family which he can safely enjoy. As with all families who have a child with a disability, it is vital that the other children get some time alone with their parents as well, not to mention the fact that the parents need time to be together.It is vital that the government gives them as much funding as is available to put towards the respite care that is needed. Heather Cassey has become involved in a parent-run group called Teenpower. This group, through fundraising and donations, have run three successful holiday programs for groups of young people with disabilities. While there is a great demand for these programs, they are not backed up by funding. Parents should not have to be responsible for fundraising and seeking donations to get the children the care they need. Groups such as Kincare and Teenpower deserve a lot more support.I am pleased and proud to be a part of this program. I appreciate the fact that Heather, Ray, Joanne, Stuart and Jack are inviting me into their lives so that I can have a better understanding of the experiences they have. I look forward to working with the family over the years to come and to use this experience to give me greater knowledge so that I can push for the funding they need. Again, I thank the Cassey family for their welcome.1300222:34:0013002May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—In my maiden speech delivered in this chamber a little over 12 months ago, I spoke of the desperate need for a convention centre on the Gold Coast. It gives me a great feeling tonight to stand here before the House and tell the House that a convention centre will be developed in my electorate. Last week, the Queensland government announced the preferred developer of such a centre—Jupiters Ltd—after an extensive and exhaustive process. Jupiters plans to build the convention centre as part of a $295 million expansion of the Conrad Jupiters Casino. Jupiters will operate the convention centre, and the land and buildings will be owned by the state government.The stage is now set for the Gold Coast to benefit from the development of a world-class facility which is crucial to the development of the sixth largest city in Australia. I may be biased towards the Gold Coast, but I make this statement with objectivity: the Gold Coast's attractiveness as a convention destination is unrivalled in Australia. Our beaches, hinterland, lifestyle and climate are all great assets which are recognised internationally. They are all elements of that attractiveness. In terms of volume, the Gold Coast is listed as the second largest convention destination in Australia after Sydney—even without a dedicated convention and exhibition centre. With a high profile centre, the potential is endless; the sky is the limit.As Gary Baildon, the Mayor of the Cold Coast City Council, said in a feature piece in the Gold Coast Bulletin last week, the facility will be a missing link in the Gold Coast tourism infrastructure. It has the potential to be the catalyst to lift the tourism industry into a new era. I reiterate and fully support the mayor's comment that the Gold Coast will not take its place as an international city without this facility. Last Friday I was chatting with a visitor from the United States who was in our glorious city to attend an international conference. He explained that, because of the size of the conference, two venues had to be used because one was not large enough to house the number of delegates. With the development of a state convention centre, such inconveniences for conference organisers will be eliminated. It also means that, for large-scale international acts and appearances, Gold Coast residents will no longer need to travel to Brisbane's Boondall Centre. Instead, the Gold Coast Convention Centre will become a drawcard for tourists from northern New South Wales and other parts of south-east Queensland. The mayor is billing this development as one of the most important projects in the recent history of our city.The people of the Gold Coast will benefit from this development. They will be the beneficiaries of the centre. In particular, we will see greater benefits in the area of jobs, the economy and tourism for the city. Conservative estimates are that the convention centre will generate 1,800 jobs during construction and 300 permanent positions when fully operational. This is wonderful news for my constituents and the people of the Gold Coast.Broadbeach, the suburb in which the centre will be built, is moving ahead in leaps and bounds. It has developed a reputation as one of the city's most important tourism and commercial hubs. It is geographically the centre of the coastal strip. It is the logical place for a convention centre to be developed. Broadbeach is also tipped to become the headquarters for a major light rail network linking the city's population centres. The city has been given an undertaking by the Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development and Trade that the project must now gain the necessary approvals from the Gold Coast City Council for it to proceed.Gold Coast residents look forward to the day when all these details are stitched up and construction begins. With approvals in place, it is estimated that the centre should be built by March 2002. I congratulate Jupiters for offering the chance to the Gold Coast to further enhance its status as a tourist mecca. It is a much needed facility which will provide a catalyst for our city in terms of tourism, economic growth and, more importantly, jobs for the future.1300322:38:0013003Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—Speaking tonight so close to Christmas, I want to take the opportunity to send my best wishes for the coming festive season to all the men, women and families in my electorate and to wish them a safe