1999-12-093914REPS1319301999-12-09 The House met at 9.30 a.m.Miscellaneous1319310001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—I inform the House of the absence of the Speaker, who will be in attendance later this day. In accordance with standing order 14, the Deputy Speaker as Acting Speaker will take the chair.Mr ACTING SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) thereupon took the chair, and read prayers.Bills13193r97713193Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.1319309:31:0013193Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The New Business Tax System (Miscellaneous) Bill 1999 contains a number of measures further implementing the government's wide ranging reforms that will give Australia a new business tax system. Those reforms are based on the recommendations of the Review of Business Taxation that the government established to consult and make recommendations on business tax reforms.In addition, this bill will be implementing the continuing policy that the government was elected upon in 1998, as was laid out in its policy document A New Tax System. In particular, it implements the policy promise that the government made in its pre-election new tax system to provide for excess imputation credits to be refunded to Australian individuals, complying superannuation funds or similar entities who, until now, could not use those credits because their tax liability was insufficient.Let me explain that. At the moment, where a company pays a franked dividend at 36c and the franked dividend is distributed to somebody, let us say a pensioner, who is on a tax rate lower than 36c—maybe 20 cents in the dollar—that person has a dividend on which there is a tax credit of 36 cents in the dollar but is only liable for tax at 20 cents in the dollar. Until now, they have never had the opportunity to get back that excess imputation credit, which, of course, represents an overpayment of tax in their hands. The government foreshadowed its intention to introduce this measure in A New Tax System and it will be of particular benefit to many self-funded retirees.Those on this side of the House would be very proud to be able to say that this was the government that, for the first time, recognised this as a matter of fairness for pensioners, self-funded retirees and other people on low incomes. We promised in the election campaign that we would deal with the matter as part of our new tax system, and we are.This bill also removes the intercorporate dividend rebate on unfranked dividends. Until now, that rebate has effectively meant that no tax was payable on dividends received by public companies. Removing the rebate will address a number of tax avoidance arrangements designed to exploit the rebate. This measure will also ensure a consistent treatment of all resident companies receiving unfranked dividends. The rebate will still apply to dividends paid within a corporate group.However, simply removing the rebate might have discriminated against foreign companies that invest in Australia through an Australian subsidiary rather than directly. To prevent that outcome, this bill will give the subsidiary a deduction when it on-pays the unfranked dividend, except portfolio dividends, to its foreign parent.Both houses have recently passed a bill which exempts some foreign pension funds on the gains they make in Australia on venture capital investments. This bill proposes to grant a similar exemption to dividends paid by pooled development funds to Australian superannuation funds and similar entities. This will be achieved by allowing pooled development funds to attach imputation credits to dividends they pay to Australian superannuation funds out of gains on their venture capital investments. This measure, taken with the exemption for foreign pension funds, will promote investment in innovative Australian firms and address the problems they often face in raising significant new capital.Just as the government is allowing foreign pension funds which are tax free in their home jurisdiction to come into Australia to invest in venture capital projects capital gains tax free, so too the opportunity will be extended to Australian superannuation funds to invest through the pooled development funds in venture capital projects capital gains tax free. The objective of that is to make more money available for start-ups and venture capital projects to ensure that Australian industry and Australian inventiveness have the opportunity to get their projects up and running through investment and, in the long term, to promote the jobs that come with those projects.A major compliance cost for many businesses is calculating and keeping records for depreciation of plant, especially when there are numerous items of plant with low values. The government has addressed this issue by creating a pooling scheme, which is contained in this bill. This scheme will allow taxpayers who are not small business taxpayers to put plant into a pool if it cost them less than $1,000 or if they have written it down to less than $1,000 under the diminishing value method. Taxpayers can treat the pool as a single item of plant and depreciate it under the diminishing value method with a four-year effective life. This will significantly reduce the administrative burden that the present law imposes by requiring taxpayers to track each low value item of plant.The measure does not apply to small businesses, which will still be able to immediately write off assets costing $300 or less until 1 July 2001. From 1 July 2001, under the simplified tax system, small businesses will be able to immediately write off assets costing less than $1,000. Assets with effective lives of less than 25 years will be able to be pooled and written down over five years. That is the great benefit for small business under the simplified taxation system: you can write off up to $1,000 and you can pool the remainder where they have effective lives of 25 years. For those businesses that are not small businesses that are going to be outside the simplified tax system, they will have access to this $1,000 pooling arrangement, which will significantly reduce the administrative burden that the present law imposes.Finally, this bill makes some changes to the amount of imputation credits, to companies' franking account balances and to the rate of the infrastructure borrowings rebate. These changes are a consequence of the company tax rate reduction passed by this parliament. I remind the House that, on the initiative of the government, legislation has now passed through both houses of parliament giving historic reductions in company taxes from 36 cents to 34 cents to, after the phase-down period, 30 cents in the dollar, making Australia one of the attractive places in the Asia-Pacific region in which to do business, giving Australian companies that opportunity to grow and create more jobs for our young people.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martyn Evans) adjourned.Bills13194r97813194Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.1319409:39:0013194Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Investment in venture capital in Australia will be encouraged by the government's reforms. Complying superannuation funds and like entities will be eligible to receive venture capital gains free of tax through pooled development funds.This will be achieved by allowing them a special franking rebate—the venture capital franking rebate—which represents capital gains tax paid by the pooled development fund on venture capital gains. This bill imposes a tax on a pooled development fund if it overallocates venture capital franking rebates to shareholders.Full details of the measure in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum which has already been presented.I commend the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Martyn Evans) adjourned.Bills13195r98213195Bill presented by Mr McGauran, and read a first time.1319509:41:0013195McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 provides a framework for the National Relay Service, the NRS. The NRS is a service that provides people who are deaf or hearing or speech impaired with access to a standard telephone service on terms and in circumstances that are comparable to those on which other Australians have access to a standard telephone service.In general, the arrangements for the NRS have been working well. However, issues have arisen from the legislated time frame for the collection of the NRS levy, which was set before the funding process was put into operation. This has, on occasion, resulted in late payment to the NRS provider.The Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Amendment Bill 1999 makes minor administrative amendments to part 3 of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 in relation to funding arrangements for the NRS. The amendments do not affect the operation of the service or the quality of service provided to users.The objective of the bill is to provide for minor administrative changes to the NRS funding arrangements to facilitate the collection of the NRS levy from eligible carriers, and subsequent payment to the NRS provider, to occur within a period that meets both NRS contractual obligations and legislative requirements.The provisions of the bill increase the period which the NRS provider has to submit the total cost of providing the NRS during the previous quarter from four weeks to 11 weeks. In addition, the time between notification of amount payable and required payment by a carrier is increased from two to five weeks.In order to provide for these arrangements the bill also includes an amendment to the timing at which the reconciliation of the total cost with the estimated cost for any quarter will impact on a quarter's estimate. Any shortfall or surplus from the reconciled quarter will be added or subtracted from the estimate for the quarter after the following quarter for which the reconciliation is being determined.These provisions enhance the current NRS funding process to better provide for the needs of the NRS provider and carriers. The amendments have the support of these parties.I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Martyn Evans) adjourned.Bills13195r98313195Bill presented by Mr McGauran, and read a first time.1319509:44:0013195McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time. The Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Amendment Bill 1999 will facilitate minor amendments to the Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Act 1997. The amendments will improve the efficiency of the Australian Communications Authority, the ACA, in its administration of the act, as well as providing some carriage service providers with some administrative efficiencies.The Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Act 1997 provides for imposition of charges in relation to certain telephone numbers allocated to carriage service providers.The amendments contained in this bill concern the definition of a transferred number for the purposes of the act and the date on which the numbering charges are imposed.As the act stands, carriage service providers who are resellers are liable for annual numbering charges in relation to allocated numbers they hold on the charging date. These resellers, or `secondary providers', have usually obtained their numbers from a provider who was allocated the numbers by the ACA, a `primary provider'.The large number of transfers of numbers from primary to secondary providers greatly adds to the administrative complexity of collecting the charges.This bill will explicitly define a `transfer' for the purposes of the act. The effect of this will be that certain number movements from primary to secondary providers will not be classed as transfers for the purposes of the act and will not, therefore, cause the numbering charge liability to be transferred. This will significantly reduce the number of invoices the ACA has to prepare.The effect of the act, as it currently stands, is that number charges are imposed on 22 May each financial year. Carriage service providers have to pay these by 15 June to ensure they are processed prior to the end of the financial year. Between these two dates, carriage service providers have to provide details to the ACA of the numbers they hold. The ACA then has to calculate the charges and dispatch the invoices, and then the carriage service providers have to make the payment. These time frames are unnecessarily tight and can increase the risks of miscalculations or errors.This bill will move the charging date to a day in April which will be determined by the ACA. The ACA will be required to determine the date before 16 February each financial year. This arrangement will provide the ACA with a limited degree of flexibility in setting the date, while providing the carriage service providers with the certainty of the date being in April. It is not intended that the ACA will use this flexibility to alter the date arbitrarily. Rather, should it be necessary, it will allow the ACA to determine a date in order to address exceptional circumstances.I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Martyn Evans) adjourned.Bills13196r98413196Bill presented by Mr McGauran, and read a first time.1319609:48:0013196McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 seeks to establish a new broadcasting licence regime for international broadcasting services transmitted from Australia.The bill will establish a new licensing category for international broadcasting services transmitted from Australia. The scheme is being introduced because there is currently no regime governing the content of international broadcasts from Australia. In certain circumstances, such broadcasts could be contrary to the national interest. The bill provides a means for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to determine whether a broadcast service is likely to be contrary to the national interest. In determining this, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will have regard in particular to the likely effect of the service on Australia's international relations.Under the new licensing scheme, all international short-wave radio services transmitted from Australia, and all international satellite radio and television broadcasting services originating in and transmitted from Australia, will be required to obtain an international broadcasting licence from the ABA. The ABA will refer applications for licences to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to make an assessment of whether the proposed service would be contrary to the national interest. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will also be empowered to direct the ABA to issue formal warnings to international broadcasting licensees, or suspend or cancel an international broadcasting licence if, in the opinion of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the service is contrary to Australia's national interest.Significant growth in international broadcasting is expected and Australia is likely to be a base for some services broadcasting to the region. This new regulatory regime will provide a licensing framework for international broadcasting services transmitted from Australia whilst safeguarding Australia's national interest.I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Martyn Evans) adjourned.Bills13197r98013197Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.1319709:50:0013197Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill makes amendments to the income tax law to give effect to the following measures:International tax agreementsThis measure will implement the amendment announced in the Treasurer's media release of 27 April 1998 by changing the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to require that the tax treaties be interpreted in accordance with their intention of maintaining Australia's taxing rights over alienations or effective alienations of real property situated in Australia.Capital gains tax corrections and other minor amendmentsThe bill will also make some minor amendments and correct some unintended consequences that occurred when the capital gains tax and certain other provisions were rewritten as part of the Tax Law Improvement Project. None of the amendments change the way the provisions originally worked.Income tax deductions for giftsThe bill will amend the income tax law to extend the time within which donations to the Shrine of Remembrance Restoration and Development Trust, the St Patrick's Cathedral Parramatta Rebuilding Fund and the Australian National Korean War Memorial Trust will be tax deductible.Income of non-resident sportspersons and sporting clubs or associationsThis measure will amend the income tax law to remove income tax exemptions currently available to certain non-resident sportspersons and sporting clubs or associations.The amendments ensure that the income of all non-resident sportspeople and sporting clubs or associations, earned in Australia, will be taxed consistently.The amendments will apply from 1 July 2000.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum, which I present to the House.I commend the bill to the chamber.Debate (on motion by Mr Martyn Evans) adjourned.Bills13197r96013197Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.1319809:53:0013198Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge-Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to increase the Medicare levy low income thresholds in line with increases in the consumer price index.The amendment to the Medicare levy low income thresholds will apply to the 1999-2000 year of income and later years of income. Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martyn Evans) adjourned.Bills13198r98713198Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.1319809:54:0013198Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.One of the purposes of this bill is to allow for the appointment of parliamentary secretaries under section 64 of the Constitution. Parliamentary secretaries will, however, retain their titles, roles and responsibilities and continue to assist the portfolio minister or ministers.The Remuneration Tribunal noted in its report how the job of a parliamentary secretary had developed significantly under several successive governments. Parliamentary secretaries perform a range of functions for ministers. These include some parliamentary duties such as overseeing the introduction and debate on legislation, as well as attending to administrative and departmental matters. They are often authorised to perform statutory functions on behalf of a minister and general ly represent the minister. As with ministers, they are bound by the principles of collective responsibility in relation to cabinet decisions.To allow for such appointments, the Ministers of State and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 will amend the Ministers of State Act 1952 to enable the 12 parliamentary secretaries, appointed under section 64 of the Constitution, to be covered by that act.The government has accepted the salaries for ministers and parliamentary secretaries recommended by the Remuneration Tribunal in its report. Another purpose of the bill will be to amend the Ministers of State Act to increase the maximum annual sum for the payment of salaries to ministers to accommodate the 12 parliamentary secretaries and the tribunal's recommendations.The bill will also repeal the Parliamentary Secretaries Act 1980 and make certain consequential amendments to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, as well as a minor consequential amendment to the Freedom of Information Act 1982. These consequential amendments are desirable simply to avoid confusion once appointments of parliamentary secretaries are made under section 64 of the Constitution.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Martyn Evans) adjourned.Bills13198r64613198Consideration resumed from 8 December.Senate's amendments—(1) Page 2 (after line 4), after clause 2, insert:2A The objects of this Act (1) The objects of this Act are as follows: (a) to ensure that Regional Forest Agreements between the Commonwealth and the States are consistent with the National Forest Policy Statement 1992; and (b) to establish a Wood and Paper Industry Council. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a Regional Forest Agreement is consistent with the National Forest Policy Statement 1992 if it: (a) provides for: (i) the development of internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable wood production and wood product industries, maximising value-adding opportunities and efficient use of wood resources; and (ii) the management of Australia's forests in an ecologically sustainable manner for a range of uses that includes tourism, recreation and the production of non-wood products; and (iii) the maintenance of an extensive and permanent forest estate in Australia; and (iv) the protection of nature conservation values in forests; and (v) conservation of the full range of values that forests can provide for current and future generations, including biological diversity and heritage, indigenous and other cultural values; and (vi) the protection of catchment values to ensure the availability of reliable high quality water supplies from forested areas; and (vii) the expansion of employment opportunities and the skills base of people working in the forested industries; and (b) ensures that Australia fulfils its obligations under relevant international agreements; and (c) applies the precautionary principle within the meaning of section 3.5.1 of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (a copy of which is set out in the Schedule to the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 ); and (d) fosters community understanding of and support for ecologically sustainable forest management; and (e) provides opportunities for public participation in decision-making.(2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 24), before paragraph (a) of the definition of RFA or Regional Forest Agreement , insert: (aa) the agreement has regard to the objects of this Act; (3) Clause 3, page 2 (line 25), omit "was entered into having", substitute "has".(4) Clause 3, page 3 (after line 8), after paragraph (c) of the definition of RFA or Regional Forest Agreement , insert: (ca) if the agreement is made after 1 March 1999, it was made in accordance with the public and parliamentary scrutiny provisions of this Act;(5) Clause 3, page 3 (after line 10), after paragraph (d) of the definition of RFA or Regional Forest Agreement , insert: (da) the agreement provides for structural adjustment packages, including relocation and retraining for affected workers and their families;(6) Page 3 (after line 30), after clause 4, insert:4A Public scrutiny of draft RFAs Within 21 days of receiving agreement from a State or Territory to the text of a draft RFA, the Minister, after consulting with the Minister for the Environment, must publish in the Gazette : (a) a statement as to whether the draft RFA is in accordance with this Act; and (b) a notice of the Minister's intention to enter into the RFA; and (c) a copy of the draft RFA.4B Parliamentary scrutiny of draft RFAs (1) The Minister must not enter into an RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth except in accordance with this section. (2) Before entering into an RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth, the Minister must cause a copy of the proposed RFA to be tabled in each House of the Parliament. (3) Either House of the Parliament, within 15 sitting days of that House after the proposed RFA has been tabled, may, under motion upon notice, pass a resolution disapproving of the proposed RFA. (4) Where: (a) a notice referred to in subsection (3) is given with respect to a proposed RFA; and (b) at the expiration of the period during which a resolution disapproving of the proposed RFA could have been passed: (i) the notice has not been withdrawn and the relevant motion has not been called on; or (ii) the relevant motion has been called on, moved and seconded and has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of; the proposed RFA is deemed to have been disapproved of. (5) If: (a) either House of the Parliament passes a resolution in accordance with subsection (3); or (b) the proposed RFA is deemed to have been disapproved of under subsection (4); the Minister must not enter into the proposed RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth except in accordance with subsection (7). (6) If: (a) neither House of the Parliament passes a resolution in accordance with subsection (3); and (b) the proposed RFA is not deemed to have been disapproved of under subsection (4); the Minister may enter into the RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth on or after the day immediately following the last day on which a resolution disapproving of the proposed RFA could have been passed. (7) If an RFA has been disapproved of under subsection (3) or (4), the Minister may resubmit the RFA under subsection (2) provided that a period of not less than 15 sitting days has elapsed since the day on which: (a) a resolution disapproving of the RFA was passed by a House of the Parliament; or (b) the RFA was deemed to have been disapproved of. (8) An RFA which is resubmitted under subsection (7) may be resubmitted in an amended form. (9) Proposed amendments to an RFA are subject to section 4A and this section. A reference in these sections to a proposed RFA includes a reference to proposed amendments to an RFA.(7) Page 3 (after line 30), after clause 4, insert:4C Minister to establish forest database The Minister must cause to be established a comprehensive and publicly available national forest database to ensure that decision-making and management of long-term timber supplies are based on the best available information.(8) Clause 5, page 4 (line 20), at the end of paragraph (d), add ", except in so far as it applies to: (i) a property included in the World Heritage List; or (ii) a wetland included in the List of Wetlands of International Importance kept under the Ramsar Convention; or (iii) forestry operations that are incidental to another action whose primary purpose does not relate to forestry.".(9) Page 4 (after line 27), after clause 6, insert:6A Amendment of RFAs Nothing in this Act is to be taken to prevent the amendment of an RFA by the parties to an RFA where the parties agree that the circumstances are such as to warrant amendment of the RFA and where they have consulted interested stakeholders about the amendment.(10) Heading to clause 7, page 4 (line 28), after "breach ", insert ", amendment or termination ".(11) Clause 7, page 4 (line 29), after "compensation", insert "in relation to actual losses arising from the loss of legally exercisable rights".(12) Clause 7, page 5 (line 1), after "RFA", insert "for a breach, amendment or termination of an RFA".(13) Clause 7, page 5 (after line 8), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) The Commonwealth is not liable to pay compensation except in accordance with subsection (1) or (2).(14) Clause 8, page 5 (line 19), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; and (c) incorporating the full text of the RFA.(15) Clause 8, page 5 (after line 24), at the end of the clause, add: (3) In this section: RFA includes an amendment to an existing RFA.Senate's additional amendment—(1) Omit all words after "at the end of the Bill, add:", substitute:9 The Wood and Paper Industry Council The Wood and Paper Industry Council is established.10 Objectives The Council, in the performance of its functions, must pursue the objectives of enhancing: (a) the development of Australia's forest and forest product industries; and (b) employment opportunities in Australia's forest and forest product industries; and (c) the downstream processing and value-adding of forest products; and (d) the international competitiveness of the forest and forest product industries; and (e) the principles of ecologically sustainable development of forest industries.11 Functions of Council (1) The functions of the Council are: (a) to investigate market and import replacement opportunities for the industry and make recommendations to the Minister about pursuing such opportunities; and (b) to inquire into, and to report to the Minister on, matters referred to it by the Minister in relation to the industry; and (c) to develop, and to submit to the Minister, recommendations, guidelines and plans for measures consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development designed to safeguard or further the interests of the industry; and (d) to consult, and cooperate, with other persons and organisations in matters affecting the industry; and (e) to periodically inquire into, and to report to the Minister on, policies and procedures governing the export of unprocessed wood; and (f) to establish subcommittees and working parties in a manner consistent with the objectives of the Council; and (g) such other functions (if any) as are conferred upon the Council by the regulations. (2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the Council, in the performance of its functions, may take into account any matter raised at an industry conference convened under section 13.12 Powers of Council The Council has power to do all things that are necessary or convenient to be done for, or in connection with, the performance of its functions.13 Industry conferences (1) The Chairperson may, from time to time as he or she considers appropriate, and after consultation with the Deputy Chair person, convene conferences of persons concerned with the industry. (2) The Chairperson must convene a conference under subsection (1) whenever he or she is directed to do so by the Council. (3) The purpose of convening a conference is: (a) to assist the Council in identifying matters of concern to the industry; and (b) to promote a better understanding of problems within the industry; and (c) to foster a consensus on policies to be instituted to safeguard the interests of the industry; and (d) to increase markets, downstream processing, value-adding and international competitiveness. (4) A conference is to be convened at a time and place determined by the Chairperson. (5) Persons entitled to attend a conference are: (a) the members of the Council; and (b) such other persons concerned with the industry as the Chairperson, in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, invites. (6) The Chairperson is to preside at all conferences.14 Publication of Council reports (1) Where a Council report is given to the Minister, the Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament, as soon as practicable after its receipt by the Minister. (2) Where a member disagrees with a finding or recommendation to be included in a Council report, the report must include a statement of the views of that member in respect of that finding or recommendation and must identify the member holding those views.15 Constitution of Council (1) The Council is to consist of the following members: (a) a person representing the Commonwealth; (b) a person nominated by each of those States which have entered into RFAs under this Act; (c) 2 persons nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions; (d) a person representing persons having an interest in the protection of forest environments and ecosystems; (e) a person nominated by the Australian Conservation Foundation; (f) a person representing the interests of the hardwood sawmilling sector; (g) a person representing the interests of the softwood sawmilling sector; (h) a person representing the interests of the pulp and paper sector; (i) a person representing the interests of the timber furniture sector; (j) a person representing the interests of the reconstituted wood products sector; (k) a person representing the interests of merchandisers and retailers of timber products; (l) a person representing the interests of the forest-related tourism sector; (m) such other persons (if any) as represent such other bodies or organisations connected with the industry as are specified by the Minister in the instrument of appointment. (2) The members hold office on a part-time basis. (3) The members, other than a member referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), are to be appointed by the Minister and hold office for such period, not exceeding 3 years, as is specified in the instrument of appointment but are eligible for re-appointment in accordance with this Act. (4) The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson are each to represent one of the following interests: (a) the interests of the industry; (b) the interests of employees in the industry. (5) A person represents the interests of the industry if he or she is a member of the Council appointed under paragraph (1)(f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) or (l). (6) A person represents the interests of employees in the industry if he or she is a member of the Council appointed under paragraph (1)(c). (7) If the Chairperson represents one of the interests mentioned in subsection (4), then the Deputy Chairperson must represent the other interest mentioned in subsection (4). (8) After each 12 months in office, the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson must exchange positions. (9) The members hold office on such terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not provided for by this Act as are determined, in writing, by the Minister. (10) The performance of the functions, and the exercise of the powers, of the Council are not affected by reason only of vacancies in its membership.16 Acting Chairperson (1) The Deputy Chairperson is to act in the office of Chairperson: (a) during a vacancy in the office of Chairperson (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Chairperson is absent from duty or from Australia or is, for any other reason, unable to perform the duties of the office. (2) Anything done by or in relation to a person purporting to act under subsection (1) is not invalid merely because: (a) the occasion for the person's appointment had not arisen; or (b) there is a defect or irregularity in connection with the person's appointment; or (c) the person's appointment had ceased to have effect; or (d) the occasion for the person to act had not arisen or had ceased.17 Deputies of members (1) The Minister may, if requested by a person, body or organisation referred to in subsection 15(1), appoint a person to be the Deputy of a member referred to in that subsection. (2) The Minister must, if requested by the person or body that nominated a person to be the Deputy of a member, terminate the appointment of that person. (3) A Deputy of a member may resign by giving to the Minister a signed notice of resignation. (4) The Deputy of a member is entitled to attend a meeting of the Council that is not attended by the member of whom he or she is the Deputy and, while so attending, is taken to be a member. (5) The appointment of a Deputy of a member, and anything done by or in relation to a Deputy of a member, is not invalid merely because: (a) there is a defect or irregularity in connection with the Deputy's appointment; or (b) the occasion for the person to act under this section had not arisen or had ceased.18 Resignation of members A member may resign by giving to the Minister a signed notice of resignation.19 Termination of appointments etc. (1) The Minister may: (a) terminate the appointment of an appointed member for misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity; or (b) on the ground of misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity—give a written direction that a member, other than an appointed member, is not entitled to attend meetings of the Council or receive allowances under section 22. (2) If: (a) a member becomes bankrupt, applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounds with his or her creditors or makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for their benefit; or (b) a member fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with section 20; or (c) a member is absent, except with the leave of the Chairperson, from 3 consecutive meetings of the Council; the Minister must: (d) in the case of an appointed member—terminate the appointment of the member concerned; or (e) in the case of a member other than an appointed member—give a written direction that the member is not entitled to attend meetings of the Council or receive allowances under section 22. (3) In this section: appointed member means a member other than a member referred to in paragraph 15(1)(a) or (b).20 Disclosure of interests (1) Where: (a) a member has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter being considered, or about to be considered, by the Council; and (b) the interest could conflict with the proper performance of the member's duties in relation to the consideration of the matter; the member must, as soon as practicable after the relevant facts have come to the member's knowledge, disclose the nature of the interest at a meeting of the Council. (2) A disclosure under subsection (1) must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.21 Meetings (1) The Chairperson, in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, may convene such meetings of the Council as he or she considers necessary for the efficient performance of its functions, provided that the Council must meet at least every 2 months. (2) The Chairperson must convene a meeting of the Council on receipt of a written request signed by at least 4 members. (3) Meetings of the Council are to be held at such places and at such times as the Chairperson, in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, determines. (4) The Chairperson is to preside at all meetings of the Council at which he or she is present. (5) If the Chairperson is not present at a meeting of the Council, the Deputy Chairperson is to preside at the meeting. (6) The Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson is to preside at all meetings. (7) At a meeting of the Council, a quorum is constituted by 5 members. (8) A question arising at a meeting of the Council is to be decided by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting. (9) At a meeting of the Council, the member presiding has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, also has a casting vote. (10) The Council must keep minutes of its proceedings and publish them on the Internet within 14 days after each meeting. (11) The Council may invite a person to attend a meeting of the Council for the purposes of advising or informing it on any matter.22 Remuneration and allowances (1) The Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson are to be paid such remuneration as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, but if no determination is in operation, the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson are to be paid such remuneration as is prescribed. (2) The Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson are to be paid such allowances as are prescribed. (3) Subsections (1), (2), (4) and (5) have effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 . (4) A member (other than the Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson of the Council) is to be paid such travelling allowance as is prescribed in relation to the performance of his or her duties as a member. (5) A member of the Council is not a public office within the meaning of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 .23 Staff of Council (1) The Chairperson may, on behalf of the Council and in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, engage such employees as are necessary for the performance of the Council's functions. (2) The terms and conditions of employment of persons engaged under subsection (1) are as determined by the Council in writing. (3) The Chairperson may, on behalf of the Council and in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson, arrange with a Commonwealth authority or another body for the services of officers or employees of the authority or body to be made available for the purposes of the Council.24 Consultants (1) The Council may engage as consultants persons having suitable qualifications and experience. (2) The terms and conditions of engagement are to be determined by the Council.25 Money to be appropriated (1) There is payable to the Council such money as is from time to time appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of the Council. (2) The Minister for Finance may give directions as to the amounts in which, and the times at which, money referred to in subsection (1) is to be paid to the Council.26 Money of Council (1) The money of the Council consists of money paid to the Council under section 25. (2) The money of the Council is to be applied only: (a) in payment or discharge of the expenses, obligations and liabilities of the Council arising under this Act; and (b) in payment of remuneration and allowances payable under this Act; and (c) in making any other payments required or permitted to be made by the Council. (3) Subsection (2) does not prevent investment of surplus money of the Council under section 18 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 .27 Taxation The Council is not subject to taxation under any law of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory.28 Annual report (1) The Council must, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, prepare and give to the Minister a report of its operations during the year that ended on that 30 June. (2) A report under subsection (1) must be prepared in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 . (3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister receives the report. (4) For the purposes of subsection (1), if this section does not come into operation on 1 July in any year, that subsection has effect in relation to the period commencing on the day on which this section comes into operation and ending on the 30 June next following that day as if that period were a period of one year ending on that 30 June.29 Regulations The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, prescribing all matters: (a) required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed; or (b) necessary or convenient to be prescribed in carrying out or giving effect to this Act.10000ACTING SPEAKERMr ACTING SPEAKER—The question is that the amendment made by the Senate to the additional amendment made by the House be disagreed to.09:58:0013205Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—The situation is that the government has been forced to come to this position by the persistent attitude of the Labor Party with regard to the need for a thorough and effective Wood and Paper Industry Council. The alternative of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation essentially continues his attitude and the attitude of the minister for industry over the last few years of essentially an inoperative, ineffective and basically inactive role by the government with regard to industry development.It is interesting to note that, in contrast to the government's position, which essentially allows the minister to appoint an undefined group of people, the opposition's committee actually talks about a series of objectives, such as international competitiveness and the principles of ecologically sustainable development. It defines the functions of the council. It sets requirements on which the sectors of the industry are represented—hardwood, softwood, pulp and paper—and sets out a number of other requirements with regard to reporting to the general public, the number of meetings to be held, et cetera.It is really of very little consolation that the minister runs around the press gallery telling people that the greatest thing that has happened in the last 20 years is that the CFMEU might join his committee. The reality is that the opposition's committee stems from the needs of the industry and the needs of the union. In summary, it is pleasing that the minister has at least moved some way from his previous attitude that essentially the industry will operate and development will occur through market forces and we can just sit on our backsides doing nothing.10:00:0013205Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I find this all quite interesting. A few fundamentals are associated with representing your own constituency, and the first is to recognise that politics is the art of the possible. The government made it very clear how far they were prepared to go in having a legislative arrangement for a committee of this nature. In direct discussions with the shadow minister, we made that point, to which, as I said in my original comments on this matter, the point was made to us by the shadow minister, `If the CFMEU and the unions are happy with what you propose, that should be good enough,' the suggestion being that they would not be.We put a proposition to them, and in all honesty they came back with some criticism, which we accommodated. They then wrote us a letter and said, `We find your proposal quite satisfactory,' they having the pragmatism to understand that it was better to have that proposal in legislation than nothing. The shadow minister tries to make the point that what they had was better. That is a view they hold very much to themselves. I do not think it was. I think, for a start, it was too restrictive. I see the member for Bruce has just entered the chamber with a newspaper. You do not want to talk about that; I am just starting to write a letter protecting you blokes. Do not think there is only one side to that argument. If you disagree with me, you are silly. So don't be trying to play that card.10000ACTING SPEAKERMr ACTING SPEAKER—Order! The minister will address his remarks through the chair. The chair is not silly.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I know, but we have dopey cows like this coming into the place. We are on a serious subject, and suddenly you think you can isolate one member. You do it! You get out there and do an Andren, and see how you finish up.VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That idiot is making claims he has no right to make. I have done nothing other than show an article to the shadow minister.10000ACTING SPEAKERMr ACTING SPEAKER—There is no point of order.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—It is like another member of theirs who stood up yesterday with a privileged document of a late constituent and thought it was more important to get a political point than represent the interests of that person as all other members in this place would with the normal processes.10000ACTING SPEAKERMr ACTING SPEAKER—Perhaps the minister would return to the subject of the bill.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I think that is a good idea. But I thought that was about the lowest thing I have witnessed in this place since I have been here. But let me get back to what we are talking about. What was done clearly demonstrates the agenda of the opposition in terms of this committee. They did not want the committee. They do not want anything to happen in that area, because the green interests of the salubrious western suburbs of Perth now override, in the opposition party, the interests of the western suburbs of Sydney and regional timber workers. Let me just tell you what has happened. They threw the baby out with the bathwater in the Senate. Yesterday the steering committee of the action agenda met and included in their numbers, at my invitation, was Mr Trevor Smith, the national secretary of the timber industry CFMEU. Trevor dropped in the day before to discuss this particular matter, and we were in very great agreement that that steering committee's first job should be to put their structures together for the advisory committee we intend to have without legislation.Yesterday I was criticised because I had said in the second reading speech to the parliament that the advisory committee would be chaired by the minister. That was slung off at. I said the day before yesterday to the union people, `Look, we've put Senator Gibson in as chairman of the steering committee, and I am entirely in the hands of the steering committee as to who is the future chairman.' The union said, `We insist it's you, Minister.'8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—You like that!SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I am complimented by it. (Extension of time granted) The CFMEU is very confident in the government's administration, and I am not going to waste the time of the House by reading back some of their recent press releases. They have made it very clear they are not only dissatisfied with the opposition's approach on these matters but also betrayed. Considering the history of the seat of McMillan—the truck blockades, the truck marches and all those sorts of things—did the member for McMillan go around as he was doorknocking and say, `Listen, fellas, I've got to tell you something. When we get into government, we are going to walk away from the National Forest Policy Statement principles. We are going to betray a promise that the union says the Leader of the Opposition gave to you'?84HZAHRAMr Zahra—Speaking of betrayal, where were you when the workers of Swifts Creek needed you?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—The reference to Swifts Creek is one for the state government to resolve, and the member knows it, and he has not resolved it yet either. But it is a state government issue and always was.Mr Zahra interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—It is not even in his electorate, what is more. But the reality of the big deal is that there will be more investment at Swifts Creek when people know the RFA signed for that region is guaranteed in legislation. The member for McMillan snuck under the carpet when the last vote was on. He was absent all day. He was not here when the vote was on.84HZAHRAMr Zahra—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the minister is casting aspersions about why I was not here for a vote. I was actually there helping the workers of Swifts Creek resolve the problem.10000ACTING SPEAKERMr ACTING SPEAKER—There is no point of order.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—You have not got them a sawmill, and that was a frivolous point of order. On the day of the vote, the poor old member for Lyons and the poor old member for Bass had to come in here and put their jobs on the line, but little Mr Sneaky writes me a letter.10000ACTING SPEAKERMr ACTING SPEAKER—Order! You will withdraw that.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I withdraw it. The fundamental aspect of all this is the two-faced attitude of individual opposition members on this issue. They say, `I am fighting for you boys; I am fighting in the caucus.' I tell you what: you never win. So what are you doing then? I will tell you, Mr Acting Speaker, why they do not win. They do not win because their leader, along with his Oxford mate, Gallop, is more interested in the western suburbs of Perth than he is with the workers of McMillan. I am quite happy for us to turn up there, and the member for McMillan can stand on the platform with me and debate the issue. The CFMEU will organise a meeting any time the opposition like and they can speak on that. In fact we are going to have some meetings in McMillan and we are going to have stop-work meetings so that those people can understand what is happening to them in this place.Yesterday the industry men—including the union—were in a steering committee. What were they there for? They were there to form this advisory council and it has the full support of the CFMEU because they see it as constructive, and they are insisting that I chair it. You would not give them anything. The opposition knew that they could not deliver on that matter and denied their colleagues an alternative which they had said they would accept—and a meeting which they want me to chair. So they put up a proposition knowing that it would be rejected in this place where the government happens to sit. We will also deal with the other matters that they deliberately put up. The fundamental purpose of the original bill—of which this is an amendment—was to do one thing and one thing only, and that was to guarantee that the agreements made between state Premiers and the Prime Minister had some standing in legislation so that the people who would potentially rebuild Swifts Creek would know that if some action of a future government—which seems more than likely given the way that the opposition has been carrying on—was to damage their investment they would get compensation. (Time expired)10:10:0013207Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—In many respects, I am getting thoroughly sick and tired of having to come in here and speak on the amendments that the Labor Party keep insisting on applying to the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . Let us remember what this legislation was all about. I do not think it was ever going to be put in in the first place by the Labor Party. If we go back to 1992 and their National Forest Policy Statement, I do not think they ever envisaged that they would have legislation. I think they wanted—and they made great sounds in 1992 and we supported them on the National Forest Policy Statement—to get the politics out of this whole timber debate. That is what it was all about, and we supported it. In hindsight, I think the Labor Party always planned to leave the politics in because I do not think they planned to have legislation.When we got into government we continued the regional forest agreement process that had started under the previous Labor government and we finally got some regional forest agreements signed. They could not succeed in getting any signed in all their time. At the same time it was recognised—particularly by the Minister for Forestry and Conservation at the table—that unless there was some legislation which gave some support to these agreements we would go back to the situation that we had five to 10 years ago. I remind the House yet again—and I have done this many times before—that sitting on the wall at Harris Daishowa's office in Eden is a certificate signed by the Prime Minister of the day and the Premier of the day that is not worth the paper it is printed on.That was the South-East Forest Agreement—or so-called agreement—where all the studies had been done and the decision made on how much timber could be harvested over the period to 2009. A piece of paper signed by the Prime Minister and the Premier you would think would have some standing. But it has absolutely no standing at all. It is not worth anything because all the agreements were broken. That was why we said that we had to have some legislation to back up these agreements. That is what this was all about. So what have the Labor Party done? They have taken it into the Senate and basically made it Clayton's legislation. Don't they trust their Labor premiers? We have Premiers Carr, Beattie, Bracks and Bacon—all Labor premiers—who either are party or will be party to regional forest agreements. Basically, they are saying, `We cannot trust these blokes. We have to have something in this legislation to say that, at any time, we can review these agreements.'Senators Brown and Greig in the Senate have made it quite clear that the Labor amendments will mean that the RFAs can be thrown out at any old time. In my electorate I have Labor Party people like Senator Sue West and other so-called Labor Party people who would be better off sticking with their Public Service jobs. They are running around saying that the RFA amendments by the Labor Party are there to give security to timber workers. What a load of garbage! Why don't they go and talk to the CFMEU? But what did the CFMEU say? They said that they condemned the federal ALP for their position on the regional forest agreement and accused them of breaking commitments. But here we have Senator Sue West writing to the papers and saying, `Hand on the heart, we are looking after timber workers.' That is absolute garbage!One of the things they are saying is, `Labor has agreed to amendments to enable Senate scrutiny of the RFAs.' Exactly. But what for? So that they can change the RFAs. These RFAs are for 20-year commitments. If we want investment—and I want investment into my electorate—you have to give it some sort of security. We are going through all the processes—all the conservation, flora, fauna and every sort of study that you can imagine—as part of the regional forest agreement. When that is signed off, and in my case of New South Wales by a Labor Premier, surely they should be happy for that. I totally reject this nonsense that they are writing around in my electorate—Sue West and other Labor people—that the Senate should scrutinise the RFA legislation. That is exactly what they will do and, with Bob Brown in there, he will throw it out. (Time expired)10:15:0013208Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . It is a great shame that we have not heard from the organ grinder in this debate and that we have heard only from the monkey. I suggest that the contribution of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation to this debate has been nothing but negative and shockingly partisan. That does a huge disservice to forest industry workers. When you have a bloke like the Minister for Forestry and Conservation running around attacking state governments, attacking colleagues and attacking anyone who does not agree with him, all it does is politicise the debate. The forest industry workers in my constituency deserve better than Wilson Tuckey. They deserve someone who is able to bring some bipartisanship to this debate, not just someone who can run around like a ragged old circus clown harassing people and trying to make political points all the time, whilst at the same time dodging the substantial public policy issues which confront this industry.I turn to talk about the Wood and Paper Industry Council which is what we are here to talk about in this amendment today. This is a quote from the minister:Noting the recommendation that the Government establish the Wood and Paper Industry Council, Mr Tuckey said that the Government supported the establishment of an appropriate and representative stakeholder consultative body. The final form would be considered by the Government in the context of the Industry Action Agenda that has been initiated with the wood and paper products industry sector.When do you reckon he would have said that? Let me tell you: that was in February this year. So here we are in December, after he made that statement in February, finally getting on to a real debate about this. Finally the wheels of government, the processes and all of that stuff that goes on in Wilson Tuckey's mind has finally come around, and we are finally seeing some sort of action on this. That was February, now it is December, and the minister has finally got around to having a debate about this on the last day of parliament for this year. It is an embarrassment to the government, it is an embarrassment to the minister, that it has taken all of this time.This is a bloke that always goes around saying, `I am serious about helping the timber industry. I am serious about blue-collar workers.' If he were serious, he would have got on with it ages ago and stopped being shockingly political in his handling of his portfolio. I think we could probably name at least half a dozen ministers or colleagues who have received a terrible bagging from Minister Wilson Tuckey. Unfortunately, all this has done is politicise the debate further rather than bringing around some sort of bipartisanship which is what everyone knows is required in this debate.I notice the particularly high-pitch shrill laugh of the member for Gippsland—I should say the current member for Gippsland. Can I say that in my advocacy on behalf of the people of Swifts Creek in his electorate he was nowhere to be seen. Those people need local representation. They need someone who is going to stand up with them. They do not want hand-outs; they do not want compensation. They want their jobs. When I wrote to Minister Wilson Tuckey about this, where was the intervention and where was the support for those 22 blue-collar workers who lost their jobs? Where was Minister Wilson Tuckey? Missing in action—nowhere to be seen. Until this government starts to respond to the impact which regional forest agreements and forest policy have on these small communities, they are not being fair dinkum; they are not taking their obligations seriously.Can I also mention the gutting of the forest products laboratory in Clayton this year. What does that do to ensure the viability of the forest and forest products sector? Absolutely nothing. The work which they were doing over there is the sort of stuff which is going to ensure that people in communities like Drouin, Noojee, Neerim South, Traralgon and Morwell will have jobs into the future—not just jobs for another two or three years but long-term, high salary, value adding jobs. On this side of the House, that is what we want to see. We do not want to see just a sustaining of the industry for another 12 to 24 months; we want to see it have a long-term viable future.If the minister was fair dinkum about standing up for forest industry workers, he would stop being shockingly partisan and he would work with us to try to find a collaborative way through this. The minister said before that he is going to campaign in the electorate of McMillan against me. Well, I hope that he stands for the Liberal nomination for McMillan against me, I hope that he stands as the Liberal candidate against me, because I can assure you, Minister, that you will not be getting elected.10:20:0013209Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—We have just heard the greatest load of garbage on this debate that I have heard in a long time and we have listened to many debates. At least now the member for McMillan has bothered to come into the chamber—I think for the first time—to debate this issue. If the member for McMillan and those opposite were really serious about providing the security that claim to be supporting, they would be passing the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 .We are here at the present moment to talk about this amendment on the Wood and Paper Advisory Council. Let me tell the House that the steering committee had its first meeting yesterday, and Senator Brian Gibson is chairing that committee. The members opposite have been talking about partisanship. Can I inform this House that when the question of who was to chair this committee was brought up it was actually the union, the CFMEU, who demanded that the minister at the table, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, be the chair of this committee. That is how much faith the CFMEU have in this minister by demanding that he chair the committee and actually run this whole debate.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—It is good to see you are a union member.10000ACTING SPEAKERMr ACTING SPEAKER—The member for Banks is out of his place.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEY—Because the CFMEU as well as all of the Labor premiers throughout the country know that the only person that they can depend on to get this legislation through is actually the minister at the table. They cannot depend on those members opposite. The CFMEU know and all of the Labor premiers know that they have been let down miserably in this debate by those sitting opposite.The member for McMillan actually had the audacity—I could hardly believe it—when he was talking about this to say he wants long-term jobs, and he named a lot of the towns in his electorate. The only way for that to happen for any of the timber workers in all of those towns that the member for McMillan mentioned will be by getting this RFA legislation passed. That is the only way the timber workers in all of those towns can have any security about their jobs. They should know—and I intend to remind all of those people in all of those towns throughout the electorate of Mcmillan of this—that the member for McMillan is not supporting this legislation. He is not supporting the very legislation that will provide security for their jobs. That is what this all comes down to.Those opposite can put up every obstacle that they like, but the real question that goes to the very heart of this is: who supports the timber workers? Who supports the jobs of the timber workers? The answer to those questions is the government. It is not the members of the opposition. The member for McMillan can absolutely object to whatever he likes, but the fact remains—and the people living in the electorate of McMillan will not ignore this fact—that you, the member for McMillan, do not support this legislation that would guarantee them security about their jobs.10000ACTING SPEAKERMr ACTING SPEAKER—Order! Both ministers should observe standing order 57.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEY—I want to just quote a report of what Mr Brumby, the Victorian Minister for State and Regional Development, said:. . . the success of the regional forest agreement process depended on sound scientific analysis, the goodwill of all parties, "and particularly, communication to the widest possible audience of what all of us would agree to be complex concepts".He said there had to be `a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of reserves set aside from forest production.' (Time expired)10:25:0013210Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—Since the member for McEwen has seen fit to talk about the present Minister for State and Regional Development, John Brumby, and the view of the new Labor government towards the timber industry, can I just quote briefly from a document which I have here. I wrote to the Liberal Party Minister for Conservation and Land Management in Victoria, Marie Tehan, on behalf of the workers at Swifts Creek who had lost their jobs because of the closure of that timber mill; 22 blue-collar workers lost their jobs in a community of just 150 people. Since you want to have a talk about this, have a talk about the government in Victoria, let us have a debate and let us get it out on the public record. This is what Marie Tehan said when I asked her to do something to help the workers at Swifts Creek:The recent events leading up to the closure of the sawmill at Swifts Creek are—hand on heart—like the devastating flood event, outside the control of Government.That is the view of the former Kennett government when it comes to timber workers in Victoria, and that is the view of the former minister when it comes to the workers of Swifts Creek. It all right for you guys to come in here and wax lyrical and have a talk about how terrible the new Labor government is, but it is doing a great deal more for ordinary timber workers in Victoria than the pathetic attempt by the former minister and by the Kennett government.JT4BAILEYMs Bailey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a point of order of relevance.10000ACTING SPEAKERMr ACTING SPEAKER—There is no point of order.JT4BAILEYMs Bailey—I haven't got to it yet.10000ACTING SPEAKERMr ACTING SPEAKER—Resume your seat. The honourable member for McMillan has the call.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—I would suggest to those opposite that, before they bring into this House any sorts of accusations that they want to throw around about the Labor Party in government and what we do for forest industry workers in Victoria, they should have a long hard look at themselves. Get out the full-length mirror and have a look at your own record in government, because it is pathetic. It is non-interventionist. You do not understand, still, that people do not want to hear platitudes about what you are doing on a state-wide or nationwide basis; they want to know what you are going to do to keep their timber mill open in their town, to make sure that their kids get to have a job in the town and will not have to leave and go to Mel bourne or Sydney in order to get any opportunities. Here it is in cold hard facts—the attitude of the Liberal government, the Liberal Party, towards timber workers:. . . like the devastating flood event, outside the control of Government.We on this side do not think that forest industry policy is outside the control of government. We intend to be interventionist. We intend to make sure that those rural communities that depend on the timber industry do have a future, and that is what we on this side are committed to.10:28:0013211Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I want to speak briefly, because I think this segment of a three-part debate could be brought to an end with the agreement of the opposition, because there is plenty of opportunity to cover broader principles. This one is just specific to the issue of the advisory committee.But a response is needed on Swifts Creek. Firstly, let me say something about the new state government in Victoria. We have had a meeting with Sherryl Garbutt, the new minister. It was very productive. We were impressed with her approach to it. I think the previous speaker was most interested in pointing out that the spokesman now for regional development, Mr Brumby, is also saying, `Let's get on with this process.' With due respect to the previous government of Victoria, they also had a very positive approach to RFAs. The issue of Swifts Creek revolves around the licensing of timber. The owners of the licence—which I think was Neville Smith—shifted the resource over to their other mill. In other words, until that situation is worked out by the state government, there is absolutely nothing that we can do.I say to you that we implored both the previous Premier and minister to join with us in each putting up $800,000 for Mount Beauty to allow for re-equipping because of the difficulties they will have with resource. We were extremely disappointed that the previous government did not join with us, and I think they paid a price for that. But again the union movement came out and congratulated Lou Lieberman because we have stuck to that promise and the $800,000 is still there.I want to quickly touch on the research issue. You raised two points. Those people that lost their jobs were primarily employed under a CRC. A CRC is seed money, and it means, of course, a cooperative research corporation. Its purpose is for the industry to fill the gap for continuation. The industry had some serious problems internally; they were arguing with each other about research levies. My response was to get them all in a room and sort it out with them, and they are now very happy with progressing a new system which we have agreed on. I hope that that will result in a much more substantial industry contribution which can be farmed out to CSIRO or someone else. One of the universities is very anxious to employ some of those people. I wrote to them the other day and said, `Get in with some of these sectoral groups and see if you can be their contractor.' Those opportunities have been addressed. But we have got to close on the simple point regarding this committee: it is going ahead.The member for McMillan talked about delays. Delays? We sent the bill to the Senate twice. They only spoke for 29 hours on it the first time! How can I implement something until I know whether or not the legislation is successful? We gave it two tries. The opposition were determined to make sure that an appropriate compromise could not be reached. I saw the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the member for Jagajaga yesterday getting across issues and finding a compromise on something that I would say is very sensitive in terms of women's rights et cetera. They found a compromise. Why? Because the member for Jagajaga knew that it was better to get something that was as near as possible to what they wanted than to get nothing. Those are good opposition tactics. But you cannot say that your leader is allowing you to do anything associated with the RFA legislation. You knew from the time before that you could not get your proposal up but you refused point-blank to accept the alternative.The fact is that, now we have got the message that it is all about blocking and not about contributing, we are going ahead and putting it together in exactly the form that we proposed anyway—and the first meeting was yesterday. We cannot do much more than that. But to suggest we delayed it is silly because quite obviously any minister would await the final outcome of the legislative proposal before they took up a non-legislative proposal. We are going ahead with it. We always said we would. What is more, the people that are meeting now have my personal invitation—delivered to them yesterday—to put to me the structure they want in that advisory committee. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.10:34:0013212Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—by leave—I move:That the House insists on disagreeing to amendments Nos 1 to 15 insisted on by the Senate.These are all the penultimate issues where the Senate set out to destruct the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . We have had the high sounding comments made in the media by Senator West and others as to how this is such a magnificent improvement to the legislation. I have had the opportunity to respond to that particular comment in the paper and point out that that might be the view of Senator Sue West; it is not the view of the CFMEU, who say these amendments are a betrayal. It is not the view of those people who represent the timber communities, previously known as the Forest Protection Society. They say it is a betrayal. It is not the view of NAFI, the industry representative group. They say it destroys any opportunity for their particular members to be involved. Furthermore, when you get down to the people who quite openly say, `We are dead against the RFAs and the RFA legislation,' at least they come out and say it. Here I refer to Senator Brown, the Australian Greens senator, and the Democrats, through their spokesman Senator Greig. What do they say about the amendments? They say they give them the opportunity to knock off every regional forest agreement, and that is what they are there for and that is their intention. There is no mucking about. They at least have the integrity to tell the parliament. They always have been against RFAs. They want to lock up all the native forests. They believe that jobs will materialise from heaven for all those timber workers that the member for McMillan says are of concern to him. That is their position. I admire them for their integrity, notwithstanding that I contest their logic. They say that, so who are we getting to?The other interesting thing about these amendments is that we have this arrogance in the Senate that they are smarter than all the state Labor premiers in Australia today: smarter than Peter Beattie, smarter than Bob Carr, smarter than Steve Bracks and smarter than Jim Bacon. Before these things become an agreement, they all sign it too. They say they are good. They have the advice of all their public servants. So who agrees with the Labor senators? Nobody. Their own Premier colleagues do not because it would be an open admission that they signed something that they do not like. You, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, with experience in that position, would be very well aware where the power lies on forest management; it lies with state governments. They do not have to be dragged, screaming, to the barrier on this issue. They are very tough to deal with and they demand and get what they want because they can otherwise decline to do it.I drew to the attention of the House yesterday how Premier Beattie is running on with his continued agenda and has said, `I'll do it whether there is an RFA or not.' In other words, why does Premier Beattie need the assistance of his colleagues in the Senate? I note that all of them—including Senator Ludwig, who had a lot to say about protecting people's jobs before he got elected down here—get up and vote that they have got a better solution, but nobody outside this parliament, including a group of Labor premiers, agrees with them.I have got to say that they are wrong. I have also got to say that, if they wanted to put up a private member's bill bringing in all sorts of other things relative to forest management, there is a process available. This bill had one purpose and one purpose alone, and that was to say that the Commonwealth puts its money where its mouth is and that any future government that changed the rules as agreed in the RFA at the federal level would pay compensation. The member for McMillan is worried about jobs. There are no jobs being lost under the RFAs is being signed—not any more.84HZAHRAMr Zahra—That is not true, though. What about Mount Beauty? What about Swifts Creek?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Swifts Creek has nothing to do with an RFA. (Extension of time granted) The member for Eden-Monaro, who is not here, has exactly the same problem. Someone set fire to a little sawmill in his electorate: that was arson. The other one in Swifts Creek was, I think, an accident.84HZAHRAMr Zahra—Why weren't they insured?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—They were not insured, no—and for the same reason. The fact that arson is now a significant factor in sawmills is a reason that very few of them are insured. They cannot afford the premiums, because there are people who are prepared to burn them down. I do not know that that happened at Swifts Creek. What I do know is that there are no provisions under the FISAP arrangements, as written by the Labor Party, that allow us to pay out people on the grounds of a disaster—and I think that is how Marie Tehan might have responded. We can give them business exit only where they lost their resource through the RFA, and Swifts Creek did not.84HZAHRAMr Zahra—They don't want business exit. They want their jobs.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Of course they do not. The Labor Party in 1992 invented business exit and allocated $100 million to it. The current government, at my request to the Prime Minister, said, `We will convert the remaining moneys to business development.' That is what we are doing, and that is where we have a lot of fights. That is what I am fighting with the Liberals in Western Australia over. They wanted to create a situation—urged on, I might add, by the Labour Party over there who have it even worse; and I can give you a copy of a pamphlet delivered to my home that says, `We are going to sack all these people but we are going to give them redundancy and retraining'—where some 55-year-old sawmill operator has got to go and serve tables in a restaurant.Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—No. I still said that all of the moneys as allocated in each state remain, provided state premiers can come up with business development projects and the resource to support them. What I am not going to do in Western Australia is be taken in a few years time to Tuckey's Folly because there is a closed-down sawmill with a couple of million dollars worth of federal taxpayers' investment in value adding and a future government, and the office of Mr Gallop, says, `I'm going to cut off their wood supply.' Until those resource issues are resolved and guaranteed, it would be delinquent of me as a federal minister to do anything more. But we are most anxious to do that.A group of nine small sawmills—they may be partly in the member for McMillan's electorate—have got together and called themselves Terra. I have spoken with them. They have an application in for a very substantial amount of money. They are being so sensible. Nine little guys are getting together with one major investment in value adding. They all feed into it. They have better market access—84HZAHRAMr Zahra—But, Wilson, you have got to help the Swifts Creeks and the Mount Beautys.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I have just tried to tell you that Swifts Creek, unfortunately, is not a victim of the RFA. Your state government has got to fix it. Those are the rules that you wrote in 1992. It is a simple as that. The same message had to be given yesterday.84HZAHRAMr Zahra—You can't have it both ways—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—If the member for McMillan wants to speak, I urge him to obey the standing orders.Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I am not putting a brief for Marie Tehan. What I am telling you is that the FISAP arrangements can only respond to a result of an RFA, usually a reduction in resource. This is not the case at Swifts Creek. But, if the state government or Neville Smith want to rebuild it, we think that is great. All I can say is that where we had an outcome of an RFA at Mount Beauty—and, by the way, it was at the insistence of the state government again; I wanted to retain some of the Wongungarra Reserve for Mount Beauty, which was the best and least expensive solution—we came up with $800,000. What is more, when the state declined to match it, we stuck by it. But that is within our capacity. Swifts Creek is not. It is a simple is that.But the real issue is that we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in investments. I am going to run out of time again, and I would like the opposition to give me the opportunity to speak for another five minutes and unless they say something outrageous I will not speak again. The whole thing about it is that everywhere we have gone on this we have taken steps to make sure the RFAs work and that they work to develop the industry, and that is very important because that does create jobs. (Extension of time granted)Coming back to all those amendments, it is arguable that they are inconsistent with the purpose of the bill. The bill was a simple measure of eight clauses to give a guarantee to everybody who invested in industry that, if a future federal government were to shift the goalposts, compensation could be paid. That has to be looked at in the context of some of the investments around Marysville and other parts of Victoria. There has been an 83 per cent increase internationally in the consumption of panel boards in the last 10 years. This also identifies the silliness of the attack on woodchips. Woodchips do not only make pie bags, as some people would like us to believe. Australians use 50 kilograms per annum of photocopy paper per capita. Panel boards are made from woodchips. What is more, it is the most efficient use of a log because you can use the whole lot and you can use junk bits of wood that would never go into a sawmill. Woodchips are a very good way to use wood. You get a lot more construction type timber out of woodchips than you would ever get out of sawing up round logs into rectangular pieces. They are now of structural integrity, with OSB being a classic example.Companies are now importing OSB board from America and turning it into structural members here in Australia. If you want to make OSB in Australia, you invest $300 million. Fancy being the company secretary and going to your board and saying, `Fellas, there's a business opportunity in Australia to make OSB board. It's quite good. Here are all the figures. We can export a bit. We can do all these wonderful things to reduce Australia's $2 billion trade deficit, but there is one little problem—we do not know what Kim Beazley is going to do because Kim Beazley has run off the rails in terms of the National Forest Policy Statement which his cabinet put together in 1992. We cannot get a guarantee from the federal government. If we establish it in Tasmania we can get a guarantee from the state government as they have passed this legislation.' And they are another group that came and begged the opposition to pass that legislation without amendment.The company secretary continues, `It's all very good as long as you are prepared to trust some future politician.' I do not know how long it takes to get $300 million back, but I guess it is not next week. That is why we want this legislation. If you feel you have to satisfy the Greens and give Bob Brown another seven hours to speak in the Senate, support him in a private members bill with all this garbage you are trying to tack on to this bill and just pass a simple promise. You say you still support the National Forest Policy Statement, so put your signature to the promise that says, `We back this with money.' Then your opportunities for job creation and investment are on the doorstep.You have five of the five seats in Tasmania. The minute you supported us in that legislation—and at this point in time you have to come and tell us you will—Tasmania, which is probably the most economically depressed state in Australia, would have a 20-metre start on every other state because they have the quartet. They already have the two pieces of legislation which reassure investors. As I said, Trevor Smith and I know that pulp and paper is the area where we have to get real investment because pulp and paper is where we have a huge trade deficit. It is a good employer. Let me say, from a union point of view, it is much more likely to be organised by them. I recognise that. It is a good deal.I talk to these blokes and they say, `But, Mr Tuckey, where is the resource going to? We don't even have one on plantations.' All you guys have to do is stand up in caucus and say, `Let's get all this other rubbish out.' If you guys want to do a deal in the room behind the dispatch box with the Greens and make them feel good, give them a private member's bill, but for goodness sake put this guarantee in place on dollars—a guarantee that means the jobs you say you are interested in can materialise. Do not run back to your electorates and say, `I'm fighting for you,' when you know you are not. (Time expired)10:49:0013215Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—Moments after finally conceding on part of Labor's demand for an effective industry council to drive investment in this industry, the minister comes here and says that we should not tack anything onto the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . He says, `It's a simple bill, so let's leave it as it is.' What he has done on the industry council is what he should do on the overall issues raised by the opposition. Quite frankly, the reality of this debate over many months, the reality which the Western Australian electorate is seeing, the reality which the Australian public are seeing, was summarised in the Sunday Times of 29 August 1999. They said of the minister:His record in the timber row is one of intemperate comments, intolerance, lack of compromise and downright bloody-mindedness. Instead of trying to work out a peace formula to settle the bitter dispute between timber workers and conservationists, his inflammatory remarks have made the situation even more volatile.That is the reality of this debate, that is the reality of the problem, and that is the reality of the difficulties the industry faces. I concede that the minister is right, in that the embryo of this bill is the compensation issue—the failure of the current federal coalition government and the Tasmanian Liberal government to get it right in regard to compensation. That is the genesis of the bill. He is right; it was essentially established to try and make sure that industry is compensated if changes in the political spectrum occur, if there are reasons to back away from these 20-year agreements.But the bill does not really tackle a wide variety of problems. It is all right for the minister to say that the Labor Party has repudiated the 1992 statement, but this is the same minister who refuses to put in this bill the objectives of that actual agreement. He says, `It's all irrelevant. It doesn't matter. We don't need it.' The fact of life is that this minister has no respect for the broader concepts behind that 1992 agreement. He does not really want to put into effect a lot of the aspects that were raised in that agreement.Having refused to accept what the Wood and Paper Industry Council has said, the government once again seeks to reject out of hand the Senate's 15 amendments to the RFA bill. Having totally failed in his attempt to bulldoze the Senate into submission, the minister should instead take a deep breath and review his ham-fisted tactics. He seems unable to recognise that the only outcome of his tactics to date has been to further delay bringing the RFA bill into law.Let me restate the opposition's position. We remain absolutely committed to the National Forest Policy Statement of 1992 and the national RFA process. We remain available to discuss with the government ways to resolve the current impasse with the bill. Unlike the Democrats and Greens, we do not wish to impede the RFA process. But we do have concerns that need an appropriate response from the government. Our concerns about the Western Australian RFA reflect widespread public disquiet in that state—disquiet that has created considerable dissension within the coalition parties. Despite this, the minister pretends there is no basis for any concerns—even as he refuses to hand over any of the promised Commonwealth funding to Western Australia. The Senate again seeks the agreement of the House to its original amendments. These can be grouped into eight areas as follows: the insertion of objects consistent with and essentially from the National Forest Policy Statement of 1992; a limited process of public and parliamentary scrutiny for RFAs proposed after 1 March 1999; the requirement that RFAs provide structural adjustment packages for affected workers—it is all right for the minister to come in here today and say that he does not want anyone in the industry sacked, and that he wants everyone to keep their jobs, but the fact of life is that in this industry, and in Australian society, people do lose jobs and they should be provided for—the establishment of a comprehensive and publicly available national forest database; the maintenance of Commonwealth oversight of RFA forestry operations in listed world heritage areas or Ramsar wetlands; a provision whereby the parties to an RFA can amend it, provided they have consulted interested stakeholders; clarification of the Commonwealth's potential compensation liability; and, the requirement that information about the commencement or amendment of an RFA be published in the Gazette.The Australian public knows these are reasonable requirements in this field. We are saying that the industry will get a guarantee of access to timber for 20 years. The Australian public, the Australian taxpayer, should get something in return. (Extension of time granted) They want some guarantees. They do not want to give this minister, this government, a blank cheque. These are, as I say, essentially quite reasonable propositions. In the same way that the minister has grudgingly conceded part of Labor's drive, with regard to a proper industry council that will do something about investment, it is about time he considered the wide range of amendments that the Senate has proposed. Some of these amendments are clearly contentious but others are absolutely run of the mill.We are entitled to ask how the government can justify rejecting the Senate's amendment asking them to set up a forest database. Do they fear greater knowledge about forestry matters? Is that the logic behind opposing a database, information, advice, knowledge? Is the minister fearful of that? Why can't he accept an amendment to allow RFAs to be amended by mutual agreement between state and federal governments? What is his objection to publishing in the Gazette the text of the RFA, as requested by the Senate? `What are the difficulties with these issues?', the Australian public might well ask.The minister seeks to portray himself as the friend of timber workers, so how does he justify rejecting out of hand the Senate's amendment requiring RFAs to provide workers with structural adjustment measures to cushion the negative impact of reduced harvesting levels? I recall the many press releases and articles in which he said that it was dreadful that the Western Australian government was admitting the truth that some people would lose their jobs. He wants us all to close our eyes, put our heads in the sand and pretend that no job losses will occur. But when they do occur the minister is totally disinterested in the outcome for those workers. Basically he says, `It's all bad luck, but we are not going to provide any finance towards their future.'Equally, we have a responsibility to protect the interests of taxpayers. This includes properly defining the Commonwealth's liability to pay compensation if it takes certain future action. Labor supports the concept of compensation but is concerned that the government's bill provides no specific basis on which it is payable. The minister has singularly failed to point out what is wrong with Labor's amendments to clarify these liabilities by linking compensation to actual losses arising from the curtailment of legally exercisable rights.Similarly, the minister has failed to identify any aspect of the objects clause proposed by the opposition that is not part of the agreed, by everyone, national goals of the National Forest Policy Statement of 1992—goals that had been agreed to by the Commonwealth and the states. He has not identified any basis on which this objects clause could cause legal difficulties in any state. The government's refusal to accept the objects clause only creates grave suspicion about its alleged commitment to the 1992 National Forest Policy Statement.The next issue concerns parliamentary scrutiny. Well before the last election, Labor expressed concern that the coalition was seeking, through its legislation, a negotiating blank cheque from the parliament. Our amendments requiring RFA's signed after 1 March 1999 to be subject to a limited process of public and parliamentary scrutiny seek to address this deficiency. These provisions are not perfect, because we have been forced to consider the legislation in the middle of the RFA process. When the bill was introduced, a number of RFAs had been signed, others were in the process of being negotiated and others were still at the early stage of development. The government has consistently failed to acknowledge that these circumstances were not, and are not, of Labor's making. Our amendments seek to give the parliament a limited role in the process—something that is not unreasonable for agreements that we sincerely hope can be sustained for the whole 20 years on a bipartisan basis. While the government has engaged in scaremongering about our procedure, what alternative has been put forward?In a statement of reasons for rejecting the Senate amendments, the government spokesperson in the Senate said:. . . if there is a concern that RFA requirements are not been complied with, it is open to parliament to amend or repeal the bill.If that is the best advice the government can give the opposition, knowing that following it would expose the Commonwealth to an unnecessary compensation liability, it should not be surprised that we might wish to stick to our original proposal, which is far preferable. However, we are open, as we always have been, to alternative suggestions.As I say, it is all right for the minister to go around this country attacking a variety of governments of whatever political complexion, it is all right to make the popular statements out on the stumps, and run around saying that everyone's job is protected forever and a day, but it is about time he got down to negotiating a reasonable bipartisan approach that will protect this industry and give it certainty for 20 years.11:00:0013217Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I have been bobbing up and down like a cork here trying to get into this debate.