and happy Christmas—as I know many others in the House wish their electorates. However, I would also like to send special wishes to the thousands of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and people of other religions, and even those of no religion, and I hope that they also enjoy this holiday period. As many would know, we are in the middle of Hanukkah as I speak tonight. As everyone knows, at the end of a long year it is important for us to take time to reflect on the year that has been, to rest and to enjoy some time with our families and friends.I send that message to my electorate, but I also say that it is important for us to remember that, although Christmas is a happy time for many people, it is also a very difficult time for other people. It is particularly difficult for people with no families, those who have little support from friends, those who are in financial difficulties, the homeless, the jobless and those struggling for some other reason. Christmas can be one of the worst times of the year for people in those circumstances. Those people in particular need our thoughts and practical help at this time of year.I particularly send my wishes and thoughts to the many thousands of volunteers and workers who help these people over the very difficult Christmas period. In particular, there are many thousands—not thousands in my electorate, but across the country—of youth workers, crisis carers, housing workers and welfare workers who find this time of year particularly stressful. I send a message of support to those people. I hope they also have some time off to enjoy the Christmas period and that their hard work does not go unnoticed by members of this House.It is particularly timely to send our wishes to these workers when charities are facing a difficult time at the moment. In the House today, yesterday and over the last couple of months there has been sustained criticism by the opposition to the imposition of a GST on charities and the impact this will have on the good work they do. I hope that the government reflects again on its position on charities as we go into the Christmas period when so many of these organisations are called upon to help those who are in need.I would like to thank some specific organisations in my electorate who work with these groups—although I know that in naming some I will leave out others; however, my thoughts are with all of them. They include Outreach, the Melbourne City Mission, Open Family and the many Rotary groups who have taken a very innovative approach in my electorate and are providing breakfasts at schools to children who are not receiving sufficient food at home. They have done many other good works to help children, in particular, who are in need. The Scouts, many of the pensioner clubs and other organisations, along with the migrant resource centres, have been particularly active in providing assistance to our community.At this time of year these community organisations need us to contribute time and not just money, although I know that that is always welcome. However, it is always appreciated if people in the community can give up some of their rest time to spend a day or two assisting others over this period.Finally, I send wishes from my electorate to the Australian troops in East Timor. We know that it will be a difficult time for them over the Christmas period. A number of those troops come from my electorate, particularly from Sunshine, and I know that many will be thinking of them and wishing them well and a speedy return to Australia.1300422:43:0013004Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—In April 1996, 35 people were tragically killed and others wounded in Port Arthur in Tasmania by a lone gunman, Martin Bryant. A month later, a meeting of Commonwealth, state and territory police ministers was convened at which agreement was reached—under the political leadership of the Prime Minister, John Howard—that there should be restrictions on the importation, ownership, sale, resale, transfer, possession, manufacture and use of self-loading centre-fire rifles, self-loading and pump-action shotguns and self-loading rim-fire rifles. Agreement was also reached on a licensing and registration scheme for firearms in accordance with national standards. A buyback was implemented to encourage firearm owners and dealers to surrender prohibited weapons, with the Commonwealth agreeing to meet the costs of compensation.Like most Australians, I strongly supported these measures—as I certainly do now—but there is one consequence of our national determination and action that, in my opinion, is to be regretted. Perhaps more in perception than in reality, Australia's almost 200,000 members of registered gun clubs—legitimate shooters—feel a sense of vilification to which many have had trouble adjusting. Even now, in my own suburban North Shore electorate of Bradfield in Sydney, I come across constituents at public meetings who are far removed from many high levels of gun ownership in other parts of Australia who still feel somewhat hurt and perceive that they have been targeted by those of us who were quite determined, as I say I continue to be, about gun control. As I say, it is perhaps more a perception than a reality.Australian shooters have excelled in international championships, Commonwealth Games and Olympic Games, where medals in all classes have been won by proud Australians. The reality is that in 1997 gun deaths declined from 521 to 437, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. That was part of a general 10-year trend. Most notably, suicide by gunshot declined from 382 to 330. It should also be noted that in this past year we had 62 fewer youth suicides than we had the year before. Most of those were suicide by gun.Of all of the things that we did as a government—supported by the opposition and by almost all Australians—I think the most significant part of our gun control measures was licensing requirements and the storage of weapons, perhaps more so than the banning of semiautomatic weapons and so on, which was obviously quite necessary. Simply having a gun less freely available for an impulsive action—particularly for suicide and, to a lesser extent, for use in domestic violence—has been a great step forward.I urge Australians to maintain their support for national uniform gun control and at the same time to not set out to disenfranchise in any hurtful or unnecessary way the interests and good name of legitimate gun owners, the vast majority of whom have not ever broken a law, will not ever break a law nor intend to do so, but to some extent have surrendered some of their freedoms to see that we live in a safer society and that some people—who would not have done so had we not implemented these laws—will continue to live.The vast majority of these clubs and the men and women who comprise their membership are decent, disciplined, law-abiding people who have not broken the law but in fact do everything in their power to uphold it. I stand by my very strong support for Australia's gun control measures, but at the same time I think it is extremely important that we do not in any sense—certainly deliberately and perhaps even unintentionally—do anything to make legitimate gun owners feel that they are lesser Australians than any one of the rest of us.1300522:47:0013005Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—As this century and indeed this millennium draw to a close many commentators have looked into their crystal balls to picture the kind of society we can expect to see in the years ahead. The predictions vary from optimistic to gloomy, but one thing they have in common is that Australian society in the next century will be much different from what it is today. The workplace has undergone great change in this century, and the rate of change has increased further in the last decade. There is no sign that the rate of change is slowing.It is not surprising then that many in the work force as well as those seeking work look forward to the next century with some concern. They are certainly not relaxed and comfortable. The changes, pushed along by deregulation and globalisation, have had a dramatic effect on the social and political landscape across Australia. The so-called `bush revolt' and more recently the republic referendum have been used to describe the pattern of division between two classes in Australian society. What has emerged, however, is not a simple boundary between city and country Australia but a complex patchwork of prosperity based on centres of commerce, information technology, mining and specialised agriculture. What divides Australia today is knowledge and access to skills demanded in a globally competitive work force.With Australia's long traditions of a sense of equality and a fair distribution of services, it is not surprising that governments have begun to respond to what they see as the need to restore a balance. In drawing up policies to respond to these perceived imbalances, governments must avoid responses which assume that each part of a region is the same. If the problem is seen simply as a city versus the bush issue, then it overlooks the more complex pattern of economic prosperity.A recent study by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute has highlighted the folly of assuming simple boundaries for identifying areas with high or low economic potential. Outer urban and some coastal areas were found to have low potential, while some rural areas and mining centres were found to have high potential. My concern is that areas such as my electorate of Fowler can be ignored because they fall within broad areas that might be described as `prosperous', even though they contain large pockets of economic and social disadvantage.A second area of concern to me is that governments assume a degree of labour market flexibility which does not exist in reality. In an era when a strong back gave anyone the flexibility to shift from being a farm labourer to a factory labourer, those assumptions may have applied. But the same cannot be said for a process worker becoming an information processing worker. The skills required for each are quite different. As well, for the process worker a good knowledge of English may not have been essential, while in information processing a high standard is required.The result of change for many skilled and semiskilled workers can be that they must accept unskilled employment without the prospect of any useful training. They then become trapped in low paying positions, their old skills no longer in demand and with no opportunity to develop new skills in better paid employment. They become the so-called `working poor'. This particularly applies to the over-45 age group—too young for retirement but regarded by some employers as too old to train in new skill areas. Again, poor English skills make this group doubly handicapped.There are many in this position in the Fowler electorate. On a visit to Macquarie Street Mall in Liverpool you can see dozens of men in this age group passing the time playing chess, a skill which is obviously not appreciated by employers. The unsympathetic approach of this government in its announced intentions to tighten eligibility for disability and other benefits will hit this group hard. They cannot support a family on the irregular casual work on offer, and even the lowest paid jobs demand performance beyond their limited capabilities.While governments may direct policies to regions in an effort to redress the growing gaps in Australian society, they should not ignore the pockets of