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—A cork's more useful than you.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—Well, you should put a cork in it! I implore members opposite to listen very closely to the statements that the Minister for Forestry and Conservation has made. During this debate I was pleased that, for quite a period, there was silence on the opposition benches, and I think that was because they were momentarily listening to the sense that was coming out of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Members like the member for McMillan should be listening to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation instead of labelling him with names—he is a boofhead one minute and the minister for logs the next. Those opposite should listen to him, not abuse him.The CFMEU have done a very good job of assessing this situation. And where do they come down? They come down in support of the minister. Why does the Labor Party not listen to that? I do not know. The obvious thing to consider there is the effort to which the Labor Party has gone, down the road of appeasing the Greens. In effect, we have the Labor Party across Australia doing deals with the Greens in an effort to get preference votes and things like that, and in the process it is alienating its very constituency. This is absolutely laid bare when we consider this particular legislation.I am talking about the RFA process Australia-wide. In Queensland at the moment, the Labor Party up there has done a deal with the Greens to, in effect, shut down the entire forest industry in stages over 25 years, ending with zero production coming out of native forests in that state. It is appalling. We had a meeting the other day of 16 council representatives. These are councils from all kinds of political persuasions, local government authorities, and they absolutely condemned the agreement that is proposed in Queensland.We need the regional forest agreement legislation to be robust, and that is the purpose behind the bill we are debating here today. Whether in the end that crazy scheme in Queensland ever gets up or the ones in some of the other states get up, none of them will have any real force at all unless we in this House and in the Senate are able to make perfectly robust legislation to support it.What is going on? Because of their commitment to the Greens, we have the ALP, in effect, trying to pull the wings right off this legislation. We heard just a minute ago the opposition spokesman driving down expectations out there. Job losses, according to him, are essential, they are part of the system, they occur. The Minister for Forestry and Conservation is doing his damnedest to encourage value adding, to encourage the creation of jobs, and you are saying that it is all just a matter of course. If you follow the recipe laid down by former Queensland Premier Wayne Goss, you would go around to every timber worker, give them a cheque and say, `Never come back to this industry again.' It is a stupid way to go about it.What comes out of the proposals that the Labor Party is asking us to consider is the idea that we should set up a lawyer's picnic, that we should have objects and things like that which make the legislation open to challenge. On the other hand, we should set up bureaucratic structures—we are going to have a council to oversee something or other in relation to it. Why do we need these bureaucracies? It all comes back to the National Forest Policy Statement. The legislation that we have, unamended, deals with the national forest statement, and that is precisely what we need. The Labor Party is defending lawyers and bureaucrats; we are defending the timber workers.We have seen a deal in Queensland not only between the Labor Party and the Greens but between the Labor Party, the Greens and the timber industry bosses. Where were the timber workers in that process? They were cut right out, and the position of the CFMEU confirms it. Making half-smart comments about what the minister should do or calling him names is not going to cut the mustard with people who are working in the timber industry. They want to see this legislation passed without amendment—the toughest possible legislation to support effective regional forest agreements across Australia. We do not want to see this continued kowtowing to the Greens by the Labor Party. They need to stand on their own two feet and stop trying to set up a sucker punch for the timber industry from the Greens. (Time expired)11:05:0013218Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—We can almost conclude this debate, but I was anticipating a couple of other members being able to return to the House. I will respond only to the comments of the shadow minister. He said, `Our concerns are about the WA RFA.' To all the people who keep saying that they have concerns about the WA RFA and that it is fundamentally flawed, I say, `Which bit?' I would welcome the return of the shadow minister to the dispatch box to tell me what particular parts of the Western Australian Regional Forest Agreement he has concerns with.Surely it is not that some people in the western suburbs of Perth do not like it. Surely it has to be that there are fundamentally identifiable flaws in the science. Remember that it was their budget that put together $100 million to pay people whom I find are infinitely of high integrity, infinitely decent people, be they public servants or scientists. They have great academic skills. It is their advice only that is handed on to the task force, the structure of which I think is unchanged from the original created by the Labor Party—that is, Prime Minister and Cabinet; AFFA, as it is now known; and Environment Australia. Those are the people who come along to me and say, `There's the document.'In relation to the Western Australian document on reserve areas and those things that people sometimes wish to debate, there were three propositions and the one that was actually accepted was the one put by the Western Australian government. After a couple of visits from a couple of wealthy lawyers, they backed down on their own agreement. But it is incumbent on the shadow minister, having said, `We have to review the WA RFA in the Senate because we are concerned about it,' to let us in on it.Let me now say something about negotiation. We did have negotiation. We were willing to consider such matters—and we made this very clear to the opposition—as a limited objects clause. We have grave concerns about an objects clause because that just opens up the opportunity for people who seem to have heaps and heaps of money to take someone to court after the event when they have committed their billion bucks in a paper making plant and say, `You cannot do this because RFA No. 5 in Victoria does not meet the objects of the act.' That is a great opportunity for a couple of lawyers to make a lot of money. The fact of life is that investors do not want that problem; they want uncontestable arrangements. That is what you achieve with an objects clause: you start to create opportunities for litigation. That is why I think it was totally unnecessary. But we were prepared to have some limited objects that we felt would not open the legislation to that sort of litigation, and we said so.We agreed to have the annual reports and five yearly reviews tabled in both houses so they could be debated if either house so wished. We were willing to look at the establishment of a parliamentary joint committee to review implementation of the RFAs over their 20-year life, and we were prepared to consider improvements to the public consultation process for the remaining RFAs in Victoria and New South Wales. In fact, the final message that I might admit with some reluctance we passed to the opposition prior to the debate in the Senate was that we were even prepared to have the completed RFAs made available for further public consideration prior to their signing. Why we need to do that, considering the other consultation processes, I do not know. I make the point that in Western Australia there were three propositions put to the people for public consultation known as A, B and C. The eventual outcome was greener than any of them. But, again, we have Senator Greig saying, `All those things are flawed with the exception of the Queensland one.' He apparently does not know there is not one in Queensland, so what does he know about the other ones? Why don't they get up clause by clause and identify where the science was wrong, identify where the principles of 60 per cent of old-growth forest and 15 per cent of pre-existing biodiversity has not happened? (Extension of time granted) Why not point to where they are wrong? It is all about `fundamentally flawed' or GMOs or `Frankenstein food'. What has that got to do with the science of genetic modification? Why do we let that sort of talk dictate this debate?You can go to any of the RFAs. You have the National Forest Policy Statement, which the Labor Party wrote. You have the JANIS criteria, which they authorised and which every parliament in Australia endorsed. That is the test for an RFA, but you never hear it. You can go through 29 hours of Senate debate but show me where there is any serious criticism of any of the RFAs signed—there is none whatsoever. They say, `Tuckey's a boofhead,' or `Someone says this or that'—nothing to say they are wrong.I think the Leader of the Opposition has doubts about the policy, but I have stuck to that policy religiously. I challenge anyone to look at any of the RFAs, whether or not I was responsible for some of them, and point to where they are grossly deficient as per the NFPS. We cop it every day from the media. You are well aware that Bob Cronin, the retired editor-in-chief of the West Australian, wrote an article in the Australian which was a peer review of the journalistic coverage of the RFA debate in Western Australia. As he said, the Greens were too smart to confuse journalism with facts; all they did was feed them `one-liners and conflict', and that is all they wanted. There is peer review. If you go to the newspapers, that is all you get.So what I am saying to the opposition is that, if a heap of state premiers have signed or refused to sign RFAs with all the advice they have and all the science behind their departmental structures, which is much more developed than ours, why are a group of senators who get up and use words like `fundamentally flawed' smarter than the people who are involved? And why do we have this ongoing insult and degradation of scientists involved in the process? You can go to Melbourne University and qualify as a medical practitioner, a teacher, a pharmacist or a forester, and if you come out as a forester and you go to work for Norths or someone you are immediately labelled as someone who is taking a dirty dollar. Why? Do those people get a degree at a penitentiary before they come to the forestry school? Of course they do not. They are decent people and, as I meet them, they are very wise. They disagree amongst their fraternity, but you have to feed that out, and we have some very good public servants to advise us on that. There is not one scrap of evidence; the Senate just says, `They are all a mob of mugs not to be trusted.'The pity of it is that we expect it of Brown and we expect it of Greig, but the Labor Party have a higher responsibility. I think they should put up an MPI and bring in the RFA for Western Australia and stand up on scientific principles and say where it is wrong. And don't go to Pierre Horwitz's lengthy paper, as the Greens do, and pick out one paragraph. When I met with the man he said, `Don't read my paper as one paragraph. For goodness sake, read the lot of it and you will come to a different conclusion.' There is an offer—you get three of those every sitting week. Come out and prove why you are concerned about the WA RFA other than that your leader thinks there are some votes in it, and that is his biggest mistake.We agreed to a database. We were going to have one anyway. All of these issues were raised with the idea of undermining the fundamental principle. The Labor Party have got plans to change the RFA. They are going to make promises to the Greens and to the western suburbs in the next state election in WA. As they are going to do all of that, the last thing they want is for the dollars and cents part of this legislation to be passed. They have made the admission today that they do not want to get caught up in any compensation. That is why they put up a smokescreen of amendments which they know are not acceptable. (Time expired)11:15:0013220Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—I rise to strongly support the Minister for Forestry and Conservation in the proposals that are before the House at the moment and also to criticise in the strongest possible terms the consistent behaviour of the Labor Party on these issues over a very long period of time. It seems to me the absolute epitome of hypocrisy for representatives of that political grouping to come into this place and make the statements that they are making. I must also bring the attention of the House to what happens when you listen to the Greens in this country.On White Wreath Day, there were 2,743 wreaths laid out, representing the number of people who have committed suicide in Australia in the last 12 months. I think 1,800 died from road accidents and 800 died from AIDS, but 2,743 died from suicide. The national health report, which was done in the days of the Labor government, goes back 30 years. It graphs the rise in suicides and the rise in unemployment for young men between the ages of 15 and 35. The graphs over that 30 years are almost identical. The implications are, of course, that the causal relationship is the closest of close relationships: loss of jobs and suicide.If you want to look at the loss of jobs, the timber industry is the absolute classical case. If you drive north from Townsville, the first town you come to is Ingham. You cannot see the timber mill from the roadway, but it is so big that, if you turn right anywhere in the middle of town, you will run into it. All of these towns have the timber mill right in the main street of town because I suspect that in the early days almost all of them were timber towns. Innisfail most certainly was, so the town grew up around a little timber mill. We have been harvesting timber since the 1870s, and most certainly since the 1880s, throughout all of Far North Queensland.The timber mill at Foxwood is over a kilometre long. You can walk right through it and not see a soul. No-one has set foot, as an employed person, inside that building since then Senator Richardson closed it down. The next town you come to is Cardwell—it is only a tiny town and it does not have a timber mill and never has had one. The next town is Tully, right on the highway, and 32 men lost their jobs when Donny Day's timber mill closed down. In Innisfail, there were some timber mills—you cannot see them from the road. The next town is Tarzali—I have no hope that that timber mill will continue much longer. They are having enormous difficulties. They are courageous, heroic people to have kept it open.The next town is Yungaburra where 150 men lost their jobs. This is a huge timber mill: including the buildings associated with it, it is about half a kilometre long. The next town is Mareeba, and half of the entire main street of this town of 15,000 people is occupied by the old Foxwood timber mill.If you drive north through all of the towns on the northern highway, every single one of them has a monument to the decisions taken by the greenie-leaning Labor Party when they ruled in this country. And Mr Beattie is following them right at this very moment in Queensland. The then Prime Minister, in a most arrogant, cavalier statement, said it would only cost them 800 jobs in Far North Queensland. It did not. I can take you to the mills and show you the employment figures on each of those mills. At the very least, 2,000 jobs went. That is not flow-on jobs; that is direct employment inside the industry.The interesting thing is that, where the timber was taken from, you cannot establish that there was ever any timber taken from that area because, as the minister said, it was scientifically removed, although not always; there were bad periods. I fought very hard against the logging of Downey Creek. It was not always perfect. Over the last 10 years, before the world heritage declaration, the situation was exactly as the minister has described it. It is an absolute disgrace that science is being ignored. One of my standard jokes is, `What is the classical oxymoron?' An environmental scientist. That is exactly right. I praise the minister in the highest possible way for the stand that he has taken on this issue. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.11:20:0013221Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I move:That the bill be laid aside.I do not want to repeat all the things I have said today, but the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 is totally unacceptable to the government because all of the amendments, as I have said, are generally unrelated to the fundamental issue of committing future governments to compensation if they want to change the rules.In closing, it did strike me that I should say something else about the Western Australian RFA, over which the opposition have admitted they have concerns. At the time of its signing, it achieved the following: firstly, the highest then level of JANIS criteria of any agreement signed. It exceeded criteria in many ecosystems. Secondly, one of the most rigorous assessments of the remaining sustainable yield available from the production forest was done. We did not accept the proposals from CALM, the state agency. When they had completed their work, we turned around and hired Professor Ferguson and Dr Turner from the ANU to review that work and, to make sure that everyone could be confident, we invited the Western Australian EPA, which had been critical of some aspects of the current arrangements on contracted timber roof supplies, to be involved also. They signed off on all the quantities of timber that it was said could be sustainably obtained from the remaining production forests.We then went to the industry and said, `Look, you've got contracts to 2003 which, on these figures, are clearly unsustainable. Would you accept the new figures, provided it is for a 20-year period?' To their great credit, they said yes. The point was made, `You've always got to have some redundancies.' During those negotiations, a couple of occasions arose when some of the larger employers actually said to me, `There will be some opportunity for some redundancies, Minister, won't there?' I said no, and I fought those comments in the media because I did not want to give them an excuse.What happened? We have all these environmental outcomes and not one sacking announced. Bunnings, which subsequently closed their workshop, had decided to build new drying kilns for the Karri mill at Pemberton in their workshop. That involved 60 guys in Manjimup. All of a sudden, because of pressure from people who never said one serious word of criticism about all those factors, the state government changed its harvesting regime and the Pemberton mill is going to close. We had one mill that was going to close out of the RFA. That was Nannup. We had two people turn up at the signing ceremony and say that, with government assistance, they were prepared to participate there in a recovery mill, which would have assisted in their very large exporting arrangements on outdoor timber—and all this was put together overnight. Bunnings said, `We can't keep this work force any more. We've got nothing for them to do.' So 60 people lost their jobs.Over the road, because of the changed arrangements, the state government—so they would not look like fools, because the timber industry went straight back to its unsustainable contracts—chose to take all the wood supply off the receiver of Whittakers. Whittakers were broke for reasons of overcapitalisation and things—nothing to do with the viability of the overall industry. The receiver sacked another 130, and my state colleagues were horrified at these dreadful private sector people. We had just taken away from them all their opportunity to grow their industry, but in fact the state government thought they should have kept paying the wages.That is what you do when you break the rules, and that is what we do not want to happen. The best way to do it at the federal level is to make sure that there is a price to pay. The shadow minister well knows that all of the decisions on this were taken in his leader's office. If you could get him privately, I think he would be a little bit upset about that. But the reality is that we went so far as to agree to having these particular agreements published before they were signed, which we thought would only add to the springboard effect and the number of people saying, `I told you so,' and further denigrate the opportunities for resource, which is the fundamental for people's jobs.The reality of all this is that the issue of the simple eight-clause bill, most of the clauses being definitional, was all about a government, a parliament, the two major parties, sticking to their bipartisan position of giving legislative backing to the agreements as signed by a state Premier, whom I assume we do not say is a fool, and the Commonwealth. That is what it was about. If there are other issues of concern or the Senate wants to have another 29-hour debate on somebody's RFA, let them have it. This issue should not be attacked, denigrated and diluted by a raft of amendments, many of which are not seriously related but all of which are designed with one purpose: either to give the senators the chance to knock off the RFAs of their choice—they will not advance any reasons, because they have not done so in about 35 hours of debate—or to undermine that proposal in a way that allows green groups to contest it in the courts. As I said, notwithstanding their own rhetoric, no-one else agrees with them. You can produce legal opinions. That is only evidence of the fact that this thing is going to go to court in the format that you have proposed.We can argue until we are blue in the face. The people whom we want to invest money and to create jobs say, `Unless you give it to us in an uncontestable and simple form, we're not going to invest.' It is tough enough as it is to try to get people to put up $1 billion for a paper plant that is in a very tough international market, but we want them to invest that sort of money with no guarantee that, if a future government, for whatever reason, decided to do a Richardson on them, they would even get their money back. That just rests our case.The final issue is that the bill is to be laid aside with the clear intention that, on an occasion later on, it will be reintroduced. It will certainly be reintroduced before the next election, when the member for McMillan and I can get on a platform somewhere—maybe the back of a truck after we have had a loggers parade. The members in Tasmania will have to explain to people why—84HZAHRAMr Zahra—I can't wait, Wilson!SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Well, issue me the invitation. Get the venue, and I am sure Michael O'Connor will get you some people to turn up. The reality is that it is going to happen and that it will be face to face with sawmill workers. I can promise you that. They are very interested in their welfare, and they are not fooled by members of parliament who clasp their hands to their hearts and tell them, `We battled in the caucus but we lost.' They know that in this place people, notwithstanding their party endorsement, are elected as candidates. They can cross the floor. The other day we had a division.Mr Zahra interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I have done it.84HZAHRAMr Zahra—When?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Check the Hansard . I did it twice against Fraser. Three times.84HZAHRAMr Zahra—How long have you been in parliament?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Nineteen years.10000ACTING SPEAKERMr ACTING SPEAKER—The minister will ignore the member for McMillan, who will be silent or he will go outside.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—The next time a Labor member crosses the floor in the interests of their constituents will not be the first time. The last person to do it was Graeme Campbell—and you kicked him out of the party. Graeme Campbell stood up for his people on the gold tax. These are the facts. There is a simple opportunity if you come from Tasmania where a very high percentage of employment and economic activity arises from timber—and they know it, and they go back there and say `We're fighting for you'—to give the ultimate demonstration of support for your state.By the way, the first time I crossed the floor was on the two-airlines policy when Western Australians paid the same price per kilometre as you did between Sydney and Canberra. We sat out against, and we organised against, the government. We sat with the Labor Party, who did not like the two-airlines policy because Murdoch had a substantial investment in it. The time the member for McMillan crosses the floor will be his first time. I am not holding my breath. This is an issue for people who represent those in rural communities, who want just a simple thing. They want to be able to take a mortgage out or buy a new car on hire purchase and know their present job and the kids' job opportunities are going to be sufficient to pay those sorts of commitments off. That is the issue. They cannot have that security until the federal government puts its money where its mouth is. They know it. That is what they want from life.As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, we had the Labor Party crying crocodile tears about Manjimup yesterday. I will tell you the biggest worry of pensioners in Manjimup: nobody wants to buy their house if and when they have to move on to a hostel or a nursing home. They have told me that. They know their community and their investments in their community are totally at risk, and they will remain at risk until the members elected to the Labor Party stand up for the people who put their faith in them with their vote. Talk is no good when you have the right to vote. If we were to have a division in a minute, we would see the member for McMillan voting against the motion that this bill be laid aside, thereby giving him the opportunity in the future to cast his vote with the government in the interest of his own voters.11:32:0013223Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation spoke earlier about the arrogance of the Senate in perusing the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 and making a number of amendments. He has spoken of their arrogance in daring to move amendments to this bill. I think most people understand the Senate is a house of review, it is there for a purpose, and if there were ever a bill that needed review and needed some intervention by the Senate it is this bill. It gives guarantees of access to timber for 20 years. It makes the Australian taxpayer subject to paying compensation if things occur in a 20-year period. If unforeseen consequences force a change of policy in regard to access, the Australian taxpayer is going to have to pay these companies money. So for Christ's sake—10000ACTING SPEAKERMr ACTING SPEAKER—Order! Change your language, please.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—If there is an area that needs this review, it is certainly this bill. We speak about arrogance. The minister essentially says that the public are mindless, they are stupid and they do not know what is going on in the debate about environmental matters. He says that the West Australian paper is incapable of putting a coherent, detailed argument, that it is all very simplistic and that—the public opinion polls in that state showing 70 per cent to 80 per cent of people disagree with the minister—the general public are wrong. The West Australian is wrong, Cheryl Edwardes is wrong, Richard Court is wrong, Hendy Cowan is wrong, the National Party as a whole is wrong—everybody is wrong except this minister.We speak about arrogance. This is the minister who wrote to sawmillers in Queensland desperately saying, `Please give me some reasons to oppose what it happening in Queensland. I do not know the reasons, but please send me responses telling me what is wrong with this agreement so that I can actually oppose it.' We talk about arrogance. The minister is refusing to pay a variety of state governments of different political complexions. They are not all Labor. He is trying to intimidate them by withholding money. He is basically saying that he feels for these workers and that he is going to guarantee all these jobs. He knew from day one that the eventual outcome in Western Australia would mean that some people would lose their jobs.He is part of a government that is trying the whole time to retreat from industrial relations conditions in this country that have existed over many decades. He is part of a government that seeks to slash workers' wages and reduce their conditions, he is part of the second wave, he is part of what this government is trying to do in relation to those people's living standards, and he has the temerity to come in here today and say that he is their big benefactor, their big protector. The fact is that when workers do lose their jobs they are not interested in why and the past. They are interested in their living standards for the future. They are interested in getting some redundancy payments. They are interested in retraining for the future.This minister is part of a process which says, `First, we will reduce your living standards with industrial relations changes and, second, if you lose your job in this industry, we are not going to help you recover that job.' We talk about arrogance. In Western Australia, the minister talks about science. The fact is that Minister Cheryl Edwardes has been bellyaching in the last few weeks about the fact that scientists who were supposedly part of the process have now refused to put their names to this process. They are not signing up. A number of other scientists, supposedly part of this process, have said, `We weren't part of it at all.'SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Those are her words, not mine!8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—Now he is disassociating himself from Cheryl Edwardes as well. The situation is that this scientific process in Western Australia which was so perfect has been repudiated by the state government, it has led to the break-up of CALM, it has led to a situation where they have walked away from the agreement and it has led to a situation where the scientists who were supposedly, allegedly and implicitly involved in this process have said, `We weren't.' That is what has occurred.We also heard earlier today the government finally concede that this bill that cannot be amended and that is so dreadful can be changed and can be amended and that we can actually bring in the council. He has been dragged here. He has agreed at last to a council of sorts. He said in the course of the debate that he had no objection to forest data and that it is not the end of the world. He said that there was nothing wrong with it and that he offered it to us.The reality is that it is overdue. It is time that the minister entered into constructive negotiations to try to get an outcome that will guarantee a bipartisan approach in this industry to make sure that, as he alleges he actually wants, there is a degree of certainty so that people will invest, train and construct new operations. It is time that this minister became part of the process to get a bipartisan agreement to make sure that Australian taxpayers have some control over the way that compensation is going to be paid and that they, through their representatives, have some say on these state agreements. The minister who says that there should not be any public scrutiny or any public control over this is the same minister who slags off the New South Wales and Queensland agreements. It is all perfect, except when he says there are things wrong with it.11:38:0013225Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I want to make a few final remarks in this debate. It galls me to hear the Minister for Forestry and Conservation continually talk about his interest in forest industry workers and forest industry communities. What a farce! What a joke! He has an interest in what the Liberal Party has an interest in, and in what the old Country Party had an interest in, and that is basically making sure that their old Country Party mates in rural Australia—the people who put the money into your coffers every time an election comes around: the sawmillers—get their fair whack and are able to make a great deal of profit out of the access to our community resources.That is what this bloke has always been interested in. He has been a pretty good advocate of the large timber milling companies and the other companies that make all the profits out of our community resources. As far as his being an advocate on behalf of forest industry workers, he has been exposed time and time again as not being a true advocate on behalf of their interests. This is perhaps best demonstrated by his participation in a government that is determined to take away the right to be able to claim unfair dismissal for companies with fewer than 15 employees. The minister talks about how he has been out there in rural Australia talking to timber millers and workers on the shop floor. I think it is fantastic that he has actually met a few blue-collar workers now. That is great, but it is a shame that it has taken him 19 years of his political life to get out there and actually meet some of these people.There are quite a few sawmills and timber mills around the place, especially in rural Australia, which employ fewer than 15 people. The minister extended me an invitation to get up on the back of a truck somewhere in my electorate and have a debate with him about the RFA. I welcome that debate, and I can tell you, Wilson, that I will be there. I invite you, Minister—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—to join with me in a similar debate about why you support taking away the right of those workers in small timber mills to have access to unfair dismissal proceedings when the boss in the rural country town says, `Well, you know, I employed you yesterday, but now I have found out that you're Catholic, so I am not going to employ you anymore,' or, `I understand that you plan on having children in the next couple of years. I do not want anyone who is going to get pregnant, so you're off as well.'Minister, you would be the person who would be supporting that timber miller—probably the bloke who had given you a few bucks or given the old Country Party a few bucks—and giving them the right to do that. That is your approach, that is a Liberal Party approach, when it comes to whom you represent in rural and regional Australia and in the forest and forest products sector. We do not have that approach. We genuinely support the forest industry workers and the local communities that depend on the forest and forest products sector for their livelihoods. It galls me to have to put up with the minister saying, `We support these rural communities, we really do,' while at the same time he is overseeing the gutting of the Forest Products Laboratory—a laboratory which he knows full well will guarantee a future for those rural communities that depend on the forest and forest products sector.They are the types of enterprises and that is the sort of public policy which we should be involved in to make sure that these people have a job not just in the next one or two years but over the long term. Hand on heart, he talks about how he is really interested in these small country towns and he names a few of them and all the rest of it. But where was he when the people of Swifts Creek needed a hand? I wrote to him about it and said, `Can you give us a hand? Can you help us out? Can you do something for us? Can you be our champion?' He went missing in action and just parroted the same line as the former Minister for Conservation and Land Management in Victoria, Marie Tehan. She said that, in the same way that they could not have prevented the floods in East Gippsland, they could not have prevented the closure of the Swifts Creek timber mill.That is not great news for this community or for the 22 blue-collar workers who lost their jobs or for the secondary college which the community worked hard to form and which is probably going to have to close now because there will not be enough students due to the loss of jobs. It will also not help the bloke running the pub who has had to close because he does not have enough income generated from the blokes who used to come in there and have a drink after work. Where was he when the people of Swifts Creek needed him? For that matter, where was the member for Gippsland, the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, in representing his constituents? Maybe he was at an art opening in Balmain or somewhere like that, but I bet his constituents wanting him to be there backing them and giving them some support.This minister enjoys criticising me personally. Every time I am here we always have a look at the clock and see how long it takes him to get around to giving me a bit of a kick for something. I do not mind it because the more he criticises me the higher my vote goes in the electorate of McMillan. He talks about how I do not support the RFA process. That is just completely untrue. The member for McEwen talked before about how I had not been here for any debates on the RFA. That is also completely untrue. The one time that I was not here for a vote on the RFA was when I was helping the Swifts Creek community in trying to restart their timber mill. The question is: where was the minister when that community needed him? Missing in action.Whilst we always get the same shrill rantings from the Minister for Forestry and Conservation and we always hear him being shockingly partisan in his approach to this issue, that is not what people in rural Australia—the people who depend on a timber industry for their livelihood—want. They want us to be able to get along in this debate; they want us to be able to find a way through which is bipartisan. That is what ordinary punters out there want. They do not want a minister coming in here and having a go at everyone who does not agree with him; they want someone who can find a way through this difficult and complex issue.Whilst it is easy to take pot shots, whilst it is easy to criticise, whilst it is easy to be partisan and political, that is not what is required. That is not the difficult public policy challenge. Whilst the minister says to me that he is going to come after me in my seat, I say to you, Minister, that there are plenty of people in the electorate of McMillan who will be standing with me against what you and your government represent, because they understand that you are not fair dinkum about helping rural Australia—you never have been.You have been shown to be hypocritical in your support for the unfair dismissal of workers in companies of fewer than 15 people, you have been shown to be hypocritical by the lack of action which the government has taken in providing assistance to Gippsland by way of an adjustment package and you have been shown to be hypocritical through all the closures of government service delivery points in the electorate of McMillan—and for that matter the electorate of Gippsland—over the last four years. You say to me that you are going to come to McMillan and you are going to challenge to a debate. I say to you: I will be there with bells on. The question is: will you be there or are we going to have a debate about—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Order! I have been tolerant of the degree of interjection in this debate, but may I suggest that the honourable member address his remarks through the chair.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—I invite the Minister for Forestry and Conservation to participate in a debate at a timber mill in Gippsland as to why he supports the government's view that it is okay for someone in a company which employs 15 people or fewer to be sacked because they are Catholics or because they might get pregnant or for any other stupid reason which a boss can think of. So you join me in that debate, and I will join you in that debate in McMillan any time.11:47:0013227Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—I want to speak very briefly on this matter this afternoon.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—This morning.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—It is very nearly this afternoon. I must say to the House that I am disappointed that the member for McMillan has chosen to use today to defend himself in relation to this debate on behalf of his constituents by attacking those who are endeavouring to do something for his constituents. I heard the comment made before that he protesteth too much, and I think in some respects that it is very right. But I am not talking about the member for McMillan specifically today.84HZAHRAMr Zahra—You already have.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—I am sorely tempted to do otherwise, but I do not think this is the appropriate forum. What I would say is that, if you look at the representatives of the timber workers in my electorate and in the electorates of the member for McMillan and others, if you look at those who have been supporting this protest, if you look at those who have been supporting what this government is trying to do, it is a pure indication of true bipartisanship. What the member for McMillan has failed to understand or recognise is that the representatives of the workers in his electorate and in my electorate in the context of their organised labour representatives, the CFMEU, have backed the government to the absolute hilt in relation to this process.That sends out two very clear messages. I understand that the member for McMillan is in a very difficult position because he has been told by the Leader of the Opposition what his party is going to do on this and I have absolutely no doubt that in his heart of hearts he knows that the advice of his leader is dead wrong. I do not say that in the context of a negative approach to what he is saying, but the simple realities are that the one group of people who have been driving this process with the ultimate outcome for the survival of the timber industry in this country and the survival of the people that they represent is the CFMEU.Okay, they might be strange bedfellows and it might be interesting when the minister stands up or when I stand up or when someone else from the government stands up in a timber mill beside union representatives talking to union workers. But the reason that is being done is not that the union representatives think there will be great advantage in their supporting a coalition government—that is obviously not the situation—and it is not that the government members think there will be any great kudos from their standing beside a union representative but that this industry and the people who work in it deserve the very best that this House can deliver.The problem for timber worker representatives in the Labor Party is that you know as well as I do that what the CFMEU are doing is absolutely dead right. They know what is required for the long-term interests of this industry; they know what is required for the long-term interests of the people who are members of their organisation. That is why this debate does not need to be a partisan one. It should be totally bipartisan.I appreciate that the member for McMillan is a new member. I have said to him before that anyone who gets elected to this place deserves to be congratulated, and I have done so. But what I am saying to the member for McMillan and the member for Lyons and others is that you have failed, I am afraid, to divorce yourselves from what seems to be the imperative of your leader. What has flowed from that is that you have set yourselves against the CFMEU and you have set yourselves against the workers that they represent, that you represent and that I represent, and the outcome of that is that you are potentially compromising something that should have been not only for the good of the workers but also for the good of this country in the long term. 4T4MELHAMMr Melham—National interest.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—I am reluctant to take the member for Banks's interjection when he is not in his seat, but with the greatest respect to the member for Banks he knows absolutely nothing about this industry. He does not represent timber workers. I am happy to talk to him about the real issues and I am happy to explain to him the views of the CFMEU in relation to this industry. This is not a coming together of two groups who have any interest in promoting the endeavours of the other. The CFMEU are not interested in promoting the endeavours of the coalition. Why would they be? They have never been historically, and they will not be in the future. But the difficulty for the members of the ALP representing timber electorates is that they have not been able to divorce themselves, like the CFMEU have, from the partisan politics of this debate.84HZAHRAMr Zahra—Who's responsible for the partisan politics?XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—Christian, you still have a unique opportunity to do something constructive in this debate. The CFMEU have made it quite clear that they are prepared to put aside historical long-term dislike and distrust of a conservative government to achieve something for their members. That is the real issue in this debate for members of the ALP who represent timber workers.I still hope that there will be an opportunity next year for this matter to be readdressed. I appreciate the fact that the timber worker representatives on the other side are within a party structure. That is okay, I respect that, and I acknowledge it. But the simple fact is that you have to spend time over the Christmas rise talking to the leadership about getting them to respect the fact that the union movement has put aside partisan politics and is taking a bipartisan approach to this.I have been in this place for 10 years. I have had an interest in politics for a long time. I am starting to look considerably older than my 46 years. But the reality is that I have never seen a bipartisan approach between the union movement and a conservative government, as we are seeing with this issue. This is not because the union movement is expecting a Christmas card from Wilson Tuckey; this is about the fact that they have separated those two issues and are pursuing an agenda on behalf of their workers for the long-term future of the timber industry.The shadow minister is a fellow that I have had long-term respect for in relation to a number of issues. I have great respect for many of the members opposite who represent timber electorates. But the reality is that you have badly missed the boat on this issue. You have not taken the lead from the CFMEU. You have not taken the lead from the body who ultimately have the primary responsibility for those forest workers. They are the ones who have been doing it for a long time. They are the ones who will be doing it for a long time in the future. I really think that you must look again at how you approach this. It is not too late. I do not think you would lose any credit from anyone in this debate if you were able to turn around your leadership in their support for the CFMEU. And you would, quite rightly, be lauded by the timber workers that you represent.The real issue that you have got to remember is that this is not a debate about today; this is a debate about tomorrow. That is why the CFMEU are so heavily involved in supporting this process. The easy option for them was to take the today debate in relation to dealing with a conservative government. But they have not done that because they know—as well as you and I do—that this is a debate about the future. I think it brings great credit to them that they have been able to leave the today debate behind and have gone to the tomorrow debate and the future debate. I think they deserve a big pat on the back for it.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Tomorrow never comes.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—Isn't that a very interesting comment from the member for Banks. That absolutely sums up the views of the leadership of the ALP, of which he is a member, that, `Tomorrow does not come, because we're not worried about tomorrow. We'll worry about the politics of today, because tomorrow will not come.' You have totally summed up your views in relation to this issue. That shows the stupidity of that interjection. That is the key to all of this. The CFMEU and the coalition government are talking about tomorrow. The ALP is talking about today, because tomorrow does not matter when it comes to the politics of this. You have summed up very quickly your views in relation to Australian domestic politics in 1999, and you will wear the penalty for that, my friend. The CFMEU, as I said before, has been prepared to set aside today and take up the issues of tomorrow. It is not too late for that to be done, and I would very much encourage you to do so.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills1322913229Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 29), at the end of the definition of code of practice , add "However, a code of practice is not a standard.".(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (line 8), at the end of paragraph (i), add ", including the publication of information to increase public awareness of food standards and food labels".(3) Schedule 1, item 35, page 27 (line 30) to page 28 (line 2), omit subsection (1), substitute: (1) If the Authority is required to give notice of a matter to a body or person under this Part, the Authority: (a) must give public notice of the matter; and (b) may also give notice of the matter to another body or person (if it considers it appropriate to do so).11:59:0013229Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.The Senate has referred a schedule of three amendments made to the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 1999 [No. 2]. These amendments were proposed by the Australian Democrats and supported by the Australian Labor Party. As Senator Tambling outlined in the other place, the government is of the view that all three amendments are unnecessary, and indeed redundant, as the food authority already carries out the functions they propose. Nevertheless, these amendments as proposed by the Senate do not alter the policy intent of the bill and, therefore, the government is prepared to accept them.NaN:00:0013229Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I want to make some brief comments on the bill as it stands. As the Minister for Health and Aged Care has said, three minor amendments have been made. I concur that those amendments are minor and do not detract from the overall nature of the bill. Certainly the Labor Party supported those amendments in the upper house as being minor improvements on the bill as proposed. However, I would like to make it clear that the major changes that were put forward were done here in the House of Representatives with, eventually, agreement from the government. This has led to a situation where even the Democrats in the upper house have conceded that, when the bill got to the upper house, it was in an improved state.We look forward to seeing how the bill operates in the context of ANZFA into the future, and we will be monitoring that very closely. We wish the bill a very speedy passage.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills13229r97613229Bill presented by Dr Wooldridge, and read a first time.1322912:01:0013229Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 makes a number of amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973. This bill will repeal the Health Insurance (Pathology) (Licence Fee) Act 1991. The Health Insurance (Approved Pathology Specimen Collection Centres) Tax Bill 1999 will operate in place of the latter act and is being considered cognately.Approved collection centresThe principal bill addresses the arrangements for the collection of pathology specimens for the performance of pathology services eligible for Medicare benefits. The present arrangements for the licensing of collection centres exclude the public sector, do not place sufficient emphasis on the quality of service and facilities at the centres, and are in general unnecessarily cumbersome in their operation.The proposed amendments address these issues to permit the introduction of a national approval system for specimen collection centres that is fair, open and emphasises quality. In addition it uses the level of Medicare pathology activity of an approved pathology authority as the normal basis for determining the number of collection centres that can be operated by it in any year.The bill introduces a simplified procedure whereby approved pathology authorities apply for approvals for specimen collection centres. This replaces the existing system involving the granting of units of entitlement. Approvals will be granted in respect of a financial year and the process will be subject to the approval principles determined as a disallowable instrument under the act.The approval principles will be able to deal with matters such as the method for determining the maximum number of approvals that can be granted to an approved pathology authority in respect of a financial year, compliance with quality guidelines, the duration of approvals and the review of decisions.It is intended that the approval principles will prescribe a general method for determination of maximum approvals for a financial year. This will be based on the experience of laboratories operated by an approved pathology authority over a specified 12-month period as reflected in Health Insurance Commission data. This is in contrast to the previous system of allocating units of entitlement by reference to a fixed pool.A four-year phase-in period is proposed to allow the industry time to adjust to a less regulated environment. The present policy of allowing additional approvals where collection centres are located in designated rural and remote areas will be continued.The amendments will apply to both public and private sectors from 1 July 2000.An approved collection centre will be required to comply with the `Collection Centre Guidelines' published by the National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council and developed by the council and the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. With the inclusion of the public sector in the new arrangements, the amendments require the same level of quality for all pathology specimen collection centres at which collections are made for Medicare eligible services.The design of the new arrangements, which will be administered by the Health Insurance Commission, has been jointly agreed with the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia and the Australian Association of Pathology Practices, and is based on the framework contained in the 1999 Pathology Quality and Outlays Agreement.The granting of an approval for an approved collection centre will be subject to a tax which must be paid before the minister can grant an approval to an approved pathology authority for an eligible collection centre. This will be imposed by the Health Insurance (Approved Pathology Specimen Collection Centres) Tax Bill 1999 . The tax payable by an approved pathology authority on the grant of an approval will be at the rate of $1,000 for a full year, subject to pro rata reduction).Temporary resident and overseas trained doctors, and other minor amendmentsHealth Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 contains a number of other measures. It simplifies and clarifies the rules relating to temporary resident doctors and overseas trained doctors and the circumstances in which they can access Medicare.The bill removes the 1 January 2002 sunset clause which requires that new medical practitioners be in an approved program or complete a recognised graduate program in order to provide services which attract Medicare. This will ensure that we continue to enjoy better quality general practice and encourage more doctors to rural Australia. Indeed, this provision is almost single-handedly responsible for the seven per cent increase in doctors in rural Australia that occurred in 1997 and 1998, and we expect an increase this year.At present, temporary resident doctors are not medical practitioners for the purpose of the act and are therefore not entitled to provide services which attract Medicare unless they obtain an exemption. Overseas trained doctors with Australian citizenship or permanent residence are subject to a 10-year moratorium which restricts their access to Medicare benefits unless they are granted an exemption. However, the new legislation will reduce the inequities between the treatment of permanent and temporary resident doctors and streamline the procedure to establish eligibility for Medicare benefits. The bill will also reduce complexity of regulation regarding access to Medicare.In addition, the bill makes a number of technical amendments. These include amending the definition of `quality assurance activity' to include a reference to the Health Care (Appropriation) Act 1998. The definition of `professional services' will be amended to clarify that a dental practitioner who is able to render a Medicare-payable service in respect of oral and maxillofacial surgery must have been approved for this purpose by the Minister, in writing.The definition of `relevant offence' will be broadened to include offences under sections 23DR and 23DS of the act, and an obsolete reference to section 21 of the Crimes Act 1914 will be deleted. I commend the bill to the House, and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned. Bills13231r97513231Bill presented by Dr Wooldridge, and read a first time.1323112:08:0013231Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Health Insurance (Approved Pathology Specimen Collection Centres) Tax Bill 1999 is a cognate tax bill associated with the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999. For the reasons I outlined in my earlier speech, I commend this bill also to the House, and I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills13231r61113231Consideration resumed from 6 December.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 4, page 2 (lines 17 to 20), omit "certain" (wherever occurring).(2) Clause 4, page 2 (after line 20), after paragraph (a), insert:(aa) the regulation of the purchase, sale and exhibition of significant indigenous objects; and(ab) the promotion of the development of indigenous culture and heritage; and(3) Clause 5, page 2 (line 24) to page 6 (line 19), insert: Agency means the Indigenous Heritage Protection Agency. ATSIC means the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission established by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 . Council means the Indigenous Cultural Heritage Advisory Council. Heritage Registrar means the Heritage Registrar appointed under section 20. Indigenous Cultural Heritage Advisory Council means the Indigenous Cultural Heritage Advisory Council established under section 83 of this Indigenous Heritage Protection Agency means the Indigenous Heritage Protection Agency established under Division 1 of Part 2. national interest includes but is not limited to Australia's compliance with its obligations to protect indigenous heritage as a signatory to international agreements, conventions and covenants. native title representative body means a representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander body that is the subject of a determination under subsection 202(1) or that is recognised under section 203AD of the Native Title Act1993 . Registrar means the Heritage Registrar.(4) Clause 5, page 3 (line 14), after "water", insert ", an area of water beneath an area of land".(5) Clause 5, page 4 (line 21), omit "and beliefs", substitute ", beliefs and cultural practices".(6) Clause 5, page 4 (line 23), omit "or beliefs", substitute ", beliefs or cultural practices".(7) Clause 5, page 5 (lines 19 and 20), omit the definition of Register , substitute: Register means the Register of Claims for Protection or the Register of Agreements established under Part 2A.(8) Clause 5, page 6 (lines 4 to 10), omit the definition of significant indigenous area , substitute: significant indigenous area means: (a) an area of land situated in Australia or situated in or beneath water in Australia or Australian waters; or (b) an area of water in Australia; or (c) an area of Australian waters;being an area: (d) of particular significance to indigenous persons in accordance with indigenous tradition; or (e) that is of particular significance to indigenous archaeology, anthropology or history.(9) Clause 5, page 6 (lines 11 to 14), omit the definition of significant indigenous object , substitute: significant indigenous object means an object (including indigenous human remains), situated in Australia or in Australian waters, that is: (a) of particular significance to indigenous persons in accordance with indigenous tradition; or (b) that is of particular significance to indigenous archaeology, anthropology or history.(10) Clause 5, page 6 (line 23), omit "or".(11) Clause 5, page 6 (line 24), after "waters", insert "or an area of water beneath land in Australia".(12) Heading to Part 2, page 9 (lines 2 and 3), omit the heading, substitute:Part 2—Indigenous Heritage Protection Agency(13) Heading to Division 1, page 9 (lines 4 and 5), omit the heading, substitute:Division 1—Establishment, purpose and way of operating(14) Clause 9, page 9 (lines 6 to 8), omit the clause, substitute:9 Indigenous Heritage Protection AgencyThere is established by this Act an Indigenous Heritage Protection Agency.(15) Clause 10, page 9 (line 9) to page 10 (line 5), omit "Director" (wherever occurring), substitute "Agency".(16) Clause 10, page 9 (line 11), omit "advise", substitute "make submissions to".(17) Clause 10, page 9 (line 26), omit "or", substitute "and".(18) Clause 10, page 10 (after line 3), after paragraph (g), insert: (ga) to initiate prosecutions for offences arising under this Act; (gb) to seek injunctive relief under this Act; (gc) to carry out research for the purpose of performing its functions; (gd) to act in the interests of indigenous people in recovering and repatriating significant indigenous objects (including indigenous human remains) to the appropriate indigenous persons;(19) Page 10 (after line 5), after clause 10, insert:10A Agency's way of operating Objectives(1) The Agency must pursue the objective of carrying out its functions in a fair, just, economical, informal and prompt way.Concerns of indigenous people(2) The Agency, in carrying out its functions, must take account of the cultural and customary concerns of indigenous people. Agency not bound by technicalities etc.(3) The Agency, in carrying out its functions, is not bound by technicalities, legal forms or rules of evidence.(20) Clause 11, page 10 (lines 6 to 17), omit the clause, substitute:Division 1A—Membership of the Agency11 Membership of the AgencyThe membership of the Agency is as set out in the following table:Membership of the Heritage Protection AgencyMemberNumber to be appointedClass of memberPersons who may be appointedPrincipal memberOnePrincipalA person who satisfies subsection 11A(2) and who is: A person who has been for at least 5 years enrolled as a legal practitioner of the High Court, of another federal court or of the Supreme Court of a State or TerritoryDeputy Principal memberAny number or nonePrincipalOther memberAny numberNon-principalA person who satisfies subsection 11A(2) and has, in the opinion of the Governor-General, special knowledge in relation to: (a)the archaeological or anthropological significance of areas or objects; or (b)dispute resolution; or (c)any other class of matters considered by the Governor-General to have substantial relevance to the duties of such a member.11A Appointment of members of Agency(1) The members are to be appointed by the Governor-General on such terms and conditions, subject to this Act, as are specified in the instrument of appointment. The Principal member must be appointed on a full-time basis and the members may be appointed on a full-time basis or a part-time basis.(2) A person is not qualified to be appointed unless the Governor-General is satisfied that the person has an understanding of indigenous culture and heritage and an ability to deal with indigenous persons in a culturally sensitive manner.(3) If a member is appointed on a part-time basis, he or she may not engage in any paid employment that, in the opinion of the Governor-General, conflicts with the proper performance of the member's functions.(21) Clause 12, page 10 (lines 18 to 21), omit the clause, substitute: 12 Terms of appointmentPeriod for which office held(1) A member is appointed for the period (not longer than 5 years) specified in the instrument of appointment, but is eligible for reappointment.Terms and conditions(2) A member holds office on such terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not provided for by this Act as are prescribed.(22) Clause 13, page 10 (line 22) to page 11 (line 5), omit the clause, substitute:13 Remuneration and allowances(1) A member is to be paid such remuneration as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.(2) If no determination of that remuneration by the Remuneration Tribunal is in operation, a member is to be paid such remuneration as is prescribed. (3) A member is to be paid such allowances as are prescribed.(4) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 .(23) Clause 14, page 11 (line 7), omit "the Director", substitute "a full-time member".(24) Clause 14, page 11 (line 10), omit "the Director", substitute "a full-time member".(25) Clause 15, page 11 (lines 13 to 27), omit "Director" (wherever occurring), substitute "Principal member".(26) Clause 15, page 11 (line 14), omit "Minister", substitute "Governor-General".(27) Clause 16, page 11 (line 28) to page 12 (line 11), omit "The Director" (wherever occurring), substitute "A member".(28) Clause 16, page 11 (line 28) to page 12 (line 11), omit "Minister" (wherever occurring), substitute "Governor-General".(29) Clause 16, page 11 (line 28) to page 12 (line 11), omit "Director's" (wherever occurring), substitute "member's".(30) Clause 16, page 12 (line 7), omit "Director", substitute "a member".(31) Clause 16, page 12 (line 10), omit "Director", substitute "member".(32) Page 12 (after line 11), after clause 16, insert:16A Conflict of interestMember to disclose conflict of interest(1) A member who has a conflict of interest in relation to an application under Part 4 must disclose the matters giving rise to that conflict: (a) if the member is the Principal member—to the Commonwealth Minister and the parties; or (b) in any other case—to the Principal member and the parties.Requirement for consent(2) The member must not take part in the inquiry or exercise any powers in relation to the application or the inquiry unless: (a) if the member is the Principal member—the Commonwealth Minister and the parties consent; or (b) in any other case—the Principal member and the parties consent.Meaning of conflict of interest(3) For the purposes of this section, a member has a conflict of interest in relation to an application under Part 4 if the member has any interest, pecuniary or otherwise, that could conflict with the proper performance of the member's functions in relation to that application or inquiry.(4) Without limiting subsection (3), a person has a conflict of interest at a particular time in relation to an application under Part 4 if: (a) at that time, the person is employed by, or engaged as a consultant or a lawyer to, an organisation or a person that has an interest in the subject matter of the application; or (b) at any time in the 12 months immediately before that time, the person was so employed or engaged.(33) Clause 17, page 12 (lines 12 to 14), omit the clause, substitute:17 ResignationA member may resign by writing signed by him or her and sent to the Governor-General.(34) Clause 18, page 12 (lines 15 to 31), omit the clause, substitute:18 Termination of appointment Misbehaviour or incapacity(1) The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of a member if an address praying for the termination of the member's appointment on the ground of proved misbehaviour or of physical or mental incapacity is presented to the Governor-General by each House of the Parliament in the same session of the Parliament.Termination for other reasons(2) The Governor-General must terminate the appointment of a member, if the member: (a) becomes bankrupt; or (b) applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or (c) compounds with his or her creditors; or (d) makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for the benefit of his or her creditors.Retirement—incapacity(3) The Governor-General may, with the consent of a member who is: (a) an eligible employee for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1976 ; or (b) a member of the superannuation scheme established by deed under the Superannuation Act 1990 ;retire the member from office on the ground of incapacity.Retirement—invalidity—Superannuation Act 1976(4) In spite of anything contained in this Act, a member who: (a) is an eligible employee for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1976 ; and (b) has not reached his or her retiring age within the meaning of that Act;is not capable of being retired from office on the ground of invalidity within the meaning of Part IVA of that Act unless the Commonwealth Superannuation Board of Trustees No. 2 has given a certificate under section 54C of that Act.Retirement—invalidity—Superannuation Act 1990(5) In spite of anything contained in this Act, a member who: (a) is a member of the superannuation scheme established by deed under the Superannuation Act 1990 ; and (b) is under 60 years of age;is not capable of being retired from office on the ground of invalidity within the meaning of that Act unless the Commonwealth Superannuation Board of Trustees No. 1 has given a certificate under section 13 of that Act.18A Suspension of members—misbehaviour or incapacityMisbehaviour or incapacity(1) The Governor-General may suspend a member from office on the ground of misbehaviour or of physical or mental incapacity.Statement of grounds(2) If the Governor-General suspends a member from office, the Commonwealth Minister must cause a statement of the ground of the suspension to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of that House after the suspension.Resolution by a House of Parliament(3) If such a statement has been laid before a House of the Parliament, that House may, within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the statement has been laid before it, by resolution, declare that the member's appointment should be terminated.Member's appointment to be terminated(4) If each House of the Parliament passes the resolution, the Governor-General must terminate the member's appointment.Termination of suspension(5) If, at the end of 15 sitting days of a House of the Parliament after the day on which the statement has been laid before that House, that House has not passed the resolution, the suspension terminates.Suspension not to affect entitlements(6) The suspension of a member from office under this section does not affect any entitlement of the member to be paid remuneration and allowances.18B Outside employmentConsent of Commonwealth Minister required(1) Except with the consent of the Commonwealth Minister, a full-time member must not engage in paid employment outside the duties of his or her office.Service in Defence Force(2) The reference in subsection (1) to paid employment does not include service in the Defence Force.18C Member not personally liableA member is not personally liable in an action or other proceeding for damages in relation to anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the member in the capacity of member.(35) Page 12 (after line 31), after clause 18, insert:Division 1B—Organisation of Agency(36) Clause 19, page 13 (lines 1 to 4), omit the clause, substitute:19 Arrangement of businessPrincipal member may give directions(1) The Agency must be constituted by a member for the purposes of the conduct of a particular inquiry, the conduct of mediation in a particular proceeding, or to provide assistance in making or negotiating agreements under this Act.(2) Where the Agency has been constituted by a particular member for the conduct of mediation in a particular proceeding, or to provide assistance in making or negotiating agreements under this Act, the Agency must be constituted by a different member for the conduct of an inquiry for the purposes of making findings and preparing a report under this Act.(3) Subject to subsections (1) and (2), the Principal member may give directions as to any of the following: (a) the arrangement of the business of the Agency; (b) the member who is to conduct mediation in a particular proceeding or to provide assistance in making or negotiating agreements under this Act; (c) the member who is to prepare a report for the Minister, to conduct mediation in a particular proceeding or to provide assistance in making or negotiating agreements under this Act; (d) the places at which the Agency is to conduct a particular inquiry; (e) the procedure of the Agency generally; (f) the procedure of the Agency at a particular place; (g) the procedure of the Agency in the receiving and considering of representations by a member in preparing a report for the Minister; (h) procedures relating to the protection from disclosure of culturally sensitive information.Factors to be considered(4) In giving a direction as to the member who is to conduct a particular inquiry, the Principal member must have regard to the degree of public importance or complexity of the matters to which that inquiry relates.19A Replacement of a memberWhen section applies(1) This section applies if a member (the unavailable member ) who has responsibility to conduct a particular inquiry, to conduct mediation in a particular proceeding or to provide assistance in making or negotiating agreements under this Act: (a) stops being a member; or (b) for any reason is not available for the purpose of the inquiry, mediation or negotiation.Where unavailable member constituted Agency(2) In the event there is an unavailable member, the Principal member must direct another member to conduct a particular inquiry, to conduct mediation in a particular proceeding or to provide assistance in making or negotiating agreements under this Act.Member who is reappointed(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a member who stops being a member and at a later time becomes a member again is taken, from that later time, to be another member.Agency may have regard to previous proceedings(4) The Agency, as constituted in accordance with a direction under subsection (2), must continue and finish a particular reporting process or mediation in a particular proceeding or continue to provide assistance in making or negotiating agreements under this Act and may, for that purpose, have regard to any record of the proceedings of the reporting process, mediation or negotiation made by the Agency as previously constituted.19B Places of sitting Sittings of the Agency are to be held from time to time as required at the places at which the registries of the Agency are established, but the Agency may sit at any place in Australia or to which this Act extends.(37) Clause 20, page 13 (lines 5 to 8), omit the clause, substitute:Division 1C—Heritage Registrar20 Appointment of RegistrarRegistrar(1) There is to be a Heritage Registrar.Appointment by Governor-General(2) The Heritage Registrar is to be appointed by the Governor-General.Qualifications(3) A person is not to be appointed as Heritage Registrar unless: (a) the person is enrolled as a legal practitioner of the High Court, of another federal court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory; and (b) the Governor-General is satisfied that the person has an understanding of indigenous culture and heritage and an ability to deal with indigenous persons in a culturally sensitive manner.20A Powers of Registrar—assisting the Principal memberPowers, when assisting Principal member(1) The Registrar may do all things necessary or convenient to be done for the purpose of assisting the Principal member under section 21A.Acting for Principal member—administrative affairs(2) In particular, the Registrar may act for the Principal member in relation to the administrative affairs of the Agency.Principal member may give directions(3) The Principal member may give the Registrar directions regarding the exercise of the Registrar's powers under this Part.20B Powers of Registrar—applications The Registrar has the powers set out in Part 4 in relation to applications.20C Powers of Registrar—registers The Registrar has the powers set out in Part 2A. 20D Delegation by Registrar The Registrar may by signed instrument delegate to one or more of the Deputy Registrars or of the members of the staff of the Agency all or any of the Registrar's powers under this Act.20E Remuneration and allowancesDetermination by Remuneration Tribunal(1) The Registrar is to be paid the remuneration and allowances determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If there is no determination in force, the Registrar is to be paid such remuneration as is prescribed.Prescribed allowances(2) The Registrar is to be paid such other allowances as are prescribed.Appropriation(3) Remuneration and allowances payable to the Registrar under this section are to be paid out of money appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of the Agency.Subject to Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973(4) Subsections (1) and (2) have effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 .20F Terms and conditions of appointmentPeriod for which office held(1) The Registrar holds office for the period (not longer than 5 years) specified in the instrument of appointment, but is eligible for reappointment.Terms and conditions(2) The Registrar holds office on such terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not provided for by this Act as are determined by the Principal member.20G Leave of absenceRecreation leave(1) The Registrar has the recreation leave entitlements determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.Other leave(2) The Principal member may grant the Registrar leave of absence, other than recreation leave, on such terms and conditions as to remuneration or otherwise as are determined by the Principal member with the approval of the Commonwealth Minister.(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the Principal member may make written determinations granting leave of absence, other than recreation leave, to the Registrar on such terms and conditions as the Principal member, with the approval of the Commonwealth Minister, considers appropriate. 20H Resignation The Registrar may resign by giving a signed notice of resignation to the Governor-General.20J Termination of appointmentMisbehaviour or incapacity(1) The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of the Registrar for misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity.Termination for other reasons(2) The Governor-General must terminate the appointment of the Registrar if:(a) the Registrar: (i) becomes bankrupt; or (ii) applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or (iii) compounds with his or her creditors; or (iv) makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for the benefit of his or her creditors; or (b) the Registrar is absent from duty, except on leave of absence granted by the Principal member, for 14 consecutive days or for 28 days in any 12 months; or (c) the Registrar engages in paid employment contrary to section 20K; or (d) the Registrar fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with section 20L.Retirement—incapacity(3) If the Registrar is: (a) an eligible employee for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1976 ; or (b) a member of the superannuation scheme established by deed under the Superannuation Act 1990 ;the Governor-General may, with the Registrar's consent, retire the Registrar from office on the ground of incapacity.Retirement—invalidity—Superannuation Act 1976(4) In spite of anything contained in this Act, a Registrar who: (a) is an eligible employee for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1976 ; and (b) has not reached his or her retiring age within the meaning of that Act;is not capable of being retired from office on the ground of invalidity within the meaning of Part IVA of that Act unless the Commonwealth Superannuation Board of Trustees No. 2 has given a certificate under section 54C of that Act.Retirement—invalidity—Superannuation Act 1990(5) In spite of anything contained in this Act, a Registrar who: (a) is a member of the superannuation scheme established by deed under the Superannuation Act 1990 ; and (b) is under 60 years of age;is not capable of being retired from office on the ground of invalidity within the meaning of that Act unless the Commonwealth Superannuation Board of Trustees No. 1 has given a certificate under section 13 of that Act.20K Outside employmentConsent of Principal member required(1) Except with the consent of the Principal member, the Registrar must not engage in paid employment outside the duties of his or her office.Service in Defence Force(2) The reference in subsection (1) to paid employment does not include service in the Defence Force.20L Disclosure of interests by Registrar The Registrar must give written notice to the Principal member of all direct or indirect pecuniary interests that the Registrar has or acquires in any business or in any body corporate carrying on a business.20M Appointment of acting RegistrarPrincipal member may appoint acting Registrar(1) The Principal member may appoint a person to act as the Registrar: (a) if there is a vacancy in the office of Registrar; or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Registrar is absent from duty or absent from Australia or is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office.A person appointed to act during a vacancy is not to continue so to act for more than 12 months.Qualifications(2) A person is not to be appointed to act as Registrar unless: (a) the person is enrolled as a legal practitioner of the High Court, of another federal court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory; and (b) the Principal member is satisfied that the person has an understanding of indigenous culture and heritage and an ability to deal with indigenous persons in a culturally sensitive manner.Validation(3) Anything done by a person purporting to act under an appointment under this section is not invalid merely because: (a) the occasion for the appointment had not arisen; or (b) there was a defect or irregularity in, or in connection with, the appointment; or (c) the appointment had ceased to have effect; or (d) the occasion to act had not arisen or had ceased.Note: Section 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 has additional rules that apply to acting appointments.(38) Clause 21, page 13 (lines 9 to 21), omit the clause, substitute:Division 1D—Management of the AgencySubdivision A—Management responsibilities of Principal Member and Registrar21 Management of administrative affairs of AgencyPrincipal member responsible for administrative affairs(1) The Principal member is responsible for managing the administrative affairs of the Agency.Powers of Principal member(2) For that purpose, the Principal member may do all things that are necessary or convenient to be done, including, on behalf of the Commonwealth: (a) entering into contracts; and (b) acquiring or disposing of personal property.Powers are additional to other powers(3) The powers given to the Principal member by subsection (2) are in addition to any powers given to the Principal member by any other provision of this Act or by any other Act.Limits on powers(4) Subsection (2) does not authorise the Principal member to: (a) acquire any interest or right that would constitute an interest in land for the purposes of the Lands Acquisition Act 1989 ; or (b) except with the approval of the Commonwealth Minister—enter into a contract under which the Commonwealth is to pay or receive an amount over $250,000 or, if a higher amount is prescribed, that higher amount. 21A Heritage Registrar In the management of the administrative affairs of the Agency, the Principal member is to be assisted by the Heritage Registrar.Subdivision B—Other officers, Agency staff and consultants21B Deputy Registrars and staff of the AgencyDeputy Registrars and staff(1) In addition to the Registrar, there are to be such Deputy Registrars and staff of the Agency as are necessary.Appointment of Deputy Registrars and staff(2) The Deputy Registrars are to be appointed by the Principal member and the staff are to be appointed by the Registrar.Employment etc. under Public Service Act 1999(3) The Deputy Registrars and the staff of the Agency are to be persons appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1999 .Secondment(4) The Registrar may, on behalf of the Principal member, arrange with the Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service, or with an authority of the Commonwealth, for the services of officers or employees of the Department or of the authority to be made available for the purposes of the Agency.Understanding of indigenous culture (5) The Registrar must not appoint a member of staff unless he or she is satisfied that the person has an understanding of indigenous culture and heritage and an ability to deal with indigenous persons in a culturally sensitive manner.Powers etc.(6) The Deputy Registrars and the staff of the Agency have such duties, powers and functions as are given by this Act or by the Principal member.21C Powers of Registrar regarding Deputy Registrars and Agency staff In relation to the branch of the Australian Public Service consisting of the Deputy Registrars and the staff of the Agency, the Registrar has the same powers as if that branch were a Department of the Australian Public Service and the Registrar were the Secretary of that Department. 21D Principal member may engage consultants(1) The Principal member may engage a person as a consultant in relation to any assistance or mediation that the Agency provides under any provision of this Act.Consultants to have relevant skills or knowledge(2) The Principal member may only engage a person under subsection (1) if: (a) the person has, in the opinion of the Principal member, particular skills or knowledge in relation to matters of substantial relevance to the assistance or mediation; and (b) the Principal member is satisfied that the person has an understanding of indigenous culture and heritage and an ability to deal with indigenous persons in a culturally sensitive manner.Engagements to be in writing(3) An engagement under subsection (1) must be made: (a) on behalf of the Commonwealth; and (b) by written agreement.Consultant subject to Principal member's direction(4) A consultant engaged under subsection (1) is subject to directions given by the Principal member under subsection 19(3).Liability(5) If: (a) a person is engaged as a consultant under subsection (1); and (b) the Principal member determines, as part of the terms and conditions of the engagement of that person, that this subsection applies to the person;the person is not personally liable to an action or other proceeding for damages in relation to anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the person in the capacity of such a consultant.21E Disclosure and conflict of interestsConsultant to disclose conflict of interest(1) A person engaged under subsection 21D(1) as a consultant in relation to any assistance or mediation being provided by the Agency who has a conflict of interest in relation to the assistance or mediation must disclose the matters giving rise to that conflict to: (a) the Principal member of the Agency; and (b) the persons to whom the Agency is providing the assistance or mediation.Requirement for consent(2) The person must not perform his or her duties as a consultant in relation to the assistance or mediation unless the Principal member and the persons to whom the Agency is providing the assistance or mediation consent.Meaning of conflict of interest(3) For the purposes of this section, a person engaged under subsection 21D(1) as a consultant in relation to any assistance or mediation being provided by the Agency has a conflict of interest in relation to the assistance or mediation if the person has any interest, pecuniary or otherwise, that could conflict with the proper performance of his or her duties as a consultant in relation to the assistance or mediation.Conflict of interest at a particular time(4) Without limiting subsection (3), a person engaged under subsection 21D(1) as a consultant in relation to any assistance or mediation being provided by the Agency has a conflict of interest at a particular time in relation to the assistance or mediation if:(a) at that time, the person is employed by, or engaged as a consultant or a lawyer to, an organisation or a person that has an interest in the matter in relation to which the assistance or mediation is being provided; or (b) at any time in the 12 months immediately before that time, the person was so employed or engaged.21F Registrar may engage consultants(1) The Registrar may engage persons having suitable qualifications and experience as consultants to, or to perform services for, the Registrar.Services include research(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the services that a consultant may be engaged to perform include carrying out research under subsection 10(gc).How engagement to be made(3) An engagement under subsection (1) must be made: (a) on behalf of the Commonwealth; and (a) by written agreement.Liability(4) If: (a) a person is engaged as a consultant under subsection (1); and (b) the Registrar determines, as part of the terms and conditions of the engagement of that person, that this subsection applies to the person;the person is not personally liable to an action or other proceeding for damages in relation to anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the person in the capacity of such a consultant. (b) Subdivision C—Miscellaneous administrative matters 21G Annual report(1) As soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, the Principal member must prepare and give to the Commonwealth Minister a report of the management of the administrative affairs of the Agency during the year.(2) The report must include: (a) the financial statements required by section 49 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 ; and (b) an audit report on those statements under section 57 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 .(3) The Commonwealth Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament as soon as practicable.21H Proceedings arising out of administration of Agency Any judicial or other proceeding relating to a matter arising out of the management of the administrative affairs of the Agency under this Part, including any proceeding relating to anything done by the Registrar under this Part, may be instituted by or against the Commonwealth, as the case requires.(39) Heading to Division 2, page 14 (line 2), omit the heading, substitute:Part 2A—The Registers of Claims for Protection and Agreements(40) Clause 22, page 14 (line 6), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(41) Page 14 (after line 7), after clause 22, insert:22A The Register of Agreements(1) There is established by this section a register to be known as the Register of Agreements.(2) The Register is to be maintained by the Registrar.(3) The Register may be kept by the use of a computer. (42) Clause 23, page 14 (line 9), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(43) Clause 25, page 15 (lines 19 and 20), omit "meet the standards for accreditation", substitute "comply with the standards for accreditation in section 26".(44) Clause 25, page 16 (lines 5 to 8), omit subclause (3), substitute:(3) Before making the declaration under subsection (1), the Commonwealth Minister must: (a) notify: (i) all native title representative bodies for the State or Territory concerned; and (ii) ATSIC; and (iii) any other indigenous body with responsibilities in the State or Territory concerned in relation to indigenous cultural heritage; of the proposed determination; and (b) invite submissions from them about the proposed determination; and (c) consider any submissions made in response to the invitation.(45) Clause 26, page 16 (line 10), after "are", insert "requirements to be satisfied as".(46) Clause 26, page 16 (lines 14 to 18), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) that those laws protect from injury or desecration all significant indigenous areas and significant indigenous objects;(47) Clause 26, page 16 (line 23), after "objects", insert ", and the threat of injury or desecration to those areas or objects,".(48) Clause 26, page 16 (after line 25), after paragraph (c), insert: (ca) that, upon finding that an area or object is a significant indigenous area or significant indigenous object and that area or object is under threat of injury or desecration, the decision to protect must be made unless it is not in the interest of the State or Territory; (cb) that those laws require the integration of processes for the protection of significant indigenous areas into planning and development laws and processes and contain appropriate procedures for notifying: (i) indigenous persons who may be affected; and (ii) the relevant native title representative body for the area; and (iii) the independent heritage body; of a development, mining or other proposal; (49) Clause 26, page 16 (lines 26 to 29), omit paragraph (d), substitute: (d) that those laws provide for persons to obtain the advance approval of indigenous persons to an activity in relation to significant indigenous areas;(50) Clause 26, page 16 (line 30), after "negotiated", insert "and binding".