disadvantage that exist in areas of high economic potential. Nor should they assume that all individuals within a region will have the same opportunity to participate in the region's prosperity.1300622:52:0013006Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I recently launched the Townsville RSL East Timor appeal in cooperation with the Townsville and Thuringowa city councils. The appeal aims to collect sufficient funds to donate 1,000 cartons of useful household items to East Timorese families. The boxes are going to be personally distributed to needy refugee families by soldiers of the Townsville based 3rd Brigade who are currently serving in East Timor. This is a great opportunity for our soldiers, who have done such a wonderful job in Timor, to identify and target and help needy families in East Timor. Not only will the Timorese families benefit but our soldiers will benefit in being able to say, `G'day, here's some help from Australia.' It is a great thing.I was very privileged Sunday week ago to go to Timor to meet the important people and the unimportant people in Timor. I felt very humbled to see what Australia has been able to do. Although I could not speak Indonesian, I knew what the indigenous Timorese were trying to say to me as I moved among them at Maliana. It was a wonderful experience. Our own troops, of course, have done a marvellous job there and they have been well accepted by the East Timorese. I was there to tell them how proud Australians are of what they have been able to do.The items to be included in these aid packages include such things as tarpaulins, cooking and eating utensils, personal hygiene items, basic tools such as hammers and other non-food essentials to help these displaced people make a new start. Brigadier Mark Evans, the commander of the 3rd Brigade, who is normally based in Townsville but has been in East Timor since the beginning of the deployment of troops, recommended to the RSL which items were required. The appeal coordinators hope people will donate $25, which is the cost of a carton of these goods—after the items have been bought in bulk and have not been subject to sales tax. The purchase of items has been supported by many of the warehouses in Townsville and it has been terrific to see that outstanding support from the Townsville and Thuringowa communities.Indeed, public support for our troops in East Timor has been widespread. I have brought into the parliament tonight a bound copy of the messages of support that many of the members of this parliament and many of the members of my community put together spontaneously to support the troops. Some weeks ago I presented this to DCO, which is the acronym for the Defence Community Organisation in Townsville. All of the families in Townsville have been able to look at this book and see what was written by the members of parliament and the Senate and by individuals, companies and so on in the Townsville region. It is a great record. The front of the book says, `We are proud of you all. Messages of support from a grateful nation to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force serving in East Timor.' I can tell the parliament that this has been warmly appreciated by the families of the troops over there and of course by the troops themselves. I guess this will end up in the records of the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment when they return from their very good service overseas.The appeal has been kick-started by the RSL women's auxiliary and Crazy Clark's, and I pay tribute to them for what they have done for this appeal. In the spirit of Christmas, and as a nation with a track record of caring for victims of disaster in one form or another, I urge all of my parliamentary colleagues and representatives of their respective communities to dip in and help with this appeal. (Time expired)1300722:57:0013007Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Before the House adjourns tonight, I again wish to remind the House of the government's failure to announce a decision about the site of Sydney's second airport. Many months have elapsed since the environmental impact statement for Badgerys Creek was handed down and which cleared the way for the government to make a decision. Since that time the government has only engaged in prevarication and procrastination. In fact, there has been a conspiracy of silence operating between the government, Airservices Australia and the Sydney Airports Corporation—an unacceptable silence while my constituents in Lowe in suburbs like Drummoyne, Haberfield, Five Dock, Croydon, Burwood and Strathfield experience very disturbing noise from screaming and roaring aircraft thundering over their heads day in and day out.When asked, the Howard government can only say the decision has been put back. But put back to when? The people of my electorate of Lowe—indeed, all of Sydney—want the government to announce when it is going to start building the second airport. I know there are members of the government who believe the Howard government will not make a decision on a second airport for Sydney while ever it remains in power. Why? It is very simple: because of the huge cost. The story goes that the government, faced with financial commitments to maintain our peacekeeping forces in East Timor, has abandoned its commitment to a second airport and will expand Bankstown airport.That is outrageous because it will mean only more and larger planes for KSA. This will bombard the member for Banks's electorate, who is sitting here tonight, and that is clearly unacceptable. The government has mortgaged its soul to the vested and sectional interests who are interested only in the expansion of Sydney airport. If you think the environmental health and safety risks associated with the planes now saturating the skies of Sydney are bad, just wait till next year when air traffic for the 2000 Olympics starts to arrive.I can only describe the government's prevarication and procrastination and silence on the second airport as testimony to the monumental conspiracy between Airservices Australia and the Sydney Airports Corporation. I challenge the Prime Minister to give the people of Sydney a great Christmas present and guarantee the decision to build a second airport at Badgerys Creek will be made before Christmas this year. I bet he will not, but if he does I will be pleased to be wrong.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.House adjourned at 11 p.m.Notices13007The following notices were given:Mr Ruddock to present a bill for an act to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, and for related purposes.Mr Entsch to present a bill for an act to amend the Pooled Development Funds Act 1992, and for related purposes.Mr Anthony to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to transport and territories, and for related purposes.Mr Truss to present a bill for an act to amend legislation about fisheries, and for related purposes.Mr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, and for related purposes.Mr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the Copyright Act 1968, and for related purposes.Mr Anderson to move:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposals for works in the Parliamentary Zone which were presented to the House on 6 December 1999, namely:(a) landscaping works at the John Gorton building;(b) temporary works associated with the running of the National Capital 100 V8 Supercar race carnival;(c) refurbishment of the Treasury building;(d) installation of removable banner poles at the National Archives of Australia; and(e) East Block and West Block car parks.Mr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Anzac Hall extension, Australian War Memorial, Canberra.Mr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Staff Colleges collocation project, Weston Creek, ACT.Mr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Defence Science and Technology Organisation rationalisation project, Melbourne.Answers to Questions in Writing13009The following answers to questions were circulated:13009(Question No. 905)90513009Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) Are young members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) paid wages based on rank and duties.(2) Does the Government propose to change the terms and conditions of young members of the AFP.(3) Is there a proposal to introduce junior rates of pay for the AFP; if so, (a) when and (b) by what process.13009Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The rates of pay for members of the AFP are based on the work value of the role being performed. In the case of sworn (police) members of the AFT that generally equates to the rank held. The are no junior rates for sworn (police) members. There are junior rates of base grade (unsworn) staff members, who are employed in non-police roles. On promotion or appointment above the base, there are no junior rates applicable.(2) and (3) The AFP does not propose to change the junior rates regime currently applying in the AFP.13009(Question No. 943)94313009Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 29 September:(1) By what sums are each of the forward projection years expected to change to account for the increase in the underlying balance from $2.883b to $4.190b in the Final Budget Outcome for 1998-99 released on 23 September 1999.(2) Will he provide (a) a detailed breakdown of the $1.2b of classification and other changes referred to on page 10, including a detailed explanation of the change in treatment of the National Transmission Agency and (b) the final fiscal balance and explain variations from the estimated fiscal balance of $3.1b contained in the 1999-2000 Budget papers.13009Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Response to issue (1):The $1.3 billion increase in the underlying cash balance reported in the 1998-99 Final Budget Outcome does not flow directly into the forward years as it includes some "one-off" variations. Details of the major variations between the 1999-00 Budget cash estimates for 1998-99 and the final outcomes are provided in the Final Budget Outcome Report.Response to issue (2) (a):. "Classification and other differences" of $1.2 billion in Outlays are predominantly due to: - a change in the classification of sales proceeds of $650 million for assets of the National Transmission Agency, from net advances to an offset to outlays; and - differences in classifications compared to treatments under the new accrual GFS framework, which have no effect on the bottom line.Response to issue (2) (b):. The fiscal balance introduced in the 1999-2000 Budget is prepared using accrual information. The 1998-99 Final Budget Outcome was prepared on a cash basis and therefore no fiscal balance can be provided. - Consistent with the 1999-2000 Budget, future budget outcome documents will be prepared on an accrual basis and will disclose fiscal balance data.. This is the last Final Budget Outcome report to be produced primarily on a cash accounting basis. - Consistent with the 1999-2000 Budget, future budget outcome reports will incorporate accrual revenues and expenses, as well as balance sheet and cash flow information.13009(Question No. 1006)100613009Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 19 October 1999:(1) Is he able to say whether arrangements have been made to allow taxis and hire cars to use the City Link express lanes in Melbourne.