(51) Clause 26, page 16 (line 33), at the end of paragraph (e), add "and include, in respect of agreements covering significant indigenous areas, provision for the registration of agreements upon State and Territory land titles".(52) Clause 26, page 17 (lines 1 to 3), omit paragraph (f), substitute:(f) that those laws protect culturally sensitive information from disclosure and do not require indigenous people to provide information where to do so would be contrary to indigenous tradition;(53) Clause 26, page 17 (line 9), after "deterrents to", insert ", and remedies for,".(54) Clause 26, page 17 (line 12), omit "and penalties", substitute ", penalties which equate with the penalties provided under this Act and include the revocation or suspension of grants, licences or permits and compensation to affected indigenous persons".(55) Clause 26, page 17 (line 13), omit "provide for", substitute "require".(56) Clause 26, page 17 (line 14), at the end of subclause (1), add:; (k) that those laws create an independent heritage protection body: (i) controlled by indigenous members representative of indigenous communities with provision for gender balance, adequate and suitable staffing, expertise and resources; and (ii) that includes persons enrolled for at least 5 years as legal practitioners of the High Court, another federal court or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory; and (iii) responsible for the determination of the significance of areas and objects, and the threat of injury or desecration to those areas or objects in accordance with paragraph (c); and (iv) with responsibilities, powers and functions in relation to the matters contained in paragraphs (d) to (j) (inclusive) and (m); (l) that those laws must provide for the provision of reasons for a decision and judicial review, equivalent to that provided by the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 , of a decision not to provide heritage protection; (m) that those laws protect areas and objects that are significant to indigenous persons in terms of their indigenous traditions whilst an application for protection is being determined;(n) that those laws must provide access to indigenous people in relation to areas that are significant to those persons in terms of their indigenous traditions.(57) Clause 26, page 17 (line 18), omit "(h)", substitute "(n)".(58) Clause 26, page 17 (line 23), omit "and (h)", substitute ", (h), (j), (k), (l) and (m)".(59) Clause 27, page 17 (line 31) to page 19 (line 2), omit the clause, substitute:27 Minister may revoke or vary accreditation(1) Where the laws in force in a State or Territory have been declared to be an accredited heritage protection regime (the original declaration ) in relation to one or more of the following matters (the accredited matter or accredited matters ): (a) the protection of areas situated within the jurisdictional limits of that State or Territory; or(b) the protection of objects (including indigenous human remains) situated within those jurisdictional limits; or (c) the reporting of findings of indigenous human remains situated within those jurisdictional limits;those laws may be amended by a State or Territory and, subject to subsection (3), become accredited under this Act.(2) A State or Territory must notify the Commonwealth Minister of all amendments to an accredited heritage protection regime it proposes to make.(3) If the Commonwealth Minister is satisfied that the proposed amended accredited heritage protection regime complies with the requirements in subsection 26(2), he or she must make a declaration in writing to that effect.(4) Before making a declaration under subsection (3), the Commonwealth Minister must: (a) notify: (i) all native title representative bodies for the State or Territory concerned; and (ii) ATSIC; and (iii) any other indigenous body with responsibilities in the State or Territory concerned in relation to indigenous cultural heritage; of the proposed determination; and (b) invite submissions from them about the proposed declaration; and (c) consider any submissions made in response to the invitation.(5) The Commonwealth Minister must revoke the original declaration in writing if a State or Territory amends its laws in relation to an accredited heritage protection regime without complying with this section.(60) Clause 29, page 20 (line 17), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(61) Clause 29, page 20 (line 29), at the end of subclause (3), add:; (g) a notice: (i) of confidential material in the application that is not to be disclosed; and (ii) which includes a short description of the material and the reason for its confidential or secret nature.(62) Clause 29, page 20 (after line 30), at the end of the clause, add:(5) An application may be amended at any time prior to its publication under section 33.(6) At any time, one or more of the indigenous persons to whom an area or object is of particular significance in accordance with indigenous tradition may apply to the Agency to replace the original applicant on the grounds that: (a) the original applicant is unable to deal with matters arising in relation to the application due to illness, infirmity or death; and (b) the person or persons applying are authorised to be the applicant by the indigenous persons to whom an area or object is of particular significance in accordance with indigenous tradition.(63) Heading to clause 30, page 21 (line 1), omit "Director ", substitute "Registrar ".(64) Clause 30, page 21 (line 2), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(65) Clause 30, page 21 (line 3), after "application", insert "or an amended application".(66) Clause 30, page 21 (line 6), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(67) Clause 30, page 21 (line 26), omit "Director", substitute "applicant". (68) Clause 30, page 21 (line 29), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(69) Clause 30, page 22 (line 1), omit "Director's decision not to disclose", substitute "non-disclosure of".(70) Clause 31, page 22 (lines 3 to 19), omit "Director" (wherever occurring), substitute "Registrar".(71) Clause 31, page 22 (line 5), after "laws", insert "of an accredited heritage protection regime".(72) Clause 31, page 22 (line 11), at the end of subclause (2), add ", or such further period permitted by the Registrar".(73) Clause 31, page 22 (after line 19), at the end of the clause, add:(5) All remedies are exhausted for the purpose of subsection (1) if all administrative processes available to applicants for protection under the laws of an accredited heritage protection regime of the State or Territory are exhausted.(74) Clause 32, page 22 (line 21) to page 23 (line 2), omit "Minister" (wherever occurring), substitute "Registrar".(75) Clause 32, page 23 (lines 3 to 8), omit subclause (4), substitute:(4) If it appears to the Registrar that an application has been dismissed in error, the Registrar may, on the application of the applicant, or on the Registrar's own initiative, reinstate the application.(76) Clause 33, page 23 (line 9) to page 24 (line 15), omit "Director" (wherever occurring), substitute "Registrar".(77) Clause 33, page 23 (line 20), omit "by notice published in a newspaper circulating in the region", substitute "by notice in writing to the appropriate native title representative body and by notice published in a newspaper circulating in the region and in indigenous media outlets in the region".(78) Clause 33, page 23 (line 31), omit "30", substitute "60".(79) Clause 33, page 24 (line 17), omit "Director", substitute "applicant".(80) Clause 33, page 24 (line 20), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(81) Clause 33, page 24 (line 23), omit "Director's decision not to disclose", substitute "non-disclosure of".(82) Heading to clause 34, page 25 (line 3), omit "Director ", substitute "Agency ".(83) Clause 34, page 25 (line 5), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar". (84) Clause 34, page 25 (line 6), omit "Director", substitute "Agency".(85) Heading to clause 35, page 25 (line 10), omit "Director ", substitute "Agency ".(86) Clause 35, page 25 (line 12), omit "Director", substitute "presiding member".(87) Clause 35, page 25 (line 15), omit "Director", substitute "Agency".(88) Clause 35, page 25 (line 18), omit "Director's", substitute "Agency's".(89) Clause 35, page 25 (line 19), after "area", insert ", or part of the area,".(90) Clause 35, page 25 (line 31), omit "Director", substitute "presiding member".(91) Clause 36, page 26 (lines 1 to 13), omit the clause.(92) Clause 37, page 26 (lines 14 to 22), omit the clause, substitute:37 Binding nature of reports(1) The Minister is bound by the finding of the Agency as to the matters referred to in paragraphs 35(3)(a), (b) and (d) as set out in the Agency's report.(2) If the Minister is satisfied that fresh evidence that would affect the outcome of the application has not been considered by the Agency, the Minister may remit the Agency's report to the Agency with directions that the Agency assess and make findings in relation to such representations as the Minister considers constitute fresh evidence.(3) For the purpose of subsection (1) and section 38, the Agency's report constitutes its findings under subsection 35(3) and subsection 37(2).(93) Clause 38, page 26 (line 30) to page 27 (line 2), omit all words from and including "the Minister may" to the end of the clause (but not including the note), substitute "the Minister must, after having regard to the report of the Agency, make such an order in respect of the area or object unless it is in the national interest not to make the order".(94) Clause 39, page 28 (line 3) to page 29 (line 5), omit the clause.(95) Clause 40, page 29 (lines 6 to 20), omit the clause.(96) Clause 41, page 29 (line 21) to page 30 (line 15), omit the clause, substitute:41 Minister may require report from Agency In relation to an AR application, the Minister must, subject to section 42, require the Agency to make a report, in accordance with Division 6, which must: (a) contain a finding as to whether or not the area, or part of the area, or object concerned is a significant indigenous area or a significant indigenous object in relation to the applicant; and (b) contain a finding as to whether or not the area or object concerned is subject to the threat of injury or desecration; and (c) outline the processes involved in reaching the findings referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b); and (d) advise the Minister on the effect that the making of an LPO would have on the proprietary and pecuniary interests of persons other than the applicant and provide a summary of the representations made in respect of that matter; and (e) advise the Minister of any other matters considered by the presiding member to be relevant to the claim for protection.(97) Heading to clause 42, page 30 (line 16), omit "Director ", substitute "Agency ".(98) Clause 42, page 30 (line 19), omit "Director", substitute "Agency".(99) Clause 43, page 30 (line 23) to page 31 (line 6), omit the clause.(100) Clause 44, page 31 (lines 7 to 15), omit the clause, substitute:44 Binding nature of reports(1) The Minister is bound by the findings of the Agency as to the matters referred to in paragraphs 41(1)(a), (b) and (d) as set out in the Agency's report.(2) If the Minister is satisfied that fresh evidence that would affect the outcome of the application has not been considered by the Agency, the Minister may remit the Agency's report to the Agency with directions that the Agency assess and make findings in relation to such representations as the Minister considers constitute fresh evidence. (3) For the purpose of subsection (1) and paragraph 45(e), the Agency's report constitutes its findings under subsections (2) and 41(1).(101) Heading to clause 45, page 31 (line 16), omit "may ", substitute "must ".(102) Clause 45, page 31 (line 18), after "area", insert ", or part of the area,".(103) Clause 45, page 31 (line 23), omit "may", substitute "must".(104) Clause 45, page 31 (line 29), omit "Director", substitute "Agency". (105) Clause 45, page 31 (lines 31 and 32), omit paragraph (e), substitute:(e) the views of the applicant in relation to any representations made to the Minister under paragraph (c), which representations must be provided to the applicant on a confidential basis; and(106) Clause 45, page 32 (line 2), after "area", insert ", or part of the area,".(107) Clause 45, page 32 (lines 2 and 3), omit "if the Minister is satisfied that the making of such an order is in the national interest", substitute "unless it is in the national interest not to make the order".(108) Clause 46, page 33 (line 5), after "period", insert ", being a period of not less than 10 years,".(109) Clause 46, page 33 (line 9), omit "in relation to", substitute "that ensure".(110) Clause 46, page 33 (line 10), at the end of subclause (1), add:; and (c) provide for access to the area by indigenous persons to whom the area is of particular significance in accordance with indigenous tradition.(111) Clause 46, page 33 (line 15), omit "in relation to", substitute "that ensure".(112) Clause 47, page 33 (line 30), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(113) Clause 47, page 34 (line 1), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(114) Clause 47, page 34 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add:(5) Not less than 6 months before the expiration of an LPO, the Registrar must notify the appropriate native title representative body in writing, and affected indigenous people by notice published in a newspaper circulating in the region and in indigenous media outlets in the region where the area or object is situated.(115) Clause 48, page 35 (lines 3 to 21), omit the clause, substitute:Subdivision A—Mediation conferences and negotiation 48 Mediation conferencesPresiding member to direct conference to be held(1) Where mediation is provided under this Act, the Agency may hold such conferences of the parties or their representatives as the Agency considers will help in resolving the matter.Member must preside(2) A conference must be presided over by a member of the Agency.Assistance for presiding member(3) The member presiding at a conference may be assisted by another member of the Agency or by a member of the staff of the Agency.Statements etc. at conference are without prejudice(4) In a proceeding before a Court, or any other proceeding, including the making of reports to the Minister, under this Act relating to the proceeding subject to mediation, unless the parties otherwise agree, evidence may not be given, and statements may not be made, concerning any word spoken, act done or document produced at a conference.Assistance includes procedures for non-disclosure(5) Assistance provided by the presiding member may include assisting the parties to agree on the procedures to be followed in the course of negotiation, including procedures that will restrict the disclosure of: (a) information that, under indigenous tradition, is confidential or subject to particular disclosure restrictions; or (b) commercial information that is provided in confidence for the purposes of the negotiation.Member not to take further part in relation to a proceeding(6) Unless the parties otherwise agree, a member who presides over, or assists at, a conference in relation to a proceeding may not, in any other capacity, take any further part in the proceeding.Participation by telephone etc.(7) The presiding member may allow a person to participate by: (a) telephone; or (b) closed-circuit television; or (c) any other means of communication.Division applies as if consultant were a member(8) If a consultant is engaged under subsection 21D(1) to conduct mediation in relation to a particular matter under this Division, this Division applies in relation to that matter as if the consultant were a member of the Agency.48A Parties to negotiation and mediation processes(1) If the Agency is required under Division 2 or 3 to attempt, by the use of negotiation or mediation processes in accordance with this Division, to facilitate an agreed outcome in relation to the area or object to which an application relates, the Agency must use its best endeavours to identify the parties appropriate to participate in those processes.(2) For the purposes of this section, the parties appropriate to participate in negotiation or mediation processes: (a) must include the applicant and any other persons identified by the Agency as having a direct proprietary or pecuniary interest in the area or object concerned (the core parties ); and(b) may include any other person who has an interest in the area or object concerned and who the Agency identifies as a party appropriate to participate in those processes.(3) A failure by the Agency to identify a person as a party appropriate to participate in negotiation or mediation processes does not prevent the registration of an agreement reached between the parties who are so identified.Limiting parties at conferences(4) The presiding member may direct that only one or some of the parties appropriate to participate in the negotiation or mediation processes may attend, and be represented, at a conference.Parties may be represented(5) A party may be represented by a barrister, a solicitor or another person.48B Conferences to be held in private A conference must be held in private, unless the member presiding directs otherwise and no party objects.48C Presiding member may permit disclosure of informationIf the parties agree, the presiding member may direct that: (a) any information given, or statements made, at a conference; or (b) the contents of any document produced at a conference;may be disclosed.(116) Page 35 (after line 21), before clause 49, insert:Subdivision B—How assistance or mediation is to be provided(117) Clause 49, page 35 (line 22) to page 36 (line 10), omit the clause, substitute: 49 Regulations about assistance or mediation(1) The regulations may make provision in relation to the way in which: (a) any assistance is to be provided by the Agency under any provision of this Act; or (b) any mediation, that the Agency is requested to provide, is to be provided under any provision of this Act.Regulations must be consistent with this Act(2) Such regulations must not be inconsistent with any provision of this Act.(118) Clause 50, page 36 (line 14), omit "30", substitute "60".(119) Clause 50, page 36 (line 18), omit "30", substitute "60".(120) Clause 50, page 36 (line 26), omit "Director", substitute "Principal member".(121) Clause 51, page 36 (line 29), omit "the area or object", substitute "all or part of the area or in relation to the object".(122) Clause 51, page 37 (line 2), omit "Director", substitute "presiding member".(123) Clause 51, page 37 (line 2), after "register", insert "particulars of".(124) Clause 51, page 37 (lines 3 to 5), omit subclause (2), substitute:(2) If the presiding member is satisfied that the agreement is consistent with the purposes of this Act, he or she must direct the Registrar to enter particulars of the agreement on the Register.(125) Clause 52, page 37 (line 21), at the end of subclause (4), add "or seek injunctive or other relief in respect of such a breach".(126) Clause 52, page 37 (after line 21), at the end of the clause, add:(5) Registration of an agreement under subsection 51(2) over part of an area subject to an application does not prevent the applicant proceeding with the application in relation to the area which is not covered by the agreement.(127) Clause 53, page 37 (line 22) to page 38 (line 26), omit the clause, substitute:53 Termination of formal negotiation and mediation processesPresiding member may order mediation to cease(1) The presiding member may, of his or her own motion, at any time in a proceeding, order that mediation is to cease in relation to the whole or a part of the proceeding if the presiding member considers that: (a) any further mediation will be unnecessary in relation to the whole or that part; or (b) there is no likelihood of the parties being able to reach agreement and neither the negotiation nor mediation processes between the core parties have any prospect of success within a reasonable time.Party may seek cessation of mediation(2) Paragraph (1)(a) or (1)(b) is satisfied if one or more of the core parties to a proceeding, at any time after the expiration of 3 months after the start of mediation, notifies the presiding member that that party or those parties do not wish to proceed with mediation in relation to the whole of the proceeding or a part of the proceeding.Where presiding member must order mediation to cease(3) If paragraph (1)(a) or (1)(b) is satisfied, the presiding member must, by notice in writing to all of the parties concerned, inform them: (a) that he or she is so satisfied; and (b) that formal negotiation and mediation processes are no longer available.(4) The cessation of mediation under this section does not prevent core parties from entering into an agreement under this Subdivision or the Agency from continuing to provide mediation or negotiation assistance to those core parties.(128) Clause 54, page 38 (line 29) to page 39 (line 6), omit "Director" (wherever occurring), substitute "Registrar".(129) Clause 54, page 39 (lines 7 to 13), omit subclause (2), substitute:(2) The Registrar must not register an agreement to which subsection (1) relates unless the presiding member or, if there is no presiding member, the Principal member, is satisfied: (a) that the parties to the agreement included, or if negotiation or mediation processes had been undertaken would have included, the core parties within the meaning of section 49; and (b) the agreement is consistent with the purposes of this Act.(130) Clause 54, page 39 (line 14), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(131) Clause 54, page 39 (line 16), omit "Director", substitute "Agency".(132) Clause 54, page 39 (lines 18 to 20), omit paragraph (3)(b).(133) Clause 54, page 39 (line 23), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar". (134) Clause 55, page 40 (line 3) to page 41 (line 27), omit the clause, substitute:55 Procedures to be followed by Agency in preparing report(1) The Agency must, in respect of an application for which a report is required under Division 2 or 3, by notice in writing to the appropriate native title representative body and by notice published in a newspaper circulating in the region and in indigenous media outlets in the region in which the area or object concerned is situated: (a) inform persons of particulars of the application in the same terms, and subject to the same limitations, as apply for the purposes of subsections 33(3) and (4); and (b) invite persons to make, within a period specified in the notice, representations concerning: (i) the significance of the area or object concerned to the applicant; and (ii) the threat to the area or object concerned posed by any proposed activity; and (iii) the effect that the making of an LPO in respect of that area or object would have on the proprietary and pecuniary interests of persons other than the applicant.(2) If, in relation to a UR or AR application relating to an object, the Agency is satisfied that public comment on the application would not be necessary or appropriate, the Agency may prepare a report without giving public notice as required by subsection (1).(3) The Agency must, at the request of the applicant, receive representations made in accordance with, and the manner provided by, indigenous tradition.(4) A notice under subsection (1) must also be accompanied by a statement of the kinds of matters that might be dealt with if an LPO is made in relation to the area or object concerned.(135) Clause 56, page 41 (line 28) to page 42 (line 17), omit the clause, substitute:56 Agency may adopt State or Territory findings In relation to an AR, if after: (a) examining the procedures followed by the independent body established under an accredited heritage protection regime of a State or Territory; and (b) hearing submissions of the parties who gave evidence or made representations to the independent body in relation to the evidence given or representations made by those parties;the presiding member is satisfied that the procedures followed and the evidence and representations considered by the independent body were sufficient to provide a reliable basis for the finding, the presiding member may adopt one or more of the independent body's findings for the production of the Agency's report.(136) Clause 57, page 42 (lines 21 and 22), omit "Director, and, where appropriate, an independent reviewer,", substitute "Agency".(137) Clause 57, page 42 (line 24), at the end of the clause, add "and the Agency must make an assessment of the significance, and the threat to this significance, based on the degree of intensity of the belief and feeling of indigenous people in relation to the area or object".(138) Clause 58, page 42 (line 25) to page 43 (line 20), omit the clause.(139) Clause 59, page 43 (lines 22 and 23), omit "Director or to an independent reviewer", substitute "Agency".(140) Clause 59, page 43 (line 26), omit "Director or independent reviewer", substitute "Agency".(141) Clause 59, page 43 (lines 27 to 31), omit subclause (2).(142) Clause 60, page 44 (lines 2 to 9), omit "Director" (wherever occurring), substitute "Agency".(143) Clause 60, page 44 (lines 10 to 14), omit subclause (2).(144) Clause 60, page 44 (line 16), omit "or (2)".(145) Clause 60, page 44 (line 17), omit "Director or independent reviewer", substitute "Agency".(146) Clause 60, page 44 (line 21), omit "or (2)".(147) Clause 61, page 44 (line 24), omit "Director or of an independent reviewer", substitute "Agency".(148) Clause 61, page 44 (line 30) to page 45 (line 3), omit subclause (2).(149) Clause 62, page 46 (line 5), omit "Minister", substitute "Principal member".(150) Clause 62, page 46 (line 6), omit "subsection", substitute "section".(151) Clause 62, page 46 (line 6), omit "the Minister's", substitute "his or her". (152) Clause 62, page 46 (line 9) to page 47 (line 9), omit subclauses (2), (3) and (4), substitute:(2) A person may apply to the Principal member in writing or orally for an EPO.(3) If an EPO will affect an area in a State or Territory where there is no accredited State or Territory regime, the Principal member must make an EPO if he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that: (a) the area or object concerned appears to be a significant indigenous area or a significant indigenous object; and (b) the area or object appears to be under immediate threat of injury or desecration.(4) If: (a) an application for emergency or interim protection has been rejected, or is not available, under an accredited State or Territory regime; or (b) an application for an LPO has been rejected under subsection 31(1);the Principal member may make an EPO if he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that: (c) the area or object concerned appears to be a significant indigenous area or a significant indigenous object; and (d) the area or object appears to be under immediate threat of injury or desecration; and (e) the protection under the EPO should be available at that time.(153) Clause 62, page 47 (lines 16 to 26), omit "Minister" (wherever occurring), substitute "Principal member".(154) Clause 63, page 48 (lines 2 to 18), omit "Minister" (wherever occurring), substitute "Principal member".(155) Clause 63, page 48 (line 5), omit "may", substitute "must".(156) Clause 63, page 48 (line 9), omit "is satisfied", substitute "has reasonable grounds to believe".(157) Clause 63, page 48 (line 14), omit "; and".(158) Clause 63, page 48 (lines 15 to 18), omit subparagraph (iii).(159) Clause 63, page 48 (lines 19 to 32), omit subclause (3).(160) Clause 63, page 49 (line 1), omit "4", substitute "5".(161) Clause 63, page 49 (line 3), omit "Minister", substitute "Principal member". (162) Clause 64, page 49 (line 17) to page 50 (line 2), omit "Minister" (wherever occurring), substitute "Principal member".(163) Clause 65, page 51 (line 8), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(164) Clause 65, page 51 (line 10), omit "Director", substitute "Agency".(165) Clause 65, page 51 (after line 29), at the end of the clause, add:(3) No agreement may be registered under Subdivision 5B which relates to multiple applicants and applications, deemed to be joined pursuant to subsection (1) and negotiated pursuant to subsection (2), unless the agreement is entered into, executed and lodged for registration by each of the individual applicants so joined.(166) Clause 66, page 51 (line 30) to page 53 (line 3), omit the clause.(167) Clause 67, page 54 (line 4) to page 55 (line 4), omit "Director" (wherever occurring), substitute "Agency".(168) Clause 68, page 55 (lines 5 to 29), omit "Director" (wherever occurring), substitute "Agency".(169) Clause 69, page 56 (line 6), at the end of the penalty, add "and a fine of $200,000".(170) Clause 69, page 56 (line 9), at the end of the penalty, add "and a fine of $100,000".(171) Clause 70, page 56 (line 23), omit "did not know of", substitute "had no reasonable grounds for suspecting".(172) Clause 75, page 62 (line 2), omit "Commonwealth Minister's", substitute "Agency's".(173) Clause 75, page 62 (line 2), after "Court", insert "of Australia".(174) Clause 77, page 64 (line 10), omit "subsection 27(2)", substitute "subsection 27(3)".(175) Clause 77, page 64 (line 10), omit "or revoking".(176) Clause 77, page 64 (line 13), omit "an LPO under Part 4 or".(177) Clause 80, page 67 (lines 3 to 21), omit the clause, substitute:80 Delegation(1) The Principal member may, by written instrument, delegate to a Deputy Principal member any of his or her powers under this Act.(2) The Principal member may also, by written instrument, delegate to the Registrar, a Deputy Registrar or an SES employee or acting SES employee of the Agency the Principal member's powers in relation to an EPO (other than the Principal member's power to make an EPO under subsection 62(4)).(3) The Minister must not delegate his or her powers in relation to the following matters: (a) the Minister's powers in relation to the accreditation of the laws of a State or Territory as an accredited heritage protection regime under Part 3; (b) the Minister's powers in relation to an LPO.(178) Page 67 (after line 26), at the end of the bill, add:82 Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 Nothing in this Act, or any laws of the Northern Territory of Australia accredited under this Act, affects section 69 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act1976 , or its operation, so as to diminish heritage protection provided to indigenous people under that section.(179) Page 67 (after line 26), at the end of the bill, add:83 Indigenous Cultural Heritage Advisory Council(1) There is established by this Act an Indigenous Cultural Heritage Advisory Council.(2) The functions of the Council are: (a) to advise the Agency and the Commonwealth Minister on: (i) issues arising under the Act; and (ii) appropriate procedures for dealing with indigenous people in the performance of functions under this Act; and (iii) the making of regulations under this Act; and (b) to liaise with, and promote the views of, indigenous people in relation to heritage protection issues; and (c) to carry out research for the purpose of carrying out its functions.(3) The members of the Council will consist of indigenous people from each of the States and Territories of Australia who will appoint a chairperson and deputy chairperson.(4) The Council will employ staff to assist it in carrying out its functions.(5) The Governor-General may make regulations in relation to the Council. (6) The Commonwealth Minister must confer with all native title representative bodies and ATSIC and take account of their submissions for the purpose of drafting regulations in relation to the Council.Motion (by Dr Wooldridge) agreed to:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister representing the Minister for Environment and Heritage moving amendments to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 during the consideration of the amendments made by the Senate to the Bill.12:10:0013249Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I would like to indicate to the House that the government proposes that certain Senate amendments be agreed to, that certain other amendments be disagreed to, and that unrelated amendments be made. I suggest therefore, that it may suit the convenience of the House to first consider the Senate amendments proposed to be agreed to, then the amendments proposed to be disagreed to, and then the unrelated amendments which I propose moving. I move:That Senate amendments Nos 4 to 6, 43, 45, 47, 50, 55, 61, 62, 89, 102, 106, 114, 121, 125, 126, 160, 173 and 178 be agreed to.12:11:0013249Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—The opposition will be supporting this motion. It is an indication that, whilst there will be some disagreement in relation to the other amendments as suggested by the Senate, we are actually progressing this debate along. The opposition's approach is to use the Evatt review and, indeed, the two parliamentary reports that were presented by the joint standing committee. I welcome the fact that a number of these amendments are being agreed to. I will speak later in the debate in relation to the other amendments.Question resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Dr Wooldridge) proposed:That Senate amendments Nos 1 to 3, 7 to 42, 44, 46, 48, 49, 51 to 54, 56 to 60, 63 to 88, 90 to 101, 103 to 105, 107 to 113, 115 to 120, 122 to 124, 127 to 159, 161 to 172, 174 to 177 and 179 be disagreed to.12:13:0013249Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—I indicate that the opposition's approach is that we will be insisting on the amendments proposed by the Senate, but we do not propose to divide in the House today. The position is that the minister in the other place has given undertakings, when the debate took place there, that there would be further consultation. It is proposed, as I understand it, that that consultation will take place not only with the opposition parties but with indigenous groups; and we think that is a good thing. The minister, in the debate, did point to extensive considerations through parliamentary inquiries—and, indeed, beyond the parliament—as the basis for some of the propositions that were put forward in the original bill. He did concede that, from the government's point of view, they have not picked up all the recommendations of the parliamentary committee nor, indeed, all the recommendations of Justice Evatt's report.In terms of the proposed amendments insisted upon by the Senate—which it is fair say the ALP, the Democrats, Senator Harradine and Senator Brown supported—it is important that I outline the basic principles which the opposition had in approaching the amendments that we moved successfully in the Senate. There were three fundamental principles. The first was the aim of protecting indigenous heritage. We were about effective protection and transmission of what we regard as a living cultural heritage. It is fundamental to the survival of indigenous people as a distinct social group. It is an integral aspect of the way in which indigenous people's identity is continued in the context of non-indigenous economic and social development that is often ignorant of or hostile to indigenous culture and its relationship to the land.The second principle we relied upon was the Evatt report as the appropriate compromise between indigenous and development interests. We believe the Evatt report on the review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 is the appropriate benchmark for the reform of Commonwealth, state and territory heritage laws. The report is the result of extensive consultations throughout Australia with indigenous and non-indigenous interests. It represents a careful compromise between development concerns and indigenous heritage protection. The proposed amendments are based on the detailed recommendations of the Evatt report. It should be noted that many of the essential recommendations are not includ ed within the government bill, including ensuring that the Commonwealth is a real option of last resort, establishing an independent Commonwealth heritage agency and introducing a range of minimum standards for state and territory accreditation.The third principle was the relationship between the Commonwealth, state and territory responsibilities to heritage protection. The Commonwealth government has moral, constitutional and international responsibilities to provide heritage protection. Given the reality of the states' responsibility for land management and planning processes, we acknowledge that the states and territories have a role in relation to heritage protection; however, primary responsibility for the scope and operation of heritage laws must remain with the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth must remain a real option of last resort.The keys to the proposed amendments are: the establishment of a Commonwealth independent heritage protection agency; the Commonwealth remaining as a real option of last resort, primarily through improvements to the principles for Commonwealth protection orders; and the strengthening and increasing of minimum standards for accreditation. (Extension of time granted) The philosophy of the opposition is that we draw strength from the referendum result of 1967 when 90 per cent of the people voting gave the Commonwealth parliament the authority—moral, legal, and constitutional—to intervene in indigenous affairs. We do not say it is exclusive to the Commonwealth; we see it as a partnership approach. Basically, the people voting at that referendum said, `We do not want to leave indigenous affairs solely in the hands of the states.' Up until that time, the Commonwealth had a role in relation to the territories and not the states.In relation to the heritage protection act, we see a partnership role between the Commonwealth, the states and indigenous interests. We believe that the Commonwealth should benchmark the minimum standards. As we say, the Evatt report should be the basis for that framework. The heritage protection act came into existence before the historic Mabo decision of 1992 and the subsequent Wik decision. It was, historically, a compromise because one of the principles at that time of the then Labor government was national uniform land rights, and that did not eventuate.In recent times, we have seen a number of cases go to the High Court and currently work their way through the Federal Court. One involved the activist Murrandoo Yanner from Queensland and involved hunting, fishing and gathering. The High Court, by a five to two majority, talked about a living culture, a culture that was evolving and was not static in time. You also have the Yorta Yorta case that is on appeal to the full Federal Court. They have reserved their judgment. Again that is about whether Aboriginal culture is static or continuing, living and breathing. That is where this act is important.The government has already accepted a number of amendments. On our side we believe that there is an opportunity here. We do not want the opportunity to be missed by this government. We do not want to go down the path of the divisive debate that occurred in relation to native title. That is why we welcome the comments by the minister in the other place that there will be further consultation with not only the opposition parties but also indigenous interests. We believe that if the government comes a little bit further we can have an act that we will all be proud of. Sure, some of it is a compromise, but we say that the Evatt report was the right balance between indigenous and non-indigenous interests. We need to have this framework and this partnership approach because it is about access, heritage and indigenous people being part of the process and not always being cast aside. There have to be proper standards.We need to recognise the diversity of indigenous communities. It is not the same in the Northern Territory as it is in Victoria or New South Wales. Often there is a misconception that indigenous people speak with one voice. They do not. Their problems are different, just as the problems in the non-indigenous community are different in the different suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne. What is important to one section of the com munity is not necessarily important to the other. That is why we need this framework approach, with benchmarks and minimum standards and a partnership approach with the states.We appreciate that the government has picked up a number of our amendments. But they are not exclusively our amendments. The Labor Party has talked to the Democrats, indigenous interests and other players. We want to keep the lines of communication open with the government because we believe that, with a bit more give and take, maybe on both sides, and with a bit of goodwill we will have an opportunity for all parties to come together. The Labor Party will not abandon Aboriginal interests solely to the states. When it comes to heritage protection, we will not walk away from our constitutional responsibility. We do not believe it is the exclusive province of the states—it is a partnership approach.Question resolved in the affirmative.12:23:0013251Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I present the reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate and I move:That the reasons be adopted.Question resolved in the affirmative.12:24:0013251Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I move:(1) Clause 36, page 26 (after line 13), at the end of the clause, add:The independent reviewer is not personally liable to an action or other proceeding for damages in relation to anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the independent reviewer in the capacity of independent reviewer.(2) Clause 43, page 31 (after line 6), at the end of the clause, add:(2) The independent reviewer is not personally liable to an action or other proceeding for damages in relation to anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the independent reviewer in the capacity of independent reviewer.Amendments are proposed to clauses 36 and 43 of the bill to provide an indemnity to independent reviewers so that they will not be personally liable for actions done in good faith. These amendments afford an independent reviewer the same protection as applies to the Director of Indigenous Heritage Protection under clause 19. It was an oversight that this measure was not included in the bill. The risk of legal action against persons undertaking functions under the bill is demonstrated by the current litigation in relation to the Hindmarsh Island case. The likelihood of litigation in future along the lines of the Hindmarsh case is low as a result of procedural changes included in the bill. Nevertheless, without the indemnity, it may be difficult to find suitably qualified persons to undertake the role of reviewer.12:26:0013252Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—The opposition supports these amendments. I saw them only today but, as the spokesperson for the Labor Party, I think these amendments are reasonable. My view is that an independent reviewer should not be personally liable for an action or proceedings for damages if they have acted in good faith in their capacity as an independent reviewer. It is our view that what the government is doing in this regard is perfectly reasonable, and we lend our support to that. We are not here to take objections for the sake of objection. My approach to indigenous affairs is that, wherever bipartisanship can be achieved, I will struggle to achieve that. If we have to compromise on some things we will, but there are some matters that we will not go beyond.These are perfectly reasonable amendments. If they were not made, people would be very reluctant to take on the role of independent reviewer. But there has to be the qualification that anything done, or omitted, be in good faith. If it is not done in good faith, if there are other instances showing that there was malice or a whole range of other things, the indemnity should not flow to those people. That is basically, as I understand it, the proposition across the board in other areas and it should apply here. For that reason, I can assure the government we will support them in relation to these amendments.Amendments agreed to.Motion (by Dr Wooldridge) agreed to:That in the message returning the Bill to the Senate, the Senate be requested to reconsider the Bill in respect of the amendments made by the House of Representatives.Bills13252r89613252Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (lines 14 and 15), omit "any of paragraphs 71(1)(b) to (f) or paragraph 71(1)(h)", substitute "paragraph 71(1)(b), (ba), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h) or (j)".(2) Schedule 1, item 28, page 12 (line 31), at the end of the item, add:; or (j) an asset included in a class of assets specified in the regulations: (i) not to be in-house assets of any fund; or (ii) not to be in-house assets of a class of funds to which the fund belongs.For this purpose, a class of assets may consist of, but is not limited to, assets that are investments in entities that undertake, or do not undertake, specified activities.(3) Schedule 1, item 34, page 14 (line 24), omit "(i)", substitute "(j)".(4) Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 27), after item 34, insert:34A Subsection 71(5)Omit all the words from and including "may" to and including "was", substitute "or regulations under paragraph (1)(j) may be expressed to have taken effect at a time earlier than the time when the determination or regulations were".Note: The heading to subsection 71(5) is altered by inserting "or paragraph (1)(j) regulations " after "determinations ".(5) Schedule 1, item 35, page 15 (line 15), omit "pre-12 May 1998 ", substitute "pre-11 August 1999 ".(6) Schedule 1, item 35, page 16 (line 28), omit "pre-12 May 1998 ", substitute "pre-11 August 1999 ".(7) Schedule 1, item 35, page 22 (lines 1 and 2), omit all the words from and including "7.30" to and including "1998", substitute "the end of 11 August 1999".(8) Schedule 1, item 46, page 24 (lines 10 to 14), omit all the words from and including "after" to and including "(the test time )", substitute "after the end of 11 August 1999 (the test time ), unless the asset was acquired under a contract entered into before the test time".(9) Schedule 1, item 46, page 24 (line 18), omit "the test time", substitute "7.30 pm by legal time in the Australian Capital Territory on 12 May 1998".(10) Schedule 1, item 46, page 24 (line 29), omit "the introduction time", substitute "the test time".(11) Schedule 1, item 46, page 25 (line 3), omit "the introduction time", substitute "the test time".12:30:0013253Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.I move these amendments to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 , of course, on behalf of the government. Amendments Nos 1 to 4 have been made in response to concerns from a number of groups such as the Australian Superannuation Funds Association that there should be some scope for investments in non-geared related trusts.These amendments will allow a regulation making power to be used to make an exception. This will apply only to a superannuation fund with fewer than five members that invests in a company or trust which meets the specified requirements. These requirements will include that the company or trust does not borrow; that it does not invest in, or loan money to, individuals or other entities other than deposits with financial institutions; that it has not acquired assets from a related party of the superannuation fund other than business real property; that it does not lease assets to related parties or enter into lease arrangements other than a legally binding lease of business real property to a related party on an arms-length basis; and that it conducts all other transactions on an arms-length basis. The government will consult with accounting and other industry bodies in developing a definition of non-geared company or trust that meets these requirements.Amendments Nos 5 to 11 have been made in response to concerns expressed about the lapse of time since the original announcement on 12 May 1998. These amendments ensure that the changes to the in-house provisions will apply only from the date of the introduction of the legislation—that is, 11 August this year. As the amendments have only recently been agreed, they are not accompanied by a supplementary explanatory memorandum. I commend the amendments to the House.12:31:0013253Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—Make no mistake: the passage of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 through the parliament is the result of yet another behind closed doors deal between the government and the Australian Democrats. Labor will ensure that every one of the 180,000 do-it-yourself superannuation funds in Australia knows exactly just who it was who forced this unnecessary, costly and complex bill upon them: the Howard government and the Meg Lees Democrats.We will be writing to every small business that operates a self-managed fund, every accountant, every do-it-yourself fund administrator, every trustee, every financial planner and every auditor, particularly in rural and regional Australia, telling them how the Howard government sold them out in relation to this bill. This was a sleeping issue in the 1998 budget. It will come back to haunt both the government and the Australian Democrats.The government announced back in May 1998 that it proposed these investment rules restrictions, but it backflipped on its announcement some two weeks later. It took almost a year to release draft legislation, another few months to introduce this bill into the parliament—18 months after the original announcement—and then it decided just yesterday in the Senate that it could amend the bill still further, and now we are considering these amendments.Senator Kemp made a song and dance some time ago about the opposition circulating amendments a few hours before a bill was debated. We saw these amendments from the government on the floor of the Senate yesterday around 10 a.m. It would be the height of hypocrisy for Senator Kemp or his colleagues to ever again criticise the opposition for circulating last-minute amendments. We will not have one more word from them about this issue. It is disappointing for the thousands of small businesses out there, especially those in rural and regional Australia, that the amendments resulting from this backroom deal between the government and the Democrats will do absolutely nothing to address the substantial concerns that do-it-yourself superannuation funds have about this legislation. The Howard-Lees amendments will not prevent thousands of funds that have invested in accordance with the law from having to unwind their investments. The Howard-Lees amendments will not prevent thousands of funds from incurring massive additional costs upwards of $2,000 per fund. The Howard-Lees amendments will not address the concerns raised by many do-it-yourself funds and their operators.Make no mistake: this legislation is an attack on small business. The Treasurer, who is responsible in the first place for this legislation, will be known as small business enemy No. 1. People say that one day he is going to become Prime Minister. There could be a race, indeed, between Kim Beazley and the Treasurer to see who gets there first—a bit like the US and Russia advancing on Berlin at the end of the Second World War.People who understand the possibility that this Treasurer might become Prime Minister need to understand this: every time an issue involving small business arises—whether it is in relation to banks; petrol companies or large oil companies, as against the small service station owners and franchisees; the retail shopping area involving the large retailers or the smaller retail tenants; the GST or superannuation funds—this Treasurer and this government talk the talk of small business, but they are doing the bidding of big business, and we see it again today.Quite a few people who have been involved in the Liberal Party have been expressing concern, firstly to the government but more recently to us, about the impact of this legislation. For example, I have correspondence from Mr David Dwyer, a disaffected Liberal Party member in Western Australia, who has written to Wilson Tuckey, the member for O'Connor, and to Arthur Sinodinos from the Prime Minister's staff to express his concerns about the impact of this legislation on small funds. He says in his correspondence:The legislation restricts investments by self-managed superannuation funds (SMSF) in associated property trusts. These property trusts typically are 100% owned by the SMSF and borrow to acquire property. . . . The property is leased to a 3rd party whereby the tenant pays the loan repayments.In my experience, such investments by SMSF have been a prudent and secure means of investing to provide funds for the members retirement.(Extension of time granted)This correspondence from Mr Dwyer comes after making these representations to the member for O'Connor and to the Prime Minister's office and after earlier unsuccessfully taking this issue up with the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. I can understand the frustration of people trying to get a message through to Senator Kemp on any of these issues. Frankly, it is easier to get to a message through to the Mars Polar Lander than through to Assistant Treasurer Kemp. Mr Dwyer continues:Under SLAB 4 such investments have to be no more than 5% which because of a SMSF's smaller capital base is simply not enough money to be an effective deposit.SLAB 4 deems that the superannuation fund in question is associated with the property trust by the trustee of the property trust being a related party. . . . The big industry funds do not have this problem as given the size of their individual property trust investments they can afford independent trustees. Independent trustees are too expensive for SMSF.He goes on to provide us with an example from Manjimup packing shed. We heard quite a bit in the House about Manjimup yesterday. I note that earlier the Minister for Forestry and Conservation was in the chamber. This correspondence went to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. He evidently took absolutely no action in relation to it, because this bill is now passing through this House.Turning back to the situation of the Manjimup packing shed, Mr Dwyer says that his clients currently rent the shed from a third party to pack vegetables for the export market. Coming on stream in Manjimup is a developing stone fruit export market of between $5 million and $10 million per annum. The owners of the shed have indicated to his client that they need to sell the property. They are putting pressure on his client to exercise the first right of refusal he holds as a tenant or to find an alternative buyer. The client cannot afford to buy the property outright as he does not have a deposit of $120,000 to $140,000, which is what he would need. He is, however, prepared to pay a commercial rent to a third party. Mr Dwyer goes on to say:I have several superannuation fund clients who would see this is as a good investment as they are currently only earning 3-4% bank interest and no capital growth.Prior to SLAB 4 this type of situation was easily solved. The superannuation fund would set up and invest $200 000 in a related property trust, the property trust would borrow the balance ($214 000) and this debt would be serviced by the rent from the tenant. . . . In effect superannuation capital would be utilised in a productive way and still be a suitable investment for the fund.At retirement the members of the superannuation fund could be paid a pension which in turn is financed by the rent from the property.In this example the burden of the providing for the people in retirement is met from their own investments over their working life by way of superannuation contributions.Under SLAB4 such an investment can not be made. The property trust needs a trustee and this trustee would by necessity be a related party of the fund, (For example a separate company but having common directors to the superannuation fund.)My client is seriously considering vacating the premises and shifting the packing operation to his own farm. Such a move would mean that he no longer packs other growers produce and would thereby restrict the potential of the developing stone fruit export market and current exports from the area.. . . . . . . . .The investment restrictions in SLAB4 effectively limit the available capital to develop export industries in regional areas.He points out:Interestingly, big business is not faced with the same problem.Wesfarmers/Bunnings recently . . . floated the Bunnings Warehouse Property Trust. This was a very sensible strategy as they were able to raise capital to build more Bunnings stores, which are rented to the operating company. Many of the property trust investors would be superannuation funds.Yet for my small business client they can not say, `Hey lets get a superannuation fund to buy our premises and lease it back to us.' So that we do not have to tie up our working capital.'Mr Dwyer concludes:It would seem that there is one rule for big business and another for small business.He presents similar evidence concerning the Jetty Motel Resort in Esperance, but I do not need to provide the detail. I think we have managed to make the point. Similar concerns are expressed by others who have made representations. We had correspondence from Love and Partners in Maroochydore in Queensland to the Treasurer, which stated:(Extension of time granted)I have supported the Liberal-National Party all of my voting life. Your proposals are draconian and near enough to retrospective for me to be entirely incensed. The proposals are unworkable and unless immediate changes are announced, I believe you will seriously erode your voting base. For one, you won't get my vote and I will make serious attempts to influence my client base that has been, and will be, affected seriously by this legislation.Similarly, the Blue Dandenongs Bulb Farm in Monbulk in Victoria said:We wish to express our grave concerns about the actions of the Liberal Government during the past 18 months in relation to their treatment of small business and obvious lack of understanding of extra pressures and costs that are being forced upon them.The budget announcement (later varied by press release) directed at outlawing traditional investments of small Superannuation funds was the ultimate example of irrational and retrospective legislation.. . . . . . . . .It is difficult to believe that the Liberal Government is targeting people who use self-managed funds in a legitimate way to save for their retirement. . . . Do the Government advisers and politicians have any idea whatsoever of the extra paperwork, bookkeeping and accounting costs that this will create?. . . . . . . . .It has discouraged small business owners from saving for their retirement. Similar concerns were expressed by the Australian Business Chamber. They said of this legislation:. . . will stifle investment and serve to further concentrate Australia's pool of savings in big funds run by major banks, insurance companies and investment houses.Similarly, the evidence before the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services, which has considered this bill since it was last before the House, demonstrates exactly the same impact. There was a submission to the Senate committee from Cleary Hoare Solicitors talking about the impact on Townsville and other regional centres. They refer to the very important role played by self-managed superannuation funds in investments in regional centres. They said:. . . These investments will not take place unless the small business can gain some benefit from it, eg, the ability to rent the premises built or bought and the ability to have moderate borrowings in the unit trust (without jeopardising the other assets of the superannuation fund), to enable a better asset build up in the superannuation fund.They went on to describe consequences of the government's changes, which are:More investment will be driven from the control of the small business to the control of the big end of town (AMP, MLC, banks, public trusts, etc.There is nothing in the performance of the top end of town to indicate that, in the majority of cases, it will out-perform decisions made by small business persons who control their own superannuation funds.A very significant source of regional investment (self managed superannuation funds controlled by local small businesses) will cease.The big end of town will not replace that investment source for regional centres.Yet again, this government and prior governments will have diminished the control small business and people generally have over their own destinies.They have produced, in support of that argument, correspondence from Richard Ferry concerning the use of self-managed superannuation funds in the Townsville district. This correspondence says:Even cities like Townsville have difficulty in attracting major building investment—cities of 40,000 to 50,000 have a significantly more difficult task and those such as Mt Isa almost an impossible task. . . . . . . . . .Regional Australia does not enjoy significant growth—if any growth—in property prices. Sales are made not on achieving a significant capital growth over a period, but by relying on the income stream—almost to entirety.For some 10 years now investments have increasingly been through superannuation funds, often financially geared through unit trusts with the income stream . . . from the property meeting interest and loan redemption. . . .Most of these investors do business in Townsville on a regular basis (monthly, if not weekly)—they know Townsville and they can see confidence in the changing elements, which from time to time do change.They say:If investors are prevented from using self-managed superannuation funds as vehicles to invest in property there will be a further significant deterioration in regional property prices.Future investment will also be curtailed—therefore growth and employment opportunities in regional areas will significantly decrease.Many businesses own their own premises through self-managed superannuation funds (including Ferry Property Management)—one would assume a good source of investment. The business operators know and have confidence in the business and its ability to pay rent—the location of the property investment and its prospects for maintaining or enjoying capital growth depend, to a large extent, on the business. Provided the commercial arrangements of rental rates, lease terms etc are commercial reality, these investment possibilities should be encouraged.(Extension of time granted)They continue:Forcing small businesses into public administrative super funds at 5% to 7% return with little recognised growth as opposed to local investment through self-managed funds at 10% (and more often up to 15%) does not make sense . . . Local property values will fall significantly as persons divest—not to mention future growth which will be curtailed through the absence of the largest purchaser sector.It is a very significant submission, and it does seem to be a pity that the government has apparently taken no notice of it.Similarly, a submission from Michael Beard of Accounting Services Pty Ltd, said:The positives for the existing arrangements are:1) small business owners are encouraged to contribute to their own Super. 2) Property Sales are stimulated and building activity increases.The negatives for the change are:1) Small business owners will no longer put money into Super.2) The only possible winners are the A.M.P.'s who will now get hold of super monies that were previously invested by the Small Business Owners.The fundamental argument against the change in laws is that successful small business owners are probably better equipped to invest their own funds than the major life offices. Why does the Government want to take the investment decision out of their hands?No evidence has been presented (that I am aware of) which points to abuse of the system.Many of my small business clients regard these changes as the final straw in so far as Superannuation is concerned. Most Accountants in this area regard the proposed changes as stupid and counter productive.That is the kind of evidence that came before the Senate select committee, and that is the reason the opposition has not been prepared to support the government's legislation. This bill is an attack on small business; it is an attack on regions. Also, it mocks the principle of choice. The government comes in here from time to time and says, `Members need to have choice about where their superannuation money is invested.' All these small businesses say, `Yes, we would like to have some choice. We would like to have some say in how our superannuation money is invested.' Then the government comes in here with a bill like that and says, `No, you cannot do it.'Let me turn now specifically to the government's amendments 1 to 4. The second amendment will allow the government to make regulations to exempt certain assets or classes of assets from being treated as in-house assets. We are not going to support government amendments 1 to 4. As I have indicated, we think that is an enormously wide power. Without having seen the regulations, how can the parliament be sure of what the government is doing? A deal has apparently been done between the government and the Australian Democrats on the issue of closely held unit trusts. Nobody, other than the government and the Democrats, has seen the details of this deal. We have been told that regulations will be introduced, but we do not know what they relate to, how they will operate and what impact they will have on do-it-yourself funds. We do not know when they will be introduced.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—They probably don't know.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Quite possibly. It is another secret deal done by the Democrats with the government behind closed doors. We do not support the bill, and we will oppose these ham-fisted amendments. The government's amendments relate to section 71 of the SIS legislation, which determines the meaning of in-house assets. Currently, section 71(1)(e) allows the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner to make a determination—not a regulation—as to whether an asset shall be taken to be an in-house asset. That determination is a disallowable instrument under section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act. Section 71(5) allows for such a determination to be retrospective; that is, the commissioner's determination given in writing to the trustee of a super fund may be expressed to have taken effect at a time earlier than the time when the determination was made. That is seen as a positive measure as it means that, if a super fund asks for clarification of the status of a particular asset, it can be given in-house asset status from the date the super fund acquired it, rather than from the date the commissioner makes the determination. (Extension of time granted)However, the government's amendments are allowing for regulations to be included as well as determinations—that is, the government is asking us to allow it to make regulations that can operate retrospectively. We ran into this type of request from the government in a previous debate on the recently passed surcharge tax amendment bills, and the parliament made a clear decision, Labor being supported by the Australian Democrats in the Senate, that the government should not have the power to make retrospective regulations. On that occasion, the government was trying to override the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.Section 48(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act specifically relates to the timing of regulations and states that a regulation has no effect if it would take effect before the date of notification and if the rights of a person `would be affected so as to disadvantage that person' and liabilities would be imposed on a person `in respect of anything done or omitted to be done before the date of notification'. That is, regulations shall generally not be retrospective, particularly if they disadvantage anybody or impose a liability.It could be argued that if regulations were made about the status or otherwise of in-house assets they would always be positive and that section 48(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act would not come into play because nobody would be worse off. However, how does the parliament determine whether regulations that it has not seen are positive or negative? How can we make that decision when they have not even been drafted?In the case of the surcharge tax bills, the parliament acted decisively to take the offending provisions out of the bills, and the government accepted the parliament's amendments. Those provisions were going to allow the government to have the capacity to override this part of the Acts Interpretation Act. Indeed, there may be some doubt as to the constitutional validity of the amendments which we are dealing with now. I would encourage those out there who are opposed to this bill—and there are many of them—to take a very close look at these provisions.Retrospective regulation should not generally be allowed to be made. The parliament has acted on this before, and Labor will not be supporting government amendments 1 to 4 on this basis. They do not address any of the concerns expressed by small businesses, particularly those in regional and rural areas. There is no evidence in support of this legislation, and Labor will be opposing it.We do not oppose government amendments 5 to 11. They go some way towards removing the retrospective nature of the legislation, and this is something we have constantly expressed concern about. It took the government over 18 months to bring this legislation before the parliament, and it is appropriate that the operative date for the transitional arrangements be the date of introduction rather than the date of announcement. That is because the original announcement was different from the bill that was introduced. All those super funds that acted on the original announcement would potentially have been in breach of the final law. We will be supporting those amendments.The bill as a whole, however, represents an attack on small business and an attack on regional development, and it mocks the principle of choice. I conclude by briefly referring to the comment by Barrie Dunstan in the Australian Financial Review this morning concerning this bill and its likely passage. The article is headed, `Why more regulation when existing powers do the job?' Mr Dunstan says:The Federal Government continues down a tortuous road with its reforms of small superannuation funds' investments.. . . . . . . . .Again, there is the uncertainty of legislation by media release and, it seems now, by regulations yet to be drafted or announced.. . . . . . . . .The question that remains unanswered is why the regulators—the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority in the past and the Australian Taxation Office now—could not use their existing powers.APRA identified problem funds in two surveys and the very extensive superannuation legislation provides scope and powers to punish breaches.Indeed. I think the government and the Democrats would be well advised to take note of those observations.12:56:0013258Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise to make a contribution to this debate on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 to put once again on the record my concern about superannuation legislation and the ongoing discrimination which occurs against same sex couples. The member for Fisher might be bored with this issue and bored with me raising this issue, but the fact is that I have raised it. Now it is in double figures; this is speech No. 11 on this issue, and this is an issue that will not go away. The reason why I have had to give 11 speeches on this issue is that you have a weak, lily-livered government that is unprepared to ensure that a discrimination against a section of our society be removed. Until that discrimination is removed, I will continue to raise it.The government had an opportunity during this debate to do something. The fact is that, had we supported this legislation, we could have amended it to ensure that the discrimination was removed. However, because we do not support this bill because of its impact on small business and in particular on regional development, we were placed in a situation of being unable to reform superannuation for same sex couples through amendments to this bill.However, the Democrats were not in that situation. The Democrats were in a situation, one which they find themselves in very regularly indeed, of doing deals behind closed doors with the government to ensure the passage of this government's conservative agenda. The Democrats once again did a deal with the government with regard to this legislation. But the Democrats did something else. Senator Bartlett, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, yesterday moved an amendment in the Senate. That amendment was to add these words at the end of the motion:. . . and that there be laid on the table, on or before the last sitting day in March 2000, details of all legislative changes that would be required to ensure the recognition and equal treatment of same-sex couples under all Commonwealth superannuation and taxation legislation.What a reasonable amendment to move. The amendment was about saying, `Let's get the relevant legislation on the table. Let's look at superannuation legislation. Let's look at taxation legislation. Let's look at the changes which are required to ensure that all Australians, regardless of sexual preference, have the same rights as each other.' That is what the debate about same sex superannuation is about. It is not about singling out people for special rights; it is about equal rights for all. As we approach the year 2000, this would have been an opportunity to show there was at least some goodwill.But what we saw yesterday was quite extraordinary. What we saw was the government threatening to withdraw the whole bill if Senator Bartlett's amendment was carried, because the Labor Party would have voted for it. What the government was saying there was not only does it not support reform—and there is nothing radical in this; this is reform which the Australian superannuation funds support; this is reform which the trade union movement supports; this is reform which the Association of Certified Practising Accountants support; this is reform which all those concerned with any discrimination support; it is reform which is consistent with the Senate committee which reported on superannuation; and it is reform which the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has suggested in a report to this parliament is needed so that we comply with international law—it is also not prepared to bring on a debate and a vote on this bill. The government is not even prepared to consider an amendment, in this case moved by Senator Bartlett, that we have access to the information because, from the point of view of the opposition or the Democrats, it is difficult to draft legislation in the area of superannuation and taxation that will not create anomalies. (Extension of time granted)I find it absolutely extraordinary that the government is not prepared to accept this amendment. What is also extraordinary, it must be said, is the weakness of the Australian Democrats in withdrawing their own amendment. It is quite a Pythonesque situation when the Democrats move an amendment in the morning, the government says, `Well, we don't like it', so the Democrats then withdraw that amendment. That is an extraordinary situation, particularly in the context of Senator Greig's opportunistic attack on the Australian Labor Party in the Senate during the last sitting over the fact that we had reformed the register of senators' pecuniary interests.There has been absolute hypocrisy from the Australian Democrats yet again. If they were fair dinkum about getting reform, they should not have withdrawn that amendment, because there was no discussion. I rang Senator Bartlett to find out what was going on, because I did not get a phone call—even though I am the sponsor of the private member's bill which has put this on the agenda. But the response I got was, `Oh, no, we can't talk to the Labor Party.' Why can't they talk to the Labor Party? Because they are too busy talking to the government, caving in to their agenda. They caved in to their agenda on the GST, they got stared down on the superannuation legislation bill and they have been stared down by Senator Kemp on same sex rights for superannuation. The amendment was not even going to fix it, but it would have ensured that we should look at it, that we should have a consideration. It is quite extraordinary.I just hope that those people who want an end to discrimination do not rely upon the Australian Democrats, because, as we saw, that would not be appropriate. I think also it must be said with regard to this bill that the debate which I saw in the Senate this morning was quite depressing. The homophobic comments of Senator Boswell and Senator Harris were comments which, if made about people's religion, race or gender, would have provoked an outcry which would be on the front page of every paper in Australia. When I switched to the Senate debate this morning I heard comments which were unfortunate and pathetic. I think that Australia has a long way to go if its public representatives can be so fearful of reform.In fact, the Australian public are a fair way ahead of the position advocated by Senator Boswell. The Australian public have supported legislation to give equal rights to same sex couples. In New South Wales and Queensland there is legislation on the agenda, and the former Victorian Liberal government enacted legislation. The Tasmanian discrimination has been reformed in an appropriate way and there is support from across industry, unions and the community, for this reform to be taken on by the government.I would like to see the Senate select committee on superannuation have a close look at what amendments are required to legislation to remove the current discrimination. I think that would be entirely appropriate for the Senate to act upon. Because surely now the government must realise that, with the Australian Labor Party, the Democrats and Senator Brown from the Greens, there is broad support for reform. Also, I acknowledge that there are many people of goodwill in the government who know that there must be reform. (Extension of time granted)But it is unfortunate that the government has not been prepared to bite the bullet. It is unfortunate, perhaps, that strategically this bill is so bad that we cannot support it, let alone move amendments to it, otherwise we would be in the position today of ensuring that there would be a vote on these issues. I can assure the honourable member opposite that there will be a vote on these issues and there will be a vote in the year 2000 and that vote will ensure that the discrimination is removed.Surely it would be appropriate if the government took a bit of a lead and got the department—with its massive resources which we do not have access to—to have a look at how the legislation might be framed. Would that not be a gesture of goodwill and commonsense? Whilst superannuation in this country remains compulsory, that above everything else, I think, is an overriding concern. When we have something which is compulsory, discrimination is entirely inappropriate on that basis. In expressing once again my opposition to this bill and my disappointment at the actions of the government, I just reiterate my view that it is time for equal rights in superannuation legislation.13:09:0013260Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I think it is probably time for the member for Wills to take a cold shower and just sit back for a moment and contemplate the significance, purpose and importance of this very important legislation contained in the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 .The bill gives effect to the announcement in the 1998-99 budget to amend the investment rules for superannuation funds. The aim of the bill is to reduce risk to superannuation savings and to ensure that superannuation is preserved for the intended purpose of retirement income. In doing so the bill sets a sound framework for superannuation savings for decades to come.When one listens to the honourable member for Wills, one could almost believe that the bill does not assist small superannuation funds. The bill provides a significant concession to small superannuation funds to enable them to acquire business real property. Small superannuation funds will now be able to use up to 100 per cent of their assets to acquire business real property for members and to lease such property back to members. This measure has been warmly and widely welcomed by business and other groups.As we debate financial legislation, I get sick and tired of hearing the Labor Party continue to bag the Australian Democrats. They are people who control the balance of power in the upper house, and most Australians want this parliament to work. Most Australians want us to be able to sit down as adults and talk. The constructive approach taken by Senator Meg Lees and her Democrat team since the election of the government in 1998 has been a refreshing change. The Democrats are prepared to sit down and talk with the government; they do not hesitate to express their concerns. But the ultimate outcome of such consultations is that we are able to have a workable parliament and there has been much real and meaningful reform.If I were a Democrat, I would be appalled at the way Labor speaker after Labor speaker stands up in the parliament and criticises the fact that the Australian Democrats have ensured that the Australian parliament is workable. The next election will see the Labor Party pay a heavy price for its negativity. I believe the Labor Party stands condemned for criticising the very workmanlike and reasonable approach of Senator Meg Lees and the Australian Democrats.The honourable member for Wills in his contribution also criticised the government for taking some time to introduce and bring the legislation to completion. The government has taken careful consideration of concerns raised following the initial announcement of the new investment rules in May 1998. The process has included releasing an exposure draft of the legislation in April of this year and allowing a period for public comment. Following comments received on the exposure draft of the legislation, the government has made a number of changes, particularly to provide more generous transitional arrangements. These are included in the bill introduced in August 1999. The government considers that these processes are appropriate and, indeed, it is correct that one should take a reasonable amount of time to achieve a satisfactory outcome.The member for Wills also suggested that superannuation trustees would have to unwind their assets. The facts are quite different. All arrangements in place prior to 11 August this year will be grandfathered. Therefore, they will not have to unwind those assets.The member for Wills also claimed that the amendments before the chamber are an attack on small business. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that small superannuation funds benefit from the proposed changes through the increase in the exemption for business real property from 40 per cent to 100 per cent. We cannot overlook the disastrous record of the Labor Party over its 13 years in office, when the Labor Party introduced the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax, which we have substantially reduced. This impacted heavily on small business. Labor did nothing to relieve the crippling burden of taxes on small business yet it has the gall and hypocrisy to come into the House of Representatives and criticise the government for the very positive and meaningful changes we are making to legislation. (Extension of time granted)The member for Wills also sought to criticise the government for making provision for bringing in regulations. The simple fact of the matter is that regulations are powerful instruments and if the opposition has any problem with respect to regulation, clearly the opposition has certain facilities available to it in this place or in the other place. The government has outlined our changes. We have issued a media release foreshadowing those changes. It is widely recognised in the Australian community where we stand on these matters and we will continue to talk widely with industry, particularly the accounting profession, in relation to these matters. These changes are beneficial.The member for Wills also suggested that there would be in some way a driving of investment from the small end of town to the big end of town. There is nothing in the legislation to stop superannuation funds from investing in regional Australia. All the rules do is to limit investments in related entities. In fact, regional Australia will be able to benefit from the business real property exemption.The investment rules apply to both large and small funds. That is, an investment in an entity controlled by an employer or a member will be treated as an in-house asset. In fact, there are some concessions specifically targeted to small funds. Again, I mention the small business property exemption.It is also interesting to note that self-managed funds have continued to grow strongly since the announcement of the new investment rules. The member for Wills will be interested to know that there has been an increase of some 20,000 funds.The position taken by the opposition in this matter has been entirely non-constructive. They have not been prepared to support the principle of the legislation that they introduced in 1993. The prohibition on borrowing was one of the threshold issues with the bill introduced by the Labor Party. It was the Labor Party that introduced the prohibition, yet they are not supporting legislation that will maintain the integrity of the rules that they originally introduced.The superannuation industry is correctly asking what Labor stands for when it comes to superannuation and how they can make a positive contribution to public policy issues. The Labor Party simply does have not a coherent position. It is prepared to do anything and say anything to scrape up a few votes. People do not like such an opportunistic approach to important public policy.The honourable member for Grayndler re-entered the House, as he said, for the 11th occasion to talk about the impact of superannuation on same sex couples. At the outset, I want to point out that the issue raised is not relevant to the provisions of the bill currently before the chamber. I would, however, like to place on record that the government has already passed legislation which received royal assent on 31 May this year which allows the trustee to pay death benefits to a deceased member's same sex partner where the member nominates the same sex partner to be a beneficiary on the beneficiary form and that partner is a dependant of the deceased member or his or her legal personal representative. That ought to be taken into account when judging the government's position on this matter.As I said, this is very important and positive legislation. It is legislation which has been the result of wide consultation by the government in the community, and I am very pleased to commend the amendments to the House.13:18:0013262Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration revealed himself to be sadly out of touch with the real world in relation to small business. We presented the evidence of the impact of this legislation on small businesses in Manjimup, Townsville, Maroochydore and other parts of Australia where they use do-it-yourself funds—DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Manjimup?UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Indeed. Manjimup got a big run yesterday and today.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—What about Wilson Tuckey's area—regional forest agreements?UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Absolutely. Regrettably, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation has shown no inclination whatsoever to support the town of Manjimup with his support for this legislation and its impact on the Manjimup packing shed, as I outlined to the House earlier. He received representations about this matter. He failed to act on those representations. That is to the detriment of Manjimup and, indeed, the broader Australian community.We have a parliamentary secretary who is sadly out of touch with what is actually going on in small business. He says this is a government which has consulted, but it is a government which has ignored the submissions to the Senate select committee on superannuation concerning the impact of this legislation. Submission after submission said this legislation is not needed, not wanted, and will have an adverse effect on the do-it-yourself funds. Nevertheless, the government chose to ignore those submissions.We were asked what Labor stands for in relation to superannuation. Well, the former Prime Minister said that would make a cat laugh. Labor has been responsible for building up superannuation in this country, creating a pool of superannuation funds in the order of $400 billion where once there was nothing of that kind, and extending superannuation from 40 per cent of the work force, at the time we came to office, to over 90 per cent.This government's obligation in relation to same sex couples is to have that matter considered by the Senate select committee on superannuation so that we can have proper legislation drafted. All the practical issues would be worked through. It was Labor that established superannuation in this country and grew it from something like 40 per cent of the work force to the over 90 per cent of the work force it is today through the implementation of the superannuation guarantee.The parliamentary secretary expressed concern that we were critical of the Democrats. Every time the Democrats choose to function as the third party of the coalition—as the minister says, the third leg of the coalition—we will draw that to the attention of the Australian electorate. As we have been doing with the GST, so we will do in superannuation and every other area where they choose to roll over. They are stared down by Senator Kemp—what a sad fate to be stared down by Senator Kemp—and just do the government's bidding. He is regarded as a joke in the superannuation community, let me tell you.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask the member for Wills to withdraw that reflection on a member of the other house.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—I simply made an observation as a matter of fact that he is regarded as a joke in the superannuation industry and I do not think it is your place to find it offensive on his behalf. I do not think the standing orders provide you with that entitlement. UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—It has been a robust debate, there has been a lot of interjection, so let us continue with the debate.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is regrettable the Democrats have seen fit to be party to this legislation which the government has not been able to demonstrate any genuine need for, when the evidence before the senate committee provided no support for that, nor did the evidence we have seen in submissions to us all. Indeed, there are many people on the government side of the House who know that we are right in relation to this and are happy to talk to us privately in the corridors about these matters. As a result, we are not prepared to support the government's legislation and are not prepared to support government amendments 1 to 4.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills13263r96813263Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.1326313:23:0013263Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill contains a number of measures relating to the government's reform of tax administration and, in particular, the rules for the collection and payment of tax and other liabilities under the pay-as-you-go system. The bill will complete the PAYG arrangements for certain trustees by specifying how their PAYG instalments are to be calculated. It will also ensure that PAYG instalments paid by life assurance companies and other organisations with superannuation business are calculated on the same basis as the instalments paid by superannuation funds.The bill will provide for loan repayments under the Student Financial Supplement Scheme and Abstudy to be collected under PAYG. This will align the collection arrange ments for those loan repayments with the arrangements for the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, or HECS. A number of minor technical and consequential amendments will also be made by this bill to facilitate the introduction of the new PAYG system. Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum which is circulated to all honourable members.I commend the bill to the house. I present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr McClelland) adjourned.Bills13264r93513264Debate resumed from 13 October, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.13:25:0013264McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—We agree to the substance of the principles contained in the Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1999 . However, we will move several amendments. I understand that shortly those amendments which we have recently finalised will be circulated to government members and other speakers.I think it is fair to say that this issue has been around since the 1995 case of Teoh in the High Court of Australia, as an issue confronting both the former government and this government. But at the outset of this debate I want to take away an element of controversy which was revealed, firstly, in a media release of 6 March 1998, issued by the current Attorney-General. He opened his press release with:Labor's continuing opposition to the government's administrative law reforms has allowed an illegal entrant, who is also a convicted drug offender, to remain in Australia despite the government's repeated attempts to deport him.The Attorney went on in his press release to refer to Teoh's case and also the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the need for legislation, which is contained in this bill, to override that decision. That is the first example.The second example is an answer to a question without notice from Mr Barresi. Mr Ruddock, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, took the same opportunity effectively to accuse the Australian Labor Party of standing in the way of deportation of criminals because, the government alleged, we were standing in the way of a previous bill which mirrored this Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1999 . I will not read out the Minister's reply to that question without notice, but, again, it was one which was entirely misleading, and unfortunately so, because both the Attorney-General and the minister have sought to malign a very significant treaty, the Convention on the Rights of the Child.Why do I say that they are completely wrong? They are completely wrong because since 1992—bearing in mind that the original decision in Teoh's case was made in 1991—the criminal deportation policy of the government has specifically required those administering the policy to have regard to the principles contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is reaffirmed by the current Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The new policy specifically says:The government takes very seriously its obligation to protect all elements of the Australian community and, in particular, the most vulnerable people within it. The government bears a special responsibility to protect children.It goes on:Therefore, I, Philip Maxwell Ruddock, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, hereby declare the following guidelines . . . The primary considerations—and they are headed `Primary Considerations'—are set out in paragraph 6 of the guidelines. Those primary considerations are:In making a decision whether or not to deport a non-citizen, there are two primary considerations,(a) the expectations of the Australian community—and the next is the relevant one—(b) in all cases involving a parental relationship between a child, or children, and the potential deportee the best interests of the child, or the children.The guidelines then go on to expand the relevant criteria that have to be applied in considering as a primary consideration the best interests of the child.So to suggest that the principle in Teoh's case is now an impediment to the deportation of criminals is wrong and grossly misleading—offensively so, irresponsibly so, because it involves a process of maligning a fundamentally important human rights treaty which has been signed by just about every nation in the world, the Convention on the Rights of the Child.I want to put on the record very firmly that the government has acted with gross irresponsibility in that tactic of trying to accuse the opposition of standing in the way of deportation of criminals. Again I repeat that the fact that the migration officials considering issues of deportation are specifically required by those guidelines to which I have referred to have regard, as a primary consideration, to the best interests of the child or the children involved. So any emotion, any sensationalism which those in the government may want to bring into this debate, is firmly dismissed by those guidelines, and I hope they will have regard to those and will not be repeating the entirely false, grossly misleading representations contained in the press release and in the minister's reply to a question on notice.But the effect of the bill, as I have said, is substantially to overcome the effects of the decision in the High Court of Australia in The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Teoh. In that case the High Court held that where an international agreement is ratified by Australia, a legitimate expectation arises that the administrators will have regard to that treaty in fulfilling their obligations of procedural fairness.It is important to discuss there the concept of `legitimate expectation', which is an element of the rules of procedural fairness. In other words, the fact that the administrators considering, for example, the deportation of a person convicted of a crime have to have regard to a convention as a legitimate expectation simply means that the person has a right to present argument as to how that convention applies to their individual circumstances. It will not control or determine the day. It is simply giving them the opportunity to argue their case relevantly in terms of the provisions of that treaty to the administrator. So that is all we are talking about in respect of legitimate expectation.Before Teoh's case it was generally conceded that there were four elements to the concept. One was that where there had been a regular course of conduct which would suggest that someone had an expectation, it would continue. Express or implied assurances made by an administrator or someone in the executive arm of government was the second. A third was where there were going to be significant consequences by departing from that expectation either in terms of economic loss or damage to reputation. The fourth was where someone had satisfied statutory criteria. I think it is fair to say that Teoh's case added a fifth criterion to that concept of legitimate expectation and that is where Australia has entered into an international treaty and has specifically ratified an international treaty.In terms of international treaties, I should say that they have unquestionably influenced the construction of not only the constitution, but also other legislation and subordinate legislation. It is also clear on authorities of the High Court that an international convention may play a part in the development by the courts of the common law in this country. There are now numerous decisions of both state Supreme Courts and the High Court of Australia to that effect.So, while we have a situation where treaties are of relevance to Australia, the criticism of Teoh is that it went too far in so far as it is the responsibility of the executive arm of government, relevantly ministers, to enter into treaties and to ratify those treaties. The criticism of the High Court's decision in Teoh was that it effectively gave the executive the power to make law to the extent that it creat ed a legitimate expectation which then had to be applied by administrators.Two ministers in the former Labor government with carriage of and responsibility in this area—the former Senator Gareth Evans as Minister for Foreign Affairs, as he then was, and Michael Lavarch, the Attorney-General—shortly after the Teoh decision issued a statement expressing that it was not the intention of the executive that treaties so ratified would have that effect. But difficulties do arise from the decision in Teoh.I have to say that the fear and the apprehension that it was going to have broader effects have largely subsided with the passage of time. Nevertheless, the Australian Labor Party recognises three problems which require addressing through legislation. The first two were identified in the dissenting judgment of Justice McHugh in the Teoh case. In respect of the first one, he said:If the result of ratifying an international convention was to give rise to a legitimate expectation that that convention would be applied in Australia, the executive government of the Commonwealth would have effectively amended the law of this country.To the extent that it created a legitimate expectation applying in the exercise of procedural fairness, that statement is correct. I think it is important, particularly in this day and age where all the research suggests that there is much public disdain for what the people regard as the political elite—indeed, contempt, I think it is fair to say, for members of the executive, in some cases justified, in some cases not—that members of the public are reassured that it is not the responsibility of the executive to make law. I think that the thrust of this bill is important in that respect.The second consequence of the Teoh decision which gave concern to Justice McHugh was, to use his words:The consequences for administrative decision-makers in this country would be enormous.He referred to the fact there are currently about 900 treaties; I think there may be even more now. As His Honour pointed out:Only a small percentage of them has been enacted into law. Administrative decision-makers would have to ensure that their decision-making complied with every relevant convention. I have to stop and just contemplate there which member of the parliament would be able to list those 900-odd treaties. I doubt whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the shadow foreign minister would have the capacity to do that. I think it is completely unrealistic to expect all administrators discharging their public service obligations to be aware of the totality of those conventions, how they interact with one another and specifically how they apply to the tasks which they are required by statute, regulations and statutory rules to perform.I think it is fair to say that to allow that position to remain would be an abdication of the responsibility of the parliament. It is very much our position that there are a number of very important treaties that exist in Australia and people should not be under the misapprehension that treaties exist only in the human rights area. There are fundamentally important treaties regarding defence and intelligence cooperation; cooperation in respect of criminal law enforcement; extradition of criminals; combating the drug trade; protecting our environment; and trade and investment. There is a whole range of occupational health and safety treaty obligations and, indeed, there are numerous treaties of the International Labour Organisation which underpin to some extent, if they were applied at least, safe and fair working conditions in an environment where, increasingly, countries are coming under pressure to undercut each other's trade competitiveness by undercutting the terms and conditions of employees within those countries. To have a safe and secure underbase of ILO conventions is at least some guard against that trend of globalisation.So treaties have a broad range of significance to Australia. This brings me to a third issue which was not considered by Justice McHugh: that is, the perception that exists in some elements of the community, regrettably some extreme elements of the community, that international treaties are part of some international plot to usurp Australia's political system. They are not that. The fact that Australia enters into an international treaty is effectively a declaration of our sovereignty as a nation, willingly entering into that treaty as an independent nation for our own interests. We effectively contract with other nations, either on a bilateral basis or a multilateral basis, and the fact that we do that is a declaration of our sovereignty.It is important that we negate that perception that treaties are some form of an evil plot because, as I have said, there are so many fundamentally important treaties to our trade, our defence, our environment and our working conditions. It is important that Australians are educated and learn that treaties have fundamental importance and that we take away apprehensions, nervousness, anxiety—or even at the most extreme and paranoid example—a perception that there is some international plot going on. So with respect to this third area, the substance of the bill is justified, if only to the extent that it will reduce that anxiety. As I said, treaties have a very important part to play in Australia's welfare, both domestically and internationally.In relation to what has happened since the Teoh decision was handed down on 7 April 1995, I have referred to the statement of Gareth Evans and Michael Lavarch on 10 May 1995. This government followed a similar route on 27 February 1997. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Attorney-General similarly issued a statement, declaring on behalf of the government that `the act of entering into a treaty does not give rise to legitimate expectations in administrative law which could form the basis for challenging any administrative decision from today's date.'Subsequently, the government introduced the predecessor to this bill, the Administrative Decisions (Effective International Instruments) Bill 1997, which lapsed on the prorogation of parliament prior to the last election. It is effectively this bill which has reintroduced that legislation, with one small change. Again, I stress that the Australian Labor Party is supporting the substance of the bill.Our amendments, which should be being circulated at this time, will be proposing a change in respect to recognising that treaties have effect under Australian domestic law only to the extent that they have been incorporated into legislation or that their sub stance has been incorporated into Australian domestic law by operation of the common law—that is, where the substance of the treaty itself has been incorporated into Australia's domestic law rather than the effect of a treaty by virtue of the Teoh analysis. That will be the difference between the government and the Labor Party at the end of the day when we are considering these amendments.In considering these amendments, we are aware that clause 7 of the bill specifically preserves the operation of treaties in other respects. It says:To avoid doubt, section 5—which negates the effect of Teoh—does not affect any other operation or effect, or use that may be made, of an international instrument in Australian law.There are numerous pronouncements of the High Court as to how conventions can be used to assist in the construction of legislation and also with respect to the development of Australia's common law. The most frequently cited passage, I think it is fair to say, is from a decision of Chief Justice Brennan in Mabo and Others v. Queensland (No. 2), which was a 1992 decision. His Honour said in that case, for instance:The opening up of international remedies to individuals pursuant to Australia's accession to the optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights . . . brings to bear on the common law the powerful influence of the covenant and the international standards it imports. The common law does not necessarily conform with international law but international law is a legitimate and important influence on the development of the common law, especially when international law declares the existence of universal human rights.So it is essentially that judicial authority that the opposition will be picking up in its amendments, saying that if the substance of a treaty has been incorporated into Australia's domestic law by operation of the common law—that is, decisions made by judges—it is appropriate in those circumstances for administrators to have regard to those treaties as equally as if that treaty or the substance of the treaty had been incorporated into legislation by an act of parliament.I have gone on to criticise the government for maligning the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I should also say that a number of other vitally important human rights treaties exist in Australia. They are set out in the Human Rights and Equal Community Commission Act 1996 as instruments of international significance. They include, for instance: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Labour Organisation Discrimination in Employment and Occupation Convention, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the Declaration of the Rights of Disabled Persons, the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion and Belief.We have other fundamental laws that protect Australia's human rights. We have the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which is based on an international treaty; the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which is also based on an international treaty; the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, which is also based on an international treaty; and also, controversially but importantly, the Privacy Act 1988. Moves to take privacy protections into the private sector will be based on international conventions.There are a number of vitally important international conventions. The position of the Australian Labor Party is that Teoh's case needs to be overturned for three reasons. Firstly, it should not be the case that the executive is even perceived as being involved in a law-making capacity. Under our Westminster system, it is for the parliament to make laws and for the executive to implement those laws. That is the first point.The second point that I have made is that it would be a complete and total abdication of parliament's responsibility to require administrators to have regard to the whole box and dice of 900 treaties in discharging their public service obligations, in figuring out what treaties interrelate to each other and in applying those to their functions as public servants. That is the second point.The third point is that there is unquestionably in some elements of the community, albeit sometimes some extreme elements of the community, a perception that international treaties have the potential to undermine Australia's political sovereignty. To take away that baseless fear and concern, this legislation is justified in pointing out that the mere fact that a treaty has been ratified does not have that effect.Having made those three points, I say to the government that there are a number of fundamentally important treaties—those treaties I have referred to in the human rights area—which Australians are entitled to have applied to their daily lives and which Australians are entitled to expect administrators will apply in the discharge of their responsibilities. I think the government should be doing much more to draw to the attention of administrators, specifically through enactment, their obligations under those treaties and to educate not only administrators but also members of the public about the existence of those obligations.I have come full circle to where I started, condemning the government for maligning the effect of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is entirely baseless. The government, with considerable regret, has been sitting on a report of the Joint Select Committee on Treaties, which was handed down in August 1998. I was on the committee. It is an excellent and unanimous report in circumstances where government members originally engaged in the task with some suspicion of the effects of the treaty. At the end of the day, at the end of all the evidence and analysis, we saw that the principles contained in the treaty were fundamentally sound.While we generally consider that our children in Australia are far luckier than most, there are still numerous areas where that is not the case. There are still about 10,000 cases of child abuse and neglect reported every year. There is rising youth suicide, youth homelessness and massive disadvantage, whether we like it or not, in educational and social opportunities. Importantly, the treaties committee recommended the establishment of an office for children, gave guidelines as to how that work should be undertaken and the importance of emphasising support for families as protectors and nurturers of children—as well as their own circumstances where children as individuals need protection, development and nurturing as future Australians.While we support the thrust of this legislation, the government should be doing much more in the human rights area. It should stop this irresponsible attempt to malign the effects of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and it should implement immediately some of the major recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Treaties on the Convention on the Rights of the Child.13:52:0013269Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—The Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1999 , or the content of the bill, in this form or similar, has been debated in this parliament on numerous occasions since the first version was introduced by a Labor government in 1995. If ever there was a bill that has been examined for its intent, its impact and its implication, it would have to be this one. I looked up the Hansard record this morning and found no less than 43 utterances on this bill or its predecessor bills in this House since 1995. The detail of this bill—or its predecessors—has been analysed by a variety of speakers from both sides. On three separate occasions the Attorney-General of the day has made a second reading speech. This legislation has been referred to various committees and it has been debated extensively in the other place. There have been enunciations by almost everyone who has a law degree or a passing familiarity with one and who has passed through this House over the past four years or so.This morning I read the last effort of the member for Barton on the previous bill in June 1997 when it was introduced. On that occasion the member for Barton supported the bill's predecessor. He was not looking to amend it then. In looking back through Hansard one is struck by the shifting positions of the Labor Party members. They introduced a similar bill and, of course, supported it. After they lost government we introduced a similar bill and they supported it. As it lapsed, we again introduced it and now they want to amend it.I have not read the amendments yet but the picture that emerges over time is one of either a disappointing display of political opportunism or Labor trying to save face, and, in saving face, it seems Labor has two. Nothing in this bill, nor in the bill introduced by the opposition when in government, detracts from Australia's international human rights reputation. Nor does this bill—and neither did Labor's bill—breach our obligations in that regard. Labor rejected that notion in 1995 and again in 1997 but now it makes up for its own lack of policy by doing an about face on principles and policies it once held.Perhaps the member for Barton is attempting to deflect any memory of Labor's approach to the treaty making process that highlighted the impact of the Teoh case and all the secrecy that surrounded the government's treaty making at that time. This government has revised the treaty procedures, giving a greater role to the parliament, the states and territories and the community in the treaty process, ensuring that treaties are scrutinised before ratification. But this does not obviate the need for the legislation to deal with the effects of the Teoh decision, particularly because of the manner in which Labor made Australia a party to numerous treaties during its time in government.Given the level of debate that has already taken place, it is difficult not to be repetitious, but I remind the House that this bill is a response to the High Court decision in the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Teoh, which was delivered on 7 April 1995. In that case the High Court decided that the act of entering into a treaty gives rise to a legitimate expectation that an administrative decision maker will act consistently with the treaty. If, on appeal, the relevant administrative decision is found to be inconsistent with the treaty, it will be held invalid unless the applicant has been given an opportunity to be heard on the issue.The High Court held that these legitimate expectations could be set aside by executive or legislative indications to the contrary. The purpose of the bill, therefore, is to set aside the legitimate expectations that might arise out of entry into a treaty; that is, it is a legislative indication to the contrary. The purpose is to ensure that the executive act of entering into a treaty does not give rise to legitimate expectations in administrative law.I recite the facts of the case only briefly just to put this bill in context and to remind members opposite why they put up a bill in the first place. Mr Teoh was a Malaysian citizen who came to Australia in May 1988 and was granted a temporary entry permit. In July that year he married an Australian citizen. At the time of the marriage Mrs Teoh had four children. Later the couple had three more. In October 1988, he applied for and was granted a further temporary entry permit which allowed him to remain in Australia until February 1989. Before that permit expired he applied for a permanent entry permit, a grant of resident status. In 1990, when his application for resident status was still pending, he was convicted of offences relating to the importation of heroin and received a sentence of imprisonment.In January 1991 he was informed that his application for resident status had been refused because he did not satisfy the good character requirements—because of his criminal record. On review, the Immigration Review Tribunal recommended that the delegates' decision to refuse permanent resident status be affirmed. He was to be deported. In reaching the decision the panel did not ignore the interests of the children. Claims on compassionate grounds were put forward, but those grounds were not considered to be compelling enough for the waiver of the policy of good character requirements for a permanent resident visa.Mr Teoh appealed to the Federal Court. At first instance his claim was dismissed, but he appealed to the Full Court, which found in his favour. The then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs appealed to the High Court, which also decided in favour of Mr Teoh. The decision to deport Mr Teoh was stayed until the application for the grant of resident status be reconsidered and determined.In reaching its decision, the High Court relied heavily on the Convention of the Rights of the Child, a treaty that had not been incorporated into Australia law. The court focused on article 3(1), which provides as follows:In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.I remind the House that the then Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Senator Gareth Evans, and the then Attorney-General, Mr Michael Lavarch, issued a press release on 10 May 1995 which was said `to clarify the position following the recent decision in the Teoh case'. Senator Evans and Mr Lavarch stated on behalf of the then government:Entering into an international treaty is not reason for raising any legitimate expectation that government decision-makers will act in accordance with the treaty if the relevant provisions of that treaty have not been enacted into domestic Australian law.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Questions Without Notice132701327013270McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, yesterday you referred to some well-known charity organisations such as the Salvation Army. I want to ask a question today about a less well-known one, the Greenfields Foundation. Prime Minister, do you recall being asked on Radio National this morning whether you would support Senate moves to prevent tax deductibility for donations to sham charities which provide financial support to any political party? Do you recall your response: `I'll have a look at it and I'll address the issue that you've raised'? Prime Minister, why did all the coalition senators vote against this amendment in the Senate this morning? Prime Minister, will you guarantee that, when the amendments come back to the House, your government will support them to ensure that no financial supporter of any political party can gain tax benefits by posing as a charity?13271Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I can assure the House that, when the legislation comes back from the other place, the government members will support the right course of action.1327113271Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House of the latest ABS figures on the labour force? How has the government achieved its goal of reducing unemployment? What action is the government taking to reduce the level of unemployment even further? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative policies in this area?13271Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am very pleased to inform the House that the ABS data released this morning showed that Australia's rate of unemployment has fallen to 6.7 per cent. That is the lowest level of unemployment that this country has had since June 1990. It contrasts with, for example, a level of 11.2 per cent when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. The current unemployment rate of 6.7 per cent compares with a rate of 7.5 per cent prevailing in January 1999. Furthermore, in the first 11 months of 1999 and with one month's data to come, a total of 195,000 new jobs have been created. The total job creation under the coalition government now stands at 568,000. There is no economic indicator of which the members of the coalition are more proud than the fact that under this government in less than four years we have created 568,000 new jobs. This is a product of strong economic growth, an excellent productivity performance, budget surpluses, low inflation and low interest rates. All of those things have contributed to this outstanding performance.While welcoming the fall in national unemployment, I recognise that unemployment rates vary very considerably across the country. Parts of Sydney now have unemployment rates at or below two per cent; the Northern Territory, 3.5 per cent; and the Darling Downs area of Queensland, four per cent. By contrast, in regions such as Wide Bay-Burnett, Western Adelaide, the Richmond-Tweed and the Mersey-Lisle in Tasmania, the unemployment rate is still unacceptably high at above 10 per cent. That highlights the need for both sides of politics to get behind further policy to further reduce unemployment.I can say, speaking for this side of politics, that we do have policies to further reduce unemployment, but I can find no policies on the other side. As it is with the GST, so it is with the labour market. The Leader of the Opposition, the nowhere man, is bereft of any policy alternatives. He has had almost four years now to generate an alternative, and all he has done is to obstruct and oppose virtually every attempt made by the coalition government to reduce unemployment. He ought to take a leaf out of the book of somebody that I thought he might have been philosophically a little closer to than perhaps some of his critics from the centre right here in Australia. I refer in particular to Gene Sperling, who is a principal economic adviser to President Clinton—hardly, I might say, a darling of the far right or even the centre right in American politics. In an analysis of Sperling's advice and attitudes on economic policy to Clinton, an author had this to say:Sperling saw that lower deficits, by sparking private investment, did more for the disadvantaged than he and others on the left had imagined. Lower interest rates and steady expansion forced businesses to reach into the fringes of the labour market, bringing the unskilled into the work force and training them more effectively than any government program could possibly do.They are the words of somebody who is an adviser to the centre left of politics in the United States. It recognises the conventional wisdom, which is now shared by both parts of the political divide in many countries, that what you need if you are going to reduce unemployment is policies that encourage economic growth, encourage investment and encourage business risk taking. You need programs that are going to boost the business sector in order to drive unemployment down. The Leader of the Opposition interjects that the only reason this has fallen is because of the participation rate. It is true that the participation rate has not risen in line with the growth in the economy as much as many may have expected. But one of the reasons why the participation rate has declined is that, because interest rates are now lower as a result of other government policy, there is not the same economic pressure on families to be two-income families.If you look at the graph of the participation rate in earlier periods when unemployment has fallen and there has been economic growth, you get a completely different pattern. This is a very good figure, but it is not a cause for complacency or a suggestion to this government—and nor do we take it as such—that it has in any way finished the job on unemployment. There are still too many Australians out of work, but at least we have made solid progress. We have generated 570,000 jobs, we have had policies and we have had the courage of our policy commitment. In contrast, after four years the Labor Party is bereft of an alternative and bereft of any capacity to tackle the problem of unemployment in this country and, day by day, it denies the interests of the unemployed whom it claims to represent in this place.1327213272Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—There are 6,000 fewer people in the work force this month than last month.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question or resume his seat.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Are you aware that, according to the GST manual of the Department of Finance and Administration, the Commonwealth government will not be increasing grants to charities by 10 per cent to compensate for the GST that will apply to the grant? Doesn't this advice indicate that `the gross up will be significantly less than the 10 per cent GST'? Isn't this just a clever way for the government to cut the real level of grants to charities at a time when they will be struggling with GST compliance costs?13272Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As will be made clear in a statement to be made by the Treasurer this afternoon, the arrangement in relation to these payments to charities will be that there will be a grossing up of 10 per cent. So what the Leader of the Opposition is saying is not correct.1327213272Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of any further information relating to the allegations made yesterday by the member for Lowe about a former nursing home resident being forced to sell his home to secure a place in a nursing home?13272Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As a result of the matter raised yesterday by the member for Lowe—who tabled the document that he mentioned in his question—I would remind the House that the member, in asking the question, drew my attention to a statement that I made in, I think, November or December 1997 in which I said:I can categorically say to anybody now who goes into a nursing home . . . that under no circumstances will you have to sell your family home.As a result of getting the document, I have sought some advice from the Department of Health and Aged Care. I would like to inform the House of the result of that because there is a legitimate interest in this allegation not only by the member for Lowe but also by the community. I am advised by the department that the gentleman in question entered Cardinal Stepinac hostel—not nursing home—on 3 December 1998. He died on 8 April 1999 while resident at the hostel. On 13 August 1999, the department received an unsigned copy of a deed transferring his home to the hostel.I am advised that the facility he entered is a hostel whose right to seek a refundable contribution prior to entry remains the same as was the case under the policy of the former government—the Labor government. It has been, I am told once again, not uncommon for people entering hostels to sell their homes as a means of financing refundable hostel entry contributions. However, no hostel has any right to apply any coercion to a person to secure that contribution. I am further informed that the matter is being handled by the Aged Care Complaints Resolutions Scheme. Offic ers are currently collating information from people who had contact with the deceased and they have not yet been able to make contact with all the relevant people. Following the fact collation stage, the department will provide a report to the complainant. From then on, there are a number of courses available.I think the honourable member for Lowe and the House would be aware that the Cardinal Stepinac Association has issued a statement denying the allegations and denying coercion. There is apparently a difference of view on that between the association and the late gentleman's solicitor, in particular, who is very heavily involved not only as a lawyer but also in other ways in this matter. I will continue to press the department and the minister to ensure that there is a full investigation. But I make the point that this gentleman, on all the information available to me, did not enter a nursing home under the nursing home policy of the government, as the member for Lowe implied in his question. He in fact entered a hostel.As is well known by members on both side of this House, a policy introducing accommodation bonds for hostels was introduced by the former Labor government many years ago. That policy has continued and it has involved, as would be expected, quite a number of people who, in wanting to go into a hostel, have sold their home in order to provide the accommodation bond. So I invite the member for Lowe and I invite others to further investigate this matter because it would appear, on the information currently available to me, that the member for Lowe has misrepresented me and the position of the government.It remains our view that no person, whether from a nursing home or hostel, has any right to coerce anybody into selling their home, but to suggest—on the evidence available to me and on the information I have been given—that in some way the document you tabled yesterday represents a breach of the undertaking that I gave in November 1997 and to which you referred is wrong. That undertaking stands. We stand by our nursing home policy. This man, on my information, entered the hostel under the policy of the Labor government led by Mr Hawke and Mr Keating which was, in relation to hostels, continued by my government.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the House has come to order, I will recognise the member for Lilley.Mr Pyne interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Sturt is warned.1327313273Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is to the Prime Minister. Following your previous answer to the Leader of the Opposition, isn't there a shocking admission in the finance department's GST manual that says:The risk is that grossing up a grant . . . places the cash flow problem on the agency, namely once the grant is paid there is a time lag before the input tax credit is received.Prime Minister, won't agencies be paying the GST up front without proper adjustment of their grant and without immediate access to input tax credits, leaving them significantly out of pocket? How can you argue that you would be the last person in Australia who wants to damage charities, when that is exactly what you are doing?13273Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In relation to the last part of the honourable member's question, I have already indicated that the Treasurer will be making a statement about this matter later today and I do not therefore propose to add to that.DT4CREANMr Crean—Is this a statement in the House?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that question time gives him the opportunity to ask questions when called.2V5SWANMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: could the Prime Minister inform us where the statement will be made?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley will resume his seat. That is not a valid point of order.1327413274Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—My question is directed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer provide a comparison of the Australian economy at Christmas 1999 with the economy at Christmas 1995? Will he identify which changes in policy have had major effects benefiting families and businesses? Are there any alternative policies that may even improve this situation?13274Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Fadden for his question. He asks me to compare Christmas 1995—the last Christmas of the last Labor government—with this year and to highlight the changes that have occurred in the four years since the coalition was elected. It is an interesting stocktake to do.Inflation through the year to the September quarter 1999 was 1.7 per cent; for the comparable period to September 1995 it was 5.1 per cent. Productivity grew by 2.4 per cent through the year to June 1999; over the same period in 1995, productivity growth fell by 0.2 per cent. Over the year to the June quarter 1999, real wages grew by 3.7 per cent; over the same period in 1995, real wages growth under Labor was? Zero.Over the year to November 1995, Labor's last Christmas, the unemployment rate was 8.5 per cent; over the year to November 1999, the unemployment rate was 6.7 per cent. At November 1999 variable mortgage interest rates were 6.8 per cent; in the 1995 year, Labor's last Christmas, the variable mortgage interest rate was 10.5 per cent. Over the year to June 1998, the budget recorded a cash surplus of $4.2 billion; over the year to June 1995 coming into Labor's last Christmas, the budget was in deficit by $13.2 billion.That is an indication on inflation, growth, productivity, the budget, variable mortgage rates and jobs of some of the things that have been achieved in Australia over the last four years. That is what economic policy does.Mr Horne interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—I hear the interjection coming from the member for Paterson but I do not need to hear it to know that the one thing it will not relate to is a policy. The Labor Party has no policy on the economy, no policy on monetary policy, no policy on interest rates, no policy on the reduction of debt, no policy on business tax and no policy on indirect tax.As the Leader of the Opposition himself said, what he hopes to do is surf back into office on the GST wave. As the member for Wentworth said to me, some kind of modern Midget Farrelly on a surfboard coming back in—not on any policy that he has thought up, not on any position that he has—but Midget Farrelly leading the Labor Party on a surfboard back on the wave of the GST.You have never seen a self-analysis like you saw from the Leader of the Opposition when he was asked what he would actually do with GST. His policy up until now has been to bring back the wholesale sales tax, to bring Australia back into line, as the Labor Party loves it, with the modern taxation systems of Botswana and Swaziland. Then he says that it may not be the wholesale sales tax. He now says, `Maybe we will have the GST. Perhaps we will just roll it back.' The first question he is asked is: roll back where, how much and how is he going to pay for it? His answer was that he is on an uncharted road with an unknown destination—a leadership summed up by the John Lennon song Nowhere man. The `Nowhere Man' on an uncharted road to an unknown destination surfing back on the GST with a policy which is taking him nowhere and more likely to lead to a dumper than to any beach return.1327413274Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister read the tax ruling concerning vouchers that are provided to poor families to help them buy food and clothing and to pay bills, which says:. . . the introduction of the GST may mean that a voucher will purchase less of some items?Next year when your government is handing out the Christmas emergency relief grants to community organisations will you be increasing all grants, so that vouchers can retain their value at local shops? Or will you be short- changing organisations like Anglicare South East in Eden, the Smith Family in Nowra and in Camperdown, the Casino Neighbourhood Centre, Parramatta Community Services and Centacare in Townsville?13275Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I know the matter of food vouchers has been raised by the National Tax and Accountants Association. No doubt, that is where the Labor Party fishes around for most of its questions. The point I make in relation to food vouchers, of course, is that a food voucher for the same amount under the new taxation system is going to buy more, because food—Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—It is an obvious proposition. Food is GST free. Those people who are selling food get all of their input tax credits back. Food is GST free. As a result the vouchers will get more.In relation to grants to charitable organisations, as the Prime Minister said, as a result of charities being GST free and getting input tax credits back, their cost of operations will fall. The government has decided that it will be grossing up the grants by 10 per cent so that the charities will be netting the reduction in cost. If I may say so, this is something that the Labor Party never worried about. They never worried about the embedded cost to charities.We know this shameless attack for what it is: an elaborate cover for a party which has no policy and no capacity to make a decision. It is a party on an uncharted road with a destination unknown, led by a nowhere man. If that is the best that Australian Labor can do, it deserves to be in opposition. The only lucky thing for it is that as yet it has not been subject to the scrutiny that it will be subject to as it goes into its fifth year of opposition still without a policy, still without a position, still without any capacity to give any hope or leadership to the Australian people, and still sitting in opposition as a result.Mr Horne interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I just remind the member for Paterson that I did not treat him consistently with the treatment I dished out to the member for Sturt because the Treasurer had encouraged him to participate in the debate. But I ask him to exercise a little more restraint.1327513275Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, would you inform the House of the action taken by the government this year in the area of employment, workplace relations and small business? How have the government's policies benefited the Australian people? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies in these areas?Opposition members interjecting—13275Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Kooyong. Given the interjections, I will start by reminding the House that one of our great achievements this year was to save the jobs of 200,000 young people as a result of retaining the aged based junior rates system, a great victory for young people. Today's unemployment numbers are at 6.7 per cent, but on the trend rate we have the equal lowest figure since July 1990—clear evidence that fixing the problems created by Labor is presenting real benefits to the Australian community. The Public Service Bill is an important change to workplace relations in the public sector, moving away from paid rates to minimum rates.We have had growth in real wages. According to the ACTU, one of the proudest boasts Australia can make is an increase in real wages for low income people, since we have been in, of 9.1 per cent. AWAs are an innovation in our reforms, going through at 3,000 and 4,000 a month. There are 1,600 non-union collective agreements, covering 160,000 people—real progress providing real benefits to Australian workers. Whilst we are seeing disputes rising in the Labor states, the overall national scene as a result—Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—It is a fact. In New South Wales the place is ablaze with industrial action by all of your left-wing mates in the public sector. Despite the Labor Party's efforts to increase disputes—Mr Tanner interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Melbourne.WI4Mr REITH—disputes have been at their lowest level since 1913. For small business, labour costs have been controlled, whilst wages have been increasing. We have had substantial reform in major export industries which create jobs and boost living standards in the mining industry. Getting rid of tallies is a real boost for the meat industry. On the waterfront there are the best ever crane figures—again, productivity improvements providing benefits to everyone.Yesterday my second deal for the year with the Labor Party saw the passage of equal employment legislation for women. One of the good things in that—the result of an amendment suggested by the opposition, which we took up—means no filling out of forms for business next year. There are no forms until April 2001, together with other streamlining measures to reduce red tape. We announced this year a doubling of resources for indigenous employment, giving real assistance to those most disadvantaged.My colleague the Minister for Employment Services has done a very good job again with Employment National, delivering benefits to Australians—good for employers and particularly good for people who are unemployed. For small business we have been cutting red tape. With the biggest ever income tax cut in Australia's history we are delivering real benefits through major tax reform—a tremendous boost to the business community.Lastly, the halving of the capital gains tax is a policy measure which will warm the hearts of every small business person in the country. It is putting incentive back into the system, and that means more jobs. The Labor Party should cancel all holidays, except for a couple of weeks, and they should be out there selling the benefits of our joint policy. Reducing capital gains tax is great news for small business. Lastly: are there any alternative policies? It is like a desert on the other side.Government members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—And the surf breaking on the adjoining beach. They do not have any poli cies. I note that back on 15 July, in his press release the then shadow minister for employment called on the government to `commit to a community debate on unemployment'. The only debate has been on our side. You have no policies. You only ever do what you are told by the ACTU. Only occasionally do you have the good sense to develop a policy, and that is our policy. Whether it is employment opportunity for women or capital gains tax, it has been a good year for small business.1327613276McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will services which provide supported employment to people with disabilities all have to charge GST—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Stirling is not being assisted at all by colleagues on her side of the House. She will start her question again.83CMs JANN McFARLANE—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will services which provide supported employment to people with disabilities all have to charge GST on the goods and services they sell, including the packets of lollies sold at Christmas time, ironing services and plants sold in local nurseries? I quote the relevant tax ruling:If the disability service business produces commercial supplies then those supplies will be subject to GST.Won't the government now be taking its cut from the money raised by people with disabilities—money which should go to improving their living standard and not into government coffers?13276Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The situation is not as outlined in the final part of the honourable member's question. There will not be a cut taken. I do not think the honourable member made allowance for the impact of the removal of wholesale sales tax. The principles of the application of the new system have already been clearly enunciated. I will analyse the example that the honourable member has given against those principles and, if there is any further information that ought to be supplied, it will be.1327713277Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister advise the House of progress made during 1999 in delivering the government's policy agenda for transport and regional services? How will this benefit the nation, and country areas in particular? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies in this area?LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—When are you going to release those railway reports?13277Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—We are fixing railways.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman! The Deputy Prime Minister will come to the question and ignore the interjection from the member for Batman.4K4Mr ANDERSON—There are a whole range of areas where we have been very active, and I think we have a good story to tell. I will work through some of the areas. In aviation we have got a new and measured approach to aviation safety reform. We have got the further liberalisation of Australia's international air services policy. In fact, we have now opened up so much capacity that it is not being filled. We have granted Virgin Airlines foreign investment approval to start a new domestic airline in Australia. Perhaps in keeping with the old story that if an aeroplane lands safely you do not hear about it, but if one does not you get a problem, I point out something that I am very proud of and that all Australians ought to be very proud of: Airservices Australia has just won the Eagle award from the International Air Transport Association as the best provider of air traffic services in the world. Out of 250 air traffic service providers, ours won—the best in the world this year.Now I come to maritime services: I heard the previous speaker mention that we have the highest crane rates on record in this country. On waterfront reform: there have been 1,400 voluntary stevedoring redundancies at no cost to the taxpayer. There has been a $30 million tax reduction for Australian shipping in fuel cost reductions. A review of part 10 of the Trade Practices Act is now complete, and a board review of the Navigation Act was initiated in August—an issue put in the too-hard basket for years by the previous government. We have made real progress with infrastructure. IBTOS concessions have been applied to the eastern gas pipeline. There are the City Link extension project, the Adelaide airport multi-user terminal, the Botany Co- Generation facility, the Brisbane cruise port and, more recently, the Walsh Point coal terminal in Newcastle has been made eligible for the $14 million concession.When it comes to rail, I have a few pointers: 74 per cent of the market share for rail on the Melbourne-Perth corridor. That is one of the largest shares for rail anywhere in the world today. We are cutting the times significantly for a whole range of long distance freight haulage tasks in this country: 2½ hours less for the Melbourne-Adelaide route, for example. When they had a go at reforming it under One Nation the times went up, not down. We have now got it down to 2½ hours. We are looking at three hours from Melbourne to Perth over and above that. In addition there are: $124 million towards a Sydney dedicated through-route for rail; $165 million for the construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line; a feasibility study for the inland rail link from Melbourne to Brisbane; and—I know my predecessor welcomes this—the complete abolition of all of Labor's excise on diesel for rail from the middle of next year. On road transport we have got the uptake of higher mass limits across nearly every Australian state and territory. It is a major GDP boost and very significant in economic terms, with around $840 million per year from higher mass limits being unfolded. We have got an offer on the table to the one state that is still really holding out. We now have significant reforms being made possible through the provision of major resources for new bridges—just to touch of a couple of areas. With regional services, we have the first rural transactions centres—us putting services back into rural and regional Austral ia—the first of them opened by the Prime Minister at Eugowra just a few weeks ago.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—A great morning.4K4Mr ANDERSON—A great morning. They turned out en masse. I can tell you from the mail we have had on this that people appreciate what we are doing, because we are making a real effort to put face-to-face services back in rural areas. We have since had several more openings: at St Marys in Tasmania; at Welshpool in Victoria; at Urana, where the former Deputy Prime Minister opened it; and at Gresford.We now have 58 financial centres under Creditcare going back into rural and regional areas. There is the Rural Communities Program, with $107 million the other day for the Macquarie Rural Advisory Service. Rural Plan has a large number of programs now being progressed under it. The Regional Australia Summit saw 230 delegates here. We have a steering committee, under Professor John Chudleigh, which has now met twice, taking forward those ideas. We have got a governmental task force working in tandem.One of the most interesting things about that is that there are some very interesting community projects. Communities from around Australia that have reinvented their future came forward with their story to tell. I would have to say to the member for New England that none of them can match for impact what he managed last night in Guyra with that extraordinary, and at this stage unidentified, object that landed in a nearby dam. I do not think that anybody can quite match that. We still do not know where it came from or whether anybody has got control of it, or quite what it is going to achieve—WI4REITHMr Reith—It's not a Labor Party policy, is it?4K4Mr ANDERSON—No, no; it has gone to the bottom of the dam but it is not a Labor Party policy. I have to say that it does reflect the fact that nobody has lost their sense of humour in rural and regional Australia. I was amazed to read what one of the locals said of it: The town's water supply has been cut off, and we're asking for a breathalyser-free day because there isn't anything else to drink and we've all got to go down to the pub.He went on to say:If nothing else, by the end of the week a million people will have seen different things land at Guyra.So a sense of humour is alive and well out there.Finally, part of the question was `Are there are any alternative proposals?' Are there any alternative proposals, any leadership at all, any proposals for rural and regional Australia? Anything worth while on rail or on aviation? All we have heard is a description of our slashing of transport costs as being a $7.8 billion boost to pollution. That is all we have heard. It is the only policy they have got: a $7.8 billion dollar boost to pollution.Government members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—It was the member for Dickson. You know, their new-found spokesman for the bush has not repudiated it yet and still regards the cutting of transport costs in Australia by the largest amount ever as nothing more and nothing less than a boost to pollution.1327813278Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Do you stand by your promise that the price of books and other publications won't increase by anything like the full 10 per cent of the GST? Are you aware of a report in this week's Inside Canberra , also carried in your own flyer, that the price of some publications issued under your finance portfolio has just increased by up to 7 per cent, with a full 10 per cent for the GST on top of that for the six months after 1 July? Prime Minister, if your own Finance Department is defying you by whacking on the full 10 per cent GST, how can you expect Australian book publishers to do any different?13278Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—When I made that statement, it was based on all of the advice that I had. I have no reason to believe that that advice was wrong then or would be wrong now but, naturally, I will investigate the honourable member's question, because I have to say that the particular journal to which he referred is not the paper I first read when I get up in the morning.DT4CREANMr Crean—If he does not accept that newsletter, does he accept his own department's publication—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition seeks leave to table a document. Is leave granted?Leave not granted.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—I rise on a point of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition used unparliamentary language then to the Prime Minister. It was the same unparliamentary language that he used earlier in the week, and I again ask him to withdraw.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—On the point of order, Mr Speaker, you yesterday correctly ruled that that term was in fact not unparliamentary. On the confident assumption that you will do so again, there is therefore no need to withdraw.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In fact the language used is not deemed to be unparliamentary—as the Manager of Opposition Business points out and as I was prepared to reinforce without his intervention. I asked the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the statement yesterday, which he did. I ask him now to refrain from using it.1327913279Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Education is an issue of key concern to my constituents in Longman. Would the minister please inform the House how the government's policies in this area have increased the quality of education and opportunities for young people? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies in this area?13279Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Longman for his question; I know how proud he is of the performance of his local high school Birriwa in the National Training Awards this year. The focus of the government's policies this year on education and training has been on widening access to quality education and training for all young Australians and improving thereby their job prospects. At the very top of the government's agenda has been making sure that every young person in Australia has got the opportunity to read and write to an adequate standard. This year, the National Literacy Plan has been rolled out across the nation, and in every state and territory young people have been assessed against the national standard. These results will be published within the next few months, early next year.This year, new national goals for schooling were set in place which recognised—and the Labor Party have never recognised this; they still have not caught up with the debate—that an effective addressing of disadvantage requires a strong focus on improving educational outcomes. The historic change to the funding system for non-government schools announced in the budget will, as some in the sector said, `for the first time give working-class families real choice in education'. These reforms will be putting a powerful new incentive within the school systems to improve quality and raise standards. Government school funding will increase this year by 25 per cent over the 1996 figure.One of the government's great achievements has been putting in place the new apprenticeship system. After the Labor Party virtually ripped the heart out of apprenticeships in Australia, the government has put in place a system which has been enthusiastically adopted by employers. The employers of this country have shown their support for this reform by recruiting a record number of young apprentices and putting into place opportunities that have never before existed for young Australians.School based apprenticeships and quality vocational education and training in schools are giving new hope to the 70 per cent of school leavers who do not go directly from school to university—a group of young people neglected year after year by the Labor Party; and that is admitted by many Labor Party ministers and other commentators on the frontbench. Over 30,000 businesses are now involved directly with schools in providing young Australians with enterprise education and workplace know-how. Under the new national agreements on TAFE, TAFE places are growing to record levels, with over 160,000 new places in TAFE projected under the current ANTA arrangements.It is important to emphasise that the government has acted very strongly to address educational disadvantage in regional and rural Australia. Special incentives have been provided to help solve skills shortages through the rural and regional new apprenticeships initiative. The number of new apprenticeship sites in regional Australia has risen from 118 to 200 as a result of the recent tender round. Assistance for isolated children, the basic boarding allowance, has been raised and indexed for the first time. The emphasis in our capital expenditures has been on regional universities, and indeed $133 million has been put into regional universities over the three years of this government.It is very encouraging to see rural and regional educational participation rates now rising. The number of students at regional universities has gone up from 74,700 in 1996 to 82,500 this year. Total university undergraduate places are up and total university revenues are at an all-time high. The government has provided $259 million to assist the universities to get the flexibilities into their staffing arrangements that are now possible under the Australian workplace agreements.Contrast this very full Christmas stocking in education and training with what is not offered on the other side of the House. I was asked whether I was aware of alternative policies. The Christmas stocking is very thin on the other side of the House. It has a little note on the top of it from Kim Beazley asking Santa to give him a policy. It says, `One policy will do, any policy, but please give us a policy because we have not been able to generate them and the Australian Education Union has not sent them as yet.' They keep looking in the mailbox and they are not there. So they are now relying on Santa. They will not be getting any policies from the Leader of the Opposition or from his frontbench so they had better try something else.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I recognise the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, could I say that the member for the Northern Territory is quite welcome to confer, but I would prefer that he did it seated.1328013280Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, earlier this week you confirmed your election promise on petrol prices saying, `Introduction of the new tax system and the application of the GST of itself would not lead to price increases.' In light of that statement, let me ask again the part of the question you failed to answer. When you cut the excise, will you base it on the highest pump price in regional Australia so there are no GST price rises anywhere, or will you base it on an average pump price inclusive of the metropolitan price so that it does not cost you revenue? Which promise will you keep—no petrol price rise anywhere or no more cost to revenue?13280Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The policy we enunciated at the election stands and I do not have anything to add to what I said the other day.DT4CREANMr Crean—I rise on a point of order which goes to relevance: how is he going to make it happen?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question has been answered.1328013280Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister please provide a situation report regarding the progress of the multinational INTERFET force in East Timor. What has been achieved to date and what are the plans for the future of the Australian Defence Force personnel in East Timor? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies in the area of defence?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Defence has been asked a serious question about a matter of concern to all Australians, namely the situation in East Timor, and I think he is entitled to be heard without interruption.13280Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—I thank the member for Hughes for her question. As the member representing the Holsworthy camp, she exhibited great knowledge of the Defence Force on a recent trip to East Timor. I welcome her question this afternoon. I am sure all Australians can be proud of the contribution that the Australian Defence Force has made to the successful operation in East Timor. With INTERFET deploying on 20 September, the majority of those on the ground in the first few days were, in fact, ADF forces.At the time, the security situation was dangerous because of the activities of the local militia but now, as we see the images of schools and markets reopening in East Timor, security is gradually returning to East Timor. The total number of refugees returning to East Timor has probably passed the 115,000 mark. The contribution to INTERFET continues to be more than half of the total forces in East Timor of some 9,700 people. Without that contribution, it is doubtful the level of peace and security currently in the territory would have been achieved. The multinational force has done an excellent job in achieving this mandate for the United Nations.The planning is well under way for the transition to phase 3 of the United Nations operation, the Blue Helmet peacekeeping operation under the United Nations transitional administration in East Timor. When the United Nations peacekeeping force takes over, we will still have a significant number of Australians contributing to that operation. As the Prime Minister has indicated previously, that number will be about 1,500 to 2,000 troops. The East Timor deployment caps off a very active year in the defence portfolio. It has been a year of significant achievement and significant improvement in the management and reform of the department, and I intend to pursue that next year.Under Labor, the Department of Defence was allowed to jog along without considerable management. There were consistent blowouts. No attempt was made to manage projects which consistently ran over cost and time. The funding of Defence was allowed to fall away, to where it was substantially under pressure, because of the actions taken by the Labor Party at that time. At no stage did the Labor Party attempt to grab hold of the defence department and make it respond to the needs of the time. These are the problems the government was left with and is currently dealing with.I am pleased to announce today that I will be visiting East Timor and Bougainville before Christmas. I will be seeking the advice of the military commanders in those positions and also their reports on the circumstances surrounding their deployments. I will convey to them the good wishes, I am quite sure, of all members of the House and the Australian public. The Australian government has always been committed to ensuring that our defence forces are properly manned, trained and equipped. Our defence forces are a source of immense pride to all Australians and I am sure all members of the House will support that.1328113281Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, do you recall advising the parliament on October 20 that:. . . I am more than willing to give an undertaking that I, my current staff and my former staff will give the Auditor-General all available assistance?In light of this commitment, why did you wait until late last evening before informing the House that there was correspondence in your office which goes directly to the allegation that members of the MRI negotiating task force took advantage of inside information for their own commercial benefit? For how long have you and your office been sitting on this serious evidence of insider trading? Did you instruct your staff to provide this and all other relevant evidence to the Auditor-General?13281Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I have not been sitting on anything at all. Any material we have had has been passed on to the Health Insurance Commission or the department, as appropriate. The Auditor-General, with whom I have already met, is welcome to have anything he wishes.1328113281Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, Australia has won widespread respect for its practice of foreign policy over the past year.Opposition members interjecting—83TRUDDMr Rudd—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable member for Aston is clearly advancing an argument with the first part of his question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Griffith knows that that was a frivolous a point of order and it will be dealt with accordingly.UT4Mr NUGENT—Having won widespread respect for our foreign policy over the last year, Minister, would you inform the House how this has been achieved? Are you aware of any alternative policies in this area?13282Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Aston. I have to confess to being slightly confused by the last part of the question: was I aware of any alternative policies? The answer to that is that no-one is aware of any alternative policies because there are none. Nearly four years later it does not matter what the portfolio area is the fact is there are simply no policies. Obviously, at the end of the day, you will not be able to surf to government by saying nothing. This has unequivocally, by any assessment, been a year in which Australia has won enormous respect around the international community. The reason we have won respect is that it has been a year of significant achievement. It has been a year when we have worked tirelessly to help the people of East Timor to decide their own futures.Mr Beazley interjecting—4G4Mr DOWNER—That is something that, for 13 years, you did not work for at all. Secondly, when the violence erupted in East Timor we acted decisively in order to assist INTERFET to bring peace and security to East Timor. I think all members on this side of the House and just about everybody in the Australian community apart from—Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The chair has traditionally and rightly exercised a great deal of latitude in allowing leaders of the opposition more opportunity to interject than others, but I indicate to the leader that it is appropriate for him now to exercise a little more restraint. 4G4Mr DOWNER—Mr Speaker, do you know what they say of the Leader of the Opposition? Can't bowl, can't throw.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Foreign Affairs ought at least to recognise that it was in the parliament's interest for him to have an opportunity to make his statement without interjection. For him to then provoke members on my left was entirely inappropriate. I invite him to continue his statement.4G4Mr DOWNER—I think all members on this side of the House and just about all people in the Australian community, with the exception, of course, of a few Labor camp followers, recognise that what Australia has done for East Timor during this year has been honourable and decisive. We on this side of the House shall always be proud of what we did for those people—always. We will be proud unequivocally not only this year but until we all finally leave the political scene.We have also helped Indonesia very substantially in its transition to become the world's third largest operating democracy. We have provided significant assistance there. We have been stalwart in standing up for Australians who have got into difficulties overseas during the year—and, again, few will forget the work that the Australian government did, with the assistance of many others, to win the release of Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace from prison in Yugoslavia. We also finally were successful in getting released from prison James Peng, and that, in itself, was a very significant achievement.It is a year during which we have helped Papua New Guinea with the reorientation of its economic policies and assisted it in getting back together again with the World Bank and the IMF. It is a year during which we have assisted with the Bougainville peace process and once more maintained peace in Bougainville with the particular assistance of our Peace Monitoring Group. It is a year where we have helped East-Asian economies recover from the Asian economic crisis, and it is a year where our aid program, let me say, has not only performed extraordinarily well but also been recognised as performing very well. Indeed, the OECD determined only yesterday that Australia was in the vanguard of OECD members in terms of the quality of its aid program.So, no matter what conscience the Labor Party has about the issue of East Timor, no matter what disputes there are in the Labor Party, which were very manifest when Gough Whitlam appeared before the Senate committee at the beginning of this week—and it is interesting to hear the different private comments that come from the members of the opposition about this issue—and no matter what jeering comes from the opposition on the issue of East Timor, this government has a tremendous amount to be proud of in what it has done and in terms of Australia's standing in the international community in terms of the support we have given and the good international values that we have projected around the world.1328313283Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, I refer to your repeated assertion that allegations of misconduct in relation to MRI machines have been anonymous and unsubstantiated and made on the basis of professional rivalry. Before making this assertion, why did you not call for your department's files or, at the very least, why did you not seek an assurance from the Secretary to your department that there were no written and signed allegations about this matter? Given the revelation that your department has been sitting on a number of these allegations, including the letter from Dr Burgess, why have you not corrected your assertion on any of the 43 subsequent occasions that you have been questioned about this scam in the parliament over the last nine months?13283Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The last one is the easiest, Mr Speaker, because the questions have been going nowhere and the answers have been absolutely accurate. Regarding the so-called information that my department had, I have asked them about this and they have said that most of the letters they got contained material that could best be described as rumour. One letter, and I can actually quote from it, said:We are concerned that some or all of these contracts may not be genuine, but of course we have no tangible evidence.They tell me that one letter did contain some specific facts, and they informed me that they handed that on to the Health Insurance Commission, which is absolutely proper. In terms of the comment that the honourable member made about the unsubstantiated allegations, that was what started the Health Insurance Commission investigation in December 1998, and my comments there were absolutely accurate.1328313283Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, what has the federal government done in 1999 to help Australia's farming communities? Would you outline to the House how the government's commitment to rural and regional Australia has benefited farmers? Can you also inform the House whether you are aware of any alternative policies in this area?13283Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—It has been a difficult year for many farmers, but this government has taken a lot of positive actions to assist, and there are of course many success stories in Australian agriculture over the last 12 months. I think the government has a right to take credit for its contribution to many of those success stories. We have taken considerable actions in the parliament to reduce the tax burden on farmers, and from next year close to $1 billion of costs will be removed from the farm sector as a result of our tax reform. The new business tax reforms will remove capital gains tax for farmers who sell one farm to buy another or who wish to retire, and of course the existing primary producer tax concessions will remain.On the export front, again there have been a lot of gains. We have been able to obtain access for Tasmanian fuji apples to Japan, apples to China, citrus to Korea, easy peel citrus to Japan, potatoes to Mauritius, honey to South Africa, New Zealand and the EU and dairy products to Brazil. We have been able to resume access for watermelons to New Zealand, horses to Asia, and beef to the Philippines, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea and Japan. In addition, we chalked up $1 billion worth of wine exports for the year, a great Australian success story. In the fishing area, Australia is on track to implement mandatory ballast water arrangements to help protect Australian fisheries from the incursion of pests from ballast water. In addition, we had success in the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea against the Japanese in relation to southern bluefin tuna, and there is legislation before the parliament to ratify the UN fish stocks agreement.The wool stockpile has been privatised and growers will vote in February on new arrangements for their industry. The government has put on the table an offer to assist the dairy industry, if they choose to restructure. Wheat growers have taken ownership of the wheat marketing arrangements following the wind-up of the statutory Australian wheat board. Live sheep trade to Saudi Arabia is set to commence following my meetings with the Saudi Arabian Minister for Agriculture, Dr Muammuar. The Lamb Industry Development Fund is under way, as is the $24 million pork industry restructuring strategy, which has helped fuel one of the greatest turnarounds in primary industry in recent Australian history. The success of the pork industry this year is really outstanding. So there are certainly a lot of issues to be addressed, but the government can be pleased with its contribution in the past year to assist many farmers towards a more profitable future.The second part of the question dealt with any alternative policies. Well, I have been searching long and hard. I listened to the member for Dickson suggest that higher fuel prices was an appropriate farm policy, but I did not notice the missing shadow minister for agriculture endorsing that idea. It would have been a pity to put something on the blank page. Let's keep it blank. Let's keep it empty. I notice even members of the opposition now are starting to laugh when somebody asks about a Labor Party policy because they think it is just as funny. Why should you have policies? If you are an alternative government you just tell the people, `Trust us.' Last time we trusted them we know what happened, and no-one is likely to be that silly again. No policies, no ideas, no action, and that is why the Labor Party deserves to be on the opposition benches.1328413284Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, is it a fact that you provided the trigger for radiologists to backdate their MRI contracts when you created the opportunity for other radiologists in the know, their competitors, to take advantage of inside prior knowledge of your 1998 budget decision? Isn't it a fact that you neglected to ensure that the radiologists in the MRI negotiating task force declared their interests? Isn't it a fact that you failed to bind these radiologists to confidentiality and isn't it a fact that you did absolutely nothing to prevent them from obtaining substantial personal gain from their inside knowledge? Isn't it also a fact that you failed to set up an investigation when evidence of insider trading first came to light and that you consistently ignored the seriousness of the scam and, even with that letter that you revealed that you had yesterday, you have still left open the question as to whether or not it goes to the Auditor-General? Minister, when are you going to stop blaming others for the MRI scam and start taking responsibility yourself?13284Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—Well that bag of wind is complete rubbish. As much as I can write them down, I will take them point by point. We addressed MRI to provide a need to the Australian community that you had been incapable of providing. We did this as part of a large negotiation on a $1 billion radiology budget that was out of control when we came to government and which we brought into control. The opportunity was created on the basis of advice I tabled from the secretary to my department some weeks ago from the Attorney-General's Department on the basis of the docks dispute, nothing else. The fact that I took no interest in the thing is complete rubbish. Every time I have been provided with any information I have acted in a timely and absolutely appropriate manner. We did not seek to make the radiologists keep confidentiality on the negotiation because cabinet had approved me to go out and negotiate with them. We were negotiating with a group on a $1 billion budget that we were trying to bring into control and they were expected to consult with their members. The fact that I failed to set up an investigation is completely not borne out by the facts. The Health Insurance Commission set up an investigation within weeks of receiving information, and the fact is as soon as we had even rumour we put in place in September last year a system of statutory declarations which is the reason why nearly 20 people are now going to the Director of Public Prosecutions.You say I consistently ignored advice. You cannot provide one single example of that. You are prepared to make allegations, you are prepared to bluster, but the fact is that there are no facts backing up what you say. I have openly made every opportunity for the Auditor-General to have any information he wishes. The fact is you are just jealous that we have made an attempt to provide some 100,000 people a year with a scan that they were paying $400 to $800 for when you were in government. The fact is that some people have abused this, and they are going to be dealt with most severely. But, quite frankly, your little threats across the table don't offend me and don't scare me at all unless you are planning to sit on me.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I did not want to get up and raise a point of order at the start of the minister's answer when he made the offensive remarks, but the general reaction from this side of the House is that, to apply the standard fairly, you need to require him to improve the standard of his behaviour a bit.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I recognised the Manager of Opposition Business because he was rising. Had he not risen, I would nonetheless have made the same point to the Minister for Health and Aged Care as I made to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and that is that the remarks with which the minister both opened and concluded his answer were inap propriate, and I would ask him to refrain from using them.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would remind honourable members that there is no standing order that covers this explicitly, and precisely the same ruling has been applied to both sides of the House, as is transparently evident.1328513285Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—The last question of this millennium is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister advise the House of progress the government has made towards achieving its social policy objectives. Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative policies in this area?13285Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Wentworth for that question. It is appropriate, in a week in which, quite properly, the coalition parties will mark the 50th anniversary of the election of the Menzies government in December 1949, to say something about the social policy record of this government as it stands in a very proud line in the tradition of the coalition on social policy. Since the government has been elected, it has pursued a social policy agenda underpinned by a very strong notion of the social coalition. That social coalition seeks to build a partnership between the government, the business community, the welfare sector and individuals. We have given the welfare sector of the Australian community a new role in policy advising, we have emphasised prevention and early intervention, we have emphasised action meeting the needs of individual communities and we have placed a very strong emphasis on mutual obligation.I will take a moment to mention one or two of the major initiatives that have given effect to that agenda. These are initiatives that have gone to some of the great social concerns of the Australian community—social concerns that have been neglected for far too long within the Australian community. None is more important than the menace of drugs and the way in which they affect the young in the Australian community. One of the social initiatives of which this government is par ticularly proud is the great priority we have given to the Tough on Drugs Strategy. That strategy has seen unparalleled levels of money committed by the national government not only in pursuit of the drug barons but also in providing superior education, superior rehabilitation and superior support services to those who are affected by the drug menace. Our community and business partnership has provided, amongst other things, a $51 million tax incentive for philanthropic giving, the inaugural Prime Minister's award for excellence. This has been matched by our commitment to early intervention in the area of youth homelessness.I want to particularly thank a number of my ministers in connection with social policy. I congratulate those two ministers responsible for the introduction of a world first in relation to the new Job Network. I thank the current Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs for when he had responsibility for it, and I thank the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. This was a world first and it has delivered—as today's unemployment figures bear out—outcomes far superior to those delivered by the old Commonwealth Employment Service. As those on this side will remember, when the Job Network was introduced the Labor Party lampooned the idea. They said it would be a failure. They tried to run a scare campaign, and they tried to denigrate the notion of privatising the Job Network in this country. But they have been proved wrong. They have been demonstrated once again to be people who are—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The level of conversation is far too high. The member for Melbourne has already been warned. The member for Grayndler will resume a seat.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is significant that, as I go through a list of the government's social policy achievements, the members of the Labor Party behave in that fashion. It merely brings home to us on this side of the House, and draws to the attention of those people of Australia who are in the public gallery, the sheer contemptuous indifference of the Labor Party to social policy in this country. It underlines the fact that in this area, as in so many other areas, the Labor Party have no alternative. If they had an alternative, they would be questioning us about our policy. If they had an alternative, they would be taking it to the people of Australia. Just as they do not have an employment policy, they do not have a drugs policy. Just as they do not have an education policy, they do not have a social partnership policy. Just as they do not have a taxation policy, they do not have a policy to promote the issue and the principle of mutual obligation. Our achievements in the area of social policy go very close to matching our achievements in the area of industrial relations.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is not an answer to a question; it is a speech he failed to make at the Press Club.Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Hunter will excuse himself from the House under the provisions of standing order 304A.The honourable member for Hunter thereupon withdrew from the chamber.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The area of health and medical research is so tremendously important to the future health of all Australians that I would imagine everybody in this chamber, whether they are a member of the House or a citizen of Australia attending question time, as is their right in a democracy, would have applauded the budget announcement of the Treasurer that over the next four years this government will precisely double the amount of money going to health and medical research in Australia following the recommendations of the Wills committee.In the area of assisting older Australians, we announced a $200 million package of primary health care and coordinated care measures in the budget, an $80 million initiative to provide respite for carers of older people and a new $148 million nursing home package. They were announced this week by the Minister for Aged Care. All of these policies and commitments are designed to address the practical concerns of the Australian people. They fulfil the commitment I made in 1996 that this government would be a government for all Australians, that it would not be a government just for the people who supported it but it would be a government for all of the Australian community.I contrast that record of achievement with the failure of the Labor Party over almost four years to develop any significant alternative policy in any significant area of concern to the Australian people. I can only say that in four years they have not assumed the challenges of opposition. They have pretended that somehow or other the Australian people made a mistake on two occasions and that sooner or later the Australian people, through the natural swing of the political pendulum, will put them back into office.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The Prime Minister was asked about the government's policy on social policies. Maybe he would tell us why there are 100,000 homeless.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson will resume his seat. The member for Paterson is warned. I have been the Speaker of the House of Representatives for 12 months, and I am proud of it—proud of the House and proud of the standards exhibited by members to each other, with the odd exception that is bound to occur in a parliament in which at least two philosophies meet. In the last 10 minutes, I have been ashamed to occupy this chair. The Prime Minister has the call. He is entitled, as every other member is, to be heard without interruption, and I expect that standing order to be adhered to.ZD4Mr HOWARD—That is a record of performance in social policy of which the government is very rightly proud. Finally, I inform the House that earlier this afternoon an agreement was concluded between the government and the Australian Democrats regarding certain amendments to the taxation legislation now in the Senate. That agreement will secure the speedy passage, I am told, of that legislation. It is an agreement that responds very significantly to the recommendations of the consultative committee concerning the relationship between charities and the new taxation system. I compliment the Treasurer on his work in negotiating the agreement with the Australian Democrats. The Treasurer will shortly announce the details of that agreement.Ms Macklin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga has been warned for the last time.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It does indicate very clearly the capacity of the government in this, as in so many areas, to deliver practical outcomes of lasting benefit to all of the Australian community. Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions to the Speaker132871328713287Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—Mr Speaker, I seek permission to ask you a question in respect of your role as custodian of the activities and heritage of this place.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Farrer may proceed.