(2) have similar arrangements been put in place for COMCAR; if not, will he take action to ensure that the Commonwealth-owned fleet is not excluded from arrangements that allow it to be competitive with private transport providers for the efficient transport of federal judges, ministers and Members of parliament.13010Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) I am informed that under Victorian State Government regulations only three vehicle categories are permitted to use the City Link express lanes in Melbourne. These are State-registered hire cars, taxis and buses.(2) As COMCAR is not considered to be a provider of public transport, COMCAR is unable to utilise the express lanes. The Minister has written to the Minister for Transport in Victoria seeking similar consideration for COMCAR as for hire cars.13010(Question No. 1007)100713010Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 October 1999:(1) Was an International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission established in 1991 under Article 90 of Protocol I Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.(2) Which states have accepted the competence of the Commission.(3) When and where will their representatives meet to elect the 15 members of the Commission for the next quinquennium.(4) Who are the present members of the Commission.(5) What are their qualifications and places of residence.(6) Does Article 90 require that, in the Commission as a whole, equitable geographical representation is assured.(7) Will the Government nominate an Australian for election to the Commission.13010Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes(2) The following fifty-six (56 ) states have accepted the competence of the Commission: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Belarus, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Laos, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Mongolia, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tadjikstan, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay.(3) The next meeting will take place in 2001. We have not yet been notified of a precise date or the location.(4) and (5) Below are listed the name, country of origin, dates elected, qualifications and place of residence of each of the present members of the Commission:Name: Prof. Frits Kalshoven (President)Country: NetherlandsElected: 1991 and 1996Qualifications: Former Navy Officer, Prof. Emeritus, Leyden UniversityResidence: LeydenName: Prof. Ghalib Djilali (First Vice-President)Country: AlgeriaElected: 1991 and 1996Qualifications: Surgeon, University of AlgiersResidence: AlgiersName: Sir Kenneth Keith, QC (Second Vice-President)Country: New ZealandElected: 1991 and 1996Qualifications: Hon Justice, Court of Appeal of New ZealandResidence: WellingtonName: Prof. Paulo Sergio Pinheiro (Third Vice-President)Country: BrazilElected: 1996Qualifications: Political Scientist and LawyerResidence: Sao Paulo.Name: Dr Santiago Torres BernardezCountry: SpainElected: 1991 and 1996Qualifications: Ad hoc Judge and former RegistrarInternational Court of JusticeResidence: MadridName: Amb. Dr Erich KussbachCountry: Austria Elected: 1991 and 1996Qualifications: Ambassador of AustriaResidence: LaxenburgName: Prof. Luigi CondorelliCountry: ItalyElected: 1991 and 1996)Qualifications: Faculty of LawUniversity of GenevaResidence: GenevaName: Dr Valeri KnjasevCountry: RussiaElected: 1991 and 1996)Qualifications: Former Navy officer, Counsellor of the Foreign Ministry, Russian Permanent Mission to IMOResidence: LondonName: Dr Marcel DuboulozCountry: SwitzerlandElected: 1991 and 1996Qualifications: Senior Medical Consultant, HDCAResidence: GenevaName: Dr rpd PrandlerCountry: HungaryElected: 1996Qualifications: Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign AffairsResidence: BudapestName: Mr Hrnan Salinas BurgosCountry: ChileElected: 1996Qualifications: Professor of Public International LawResidence: Santiago de ChileName: Dr Pavel LiskaCountry: Czech RepublicElected: 1996)Qualifications: Director, Division of International Law, Foreign Affairs Section, Ministry of DefenceResidence: PragueName: Mr Mihnea MotocCountry: RomaniaElected: 1996Qualifications: Director, European Union DirectorateMinistry of Foreign AffairsResidence: BucharestName: Dr Awatif Ali Abuhaliga Country: United Arab EmiratesElected: 1999)Qualifications: Director, Ministry of HealthResidence: Abu DhabiWe are informed that the following Member of the Commission has recently died:Name: Prof. Roman JasicaCountry: PolandElected: 1996Qualifications: Professor of Public International Law and IHL, University of Silesia, retiredResidence: Silesia(6) Yes.(7) The Government has no immediate plans to nominate an Australian for election to the Commission.13011(Question No. 1013)101313011Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 21 October 1999:(1) Has his attention been drawn to the ongoing concern many Gulf War veterans have over health issues relating to their service.(2) How many Gulf War veterans have been contacted as at 1 October 1999 as part of the health survey he announced earlier in 1999.(3) How many of these veterans already have disabilities accepted by his Department.(4) What are the terms of reference for the Gulf War health survey.(5) When will it report.(6) Who is conducting the survey.(7) Do Gulf War veterans have representation on the review body; if not, why not.(8) Were Gulf War veterans consulted over the terms of reference; if not, why not.(9) Did officers of his Department meet with American Gulf War illness researcher, Dr Garth Nicholson, and discuss Gulf War illness issues.(10) Has he been briefed on the discussions and how they may impact on Gulf War veterans; if not, why not.(11) Has he or his Department conveyed these health concerns to individual Gulf War veterans; if not, why not.(12) How many Gulf War veterans have contacted his Department seeking acceptance for Gulf War related conditions.(13) How many Gulf War veterans have had health conditions resulting from service accepted. (14) What is the range of conditions Gulf War veterans have had accepted.(15) Do the conditions include (a) nightmares, (b) fatigue, loss of strength or physical endurance, (c) difficulty sleeping and waking up, (d) joint pain and aches, (e) aching or burning muscles, pinpoint pains that move around to different spots, pulled-muscle-like sensations which occur upon minor physical exertions that would not normally cause any injury, (f) stiffness and reduced mobility in the joints, (g) short term memory problems, (h) problems thinking and concentrating, difficulty performing multiple step mental tasks, (i) difficulty finding the right word; frequently saying the wrong word and not being aware of it, (j) stuttering or stammering more often, or for the first time, (k) headaches, (l) exercise making the veteran feel worse instead of better, (m) neck pain, typically at the base of the neck near the bony spot at the centre of the shoulders, (n) back pain in the lower back in the middle and upper back just inside the shoulder blades, (o) numbness and tingling in hands and wrists at night, tendency for legs or buttocks to "go to sleep" while sitting for fairly brief periods which should not normally cause a problem, (p) frequent colds, flu or infections, (q) diarrhoea, (r) stomach cramps, (s) stomach pain, (t) nausea vomiting, regurgitating food, excessive gas or flatulence, (u) bloating muscle spasms or cramps, trembling, shaking or twitching, (v) blood in stools, (w) blood in urine, (x) visual problems, (y) loss of sense of smell, smelling odours that are not actually present (olfactory hallucination), (z) ringing in the ears, (aa) hearing loss, (ab) emotional problems (irritable, cranky, mood swings, fits of anger or rage over issues that later seem unimportant), (ac) depression, (ad) suicidal thoughts, (ae) loss of interest in normal pursuits/lessened enthusiasm, (af) episodes of panic and anxiety, (ag) chest pain, (ah) chest pressure, (ai) racing pulse, (aj) heart palpitations, (ak) coughing frequently, (al) shortness of breath, (am) swollen glands, (an) frequent clearing of the throat, (ao) coughing up thick saliva or phlegm, (ap) wheezing, (aq) skipped or extra heart beats, (ar) light-headed dizziness, poor balance, periods of being unsteady on feet, (as) frequent sinus problems and tenderness at given points around facial area associated with sinuses, (at) new allergies or increased severity of existing allergies, (au) chemical sensitivities to household cleaners, vehicle exhaust, gasoline fumes, pesticides, cigarette smoke, campfire smoke etc, making the veteran feel bad and causing headaches, (av) excessive sneezing, (aw) nasal congestion or stuffiness, (ax) sore throat, (ay) thick saliva, increased salivation, (az) drooling at night, (ba) abnormal changes in hair colour anywhere on body, (bb) hair loss anywhere on body, (bc) reddening or flushing of the skin, (bd) yellowing colour of skin, (be) cuts and wounds slow to heal, (bf) unusual itching sensation in the skin suggesting small insects crawling and occasional small stinging sensations, (bg) unusual skin rashes, (bh) skin problems, (bi) itchy scalp/genital itch, (bj) sore patches of skin which feel similar to sunburn where there is no sunburn, (bk) night sweats, (bl) sensitivity to cold, (bm) swollen abdomen, (bn) difficulty swallowing, (bo) blurred, double or wavy vision, (bp) eyeglasses no longer work as well, (bq) sensitive to light, (br) lessened night vision, (bs) eye twitching, (bt) black spots in the eyes (floaters), (bu) constant (or nearly so) dark circles around the eyes with some yellowing, unusual watering, itching or dryness of eyes, (bv) more frequent urination, (bw) occasional minor loss of bladder control, (bx) toenail or foot fungus, (by) swelling of ankles, (bz) swelling of body, (ca) black and blue bruising more easily, (cb) dental pain, discomfort, sensitivity to cold without apparent cause, (cc) loose teeth, (cd) dental abscesses, (ce) blisters on the gums very sore to the touch, (cf) bleeding gums, (cg) sores on the lips, (ch) numbness of lips, (ci) white coated tongue, (cj) having the wrong taste sensation for what is being eaten, or having a taste sensation while not eating, (ck) cotton mouth, (cl) liver ailments, haemocromotosis, (cm) Meneries disease, (cn) handwriting has become worse, (co) weak voice, (cp) drinking alcohol causes unusual type or degree of mental impairment, (cq) excessive thirst, (cr) periods of extreme hunger at times, and at other times no appetite or loss of interest in food, (cs) loss of sexual libido, impotence, aching or swollen testicles in males, (ct) females with worse PMS, irregular menstrual periods, worse menstrual cramps, cervical pain, endometriosis, frequent yeast infections, (cu) change in scent, body odour smells different after sweating than it used to, (cv) skin around the cheekbone area of the face feels thick and rubbery, (cw) abnormal amount of pain, swelling and bruising following relatively minor joint injury, slower than normal recovery, intense burning sensation in the skin around the injured area with loss of sensation in some areas of the skin around the injury (auto immune response?) (cx) sleepwalking, (cy) easily startled by sounds or someone approaching, (cz) low or zero tolerance for stress, (da) low tolerance for noise, i.e. noise bothering and causing anger or distress, (db) clumsiness, including accidental death, (dc) more frequent household accidents; burns in the kitchen, knocking over glasses, turning around and bumping into things, falling etc. (dd) uncharacteristically doing unsafe manoeuvres while driving, including pulling out in front of an approaching vehicle when turning onto a road, short term memory/peripheral vision problems, (de) being more aggressive and easily angered in dealings with other people, having a short fuse, (df) inflammations in and around the eyes, (dg) small bumps under the eyelid, or other things which irritate the eye intermittently for days or weeks at a time, (dh) cancer, (di) mycoplasma infections, (dj) stomach ulcers, (dk) pitting in the lower stomach that is indicative of chemical poisoning and (dl) Motor Neurone Disease; if so, which conditions.