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Have you successfully liaised with the Senate President to facilitate the holding of a special Christmas concert in the Great Hall next Tuesday night, with proceeds going to East Timorese charities and local charities? Could I ask further: did you successfully liaise with the Senate President to collect the interhouse tennis trophy earlier this week? More particularly, looking to the future and as custodian of the heritage of this place, will you successfully liaise with the President in relation to the 99th anniversary sitting of this place, which is now due to fall on budget day, 9 May 2000? Will you engage her in the consideration of the centenary sitting of this place, due to be held on 9 May 2001, presumably in Melbourne? That will be an actual sitting if possible, not a ceremonial sitting, realising the constraints of section 125 of the Constitution, which says amongst other things:The Parliament shall sit at Melbourne until it meet at the seat of Government.13287Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I am happy to inform the member for Farrer that the President and I have already had lengthy negotiations over what should happen in the years 2000 and 2001. In fact, we are looking at what we can do to have an appropriate sitting of the parliament, in Melbourne if necessary. Whether it is a sitting or not will be determined not by the wishes of the President or by my wishes but by what the standing orders and Constitution allow us to do. We will do all we can to give that occasion as much significance as is possible.I am also pleased to inform all members of the House that, thanks to some members of the House—and I am afraid the Speaker cannot claim any credit for this—I was pleased to have presented to me the tennis trophy, which has now moved from the other house to this place.Finally, I thank the member for Farrer for the opportunity he gives me in response to his question about the concert to indicate that the tradition of the Christmas concert, which is a charity concert, will be continued next Tuesday evening in the Great Hall in this place. Not only members of the House but anyone else aware of the concert would be very welcome to attend. All proceeds will go to charities in the area.Questions Without Notice132881328815:30:0013288Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Yesterday I made reference to the incorporated Manjimup Community Food Centre. Today, the board's secretary, Ms Alison Muir, has advised my office that at no time has the management committee of the Manjimup Community Food Centre made any decision to close this enterprise and that the first the committee was aware of the remarks of the manager, Mr Robert Johns, was when they heard them on television.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: this is an abuse of the forms of the House. The matter of the Manjimup centre and the manager's statement that the centre would be closed was a question to the Prime Minister, not to this minister.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation is adding to an answer that he gave yesterday, and I will listen closely to what he is saying.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—The managing committee is highly concerned as to the extreme level of anxiety that can be generated amongst their pensioner and welfare client base as a result of the misleading statements of the ABC and the Leader of the Opposition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister for Forestry and Conservation may have finished but, if he has not, the question that was asked him was about the Queensland forest agreement. That was the question he was asked yesterday. What on earth did that have to do with that particular question?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The reply that the minister gave yesterday was relative to what was happening to the Manjimup community, and it was in that context that I allowed him to add to the answer.1328815:32:0013288Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I was asked a question today about the question that had been put to me yesterday by the member for Lowe. I did omit one matter in my answer, and that is that the document that the member for Lowe produced in the House yesterday and which I allowed to be tabled and, presumably, on which his question was based—a question asserting that it involved a nursing home—on the front page makes it perfectly clear that the late gentleman in question was going to enter a hostel. The document says, in clause 2, `the transferor shall enter the association's hostel'. In other words, it is very clear.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Yes. But he died in the hostel.Miscellaneous1328815:34:0013288Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Mr Speaker, I seek indulgence to advise members about proceedings for this afternoon. It will take only a moment.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence granted.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—After these few remarks, all other things being equal, there will be papers and then we expect—by indulgence, I understand—the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on valedictories. Then there are two ministerial statements. There is also a request, which we are hoping to deal with before the MPI so we can get it back to the Senate, but that is a matter being discussed. Then there is the MPI and some Senate amendments, and we would then expect a formal valedictory motion in the usual way. I cannot advise members exactly when that would be, but around late afternoon—5 o'clock or thereabouts. The whips will keep members informed.We expect the Senate to sit late and, as a consequence, the House will need to sit on the basis that it would be better to complete matters tonight rather than sit tomorrow. I think there is a general agreement about that. So we expect a pretty late night, but we cannot be more detailed in advising members at this stage. As soon as we can, we will let members know. The whips will need to discuss a dinner break arrangement. There is a possibility of an extended adjournment. Given the nature of the matters currently before the House, it might also be possible to suspend the House for some period, but that should be a matter between the whips.Auditor-General's Reports132891328913289Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 21 of 1999-2000 entitled Financial statement audit: audits of the financial statements of the Commonwealth entities for the period ending 30 June 1999—summary of results .Ordered that the report be printed.Committees13289132891328913289Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating Mrs Crosio to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That Mrs Crosio be appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.Documents1328913289Reith, 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 .I present a paper on the following subject, being a petition which is not in accordance with the standing and sessional orders of the House:Calls on the parliament to request the Minister for Health and Aged Care to determine that all goods registered on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods as safe and efficacious for the treatment of dermatological conditions be GST free—from the member for Bruce—6583 petitioners.Committees132891328913289Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—For the information of honourable members, I present a schedule of outstanding government responses to reports of House of Representatives and Joint committees incorporating reports tabled and details of government responses made in the period between 29 June 1999 and the date of the last schedule and 8 December 1999. Copies of the schedule are being made available to honourable members and will be incorporated in Hansard .The schedule read as follows—THE SPEAKER'S SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO REPORTS OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND JOINT COMMITTEES(also incorporating reports tabled and details of Government responses made in the period between 29 June 1999, the date of the last schedule, and 8 December 1999)8 DECEMBER 1999THE SPEAKER'S SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO COMMITTEE REPORTS On 7 December 1999, the Government presented its response to a schedule of outstanding Government responses to parliamentary committee reports tabled in the House of Representatives on 30 June 1999. The Government had earlier in the Parliament affirmed its commitment to respond to relevant parliamentary committee reports presented during the present Parliament within three months of their presentation and to clear, as soon as possible, the backlog of reports arising from previous Parliaments.The Government's commitment follows the undertaking by successive Governments to respond to parliamentary committee reports in a timely fashion. In 1978 the Fraser Government implemented a policy of responding in the House by ministerial statement within six months of the tabling of a committee report. In 1983, the Hawke Government reduced this response time to three months but continued the practice of responding by ministerial statement. The Keating Government generally responded by means of a letter to a committee chair, with the letter being tabled in the House at the earliest opportunity.The attached schedule lists committee reports tabled and Government responses to House and joint committee reports made since the last schedule was presented on 30 June 1999. It also lists reports for which the House has received no Government response. A schedule of outstanding responses will continue to be presented at approximately six monthly intervals, in the last sitting weeks of the winter and spring sittings.The schedule does not include advisory reports on bills introduced into the House of Representatives unless the reports make recommendations which are wider than the provisions of the bills and which could be the subject of a government response. The Government's responses to these reports is apparent in the resumption of consideration of the relevant legislation by the House. Also not included are reports from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the House of Representatives Committee of Members' Interests, the Committee of Privileges, the Publications Committee and the Selection Committee. Responses to reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit are usually made in the form of Finance Minutes, which are tabled by the Committee. Government responses to reports of the Public Works Committee are normally reflected in motions for the approval of works after the relevant report has been presented and considered.8 December 1999Description of Report Date Tabled or Published1 Date of Government Response2Responded in Period Specified3 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (House, Standing)Unlocking the Future: The Report of the Inquiry into the Reeves Review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 197630-08-99No response to dateNo Australian Security Intelligence Organization (Joint, Statutory)Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Bill 199913-05-9925-11-99No Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform (House, Standing)Ship safe: An inquiry into the Australian Maritime Safety Authority Annual Report 1996-9726-08-98531-08-99NoTracking Australia: An inquiry into the role of rail in the national transport network12-08-985No response to date7NoPlanning not Patching—An inquiry into federal road funding24-11-97No response to date8No Corporations and Securities (Joint, Statutory)Matters arising from the Company Law Review Act 199821-10-99Period has not expired4- Economics, Finance and Public Administration (House, Standing)Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report for 1997-98: Final Report23-08-99No response to date28NoRegional Banking: Money too far away22-03-99No response to date27No Employment, Education and Training (House, Standing)Today's training. Tomorrow's skills28-07-98530-06-99No Environment and Heritage (House, Standing)Review of the Department of the Environment's annual report for 1997-9821-06-99No response to date25NoFamily and Community Affairs (House, Standing)What price competition? Report on the competitive tendering of welfare service delivery29-06-98No response to date11No Financial Institutions and Public Administration (House, Standing)Review of the National Competition Council annual report for 1996-9729-06-9824-08-99NoReview of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 1996-97—Interim Report and Final Report23-03-98No response to date13No Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (Joint, Standing)World debt: A report on the proceedings of a seminar 27 August 199906-12-99Period has not expired4-Bougainville: The peace process and beyond27-09-99Period has not expired4-Defence Sub-Committee visit to Defence establishments in Northern Australian, 26-29 July 199927-09-99Period has not expired4-Military justice procedures in the Australian Defence Force21-06-99No response to date11NoVisit to Bougainville, 15-18 March 1999—Interim Report31-03-99No response to date24NoReport on the loss of HMAS Sydney22-03-99No response to date11NoAustralia's trade relationship with India29-06-98No response to date14NoFunding Australia's Defence08-05-9815No response to date11NoAustralia and ASEAN: Managing Change06-04-98No response to date14NoDefence Subcommittee visit to Sydney Harbour foreshores Defence properties23-03-98No response to date11No Industry, Science and Technology (House, Standing)The effect of certain public policy changes on Australia's R & D20-09-99Period has not expired4-A sea of indifference: Australian industry participation in the North West Shelf project30-03-98No response to date22No Legal and Constitutional Affairs (House, Standing)Don't stop the music: A report of the inquiry into copyright, music and small business01-06-98No response to date11NoSaving our census and preserving our history25-05-98No response to date18NoThe third paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution30-11-95No response to date10NoIn Confidence: the protection of confidential personal and commercial information held by the Commonwealth26-06-95No response to date19No Long Term Strategies (House, Standing)Australia's population carrying capacity—one nation—two ecologies05-12-9422-09-99No Migration (Joint, Standing)Going for Gold: Immigration entry arrangements for the Olympic and Paralympic Games27-09-99Period has not expired4-Review of Migration Regulation 4.31B31-05-99No response to date6NoImmigration detention centres—Inspection Report27-08-982102-09-99NoDeportation of non-citizen criminals29-06-98No response to date6NoWorking holiday makers: More than tourists01-09-9702-09-99NoAustralia's visa system for visitors27-01-9623-11-99No National Capital and External Territories (Joint, Standing)Island to islands: Communications with Australia's external territories22-03-99No response to date9No National Crime Authority (Joint, Statutory)Street Legal: The involvement of the National Crime Authority in controlled operations06-12-99Period has not expired4-Third evaluation of the National Crime Authority06-04-98No response to date23No Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund (Joint, Statutory)Interim Report for the s.206(d) inquiry—Proceedings of conference on 12 March 199913-10-99Period has not expired4-Examination of Annual Reports for 1997-1998 in fulfilment of the Committee's duties pursuant to s.206(c) of the Native Title Act 199301-09-99No response to dateNoPrimary Industries, Resources and Rural and Regional Affairs (House, Standing)Adjusting to Agricultural Trade Reform: Australia no longer down under22-06-98No response to date17NoDevelopments in New Zealand Agriculture—Report of a visit to New Zealand, 16-19 June 199701-12-97No response to date12NoManaging Commonwealth Fisheries: The last frontier23-06-97No response to date12No Procedure (House, Standing)It's your House: Community involvement in the procedures and practices of the House of Representatives and its committees22-11-99Period has not expired4- Republic Referendum (Joint Select)Advisory report on the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 and the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 199909-08-9911-08-99Yes Retailing Sector (Joint, Select)Fair Market or Market Failure?: A review of Australia's retailing sector30-08-99No response to dateNo Treaties (Joint, Standing)Twenty-eighth Report—Fourteen treaties tabled on 12 October 199906-12-99Period has not expired4-Twenty-seventh Report—Termination of Social Security Agreement with the United Kingdom and International Plant Protection Convention06-12-99Period has not expired4-Twenty-sixth Report—An agreement to extend the period of operation of the Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap18-10-99Period has not expired4-Twenty-fifth Report—Eight treaties tabled on 11 August 199927-09-99Period has not expired4-Twenty-Fourth Report—A seminar on the Role of Parliaments in Treaty Making30-08-99No response to dateNoTwenty-Third Report—Amendments to the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling23-08-99No response to dateNoTwenty-Second Report—Five treaties tabled on 11 May 199928-06-99No response to date14NoTwenty-First Report—Five treaties tabled on 16 February 199907-06-99No response to date14NoTwentieth Report—Two treaties tabled on 26 May 1998, the Bougainville Peace Monitoring Group Protocol and treaties tabled on 11 November 199829-03-99No response to date14NoNineteenth Report—The Fifth Protocol to the General Agreement on Trade in Services and five treaties tabled on 30 June 199823-03-99No response to date14NoEighteenth Report—Multilateral agreement on Investment: Final Report22-03-9930-11-99NoSeventeenth Report—UN Convention on the Rights of the Child28-08-9821No response to date16NoFifteenth Report02-07-98No response to date26NoTwelfth Report—Australia-Indonesia Maritime Delimitation Treaty01-12-97No response to date20NoEleventh Report24-11-97No response to date26NoEighth Report23-06-97No response to date20NoNotes:1. The date of tabling is the date the report was presented to the House of Representatives. In the case of joint committees, the date shown is the date of first presentation to either the House or the Senate. Reports published when the House (or Houses) are not sitting are tabled at a later date.2. If the source for the date is not the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives or the Journals of the Senate , the source is shown in an endnote.3. The time specified is three months from the date of tabling. 4. The three month period had not expired as at 8 December 1999.5. This is the date the report was presented to the Speaker and, by resolution of the House, published when the House or Houses were not sitting. It was tabled in the House of Representatives on 23 November 1998.6. In its 7 December 1999 paper the Government indicated that a `response is close to being finalised.'The Government indicated in its 7 December 1999 paper that it `will respond to this report at the same time it responds to the Productivity Commission's final report on progress in rail reform.'In its 7 December 1999 paper the Government said that a `response is being developed and will be tabled as soon as possible.'In its 7 December 1999 paper the Government indicated that a `response is being prepared and will be tabled as soon as possible.'The Government stated in its 7 December 1999 paper that a `response will be tabled as soon as possible.'In its 7 December 1999 paper, the Government stated that a `response is expected to be tabled shortly.'In its 7 December 1999 paper, the Government stated that a `response is expected to be tabled in the 2000 Autumn sittings.''As the Reserve Bank has directly responded to the Committee's recommendations, the Government does not intend responding further to this report.The Committee's review of the Reserve Bank of Australia's 1996-97 Annual Report drew attention to the follow-up response by the Reserve Bank to these outstanding recommendations.' (7 December 1999 paper)The Government indicated in its 7 December 1999 paper that a `response is in preparation.'15. This is the date the report was presented to the Speaker and, by resolution of the House, published when the House or Houses were not sitting. It was tabled in the House of Representatives on 12 May 1998.16. In its 7 December 1999 paper, the Government stated that a `response is being considered and will be tabled shortly.'The Government stated in its 7 December 1999 paper that a `response will be delayed until early 2000 so that it can incorporate outcomes from the World Trade Organisation negotiations.''The Government is considering the recommendations of the report.' (7 December 1999 paper)19. 'The Government response is currently under consideration and will be tabled as soon as possible.' (7 December 1999 paper)20. In its 7 December 1999 paper, the Government indicated that a `response is subject to continuing consultations.'21. This is the date the report was presented to the President and, by resolution of the House, published when the House or Houses were not sitting. It was tabled in the Senate on 10 November 1998.The Government stated in its 7 December 1999 paper that a `response will be tabled on 8 December 1999.''Further consultation on the Government response is expected to held at the November meeting of the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) on the National Crime Authority. Subject to the IGC it will then be possible to table the Government response in the 2000 autumn sittings.' (7 December 1999 paper) `The Government is waiting for the Committee's final report and will respond at that time.' (7 December 1999 paper)25. 'The majority of the Committee's specific recommendations have been addressed since the report was tabled. Consultation is continuing concerning the necessity for a review of programs addressing inland rivers and waterways. The Government response is expected to be tabled shortly.' (7 December 1999 paper)26. In its 7 December 1999 paper the Government stated that its `response is in the final stages of preparation.'27. In its 7 December 1999 paper the Government stated that its `response is near completion and will be tabled as soon as possible.' 'As the interim report does not contain recommendations, a Government response is not required. The final report was tabled on 23 August 1999 and the Government response to the recommendations contained in that report is being prepared.' (7 December 1999 paper)Valedictory1329815:39:0013298Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—May I, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, address a few remarks in recognition of the season of the year.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence granted.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Thank you, Mr Speaker. It has become a very well honoured tradition of this House that at this time of the year the party leaders have a few words to say about those people in particular who do not always get acknowledgment who have made the conduct of business in this chamber over the last year not only efficient but also, given the inevitable stress and strain involved in political life, tolerably pleasant on most occasions.I want first of all to express my gratitude to you, Mr Speaker, to your deputy and to all the others who have occupied the chair from time to time for their great patience, great resilience, great sense of humour and great courtesy. It is a fairly robust place. Each of us from time to time thinks that somebody else is being inappropriately robust and that we never are, but I think it is fair to say that one of the distinguishing features of our system of government is that we do have a very robust representative chamber. This chamber is certainly that and I want to express my gratitude to you.I also want to particularly address my gratitude to Mr Ian Harris and Mr Bernard Wright, who are great professionals. They do an extremely good job for both sides of the parliament. The group of you in effect make the parliamentary system work. We all tend to take it for granted—perhaps we all stretch its capacity and limits on occasions—but all of us have a deep affection for the fact that this is a representative chamber of a great democracy. The Speaker and those who advise the Speaker are at the very fulcrum of that part of our democracy and they ought to be acknowledged and acknowledged very generously by all of us.I also thank all of the staff who attend us. They work extremely hard. In a sense, the service of the staff and what they mean to us is symbolised, if I can single out one person among the attendants, by that marvellous, unfailingly courteous man, Brian Walshe, who has served in this chamber for many years. He very aptly fits the description `nature's gentleman'. If there has ever been a nature's gentleman in this world, Brian Walshe certainly fits that description. He is a wonderful symbol of the civility that is extended to all of us by the parliamentary staff. I want to thank the whips. I thank Michael Ronaldson, the member for Ballarat. I also want to thank the member for Forde and the member for Macarthur, who are the other two government whips, and the member for Mallee who is the National Party whip. I also acknowledge the contribution—and I know that the Leader of the Opposition will have something to say about his colleagues who have provided assistance in that area—of the opposition whips. I acknowledge the contribution of the Transport Office, particularly by Marcus Strkalj and Elisabeth Podmore, who members arriving late at night know only too well; Andy Hall, the Stores and Assets Manager; Andy Reinpacher who prints the daily programs; the staff of the Department of the Parliamentary Library; and those wonderful people, the staff of the Department of Parliamentary Reporting Staff, who have to record for posterity, if I can put it that way, the words and exchanges that are uttered in this chamber.I also acknowledge the contribution of all of those people who provide computer facilities and support, broadcasting, the staff of the Joint House Department, the staff of Jetset Travel, the Protective Service officers who provide security for this building, and the cafeteria and dining staff. Particularly, may I thank the staff of my own department who help in the day-to-day running of the parliament—that is, Matt Minogue, the Parliamentary Liaison Officer; Phil Walker, the Tabling Officer; and the Assistant Parliamentary Liaison Officer, Grant Woodbridge. Grant is on leave at the moment and will be leaving on promotion to the Department of Transport and Regional Services at the end of the year.In a broader context and within the ranks of the government, I would like to particularly thank the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the National Party, the member for Gwydir, for the great support that he has given inside the government. I acknowledge also, which I did on an earlier occasion, the contribution of the member for Farrer when he was Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister of Australia.May I also acknowledge the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and Treasurer, who not only carries the responsibilities of deputy leader of the majority government party but also has had the particular responsibilities of piloting the government's taxation legislation through the parliament over the past year.To the Leader of the House, who has added to his duties as Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business the very onerous and important duties as Leader of the House: he keeps his steely determination and his great sense of humour, no matter what the circumstances are. I thank him very warmly not only for his ministerial contribution but also for his contribution to the smooth and efficient running of this parliament.The two other groups of people I would like to acknowledge that I see a great deal of are, firstly, my own personal staff, especially my chief of staff, Arthur Sinodinos, and my principal private secretary, Tony Nutt—both of them have been incredible stalwarts to me and to the government and to the members of the parliamentary parties over the past 12 months—and, secondly, the head of my own department, Max Moore-Wilton, and the cabinet secretary, Michael L'Estrange: two other people who are very significant in the day-to-day functioning of the government.In a broader political sense, I cannot let the year go by without acknowledging the tremendous contribution of Lynton Crosby, the Federal Director of the Liberal Party, to the free flow of good, solid political advice to the government. We are a democracy that broadly represents two political streams in this country. Having an effective, professional party organisation is an indispensable element of political success, and the Liberal Party has been well served in that department over many years. I record my deep appreciation to Lynton and to Shane Stone, the newly elected Federal President of the Liberal Party, both of whom will be joining a number of members tonight in a private gathering to mark the 50th anniversary of the election of the Menzies government in December 1949.To all of my parliamentary colleagues, I say thank you very much for your support, your understanding, your commitment to the goals of the government, your perseverance and your very hard work on behalf of your constituents. Being elected a member of parliament—no matter which party you belong to or even if you belong to no party—is an incredible honour. All of us that come here every day, so to speak, tend to after a while take it a bit for granted. But, in the almost 100 years of the Australian Federation, there have not been many people elected to parliament. None of us should lose sight of the fact that it is an incredible honour to be chosen to sit here or sit in the Senate and to represent a group of the Australian people.The past year has been a year of significant activity. I will not dwell on the politics of it because it is not appropriate on an occasion such as this, but I think it is not being particularly political to record the fact that it has been a year of incredible activity. A lot of things have occurred. We have debated the value of many of them—we have different views on the value of some of them but not all of them—but by any measure the parliament has been active and by any measure members on both sides of the chamber have been very active in pursuit of the interests of their constituents.This is a very significant final day of parliamentary sittings because, according to one popular understanding, it is the last parliamentary sitting day of the millennium.Mr Beazley interjecting—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—According to a more formal understanding—and I think that is what the Leader of the Opposition is interjecting on—it is a year until we come to the last day of the second Christian millennium. But, in the good Australian tradition, I will be happy to enjoy either interpretation—or both interpretations. I think we can enjoy both interpretations.Can I say that we end this year—however you describe it—with an Australian community which I believe feels a sense of enormous hope and confidence and optimism about the future. That is not to say that there are not people within our midst—and I will come to them in a moment—who do not deserve special affection and special understanding. But, as a community, I find a sense of hope, pride, optimism and belief in this country of a scale that I have not encountered in the last 20 years.There is a sense in which this country stands stronger and a little taller in the world than it has for some time. There is a sense in which we have achieved something here and we are a magnet here to the rest of the world which is something very special. We as a nation and as a community will continue to have debates about our identity, what we stand for and what we believe in, and that is appropriate. People will have different views on that. But there is a common civility and decency about the Australian people in the Australian community that I believe is something very special.I am often asked what is the best thing about being Prime Minister. I can quite unself-consciously say that the best thing about being Prime Minister of this country is the opportunity every day to meet yet another group of Australian people and the opportunity to savour the special character and quality of the Australian people: their freshness, their frankness, their candour, their lack of pretension, their very simple belief in the value of this society and the value of being Australians. It is something that I never tire of. It is something that I find always stimulating and always uplifting.I had a special opportunity last Sunday morning when, along with the Premier of New South Wales, I attended a gathering of the families of the soldiers in East Timor at Government House in New South Wales. I spent some two hours signing invitations and all sorts of pieces of paper and saying hello to probably 1,500 members of defence families, each of them different in their own way—mothers telling me of having two sons in East Timor; newly married wives speaking of their anxiety; fathers who had served in Vietnam proud of the fact that their son was now serving in Timor; young children proud of the fact that their dad was in East Timor; mums saying that they were going off next week to join their husband with both husband and wife serving in East Timor, something that service personnel in earlier conflicts would not have experienced; and the pride of several men I met in speaking of the fact that their daughters were serving with the Australian Defence Force in East Timor alongside the sons of a number of their friends.The experience during that two-hour period of exchanging thoughts and feelings with those hundreds of Australian men and women who have different backgrounds, different faiths, different political views and different ethnic heritages was very gratifying and one that I found in every respect immensely rewarding. That is the best thing about having the privilege of occupying the office I now occupy. Interaction with the people of Australia is far and away the greatest privilege that this office brings.Christmas, of course, is one of the two most sacred dates in the Christian calendar. To those of us who have a commitment to the Christian faith, it is a very important occasion—not an occasion where we seek to vaunt those beliefs or to impress those beliefs on any others but simply an occasion to remember that the origin of the celebration of the season is rooted in the very origins of that faith. It is an occasion, therefore, to reflect upon the importance of spiritual values in our community—whatever they may be—the importance of the ethics of those spiritual values and the influence they have had on the shaping of the nature of the Australian people.It is an occasion where we should try, above everything else, to display to all of our fellow Australians that sense of decency and goodwill, to remember without any question or hesitation that there are still many in our midst who will go to Christmas unhappy, go to Christmas unwell. Some of them will go to Christmas poor, and some of them without jobs—fewer perhaps than was the case last year without jobs, but nonetheless too many. People will find unhappy experiences at Christmas, and people will feel a sense of denial and a sense of loss when they see the enjoyment so evident in others. In our own individual ways—as well as a government and an opposition—we must try to remember those people and do what we can to make their Christmas a little easier and a little better.It is also, finally, an occasion when most of us—whether we see any spiritual dimension in Christmas or not—regard gathering with family and friends as being the epitome of the Christmas celebration. To me—and I know to the Leader of the Opposition and, I guess, to all members of the House—gathering with our families at Christmas is still the most special thing about it. We go away from our families a lot. Politics places an enormous strain on family life. It is a miracle how resilient the family lives of politicians really are. It is a tribute to the forbearance, in my case, of my wife, Janette, and of my three children and, in the case of the Leader of the Opposition, his wife, Susie. All of us owe an enormous debt. I record that here today to my wife and my three children for the way in which they have supported me in my political career and made it possible and provided that home base sanity which all of us so badly need and are significantly enhanced by whenever we go home.As we come to the end of the year, I express the season's greetings to all of my colleagues. I have enjoyed their fellowship, their comradeship and their support. I express my good wishes to the Leader of the Opposition and to all of his colleagues. I wish him good health and a nice holiday. I look forward to a resumption of `whatever you would call it' when we return.But, in the goodwill, I hope, that transcends the intensity and the clamour of the political debate, I think it is true to say that they designed these places so that we were roughly two rapier lengths away from each other. We might think it gets pretty scrappy on occasions, and those who come and visit us might think, `Gee, this is a funny way to conduct the nation's business,' but it is infinitely better than being closer than those two rapier lengths. It is infinitely better than settling disputes through warfare and through violent physical and brutal exchanges.I shudder—and I am sure that everybody in this House does too—when I see those awful images of what is occurring in Russia and Chechnya at the present time. The Australian community was profoundly shocked by what occurred in East Timor, as we are daily shocked by images of political dispute being settled by bloodshed and by physical violence. That is not the Australian may. It has never been the Australian way. We have another way: it is called the Australian version of Westminster parliamentary democracy. It is an Australian version that owes its heritage to Westminster, but we have moulded and adapted Westminster to the land of Dorothea Mackellar's poetry, and it has given that Westminster democracy a very special character. I wish all members of the House and all of those associated with this place a very merry Christmas and very happy new year, and I look forward to seeing you all when we return.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the Prime Minister and extend the same indulgence to the Leader of the Opposition.15:58:0013301Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I thank the Prime Minister at the outset for his good wishes, both to me and to my family and, I might say, to my party colleagues here in this chamber and their families. May I reciprocate to the Prime Minister, Janette and to his kids and to the families of his members, both frontbench and backbench. We all take the same joys and pleasures in Christmas, irrespective of our political backgrounds. We share that characteristic—or at least that aspiration—with all of our fellow Australians.Can I also thank the Prime Minister for bringing this valedictory on a little earlier than it would normally be. I thank also the Leader of the House for doing this specifically at my request. I should acknowledge the government's willingness to respond. I made this request because this evening I am attending and speaking at a very convivial gathering to celebrate the 70th birthday of one of the Prime Minister's predecessors, Bob Hawke.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Where is it?ZD4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—In Sydney. I have to catch the plane out at about 5.30 tonight, so members will be pleased that that places a distinct limit on the remarks I might make—or the length of them.Mr Speaker, I thank you for the job that you do, along with your deputies. These days the threat to the sanity and physical wellbeing of Speakers comes from within the chamber as opposed to without. Indeed, it has probably been a century or two that that has been the case. You obviously feel embattled from time to time. I can assure you only that there is nothing personal in that from our side of the House. We wish you well in the very difficult task that you and your deputies have to perform. We would want to ensure, in so far as our wishes can play any role in this matter, that you have a quiet, restful Christmas; that you gird your loins, restore your strength, take joy in the presence of your family and be prepared for situations likely to be fully as bad next year as those you think you confront now.I will break now from the normal order in which I proceed with a valedictory—which is similar to the way in which the Prime Minister would—to single out one person on my side for special mention, that is, Leo McLeay, my Chief Whip. Leo is, as everybody in this House knows, since many regard him as at least one of the House trade union leaders, a person of great diligence and very great capacity. He has served in many capacities in this House. He has an encyclopedic knowledge of the procedures. But he has many human qualities, and one is a capacity to be terribly sad in the circumstances he now faces. Some may not know that Leo's beloved father died earlier this week and will be buried tomorrow. I think all of us in this House would join in condolences to Leo and Leo's family on this sad occasion for them.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—His dad probably was the origin of Leo's commitment to the Australian Labor Party. Indeed, it is fitting in the circumstances that, of Leo's dad's last two `public appearances', one was to receive life membership at the last New South Wales conference of the Labor Party, and the other, just this last weekend, was to attend his grandson's wedding. If you have to go out, Leo, I do not think you can go out in better circumstances than having totted up those two last public appearances.I would like to thank also all those who work for me on this side of the House—work for the Labor Party, I should say; I will talk a little about people who work more directly for me a bit later—particularly my deputy, Simon Crean, who of course comes with a family tradition in politics and is a most effective deputy. One could not want for a better. I would like, too, to thank Bob McMullan, the Manager of Opposition Business. He has, I think, enjoyed that role in the course of the last 12 months. He was new to it. He does it effectively, with a very nice touch, and I am very grateful for the work that he performs. I thank the other whips, Rod and Bob, for the organisational job that they do with their colleague Leo. They are, as I am sure the Prime Minister would acknowledge in regard to the government whips on his side of the House, the real organisers of the things which take place on a minute to minute basis in this chamber.I thank all my frontbench and my backbenchers too. We have one of the most youthful federal parliamentary Labor parties in the history of this place. We arguably also have the most gender balanced—not sufficiently gender balanced but most gender balanced—Labor Party that we have ever had in this place. As a consequence, there is a capacity to add to our number in the course of affairs, and I would like to record here my congratulations to Anna on the birth of her bub. She is not here—Opposition members interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—She is feeding the baby! This is of course not an event exclusively confined to this side of the House. Nevertheless, it is the source of great joy for us all. As I look at the relative age of the changing structure of the House, I am sure it will be a pleasure we in this chamber will have more and more often.I thank all my parliamentary colleagues for the very diligent way that they work through our policy committees, through our frontbench and through our tactics from day to day in parliament. Life in opposition is a tough business but a very satisfying and productive one when done well. I congratulate my colleagues for their great effectiveness in the course of this year. It is often hard to make an adjustment from government to opposition. We have, I think, made the adjustment well, but we are not going to become satisfied in it; we wish for better things.I now turn my attention to my own staff and thank them for the very hard work they do. I did on a previous occasion read out all their names—it is a very lengthy list. I am not gong to do so on this occasion. They are all beloved of me and they all do an extraordinary amount of work, not only on my behalf but also, as is necessarily the case in opposition, on behalf of many of our frontbenchers. But I will single out one because he has recently arrived, and that is Michael Costello, who is my chief of staff. He has an absolutely formidable reputation as a public servant and now has a very substantial reputation in the business community. I know from the wailing when I took him on board that there was going to be some degree of loss as a result of him joining us. I appreciate the enormously effective services he has performed for us all—me included, of course—since he has been here.I thank the clerks—Ian Harris, Bernard Wright and their colleagues in the Clerks Office—for their help in making the business of the House run smoothly. They do so on an impartial basis, and we appreciate their efforts. I thank Matt Minogue, the PLO, for liaison work with my staff, giving us the time to get out responses to ministerial and prime ministerial statements; the Bills and Papers Office; the Table Office; the research staff; the Serjeant-at-Arms, Judy Middlebrook, and Dalma Dixon and their helpful staff; and the Hansard staff, who probably have the toughest job in this place. If they think we are painful to listen to from time to time, think how much more painful we are to transcribe. I also thank the Jetset staff for their year of professional and effective travel service, the other House of Representatives staffs, including the printing staff, and the attendants. They are great bearers of good, ill, amusing and trivial tidings. You never quite know what is coming your way when they approach you, but it is always done very efficiently and very quietly. I express the same sentiments to Brian that the Prime Minister expressed so effectively a few moments ago.Special mention also needs to be made of the Parliamentary Library staff for their grace and forbearance when pressures of the opposition are visited upon them. The library staff perform essential tasks for the opposition, it has to be said. I once looked at a study of the use of the Parliamentary Library research staff when we were in government, and it indicated a huge disproportion in the services that they were performing for the then opposition as opposed to the then government. In many ways they are a substitute Public Service. One of the disadvantages of opposition is, of course, your limited information and research base, and that is at least in part made up for by the effectiveness of the operations of the library staff in their research activities.To all the Joint House staff, including the cleaning staff, the maintenance staff, the gardeners, the marketing and visitors staff, the switchboard staff, the health and recreation staff—who perform an absolutely essential task for most of us and produce a depressing level of fitness in some of us—the staff in the cafeteria and Aussie's Cafe—who all perform enormously good services for us—the shop operators, the bank staff, the Qantas staff, the hairdresser and all the other Joint House staff, go the very best wishes of the opposition for the festive season. My special thanks go to the Comcar drivers, particularly my drivers Alan McKenzie here in Canberra and Rick Boyland in Perth.I have already mentioned one or two of the rites of passage associated with one or two members of my team in the course of this year. Let me draw attention to one more, although it has been properly acknowledged in this place: the departure of Gareth Evans from here and his replacement by Anthony Byrne—a very effective new member, I might say, who can anticipate a very lengthy career in this place. He walks into a very effective, performing opposition.I thank the whips' staff, in particular. When I thanked the whips a little earlier I failed to mention their staff. Joan Connor and Ann Stewart are the ones who probably do the real work when it all boils down, and they do that work very well and very effectively.The Prime Minister rightly remembered to mention his party organisation and the debt of gratitude that he owes them; and I need to acknowledge mine as well, for the same reasons as the Prime Minister outlined. There is a particular reason for doing so on this occasion, as this will be the last Christmas that Gary Gray is the National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party. He has been a servant of the Labor Party for a very long period of time. His family has borne that consequence heavily. In that period of time he has seen the best of times and the worst of times, as he has occupied both his current position and other positions that he has held for the Australian Labor Party. He has done all of that with enormous diligence.He is the greatest logistician as a party secretary that the Labor Party as ever had, and his services will be sorely missed: it will be virtually impossible for his replacement to perform the role that he has performed in that regard. I suppose I ought to apologise to one or two others of his predecessors who serve in this place, but I am sure that they would probably acknowledge that in regard to Gary. He will be leaving, and we wish him well in his new occupation, whatever that may be. One of the difficulties that people experience when they serve political parties for so long is that it is not necessarily easy to get satisfactory employment after that, but I am sure his skills will be well recognised in the outside community.Before I move to talk a little more about the community in concluding my remarks, I reiterate our good wishes from the opposition to our political opponents on the other side of the chamber for Christmas and to their families. We hope that they will enjoy this festive season as we hope to enjoy it.Of course, the situations of our fellow Australians will reflect Christmases very different from the sorts of Christmases that we in this place will experience. Some will, with few exceptions, be almost automatically far from home and far from their loved ones, and that applies to virtually all the soldiers—although some of them are making it home by Christmas—who have done so extraordinarily well for us in the course of the last few months in Timor. They have upheld the highest traditions of the Australian armed forces. They have upheld a quality of political and social understanding which is at least as good as, if not better than, that of any of their predecessors deployed immediately overseas. They have been extraordinarily well trained: that is quite clear from the way in which they have conducted themselves. They have done very well indeed.It was a real privilege to join my colleagues Laurie Brereton, Steve Martin and Warren Snowdon in visiting them a week ago; and I do thank the government for facilitating that. It was an inspiration—as indeed it was an inspiration to meet them before they went in, when things did not look so clear-cut and when they thought that they might have to be performing their task in a way that involved great danger to life and limb. We should not think that that danger has passed; it has not—although it is definitely a different assessment from that which accompanied them when they went in.I also want to extend our goodwill to the people of Timor for this festive season. Frankly, it will be bad for all of them. They will have only one source of comfort, and that is that they are free and independent. But the circumstances in which they will conduct Christmas—in the wet season, and most without proper accommodation—will be the worst possible circumstances that we could conceive of. Suffice it to say that there are many Australian and international agencies and many other Australian citizens who are doing their very best with this very difficult situation to ensure that whatever can be done to lighten what will be a very difficult Christmas is being done. But we ought not kid ourselves that it will be easy for them.I think there will be a particular focus on Bishop Belo at this point in time as he leads his flock in their celebration of this period of the Christian festive calendar. I am sure he will do a great deal to lighten their load. He will draw attention to the good things that they have to be grateful for, but he will know how much they are suffering.For Australians, the picture is mixed as well. Some people will enjoy this Christmas enormously. Those of us who love sport will look back on this year as a golden one. I cannot think of any time in Australia's history when our sporting life has been so fruitful. I am advised that the Prime Minister has missed one event, and that is an Australian winning the international fly-fishing championship.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—No, I haven't. I sent a message.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—You did, did you? Very good. Did you send it to Shayne Murphy?ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—I did, but I didn't release it.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Very good—that is terrific. I apologise to the Prime Minister, I missed that point. I was going to say that it seems that we cannot lose anything. There are one or two on our side of the House who are absolutely determined that that should be the case, even in what are regarded by some as not well-supported sports.For some Australians, Christmas will be replete with festive cheer, and we wish them well, but I am sure they would want to acknowledge that there are a very substantial number of Australians who, for many reasons, will find Christmas difficult. They include those who have been subjected to personal tragedy, of which there have been a number during the course of this year, with the most recent being the train accident in New South Wales. There will be many who experience difficulties because they have found life in the family in which they live too hard and so the family has not been able to sustain its unity during the course of the year.There will be many who do it tough, who find it extraordinarily difficult to make ends meet economically. There are strange feelings abroad. The Prime Minister has detected one feeling, and I share his analysis of some in the community. But I must say that I have detected another. Although there appear to be good times, and there have been good times and good growth for eight or nine years now, some Australian families are still asking the question, `Why do I and my family not feel it?' For them in these circumstances, as the Prime Minister rightly said, a period of festivity when some appear to be enjoying the good things of life always makes that particular perception and concern that much harder to bear. To those families go good wishes and goodwill from the opposition—and, I am sure, from all members of the House.I conclude by thanking again all my team who are here and the support staff. I had an opportunity to address the staff during the course of this week and to thank them for the enormously good work they do. I also had an opportunity in caucus to thank my colleagues for the excellent work they have done. Enjoy this Christmas and be prepared to return well prepared physically and mentally for the fray for the next two years that we have remaining to us on the opposition benches.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Hear, hear!Bills13305r71913305Bill returned from the Senate with a request for amendments.Ordered that the requested amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's requested amendments—(1) Clause 32, page 19 (line 2), after "Grants", insert ", and advances on account of grants,".(2) Clause 32, page 19 (after line 3), at the end of the clause, add: (2) Loans are to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is appropriated accordingly.Motion (by Miss Jackie Kelly) proposed:That the requested amendments be made.16:20:0013306McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—In the normal course of things, this motion would have a lot of debate from this side of the House because it is an issue about which we feel strongly. We are going to vote for the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999 , and we will support these amendments, but it is a process and an outcome about which we have very profound reservations and qualifications. But we will support the bill and we will support it briefly because the reason this matter is being considered now is to facilitate its consideration in the House so that it can go expeditiously back to the Senate. This will facilitate the conclusion of our proceedings and also ensure that this package is properly passed and the money is made available to the industry before the conclusion of the parliamentary sittings.Both I and the member for McMillan feel obliged to make some brief remarks: I because of the general nature of the concerns I have and the member for McMillan because of certain specific matters relating to his constituency. I assure the House that, notwithstanding the fact that in the normal course of things this would be a lengthy contribution, I will keep it brief.The amendments that are being moved are those required by the detail of the regulatory package being put in place within the framework of this bill, and we do not oppose the amendments. But in the normal course of things when this bill came back we would have also been dealing with an amendment from the opposition, for which we had a majority in the Senate, which would have required that this package be reviewed in 2003 before expiry of the scheme and that changes to the tariff regime as a part of that take effect on 1 January 2005.The government has committed itself to conducting a review of these policy arrangements in 2005 to take account of Australia's APEC commitments and progress on market access, but there is no provision for this review to take place before the legislated tariff reductions take effect or before the scheme expires. This is a bizarre bit of policy. We protested about that when it occurred in the auto industry and we protest again. We had the numbers in the Senate to pass an amendment to require that review be undertaken but we knew that, had we had persisted with that, the government would not have accepted it and we would have prevented the flow of $700 million of assistance to the industry. We will not do that. What we do is point out to industry—and the industry is now well aware—small businesses and the workers that if they want that review in 2003 they will have to elect a Labor government at the next election. There is no other way to get that review. We will make sure that everybody in this industry knows that and that will be an issue at the next election.The debate here is being truncated with our cooperation so the bill can be passed today, 9 December 1999. The government says we must do this to expedite the package. Let us remember, this package was first announced in September 1997. The final commitment and the agreement was in July 1998. The package was introduced into the parliament in March 1999: sit around and then hurry, that is this minister's approach. So for nine months this legislation has sat on the shelf and then on the last day they truncate the process so there cannot be proper debate and the House cannot consider it adequately.We will not use that as a reason to further delay $700 million worth of assistance to the industry. The industry warrants it and the jobs are needed. We will not oppose the bills because we want to let the industry get on with its work. But the failure to have a review is bizarre and absurd policy. The delay is merely an indication of this minister's continuing inattention to his responsibilities, his complete lack of interest in industry issues. He is in the wrong portfolio. He shows no interest and no support, and the way in which he has handled this matter exhibits that. We will not oppose these amendments. We will not delay the passage of these bills, but we give very clear notice that this will be a big issue for debate when the next election comes around.16:25:0013307Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—In the interests of expediting this matter, I will speak very briefly. This matter is important to my constituency having within it, as I do, two important employers—Rocklea Spinning Mills and the Givoni Clothing Company.I have spoken to the department on several occasions, and also raised in the industry, science and resources committee the concern that I have that the provisions of the package do not allow those two employers to be able to receive any assistance from the $720 million package. My support and the Labor Party's support for this bill is on the understanding that these two important employers in my electorate are able to receive the same assistance as every other employer in the country. As yet we have been unable to receive a definitive answer from the department about this. However, we have received a broad understanding that those two important employers would be able to receive assistance, and it is on this basis that I support the bill.Question resolved in the affirmative.Ministerial Statements133071330716:26:0013307Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—by leave—I am pleased to make the ninth annual statement to parliament on Australia's development cooperation program.This last year has been one of major challenges and change, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. Australia has been at the forefront of responding to those challenges. We have promoted our national interests, in a way which has strengthened our standing in the region and the world. It has also been a year of great achievements, with the aid program playing a practical and positive role in Australia's contribution to the stability and development of our region.Australian support, including through the aid program, has helped our neighbours emerge from the economic crisis and set out on the path to recovery and sustainable growth.We have helped Indonesia begin its transition to democracy, with substantial assistance for that country's first democratic elections in four decades.Australia has been instrumental in the East Timorese being able to choose their own future—and is now playing a strong part in helping them realise that future.Papua New Guinea—our largest aid partner—has a new government, which is committed to economic reform. Australia is providing solid backing to its reform efforts. Our aid program in Bougainville continues to underpin the peace process on the province.We have continued to help the island nations of the South Pacific pursue their economic and social reform agendas.Australia responded quickly and effectively to help the Solomon Islands government deal with the impact of the Guadalcanal/Malaita tensions, including through emergency humanitarian and rehabilitation assistance.The government has ensured that the aid program is well-placed to play its part. We have provided additional funds to the program for East Timor. In September, the Treasurer and I announced an additional contribution of $35 million over three years to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, HIPCI, to help lower the debt burden of the world's poorest nations. We have assisted East Timorese and Kosovar evacuees in Australia. These commitments will increase official development assistance this financial year to over $1.6 billion. Thus at this stage, our ODA/GNP ratio looks set to increase from the previously estimated 0.25 per cent to 0.28 per cent.These increases are substantial. But volume is not the only—or even the most important—measure of the government's achievement in the development field. More important are the quality and impact of development. This has been a long-standing concern of mine. And the government has lifted aid quality, as demonstrated by the recent review of Australia's aid program by the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD. This peer review by other donor countries conclud ed with a press release on 7 December in these terms:Australia's development cooperation programme has gone through an impressive process of restructuring and renewal since the last peer review in May 1996. Continuing reforms and adaptations to aid policies and management have improved the quality and impact of the programme. A strengthened approach to programme planning, implementation, and evaluation are an integral part of (the) focus on quality. These reforms put Australia in the vanguard of DAC members' aid management practices.This could not be a more positive report card on our aid program from our peers. It is really quite excellent.GovernanceThe different challenges over the last year have had their own individual natures and circumstances. But, in reviewing the year, we see that a common thread is `governance'.Governance covers many powerful concepts, including good government, capacity building, transparency and accountability, human rights and the equitable rule of law. It is about what makes a good society—where citizens and groups voice their interests, mediate their differences and exercise their rights, both in the private sector and in the public domain.Societies in which decisions by government can be questioned and contested are ones in which good decisions are more likely to be made. The process through which governments are forced to pause, consider alternatives and then defend their decisions promotes better outcomes.This government has recognised the critical role of governance in achieving good development outcomes. In my 1997 annual report, Better aid for a better future, I made governance a specific focus of our aid program. Since then, governance has grown to 15 per cent of aid expenditure, or over $220 million in 1998-99. The program targets four main areas to advance good governance: economic and financial management, law and justice, public sector management and the development of civil society.The importance of governance has been thrown into even sharper relief this year as we look more closely at some of the key developments, starting with the East Asia financial crisis.The East Asia crisisThere are many explanations for the crisis. But one explanation which is relevant to all the affected countries is governance—quality of prudential supervision of banks, transparency and accountability of economic decision making and so on. Governance is also the key to the region's recovery and its sustainable future. For these reasons, Australia has sought to strengthen governance capacities within the region.In last year's statement, I referred to the major $50 million package of economic governance assistance for crisis affected economies. Implementation of the initiative is well under way, with over $40 million of activities now completed or in progress.To support APEC's response to the crisis, Australia commissioned a study on the impacts of the crisis on children and social safety nets. To address some of the issues highlighted in the study, the Prime Minister announced at the APEC leaders meeting in Auckland a three-year, $5 million social protection facility for East Asia.Governance was also a major theme of the major international meeting on aid responses to the Asia crisis, which I convened in Sydney in March this year. The meeting went a long way in shoring up greater international coordination and reinforcing political commitment to address the economic and social impacts of the crisis. Delegates emphasised in particular the importance of strengthening governance frameworks to promote a quick and sustainable recovery.The meeting also endorsed my proposal to establish the Asia Recovery Information Centre. This Internet based information exchange centre is now based at the Asian Development Bank in Manila. It will enhance coordination between donors and regional governments to promote sustained recovery.Fortunately, the past 12 months have seen the economies of East Asia reviving. The five crisis countries—Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Korea—are now expected to have average growth rates of almost three per cent in 1999 and four per cent in 2000. While this is good news, there is no cause for complacency. The situation still remains fragile. There is a risk that the strengthening recovery could reduce the urgency of reform. A continuing emphasis on governance issues is vital.This point was reinforced by Khun Anand, former Thai Prime Minister, when he was in Australia last month as a guest of the Centre for Democratic Institutions, a body which I established 18 months ago. Mr Anand noted Thailand's achievements over the past decade and emphasised the importance of democratic, open and accountable government in working towards his country's goals.Within East Asia, mention should be made of Indonesia, which in many ways suffered most from the crisis. As I have indicated, our aid program has been helping Indonesia's transition to democracy and its emerging economic recovery. We provided $14.3 million to support the Indonesian elections. We commenced a $70 million, three-year package of capacity building in economic and financial management. We have provided humanitarian assistance to ensure people have food and medicine and to keep children in schools. We look forward to supporting the efforts of the new Indonesian government to achieve a more prosperous and democratic nation.Our leadership role in East Timor speaks for itself. We provided over $20 million to the United Nations Consultation Process on Autonomy. Since the ballot, Australian leadership of INTERFET has helped restore security. Australia has also played a critical role in the international humanitarian response, providing basic shelter, food and water to the people of East Timor.The challenge of building a new nation is great, including developing an open, accountable and efficient government and administration as well as a strong civil society. It will require a major and coordinated effort from the international community. Australia will play a significant role in sharing the burden. Assistance to the East Timorese people—that is, those in both East and West Timor—will total at least $75 million this financial year, including the additional $60 million for the aid program I announced on 22 November.Papua New GuineaTurning to another close neighbour, the election of the Morauta government in Papua New Guinea has provided a new impetus for economic policy reform and improved governance. Australia's aid program is providing support for this reform impetus. On 1 September, I announced that the final payment of budget support to Papua New Guinea, worth some $30 million, would be brought forward. We have provided further technical assistance to the key economic agencies in Papua New Guinea.In October, our Prime Minister and Papua New Guinea's Prime Minister, Sir Mekere Morauta, signed a new treaty on development cooperation. The treaty will build on the governance results already being achieved through the aid program. It provides for the establishment of an `Incentive Fund', which will reward excellence and promote contestability among Papua New Guinean government agencies and community and private organisations. It will support reform efforts that local communities want, which have real impact and which will last.During the Prime Minister's visit to Papua New Guinea, he committed $120 million to help retire Papua New Guinea debt and implement structural adjustment programs. While this loan is not aid, it is another demonstration of Australian support for Papua New Guinea's reform agenda and, in particular, Papua New Guinea's re-engagement with the IMF and World Bank.Australia also continues to support the Bougainville peace process through a program of reconstruction and rehabilitation and logistical support for the continuing peace negotiations. Technical support has also been provided to the Bougainville provincial authorities to strengthen their planning processes.South PacificAs well as PNG, other South Pacific countries remain a strong focus for the aid program. Improving governance is one of the keys to helping the island nations achieve the maximum possible degree of self-reliance. An important tool in recognising and rewarding those Pacific island countries showing demonstrated commitment to essential economic and public sector management reforms is the policy and management reform initiative. This initiative has been steadily increasing over the last four years to its current level of over $14 million and has funded such diverse projects as a new computerised customs system and a regional media training project.Community involvementBefore concluding my statement to parliament today, I want to acknowledge the Australian community's involvement in tackling the challenges facing developing countries in our region. I have been struck by the generosity of the Australian people and their belief in a fair go for all. Community involvement in the aid program has been further extended through the Australian Youth Ambassadors for Development Program. The program, now in its second year, has placed 140 young Australians in the region.The government has also moved to recognise and strengthen the important relationship between the government and non-government organisations in Australia's overseas aid program. A few months ago I issued a policy statement, which provides the framework for a productive working relationship between the government and NGOs.Another initiative involving the community is the initiative called Destroy a Minefield, which I launched in November. This initiative will assist minefields clearance in Cambodia. Every $2 raised in the community will be matched by $1 from the government.ConclusionWith a year of achievement behind us for Australia in general, and the aid program in particular, we look ahead to building on that success. We can maximise the impact of our aid efforts in reducing poverty and achieving sustainable development if we continue to do three things.First, we need to remain focused on those areas where we have the real capacity to assist. Governance is one of those areas.Second, we need to be alert and responsive to the rapidly changing environment, particularly in our region. No-one accurately predicted all the tumultuous events that occurred in the last few years. The only safe prediction for the future is that the unexpected is likely to happen—and we need to be able to respond quickly.Finally, what really matters is that things actually change for the better. I want to see us play our part in partnership with our neighbours, to help them reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development. That is the test. The way we do that is to continue to make our aid program professional, driven by quality, and focused on real impact. That way we will make a difference.16:41:0013310Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—by leave—I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the Minister for Foreign Affairs's annual statement on Australia's overseas aid program. There is, I think, an increasing element of casual routine about these end of year statements. Nonetheless, it is a very worthwhile opportunity for me today to reaffirm Labor's bipartisan support for Australia's overseas aid program.This has been, as the minister observed in his statement, a very big year for foreign aid. I think everyone would agree with that. I would like to make a few points about our international development assistance, especially the implications of our very significant and growing effort in East Timor. On 22 November, the minister announced that Australia would contribute an additional $60 million this financial year to assist East Timor's humanitarian and reconstruction needs. Together with the $14 million previously committed to East Timor, this represents Australia's largest ever contribution to relieving an international humanitarian crisis. It is a commitment that of course enjoys Labor's wholehearted support.Having visited East Timor as a member of the Australian parliamentary observer group for the 30 August ballot, and more recently in the company of the Leader of the Opposition and my colleagues the member for Cunningham and the member for the Northern Territory, I can only say that the scale of the destruction is quite overwhelming. The task of reconstruction is enormous. This was a very poor society, burdened by decades of oppression and exploitation, which was razed from one end to the other by the pro-Indonesian militia and their TNI backers. It was a systematic and highly organised campaign of vengeance and destruction.In the history of decolonisation this century, it is difficult to find a comparable case where a new nation was forced to start so near absolute zero. We do not know how many people died. Around 140,000 East Timorese are still in squalid refugee camps in West Timor with militia intimidation still rife and the risks of disease, including cholera, growing by the day. In East Timor, where the wet season has begun, more than 70 per cent of the homes need to be rebuilt. All their roofs have been destroyed along with everyone's possessions. Schools, shops, public services and health centres all need to be rebuilt or repaired. Roads and other basic infrastructure are in an appalling state of disrepair.On top of all this, key institutions of an independent nation need to be established—a public service, political and judicial institutions and effective health and education services. Usually a new state would at least inherit working institutions of some sort from the former colonial regime, but this is not the case in East Timor. I do not think anyone can underestimate the challenges ahead for UNTAET and for East Timor's leaders. They will need all the help they can get.All this amounts to an enormous task, and the demand on our aid budget will be an enduring one. No-one can have any doubt about that. The international community, the EU, the United States, Japan and many other countries have responded generously. But a large measure of responsibility will undoubtedly rest with us. We must be in this for the long haul.Here can be found an anomaly. As honourable members will recall, on 23 November the Prime Minister announced the Defence-East Timor levy, the so-called `Timor tax'. When he did so, he foreshadowed an estimated $3.683 billion of additional expenditure over the period of 1999-2000 to 2002-2003. The overwhelming majority of this expenditure—$3.562 billion or 96.7 per cent of the total—relates to the Australian Defence Force: $1.355 million for the ADF deployment in East Timor; $529 million on capital equipment; $1.547 billion for force expansion—the raising of two additional battalion groups; and $131 million for the income tax exemption for pay and allowances of ADF personnel on eligible duty outside Australia. All these commitments extend over the current financial year and out to the financial year 2002-2003.By comparison, the $60 million of humanitarian and reconstruction aid for East Timor in the current financial year amounts to a very modest 1.62 per cent of the additional expenditure outlined in the Prime Minister's statement. Indeed, the commitment announced by the Prime Minister put our overall foreign aid effort into an interesting perspective.The point I wish to draw members' attention to today is the absence of any forward commitment on aid for East Timor. Unlike the commitments to the ADF deployment and force expansion, this is a one-off one-year-only additional allocation. Obviously, the government considers itself unable to make a forward commitment on aid to East Timor, but the reality of a very large and ongoing demand on our aid program is quite clear. This raises interesting questions for next year's aid budget. Examination of the statistical annex of this year's development assistance budget summary tells a sorry tale of the government's stewardship of our foreign aid.In the last budget of the former Labor government, in 1995-96, Australia's official development assistance in constant 1998-99 prices was $1.635 billion or 0.32 per cent of GNP. In the first Howard budget, this was slashed by 9.4 per cent to $1.481 billion, and the ratio fell to what was then a historic low of 0.28 per cent of GNP. In the following year there was a further cut of 1.9 per cent, and the ratio fell again to 0.27 per cent of GNP. In 1998-99 the aid budget amounted to $1.478 billion, a slight increase of 1.7 per cent but a further fall in the ODA to GNP ratio of 0.26 per cent. This year's budget involved an aid vote of $1.5 billion, an increase of $22 million over 1998-99. In effect, while it maintained the status quo, the ODA to GNP ratio was projected to fall to a new low of 0.25 per cent.Since the budget, of course, Australia's East Timor commitments plus the additional $35 million over three years referred to by the minister—for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative—have pushed our foreign aid to slightly more than $1.6 billion. The minister anticipates that this year our ODA to GNP ratio will increase from the previously projected 0.25 per cent to 0.28 per cent.The question is: what happens next year? Australia will unquestionably be obliged to contribute a very significant amount of assistance to East Timor. We must do that. But, as the minister's statement rightly makes clear, Australia's aid program is much more than East Timor. We have a very large and important commitment in PNG, in the South Pacific and in East Asia. We also have smaller but still important programs in South Asia, Africa and the Middle East. We are likely to face other significant demands on our resources, not only in our immediate region but also further afield. The challenge for the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be how the aid budget will accommodate new, large and ongoing demands, and they will arise. I would say there will certainly be a strong temptation on the part of the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Administration to accommodate part of these demands through cuts elsewhere in our aid budget: the programs in Africa or South Asia, the two regions where the greatest number of the world's poorest people are to be found. The foreign minister has given no forward commitment on aid to East Timor. Equally significantly, he has given no guarantee that further aid to East Timor or elsewhere in our region will not be at the expense of other established programs further afield.In his statement, the minister observed that volume is not the only, or necessarily the most important, measure of foreign aid. The quality and the impact of development assistance are what count. No-one would disagree with this. But it is equally true that the level of resources—the actual volume of aid—is critical. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. The government continues to pay lip-service to the United Nations 0.7 per cent ODA to GNP ratio target. And lip-service is all that is. As the 1996 Simons report made clear, such a commitment has very little, if any, credibility unless a realistic framework is set for Australia to work towards the ultimate goal. Accordingly, we in the opposition await next year's aid budget with keen interest.Motion (by Mr Downer) proposed:That the House take note of the paper.Debate (on motion by Mr Brereton) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance133121331210000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Hotham proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the government to keep its pledge that battling Australians will not be losers as a result of the GST package.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—16:52:0013312Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—We have seen one group today the beneficiaries of the government in damage control, because the government failed on their promise that people would not be worse off under the GST. I refer, of course, to the charities. Little less than half an hour ago, the Treasurer announced, together with the Democrats, the deal that they claim fixes the problem. They did not announce it in the parliament and they made it after question time because they did not want to face scrutiny in this place because the deal does not solve the problem. The deal does not address the key issues. It is a backflip, but it does not solve the problems. The fact is that charities are still caught in the GST net, whether they are coming or going. They are not GST free, and this agreement still keeps them in the net. The Democrats have ensured that the charities remain trapped in that net—and it has now become a huge driftnet, dragging in everyone else on the way.No matter how many entities are established and no matter how much you might like, from time to time, to raise the threshold, these facts still remain. If the charity is below the $100,000 level, it still has to pay GST on its inputs. The GST becomes an embedded tax for charities, and it keeps those charities below the threshold in the GST net. Charities of over $100,000 have to pay the GST, and they have to collect it. That is why we say that these charities are caught whether they are coming or going.The Democrats have also indicated with the government that they propose to hold further discussions on whether there is need for an inquiry into the impact of the government's tax package on charities. If the Democrats are serious about that, they should join Labor in insisting on that inquiry. We have been saying since October of this year that an independent inquiry is needed to see how the government's tax package impacts upon charities. If the Democrats were serious about it, they would join with us. It is a sham to suggest that they are merely going to hold further discussions with the government on that question.As for Senator Woodley's claim, as I understand it he said in the press conference today that this agreement was now better than the old arrangements applying to charities because the so-called exemptions apply to a bigger range of goods. That is just patently false for this simple reason: item 140 of the sales tax exemption act exempts charities from all items that they have purchased where they produce a certificate. You cannot have a more comprehensive exemption than that. They are the existing arrangements. I think even the Treasurer might understand that now, having been hit in the face with the pie warmer excuse. The fact is that the charities can get exemptions on all products they purchase for their activities. So Senator Woodley's assertion that his deal today with the government applies to a wider range of issues and products is patently false. Under the GST, they are input taxed or they incur the GST. Either way they are caught coming and going. They are not better off. Although this agreement is a backflip, it is still a sell-out. It does not address the fundamental question.Let me go to the other issues of groups that have been hit by the GST. Ordinary, battling Australians have been deceived on the GST. They were promised that they would be better off—a deceit exposed by the day. Where will the deceivers be on 1 July when the new tax comes in? John Howard and Meg Lees will be fleeing the country. These two are like Ma and Pa Kettle visiting London. They leave behind the nightmare that they have created. It might sound familiar in the case of the Prime Minister because, when Newcastle had the plug pulled on it by BHP and the Prime Minister was being called upon to go to Newcastle and to deal with the problem, where was he? He was off to Lords.The minister at the table, Minister Hockey, might be a bit wary because we know where he was on his recent trip on the two weekends in question. This is a patent achievement by the government. Whenever there is an issue to deal with or a crisis, where does the Prime Minister go? He goes AWOL. He goes out of this country. He went to Lords during the Newcastle closure, and now he is trying to construct another cricket match at Lords to get himself over there to avoid the impact and the fallout from the GST.It is also a tax that the Prime Minister does not understand. This is a man obsessed for 20 years with the introduction of the GST, and he still cannot explain how it works. There is a simple proposition involved in this. If he cannot understand it, how can he expect ordinary Australians to understand it? If he does not know how it applies, how can he expect the millions of small businesses in this country to apply it?This week we have seen the deceit on charities. We have seen a government unable to explain it. We have seen that they do not understand the new system. We have seen the Treasurer demonstrating with the pie warmer in the face exercise that he does not even understand the system he is replacing it with. We have seen over the last 12 months a growing realisation among Australians that they have been conned over the GST. To win the last election, the government had to produce con after con to hide the real impact of this unfair tax.Let us go through the promises. This government has said, `Everyone will be better off; there will be no losers. Education will be GST free. Health will be GST free. Charities will not be hit by the GST. No petrol price will increase as a result of the GST. There won't be any special breaks for high rollers. The budget will be more secure. Car prices will fall by more than eight per cent. Insurance costs won't go up by much. Air fares won't go up by much. Books won't go up by much. Prices won't rise more than 1.9 per cent.' Perhaps the biggest lie of all, the biggest deceit of all, is the `simple' new tax—so simple that we will not need to make any more changes for another 50 years, according to the member for Higgins.Let me just deal with that last issue first. This new tax is so simple that we have already seen more than 1,000 amendments introduced to it within four months of the dirty deal being struck and seven months ahead of its implementation. The member for Higgins has become the Millennium Man. He has beaten the new millennium by introducing 1,000 amendments to his new, simple tax that he said would not have to be touched for 50 years. Within four months, he has touched it 1,000 times, the same way he is going to be touching every purchaser in this country. Every time they go and buy something, his hand will be in their pocket taking out the 10 per cent.The legislation and associated material is thicker than three telephone books. It weighs in at 5.1 kilograms. Companies registering for this new, simple system have been told that they have to fill out a form of only two pages, but to explain that and the other forms there are 850 pages of instructions—this for the 1.8 million tax collectors that this government is producing. In a stunt about small business paperwork the other day, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business told us that we could have the material he was waving around. Do you remember that, Mr Deputy Speaker? It is strange, because we have made two calls to his office and have failed to get one single sheet from the minister who was in here saying that we could have whatever we wanted when we came around.Let us go to the promises in detail. Remember the fact that nobody would be worse off? Remember the pensioners, the people who Labor proved through the Senate inquiry had been conned by a system that was designed to erode their compensation to nothing after just a few years? When we demonstrated that, the government changed their rhetoric. They moved from `No-one will be worse off' to `No group will be worse off'. But look at the groups that have been affected by the Timor tax, the Meg Lees tax, the tax that has had to be imposed to pay for our troops because the dirty deal struck with the Democrats cost the budget $1.8 billion. That is what it did, and they say that they need this tax to raise $1.3 billion. If the dirty deal had not been struck, the Meg Lees tax would not be necessary. We have seen a broken promise in that tax. I said before that the Treasurer said that he would not have to change the tax rates for another 50 years. He has changed them within four months and seven months ahead of the implementation. The government said before the election that education would be GST free.MG4LEEMr Lee—What a joke!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Ask any family, as the shadow minister for education knows, whether they think putting a tax on school uniforms, school shoes, transport costs, books, stationery, computer software, Internet charges and playing and attending sports as well as taxing private tuition fees, even music tuition fees—Mr Hockey interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Too right I am being hard about this, because you are being hard on the community. You have ripped them off. You have conned them. You went to the election deceiving them, and we are going to expose that deceit. Parents know education will be hard hit by the GST. The other claim was that health would be GST free. This is also patently false. We saw yesterday the member for Bruce in question time indicating how many creams, ointments and other important treatments for health conditions will be subject to the new tax. It is another con, another deceit.Then there was the argument that charities will not be hit by the GST. I have already demonstrated how, even with the agreement today, they are still going to be hit by the GST. Remember what they said about petrol? The Prime Minister has been avoiding assiduously this question all week because he knows he is caught. They said, `No petrol price will increase as a result of the GST.' The only way this can happen, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl—and I know you will be interested, because you represent a regional area where the price of petrol often tends to be much higher than the metropolitan—Mr Hockey interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Take note of this, because this is the formula that you will have to defend in another role. It will be achieved only if the government reduce the petrol excise by more than the around 7c a litre that they have allowed for in the forward estimates. If they reduce the excise by even more, they will blow a large hole in the budget. The Treasurer has tried to argue that there is no difference and that, if you take the excise down, the GST will come in to make up the balance. Whilst that is true, it is also true that the reduction in excise comes off the budget. But the GST, as we are constantly told in this House, all goes to the states. If the reduction in excise has to be higher to deliver this government's promise, it is going to further erode the fiscal position of this budget.Petrol prices will rise for residents in remote and regional Australia, and the price differential between city and country prices will worsen because of the GST. You go and tell your people about the petrol hike that is going to come as a result of the GST. Then we saw the hypocrisy associated with the high rollers. This arose from the Olympic tickets fiasco that the Prime Minister generated when he said that he was going to charge high income earners the GST on Olympic tickets. We have to thank the Prime Minister for putting the GST back on the front page with that little exercise. It has not been off the front pages or the second, third or fourth pages ever since.Here was a man saying that high income earners should pay the GST on Olympic tickets, but will he put a GST on high rollers in casinos? No. He actually moves an amendment to exempt them. Where is the justice in a GST that falls 10 per cent on every wage and salary earner in this country but where the only real exemption you give is to high rollers in casinos? No wonder people say that when the Prime Minister gets up and talks about economic success they know they are missing out. (Time expired)17:07:0013315Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—Merry Christmas, Simon.