(16) Was (a) anthrax vaccine, (b) plague vaccine, (c) meningococcal vaccine, (d) pertussis vaccine, (e) immunoglobin vaccine, (f) yellow fever vaccine, (g) cholera vaccine, (h) hepatitis B vaccine, (i) typhoid vaccine, (j) pyridostigmine bromide or (k) botulinum vaccine given to Gulf War veterans; if so, which.(17) Will the Government's health survey of Gulf War veterans investigate (a) low level chemical or biological weapon fallout, (b) toxic emissions from oil well fires, (c) depleted uranium exposure or (d) medical counter measures given to personnel in the form of vaccinations and drugs; if not, why not.(18) Is there evidence to show that Gulf War veterans were not exposed to (a) synthetic chemical compounds, including low-level mustard agents, VOCs, hydrazine, red fuming nitric acid, solvents and uranium, (b) ionizing radiation, including depleted radiation, microwave and RF radiation, (c) environmental particulates and pollutants, including hydrogen sulfide, oil fire by-products, diesel heater fumes and sand micro-particles, (d) diseases endemic to the region, including leishmaniasis, sandfly fever, pathogenic escherechia coli, shigellosis and malaria and (e) time compressed administration of multiple, live, `attenuated' and toxoid vaccines; if so, will be table that evidence.(19) If there is no evidence, will he accept that Gulf War veterans may have been exposed to those hazardous materials or diseases and accept responsibility for treatment of any illness Gulf War veterans have which may be related; if not, why not.13013Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes(2) Nil. The tendering process for the survey has only recently commenced.(3) Not applicable.(4) The terms of reference for this study are still being developed.(5) It is envisaged that the Report will be presented to me by December 2000.(6) It is envisaged that the execution of the study will be undertaken by an organisation selected by open tender. This process has commenced.(7) Gulf War veterans will be represented on a consultative forum concerned with the study.(8) Gulf War veterans will be consulted over the terms of reference for the study.(9) Garth Nicholson met with a senior medical adviser, Dr Keith Horsley, on 24 February 1998 to discuss issues relating to the health of Gulf War veterans, and again on 9 September to 11 September 1999.(10) Yes.(11) No. As a general rule my Department does not send out information to individual veterans on research into diseases.(12) A total of 352 Gulf War veterans have now claimed to have a condition accepted as due to service (both Gulf War and other service).(13) A total of 305 Gulf War veterans have 576 individual disabilities with recognised conventional diagnoses accepted as due to service (both Gulf War and other service).(14) The range of conditions is very wide. The 12 most commonly accepted conditions are:Injuries to Ligaments68Sensori Neural Hearing Loss60Fractured bones54Knee Injuries44Inter-vertebral Disc Lesions31Spondylosis of Spine25Osteoarthrosis23PTSD23Tendonitis16Dislocations14Back strain/pain10(15) In respect to (a) through to (y) and (ab), (ae), (af), (ah), (ai), (aj), (am), (an), (ao), (aq), (ar), (as), (at), (ax), (ay), (az), (ba), (bc), (bd), (be), (bf), (bg), (bi), (bj), (bk), (bl), (bm), (bn), (bo), (bq), (br), (bs), (bt), (bu), (bv), (bw), (by), (bz), (ca), (cb), (cc), (ce), (cf), (cg), (ch), (ci), (cj), (ck), (cn), (co), (cp), (cq), (cr), (cs), (ct), (cu), (cv), (cw), (cx), (cy), (cz), (da), (dc), (dd), (de) and (dg), my Department's data systems generally record diagnoses, rather than the symptoms mentioned above. As such, it is not possible to determine the extent to which the symptoms would be covered by a particular diagnosis, although it is likely that many of the symptoms mentioned above would have been covered by diagnosis accepted as due to service (both Gulf War and other service).In respect to (z), (aa), (ac), (ag), (ak), (al), (ap), (av), (aw), (bb), (bh), (bp), (bx), (cl), (df), (dh), and (dj), Yes.(ad) This is a symptom of diseases that veterans have claimed. One death, not the subject of a claim, has resulted from suicide.(au) My Department's data base is not constructed in a manner that allows these aetiological mechanisms to be recorded. Some veterans have claimed for reactions to some chemicals.(cd) No.(cm) No.(db) My Department is aware of two cases of accidental death. There is no indication that clumsiness was involved in either case.(di) There is a claim being considered that involves mycoplasma infection.(dk) No.(dl) No. Two veterans have claimed for this disease.(16) (a)Yes, to a small number only.(b) Yes.(c) Yes.(d) No(e) Yes(f) No(g) No(h) Yes(i) No(j) Yes, to some units only(k) No(17) The potential effects of some of these agents may be included in the study.(18) In respect of (a) through to (c) some veterans may have been exposed to some of these agents on deployment.(d) As these are endemic in the area, veterans were possibly exposed to some of those agents.(e) Veterans were given time-compressed vaccines, as is common in rapid deployment of forces. This confers the maximum protection to the deployed individual.(19) Responsibility has been accepted and appropriate treatment and compensation is provided in many cases. Legislation currently before Parliament will allow for additional treatment to be provided.