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order!DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—The member for Hotham. That is a little bit of Christmas cheer to someone who reminds me a lot of Bill Murray playing the character of Mr Scrooge. Do you know that film? You should be running a TV network. We come in here with a valedictory message about the spirit of Christmas and, lo and behold, the member for Hotham exits the chamber not prepared to share in the valedictories, not prepared to share in the goodwill of Christmas. He leaves the Australian people worse off this Christmas. Why? Because of the current taxation system.Mr Melham interjecting—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—The member for Banks feigns outrage. I kind of like that outrage from the member for Banks—he has some endearing qualities—but I am a little concerned about that outrage. I will be spending Christmas in the electorate of the member for Banks. We will be around the Christmas tree and I wonder how much wholesale sales tax that tree will have on it. I will tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker: the amount of tax on a Christmas tree put up in a family home in the electorate of the member for Banks depends on whether or not it is a real tree. Of course there is no wholesale sales tax on a real tree, but if it is a plastic tree there will be 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on it. We are poor people, so we will be going for the plastic tree. If you put a real tree into a pot, the pot will have 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on it.We might choose to take a photo of the Christmas tree—although at this stage the Christmas tree does not have any lights on it—and there would be 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on those photos. If we wanted to then frame the photos, there would be 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on the photo frame. Some people in our family do not necessarily choose to eat a lot of sweets on Christmas Day, but for those in the family who do choose to get into some sweets there will be a 12 per cent wholesale sales tax on them. There might be a dinner table around and on that table you might be looking at a tablecloth and some napkins which will have 12 per cent wholesale sales tax on them, thanks to the Labor Party.The table and chairs will also have a wholesale sales tax on them, thanks to the Labor Party. The television set might come on because we might all want to sing along with the Christmas carols in the joy and spirit of Christmas—we might be enjoying some of the rantings and ravings of the traditional Christmas carols—and that television set has a 32 per cent wholesale sales tax on it.XJ6ANTHONYMr Anthony—How much?DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—It is 32 per cent. It might get a bit emotional for everyone and we will be reaching for the tissues, and there will be 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on the tissues. In the spirit of giving, we all get some toys, particularly for the kids. It is important that kids get some sort of wrapped-up present on Christmas Day. But the Labor Party has a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on toys. At Christmas, we might even give a member of the family a new pet—perhaps a little puppy. That puppy needs to be trained and an ultrasonic dog trainer will have a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on it. So there is 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on puppies! Of course Christmas just isn't Christmas unless you have some lights up. If the light fittings are attached, there is a 12 per cent wholesale sales tax. If it is a light bulb, there is a 12 per cent wholesale sales tax. But to put the lights up you need a ladder—because it is hard to reach up high—and that ladder will have a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on it.What is Christmas without having a Christmas cake or a bit of the old pudding? We always go for a bit of pudding at Christmas, and some of us have more than others. The Christmas pudding is perhaps the key event of the day after the presents have been opened—and of course there is a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on the presents. Under the Labor Party, when it comes to candles there is a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax. That is the part where the kids like to blow out the candles and say `Merry Christmas' and move on for an exciting new year. We might even get one of Alan Jones's Christmas carol tapes to run with the Christmas spirit. That tape would have about 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on it. It is a challenging Christmas under the Labor Party. Everyone wonders whether the Labor Party is going to be fair this Christmas. This is the Labor Party that pledges to take care of the battlers. Here I am saying that I am going to the electorate of the member for Banks for Christmas and some parts of that electorate are doing it a little tough.Mr Anthony interjecting—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I can assure you that it is not with the member for Banks that I am celebrating Christmas—however much I might find him an interesting guy at times. This Christmas is going to be the hardest Christmas—the last hardest Christmas under the wholesale sales tax of the Labor Party. Why is that the case? Because we came up with a new taxation system that is going to make it a lot cheaper for people to celebrate Christmas in the future. We are doing it for the families of Australia, the hard workers of Australia and for a range of other people. It is not me saying that; it is a journal of record. We do not always agree with the Fairfax Press. I think that is fair to say. We go through ups and downs with Fairfax Press, particularly with the Sydney Morning Herald . But you should look at the recent Sydney Morning Herald editorial headline `GST—why everyone's a winner. The first independent look at Howard's new deal'. We have seen some terrible editorials in the Sydney Morning Herald over the years.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The minister should not display the article indefinitely. He will get tired arms.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—This is something I could hang up for ages. The front-page article is headed `Sole-parent, single-income families reap the big tax breaks'. Isn't that good news? When it comes to the details, every Australian will benefit and particularly families. Remember this is the Labor Party that hits kids' toys with 22 per cent tax. Let us just get the details on the record: families with children, typical families, will gain $40 to $50 a week under our new taxation system. That is an extra $2.4 billion a year for over two million Australian families. That means an extra $140 a year for each dependent child and an extra $350 a year for single income families with a child under five. It also means simplified family assistance, extra child-care assistance and the removal of the assets test for family assistance.For those people who are on pensions, pensions and allowances will go up four per cent on 1 July 2000. The maximum rent assistance rate will go up seven per cent on 1 July 2000. Pensions and allowances will be guaranteed to remain at least two per cent ahead of any rise in the cost of living as a result of the changes. For senior Australians, the pension rate is up four per cent on 1 July 2000 and the pensioner rebate—the low income aged pension rebate—will be up $250 a year for singles and $350 for couples. And particularly for rural and regional Australia—XJ6ANTHONYMr Anthony—Tell me about it.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—And there is no better advocate for rural and regional Australia than the Minister for Community Services, the member for Richmond, who is at the table. He is always into my ear at question time about the interests of rural and regional Australia. What he says, what we are advised and what will happen is that the cost of diesel for heavy transport will be down about 23c a litre. The assets test for family assistance will be removed. There are lots of other goodies under the coalition government's Christmas tree because that coalition Christmas tree will be taxed not at 22 per cent—like it was under the Labor Party—but at 10 per cent. So it is a tax rate down. Tax down under coalition; tax up under Labor—a pretty simple formula.We have had the rantings and ravings of the shadow Treasurer and Deputy Leader of the Opposition during this debate. It has been a long year for him. He looked a little stressed and green around the gills, perhaps because we are getting to the end of a long year—a year when the Labor Party had so much of an opportunity to grab the interests of Australia ahead of their own sectoral electoral interests during the taxation debate. It is really regrettable that, on an issue that has been decided by the Australian people that Australia will have tax reform, the opposition—the federal parliamentary Labor Party—is the only political party in the world outside of Swaziland and Botswana that is supporting a wholesale sales tax regime.WF6DANBYMr Danby—What happened in Canada when they introduced it?DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—The member interjects `What happened in Canada?' I will tell you what happened in Canada. Canada is enjoying great economic growth. The government made the mistake in Canada of not abolishing indirect taxes and not passing income tax cuts to the people when they were put in place. Therefore, the Canadian people were worse off at the point of introduction because they had no abolition of indirect taxes and they had no personal income taxes as the GST came in.The good news is that Australian people will get income tax cuts from 1 July next year—80 per cent of Australians will pay no more than 30 cents in the dollar. That is between 29c and 31c; that is not between Humpty Dumpty and Hey Hey It's Saturday repeats. That is 30 cents in the dollar that 80 per cent of Australians will get under the taxation system that we are putting in place. We have put in place the most generous personal income tax cuts and the most generous family support systems and mechanisms that have ever been undertaken by a Commonwealth government. Isn't that great? That is great.It is great because we as a true coalition are giving individuals greater choice about how they spend the money they earn. Instead of the government taking more money out of their pockets in the form of tax and spending it at the discretion of the government, we are saying to individuals, `We will take less tax out of your pocket and we will give you more discretion about how you spend the money you earn.' That is a fundamental philosophical difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. That side of the House is a high tax, high interventionist, big government with big Canberra influence in the lives of every Australian.Opposition members interjecting—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—If the opposition members disagree with what I say, put up your hands. One hand went up. He is the only person that disagrees with what I say. It is a lonely cast out there in the member for Hotham's Mr Scrooge play.I am very disappointed that in this Christmas moment the opposition are not joining in the cheer and the celebration of a major change to what Australia is going to be as we enter the 21st century. We are entering a new millennium when Australia has had record economic growth and sustainable economic growth. The Labor Party had some economic growth during its years. I will give you credit for that. But what happened when it hit three per cent? You had Treasurer Keating saying, `Whoa, put on the brakes, raise up interest rates; let's drive the economy into recession.' That was because the Labor Party had failed to undertake the hard reform that meant the car could go faster, that meant the economy could go faster. They failed to take the economy to the mechanic, and therefore it could not travel as fast as we have done.So we have undertaken industrial relations reform; we have undertaken taxation reform; we have fixed up the budget deficit; and we have got on with the sale of part of Telstra to reduce the debt so that we do not have to spend so much money on interest each year. The great news is that, as we approach Christmas at the end of not just the century, which has been a great century for Australia, but also a great millennium in the history of mankind, Australia is more positive today and more enthusiastic about its future. We feel more vibrant about the future of Australia today than ever before in our history. And that is the way it should be at the turn of each century: positive about the future and enthusiastic about the future. It is a great opportunity for Australians.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member's enthusiasm has expired.17:22:0013318Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Tasmanians are a practical people. Unlike the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, we are not too smart by half. Generally, we are a conservative mob, a people who question change rather than just accepting it because it is occurring. We require some proof before we accept miracles. We do not like the idea of selling off our family silver if we cannot see any return for it, and we do not take kindly to others trying to pinch it. If we do not believe that we will gain a benefit from something, if we believe that it will not improve what we have or that it will detract from what we have, we as a people will say no. Love it or hate it, that is the way of it where I come from.But this is no different from many communities throughout Australia. My community is regional. If one looks at the political landscape lately, one can see that we are starting to be heard. We have some political clout, and it comes from a culture shift. Before you leave, Minister, it is called VVP—remember it!—volatile voting patterns. It means that regional communities are prepared to change their vote, and often. They are tired of being ignored, hoodwinked and patronised by government and big business.In the last election, my electorate of Braddon, like all federal seats in Tasmania, voted against the GST and the further sale of Telstra. Very simply, they saw no benefit in either of these measures, nor did they see benefit in selling off parts of the Hydro-Electric Corporation in the last state election. They saw no benefit in these measures, and they voted overwhelmingly against them. Unfortunately, we now have a GST and the sale of more of Telstra. But, judging by the results so far of both, Tasmanian electors, and particularly the electors of Braddon, have been right. If they were anxious about the GST one year ago, they are positively frantic now.Contrary to what is said by the authors of the GST opposite, we on this side do not have to highlight the problems facing battlers when it comes to this new tax system. The confusion comes from the government side—it is all over the shop. Battling small business people in my electorate are attempting now to learn more about the GST. They go to seminars, but they do not often come back any more enlightened. In fact, some come back even more confused; there are more questions than answers.A few seminars are not going to ease their concerns, but at least they can turn for help to the Taxation Office's information kit. There is some light reading there for the insomniacs amongst us—because they sure as hell will not have time to be sifting through this during their working hours. All the hype about the new taxation system being `more small business friendly' is just that—hype. It makes a small business operator a tax collector. It requires him or her to comply, and to pay for it. We are talking thousands of dollars to do this. And what is their reward? Christmas time, a gift voucher of $200 to offset the cost of the GST. It is a bare fraction of the estimated compliance cost of $3,500 which is facing each small business. In addition, we are talking about additional time to learn, to train staff and so on, all at a time when many regional small businesses are already doing it hard.You do not have to take my word for it, though—I am just a politician. Minister, you can pick up a copy of the latest State of Our Regions report, you can browse through the Senate report of September 1999, Jobs for the Regions or you can read through Professor Peter Dixon's evidence to the Senate inquiry into the GST in relation to transport and communications, agriculture, forestry and fishing, food and drink, textile, clothing and footwear, and tourism to get ample evidence of this.Every one of these industries is important in my electorate. They are at the heart of our economic life, and Professor Dixon predicts job losses in them because of the tax system. But you do not have to believe just him. What about Chris Murphy, the Prime Minister's preferred tax modeller? Indeed, even he agrees. This is the man who, as my friend the member for Rankin pointed out, was falling over himself in his critique of Professor Dixon's report to the Senate GST committee to support the Prime Minister's absurd claim that, apart from the tax cheats, everyone is a winner from the tax package.I am told that, in secret advice to Treasury before the tax package was released, he in fact reported job losses in 12 out of 18 industry sectors. In the evidence he provided to the Senate GST inquiry, he said that there would be job losses in Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT. No wonder this man is the Prime Minister's modeller of choice. On the other hand, he says that it is ridiculous for Professor Dixon to assert that there will be any losers. Then he contradicts himself by pointing to thousands of losers from the government's tax package. Indeed, his own model predicts over 1,000 job losses alone in my state of Tasmania.Let us look at the impact of the GST on one of these industries: tourism. Tourism is a major job creator in my state. In actual fact, nationwide tourism contributes $16 billion in export earnings and over one million jobs, many of which are in decentralised areas like my own. I would draw attention to evidence given to the Senate Select Committee on the New Tax System by a tourism task force representative. I think it is very important and poignant that we remember these words. The representative made the following observations in relation to the possible employment effects of a GST on the tourism industry. He said:Our chief findings are that the impact of the reduction in spending across the tourism sector as a result of this package will cost Australia 59,500 jobs of which 34,100 will fall in the domestic sector and 25,400 in the inbound sector. In comparison to the size of their work forces, the Northern Territory, Tasmania and Queensland will be most disadvantaged by job losses. Importantly, regional tourism will also be heavily impacted.He went on to say:I cannot understate to you the importance of the impact of job losses in rural and regional Australia. If you lose your tourism job in Sydney or in Melbourne, you have a good chance of picking up a job elsewhere in any number of other industries. If you are a waiter in a B&B in south western Tasmania or if you are a retrenched miner and you have put your redundancy payout into a barra boat in Cairns, you have all your nest egg in one basket.More specifically, those in the north-west region of my electorate are already bracing themselves for the fallout from the new tax. In fact, some of their fears are being realised already in terms of tourism. Take, for example, a recent announcement that fares on Tasmania's tourism flagship, the Bass Strait passenger ferry, Spirit of Tasmania , are to go up by 7.2 per cent on 1 July next year.The airlines, too, are putting up their fares by seven per cent. For Tasmania and my region that is significant because visitors to our beautiful state cannot just jump in their cars and go across the border for a holiday. To get there they have to travel by air and sea.Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.849Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—When you consider that the vast majority of our tourism trade comes from interstate, the GST has the potential to cause enormous damage. But if it costs more—and there is no doubt that it will—some people just will not come. Last year Tassie attracted over half a million visitors. We want more, not fewer. Tourism generates jobs, and we need more of them not fewer. What brings the dilemma even closer to home for me is that the west north-west region attracts over a quarter of all visitors to Tasmania. At a time when our traditional industrial base is shrinking, we have a growing tourist industry. It offers new hope and it brings valuable tourist dollars into the local economy. Today even the Prime Minister noted that the Mersey-Lyell region in my electorate has one of the highest levels of unemployment in Australia. So why would you tax it? The tourism industry will be less competitive as a holiday destination because of this; less able to compete for the tourist dollar against other states and less well equipped to absorb the impact of the GST.When we talk about the goods and services tax we generally relate it to goods, but people fail to realise that we will be taxed on services. The services include electricity and gas bills; telephone bills; postage; haircuts and hairdressing; buses, trains and taxis; RSL and sporting club memberships; home and contents insurance and car insurance; plumbing; and lawn mowing and gardening. We will pay a tax for these services. We are not used to paying taxes for our services, and the battlers of Australia will pay that price.The words of Eddie Cantor's song `When I'm the President, when I'm the President, there'll be no holes in doughnuts', are about as wishful as this Prime Minister's electorate pledge that battling Australians will not be losers as a result of the GST package. There will always be holes in doughnuts, Prime Minister, and under this government's GST the battlers will have to battle harder and longer. (Time expired)17:32:0013320Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It is particularly interesting to follow the member for Braddon who, by his own admission, said that he was not smart by half. He certainly illustrated that in the debate this afternoon. In fact, the presentations by the member for Hotham and the member for Braddon remind one of a David Copperfield night at Las Vegas. Their presentations were like the disappearing trick: none of the battlers in Australia will gain any benefits from the GST changes, it is all illusory, no benefits will accrue and no study on the benefits has been carried out.It is important and interesting to note the comments of three independent observers about whether or not the battlers of Australia are better off under the GST proposals. The first comment is by the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, who hardly holds a biased political position. On 11 November this year, he said:Our Starting Point has always been that the imposition of the GST should not have an effect on wages because wage earners will gain more from the accompanying fall in income tax rates than they will lose from the introduction of the GST. The net effect of the tax changes will be to increase the disposable income of wage earners more than the increase in their expenditure, as is evidenced by the fact that the package involves a cost to the Budget.Those are the comments of the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, who says from his independent position that the average wage earner in Australia will be better off: not maybe will be, possibly could be or won't be; he says they will be better off.Neil Warren of the University of New South Wales, who is regarded as one of the leading tax experts in the country, said when he examined the net effect of the changes after inflation had been allowed for—and I quote the industry tax report—that his result was that `everybody will be better off'. Not some, but everybody—particularly the battlers in this country. The Labor Party, which had 13 years to try to fix the situation for the battlers of Australia, failed to do so. We had the highest levels of inflation that Australia has seen in its contemporary history, inflation rates of up to 19 per cent, and now we have the lowest inflation rates in 30 years. This is the context in which the average wage earner in Australia is operating. So, whether we look at it in terms of inflation rates, whether we look at it in terms of interest rates, which also are amongst the lowest we have seen in 30 years, or whether we look at it in terms of unemployment rates, which are as low as we have seen for at least ten years, there is no doubt the average salary earner in Australia is better off, particularly with the very low unemployment rates we have seen right across the country.We should also look at what Access Economics said. There is no doubt that everyone says Access Economics is an independent economic group. What do they say about the battlers? They did an eight-page review and calculated the impact of the package—including income tax cuts, increased family assistance, social security payments and the extra cost of the GST—on 11 family types. The result of their study was that families with children, including and especially battlers on about $30,000 a year, benefit most from the federal government's proposed GST package. Their analysis shows that everybody comes out ahead, particularly sole parents, with single income couples on $30,000 with children doing best.It shows that families with children and two incomes of about $30,000 also do well, with a child under five gaining them $49.54 per week, or a 9.6 per cent rise in disposable income. Those with children aged between 5 and 13 years get $50.88 per week, or a 9.7 per cent increase. No matter which group you look at, sole parents who receive an income will get an increase estimated by Access Economics to be 11 per cent in disposable income and families with dependent children and a single income in the $30,000 to $35,000 bracket will also gain nearly 11 per cent.Whichever way you cut it, and whichever truly independent expert you ask—and I hear lots of quoting of the Tourism Task Force, but Chris Brown, who is a lovely guy, is not an economist, and even within the tourism industry there was a lot of criticism of the comments made in terms of projected job losses—what can be seen very clearly from these objective reports, firstly by the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, secondly by Neil Warren, the independent tax expert from the University of New South Wales, and thirdly by Access Economics, which is, by any standard, one of the most highly respected economic institutes in the country, is that everybody is going to be better off. Sole parents and those with several children are going to be significantly better off—some by more than 10 per cent per year—when you take into account the family bonuses and the income tax cuts, because 80 per cent of Australians will be paying no more than 30 per cent in overall income tax payments. That is a huge benefit to middle Australia and to the battlers right across the board. It is a great plus for Australia.The families package which was announced is part of the GST proposals that will provide assistance worth more than $2.4 billion each year to about 2 million families, and that will be an enormous plus. The costs normally associated with the average family will mean that they are compensated in terms of significant tax cuts right across the board. Canada is used as an example but, while they had a GST imposed, they did not have the tax cuts that we will see here in Australia.What about the pensioners? The pensioners will receive a minimum four per cent increase in the size of their pensions. There will be an automatic two per cent and then a two per cent rise which relates to the amount that they will be above the CPI. Of course, if the CPI is found to be 2½ per cent, they will receive a 4½ per cent increase, and so they will be significantly better off than they are now. Even Access Economics will tell you that they are better off.Independent retirees are often brought forward by the opposition as being worse off, but Access Economics clearly indicates that they will be better off. There is a payment of up to $2,000 to compensate independent retirees for the impact of the GST. For older Australians, there is a special retirees supplementary bonus. The aged persons savings bonus of up to $1,000 is most significant.We will see the total removal of the wholesale sales tax and all the endemic taxes there. The tax of 22 per cent on our family car will come down to 10 per cent. That will mean that Australians will be paying less for their cars, and that must be a great plus. For the average working person in this country, there will be a significant lowering of costs. When you add the basics of the cost of a car being reduced and the significant tax cuts so that 80 per cent of Australians will be paying 30c in the dollar, that is a bonus for Australia. The tax on videos, televisions and so on will come down from 32 per cent to 10 per cent, and so there is a significant boost to Australians.In conclusion, it is clear that the member for Hotham and the member for Braddon are simply ignoring what will happen under the GST. It will be a great boost for Australia in income tax reductions, family bonuses, the payment to pensioners and independent retirees, the great stimulus to the Australian economy, the lowering of the staple cost of such items as cars from a tax of 22 per cent to one of 10 per cent, and the removal of the iniquitous wholesale sales tax. Across the board, battlers, middle Australia and low income earners will be significantly better off. From this side of the House, we commend the GST for its impact on Australia. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The discussion has concluded.Committees13322133221332217:43:0013322Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—As required by resolutions of the House, I table copies of the notification of alterations of interests received during the period 30 June to 8 December 1999.Bills13322s22713322Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.13322Bill (on motion by Mr Abbott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills13322s21913322Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.13322Bill (on motion by Mr Abbott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills13322r91213322Messages received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist upon its amendments Nos 2, 4, 6 and 7 disagreed to by the House and has agreed to the amendments made by the House in place of amendments Nos 4 and 6.Bills13323The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Appropriation (East Timor) Bill 1999-2000 Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 1999 Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 Tradex Scheme Bill 1999 [No. 2] Tradex Duty Imposition (Customs) Bill 1999 Tradex Duty Imposition (Excise) Bill 1999 Tradex Duty Imposition (General) Bill 1999 Customs Tariff Amendment (Tradex) Bill 1999 [No. 2] Ministerial Statements133231332317:46:0013323Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—by leave—I had the honour to lead the Australian Delegation to the 30th Session of the UNESCO General Conference, held in Paris in November. Australia is a founding member of UNESCO, the organisation responsible within the United Nations system for the promotion of education, science and culture.We have been active in the organisation throughout its history and are presently the ninth largest contributor in accordance with a contribution scale set by the United Nations.For these reasons and because of the important role that UNESCO can play in promoting basic education in developing countries, the government attaches much importance to this organisation.Australia's election to the executive boardAn important objective for Australia at the conference was our election to the UNESCO Executive Board as the nominated candidate of the Pacific subgroup of the Asia-Pacific region. We were successful, obtaining one of the largest votes we have ever achieved. We have already begun our two-year term on the board, represented by Professor Ken Wiltshire of the University of Queensland who, as Chairman of the Australian National Commission for UNESCO, is widely known and respected within the organisation.UNESCO reformUNESCO has had a number of successes in recent years, including, for example, the World Science Conference held in Budapest in June-July and the Education Conference in Melbourne. However, it has also been subject to some well-founded criticism for poor management practices and a lack of focus in its program activity on core functions—those areas where UNESCO has the capacity uniquely to add value.One of the government's major objectives during this year's conference, and during our current term on the executive board, will be to give strong support to improved management in the organisation.It was therefore pleasing that, together with others, we were able to achieve a consensus on a zero nominal growth budget for the next biennium (2000-2001). This budget approach will require significant administrative and managerial efficiencies to ensure that budgeted program activities are carried out.Australia's election to the Finance and Administration Group of ExpertsLikewise our contribution to efforts to promote managerial reform will be facilitated by our recent appointment to a 12-member group of experts on administrative and financial management.Election of a new Director-GeneralOne of the most important events during the conference was the election of a new Director-General to replace Mr Federico Mayor who had served two six-year terms. While there was no guarantee, the expectation was that the new Director-General should come from the Asia-Pacific region as none of the previous incumbents, in the 50-year history of the Organisation, had come from this region.Members will be aware that, in keeping with the importance we attach to the reform of the organisation and consistent with our active engagement in it, Australia nominated Gareth Evans for this position. Despite a very credible campaign which attracted much interest, he was not successful.The new Director-General, Mr Matsuura of Japan, has already outlined in some detail the strategy he proposes to follow in revitalising UNESCO and refurbishing its image. His thoughtful and determined approach has attracted widespread support amongst members.Australia will give Mr Matsuura its full support in his endeavours and we look forward to working with him, including through our membership of the executive board.Pacific Island involvement in UNESCOAustralia is a member of the Pacific subgroup of the Asia-Pacific region within UNESCO. During the conference we worked very closely with the Pacific Island Delegations and were deeply appreciative of the strong support that they gave to our executive board candidature.The importance attached by Pacific Island countries to UNESCO and to its programs is reflected in the growth in membership—from six Pacific members in early 1989 to 16 members after Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia joined during this General Conference.One of our priorities in the period ahead will be to develop further the excellent relations with these countries and to build on the support that we are able to offer them in UNESCO.Australia's election to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee During the General Conference there was a meeting of the states party to the World Heritage Convention followed by a meeting of the World Heritage Committee, of which Australia is a member. At the meeting we were successful in being elected to the Bureau of the Committee, as the vice-chair for the Asia-Pacific region.This outcome gave us the opportunity to pursue our objective of hosting the committee meeting in the year 2000 in Cairns and serving as chair of the committee. As Senator Hill announced over the weekend, Australia's invitation to host this meeting was accepted on 3 December at the 1999 session of the committee held in Marrakech, Morocco.It was clear during the extraordinary session of the committee, as it has been at other meetings, that the effort that Australia puts into protecting its natural and cultural heritage is widely regarded as being at the forefront of world practice.The committee meeting in Cairns will also give us the opportunity to place a special emphasis not only on Australia's world heritage properties, but on the importance of extending the reach of the convention into the Pacific region.As Senator Hill said on the weekend, `Cairns is a gateway to the Great Barrier Reef and Queensland's Wet Tropics, providing us with an excellent opportunity to showcase Australia's exemplary standards in World Heritage management.'YouthThe UNESCO General Conference was also notable for the particular emphasis it gave to youth participation. UNESCO, through its Associated Schools Project, and in cooperation with the French Government, hosted the World Parliament of Children, marking the 10th anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Australia was represented at this important occasion by students Caitlin Goss from Queensland and Ryan Hall from Victoria. The parliament produced a youth manifesto which was formally presented to the General Conference. It will also be tabled at the millennium session of the UN General Assembly in New York.The Associated Schools Project I have just mentioned forms a valuable global network of schools which places particular emphasis on education and exchanges in the fields of heritage, sports and drugs. I had a productive discussion with the secretariat official responsible for the project and I look forward to its wider implementation in Australia.The General Conference also had a Youth Forum at which Australia played a particular ly prominent role. Not only did Professor Wiltshire, as co-Chair of UNESCO's Youth Council, address the forum, Australia was elected to the Youth Forum's Drafting Committee, and the two Australian delegates, Mia Handshin and Cameron Forbes, played a leading role in the debate on UNESCO's youth strategies and its youth agenda into the 21st century. The Australian delegates worked in close cooperation with their colleagues from the Asia-Pacific region.Bilateral MeetingsI took the opportunity at the Conference to meet bilaterally with a number of colleagues including Mr Claude Allegre, French minister for national education, research and technology. My discussions with Mr Allegre included the recent signing of an MOU by Mr Allegre and Dr Kemp on education collaboration and mutual recognition of qualifications, which provides a good platform for ongoing dialogue on education cooperation.I also met with Mrs Margarethe Vestager, Danish minister of education and ecclesiastical affairs, with whom I discussed increasing the utilisation of information technology in teaching, reforms in adult education and improving the quality of education through enhanced teacher skills. I also met with Mr Kadel Asmal, minister of education of the Republic of South Africa.These exchanges were useful and provided valuable opportunities to explain Australian education policies and to learn from the experience of others.ConclusionLet me conclude by paying tribute to the work done in supporting the involvement of the Australian government in UNESCO by the Australian National Commission. The commission has amongst its members some of the most eminent Australians in their field who contribute to the work of the commission in their own time and often at their own expense. The effectiveness of the Australian National Commission is widely recognised by other national commissions, many of which have sought to follow the Australian model.Australia's participation in UNESCO enhances our national standing through showcasing Australia's expertise in such areas of human endeavour as bioethics, oceanography, hydrology, indigenous culture and education. It brings direct benefits to Australia in terms of consultancies and trade in services that flow from the contacts that are made during the various meetings. But most importantly our active and effective participation can contribute to the needs of countries, particularly those less well off than Australia, through the improvement of basic education standards, the promotion of bioethics and the protection of heritage and human rights. I present the following paper:30th Session of the UNESCO General Conference17:56:0013325Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—by leave—I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly in response to the parliamentary secretary's statement concerning the 30th session of the UNESCO General Conference. As the member for Adelaide noted, Australia is a founding member of UNESCO going all the way back to 1946—a great year; the year of my birth. We have certainly been active in the organisation right throughout its history. We have given great service to it and made a major contribution to it. Names like Barry Jones and Gough Whitlam are synonymous with an exceptional Australian contribution to the organisation.As the parliamentary secretary has reported, Australia's candidate for election as Director-General of Unesco, the former member for Holt, was unsuccessful. Gareth clearly ran a characteristically energetic campaign but I think we all know that we were overwhelmed by the enormous resources that the Japanese were prepared to put behind their candidature. The outcome was, I think, UNESCO's loss. For many of us, I think there are some lessons in our pursuit of other international candidacies from that experience.I am pleased that Gareth is now moving to a new job as President of the International Crisis Group, a role which I am sure will provide plenty of opportunities for his very considerable talents. I was absent from the parliament on his last day here. I was in New York at the UN General Assembly but I was pleased to take this opportunity to wish him well and all the very best in his new endeavours.The member for Adelaide notes some progress in reform of UNESCO. There is no doubt that it has long been an organisation in great need of reform, in great need of revitalisation. We, on this side of the House, will follow the efforts of the new director-general very closely and with considerable interest. We will also follow the performance of government here in Australia as we serve on the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee. The aggressive, indeed, shameless, campaign to block listing of Kakadu on the world heritage endangered list was something that brought no credit on the Australian government whatsoever. In conclusion, one can only hope for an improvement in our government's environmental diplomacy.Motion (by Ms Worth) proposed: That the House take note of the paper.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan ) adjourned.Committees13326133261332617:59:0013326Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I present the 11th report from the Publications Committee, sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber.Report—by leave—adopted.XU5Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMAN—I ask leave of the House to make a statement concerning the activities of the Publications Committee.Leave granted.XU5Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMAN—The Publications Committee presented a report on the future of the parliamentary papers series in December 1997. In accordance with the undertaking given in this report, the committee wishes to provide an update to the House on two of the recommendations and also to comment briefly on other matters in the committee's sphere of responsibilities.As members would be aware, the parliamentary papers series is a mechanism to access government information by researchers, students, the general public and parliamentarians. As an indexed and annually numbered series of the significant documents which are presented, it is considered a valuable tool. Traditionally, access to the series was only available in print format through state, parliamentary and university libraries. Recommendation 2 of my committee's report in 1997 stated:Ministers should ensure that agencies for which they have responsibility fulfil the obligation to produce sufficient copies of documents for the parliamentary papers series. A report identifying those agencies which default should be tabled in each House every twelve months.The committee noted the government, in accepting this recommendation, stated:The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet wrote to all secretaries of departments and heads of agencies in March 1998 about their responsibility to provide copies of tabled reports for inclusion in the parliamentary papers series.As in 1997, the committee continues to find that Commonwealth agencies need to be reminded of their obligation to provide sufficient copies for the parliamentary papers series. The committee is now in a position, however, to inform the House that there are no Commonwealth agencies in default of their obligations to provide copies of reports tabled in 1996, 1997 and 1998 for the parliamentary papers series. The committee intends to provide a further report to the House on this matter later next year. The committee also recommended in its 1997 report that:. . . agencies producing parliamentary papers should publish the documents electronically as well as in print.As I mentioned a moment ago, documents contained in the parliamentary papers series have traditionally only been available in hard copy. The committee has monitored developments with respect to the availability on the Internet of, in particular, annual reports of Commonwealth agencies and reports of parliamentary committees. The committee is pleased to advise the House that there has been a significant increase in parliamentary and government information available to the public through the Internet since the committee's report was presented in 1997.The committee also notes the recent Australian National Audit Office report, entitled Electronic service delivery, including Internet use, by Commonwealth government agencies, which stated that 91 per cent of agencies surveyed in this ANAO report had an Internet site to facilitate access to information about those agencies and their services. In relation to parliamentary proceedings, the committee welcomes the recent tabling of a video by another committee, with which I am associated—the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs—illustrating the work of a parliamentary committee and elements of the report of that committee, entitled Unlocking the future, dealing with a review of Northern Territory land rights.Also, we welcome the recent report called It's your House by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure. This report comments on strategies to increase access to and involvement by the public in House of Representatives committee activities, and in particular the use of audio and video links, appropriate promotion of committee activities in the media and to school students, more innovative development of Internet sites and the extension of televising of House proceedings to committee hearings, particularly through web casting. The committee commends such strategies to the House for its further consideration.Miscellaneous133271332718:05:0013327Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Jagajaga moving forthwith:(1) That the Minister for Health and Aged Care return to the Chamber forthwith to correct his misleading of the House earlier today when he said he had tabled legal advice from the Attorney-General's Department regarding the MRI scam, when in fact he has not; and(2) That the Minister immediately table this advice.This minister continues to come in here and refuse to answer questions day after day.Motion (by Mr Tuckey) put:That the member be not further heard.18:10:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Hon. D.H. Adams)73Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CharlesMr CostelloMr DownerMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth59Mr AlbaneseMr BevisMr BreretonMs BurkeMr ByrneMr CoxMrs CrosioMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McLeayMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr ZahraMr HowardMr BeazleyMr ProsserMs KernotMr LloydMr Mossfield* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.18:15:0013328Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—This minister under seige must produce the documents. He told parliament today that they had been tabled and he misled the House.Motion (by Mr Tuckey) put:That the member be not further heard.18:16:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Hon. D.H. Adams)74Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CharlesMr CostelloMr DownerMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth60Mr AlbaneseMr BevisMr BreretonMs BurkeMr ByrneMr CoxMrs CrosioMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McLeayMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr ZahraMr HowardMr BeazleyMr ProsserMs KernotMr LloydMr Mossfield* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.18:18:0013329Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The health minister must stand in this place and produce the Attorney-General's document. What has he got to hide?Motion (by Mr Tuckey) put:That the question be now put.A division having been called and the bells being rung—QI4PRICEMr Price—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business seems to have changed his seat without notifying the appropriate tellers.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.H. Adams)—Order! The minister changed his position before I stated the motion.18:20:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Hon. D.H. Adams)74Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CharlesMr CostelloMr DownerMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth60Mr AlbaneseMr BevisMr BreretonMs BurkeMr ByrneMr CoxMrs CrosioMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McLeayMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr ZahraMr HowardMr BeazleyMr ProsserMs KernotMr LloydMr Mossfield* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the motion ( Ms Macklin's ) be agreed to:18:23:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Hon. D.H. Adams)60Mr AlbaneseMr BevisMr BreretonMs BurkeMr ByrneMr CoxMrs CrosioMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McLeayMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr Zahra74Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CharlesMr CostelloMr DownerMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs WorthMr HowardMr BeazleyMr ProsserMs KernotMr LloydMr Mossfield* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Business133301333018:28:0013330Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That:(1) sessional order 104A (Private Members' business—procedure) be amended by omitting the following words: "Upon the respective notice being called on by the Clerk, the Member in whose name the notice stands shall present the bill and may speak for a period not exceeding five minutes in support of it." and substituting the following words: "Upon the respective notice being called on by the Clerk, the Member in whose name the notice stands shall present the bill and may speak for a period not exceeding fifteen minutes in support of it.";(2) sessional order 104A (as amended by part (1)) continue in operation until the end of the session;(3) sessional orders 101 (Routine of business) and 102C (Precedence to motions regarding committee and delegation reports) be adopted as standing orders; and(4) the resolution of the House relating to the disclosure of in camera committee evidence adopted on 3 December 1998 remain effective until the end of the session.This is really a technical amendment. It raises matters which have been the subject of practice in the parliament in the last 12 months and will see them continuing. I do not think I need to say any more about them.18:29:0013330McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I will be as brief as the Leader of the House. The opposition supports this motion. The principal standing order change is actually one initiated by some of my colleagues and considered by several committees of the House and by the caucus of the Labor Party. We all support it. We are pleased to see this change having a trial. We hope it is successful. We support the motion.Question resolved in the affirmative.13331Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That government business orders of the day, as listed on the document being circulated to Members in the Chamber, be discharged.Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That Main Committee order of the day No. 3, government business, and orders of the day Nos 2 to 10, committee and delegation reports, be returned to the House.18:31:0013331Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That those orders of the day returned to the House in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day be discharged.I do not propose to read the titles from the list which has been circulated to members in the chamber. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Question resolved in the affirmative.Leave of Absence13331Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.Miscellaneous1333118:32:0013331Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence to say something about the timing of tonight's proceedings.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.H. Adams)—The minister may proceed.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—There are various matters in the Senate. We are expecting those to come back in the next couple of hours. We have a dinner break set for the 7 o'clock to 9 o'clock period. When those requests come back from the Senate, they will need to be dealt with in the House and then go back to the Senate. So, if we can deal with them in a timely way, we will get away earlier and, depending on the timing of those, we may approach the opposition and ask, `Why don't we ring the bells before 9 o'clock.' It just remains to be seen. It is a matter of handling it.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Do all the whips know about this? We need to deal with the matter of people leaving the House before 9 o'clock.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—On this basis, I understand they are leaving at 7 o'clock and coming back at 9 o'clock. If we have any better information before 7 o'clock, we will pass it around. If people could be flexible about it, that would be of assistance to the House.18:33:0013331McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—There are some things I want to say. I was saying them by way of interjection across the chamber to the Leader of the House, but this will give me a chance to put them on the record. We simply have a concern that the flexibility, which I understand and which we support, that has been put on the record by the Leader of the House only to try to facilitate proceedings might cause some inconvenience to honourable members. I use this opportunity indirectly to advise opposition members that there is a serious prospect we will be resuming before 9 o'clock. It is not designed to say that there will be no break, but I inform them the Leader of the House says that it might be a little bit earlier. Otherwise, we are happy to facilitate the business of the House, which I am seeking to do with these few remarks. But this is not a matter that lends itself to a longer speech. I think I have already exceeded the Gettysburg Address in length. It is getting to be a bit of a strain, and I am very happy to move on to the next item of business.Special Adjournment1333118:35:0013331Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I move:That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 15 February 2000, at 2 p.m., unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. I take this opportunity to continue the valedictory remarks that were begun earlier this day. I would like to begin by paying tribute to Tim Fischer, who served as Deputy Prime Minister until the middle of this year when I was elected to take his place. I have paid tribute to him here before, but I would again like to remark upon his decency and his commitment to hard work. I commented lightly the other day that I had an ambition in my political career which remained unfulfilled, and that was to visit a place or meet with a group that had not enjoyed Tim's presence in recent years, and nobody seems to think that is possible. But I will try and, again, I record my respect to Tim, to Judy and to his two boys for the contribution they have made to this nation.Next I would like to thank my wife Julia, whose support of me throughout what has been a long, interesting, rewarding and challenging year—in which I have come to enjoy the enormous privilege and honour of now leading my party—has been very important. I could not have done it without Julia's support. I know all of us in this place enormously appreciate the sacrifices that our spouses and families make. Mine is no different.I also thank my National Party colleagues, particularly my deputy, Mark Vaile. I really think he has fitted into that new portfolio extremely well. It is a difficult portfolio and he undertook it at a challenging time. He has spoken effectively for the exporters of this nation, and the rural economies that so many of us represent are export economies. As I said in this place yesterday, I really do think he has fulfilled that role very well. I know that he is widely appreciated, too, as the Deputy Leader of the National Party, particularly for his down-to-earth way of meeting people and working through their undoubted concerns as he moves around rural and regional Australia.Warren Truss has shown, I think, an enormous enjoyment of his new portfolio and a real grasp of it. He looks after a mammoth portfolio in agriculture, forestry and fishing, and it involves some industries facing enormous challenges. His intellectual grasp of the portfolio has astonished all who have met him. His commitment to it and to best possible outcomes is undoubted. I also thank John Forrest as the National Party Whip. John, you are in every sense a family man. Given that my party sees itself as a close-knit family, you have extended that commitment, I think, to the family of the National Party in this place in a wonderful way. You have made a tremendous contribution. To Garry Nehl, who is sitting beside you: as Deputy Speaker, you have an enormous voice, one that commands enormous respect by virtue of its reach and its depth whenever you choose to use it. That of course is backed up by your qualities as a person and as a member. I know that we all appreciate the role you have fulfilled at times in the Speaker's chair.De-Anne Kelly and Ian Causley are on the panel of deputy speakers. I think both have fulfilled their roles with honour and distinction in this place, and I thank them for it. De-Anne is not present because at the moment she is looking after her husband, Roger, who underwent an operation last week. I have spoken to him on the phone and he appears to be recovering well. He is in good spirits and is more interested in the post-operative care at the moment than in worrying about the operation. That is a good thing to hear. We wish them both well.I would like to thank the Prime Minister at two levels. Firstly, as his deputy in more recent times and, secondly, as somebody who has served under him for a longer period than I have been deputy, I would like to thank him for his leadership. This year he has displayed strength and firmness, with a willingness to listen and to seek to understand. I have appreciated that very much and I know that my party has as well. At a time of rising prosperity, falling unemployment and general optimism in the country, he has particularly indicated his understanding of and concern about the way in which that is not equally shared in much of rural and regional Australia. He has committed himself, from the heart, to doing what he can in leading the government to tilt the field back in favour of hard-pressed rural and regional Australia, which is so vital to the fabric of this nation in both economic and social terms.I thank the electors and the party organisation of my electorate. They have to share their member now with the rest of Australia. One of the dilemmas that you face in this game is that, as you take on more responsibilities, you are able to spend less time in your own electorate. My electorate is now the size of Britain without Scotland and Wales. As a result of rural depopulation and the upcoming redistribution, it will be the size of Britain with Scotland and Wales. I know that makes it only the sixth or seventh largest electorate in the country, and I can see members here who represent equally large or larger electorates, but it is very hard when you have a rural electorate like mine with a population spread like custard over the top and no major centres that you can go and visit. If I want to spend 10 hours with people in my electorate, I have to double the time required because of the travelling. It is difficult and I thank them for their forbearance. I assure them that I will try to make certain that I will be there as much as I can and that when I cannot my electorate office in Gunnedah serves that community as well as possible. In terms of the party organisation, Don McDonald—a very distinguished Australian—has served the party and the country well for a long time. He resigned this year and his place has been taken by Helen Dickie. I know that she will do a fine job as well.I know that all people in this place who are of goodwill think very highly of Senator Ron Boswell, regardless of their politics. I know that he is seen as a big-hearted Australian who passionately cares about the people whom he represents and the job that he seeks to do on their behalf. He of course is joined in that by our Senate team I know, but Ron deserves that particular commendation. I know that the hearts and minds of all people go out to him at the moment in his, his wife Leita's and his daughter Cathy's tragic loss of their son and brother, Stephen, recently.Mr Speaker, I would particularly like to say to you that I appreciate the leadership and guidance that you provide in this House. I think all of us would see you as a thoroughly decent occupier of that seat, and that again—in the same way that I said of Garry Nehl, the Deputy Speaker—reflects your qualities as a person. I thank you for that not only on my behalf but also on behalf of the party. I extend my good wishes, too, to the members of the opposition and to the member for Calare. I also say to the Manager of Opposition Business in this House that I include in that my wishes for a speedy recovery to the member for Dickson.There are many people around this place who are employed to assist the parliament and politicians. All of them do more than their job requires. This is a building full of people who go beyond the call of duty. Just the other day we had some delightful musical entertainment at the National Party's Christmas party on behalf of the choir that I did not know even operated in this place. I did not know it existed, to my great shame. What were their names again?AE4NEHLMr Nehl—Ask the Clerk.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—I should ask the Clerk, who is now referring me back to you.NV5FORRESTMr Forrest—The Capital Hill Singers.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—They were just terrific. I might ask the Clerk to convey to them my appreciation and the party's appreciation of what they do. It is tremendous that there are people in this place committed to doing things like that.There are other people that I would like to thank. First, my Canberra staff: Stephen Oxley has been with me now for 6½ years. He has carried the load of the change of office and provided a lot of intellectual leadership to some of the challenging things that we are seeking to do as we focus on a brighter future—a well-founded hope for a better lot in rural and regional Australia—and I thank him for that.I thank Sue White, who was with me until recently as an adviser but is now with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. I also thank Adrian Beresford-Wylie and Jenny, who is about to leave my office. It is often the case that there are people in our offices making a contribution that is quite exhausting. The fact that they are prepared to stay on when some of them probably feel quite burnt out at times is one of the marks of loyalty that we so often see in this place. It is appropriate to recognise that at this time of year.I thank too my electorate staff, including my recently retired chief of staff, Lloyd Angel. I wish him all the very best and thank him for the very real effort he put into some particularly difficult issues facing us in the electorate and more broadly—in particular, the shortage of general practitioners.In the case of my department, can I record my appreciation to Allan Hawke, who has now gone to Defence, and to the commitment that Ken Matthews, as the new secretary to the department, is showing to our objectives, particularly again in rural and regional Australia.Finally, to the Clerk and his team—I have just made reference to him—I know that we all admire the decency, forbearance and wisdom that you bring to your position. The role you play is a vitally important one. You are instrumental in providing the glue that keeps this place together, and the role of this parliament is vitally important in the national scheme of things. I also thank the Joint House departmental officers; Comcar; Hansard; the House of Representatives printing staff; the staff in the Parliamentary Library, often forgotten; the press gallery, I think, most of the time; and the security staff, Michael Casey and his team, whom I have come to know recently. They are a very fine bunch of Australians and a very likeable bunch as well. They do a very good job, they do it discreetly and they do it well.There is one other group I would like to mention. Whilst I often when I go for a walk around the place feel a little envious of the resources that are available to the gardeners—I think I could run a good sized farm with them—that in no way takes away from the magnificent job that they do. The way the gardens in this place are maturing is really something. As one who occasionally walks around and admires them, they are something else. They are worth showing off now. After just 10 or 11 years in the place, they have really come to something.All of us in this place have a responsibility to give of their best, and I know people do. Perhaps that is not widely enough recognised. I feel quite passionately that the healthy scepticism we see as part of the Australian way of life about those in public life has spilt over a little too readily into an open cynicism that is perhaps not helpful. We want to attract people of quality, dedication and commitment to public life. We do not want to say to young people in particular, `Public life is for the birds. You don't want to be involved in it because you will be smeared if you do,' and so forth. I think it is something as a nation that we need to think about carefully.We need good people in public life everywhere. It ought to be a noble calling. All of us are very privileged to serve in this place. I feel enormously honoured to be one of those few people able to lead a party, and I am deeply appreciative of it. We have a responsibility to give it our best. But when we are rightly motivated and when we are trying to make a difference it is very important for those who cover our work, who comment on it and who observe it to be prepared to give credit where credit is due—to recognise good motivation and a willingness to try to make a difference when it happens.I often say to people: `When you see robust debate in this place don't be offended by it. When it is personal, yes, say to your kids by all means that that is not the way to behave. But when it is just a robust exchange of debate and ideas, because we passionately care enough about the things we believe in and the things we are trying to do for the people we represent, don't take offence.' As the Prime Minister said today—to paraphrase—`to jaw-jaw is better than to war-war'. In the spirit of the season, I would make the observation that I do think most people in this place—regardless of whether we agree with one another's policy or not—are trying to make a positive difference on behalf of the people we represent.When that is not the case the electors have recourse through the vote. As I say to the schoolkids that I meet with when I come here, `That is far better than the option of not having the vote,' but we ought to use it responsibly. We ought to seek out our intuitive feelings as Australians. And we are very good at this. We are very good at identifying those who are fair dinkum and trying to make a contribution. We ought to be prepared to say, `We will give that a tick. They care. They are trying to do something for us,' just as we ought to be prepared to condemn those who are obviously only seeking to line their own nest.Mr Speaker, I simply conclude by wishing you, all those present and all those who are occupied elsewhere in this place and beyond all the very best for Christmas and a healthy and prosperous 2000.10000Anderson, John, MPMr SPEAKER—I thank the Deputy Prime Minister.18:51:0013335McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I rise to support the motion. I want to say a few words in my capacity as Manager of Opposition Business and then briefly as the member for Fraser. Firstly, as Manager of Opposition Business, I want to say some words of thanks to my caucus colleagues and, first and foremost, to the only member of caucus whose stand-out performance was not recognised by the Leader of the Opposition—and that, of course, is the Leader of the Opposition. All of us in the Labor Party are very proud of serving under Kim Beazley as a leader, both for his personal characteristics and for his political commitment and effort. He is a leader that we have served now for more than three years and with whom some of us have worked for a long time. I have been involved politically with Kim since at least 1967. He would be the first to admit that we have disagreed on the odd matter over those 32 years, but I have always admired and respected his capacity to work hard, to work in a committed way and to stand for the principles that he believes in, both when they are popular and when they are not.As the Deputy Prime Minister said—in different words but in effect in his contribution, with which I concur entirely—that is why we are sent here, to stand up sometimes and say things that you believe are right but which people find unpopular. If people do not support the things you say, they will vote for someone else at the next election. That is what the democratic process is. It does not always make you popular. But it is important that you set out to do and stand for the things in which you believe, or democracy will be lessened. So I particularly want to thank Kim for his leadership and for the role he has played inside the party since our defeat in 1996. It was most evident in the outstanding gains we made in 1998, which we discussed last year. But, during the this 12 months, his leadership has been greatly appreciated.The deputy, Simon Crean: Kim has made appropriate and substantial remarks about Simon, who makes such a substantial contribution publicly and inside the party, particularly in the policy development process, where his role as shadow Treasurer is vital. To all my shadow ministerial colleagues who have cooperated so well with me in my role as Manager of Opposition Business: I am grateful for that but, more importantly in the parliament, in public and in their constituencies, they have played such a role to establish the position of the party.I want to add only one particular remark, and that is particularly to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his special reference to Cheryl Kernot and his best wishes for her return to health. It was generous of him to do so and we, all of us on this side, were grateful for that. We certainly share that view. We miss Cheryl's contribution both as an individual and politically. We hope, both as individuals and as members of the party, that she might have a speedy return to health both as a friend and as a colleague. We look forward, when the parliament resumes in February, to having her resume her normal place.I want to thank the backbench for their forbearance when sometimes as Manager of Opposition Business I have had to do things which they have had to support without our being able to consult them on procedures and tactics in the way they might have wished. They were always generous in their support, and I am grateful. But I particularly want to single out the new members. We have been remarkably blessed with a quality set of new members. They have been enthusiastic, committed and effective. I will not, of course, pick any of them out, but the class of 1998 are a class act indeed. The party is well served, and I thank them for their support. I would add to that the new member for Holt, whose early contribution as a local member and as someone lobbying me on behalf of his constituents, particularly in the car industry, augurs well for an active role on behalf of his constituents.We also thank our Senate colleagues. We hope that, in thanking them, they will take the hint and finish quickly this evening. But, apart from that, we thank them for their cooperation, particularly Senators Conroy and George Campbell who work with me as shadow minister for industry, and Senator Lundy for her role in assisting me in IT, for which she is outstanding in the party and the parliament. The others are the Opposition Whip and his deputies, most particularly Joan and Anne in the office, who are the engines of the opposition's parliamentary organisation. I am grateful to them for their work.To you, Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and the Speakers Panel: we have had our odd clash during the year. But I know from the discussions I have had with you that you know that all of us are standing up for the roles we see ourselves playing in this parliament. It is a robust parliament and sometimes visitors, including members of parliaments from other countries, are a little surprised about it. But it is a terribly healthy thing. It spills over a bit now and again, and I myself might have spilt over slightly a couple of times during the year.But, in the sense that that is what we are here for, I share the views expressed by the deputy leader about the importance of passion and commitment. If you do not come here with passion and commitment, you will leave pretty fast because it will wear you out and burn you out. But if you come with passion and commitment it will inspire you. That is why sometimes it gets heated and it makes the job of Speaker in our system—unlike the Westminster parliament where it is not seen in quite the same light—a more difficult task. We appreciate the way you perform it.The people in the Parliamentary Liaison Office are crucial to the life of the Manager of Opposition Business—and I am sure to the Leader of the House. But Matt and all those people who work with him are of tremendous assistance to me and to us, and we are grateful for that.I endorse the remarks made by the leader about the clerks. I am not yet privy to some of the great singing and other cultural skills that they bring to this office. I am not sure whether this is new in the definition of the position, and I will look forward to seeing it when it is advertised next to read the fine print. But, apart from that, they do an excellent job.I hope all the others in the Clerks Office will accept and appreciate that, for those of us in opposition, because of the position he holds, Bernard is of particular assistance to us, and we are grateful for that. He has been very helpful to me in my role as a shadow minister over the time with his great drafting skills. He has kept us more or less out of trouble during this year with his procedural advice, as of course has the Clerk himself from time to time when we have had to call on him.But to all the staff—they are too numerous to mention, and the Leader of the Opposition went through them all—I am just so grateful for the work that they do, as are all my colleagues. Those in the Parliamentary Library those of us in opposition always wish to mention particularly. But there is such a plethora of people working so hard around this building, making the parliament work and making their contribution, for which we are grateful.I will conclude by thanking the people of Fraser for their continuing support to me. While I have some advantages in being able to see them because of their proximity to this parliament, it is nevertheless true, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, that a frontbench position takes you away a lot. The people of Fraser have been consistent in their support and in their understanding, and I am grateful for that.I thank my staff. David Frederick has been a tremendous adviser to me and to the opposi tion generally. Barbara, who has been with me since I started as a minister, which seems a very long time ago now—my thanks to her as well. I thank Tim and Mary and Bob and Nick, who work in my office and who keep the electorate office humming and make it seem like I am here and working hard—I think I am, and I hope the constituents think I am, but I think they make me look slightly better than I really am.I want to join with Kim Beazley in thanking Gary Grey for his excellent work. I think the things Kim said about the particular skills which Gary has brought are correct, and I have admired the job that he has performed. Finally, I extend, with all those who will speak in this debate, best wishes to all members of both houses for a happy and prosperous holiday period and a safe return to the parliament in the new year. I support the motion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the Manager of Opposition Business.Sitting suspended from 7.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m.Debate (on motion by Mr Slipper) adjourned.Bills13337r89013337Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 2 (line 24), omit "and 13", substitute ", 13 and 14".(2) Schedule 3, page 16 (after line 7), after item 2, insert:2A Application of item 2Despite the amendment made by item 2, a taxpayer who was entitled to a franking credit or a franking rebate in respect of a dividend paid, or a distribution made, before the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent continues to be entitled to the franking credit or franking rebate.(3) Heading to Schedule 4, page 18 (line 2), after "bribes ", insert "to foreign public officials ". (4) Schedule 4, item 1, page 18 (line 7), after "bribes ", insert "to foreign public officials ".(5) Page 21 (after line 10), after Schedule 4, insert:Schedule 4A—Non-deductibility of bribes to public officials Income Tax Assessment Act 19971 Section 12-5 (before table item headed "buildings")Insert:bribes to public officials 26-532 After section 26-52Insert:26-53 Bribes to public officials(1) You cannot deduct under this Act a loss or outgoing you incur that is a *bribe to a public official.(2) An amount is a bribe to a public official to the extent that: (a) you incur the amount in, or in connection with: (i) providing a benefit to another person; or (ii) causing a benefit to be provided to another person; or (iii) offering to provide, or promising to provide, a benefit to another person; or (iv) causing an offer of the provision of a benefit, or a promise of the provision of a benefit, to be made to another person; and (b) the benefit is not legitimately due to the other person (see subsection (3)); and (c) you incur the amount with the intention of influencing a *public official (who may or may not be the other person) in the exercise of the official's duties as a foreign public official in order to: (i) obtain or retain business; or (ii) obtain or retain an advantage in the conduct of business that is not legitimately due to you, or another person, as the recipient, or intended recipient, of the advantage in the conduct of business (see subsection (4)).The benefit may be any advantage and is not limited to property.Benefit not legitimately due(3) In working out if a benefit is not legitimately due to another person in a particular situation, disregard the following: (a) the fact that the benefit may be customary, or perceived to be customary, in the situation; (b) the value of the benefit; (c) any official tolerance of the benefit.Advantage in the conduct of business that is not legitimately due(4) In working out if an advantage in the conduct of business is not legitimately due in a particular situation, disregard the following: (a) the fact that the advantage may be customary, or perceived to be customary, in the situation; (b) the value of the advantage; (c) any official tolerance of the advantage.Duties of public official(5) The duties of a *public official are any authorities, duties, functions or powers that: (a) are conferred on the official; or (b) the official holds himself or herself out as having.3 At the end of section 110-25Add:(10) Expenditure does not form part of the cost base to the extent that it is a *bribe to a public official.4 Subsection 995-1(1)Insert: bribe to a public official has the meaning given by section 26-53.5 Subsection 995-1(1)Insert: local governing body has the same meaning as in section 74A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 . public official means an employee or official of an *Australian Government Agency or of a local governing body.6 ApplicationThe amendments made by this Schedule apply to losses, outgoings or expenditure incurred in the 1999-2000 income year or a later income year.(6) Schedule 5, page 22 (before line 5), before item 1, insert:1A At the end of subsection 25-5(1) Add: ; or (d) obtaining a valuation in accordance with section 30-212.(7) Schedule 5, page 24 (before line 4), before item 11, insert: 10A At the end of section 30-205 Add: (2) However, this section does not apply if, apart from the operation of subsection 118-60(2), an amount would have been included in your assessable income in respect of the gift you made.(8) Schedule 5, page 24 (after line 12), after item 11, insert:11A After section 30-220 Insert:30-222 How much you can deduct for certain gifts of land (1) This section contains the rules for working out how much you can deduct for a gift of property that you made to a recipient covered by item 1 or 2 of the table in section 30-15 if: (a) the property is land or an interest in land; and (b) the recipient is: (i) an *environmental organisation or a fund, authority or institution covered by the table in subsection 30-55(2); or (ii) a public fund established and maintained under a will or instrument of trust solely for the purpose of providing money, property or benefits to an entity mentioned in subparagraph (i). (2) If you sell land that you own to an entity mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) for less than its market value, you can deduct the difference between the market value of the property on the day you made the sale and the actual sale price. (3) If you give land that you own to an entity mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) but you retain the right to live on that land for the remainder of your life, you can deduct the market value of the property subject to your life interest.30-223 How much you can deduct for land affected by a conservation covenant (1) This section contains the rules for working out how much you can deduct if the value of land is decreased by a conservation covenant. (2) If you enter into a conservation covenant in respect of land you own and the market value is decreased because of the covenant, you can deduct the difference in the market value of the land before and after you entered into the covenant. (3) In this section, conservation covenant means any approved form of agreement relating to the management, use and development of an area of land that is registered or noted on the land title and requires the landholder and all subsequent landholders: (a) to maintain native vegetation and undertake any other actions required to conserve the biodiversity values of that land; or (b) to maintain buildings or structures or other items of cultural significance that are registered on a recognised Commonwealth, State or Territory heritage register;and includes, but is not limited to, an agreement under the following provisions: (c) sections 304 to 311 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ; (d) sections 69B and 69C of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW); (e) sections 41 to 44 of the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997 (NSW); (f) section 51 of the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld); (g) section 3A of the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972 ; (h) sections 69 to 72 of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 (Vic); (i) section 23 of the Native Vegetation Act 1991 (SA); (j) section 30B of the Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 (WA); (k) section 29 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (WA); (l) sections 37A to 37H of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970 (Tas).(9) Schedule 5, item 14, page 24 (line 21), omit "$1,500 ", substitute "$100 ".(10) Schedule 5, item 14, page 24 (line 23), omit "$1,500", substitute "$100".(11) Schedule 5, item 16, page 25 (line 5), omit "cultural ".(12) Schedule 5, item 16, page 25 (line 10), omit "cultural".(13) Schedule 5, item 16, page 25 (line 20), after "section 30-15", insert "or by section 30-222 or 30-223".(14) Schedule 5, page 26 (after line 20), after item 16, insert:16A After Subdivision 30-F Insert:Subdivision 30-FA—Restrictions on prescribed private funds Guide to Subdivision 30-FA 30-310 What this Subdivision is about This Subdivision prevents certain private funds from being, or continuing to be, *prescribed private funds.Table of sections Operative provisions 30-312 Restrictions on prescribed private funds [This is the end of the Guide.]Operative provisions 30-312 Restrictions on prescribed private funds (1) A private fund which makes, or has ever made, a gift or contribution or provides, or has ever provided, a benefit of any other kind (including a loan) to a political party that is registered under Part XI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 , or an associated entity within the meaning of that Act, is incapable of being a *prescribed private fund. (2) If a *prescribed private fund makes a gift or contribution or provides a benefit of any other kind (including a loan) to a political party that is registered under Part XI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 , or an associated entity within the meaning of that Act, the fund ceases to be a *prescribed private fund by force of this subsection and is deemed never to have been a *prescribed private fund.16B Subsection 30-315(2) (after table item 88) Insert: 88APrescribed private fundssection 30-312(15) Schedule 5, page 26 (before line 27), before item 19, insert:18A After subsection 70-90(1)Insert: (1A) If the disposal is the giving of a gift of property by you for which a valuation under section 30-212 is obtained, you may choose that the market value is replaced with the value of the property as determined under the valuation. You can only make this choice if the valuation was made no more than 90 days before or after the disposal.18B Section 70-95 Omit "market value", substitute "amount".(16) Schedule 5, page 27 (before line 3), before item 20, insert:19A Section 116-25 (table item A1, at the end of the column headed "Special rules:") Add: If the disposal is a gift for which a section 30-212 valuation is obtained: see section 116-10019B At the end of Division 116 Add:116-100 Gifts of property (1) If CGT event A1 is the giving of a gift of property by you for which a valuation under section 30-212 is obtained, you may choose that the *capital proceeds from the event are replaced with the value of the property as determined under the valuation. (2) You can only make this choice if the valuation was made no more than 90 days before or after the CGT event.(17) Schedule 5, item 21, page 27 (line 14), after "section", insert ", or under section 30-222 or 30-223,".(18) Schedule 5, item 24, page 28 (line 14), at the end of the definition of prescribed private fund , add "or a fund to which Subdivision 30-FA applies".21:01:0013340Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I would like to indicate to the House that the government proposes that amendments Nos 1 to 7, 9, 10, 15 and 16 be agreed to and that amendments Nos 8, 11 to 14, 17 and 18 be disagreed to. I suggest, therefore, that it may suit the convenience of the House first to consider amendments Nos 1 to 7, 9, 10, 15 and 16 and, when those amendments have been disposed of, to consider amendments Nos 8, 11 to 14, 17 and 18. I move:That amendments Nos 1 to 7, 9, 10, 15 and 16 be agreed to.21:02:0013340Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The opposition's position in relation to the amendments coming back from the Senate to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 1999 is as follows. There are four amendment categories coming back from the Senate: first, bribes paid to government officials in Australia will cease to qualify as tax deductible; second, environmental gifts to approved environmental bodies, either by way of absolute donation of land or through entering into an environmental covenant over the land, will obtain tax deductible status; third, donations of property worth more than $5,000 to political parties will qualify for only $100, not the $1,500 proposed by the government; and, fourth, tax deductibility will be denied for contributions to private funds where those private funds are engaged in providing moneys or other benefits to political parties.I am always conscious that my colleagues are very enthusiastic to hear my contributions, but it has also been suggested to me that the sooner we get through this bill the sooner the Senate might be able to rise and, therefore, their enthusiasm might be tempered by that knowledge. I will therefore endeavour to keep my remarks brief. There are two things that are said to be inevitable in life: death and taxes. With the Howard government, there has come a further inevitability, and that is tax laws amendment bills. This one is Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 1999 , and they go up to Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 10) 1999 . Alongside that stream this year we have seen a new tax package, the GST bills, and then more recently the business tax package. So lots of taxation laws amendment bills.I will consider each of the categories of amendments coming back from the Senate separately. First, bribes paid to government officials in Australia will cease to qualify as tax deductible. The bill introduced by the government proposes to deny tax deductibility to bribes paid by Australian firms to foreign government officials. There are some exceptions: where the moneys paid are only to speed up processing or where they are related to essential services, such as telephone, mail, water services, et cetera. Labor, and indeed the whole Senate, have no problem with that proposal. It received unanimous support in both the House and the Senate.Labor's amendments extend that principle which has unanimous support to also deny tax deductibility for bribes paid to Australian government officials. Surely, it is against the public interest for our tax laws to grant a tax deduction for the moneys associated with a serious crime, the crime of bribery. Accordingly, Labor's amendments seek to deny tax deductibility for bribes paid to Australian officials. That principle should not be at issue. It is a principled position taken by Labor and the Senate, and the government should simply accept these amendments.The second category of amendments relates to environmental gifts to approved environmental bodies either by way of absolute donation of land or through entering into an environmental covenant over land. They will obtain tax deductible status. This group of amendments covers environmental gifts. The amendments extend the government's proposals for increased tax concessions for philanthropy to environmental philanthropy. The amendments propose to create a new type of philanthropy where land-holders donate land of conservation value to approved environmental bodies or, if they enter into environmental covenants over land that they continue to own, the land-holders will be able to claim as a tax deduction the economic loss that they incur as a result.That seems to me to be a pretty fair proposition. It will be a significant incentive for land-holders, many of whom will be farmers, to conserve remnant ecosystems. At the moment, the situation is that the land-holders generally face an economic incentive to clear the land of its natural habitat. We are aware of great problems, for example, in Queensland but also in other states in relation to land clearing. At present, the economic incentive is there to clear the land and to put it into production either from crops or grazing. The proposal in the amendment which would provide the tax deductible status for these gifts has the support of the Senate, has the support of the entire environmental movement, has the support of the CSIRO and, we suspect, the support of Senator Hill as well.He came to the Senate to oppose the amendments, but indicated that he actually agreed with the principles behind them. That shows that he supports the proposals, but I suspect that he cynically wants to announce them himself next year and claim them as his own. (Extension of time granted) This legislation is bringing in a new regime of taxation for philanthropy. This bill is therefore the appropriate place to deal with measures that relate to environmental philanthropy, and Labor will be opposing the government proposal to not agree with the Senate amendments.The third area of amendment is donations of property worth more than $5,000 to political parties qualifying only for up to $100 rather than the $1,500 proposed by the government. An insidious part of the Prime Minister's proposals, which has nothing to do with philanthropy, is his proposal in this bill to have the taxpayer subsidise wealthy benefactors of the Liberal Party. This bill proposes that in the case of taxpayers who give a gift of property worth $5,000 or more to a political party the donor should get a tax deduction of $1,500. This is an outrageous policy which is rejected by Labor and, fortunately, by the Senate. This would have subsidised wealthy political donors and it is without any justification whatsoever in public policy terms. People are free to donate to political parties as they choose, but they should not get a substantial taxpayer subsidy if they happen to be wealthy enough to provide gifts of property worth more than $5,000.Labor's amendments, which were supported by all the non-government parties in the Senate, simply treat these types of donations as other cash donations to political parties are treated—that is, to limit the tax deductibility to $100. This essentially nominal figure allows equal access to tax benefits for all people who may donate to political parties, both those of means and those of limited means—whereas the government's much higher proposal will simply subsidise the much better off. We reject the use of taxpayer's funds in this regard, just as we reject the use of taxpayer's funds to bankroll shonky political front operations such as the Greenfields Foundation, to which the final amendment relates and to which I now turn.The final set of amendments relates to denying tax deductibility for contributions to private funds where those funds are engaged in providing moneys or other benefits to political parties. This takes us into the somewhat shadowy area of Liberal Party fundraising. It is worth recounting some of the debate that occurred in the Senate to understand the origin of this amendment, which indeed has arisen expressly from the Senate's consideration of this bill and was not put forward prior to that. Senator Faulkner referred to the Greenfields Foundation in the Senate and to the fact that it has been described as a charitable trust by one of the trustees, Mr Bandle. In a leading Australian newspaper on 23 July 1998, Mr Bandle said:We are set up as a charitable trust and we have written cheques of approximately $80,000 to charities so far.Senator Faulkner went on to say:I want to be absolutely assured that we do not have donations or gifts provided to the Greenfields Foundation, which is a charitable trust, whereby those donors receive a tax deductibility for those donations and whereby at some time those donations, which are not disclosed, go to the benefit of the Liberal Party.He asked for an assurance from Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer, that this would not happen and indicated that, if he were able to receive such an assurance, the matter would be closed. He made reference to the fact that the Greenfields Foundation had a history of endeavouring to get around the disclosure provisions in the electoral act and that it had loaned a very large amount of money to the Liberal Party under the most generous of commercial arrangements imaginable. It had also donated a very small amount of money to charities.So it was not making direct donations, as one would understand the dictionary definition of `donations', but it was loaning massive amounts of money to the Liberal Party. In that way, it endeavoured to get around the disclosure provisions of the act. Senator Faulkner continued to assist the Assistant Treasurer by seeking from him an undertaking that the Greenfields Foundation would not be operating in this way. The Assistant Treasurer, however, was not willing to take up any of these offers. The opposition came to the conclusion—indeed, it found it very difficult to come to any other conclusion—that the government's intention was to try to shonk its way through in relation to the Greenfields Foundation and to allow a vehicle for either private individuals or major corporations or companies to provide donations to a shonky organisation like the Greenfields Foundation.The donors themselves received tax deductibility and of course there is no public transparency in this. (Extension of time granted) There is no disclosure of those donations and the donors get tax deductibility. That is not good enough, and no-one would defend the integrity of the electoral laws or the tax laws in such a situation. On that basis we had the fourth set of amendments to deny tax deductibility for contributions to private funds where those funds are engaged in providing moneys or other benefits to political parties. I have now indicated the opposition's position in relation to the four areas of amendment.21:13:0013342Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—The government is keen to have this legislation returned to the Senate before it rises for the evening. That is why I have not traversed the reasons that the government is prepared to agree to the Senate amendments. We obviously would have preferred that the Senate had not made these amendments, but we accept the reality of the numbers in the Senate. The government is therefore prepared to move that the Senate amendments be agreed to. Naturally, we do not accept the matters raised by the honourable member for Wills as having any veracity.Question resolved in the affirmative.21:14:0013342Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That amendments Nos 8, 11 to 14, 17 and 18 be disagreed to.With respect to Senate amendments Nos 8, 11 to 13 and 17, these amendments propose significant additions to measures contained in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 1999 that will provide taxation incentives for personal and corporate philanthropy in Australia. Broadly, the amendments provide that, where a property owner covenants a property for conservation purposes and that results in a reduction in the value of the property, any reduction in the value of the property should be treated as a tax deduction.The amendments also extend the ability to deduct amounts over five years to such donations; and also where property is donated a capital gains tax exemption should apply. Substantial changes like these need to be considered in depth in the context of their cost as well as their effectiveness. Any decisions need to be taken within the budgetary constraints of government but also with the objective of getting the most effective outcome in terms of conservation. Accordingly, we have moved that the House of Representatives does not accept these amendments.With respect to the other amendments, Senate amendments Nos 14 and 18, these amendments propose changes to the measure that will allow tax deductibility for donations to what will be known as `prescribed private funds'. Broadly, prescribed private funds will have to operate in the same way as ancillary public funds but will not have to seek and receive funds from the public. The purpose of the amendments is to preclude a fund that provides funds to political parties from being a prescribed private fund.Item 6 of schedule 5 to the bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 such that a fund can only be a prescribed private fund if it is established solely for the purpose of providing money to a fund or institution that is listed under subdivision 30-B of that act. If a fund is established to provide funds to any non-listed institutions, it cannot be a prescribed private fund. Political parties are not listed in subdivision 30. The amendment therefore is unnecessary, and we therefore wish that the House of Representatives does not accept these amendments.21:16:0013343McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I want to talk only about what I will call, for the sake of simplicity, the `Greenfields' amendment, the one to which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration was just referring. The most powerful arguments that the government can put either in the Senate or here against this amendment is the argument that they think it is unnecessary. I have to say that is not what you would call an overwhelmingly powerful argument. I think it is also untrue, which I will come to in a moment.But what it does show is there is not an argument against it on the merits. They say the purpose of it is achieved but they say it in a way which leaves open several loopholes which cause us some concern. I am not in the slightest doubt the government knows what the loopholes are. So if they are doing that and they are not referring to it, and if the loophole is used in the way which I will refer to and the party which is the majority party of the government would be the principal beneficiary then you cannot blame us for being a bit dubious.It is true that if a private fund of the sort referred to in this provision, like Greenfields, makes a donation then the consequences outlined by the parliamentary secretary apply. But it is by no means as clear to us, certainly not to me, that other sorts of benefits which such a trust might provide—say, the Greenfields Foundation to the Liberal Party—would have the same effect; for example, if they provided a loan. There is nothing that says explicitly to my satisfaction that if the Greenfields Foundation provided a loan to the Liberal Party they would be excluded. What is it that the Greenfields Foundation does? It provides loans to the Liberal Party. Surprise, surprise! Perhaps it is not covered. We kept pursuing the Assistant Treasurer in the Senate to try to get him to cover this point and, in his usual comprehensive manner, he failed to do so. I was trying to listen attentively to the parliamentary secretary and I did not hear him refer to it either. So there, for one, is a serious loophole.The second problem is that if an organisation is scheduled as a private fund, there may subsequently be a disallowance, for example. One of the other protections that is claimed is that the listing of such a private fund is a disallowable instrument. It is a while since I was in the Senate and we do not do much disallowance business in the House, but my recollection is that the regulation applies until it is disallowed. You only need a body to be on the schedule for 24 hours to get all the money through it that you ever wanted to put through.So the existing provisions are less than watertight, to put it politely. They leak like a sieve. So, for that reason, we are concerned that this provision can be abused. We do not want a provision that says that we can abuse it, either; we want the provision to apply equally to us and to every other political party in the country. There is no body that equates to the Greenfields Foundation in relation to the Labor Party. But some time in the future some other political party might have a similar body. We do not want it to be eligible either. We do not want any political parties to be able to use this backdoor mechanism.I was very concerned that the Prime Minister, when I asked him about this in question time this afternoon, would not give a commitment to vote for an amendment that prevents abuse of this provision. I am concerned that the government is persisting with its opposition to this amendment. I am concerned about what it says about the integrity of our political system and the integrity of our tax system. We will persist in our strenuous pursuit of this amendment.21:21:0013344Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I just want to stress that the `Greenfields' amendment is unnecessary as the government would need to make a regulation to make the Greenfields organisation a prescribed private fund. And even if the government were disposed to do so, which it is not, the Senate could disallow such a regulation. So that is why we indicate that this particular amendment is unnecessary.With respect to another matter raised by the member for Fraser, a fund can only operate in relation to its principal purposes. If it is making loans to political parties, it is not carrying on for its principal purposes. Therefore, it could not be a registered private fund. Question put: That amendments Nos 8, 11 to 14, 17 and 18 be disagreed to.21:26:00The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker—Mrs J. Gash)73Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CharlesMr CostelloMr DownerMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth57Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr AndrenMr BevisMr BreretonMs BurkeMr ByrneMr CoxMr DanbyMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMr McLeayMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr ZahraMr HowardMr BeazleyMr ProsserMs KernotMr LloydMr Mossfield* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.21:31:0013345Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendments, and I move:That the reasons be adopted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous1334521:32:0013345Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—For the benefit of honourable members who are still here, we expect various papers to be transmitted from the Senate, hopefully in the next half-hour or thereabouts.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I am not putting any money on it, no. We would expect matters to be back from the Senate within half an hour. Then obviously there will be some debate over those matters, so it will be a little while before we see another division. In the meantime we intend to return to the valedictory which is currently before the chamber.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—If we do not have any valedictories?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—We have only had two or three valedictory speeches so far. I have got one, you have got one on your side and we will see how many others they are. If people would like to have an adjournment I think that should be discussed between the whips. But we will do the valedictory speeches first.Special Adjournment13345Debate resumed.21:33:0013345Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I start my valedictory by paying my respects to and thanking the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers for the work that they do. It is always a difficult job being umpire in this place, but we appreciate the work that they do. I also particularly express my thanks to the Chief Government Whip, who is here tonight and is as usual working overtime on managing the affairs of the government in the House. It is a significant responsibility, he does it very well, and I want to place on record my appreciation of the excellent job that he carries out in that regard. I also want to thank the Deputy Leader of the House, the member for Gippsland, who fortunately is also here tonight. I thank him for his advice, for his sharp political instincts and for generally doing a lot of the work that is a necessary part of the job behind the scenes to ensure the smooth running of the House. Obviously, as a senior member of the National Party, he plays a particularly important role as a key player in the coalition.I also appreciate and thank Stewart McArthur, Kay Elson, John Forrest and Paul Neville for their work as the whips. I also thank the whips' staff, particularly Geraldine Rath, who has to deal with the differing moods and likes and dislikes of a lot of members. She does a very good job. Geraldine, if you are listening, thank you for your work. You suffer a lot of hassles from a lot of members, but you do the job very well and it is appreciated.I put on record my particular thanks to the PM, my ministerial colleagues, my cabinet colleagues, my parliamentary colleagues and also the members of the Parliamentary Business Committee, which has responsibility for overseeing the progress of legislation through the House. I particularly thank my parliamentary colleagues. There are a lot of demands on the House. Sometimes the Deputy Leader of the House and I have to sort out those priorities, not always satisfying every demand upon us. But we do appreciate the cooperation people provide in ensuring that things in that regard run smoothly as well. Also, Lynton Crosby in the Liberal Party organisation plays an important role at a political level, and I record my thanks to him.To my opposite number, Bob McMullan, Manager of Opposition Business, I record my appreciation of our cooperation. He describes me as `amiably useless' as Leader of the House. I thank him for such a pleasant compliment, even though it has a certain sting to it. But we do try to cooperate with the opposition, and I can assure my counterpart that we certainly cooperate a lot more with them than was the case when we were in opposition and Mr Beazley was in my job as Leader of the house. To Leo McLeay, little more needs to be said, but we record our appreciation of the cooperation that we have had.XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—To the extent that it is there.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Oh, come on, Peter!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—That was Mr McGauran. I was just more subtle. I do appreciate the work of the shadow minister, with whom I have had an agreement this year. It is quite a boast of mine that I have practised doing deals with the Democrats and now I have bigger challenges.I thank the staff of the Parliamentary Liaison Office, particular Matt Minogue, who is a very good operator there. He is a credit to the Public Service and does an excellent job. It is a very demanding job when the House is sitting. Matt, you do it very well, and we do appreciate that.We thank Phil Walker, Tabling Officer, who has recently joined us. He took over from Suzanne De Smet, and we thank her for her work during this year. We thank Grant Woodbridge, the Assistant Liaison Officer, who is leaving the office and going off to the Department of Transport and Regional Services on a promotion. He has been a very efficient, professional person in that role, and we do thank him for his many long hours of hard work and congratulate him on his promotion.From the Clerk's Office, I particularly mention Ian Harris and the Deputy Clerk, Bernard Wright. I have worked with both of them for many years. They are great professionals and always give very good advice. I thank you, Bernard and Ian, for the work that you do. I also thank David Elder, Assistant Secretary, Committees; Judy Middlebrook, Clerk Assistant, Procedure; Jim Pender, Clerk Assistant, Corporate Services; and Don Piper, Peter Mason and all the staff in the Table Office. Again, they all work very long hours and keep a straight face—which is quite a task sometimes when sitting in the chamber, with the goings-on that happen here. We thank the Serjeant-at-Arms, Dalma Dixon and all the staff of the office of the Serjeant-at-Arms. I also acknowledge and thank the staff of the Chamber Research Office for a lot of work they do for my office—because we do like to keep our finger on the pulse in terms of what is happening in the chamber, and I thank them for that effort. In the same vein, I also thank members of the Parliamentary Library, who provide a lot of assistance to members. It is invaluable work, often going unnoticed but very much a vital cog in the overall wheel. To the Hansard staff, I thank them similarly, and also the telephone operators, who are the first point of contact for many people with the national parliament; the gardeners, who keep the grounds looking great; the cleaning staff, who maintain standards against the demands of this place; and the attendants, many of whom have been here for many years: we have always appreciated their courtesy and timely service, which is a great help.I thank the Security Officers: I think the new uniforms are excellent—no reflection on a new militarist regime, which was the concern of one new Labor backbencher during the year. I thank the staff who work in the members' dining-room, and Kate in particular. We thank the staff of the cafeteria and of the Transport Office, and also those down at Aussie's: they organise the laundry, provide the coffee and all the other bits and pieces, and we thank the two Doms, Sarah, Ming and Tony for their work. I thank the people with whom I work most closely. Firstly, at the departmental level, to perhaps mention just one in a representative capacity, Dr Peter Shergold is a very professional public servant and one of the best we have in the Commonwealth Public Service. He has been a loyal and hard-working adviser to the previous government and has continued and provided good advice and runs a very professional outfit in the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. I also thank my electorate staff—Jill Fletcher, Brett Hogan and Katrina Flannery—for the work that they do. I am not there all that often, I suppose, and they have to ensure that we continue to provide a high standard of service in my electorate. At the ministerial staff level, it is impossible to pick one or two out, so let me just pick out Peter Hendy, who is the chief of staff, and thank him for the work that he does. I am fortunate with the very good support that I have within my office. I should mention Jackie Jurd, who is my personal assistant and something of living legend within the Liberal Party. She is a tremendous character and an incredibly efficient operator, and I thank Jackie for the work that she does. I also thank the policy advisers and all others within the office. They do a great job, which job could not be done without them. Lastly, I wanted to thank all members for the way in which they make their contribution to the smooth running of the House. I did have the figures for the number of questions asked this year and, off the top of my head, it was 1,370.XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—No, no: 1,700.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It was 1,370—or was it 1,730? No. I know what it was; it was 1,370. There have been two higher numbers, one in 1997— XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—Oh, you mean for this year. Sorry.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—For this year. Thank you for your intervention. The years with the three highest numbers of questions ever asked were this year, 1997 and 1976, which was the only other comparable year—which shows you the extent to which we have changed the processes within the parliament to allow more questions to be asked. In a sense, it is only a number, although I know that every one is a moment in your life, Mr Speaker, in having to manage these things. But 1,370 questions is an important number, because it is a gauge of the extent to which this government is prepared—as it properly should be—to be accountable to the Australian people through the national forum of the parliament.Ms Macklin interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Well, it is true. It is a terribly important thing—Ms Macklin interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Well, it is part of the spirit. We can go to Christmas knowing that our democracy is alive and well and thriving, and these are some numbers that back that up. We have averaged 19 questions per question time. The member sitting opposite is relatively new; she was elected in 1996; she is very new. I can remember when we were lucky to get three or four questions up during question time: that is a fact.K26LATHAMMr Latham—That's all you had.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—No; that is all that Bob Hawke would allow us. Mr Keating was even worse, because he reckoned that question time was an indulgence given by the executive to the opposition.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—What about your mate Jeffrey?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The Victorian parliament is a very special and wonderful place, but when it comes to allowing and encouraging, in fact, proper debate in this parliament, we have done a lot. That is an excellent record and those figures prove the case.The other thing this year that is interesting from a procedural point of view is that it is the first year since 1981—that is 18 years ago—that we have not had a guillotine exercised in the House of Representatives. For those who do not know the terminology, a guillotine is a device used by a government whereby it imposes its will upon the parliament to restrict the number of speakers on any particular bill of importance. There have been no such gags this year of that sort—no guillotines imposed. That reflects the fact that the House has been very well run. All the members are the beneficiaries of that because their right to speak and make a contribution has in that way been respected.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—You are incorrigible.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—This is the trouble—you get new members in and they have no idea of how things used to run. They have no idea of how it used to be under previous governments.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—You are incorrigible.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—No, it is a fact. I know—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Reluctant as I am to intervene, just a little less intervention from the member for Jagajaga would be appropriate, and I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could direct his comments through the chair.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Mr Speaker, as you well know, the public view is that: `They are all as bad as each other.' That is the general public view. The fact is that they are not all as bad as each other. Since 1996 we have made a concerted effort to improve standards, to give all members opportunities to speak, to ask questions and to be more fully involved in the House. These are incremental changes, but they do provide more opportunities than were available in the past. I do not have a short memory; I have been here long enough to have quite a long memory of how it used to be. The fact is that people did not have a chance to speak, there were always guillotines on big tax bills and the like in the mid-eighties, and legislation was not given the scrutiny that it should have received.It is a proud boast of this government that so many questions have been asked. The other proud boast of this government is that, when questions are asked, they are fully answered.7K6ENTSCHMr Entsch—Absolutely!PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Ha! Ha!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I knew that would bring a reaction from the other side.XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—Even from your own.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Oh, we like the answers.XH4McGAURANMr McGauran—Yes, a bridge too far.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It is the last night—and it has been an incredible year, in all seriousness.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—It's getting a bit lonely down—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—No, I have got the member for Gippsland across to my east and the member for Dunkley to my north-west. There has been a very big legislative load in the House of Representatives, reflecting the government's big agenda this year. This has been the tax year. I have never seen a year where there has been so much major reform. We have transformed Australia's tax system. In the end, that will mean more jobs for people. It will mean higher living standards. We have done it all in the face of opposition from the Labor Party. But there is no doubt that as we fix Australia's economic problems there are real benefits from doing so.We have seen one of those benefits today with the 6.7 per cent unemployment rate. That is the best figure since July 1990. The member for Jagajaga has been a member of the House of Representatives since 1996. She has never seen such a good figure. I can tell her that, with us on this side, she has many good years ahead.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—I can remember when the Prime Minister was the Treasurer and what was the rate then?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I can also remember, when I was elected—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga and the Leader of the House know that a good deal of tolerance has been exercised appropriately from the chair. There has been a good-natured interchange between the two of you and I invite the Leader of the House to continue his remarks.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I will conclude with this point, Mr Speaker: the member for Jagajaga and I have something in common.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—I find that hard to believe.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—No, you will be interested in this. I was elected at the start of a long period of opposition for our side. I was a new member and every election I thought that we had a good chance. Of course, we never had a chance because we never got our act together until 1996. It took 13 years. I used to sit there, as you now sit there, because I was on the front bench fairly soon after arriving here, and I was full of that hope and optimism for the future. I learned the hard way, and you will too.To the member for Jagajaga, all the members of the opposition and particularly members on our own side I send best wishes for the Christmas period. We look forward to the New Year—another good year of reform from the Howard government. Finally, as I turned to go to the door I remembered that I had not mentioned Cate Clunies-Ross, who is sitting in the advisers box. She manages the House matters and she does it in a very professional way. She is a tremendous worker and a great asset for the government and for our cause. I put on the record my formal thanks to Cate for an excellent job.13349Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—As there are no other participants, it seems to me entirely appropriate as the Speaker of the House to make a comment or two on the matters that have been raised in the valedictory motions. I do not have anything particularly new to say, but there are observations that I would like to take this opportunity to make. As I have indicated to the House on numerous other occasions, I find it a great honour to be the Speaker of the House. I am proud of not only the institution but also the men and women who make it up. I believe that this nation is, as has been intimated by members on both sides of the House, much better governed—and that is not a statement made about the government; I would not do that from the speaker's chair—than most Australians believe by reason of the role that the House and the opposition play in government. I believe Australians ought to be proud of the way in which the House of Representatives works, principally to their benefit.Much has been made by people who have commented this afternoon of the fact that this particular day marks the last sitting day of the parliament for the year 1999 and, in the eyes of some, for the millennium—others are not certain whether that is going to apply this year or next. Whichever is right, it is true to say that none of us will, as of 1 January 2000, use the designation `19' ahead of any sequential dates that we are placing on any sheet of paper, so it will mark a particularly significant time for all of us—and certainly the passage of 100 or 1,000 years, depending on your particular perspective.I did wonder what could be said that would have any different role than remarks already made by members in the House. It did strike me, as the Prime Minister intimated, that the year 2000 marked the 2,000 years since the Christian philosophy was recognised on earth as a result of the birth of Christ and that it was fair to say that for 2,000 years the philosophy of peace on earth and goodwill to men—as allegedly proclaimed by the angels 2,000 years ago—had been around for that period of time. Yet, in spite of this cry of peace on earth and goodwill, it is also fair to say that the last century has seen the bloodiest conflicts and some of the worst atrocities and the most inhuman acts known to mankind.If at the end of this century we were to celebrate anything I think we should celebrate the fact that for the last 50 years—that is, for the lifetime of most of us—there has been an unprecedented international desire for peace. Whatever is right or wrong about the inevitable move towards globalisation, and the recognition of the world as a global village, it is true to say that we now see, as previous generations have never seen, how little divide there is between the people from one continent to another. The desire for peace has grown out of the fact that we recognise all men and women as brothers and sisters.I think we should celebrate tonight the fact that the most powerful political forces on the globe are currently committed more to global peace than to global disharmony. We should celebrate the fact that it is the free and democratic countries around the globe that are so committed to global peace and so committed, if necessary, to intervention in order to guarantee that tribal and border difficulties do not escalate into worldwide war. We have seen that this year. We saw it in Kosovo, we have been an active part of it in East Timor, and we watch with apprehension the events in Chechnya because there too we are concerned that there should be an opportunity for the world to ensure that one group of people is not adversely disadvantaged by the actions of another.We live in a world, therefore, where global peace has become, at this end of the century, more of a reality than at any other time. We are here as participants in a country that is itself free, democratic and influential in world terms. This parliament, and our opportunity to participate in this parliament, allows us to have a role in ensuring that the message of peace on earth and goodwill towards men is fostered in this place and fostered to the advantage of all of our neighbours. We should, I believe, as I said in my opening remarks, be proud of the role that the parliament plays as an expression of the wishes of the Australian society at large and proud of the role that we, as a parliament, have been able to play as part of the global community in maintaining such peace as we have known.I join all other members in recognising that Christmas, no matter what philosophic perspective one might have, is a time that gives us an opportunity to spend time with our families. I join with all other members in acknowledging the indebtedness we have to our families. My wife Carolyn and our three children are, for me, the refuge that I need. They provide me with the strength to carry on in the roles that I have, and that each of us have, in this place. It is fair to say that we are very dependent on our families. It is also fair to say that those of us who are here are here in principally selfish roles because, invariably, the time we spend in Canberra and the lifestyle we are obliged to adopt means that we are, within any partnership, generally the ones who have the least time to spend on the partnership and the family and that, therefore, we place a greater burden on our spouses.In that context, in recognising the role of my family and each of your families, I recog nise the role of the Parliament House family and pay a tribute, as the Speaker of the House, to all of those who serve us in this parliament. Many have individually recognised these people and, as the Speaker, I want to have the opportunity to do the same thing. I want to recognise, obviously, the staff of the House of Representatives, led by the Clerk, Mr Harris, and the Deputy Clerk, Mr Wright. I echo the sentiments of everybody of our indebtedness to them for their independent advice, offered without fear or favour to everybody. I am also indebted to them for the daily meetings that they have with me and the guidance that they give me. I know I do not need to reassure members of the way in which they are so exceedingly discreet about whatever issues they are being counselled about.I also recognise the staff, Laraine and Katrina, in the Clerk's office, the Clerk Assistants, the Table Office and the Chamber Research Office and their staff, the Serjeant-At-Arms office, with which I clearly have a daily reaction and interaction—Judy Middlebrook, Dalma and Barry—and those who are responsible for putting members into cars to get them on their way, including Marcus, Brian, Elisabeth and Natasa. I recognise too the role of the Comcar drivers, the role of the members' keyboard support groups, and the messengerial staff and security attendants who not only work hard all year but are so cheerful and obliging with whatever demands we make on them, particularly in the chamber.I would like to make special mention of the staff who assist the operation of the Main Committee, particularly the messengerial staff and committee staff who have been prepared to undertake additional duties in gaining procedural experience. This year has been a significant year for the Liaison and Projects group. As the Clerk is aware, they are led by Andres Lomp, Bronwyn Allan, Nicole Taylor and Denise Picker. They have been a very important part in the increased initiative of the House department's determination to spread the word. They have played a key role in the production of recent documents to ensure that Australians know more about the House of Representatives and to ensure that we have the opportunity to increase among Australians more detailed information about how members of parliament discharge their duties.Let me pay tribute to the Information Systems Office, led by Anne McKinnon, who have done so much to ensure that our systems are year 2000 compliant, and to Janet Smith for liaising with members and ensuring that their equipment needs are met.In a question from the member for Farrer today, I intimated that we were in fact actively involved in preparations for the Centenary of Federation. We do have a Centenary of Federation group, led by Bernie Harris. I would like to acknowledge his work.In January next year, when much of Australia expects to be on leave, we will be putting demands on the staff of the House of Representatives because Australia is the host country for the Commonwealth Speakers and Presiding Officers Conference, and that is followed immediately by the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum 8th Annual Meeting. Many of the staff will be obliged to be involved in that activity, and I am particularly grateful, as I know Madam President is, for the work being done by them, for the work they will be doing over Christmas and for the leadership they have had from Trevor Rowe and for the assistance he has had from Margaret Atkin and Celeste Italiano.While we are celebrating both Christmas and New Year, there will of course be staff still working here, particularly the security service, and I want to acknowledge their role. I want to acknowledge the firm and friendly way they go about their duties and the support that we all get from their team leader, Mike Lucas.There are other staff of the House of Representatives who ought not to be overlooked—the Members' Entitlements and Human Resources group, staff in finance and staff in publishing. We are all indebted to the Parliamentary Relations Office for the key role they have in ensuring that guests into the parliament, particularly international guests, are appropriately treated and that we are in an appropriate position to represent Australia whenever we find we have a need to be overseas. I thank Chris Paterson and his team.In recognising the role of the staff in this chamber, I particularly acknowledge the role played by my Deputy Speaker, Mr Garry Nehl, and the Second Deputy Speaker, Mr Harry Jenkins. As members of all parties know, no Speaker could ask for a better team than the team that has been given to me by the votes of the various parties and the parliament that has produced both Mr Nehl and Mr Jenkins. For impartial advice and for a preparedness to ensure that the standing orders are always adhered to, I could not ask for a better team. Let me also thank the members of the Speakers Panel for the role that they play.Much has been made of Matt Minogue's key role as Parliamentary Liaison Officer, and I would endorse that unreservedly. I must also thank the government and the opposition whips and their staff. I am indebted for the cooperation that Michael Ronaldson, Leo McLeay, Stewart McArthur, Kay Elson, Rod Sawford, Bob Sercombe, John Forrest and Paul Neville have with each other in the running of this parliament.I must make particular mention of the parliamentary committee secretariats. The committee staff continue to deliver the excellent service that is expected of them. Particular development has been the ability to cope with existing resources with advisory reports as part of the legislative process. The strength of the committee service was demonstrated by the willingness and capability of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs secretariats, headed by Claressa Surtees, to undertake as well the responsibility for the republic referendum.The Parliamentary Education Office, based in the Senate, continues to offer great service to all members, particularly in the way in which it caters for the school groups that visit and prepares to take information out to school and community groups. The Parliamentary Library staff and the Parliamentary Reporting staff are ably led by Mr John Templeton as Secretary to both of those departments. Can I thank him, Hansard, Sound and Vision, Parliamentary Information Systems, the User Support Centre and the switchboard operators for the service that we all come to take for granted, because it is all done so well and so efficiently.I must also on your behalf extend our gratitude and best wishes to Mike Bolton, the Secretary to the Joint House Department, his team of managers, supervisors and maintenance staff and to the guides, the nurses, the gardeners and Louise Dauth and the Parliament House arts section for the maintenance of Parliament House's now quite valuable art collection.There are those of us who make use of all the commercial activities here and would want me also to acknowledge Audrey's Florist, Auspic, Dom's, which of course has already been mentioned for the service that we receive from Dom and his team, Jetset Travel, the Health and Recreation Centre, Hyatt and AFS catering, Lizzie's hairdressing, Marketing Services, the Parliament Shop, the physiotherapists, the Post Office, Qantas and Westpac.As the Speaker of the House of Representatives, I am particularly indebted to my own office staff, known to almost all of you. The office would not run smoothly without the diligence shown by Peter Gibson, Wendy Willis, Carol Nichols, known to all of you for her role in the chamber, Marie Donnelly, who has become an institution in the Speaker's office and is known to all members for the way in which she so efficiently deals with all the bookings in the chamber and other issues that directly affect this chamber and my office, and Pauline Osmond.Along with all other members, I stand indebted to my electorate staff—Dr Dennis Gifford, Kerry Kerr, Helen Gratz, David Little and Gaynor and Mignon, who come in from time to time to help us out. I would not be the Speaker of the House of Representatives were it not for the very forgiving people in the electorate of Wakefield who keep electing me to the office as the member for Wakefield. It is true to say that, as Speaker, I find that my time in the parliament is more focused on the parliament than on the electorate, an issue that I believe the Manager of Opposition Business was alluding to in his remarks earlier. I endeavour, however, to spend as much non-sitting time as I can in the electorate, and I believe the electorate continues to be adequately represented. I hope they feel that because I very much enjoy being the Speaker of the House of Representatives and my capacity to hold this office depends on my capacity to convince them that they are being adequately represented.On behalf of Carolyn and I, can I extend to you all the compliments of the season, the best wishes for a very restful time and the opportunity to return to what I hope will be a successful new year for everyone in this House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills13352r71913352Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 3, page 2 (line 9), after "grants", insert "and/or loans".(2) Clause 3, page 2 (line 12), after "grants paid", insert ", and loans made,".(3) Clause 3, page 3 (line 4), after "years", insert ", and special grants may be made for the 1999-2000 year".(4) Clause 3, page 3 (line 7), omit "must register under the scheme and may be required", substitute "may be required to register under the scheme and".(5) Clause 3, page 3 (line 8), omit "audited".(6) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 15), after the definition of claim , insert: designated industry program means a program or scheme that is: (a) administered by the Commonwealth; and (b) specified in the regulations.(7) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 18), after the definition of grant , insert: importation into Australia has the same meaning as in section 50 of the Customs Act 1901 .(8) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 20), after the definition of income year , insert: loan means a loan under the TCF (SIP) scheme.(9) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 25), after paragraph (a) of the definition of scheme debt , insert: (aa) an amount due and payable by an entity to the Commonwealth under a loan; or(10) Clause 4, page 4 (before line 1), before paragraph (b) of the definition of scheme debt , insert:(ab) an amount that is payable as mentioned in subsection 18B(2) (which deals with advances); or(11) Clause 8, page 5 (line 5), omit "1 July 1999", substitute "the end of the period of 14 days beginning on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent,".(12) Clause 8, page 5 (line 6), after "grants", insert "and/or loans".(13) Clause 8, page 5 (line 7), omit "either or both", substitute "any or all".(14) Clause 8, page 5 (lines 10 and 11), omit "or elsewhere".(15) Clause 8, page 5 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add: (c) the design in Australia, for manufacture outside Australia, of products: (i) that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible TCF products; and (ii) some or all of which are intended to be sold in Australia; where the importation into Australia of some or all of the products is or will be covered by a designated industry program.(16) Clause 9, page 5 (line 18), after "grants paid", insert ", and loans made,".(17) Clause 9, page 5 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add:(2) If a loan under the TCF (SIP) scheme is repaid at a particular time, subsection (1) has effect after that time as if the loan had never been made.(18) Heading to Division 2, page 6 (line 2), after "the ", insert "grants provisions of the ".(19) Heading to clause 10, page 6 (line 3), after "the ", insert "grants provisions of the ".(20) Clause 10, page 6 (line 4), after "scheme", insert ", to the extent to which it deals with grants,".(21) Clause 12, page 7 (lines 15 to 29), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) the objective that grants in respect of TCF research and development expenditure may only be made to an entity in respect of amounts that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible expenditure incurred by the entity during: (i) the entity's 2000-2001 income year; or (ii) the entity's 2001-2002 income year; or (iii) the entity's 2002-2003 income year; or (iv) the entity's 2003-2004 income year; or (v) the entity's 2004-2005 income year; (ba) the objective that: (i) special grants in respect of second-hand TCF plant expenditure; and (ii) special miscellaneous grants in respect of TCF-dependent communities; may only be made to an entity in respect of amounts that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible expenditure incurred by the entity during: (iii) the entity's 1999-2000 income year; or (iv) the entity's 2000-2001 income year; or (v) the entity's 2001-2002 income year; or (vi) the entity's 2002-2003 income year; or (vii) the entity's 2003-2004 income year; or (viii) the entity's 2004-2005 income year;(22) Clause 12, page 7 (line 31), after "activities", insert "that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible activities".(23) Clause 13, page 8 (after line 16), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) the objective that: (i) special grants in respect of second-hand TCF plant expenditure; and (ii) special miscellaneous grants in respect of TCF-dependent communities; must not be made to an entity in respect of amounts that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible expenditure incurred by the entity during the entity's 1999-2000 income year unless the entity makes a claim for the grant after the end of the entity's 2000-2001 income year;(24) Clause 13, page 9 (line 6), after "activities", insert "that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible activities".(25) Clause 14, page 9 (line 18), after "activities", insert "that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible activities".(26) Clause 14, page 10 (line 7), omit "year; and", substitute "year.".(27) Clause 14, page 10 (lines 8 to 12), omit subparagraph (iv).(28) Clause 15, page 10 (line 13) to page 11 (line 16), omit clause 15, substitute: 15 Grants cap based on eligible revenue and eligible start-up investment amount(1) This section sets out policy objectives for the TCF (SIP) scheme.Cap based on eligible revenue(2) The first objective is that the total of the following grants that become payable to an entity during a particular income year of the entity (the claim year ): (a) grants in respect of new TCF plant/ building expenditure made in respect of amounts that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible expenditure incurred by the entity otherwise than during a period that, under the scheme, is taken to be an eligible start-up period of the entity; (b) grants in respect of TCF research and development expenditure made in respect of amounts that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible expenditure incurred by the entity otherwise than during a period that, under the scheme, is taken to be an eligible start-up period of the entity; (c) special grants in respect of second-hand TCF plant expenditure made in respect of amounts that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible expenditure incurred by the entity otherwise than during a period that, under the scheme, is taken to be an eligible start-up period of the entity; (d) special miscellaneous grants in respect of TCF-dependent communities made in respect of amounts that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible expenditure incurred by the entity otherwise than during a period that, under the scheme, is taken to be an eligible start-up period of the entity; (e) grants in respect of TCF value-adding made in respect of activities carried on by the entity otherwise than during a period that, under the scheme, is taken to be an eligible start-up period of the entity;must not exceed 5% of the amount that, under the scheme, is taken to be the total eligible revenue derived by the entity, during the income year of the entity preceding the claim year, from sales of products that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible TCF products.Cap based on eligible start-up investment amount(3) The second objective is that the total of the following grants that become payable to an entity during a particular income year of the entity (the claim year ) and any income years of the entity that are earlier than the claim year: (a) grants in respect of new TCF plant/ building expenditure made in respect of amounts that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible expenditure incurred by the entity during a period that, under the scheme, is taken to be an eligible start-up period of the entity; (b) grants in respect of TCF research and development expenditure made in respect of amounts that, under the scheme, are taken to be eligible expenditure incurred by the entity during a period that, under the scheme, is taken to be an eligible start-up period of the entity; (c) grants in respect of TCF value-adding made in respect of activities carried on by the entity during a period that, under the scheme, is taken to be an eligible start-up period of the entity;must not exceed 15% of the amount that, under the scheme, is taken to be the total of the eligible start-up investment amounts of the entity for each of the income years of the entity that are earlier than the claim year.When grant becomes payable (4) For the purposes of this section, a grant becomes payable to an entity when a determination is made under the scheme that the entity is entitled to be paid the grant.(29) Clause 16, page 12 (line 4), omit "The TCF (SIP) scheme must", substitute "For the purposes of the application of the TCF (SIP) scheme to a type of grant that, under the scheme, is taken to be a registration-linked grant, the scheme may".(30) Clause 16, page 12 (line 22), before "grant", insert "registration-linked".(31) Clause 16, page 12 (line 23), before "grant", insert "registration-linked".(32) Clause 16, page 12 (line 25), before "grant", insert "registration-linked".(33) Heading to Division 4, page 13 (line 2), omit "audited ".(34) Heading to clause 18, page 13 (line 10), omit "Audited accounts ", substitute "Accounts ".(35) Clause 18, page 13 (line 11), omit "must provide that an entity", substitute "may provide that an entity ascertained in accordance with the scheme".(36) Clause 18, page 13 (line 13), omit "(if any)". (37) Clause 18, page 13 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add:(2) The TCF (SIP) scheme may provide that an entity ascertained in accordance with the scheme is not eligible for a grant unless the entity has complied with such requirements as are imposed by the scheme in relation to the submission of unaudited accounts and unaudited financial statements.(38) Page 14 (after line 2), after the heading to Division 5, insert:18A LoansA loan must not be made to an entity after the end of the entity's 2004-2005 income year.(39) Page 14 (before line 3), before clause 19, insert:18B Advances on account of grants (1) The TCF (SIP) scheme may provide for advances on account of grants that may become payable. (2) If: (a) an entity receives an amount by way of an advance on account of a grant that may become payable to the entity; and (b) that amount is greater than the amount of the grant;the entity is liable to pay to the Commonwealth the amount of the excess.(40) Heading to clause 19, page 14 (line 3), after "on the ", insert "Minister or the ".(41) Clause 19, page 14 (before line 4), before subclause (1), insert:(1A) The TCF (SIP) scheme may make provision with respect to a matter by conferring on the Minister a power to make a decision of an administrative character.(42) Clause 19, page 14 (lines 7 to 10), omit subclause (2).(43) Heading to clause 22, page 16 (line 21), at the end of the heading, add "connected with grants ".(44) Clause 22, page 16 (after line 26), at the end of the clause, add:(2) The TCF (SIP) scheme may provide that an entity ascertained in accordance with the scheme is not entitled to request an advance on account of a grant unless another entity ascertained in accordance with the scheme gives a guarantee to the Commonwealth that any scheme debts owed by the first-mentioned entity will be paid.(45) Page 16 (before line 27), after clause 22, insert: 22A Guarantees relating to payment of scheme debts connected with loansThe TCF (SIP) scheme may provide that an entity ascertained in accordance with the scheme is not entitled to apply for a loan unless another entity ascertained in accordance with the scheme gives a guarantee to the Commonwealth that any scheme debts owed by the first-mentioned entity will be paid.(46) Page 17 (after line 2), after clause 23, insert:23A Participation in accredited benchmarking/management-improvement studiesThe TCF (SIP) scheme may provide that an entity is not eligible for any of the following grants: (a) grants in respect of new TCF plant/ building expenditure; (b) grants in respect of TCF research and development expenditure; (c) grants in respect of TCF value-adding;unless the entity has complied with such requirements as are imposed by the scheme in relation to participation in a study that, under the scheme, is taken to be: (d) an accredited benchmarking study; or (e) an accredited management-improvement study.(47) Heading to clause 25, page 17 (line 6), after "Grants ", insert "and advances ".(48) Clause 25, page 17 (line 7), after "grants", insert ", and advances on account of grants,".(49) Clause 26, page 17 (line 15), after "claim", insert "made by an entity ascertained in accordance with the scheme".(50) Clause 26, page 17 (after line 16), after paragraph (b), insert:(ba) requiring that a claim made by an entity ascertained in accordance with the scheme be accompanied by an unaudited statement relating to specified activities;(51) Clause 26, page 17 (after line 18), after paragraph (c), insert: (ca) requiring that an application for a loan be accompanied by such a fee as is ascertained in accordance with the scheme;(52) Clause 30, page 18 (lines 20 and 21), omit "on or after 1 July 1999.", substitute "after the end of the period of 14 days beginning on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.". (53) Heading to clause 34, page 21 (line 4), before "Secretary ", insert "Minister or ".(54) Clause 34, page 21 (line 5), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(55) Clause 34, page 21 (line 9), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(56) Clause 34, page 21 (line 12), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(57) Clause 34, page 21 (line 14), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(58) Clause 34, page 21 (line 16), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(59) Clause 34, page 21 (line 19), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(60) Clause 34, page 21 (line 21), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(61) Clause 34, page 21 (line 26), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(62) Clause 37, page 23 (line 2), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(63) Clause 37, page 23 (line 5), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(64) Heading to clause 38, page 23 (line 8), before "Secretary ", insert "Minister or ".(65) Clause 38, page 23 (line 9), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(66) Clause 38, page 23 (line 13), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(67) Clause 38, page 23 (line 16), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(68) Clause 38, page 23 (line 17), before "Secretary", insert "Minister or the".(69) Page 31 (after line 17), after clause 48, insert:48A Availability of grantsTo avoid doubt, nothing in this Act implies that grants must be available in respect of a particular income year.(70) Clause 49, page 31 (line 24), after "conferred on", insert "the Minister or".(71) Clause 50, page 32 (line 13), after "scheme,", insert "the Minister or".(72) Clause 50, page 32 (line 20), after "to which", insert "the Minister or".22:07:0013356McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your very best wishes. On behalf of the House, we would wish to return to you and Carolyn our hopes of a restful, enjoyable and happy Christmas for you and your family. I move: That the amendments be agreed to.22:08:0013356McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—To make it clear for the record, because a number of organisations are very concerned about the way the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999 is being handled, I reiterate that this is merely the formalisation of the debate which we had earlier today in which I and other members of the opposition had the opportunity to express, while we are voting for the bill, our profound reservations about its substance and the process that has led to it. But the passage of the bill is the only way to get $700 million to flow to the industry. We all want to see that happen, so we support the motion.Question resolved in the affirmative.Adjournment13356Motion (by Mr McGauran) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.1335622:09:0013356Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—Unfortunately, I address this place once again concerned over the regressive actions of the Howard government. I refer in this instance to the proposed removal of the office of the Australian Taxation Office at Cannington in my electorate of Swan and the transfer or loss of over 600 staff. It is necessary to briefly look at history to understand the folly and to appreciate the reasons why the office was established in Cannington and why it is crucial to the local area.In 1991 the Cannington office was established for certain reasons. It brought the Taxation Office out of its centralised location to the people. The office was designed to serve the 350,000 people in the southern area. The siting of the office was based on good commercial practice due to its being a modern facility which included excellent community access from public transport routes and large areas for parking which would provide a good working environment for staff. The decentralised office would help alleviate the overcrowding in Perth traffic and alleviate parking in the CBD. These factors took into consider ation the operational requirements of the ATO, the need for modern accessible communities and also community access.However, the government has decided to relocate the facility back to the Northbridge city office. In doing so a number of questions need to be asked. These questions are important to the 600 plus staff who would be affected by the move and the thousands of taxpayers who use the facility annually who would be concerned over any relocation to a centre 15 kilometres away.In discussions with the stakeholders in the process, including the staff, the union, the local business community and users of the Cannington facility, I have established a number of questions that need to be put to the Treasurer. Amongst these are: will there be any job losses in the associated support industries such as security, cleaning and ground staff? What has been resolved over the accommodation issues? Contrary to the comments of management, queries exist over the lease arrangements and extensions to the central office which have not been specified, and also the lack of available space for staff. All these issues remain unresolved. It is important that the Treasurer also answer questions pertaining to the negative externalities from the move. These include the increases in traffic congestion and the extra time taken in journeys for the public and staff.There is another issue that also warrants consideration. It goes to the heart of the sort of environment that this government seems to encourage—that is, the shabby and non-transparent manner in which the decision was made. It is quite obvious from the correspondence I have seen that the strategy to relocate was taken well in advance of any consultation with staff or any real discussions with members of the local community. In effect, as usual, absolutely no real dialogue occurred.Of course the usual lip-service occurred with no meaning, and I can understand the staff having developed a thick hide due to the decline in morale in the service. I can also attest that I have noted much of the correspondence from the ATO management to the staff. I can indicate to members of this House that I was taken back by the glaringly `past tense' syntax of that correspondence that either was poorly covered up or they simply could not be bothered to disguise. I put it to the Treasurer and members of this House that these decisions had already been made and that the involvement of members of the community, staff or users of the ATO would not have really mattered.I am also compelled to ask the question: what rate of commercial rent is paid at the Cannington office, a suburban complex, as against the Northbridge inner city office? I would also like to see highlighted any calculations on the negative impacts of the centralising of taxation services. If 600 regular staff and thousands of customers are removed from the local area, what is the flow-on effect of the loss of that expenditure on the region? Discussions with interested parties indicate that the impact will be as high as $20,000 per week. That figure is not inclusive of the loss of office rent and associated services. This is particularly relevant given that the area has an unemployment rate of 1.5 per cent above the state average with an annual income for the majority of the population of less than $30,000. I believe that the actual costs in transferring the operations coupled with the hidden extras will be so high that the true costs will never see the light of day. The ATO has an obligation to release this information to stakeholders.In conclusion, I call on the ATO to reconsider the centralisation of the organisation. By continuing to embrace a decentralised office at Cannington, the ATO would continue to make ATO staff available directly to the public, continue to develop an important service that benefits the local community, alleviate congestion, and allow staff and local taxpayers efficient and effective service in their area. I call on the Treasurer and the management of the tax office in Western Australia to abandon this proposal and keep the service where it is needed—here in Cannington.1335722:14:0013357Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—It is not the same following the member for Swan without his reindeer ears on. Perhaps he will grace us with those the next time he appears in the House.One of the key aspects of Victoria's outstanding success in the last seven years under the Kennett government was Jeff Kennett's determination in showing Victorians and, indeed, the rest of the nation, the economic and social wealth that migrants can bring. Australians have no reason to fear an all-encompassing and generous immigration program. Recent reports in the Financial Review have indicated that, in the first year of migration to Australia, there was an estimated cost to taxpayers of $61.27 million. But then there was a massive turnaround. In the second year, the Australian economy benefited by $1.8 million. By the fifth year, our economy benefited to the tune of $103.41 million. The bottom line is that migrants have a decidedly positive impact on the Australian economy. Migrants also have a significant impact by expanding the horizons of Australians. Whilst this beneficial aspect of immigration is difficult to quantify, it must not be overlooked. These new Australians help to mould our country into a tolerant and more intellectually and culturally rounded nation.It is widely accepted that Australia's population is ageing. In 1870, 42 per cent of Australia's population were aged less than 15 years and two per cent were aged 65 years and over. In 1998, 120 years later, 21 per cent were aged less than 15 years and 12 per cent were aged 65 years and over. The Bureau of Statistics has released a report which shows that the Australian birth rate plummeted yet again in 1998. This report confirms fears that, if Australia's population does not increase at a steady rate, during the early part of the next century the natural increase in our population will be reduced to zero. This would have a devastating effect on our nation.There are two primary reasons why it is vital that we ensure that our population grows at a steady rate. Firstly, young people bring innovative ideas and, if Australia wants to remain a contributing part of the developed world, we must keep abreast of the changes and developments across the globe. Secondly, if Australia's population ages without the adequate replenishment of the work force, we will face significant strain on our social security and public health systems. The taxpayers of our nation are the most important revenue source for the government. If that resource declines and the need for government assistance increases, it will place an unacceptable burden on the system, which will be unable to sustain its high quality services.There are three ways of changing the size of the Australian population: fertility rates, mortality rates and net immigration.K26LATHAMMr Latham—And you are contributing to none!9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—This is true. I am personally contributing to none, except that I have not died yet—in which case, I would be contributing to the mortality rates. I am still going and, hopefully. will still go for some time yet.There is little administrators can do about fertility rates, nor should the government attempt to influence birth rates. The responsibility for immigration policy, however, falls squarely on our shoulders. Immigration to Australia occurs through a variety of visa programs. The Commonwealth government has introduced a number of state-specific migration categories to help disperse skilled migrants throughout the states and territories. South Australia has 8.3 per cent of Australia's population and yet attracts between four and five per cent of Australia's migrants. South Australia took the lion's share of migrants granted visas under these regional programs, welcoming 1,030 out of 2,745 migrants last year. The regional sponsored migration scheme helps meet the demand for qualified professionals outside metropolitan areas. Out of a potential 765 migrants, 436 settled in South Australia last year.Furthermore, South Australia is the only state or territory which has taken advantage of the state/territory nominated independent scheme. This scheme allows states and territories to top up identified shortages in the local labour market with the relevant skills and experience of migrants. South Australia has boosted its skills base significantly through this program and the benefits to the economy and society of the state are extensive and far reaching.Immigration is the key to the future success of our nation. Victoria has identified this and now South Australia has also recognised it. Migrants bring a wealth of skills and culture which can and do enhance our society. Fundamentally, a balanced migration program is of benefit to our nation. In closing, I congratulate the South Australian government for taking the action it has. (Time expired)1335922:19:0013359Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—For 24 years there has been speculation in this House about the record of the Whitlam government in relation to East Timor. Earlier this week, there was a very significant event. Not only did Gough Whitlam himself give evidence at the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee; the relevant documents from the Whitlam government were released publicly for the first time. Those documents are the record of the meeting between our Prime Minister and President Suharto in Jogjakarta on 6 September 1974, the key letter from Gough Whitlam to the Indonesian President on 28 February 1975 and the record of their meeting from 3 to 5 April 1975 in Townsville.I have been waiting all week for the critics of the Whitlam government—now they have had a chance to check the facts and check the official record—to come into the House with their comments. It is interesting that none has raised in parliament any fault with the Whitlam government. I assume that they have enthusiastically checked these documents over the past three days and have found absolutely no fault. And nor should they have done. I have read the documents in full, and they clearly show that, in each of the meetings and letters between our Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, and President Suharto, there was a very clear agreement in place. That is, that Portuguese Timor would need to undertake a self-determination process but, due to doubts about the economic viability of an independent East Timor, it was hoped by both governments that they might choose to vote for association or integration with Indonesia.It is worth recording, in particular, the statement that Gough Whitlam wrote to President Suharto in February 1975. It reads:The public debate does, however, serve to indicate the delicacy of the question, the widespread support here for an internationally acceptable act of self-determination in Portuguese Timor, and the great sensitivity of Australian parliamentary and public opinion to any suggestion of a possible resort to unilateral action. I should like, if I may, to impress this sensitivity upon you. I am sure you will understand that no Australian Government could allow it to be thought, whether beforehand or afterwards, that it supported such action.There is absolutely no doubt, no ambiguity and no danger involved. Gough Whitlam is ruling out any Australian support for unilateral action by the Indonesians. It is there, chapter and verse. I invite all members who have had a longstanding interest in this matter to check the record and the documents now that they have been publicly released.In the special debate on East Timor earlier this year, some members spoke of a betrayal of the East Timorese people in 1975. In reading these documents and in checking this record, one can only assume that they must have been talking about the Fraser government because, after the coup d'etat here on 11 November 1975, that agreement between our Prime Minister and President Suharto obviously lapsed. So there can be no doubt about the record of the Whitlam government. Mr Whitlam himself was clear, purposeful and direct in his dealings with President Suharto. I restate my surprise that the many members who have been critical in recent times or taken a longstanding interest in this issue have actually not said anything in this last week of parliament for 1999, the week in which the documents were finally released after a 24-year wait.I should make another point about East Timor and in particular about our defence deployment. I was reminded earlier today of a question that I had placed on the Notice Paper in 1997 to the Minister for Defence, asking about the golf courses owned by the Australian Defence Force. The answer that came back from then Minister McLachlan was that the Department of Defence owns 20 golf courses. In addition, there are two private golf courses at Swan Island and Mount Macedon in Victoria on leased land from Defence. Without giving the full list, some of these golf courses are on prime real estate locations around New South Wales, the Northern Territory, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia. It makes me wonder. Perhaps the best course of action would have been to clear out inefficiency and surplus assets in the Department of Defence before a need was identified for extra appropriations and extra revenue raising. Certainly, by my estimate, if these golf courses were off-loaded, $1 billion could be raised—the equivalent of the levy that is being placed on the Australian people for the year 2000-01. I think if we asked the Australian people, `How would you like $1 billion used—on a public hospital or on golf courses?' they would say, `Put the Medicare levy into public hospitals.' (Time expired)22:24:0013360Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—Yesterday, the member for Cowan, under the guise of debate on the Appropriation (East Timor) Bill 1999-2000 , made sweeping statements in relation to veterans' affairs in Australia. I believe a number of these statements need to be addressed. The member referred to the changes to the invalidity service pension passed by parliament last week as `dramatically toughening the eligibility criteria'. The revised test for use in assessing veterans for the invalidity service pension is the GARP test, which is currently used to assess veterans for the totally and permanently incapacitated rate of disability pension. This is a test that has been developed in consultation with the wider veteran community, is well understood by the veteran community and has been refined over a number of years. It has provided the basis for a fair and consistent assessment of a person's incapacity, and it is fairness and consistency that the veteran community most wants in our repatriation system.Veterans already receiving the invalidity service pension will not be affected by the changes. While it may well be that some veterans applying for the invalidity service pension after 1 January 2000 may not meet the eligibility criteria, the government and the parliament have agreed that the new provisions will ensure that veterans funding goes to those most in need.The member for Cowan also referred to the recently released Vietnam Veterans Health Study and posed the question, `What is the government going to do?' I would like to remind the House that the government commissioned the validation of the male Vietnam Veterans Health Study because of its genuine concerns for the health and welfare of our veterans and their families. The validation was conducted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, a respected independent medical research body, in consultation with a study advisory committee, including ex-service organisation representatives, who oversaw the process.Their study has reported a number of areas of serious concern, including the significantly higher rate of melanoma and prostate cancer in male veterans, the higher prevalence of spina bifida manifesta and cleft lip/palate in veterans' children, as well as the significantly higher rate of deaths by accident and suicide in these children. The government shares the concerns of the veteran community for their children and as early as 1996 appointed an expert committee to examine the evidence of a causal relationship between Agent Orange and spina bifida in the children of Vietnam veterans. This research continues to search for a scientific causal link.With regard to the health of the veterans themselves, it should be stressed that all Vietnam veterans can access the comprehensive benefits under the Australian repatriation system—the most generous repatriation system in the world—for conditions that are war caused. This includes treatment, compensation, counselling and lifestyle programs. However, the government is now examining what more can be done for veterans and their families in light of the study findings. The government will develop a comprehensive and sympathetic response that addresses the needs of the veteran community and is consistent with its commitment to responsible financial management.Yesterday the member for Cowan also referred to the government's health study on Gulf War veterans. The study has been undertaken in line with the strategy announced earlier this year by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to deliver more effective health care to servicemen and women in volved in overseas deployments. I understand the study is making quite good progress. A nominal roll of those who served in the Gulf has been drawn up, a draft protocol has been written and tenders have been called for the execution of the study. Although completing a complex health study in less than 18 months is extremely difficult, the study is on track for completion by December 2000. We realise that this may seem a long way off at the moment. However, we wish to reassure the veteran community that those veterans who have difficult to diagnose conditions or ill-defined conditions will have access to treatment. The legislation enabling this to occur was passed in the Senate on 29 November, and royal assent is imminent.The member for Cowan also expressed concern about the level of legal aid available to veterans. Legal aid commissions are required to ensure that assistance is available to veterans for all applications which satisfy the merits test. Currently, 94 per cent of all applications receive legal aid. Further, the Attorney-General has given assurance that legal aid funding for veterans and their dependents has not changed, and there has been no reduction in funding. (Time expired)1336122:29:0013361Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—It was the night before Christmas, and all through the house not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse. In some homes in Chisholm this Christmas there will be many who are not eagerly awaiting Santa. Even in my electorate, which many view as the leafy green suburbs, there are many families in need. At this time of year there are many parents even more acutely aware that they will not be able to fulfil their children's dreams. Having recently become a parent, I now know it is the most joyous thing and a great responsibility. I would like to indulge a little by thanking my husband Steve, who has made it possible for me to get back here so soon, and to welcome our beautiful daughter Madeleine Louise to the world.I rise in the House today to discuss the terrible problems that many recipients of government benefits are experiencing with the way rules regarding these benefits are applied in certain circumstances. Many thousands of people throughout my electorate of Chisholm depend entirely on government benefits for their income. Many thousands more are reliant on government benefits for the majority of their income or to assist them in being able to keep their head above water financially. These few extra dollars every fortnight mean the difference between battling and succumbing.Today I wish to raise just two examples of many that I come across on a daily basis of people who are trying to get by but who are hampered by the pitiless policies of a heartless government. Marilyn Roberts of Clayton is a constituent of mine. She is the sort of person anyone would be proud to have as part of their community. Marilyn is a mature age student. She has a background in public administration. Following her return to Australia in the early 1990s after working in Botswana for an Australian aid agency, Marilyn resumed tertiary studies in teaching. Marilyn worked with aid workers from many different countries, including North America and Europe. When these workers return to their countries, they are assisted greatly by their governments with job assistance, cash and the like. Australian workers receive no such assistance.Marilyn is a woman of modest means. Marilyn relies on Austudy for her income. She rents a one-bedroom bed-sit on a major road, opposite the university, for $98 per week. She receives no rental assistance. If, however, she were under the age of 26, she would be eligible for rental assistance. Marilyn Roberts and the many thousands like her throughout Australia are being savagely targeted by the punitive and discriminatory politics of this government. Age discrimination seems to be a government policy. Do people aged 27 and over somehow have cheaper housing costs than other people? The policy of not offering rental assistance to Austudy recipients on the basis of age alone, rather than on need, is without rational basis. Had Marilyn been under 26 and on youth allowance, she would have been eligible for rental assistance. This policy is wrong in practice and principle. I call on the government to review it.Another of my constituents is Fiona Stewart of Burwood. She is a single mum with two teenage children, one soon to turn 16 and the other 13. Her situation clearly illustrates some of the regulatory absurdities with which ordinary people must constantly grapple. Fiona has no family in Melbourne. Her mother lives in the country and suffers dementia. Her elder child is soon to turn 16 and will be eligible to receive youth allowance. By virtue of that, Marilyn will lose her maintenance allowance, which will reduce her income significantly. But she still needs, on average, $1,200 each year to send her child to the local state high school. Unfortunately, that is one of the costs left over from the Kennett government; I hope our state government will overturn that. So she is losing a substantial part of her income.Her younger child suffers from a rare form of seizure and has a mild intellectual disability. Fiona is unable to get child care for this child. By virtue of this, she is also unable to look for work, which she would dearly love to do. She can, however, receive respite care, but the respite care funding is not available if she is looking for work or studying. She can get it only if, say, she wants to go to the pub or play the pokies. She finds this totally absurd. So do I. Fiona is trapped by her circumstances. In the recent policy paper put out by the Minister for Family and Community Services—the original paper of which we are not allowed to see because of `public interest'—there are options that clearly state that the government is thinking about cutting out Fiona's benefits if her child is 12 or possibly younger. That is one of the things being canvassed.So, although Fiona has an intellectually disabled child, when that child turns 13 very soon—if the minister has her way—Fiona could be forced onto the dole queue. But she cannot adequately seek work. If she does go out to look for work, the cost of looking after her child, who has a mild form of disability, could be anywhere between $60,000 and $100,000 per year—hardly a financial bargain. Eventually, the truth shall be revealed, and this government's social security agenda will be made plain for all to see: belittling the least powerful and most marginal in our society in order to gain plaudits from economic rationalists and their acolytes. It is poor policy, it is poor politics, and I call on the government to rethink it. (Time expired)1336222:34:0013362Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—Like many people I was shocked and angered by the decision of the New South Wales magistrate Pat O'Shane last week to drop charges against a man who shot young police constable Chris Patrech in a gun battle at White City in New South Wales. I do not want to go into the intricate details of this case, as I understand it is highly likely that, in the wake of public outcry, the decision will be reversed. I am just amazed that three men brandishing weapons—and I understand some of those guns were banned semiautomatics—can try to evade police when pursued and can open fire, shooting a policeman not once but twice.How on earth is it possible that he can get away scot-free? It was not on the grounds that it was possibly someone else—there is no question that the man charged was the one who pulled the trigger—but rather that the magistrate can somehow turn the situation around and have the audacity to call two policemen `stupid, reckless and foolhardy' for simply doing their job, for putting the pursuit of these people who were armed and obviously dangerous above their own personal safety. Surely, that is what police work is ultimately about?I have seen and heard a lot of silly things in my life, but I am still shaking my head in amazement that anyone can come to the conclusion that Magistrate O'Shane did. It defies logic. It has, quite rightly, angered the Australian community. I sincerely hope that in the end true justice will prevail and that this ridiculous decision will be overturned. The fact is that police work is not a sedentary profession. It is, I believe, one of the toughest and most thankless jobs there is. I know first-hand the uncertainty police and their families experience day in and day out. My husband served in the Queensland police force for several years. It was always tough waiting at home and not knowing what sort of situation he was facing at work. If he was late home from a shift, my mind raced about what could have gone wrong.These brave men and women do the job because they believe in it and because they know what they do is important to building the type of Australia we all want. Something is grossly wrong with our judicial system when police doing their jobs are painted as the wrongdoers and young men armed with semiautomatics who open fire on police officers are painted as victims. That is an insane situation. In this place, I would like to voice my strong support for Constable Patrech and for the policemen and policewomen throughout our nation who protect and serve us each and every day. Please know the Australian community is grateful and supports you. Please know this ridiculous decision is not a reflection of our views and our values.I would like to spend the last minute or so of this debate to once again call on state governments throughout Australia to respond to community calls for tougher sentencing. The leniency that we see in so many sentences given today is not only a slap in the face for victims but also very disheartening for the police. Of course sentencing is a matter for the state government. I wish it were a federal responsibility and something that we in this place could have a direct say in. However, we can let the state government know how strongly our communities feel on this issue. I want to thank the more than 3,000 local residents who recently signed my petition to the state government calling on mandatory double sentencing for those who commit crimes against people aged 60 and over.I also want to commend the personal efforts of a local woman, Sonja White. Sonja is not one of my constituents. She lives in a neighbouring electorate, but many of my constituents have supported her efforts. Sonja is a mother of two whose life was changed forever when she was threatened at gunpoint while working at the local service station last year. Luckily Sonja was not physically injured in that incident, but it has left deep emotional scars. The men who did this to her pleaded guilty and were given a 12-months intensive corrective order. They did not have to go to prison, but were allowed to remain in the community.You can imagine how petrified Sonja was when one of those men walked into her service station while she was on night shift. Understandably, this outraged Sonja and she has decided to fight back. So far she has collected more than 18,000 signatures on a petition calling on the state government to introduce mandatory minimum custodial sentences for convicted armed or violent offenders. I congratulate Sonja for her efforts and want her to know that there are many people who support what she is doing. I hope the state Labor government will listen to Sonja, me and other community leaders who are calling for a tougher stand on crime.In conclusion, I would like to wish all members, staff and attendants a safe and happy festive season.1336322:39:0013363Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—Bridgewater-Gagebrook is a large public housing estate with high unemployment. Many residents are on low incomes and in financial difficulty. I have become concerned about a number of my constituents who have entered part 9 agreements when their personal and financial circumstances were such that, in my opinion, bankruptcy would have been a more appropriate measure. I have found one case particularly disturbing. This year a man consulted my office on behalf of his younger brother who had recently attempted suicide. He sought advice as to whether there was any way to extricate his brother from financial difficulties by way of an early release of superannuation on the grounds of hardship. His brother was in hospital suffering from stress related depression, a primary cause of which was his perceived financial difficulties.I read a report from the treating psychiatrist which stated:Adding to his other personal problems is the fact that he has a load of bills which he is worried about and thinks that the only way out is by suicide. At this time his brother was in hospital and not in receipt of any income. On further investigation, it was discovered that my client's brother had attended Insolvency and Trustee Services Australia—ITSA—with the intention of going bankrupt. This was because he could no longer cope with the emotional pressure of having the outstanding debts. On attending the Hobart branch of ITSA he was encouraged to consider alternatives to bankruptcy and was referred to a private sector accountant. This accountant encouraged him to enter into a part 9 debt agreement, which involved paying back the total debt to his creditors over a three-year period in weekly instalments. Rather than being made to feel that his financial problems were brought to an end, as would have been the case with bankruptcy, he felt that they were ongoing. The psychiatric evidence suggests that it contributed to a deterioration in his mental and emotional state. He needed to terminate the agreement and go bankrupt. This eventually occurred through the assistance of a financial counsellor from a charitable organisation.This is not an isolated case. I hear of more and more problems with part 9 debt agreements. As far as the debtor is concerned, there is often little advantage to entering a part 9 debt agreement as opposed to bankruptcy. A debt agreement is recorded on credit records in the same way as bankruptcy and has similar disadvantages for obtaining future credit. Failing to comply with the terms of a debt agreement is also an act of bankruptcy. I note with real concern that in the statistics provided for administrations under the bankruptcy act for the year ending 30 June 1999 Tasmania is shown as having 230 debt agreements entered into for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years. Tasmania's figures are in stark contrast to the combined total for New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and the ACT for the same period, which was 218.Tasmania has by far the highest number of per capita debt agreements in Australia and the second highest number of debt agreements overall behind Western Australia. This is quite extraordinary considering the size of Tasmania's population compared with other states. I would submit that there is nothing extraordinary or unique about Tasmanian debtors that makes them more suitable for debt agreements. The reason there are so many debt agreements in Tasmania compared with other states is that either a formal or an informal referral arrangement exists between the Tasmanian branch of ITSA and some private sector accountants. An alarming aspect of this is that such accountants do not need to comply with any registration or other requirements to be able to administer such agreements under the bankruptcy act. They are essentially unregulated and I believe they are charging fees that registered administrators under part 10 of the act would not be able to charge—that is, fees for the establishment and drawing up of the agreement. One wonders whether Tasmania is somehow being used as a test case for some form of national policy to make it more difficult for people in such circumstances as I have described tonight to go bankrupt.1336422:43:0013364Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I was rather hoping to be called upon this evening to finish my speech on the Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1999 that I started before question time. But it seems that I will have the distinction of having started a speech in one century and not finishing it until the next.I will take this opportunity to speak on another topic. Last Tuesday I had the great pleasure of meeting the new Romanian Ambassador to Australia, Mrs Manuela Vulpe, in my role as chair of the Australia-Romania Parliamentary Friendship Group. Romania's national day was on 1 December, but the House was not sitting that week and so it was not until this week that I was able to meet the Ambassador during her visit to Parliament House. This allowed me the opportunity to discuss with Her Excellency both the contribution made by Romanian migrants to Australia and the happenings in the new Romania, a nation freed from the shackles of communism.Romanian born Australians have contributed to their new country to a degree that belies their relatively small numbers. Approximately 12,000 Romanian born people reside in Australia, predominantly in Sydney and Melbourne but a number in Western Australia. Most of these migrants came to Australia following the Communist overthrow of the Romanian monarchy in 1947 and then during the oppressive regime of the 1970s and 1980s. The new Romania, as the ambassador described, is a vibrant and exciting nation building new development on old roots. A nation of 22½ million people, Romania lies at an important crossroads between the Balkans, central Europe, the Black Sea and the east. Her history is the history of the interaction between east and west, Asia and Europe.At present, economic ties with Australia are still developing. Romania exports around $3 million of goods to Australia each year, mainly textiles, glassware and agricultural machinery, yet there are many new opportunities arising. By contrast, Romania is Australia's most important export market in central Europe where our export base is $75 million and growing.Romania's embarkation on a comprehensive reform program has been difficult at times but is now proving to be the most effective means of utilising the talents of the people and the resources they command. Importantly, reforms to agricultural production and financial services, as well as the move away from obsolete, energy-intensive factories, have put industries like mining, timber, metallurgy, food processing and petroleum refining on the right track for future economic success. Already, Romania's $8.2 billion in exports—primarily to Italy, Germany, France and Turkey—include products such as textiles, metals, machinery and chemicals.The revitalisation of Romanian agriculture is also progressing well. As a consequence, the Romanian currency has improved remarkably since the difficulties of the early 1990s. This government has recognised that opportunities exist for a new dialogue between our two countries, emphasised by the visit of the Minister for Trade, Mark Vaile, to Romania in early November. The minister opened a new Consulate General and Austrade office in Bucharest. Mr Don Cairns, whose extensive international business development experience and skills will be of great benefit for Australian exporters and importers seeking new opportunities in the region, heads that new Consulate General and I wish Mr Cairns all the best in his new position. As well as business services, the office will provide a full range of consular services to Australian travellers as well as some immigration services for visa applicants.No-one pretends that the transition from a socialist economy to a free economy or the transition from a centralised Marxist society to a civil democratic one is easy, but Romania is succeeding and is now in a position to be considered for admission to the European Union. Tomorrow, the summit of European leaders in Helsinki will almost certainly approve a plan that will double to 12 the number of countries negotiating membership to the European Union—essentially former communist states, including Romania—and I hope that Romania is to be considered one of the forerunners for entry within the next few years.Certainly, I am encouraged by the positive approach of Romanians as demonstrated by their ambassador—a vibrant, highly educated and charming young woman. There is obviously opportunity for greater dialogue between our two countries. I wish her well during her time in Australia, a sentiment that I am sure is shared by all members of parliament.Could I close by wishing you, Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis, my colleagues, members of the House and all those who work in this place a safe and happy festive season. I extend my best wishes to my staff—Lisa Lehman, Tonia Bates and Chris Taylor—and to all my constituents in the seat of Curtin. I look forward to working with and for my constituents in the year 2000 and beyond.1336522:48:0013365Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—Unfortunately, a dispute has arisen about a change to the transcript of Hansard . I have written to Mr Speaker about this, but I would like to take a few moments in the House to explain the problem. The issue arises from the answer given by Dr Wooldridge to a question by the Leader of the Opposition in question time today. The relevant sentence in the chamber green reads as follows:The opportunity was created on the basis of advice I tabled from the secretary to my department some weeks ago from the Attorney-General's Department on the basis of the DOCS dispute, nothing else.However, when I viewed the tape, it clearly and unambiguously shows that the minister said `legal advice'.I note that when this matter was taken up with the Hansard office, the transcript was corrected and the word `legal' was inserted in Hansard. The term `DOCS' has been replaced with the word `docks', which I understand to have been the intended reference. However, late this evening the word `legal' was again removed following representations from the minister's office.This is a deletion of great importance to the meaning of the minister's comments. He is seeking to represent his comments as relating to the memo from his departmental secretary—which it is true he did table some time ago. It is dated 21/10/99. That deals with the advice his department provided to him. It is clearly untenable because he specifically referred to legal advice from the Attorney-General's Department which is a document he has not tabled and one that he has sought to keep from the public gaze. The `docks dispute' is not canvassed in the other advice—the advice that he has tabled—the advice from the Secretary to the Department of Health and Aged Care.I have asked the Speaker that he ensure that the Hansard is restored as a true and correct record of the answer that the minister gave as evidenced by the tape. It cannot be purported that the comment was a slip of the tongue as there is no other construction that can be put on the reference to the Attorney-General's Department. The presence or absence of this word is of great moment to the meaning of what the minister said and to the substance of his defence of his actions. In my letter to Mr Speaker, I have noted that the House of Representatives Practice records on page 573:Although members have this right to make corrections to their remarks, emendations which alter the sense of the words or which introduce new material are not admissible.Significantly, the House of Representatives Practice also records:In some instances of error or inaccuracy in the Hansard reports, the position is better clarified by a personal explanation.In this case, what I would seek and what I have asked Mr Speaker is that if the words spoken in the House should stand as the correct Hansard record then I would submit that the minister should be required to make a personal explanation tonight about why the word `legal' should not stand part of Hansard and why he will not table the legal advice that he has told the House during question time that he has already tabled.Because the session is so close to an end, I have asked Mr Speaker to give very early and quick consideration to this matter. I have come into the House at this very late time because of the urgency of this matter. We do have in front of us a major scandal of significant proportions. A significant amount of public funds has been used by people. The government has been taken advantage of. We know that inside information has been used to certain people's advantage. The minister has received legal advice and is clearly refusing to table it.I would ask the minister to come in and make a personal explanation as to why the word `legal' should not stand part of the Hansard and why he will not table the legal advice that he has told this House—it is quite clear from the tape—he has from the Attorney-General's department. This is another matter which he is trying to keep hidden from the public gaze—another part of this scan scam. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—As the honourable member for Jagajaga would realise, this is a matter for the Speaker. He is the correct person to make rulings on this issue. 1336722:53:0013367May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—As patron of the Gold Coast Combined Martial Arts Academy, I recently had the pleasure of officially opening the Open Friendship Tournament. More than 300 competitors, some aged as young as four years, from Queensland, New South Wales, New Zealand and Japan competed in this tournament. What was unique about this event was that it was non-discriminatory in that it brought together a range of martial art styles. All competitors had the opportunity not only to challenge themselves competitively but perhaps learn more about a new style with which they may not already be acquainted. I would take this opportunity to congratulate Bill Wakefield, the founder of the Combined Martial Arts Academy, on his organisation of this event.2V5SWANMr Swan—Is he a black belt?83BMay, Margaret, MPMs MAY—Bill, an extremely dynamic and well trained man—yes, a black belt—started the Combined Martial Arts Academy 12 years ago, with a vision to educate both men and women in martial arts and for them to gain many benefits from the sport such as discipline, self-defence skills and fitness, to name but a few. Bill's progressive thinking and thirst for knowledge of martial arts has led him to study various styles. He is not only well respected within the Gold Coast community but throughout Australia as a mentor to martial arts enthusiasts.I have heard some wonderful stories about this man—how he has given countless women the confidence to feel free from the fear of being defenceless in the event of an encounter, and how he has assisted scores of disabled people to develop new skills and grow as individuals. Martial arts is not only about the physical side but the spiritual side.Tournaments such as this are an opportunity for people of all ages to further develop their skills and promote martial arts. They are also important in educating the public on the importance of fitness and self-defence techniques. I congratulate Bill and his band of volunteers, including Michael Gatenby, who organised this tournament.Earlier in the year, I had the pleasure of facilitating a cheque presentation from the Combined Martial Arts Academy to the Palm Beach Family Support Service, a community service group which was desperately in need of funds. The academy gladly took up the opportunity to assist this service, which provides food and other essential items for needy members of the community at the southern end of the Gold Coast.It was a delight to see so many people who are disciplined and share a dedication to martial arts compete in the Open Friendship Tournament. I commend the efforts of all involved in organising the competition and the competitors for their commitment to the sport. In closing tonight, I would like to wish all members and staff in this House a merry Christmas and a safe and happy new year.Question resolved in the negative.Bills13367The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: A New Tax System (Pay As You Go) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 1999Bills13367r95013367Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 4), after item 46, insert:46A Subparagraph 38-250(2)(b)(ii)Omit "50%", substitute "75%".(2) Schedule 1, item 73, page 20 (lines 4 to 9), omit section 63-25, substitute:63-25 Registration turnover threshold for non-profit sub-entitiesRegulations made for the purposes of paragraph 23-15(2)(b) may: (a) provide that they apply only to *non-profit sub-entities, or only to other non-profit entities; or (b) specify one amount for *non-profit sub-entities and a different amount for other non-profit entities.(3) Schedule 2, page 61 (after line 25), after item 7, insert:7A Section 15Repeal the section, substitute:15 Funeral agreements(1) If, before 1 July 2000, you enter, or have entered, into an agreement for a supply consisting of the provision of a funeral (or a right to the provision of a funeral): (a) section 11 and this Part (apart from this section) do not apply; and (b) the supply of any right under the agreement relating to the provision of a funeral is taken to be a supply made on or after 1 July 2000 only if the funeral is provided on or after that day.(2) If you entered into the agreement before 1 December 1999 and the funeral is provided on or after 1 July 2000, the supply is GST-free to the extent that the consideration for the supply is paid before the earlier of the following: (a) 1 July 2005; (b) if a review opportunity (within the meaning of subsection 13(5)) arises—when that opportunity arises.22:59:0013368Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.The amendments being considered tonight demonstrate the government's commitment to consultation and concern that the new tax system be fair to all Australians. The first amendment provides benefits to the charitable sector and was the subject of representations from the Australian Democrats. It would be appropriate at this time to recognise the constructive role played by the Australian Democrats in the implementation of Australia's new tax system.The first amendment extends the 50 per cent cost of supply test to non-commercial supplies by charities to 75 per cent. The second amendment again provides benefits to the non-profit sector by lifting the threshold under which branch units of charities can opt out of the GST system. This amendment responds directly to a request from the charitable and not-for-profit sector to significantly reduce compliance needs. The third amendment relates to the funeral agreements and responds to requests from the funeral industry for clarity with respect to the transitional provisions as they apply to the funeral industry.It is interesting to note that the Australian Funeral Directors Association and the Australian Cemeteries and Crematoria Association have commended the government's approach in making these amendments. In fact, the Assistant Treasurer has received a letter dated 2 December from the Australian Funeral Directors Association stating:On behalf of all members of the Australian Funeral Directors Association and the Australian Cemeteries and Crematoria Association, please accept our thanks for your recent undertakings to amend legislation relating to the transitional provisions for GST and the funeral industry.The outcomes as described in your correspondence of 30th November, 1999, were very pleasing and, may I say, very sensible. The amendments have certainly provided clarity and relative ease in the application of GST, particularly for prepaid funerals.That is an absolutely wonderful recommendation and letter of support from the funerals association. I commend the bills and these amendments to the chamber.23:01:0013368Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—As I said earlier this evening, a couple of certainties in life have always been said to be death and taxes. Under the Howard government, a further certainty is amendments to taxation laws. We had Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 10) 1999 on the Notice Paper . Here before us we have the second amendment bill to the government's GST legislation. Indeed, that amendment bill to the GST legislation has now been amended on around 1,000 occasions. We are seeing, in the dying minutes or perhaps hours of this parliament this year, the government come in with further amendments dealing with issues associated with prepaid funerals and charities.The fact is that embracing the GST is like cuddling a porcupine. At every point the government uncovers problems. In this case it is problems raised by the charities. We will not oppose this legislation, but it does not solve the problems. We welcome the fact that the government has been able to make some changes, but they do not solve the problems. Charities are still caught in the GST net. They are not GST free. This agreement keeps them in that net. As the shadow Treasurer said this afternoon, charities remain trapped in what has become a huge driftnet. The situation is that if a charity is below the $100,000 level it still has to pay GST on its inputs. The GST becomes an embedded tax for charities. It keeps those charities that are below the threshold in the GST net, so they are caught coming and going. The other thing that came out of this afternoon's new and revised deal between the government and the Democrats is the idea of an inquiry.2V5SWANMr Swan—A sleazy deal.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—A sleazy deal indeed. I point out to the House that on 19 October Labor called for an independent tax review for charities. So, if the Democrats are serious about the inquiry that they suggested this afternoon, they should do it. We will support them. We indicated that back on 19 October. We stand ready to have an inquiry into the impact of the GST on the charitable and non-profit sectors. If the Democrats are fair dinkum about their inquiry, they will join Labor in ensuring that such an inquiry takes place.I have been reminded of the hour by one of my colleagues—probably acting on behalf of many colleagues; it is a sad reflection that I am able to be done over by one—and, in light of that, I will conclude my remarks here. But it is clear that this will not solve the problems. They will continue to haunt this government as the charitable and not-for-profit sector recognises in the months and years ahead just how the GST will impact on them.23:04:0013369Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—These amendments are like rotten fruit: they are shiny on the outside and rotten on the inside. Nothing announced today in the coalition-Democrat deal on charities changes the fact that all charities are to become tax collectors for the Howard government. Their fundraising activities will still be hit by the GST. They are caught coming and going. It does not matter whether they are under $100,000 or over $100,000, they will all become tax collectors for the Howard government. They are the front-line tax collectors for the Howard government. The Howard government is taxing compassion and it is taxing the volunteers. These amendments will not ease the burden on the charitable sector of Australia.Question resolved in the affirmative.House adjourned at 11.06 p.m. until Tuesday, 15 February 2000 at 2.00 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day.Notices13369The following notice was given:Mr Baird to move:That this House acknowledges Rugby League as one of Australia's national sports and congratulates the players, referees, fans and administrators of the game on:(1) the expansion of Rugby League into non-traditional geographic areas during recent years;(2) the establishment of a Rugby League Foundation which will provide additional funding to junior development in regional areas of NSW and Queensland;(3) the victory of the Melbourne Storm in the 1999 National Rugby League Grand Final in only its second year of operation;(4) a rise in average game attendances of 30% in 1999 with over 3 million Australians attending NRL games in 1999; and(5) the successful implementation of the 1997 peace plan between the Australian Rugby League and Super League which will see the NRL conduct a 14 team national competition in 2000.1999-12-09Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Jenkins) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members133701337013370Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—On 30 November, the Howard government released the Downstream Petroleum Products Action Agenda. It was prepared by the minister's department and the oil industry. It has only one objective: to make the case for mergers in the oil refinery industry, which will be supported by the government on a case-by-case basis. It follows two decisions this year by the ACCC not to approve joint ventures between the oil majors because they would lead to less competition and had not been justified as being in the public interest.The refining industry does face a number of serious short-term and long-term problems but these should have been addressed through a full public inquiry. The government did not obtain an independent report for this policy review, in their case such as from the Productivity Commission. Instead, they managed the process to produce the outcome the oil industry wanted. The result is a report setting out the problems the industry faces and suggesting that the solutions have more to do with mergers than investment.The industry's objectives and the ACCC public interest test are in direct conflict. The ACCC's public benefit test guidelines say:Economic development, eg in natural resources, through encouragement of exploration, research and capital investment—whereas the oil industry's eight-point plan for getting benefit from joint ventures says the opposite:Improved `capital efficiency' by reducing future investment requirements, eg, for clean fuels, through the ability to make the best use of each refinery's capabilities and existing hardware—An option canvassed in the report to `invest for 500ppm sulphur diesel now, if the investment will pay prior to the mandated requirement for 50ppm sulphur diesel, and close the refinery prior to 31/12/2005' when the higher standard becomes effective shows the risk Australia faces from this flawed policy process.The oil majors must be made to accept that there has to be significant investment, not just in clean fuels but also with the objective of having an internationally competitive refining industry in Australia. Long-term policies should not be driven by short-term price pressures resulting from availability of cheap imported fuel because of the Asian crisis. If the oil majors are permitted to replace local refining capacity with imported product, there will be less competition and they will be able to raise prices on both imported and local fuels. It is not just the loss of local jobs and investment. Ultimately, it will be the motorist and Australian business that will pay. I am concerned the report dismisses restricting merger proposals to exclude `outlier' refineries like Port Stanvac, because that would reduce the benefits obtained by the companies.South Australia needs a full range of refinery facilities. These facilities are at risk. The technical and commercial issues to keep them open should be dealt with now, not after a merger proposal is approved. Port Stanvac's work force is doing everything it can to make the refinery internationally competitive. They deserve much more than the government's active participation in the loss of their livelihoods. Australia needs an internationally competitive refining industry that will invest in this country's future. The ACCC must withstand government pressure to interpret the public interest test in the light of this report.1337113371Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—Thirteen individual companies supplying different food items have joined together to form the Queensland Burnett Food Alliance with the aims of being a one-stop shop for foreign supermarkets and making inroads into the Asian food market. Their products range from fresh fruit and vegetables to health products, to process foods and beverages, such as the famous Bundaberg Brewed Ginger Beer.The alliance took a step forward last week when it signed a memorandum of understanding with one of China's biggest supermarket chains, Dah Chong Hong. I had the pleasure of being one of the signatory witnesses to the signing of this memorandum which formalises the two groups' intentions to develop trade and investment links.Dah Chong Hong's chief executive, Alex Chu, and the Shanghai Municipal Agricultural Commissioner, Fan Deguan, and senior officials toured the Bundaberg district last week to examine first-hand the alliance's product. A number of opportunities were highlighted, including ginger beer, aloe vera products, fresh melons and mangoes, beef and seafoods, and a container of mixed produce will be going to Hong Kong before Christmas.The alliance's willingness to travel overseas and test markets resulted in last week's visit by Dah Chong Hong. The alliance has also opened up talks with Dairy Farm International, a major international retailing conglomerate. The company's global export procurement manager visited Bundaberg recently and immediately ordered honeydew melons from a member of the alliance as a result of this visit.Another member of the alliance, Austchilli, which operates the largest chilli puree processing and packaging plant in Australia, is currently negotiating deals with the United Arab Emirates and Saudia Arabia. Their negotiations are opening doors for products for the alliance. The alliance sees a network as integral to ensuring the continuity of its supply and the broader range of product.The trade minister and I participated in an export roundtable in Bundaberg last month with members of the Burnett Food Alliance and the Lockyer Valley Export Group, which supplies brassicas, corn, potatoes and onions. The alliance held further talks with the Lockyer Valley group after the roundtable, and numerous positive possibilities have arisen.I am pleased to hear that the Burnett Food Alliance business plan has been accepted by the Prime Minister's Supermarket to Asia Council, and a food and fibre chains application is pending. I congratulate chairman Darren Kent, secretary Phil Cheeseman and the alliance on its recent achievements. These bode well for the export future of Bundaberg products and products from Queensland to the Asian market. All those concerned deserve our heartiest congratulations.1337113371Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—Today I want to draw to the attention of honourable members the emerging crisis in the Australian medical work force. Young doctors are under immense pressure as they are used as the front-line troops to stem the bleeding caused by underfunding in our public hospitals. Last week in the Senate, Dr Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, made what I consider to be disgraceful comments when he endorsed the practice of young doctors being forced to work more than 100 hours a week. This is a dangerous and unacceptable practice which should have ended years ago. As Senator Herron admitted, he had argued against long hours when he was a resident medical officer, but he now rejects any government responsibility for restoring safe working practices. For some peculiar reason, Senator Herron thought that curbing excessive work hours amounted to subsidising young doctors.Australians are all too aware of the high level of wrong prescriptions, accidents and adverse events in our hospitals that are leading to avoidable deaths and prolonged stays. The Minister for Health and Aged Care has delayed for four years while report after report has been commissioned into this problem, and he has failed to take any action. In this year's budget, he allocated only $4 million over four years instead of the $17 million recommended by experts to improve the quality of health care. He has also delayed for six months in appointing the promised Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care to establish national standards.The funds which were provided in the Australian Health Care Agreements for improving quality have generally been redirected by hospitals to shore up their core services because the Commonwealth has refused to provide any decent indexation of base funding. There have been no reporting mechanisms established for quality and no process to measure the trends in adverse incidents. There is a sobering analysis of the extent of these problems in today's editorial in the Australian which I commend to all members. We do need a national approach, and the minister should stop trying to pass the buck to the states and make good on his promises to improve the quality of our hospitals.Unfortunately, while the government dithers, young doctors are being sent into the breech to be used as cannon fodder just to keep our public hospital systems working. The recent graduates are of course keen to gain experience, but they are being forced to work multiple shifts to the point where they are dropping from exhaustion. This is simply not good enough. It is time the minister took some responsibility to ensure that all hospitals comply with reasonable standards for roster setting that make working excessively long working hours, which unfortunately were the hallmark of Dr Herron's formative years, the historical footnote that they deserve to be.1337213372Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—Today I would like to speak about a matter of great concern to many of my constituents in my electorate of Makin, who have contacted my office with regard to illegal boat arrivals to our shores. I would like to reassure all my constituents that this is also a matter of grave concern to the Australian government, as there has been a significant increase recently in the number of illegal boat arrivals to our shores.People-smuggling is a trade in human beings—people are being exploited, with promises of a new life in Australia, at enormous financial cost. Worldwide proceeds of people-trafficking are estimated to be in excess of $US7 billion annually. The fact is that the trend is becoming increasingly sophisticated. There have been vessels capable of travelling at night in international waters, which has not been the case before, with sophisticated navigational devices. We are seeing a level of organisation more in line with that which has been used to access the United States of America and Japan.Despite what some claim, Australia is not an easy target. The Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , which was passed by parliament on 25 November, will see tough new measures introduced to combat people-smuggling into Australia by sea. This legislation offers front-line border agencies such as DIMA and Customs the power to enforce Australia's border strategies in international waters. Previously, officers were constrained by the 12-mile rule, meaning that they were unable to investigate any vessel beyond our own territorial waters. Other new powers include: detention, forfeiture, seizure and disposal of ships and aircraft used in people smuggling operations; vessels found to be unseaworthy, a risk to safety or navigation or a threat to the environment will be moved or destroyed; to ensure the safety of officers, changes to the Customs Act will allow Customs officers to carry and use approved firearms and other approved items of personal defence equipment in certain circumstances for personal defence.The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs recently launched an information campaign to target community groups in Australia and major source countries of people who travel to Australia illegally. The campaign will alert people to the dangers involved, how futile it is to try to enter Australia illegally and some of the consequences of their actions, particularly at the hands of the unscrupulous people-smugglers.1337313373Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I rise today to speak about HIV-AIDS. It is a health problem that has enormous social consequences, and it is certainly not a problem that is going away. It is a problem about which we must continue to be vigilant. Two-thirds of HIV cases are in New South Wales, and a great many of those are in my electorate of Sydney. Sydney is in fact the epicentre of the epidemic, and on 21 November there were over 1,000 people gathered for the AIDS Candlelight Memorial in my electorate. The candlelight memorial, which occurs every year, is an important time for many members of my electorate. It is an opportunity to remember those who have died, to support and encourage those who are living with HIV-AIDS, and to celebrate the strength of the community which has grown up in response to the challenge of HIV-AIDS.It is also a time to reassess those challenges. At the end of 1998, there were an estimated 11,800 people living with HIV-AIDS. While the number of new infections each year has stabilised since about 1994—and that is an enormous achievement—each year over 600 people in Australia will be diagnosed as having HIV. It is estimated that around one-third of these will have recently contracted the virus. For those living with HIV, the rate of progression to AIDS has been substantially slowed, primarily as a result of potent combination antiretroviral treatments which became available in Australia in 1996 and which inhibit the progression of the virus.Even though these new treatments are now available, we cannot allow ourselves to become complacent; nor can we ignore the needs of those amongst us who require our support in living with this illness, recognising that with new treatments come new challenges. These new treatments will allow people who previously had a life expectancy of a few years once they progressed to AIDS to now have, in many cases, life expectancies of many years or even decades. With that challenge comes the challenges of returning to work and workplace discrimination that is faced by people who are receiving treatment for HIV-AIDS.By far the community most at risk is the gay male community. In my electorate I am very fortunate to have many of the organisations that advocate and provide services for people affected by HIV-AIDS, including the AIDS Council of New South Wales, the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations, Ankali and the Bobby Goldsmith Foundation. ACON, for example, which provides an excellent service, has as its mission statement:ACON works to bring the continuing AIDS crisis to an end by mobilising HIV positive people, gay men and lesbians and their communities.This community based approach to HIV-AIDS is critically important and involves empowering communities to address the health issues which face them. As education and treatment have progressed, the epidemic has been contained, but with this have come new challenges. As a friend of mine said, `They're not dying from the disease; they're living with it, and that is the challenge.'1337413374Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—As I rise today to speak for the last time this year, I am reflecting on what has been achieved in Gilmore and the many people who have worked so hard to help get the job done. Our motto has always been, `Actions, not words.' It is an honour to have been part of that process in Gilmore.There is still plenty of work to be done. For example, the state Labor government has not yet signed the memorandum of understanding so that we might get on with Main Road 92. Mr Carr, isn't it time you stopped this nonsense and let us get on with it?The facilities upgrade at Albatross is well under way, with most of the old houses now removed from the base and service personnel installed in the beautiful new homes offbase. The control tower is taking shape. The structural work is complete and it is now being fitted out. The decision has been made on the location of the Naval Air Logistics Management Service, so work will now begin on providing accommodation for the 250 personnel of that unit who will move there.Part of the reason why Gilmore has been successful in attracting many new business opportunities and resources has been the cooperation between the Shoalhaven City Council and local businesses and residents. It certainly makes a positive impression when visitors to our region are met at every corner by switched on, proactive, friendly and well-organised people who are working in a professional manner after thorough research.The local residents too have made good impressions on the various ministers I have hosted to the area. The ministers are always surprised by the level of support in the community for anything that will ensure quality of life for our future generations, and that support flows through to my office. I am regularly overwhelmed by the constant offers of assistance from local people. It is easy to get things done in an atmosphere of positive and constructive cooperation provided by volunteers, supporters and staff.Speaking of volunteers, may I take the time to pay my respects to all those dedicated volunteers who work so hard for the betterment of others in my electorate. Truly, without their joyful contributions, life in Gilmore would indeed be poorer. One of the best things about living in Gilmore is the friendliness and helpfulness of all the people I come in contact with in the normal run of business.Speaking of friendly and helpful, may I extend my thanks and best wishes to all the hardworking people who keep Parliament House running for us, and who at every opportunity provide first-class assistance to ensure we can concentrate on our main tasks. Although we do not often take the time to thank all of you personally, I know I often thank the powers that be for your professionalism at whatever job you are performing.At this time too my thoughts are with our troops in East Timor. What a tough assignment, and what a magnificent job they are doing. They and their families will have a very different Christmas this year, and my thoughts will be with them all, especially with their families in Gilmore—there are some 167 people in East Timor from my electorate. May I thank you for the sacrifices you are making and assure you that my door is open to you always. I wish my colleagues in the House a peaceful Christmas and look forward to working with you in the New Year.1337513375Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—I took the opportunity in this Main Committee a month or so ago to indicate to members of the House that an organisation in my electorate called the West of Melbourne Regional Economic Development Organisation was having a major exhibition of the economic strengths of the western suburbs of Melbourne in the Great Hall of Parliament House, an event to be held towards the end of October. That event duly occurred and it was a most successful event. Some 30 to 40 organisations, both public sector and private sector, put on displays in the Great Hall. This highlighted to many opinion makers in this city the very considerable strengths of the west of Melbourne region as a place to do business.The region is in extremely close proximity to a curfew-free international airport, and it is very close to Australia's largest container port. It is very much at the hub of both rail and road freight in Australia. It is a region of Melbourne that is very much the heart of the freight networks that cross the country. Also, it is a place which has an extremely well developed educational infrastructure in terms of universities and colleges of advanced education, and it is a place with a very diverse multicultural work force. Some 100-plus different cultural backgrounds are represented in that part of Melbourne. So it is a place which is extremely well placed to do business.It is an area that is not widely understood in Canberra in terms of those economic strengths, so the event that was held in the Great Hall was designed to familiarise representatives of foreign countries in this city, senior bureaucrats and other members of this place with the strengths of the region, and I think it was very successful. I congratulate all those involved with its organisation.Value will now be added to the event by a series of invitations, particularly to foreign representatives based in Canberra, to visit the region, to familiarise themselves with it, so that, on a first-hand basis, they can advise business enterprises and organisations in their own countries that might have been contemplating investment in Australia of the strengths of the region. The event was a well worthwhile initiative.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A the time for members' statements has concluded.Sitting suspended from 10.00 a.m. to 10.05 a.m.Bills13375s227Consideration resumed from 25 November.1337510:05:0013375Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time. This bill provides for the extension of the current statutory self-regulation framework of the migration advice industry until March 2003 and includes several measures to enhance its effectiveness.In 1997 the government decided to move the migration advice industry to self-regulation through a period of statutory self-regulation.The government agreed to consider a further move to voluntary self-regulation at the end of two years.Statutory self-regulation is subject to a sunset clause and ceases to operate on 21 March 2000. The government was therefore committed to reviewing the effectiveness of the operation of statutory self-regulation before that date.The government has now reviewed the operation of the current arrangements to decide on the most appropriate regulatory model for the migration advice industry beyond March 2000.The government has found that the industry is not yet ready to move to voluntary self-regulation in view of continuing significant consumer protection concerns, national interest issues and the special nature of the migration advice industry.In particular, the government has significant concerns about the vulnerability of the client group to exploitation and the ethics and conduct of a small group in the industry.Given the vulnerability of clients and the potential for malpractice in the industry, it is clear that voluntary regulation of the industry would not be desirable or viable at this stage and that statutory self-regulation should continue.The review confirmed the appropriateness of the government's decision to introduce the existing statutory self-regulation framework.The review found that the MIA—that is, the Migration Institute of Australia—acting as the Migration Agents Registration Authority (the MARA) has demonstrated its commitment to the objectives of consumer protection and its capacity to undertake industry regulation.The MIA, acting as the MARA, has already established sound disciplinary and mediation processes that should continue to increase consumer protection, competence and ethical standards in the industry.The review of statutory self-regulation was undertaken by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and steered by an independent reference group.A number of members of the reference group had assisted the government in the 1997 review of the industry.As in 1997, the most recent reference group was chaired by Mr Ian Spicer, former President of the Confederation of Australian Industry.The reference group included individuals with a broad understanding of the industry.In particular: one member was nominated by the MIA; another member had considerable knowledge of community concerns; and a further member was formerly a Minister for Immigration—that is, the Hon John Hodges.The review gave careful consideration to the performance of the existing arrangements and sought input from over 40 stakeholders.Particular consideration was given to the views expressed by the industry body.In its role as the MARA, the MIA has indicated its strong support for the measures included in this bill.In extending statutory self-regulation, the government has recognised the achievements of the MARA in establishing the self-regulation framework.All stakeholders have expressed support for the continuation of the existing statutory self-regulation framework at this stage of industry development.In deciding that it is not yet time to move to voluntary self-regulation, the government has taken account of the fact that the industry is at an early stage of maturity and there is only limited experience with the current arrangements.Statutory self-regulation has been in place for fewer than 18 months. Some major elements, such as the continuing professional development requirements, have been in place for fewer than 6 months.While the MIA's coverage of the industry has expanded substantially since statutory self-regulation was introduced and has continued to increase over the last few months, there are still only 30 per cent of registered agents who are members of the MIA.This would not be sufficient to support a move to voluntary self-regulation when current arrangements expire in March 2000.There will be another review of the industry in two to three years to re-examine the state of the industry and gauge its progress.I would expect that at that time it will be possible to assess how far the industry can develop and how well it can sustain voluntary self regulation.The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs will be setting milestones in conjunction with the MARA to monitor the development of the industry in relation to:. improvements in competence and ethical standards;. the extent of MIA industry coverage and its performance in the industry regulation role; and. changes to consumer awareness that would support a less regulated environment.The extension of statutory self-regulation until March 2003 will provide an opportunity for some of the important industry values being promoted by the MIA and the MARA to be more firmly entrenched in industry practice.Many industry stakeholders have confirmed, to the review, the need for continued improvements in the ethical standards and competence in the industry and protection available to consumers.This bill includes two new measures to this end. Other measures will be addressed through amendments which require more complex drafting, which I expect to introduce next year, and through regulation amendments.The bill includes amendments to make publication requirements relating to decisions by the MARA to cancel or suspend an agent's registration more cost-effective.Currently the MARA is required to publish full details of any decisions to cancel or suspend an agent's registration in the Saturday edition of a national daily publication, including the evidence for its decisions and its findings on any material details of fact.Although the intentions behind this requirement are to protect existing and potential clients and to promote agent and community understanding of appropriate ethical standards in the industry, in practice, the requirement has resulted in costly advertisements swamped by excessive detail, with little visual impact and little communicative value.The amendments in this bill maintain the basic requirements that the MARA should publish its decisions to suspend or cancel an agent's registration and the grounds for its decisions in prescribed publications.However, the MARA will no longer be required to publish full details of the evidence and its findings on material facts relevant to the decision, saving money for the industry body and thus ultimately agents and consumers.The amendments will also give the MARA the discretionary power to publish some or all of this detailed information about cancellation or suspension decisions in an expanded variety of formats and methods of publication relevant to its target audiences, including on the Internet and in specialist newspapers.The amendments will also give protection to other persons publishing in good faith a copy or fair summary of the MARA's decisions.Together, these amendments will mean that the MARA will be able to use appropriate channels to communicate more effectively—to clients, agents and the general community—its decisions to suspend or cancel an agent's registration.This bill also provides the MARA with powers to ensure that clients of inactive and deceased agents are not unduly disadvantaged by the agent becoming inactive or as a result of the death of the agent.Therefore, the MARA will be able to require certain agents—for example, those whose registration has been suspended or cancelled—to provide copies of relevant client documents to the MARA for forwarding to clients.This will enable clients to continue their cases with another agent or to manage their cases themselves, ensuring that critical deadlines in relation to a client's visa applications or reviews of applications are not ignored.The MARA's ability to do this will be discretionary. There may be cases such as multi-agent practices in which the MARA does not need to intervene.However, the relevance of this power was highlighted by the recent closure of the largest migration advice firm in Australia.Fortunately, this company voluntarily made files available to the MARA.However, if such a situation occurs after the commencement of the bill, and if the firm or agent does not make files available to the MARA voluntarily, the powers in this bill will provide a basis for the MARA to require that relevant documents be copied, and that those copies be given to clients.The closure of this particular migration agency is being closely evaluated by my Department and the MARA to identify any further issues which may need to be addressed within the industry regulation arrangements.In conclusion, this bill extends the protection that is available to consumers under the current arrangements and will continue the progress that has been achieved in the last 18 months towards enhancing competence and ethical standards in the industry.I commend this bill to the Main Committee. I present the explanatory memorandum.10:14:0013379Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—It is Christmas time, so I will not speak for long and I will be very nice to the minister this morning. The Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 1999 is another bill—amongst just about every one that has come up for debate in either this or any other chamber—that we have supported. We support the sunset clause being extended until March 2003. I have had the opportunity on a number of occasions to talk to the industry association, and I am quite convinced that they are doing everything they can to ensure that the migration advice industry is cleaned up as best it can be.I am aware that, from time to time, there is a lot of public concern, and I am sure that my colleague the honourable member for Chifley will say later that there are always complaints about shonky migration agents which come to members of parliament. In most cases—probably in every case—they are not registered and are not fair dinkum. We need to make sure that justice is seen to be done and that appropriate consumer regulations and mechanisms are in place to protect what are most often people who cannot speak the language, do not know our systems and are very easily conned into handing over money for something that, in many cases, is of no value to them.This bill simply extends the current arrangements for the regulation of the migration advice industry. It also amends the Migration Act to provide more efficient methods of warning the public of the suspension or cancellation of an agent's registration and enables the Migration Agents Registration Authority to protect the rights and interests of people whose migration agent has died or has been deregistered.I recently went to one of MARA's conferences in Brisbane, I think, and I was quite impressed with their education schemes for making some of their registered migration agents aware of what it is that they are supposed to do. I noticed that something like 40 per cent of all registered migration agents are lawyers. That is a problem in the sense that lawyers do not particularly want to be part of any industry body but their own. In this case, it really is an important facet of the migration advice industry that everybody should be involved in a whole group. To be truthful, I do not see why they do not join the industry association because the industry association are the ones that in effect form MARA under this legislation and, if you want to be a migration agent, you come under that umbrella as well.I noticed that something like 38 per cent of complaints received by MARA concerned lawyers, although it does not appear that MARA referred any of these complaints to a disciplinary body for lawyers. It is a bit hard for a disciplinary body of lawyers to make some sort of value judgment as to whether someone in the migration area has made a mistake or done the wrong thing. That is something the immigration minister might be prepared to look at. He will get support from me on that for sure.The opposition supports this bill. We thank the minister and those in the minister's office for the extra information they gave to Senator Cooney and Senator McKiernan, who were quite interested in knowing some of the details of the review. I have had a good look at the review, and I think it has been very wide ranging. It has come up with a number of better initiatives for making this system work better. Given that this self-regulatory scheme has been in place for only a year, it is sensible that we extend it for a few more years. I noticed as well that it will be reviewed again during the next three years. I do not propose to say anything more about this. It is a measure that the opposition welcomes.In conclusion, all my dealings with the industry association have been good. They are always willing to talk to me and, I am sure, other members of parliament as well. I think that migration agents do not deserve to have the reputation now that they have had in the past. Yes, there are some shonks still around and, yes, I am concerned that only 24 per cent of registered migration agents are actually part of the industry body. It is the industry body that are looking at further education and the development of expertise, so they might want to redouble their efforts in that regard. But, given that they have only been travelling for a year, I think we can give them another three years and then review them again to see how they are going. I will leave it at that and remind the minister again that, on the last day we are here, we are again in a bipartisan mode.10:20:0013380Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It is my pleasure to rise to support the Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 1999 today and to commend the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs for bringing it forward. The minister has proved himself to be a very capable and effective minister in managing a fairly difficult portfolio, not the least of which has involved the events that have emerged over the last several years and, more particularly, in the last couple of months. This is part of an effective administration that, for the most part, has received bipartisan support. I think that is an appropriate way to go. It is difficult to manage at the best of times. There are lots of international sensitivities. I was very pleased to note that the shadow minister for immigration, the honourable member for Bowman, also supported the bill today. It is good to see such bipartisan bonhomie and Christmas spirit at this time.In terms of the provisions of the legislation, it is appropriate that the sunset clause be extended for a further three years and that the voluntary code which has been in existence be given time to operate and to show its effectiveness. There is no doubt that the management of migration agents is a difficult area. In the past, in the area of migration agents, as the shadow minister said, there has been a tendency for a lot of shonks to operate. People have been encouraged to use every trick in the book in order to stay here.During our inquiry into the treatment of refugees, there was an open admission by a lot of the people who were dealing with refugees that some of the agents clearly did not have ethical standards. This piece of legislation is about standards in the industry. It is about ensuring appropriate supervision of agents. It also provides the ability to take away the registration of agents where they have demonstrated unethical behaviour. It is not in the interests of those migrants who come here or those who are going through the process of applying for citizenship or migration to this country to be fooled in terms of the appropriate channels or requirements.There are four registered migration agents operating in my electorate of Cook. Jian Wang and Ying Feng Lui operate from the suburb of Miranda, and John Shanahan and Bobby Halim are based in Sylvania. These agents assist friends and family members of my constituents who need advice concerning visa categories for relatives' applications, and also asylum seekers wanting assistance in putting their claim together.The operations of these agencies are assisted and overseen by MARA, the Migration Agents Registration Authority. Since March 1998, when the minister appointed the Migration Institute of Australia to act as the Migration Agents Registration Authority, it has performed well in ensuring that migration agents have served their clients well. Minister, seeing that you are in the chamber, it is appropriate to congratulate you on taking that step in terms of registration. It is also appropriate that we would want to see more of the agents belonging to the association. That is the appropriate way to go if they want to undertake the necessary training that is available to them.MARA has focused on the ongoing education of agents, not on exercising coercive punishments such as by imposing fines or other penalties. The ultimate sanction is that their registration is taken away. It is similar in many ways to the situation involving travel agents, where a self-regulating authority is in place and where deregistration can occur. The authority has managed entry into the group of registered agents, their re-registration, the fielding of complaints, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, and generally the maintenance of industry standards.The role of MARA is set out in section 316 of the Migration Act. It produces an annual report and has a code of conduct. It also produces newsletters for members and continuing professional development kits and mediation kits, and runs a web site for which it provides fact sheets.During the last 12 months the authority has held eight mediations. The authority believes that the mediations are an overall success enabling the parties themselves to establish an agreement to their dispute. Of the eight mediations held to date, five achieved an agreement to which both parties adhered. From these five successfully mediated agreements, five have resulted in the authority deciding to take no further action on the complaint.This bill has certainly enhanced the authority's power in regulating the industry. It allows for the better warning of clients and migration agents by indicating a particular agency's standing within the group, overseen by MARA, and by providing information on whether an agent is fully accredited. It safeguards the rights of clients of deregistered or deceased agents.In August 1999, over 3,000 people were left unrepresented in their applications to the department of immigration and appeal bodies for various classes of visas when Barlow and Co. went out of business. Obviously they had spent a lot of money in the process of their claims and paid it to Barlow. Suddenly Barlow went out of existence and all assistance that had been given in the past just went for nought through the business collapse of this organisation.In response, this bill contains measures designed to ensure that people whose migration agent has been deregistered will be able to continue with their migration or review applications without disadvantage, and I think that is a significant step forward. There may be further amendments to part 3 of the Migration Act in response to this collapse and these amendments will be included in an omnibus bill at a later date. In summary, I commend the minister for bringing forward this legislation. It is appropriate that we continue the close supervision of agents. This voluntary code is appearing to work. We would encourage more agents to belong to the association to get all the benefits of the training and newsletters et cetera. It is good to see such bipartisan agreement on such an important part of migration activities in this country.10:27:0013381Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I notice that the Christmas spirit has been referred to. I hope honourable members do not think I am a heathen by virtue of my contribution. I certainly do support this bill but I would be less than honest if I did not say that I do have quite a number of reservations about the activities of migration agents. Very briefly, in 1997 the government commenced statutory self-regulation of the migration advice industry and appointed the Migration Agents Registration Authority, MARA, to establish a regulatory body for the industry with the aim to eventually move towards self-regulation.The bill expands the Migration Agents Registration Authority's powers to access files where the registration of a migration agent is cancelled or suspended; where the agent has become incapacitated, dies or is voluntarily deregistered; or where a migration agent's registration expires; and to provide copies of relevant documents to clients. This will, of course, maintain and strengthen consumer protection and contribute to the integrity of the migration and humanitarian programs by promoting an ethical and competent migration advice industry. I certainly think that this is a very worthy objective, but I think the agents risk their industry if they fail to rigorously ensure that they have an ethical industry, including the self-regulatory body MARA.It is important to recognise that currently MARA has jurisdiction only over registered migration agents. In the majority of cases the only disciplinary sanction that MARA has against a registered migration agent is to cancel or suspend their registration. Once an agent is deregistered, he or she is no longer within the jurisdiction of MARA.As the shadow minister has already mentioned, 40 per cent of migration agents in 1998 were lawyers and 38 per cent of the complaints arose from those agents. It seems to me to be absolutely absurd that a solicitor acting as a solicitor can be disciplined by his professional body for errors or whatever, but, notwithstanding the fact that MARA has the power to refer these matters to the legal disciplinary bodies, no referrals have occurred to date in relation to acting as a migration agent. I make this point: from my experience of the constituents that come through my front door, I do not see that they are less exploited by migration agents who happen to be solicitors than by the ones that are not solicitors. I think this is a blight on the legal profession and it is a real weakness. I do not think a solicitor should be secure in his legal profession irrespective of what he does as a migration agent. That is completely abhorrent to me and I think it is abhorrent to any sense of fairness and any sense of justice.The honourable member for Cook, who made a contribution to this debate, referred again to the case of Barlow and Co., Australia's largest legal practice specialising in migration, which collapsed. They had some 3,000 clients on their books, some from my electorate. If a firm of solicitors collapses and they have moneys in their care on behalf of clients, that money is protected. If a legal practice that wholly or partly practises in migration law collapses, why should the migration clients of that practice not be indemnified as well? I would be very interested, as I always am, to hear what the minister or the department may have to say about this matter. There are contradictions. If my assertions are wrong in this I am more than happy to be advised otherwise, but I suspect they are not.I see a lot of people about migration issues in my electorate. In fact, I can say that approximately—and we do keep records of it—80 per cent of the people who walk through my door come to me about migration matters. I will just say this: I have always had a practice in my office of trying to tell them exactly what the honest situation is. Some people would love to hear that miracles can be done or that, through the intervention of their federal member, we will be able to ensure that they stay here. There have been some exceptional cases, and I would be less than gracious if I did not acknowledge the fact that the department has always bent over backwards to assist me in those cases. But when people want to apply for a refugee status or a protection visa and we know that they have absolutely no basis for sustaining it, then we tell them so.Indeed, I came from the old school which said it was never a backbencher's responsibility to say no, it was the minister's. I have changed that in terms of migration—we are now no longer sending on requests for ministerial discretion when we are more than confident that it will not be exercised. In fact, we tell constituents now that we will not deal with their case when they are being handled by a migration agent.Sometimes people come here on a visitor's visa, stay for a while and find that they love Australia. They have been reunited with some relatives or they see the marvellous opportunities here, and they want to apply to become permanent residents. I am quite convinced they would make excellent citizens, but they cannot apply. So they go to a business migration agent, who will probably get them to apply for a protection visa. If the protection visa is not approved, there is an opportunity then to appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal, then the Federal Court or, indeed, to seek exercise of the minister's discretion. That will take about two years and will also take up several thousand dollars.This is what really upsets me about migration agents. The point I want to make is that the migration agents that act this way do so totally dishonestly. The only way it can be justified is if the client says, `Can you leave me here for two years? I am prepared to pay several thousand dollars for that privilege,' and the migration agent replies, `I will exercise every option available to you but in the knowledge that you will never succeed.' But of course that is not what they are told and that is not the way they apply.I really resent it if, when every option has been exercised, the migration agent sends them off to my office to ask me then to make representations. Perhaps, Mr Deputy Speaker, coming from Tasmania you do not have so much experience with it—UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—I do.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—That is interesting. These people, I feel, in the main are very vulnerable. I am intensely proud to have in my electorate a lot of Filipinos—the largest concentration in any LGA—and also Indians, Pakistanis, Fijians and Lebanese. All these groups of migrants tend to get awfully exploited. They make a wonderful contribution not only to my electorate but also to this nation, but they are being exploited by migration agents, in my humble opinion.Essentially, when the system of migration agents was first established, the idea was that people could go to them for a reasonable fee and get some advice or assistance in filling in a form and lodging it with the department. That is an appropriate role. But I do not think it is appropriate that the stricter migration guidelines in this country are used to exploit people, to extract money from them by way of fees in the knowledge that their case is absolutely hopeless. I am not suggesting that for us to tighten up in this area is easy, but everyone in this game has a vested interest in a much cleaner system of migration agents and would benefit from it.I turn now to my last complaint. Let us remember that 40 per cent of migration agents are lawyers. There is a schedule of fees that a solicitor or a barrister can charge. I think that the disciplinary body would not be too happy, for example, with a charge of $500 for one letter. Yet, by and large, when solicitors practise as migration agents there appears to be no control whatsoever over the fees that they can charge for certain actions. Again it is a case of double standards. If someone is legally qualified, the overwhelming disciplinary mantle should be that of the legal profession. I would suggest to the legal profession that it is outrageous that a solicitor can be disciplined for some of his charges when acting in the law other than in migration, but when acting as a migration agent he is allowed to charge—without penalty, without review, without discipline—whatever he likes.To summarise: the opposition is supporting this measure. In my own electorate I have quite some experience of migration agents. Just this year we have changed some of our practices, after a number of years, in response to problems with migration agents. I would like to see the continuation of migration agents but there is a desperate need for even tougher measures. In particular, it is necessary to get away from the double standards that apply to members of the legal profession when they act as migration agents.10:40:0013384Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—in reply—I would like first to thank my colleagues for their support for the Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 1999 . It would be of grave concern to me were the sunset clause to operate and the existing arrangements that we have for supervision to fall. I do want to thank the member for Bowman, as well as the members for Cook and Chifley, for their support for the legislation.I will not repeat the comments I made in the second reading speech—they stand as printed—but I particularly want the member for Chifley to know that I share many of the concerns he raised. Let me just say that. I and the shadow minister are both members of the legal profession.QI4PRICEMr Price—I was gracious enough not to mention that!0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—Quite frankly, I emphasise from time to time, and I will do it here, that the legal profession has certain values, ethics. I can see one of my colleagues over there who has even taught law. Some of those ethics that I was taught when I was a young practitioner involved not only my obligation to my client, but also my obligation to fellow practitioners and to the court.I often say when I speak to migration agents, because there is no court that applies to them, that there is a wider obligation they have to the community of which they are a part that requires some cognisance of the broader national interest. That means that you have a migration program which operates with integrity, a program in which you do not set out to find ways and means to undermine it. I have to say that I think—and members will know that I hold this view very strongly—that there are some who have no cognisance of the wider national interest. If they see a loophole, they believe it is there to be exploited, regardless of its impact.I have to say that I am very much aware of some of the unconscionable charging arrangements that some members of the profession are involved in. I want members of this committee to know that I have personally raised matters with the Law Society of New South Wales relating to the conduct of members of the legal profession. I have not waited for them to be considered by MARA. I believe that they were of sufficient concern that a representative body of the profession ought to have been active in taking them up.Members will know—and this relates to the comments from the member for Chifley—that not all migration agents are involved in the practice of misleading their clients. Sometimes they tell them, because the client comes in simply wanting a work opportunity, that by using the system they can get them a year or two. Some advertisements, of some members of the profession, for people to come forward who have exhausted all other remedies—even been to other agents—say, `If you come and see me you can join my class action, which I have under way right now, which will enable you to apply lawfully for another bridging visa.'Members may not know the background reasons for why bridging visas have to operate as they do. It is a very simple reason: we have detention facilities normally for about 900 people in Australia. If we were to arrest and hold every unlawful that we located and everybody involved in legal proceedings or making applications to me or using the tribunal processes, we would have to have detention facilities for 10,000 people. Bridging visas are not issued to enable people to go out and get work. They are issued for a very practical reason: that is, unless we have some basis upon which they can be held in the community while they undertake their lawful entitlements, we cannot properly detain them. That is the only alternative that remains available to us.Why did I raise another matter with the Law Society of New South Wales? I came across a letter that had been written by a solicitor who had initiated a class action on behalf of clients. All of the class actions that we have had to date have failed. There are some that are still before the courts, but all of those where we have had a judicial decision taken have failed. The letter I saw in this case from a member of the legal profession was to the clients of a failed class action, encouraging them to send another $250 so that they could be part of an appeal. I guess that is not unreasonable. When the solicitor then says that, in addition, there will be no accounting for the money that is paid by the client and, further, there will be no refund of any of the money paid, I consider that highly unethical. I guess I was right because the Law Society counselled the solicitor. He was told to tell the client that he would account for the money.There are problems associated with running an administrative scheme, and MARA is in a difficult position. They are in the same position that we face in relation to any of the so-called rights that people have, such as the right to practise. If we are going to take away somebody's livelihood, there has to be evidence. The reason we cannot act against half the shonks is that they cover their tracks so carefully. The people involved, particularly if their actions have failed, may have been removed from Australia. The prospect of getting evidence against some of these people is extremely difficult. Somebody might say, `Try to push the envelope.' You push the envelope and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act operates. They are back off to the courts.This supervision really involves the protection of shonks. The difficulty we have is that there is not a ready appreciation in this field that ethics are required. Every time I go to the MIA—they are almost sick of me coming through the door—I tell them that we need ethical standards. You have to have an appreciation that in this field there is a wider Australian public interest.I think it is important in discussing these issues for people to know that there is a will on the part of the government to do something about it. I will look for any creative ideas to enable us to do it more effectively. I am sure, as the honourable member for Bowman indicated in his remarks, that there will be support from the agents who are ethical. I am sure there is a desire on the part of the MIA to deal with these matters, but, as has been said, when 70 per cent of the industry do not bother to join the industry body and you get the ethical people in it and the others outside, the task is fairly difficult.I want to conclude by saying that I appreciated the compliments paid to me by the member for Cook, and I thank him for that. But I particularly want to thank the member for Chifley, not because he is lightening the load in my office but because I think the approach that he is taking is absolutely right. It is the approach I took as a backbencher in not misleading people as to the outcomes that can be achieved. I think it is just exploitation of the vulnerable to hold out hope where none exists. Yet we know that the exploitation of the vulnerable is to hold out hope and to take more money off them. A far better approach by disciplinary bodies, including the legal disciplinary bodies, is not in challenging the scheme because it might require solicitors to come in and be a part of it, but ensuring that appropriate standards are met would speak well of the law societies and similar bodies and I think would lift the esteem in which the profession is held in the eyes of the public, where they could be far more proactive. I hope some of my friends in the profession one day have an opportunity to read these remarks.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills13386s219Consideration resumed from 23 September.1338610:52:0013386Stone, Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The War Crimes Amendment Bill 1999 repeals section 22 of the War Crimes Act 1945. The act was amended in 1989 prior to the fall of the Iron Curtain to enable trial in Australia with respect to conduct engaged in during World War II in Europe. Although the usual practice would have been to extradite persons accused of such crimes to the country where the crimes occurred, it was considered at the time to be politically unacceptable to extradite persons to countries behind the then so-called Iron Curtain. Some years ago the Iron Curtain fell, fortunately, and many of the republics—including Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania—are now independent states and have been accepted as members of the Council of Europe. Australia has in the past been prepared to enter into extradition arrangements with any country that is a member of the council.The government is actively pursuing the possibility of establishing modern extradition arrangements with many of these newly independent states. However, even if a modern extradition relationship were in place, it would still be impossible for those countries to comply with an extradition request while section 22 of the War Crimes Act remains in force in our country. Effectively, section 22 of the act provides that, where a person's extradition from Australia is sought for conduct covered by the act, no surrender for extradition is possible unless the requesting country establishes a prima facie case. Thus, notwithstanding a modern extradition relationship with these countries, if the offence for which the extradition sought is a war crime, then the requesting state must provide a prima facie case.Because of the differences between civil code and common law countries, the practical effect is that it would be virtually impossible for a civil code jurisdiction to successfully seek the extradition of a person suspected of a war crime. The concept of a prima facie case is determining sufficiency of evidence, and it is one to which most common law countries are accustomed. However, those countries which operate under a civil code system—for example, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania—do not use this test in criminal proceedings. The practical issue is that the laws of evidence in common law systems are such as to make it very difficult for a civil code jurisdiction to supply evidence in an admissible form.The repeal of section 22 will remove the fundamental barrier to Australia's cooperation with the international community in relation to suspected war criminals.This is not to say that extradition of a suspected war criminal would be automatic. Any requests for the extradition of a suspected war criminal would be subject to the general extradition arrangement with the requesting country. Such arrangement must include all the usual safeguards spelt out in the Extradition Act 1988. All that the amendment will do is to remove an additional onerous requirement that relates only to the extradition of war criminals. This government sees no reason in principle why this practical impediment to the extradition of war criminals should be retained.The amendment to the act will not have any financial impact. I commend the bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill to this committee.10:55:0013387Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—The opposition supports this legislation, the War Crimes Amendment Bill 1999 . By way of background, it is useful to put ourselves back into the frame of mind that existed at the time the provisions relating to extradition of alleged war criminals from the Second World War were enacted. It was a period where the world was convulsed with outrage in relation to the atrocities that had been conducted in Germany and in the countries that Germany had occupied—the forced deportation of many millions of people and the extermination of millions in the gas chambers of the Nazi war machine. There was a sense that the world had to enact a framework that would deal with those who had perpetrated such atrocities.Nonetheless, there was another mind-set that also applied and that was a fundamental distrust of the legal regimes of many Eastern European states. That was because, at that time, those states were part of the larger empire of the Soviet Union or certainly subject to their dominion. It was a widely held view that those regimes were prone to distort historical records and that their legal systems provided no framework that was adequate for this country to respect in relation to those charged with criminal or quasi-political offences of this nature. I only say quasi-political in the sense that they arose out of the conflagration of war. The Soviet regime, having itself lost, I think, something in the order of 20 million dead as a result of resisting a German invasion, was felt to have such an antipathy to those who might be charged with offences that the normal protections of the legal system could not be guaranteed.In the Cold War climate that I grew up in as a young man, there was still the lasting aftermath of a campaign in Australia to have the Communist Party of Australia proscribed as an illegal organisation and a widely held view that it would have been improper for us to send back to Eastern European countries persons against whom charges even of this nature were made to face trial and the penalties that would have applied in those eastern bloc countries, unless we ourselves formed a view that there was a substantial and probably conclusive case against them.That was the framework in which the extradition provisions that currently apply were made, which require, before a surrender to another country of a person against whom extradition is sought for these offences, that an Australian tribunal must first satisfy itself in relation to the prima facie case that exists against that person. That is a not insubstantial hurdle when we are dealing with very different legal regimes. It is not an insubstantial hurdle even when we are dealing with similar legal regimes that understand a common law system of what actually comprises a prima facie case. But when we are dealing with civil law countries—and most of Europe does operate on a civil law environment—the knowledge base to put together effectively an application for extradition is limited. That has been in part the root reason why, in the law of extradition generally, we have moved away from the requirement for the establishment of a prima facie case.There is a hold-over in this area which still remains on the statute books. It is now thought appropriate to, in a sense, align the provisions that relate to extradition for the general run of criminal offences with those that we will now be enacting with respect to alleged war crimes. That will facilitate more readily the surrender to countries which were formerly part of the Soviet bloc, including Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, of persons who are asserted by those jurisdictions to be in Australia, if any such assertion is made, and against whom they assert evidence is available to establish proof of guilt in relation to atrocities that occurred during the Second World War.My briefing to date from the department is that no intention to file an extradition application currently stands. But it may well be that, over time, these provisions are exercised. I know that my colleague from Melbourne Ports has put questions on the Notice Paper in relation to a Mr Ozols and he has raised this matter with me. It may well be that the authorities in the country where he is alleged to have been a significant and senior participant in a number of atrocities may feel it appropriate to seek such extradition. There may be others. By changing the law in this manner we do facilitate that.There are always arguments that ought to be taken seriously with respect to those who have come to Australia after World War II that amongst those persons were some who were not seeking to make a new home in Australia as a result of circumstances which we would all regard as perfectly understandable and justifiable but who, it is asserted, had been involved in these atrocities. In those circumstances, I think the whole Australian community would want to see those persons brought to justice, whether in this country or overseas.Of course, when we did have the regime that formerly applied—that is, the prima facie regime—when the former Labor government came to office and was confronted with substantial allegations that there were persons living amongst the Australian community who had been involved with these events, the response that was then made was to establish a special investigation unit which was resourced to assess those matters and to prepare them for prosecution. A number of prosecutions did take place.For a variety of reasons the basis upon which the SIU was established was that, rather than facilitate extradition, the trials should take place in Australia. That, in itself, gave rise to a whole series of complexities. Perhaps that was a bad decision, in retrospect. It is easy to be wise in hindsight, but perhaps it was a bad decision because of the difficulties in bringing witnesses to Australia and in establishing proof of materials held on files in those countries which were then still subject to Soviet domination.A whole range of other such issues did make those trials particularly difficult and, as history will show, either acquittals or discharges for reasons of ill health or the age of the accused meant that we obtained no convictions. I must say that I do not think that outcome has stilled the disquiet amongst those who suffered at the hands of the Nazi war machine. Perhaps there are still some living amongst us in this community who should be better placed on trial and account to history for the actions they undertook.The opposition is content to support these changes. We accept that the international legal circumstances in respect of both the former Soviet Union and the states which were subject to it have changed and that we should apply the same regime to those extraditions as apply in other areas. That is not to say that somebody charged with an extraditable offence is entirely without some opportunity for an examination of the matters alleged against them. There are a series of processes, often much litigated already in this country, where people are made subject to extradition requests. The extradition requests are subject to a range of discretionary matters in the end which the minister must consider before a surrender is made.So it is not as if a case cannot be made either administratively or later at a political level to the minister that a surrender request must be acceded to if there are some circumstances wherein it is asserted that the legal regime in those countries is still not appropriate to enable a fair trial. There may indeed be some argument advanced to that effect in respect of particular matters. Nonetheless, I think the generality of this legislation is now most appropriate, and it indeed fits with the way in which the international community has seen appropriate to regard extradition and, as importantly, reflects the continuing abhorrence by the Australian community of the Holocaust and those who gave rise to it.With those remarks, I indicate that the opposition does support this legislation. As I said, there are many things that perhaps with hindsight we might reflect on in relation to the conduct of matters previously. But it is not an area where I am content to say, as some amongst the Australian community do, that these are events in the dim, distant past which should be allowed to fade from memory. To the extent that properly based evidence is available to establish the fact of willed participation in these terrible events, I do not believe we, as a parliament, should ever stand in the way of the proper trial and punishment of such persons.11:09:0013389Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—The War Crimes Amendment Bill 1999 provides for the repeal of section 22 of the War Crimes Act. The effect of the repeal of the legislation will be to facilitate extradition proceedings of suspected World War II war criminals residing in Australia to countries with civil legal codes and, in particular, to former Soviet bloc countries. The bill will bring the evidentiary requirements for the extradition of suspected war criminals into line with those of other criminal offences in Australia, subject to the Extradition Act 1988.Section 22 of the War Crimes Act was originally introduced in response to concerns over judicial processes in the former Warsaw Pact countries. Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, there were concerns that individuals who faced extradition to countries in the Eastern bloc would not be subjected to the same judicial standards that could be expected in the West. As a result, an additional requirement to establish a prima facie case in the Australian courts prior to successful extradition of alleged war criminals was introduced. While the prima facie requirement was in response to concerns about Soviet bloc countries, it also had the effect of applying to all civil law jurisdictions. A prima facie case is a feature of the judicial system in common law countries and ensures that, at a relatively early stage of proceedings, there is sufficient evidence to establish grounds for a preliminary case against the accused. However, it is not commonly employed in civil law countries and, because of the significant differences in the evidentiary procedures of the two codes, it has been almost impossible in practice for countries with civil codes to extradite suspected war criminals from Australia.With the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet empire, judicial processes have considerably improved in what was once the Eastern bloc. The Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, as well as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Russia, have all reformed their legal systems, and their criminal and civil justice systems have met requirements for admission into the Council of Europe.Australia has, in the past, been prepared to establish extradition arrangements with any country that is a member of the Council of Europe, such as France and Germany. The rationale then for demanding that a higher threshold of guilt be established prior to extradition of suspected war criminals to the Eastern bloc is no longer evident.Section 22, however, continues to create impediments in establishing extradition arrangements with civil law countries that may have cause to request the extradition of suspected war criminals from the Second World War residing in Australia. The repeal of this provision for extra evidentiary requirements for war criminals prior to extradition will also bring Australia into line with war crime extradition procedures in Europe. Neither Britain nor Western European countries retain additional evidentiary requirements in respect of the extradition of war criminals. As has been referred to, the rights of individuals in Australia facing extradition continue to be safeguarded by the Extradition Act under which the Attorney-General also retains a residual discretion to decline the surrender of a person to a foreign jurisdiction.The effect then of the legislation will be to remove a significant impediment to the extradition of suspected Nazi war criminals. It is a further attempt to reduce the possibility that Australia should be used as a haven for war criminals or individuals who are suspected of having committed crimes against humanity and are sought by other jurisdictions.The issue of suspected war criminals residing in our country has received considerable prominence in Australian public debate in the whole period since the Second World War. Indeed, as early as 1947, allegations were made in Australian newspapers that former Nazis and Nazi collaborators had managed to enter Australia.From the 1950s to the 1970s, law enforcement authorities received a number of reports about individuals suspected of involvement in war crimes during World War II. There were also a number of extradition requests from communist countries. None of these requests were acceded to.According to the final report of the Special Investigations Unit of the Attorney-General's Department, the US also failed to receive significant assistance from Australia in response to their requests in the course of the eighties. Throughout the 1980s, the Office of Special Investigation of the US Justice Department made a number of requests for assistance with suspected war criminals residing in Australia who were potential witnesses to investigations in the United States.In 1986, ABC Radio broadcast a series of programs called Nazis in Australia. The series, by journalist Mark Aarons, contained a number of documented serious allegations about suspected Nazi war criminals who had come to Australia since the Second World War. Following Mr Aarons's revelations, the Australian government appointed Mr Andrew Menzies to conduct a review of allegations relating to the presence of Nazi war criminals in Australia. Mr Menzies found that it was more likely than not that a significant number of persons who committed serious war crimes did enter Australia and that appropriate further action needed to be taken.As a result of the Menzies finding, the government amended the War Crimes Act to enable war crimes to be dealt with in Australian courts. An investigative unit, to be known as the Special Investigations Unit or SIU, of the Attorney-General's Department was established under the direction of Mr Robert Greenwood QC. The SIU operated from 1987 to 1992. During that period it conducted 841 investigations into suspected war criminals residing in Australia. Of the 841 investigations, 819 were suspended due to a number of factors, including that the suspects were found to have been deceased, living abroad or unfit to stand trial. In other cases, investigators were unable to substantiate the allegations, there was insufficient evidence and in some cases the accused had been previously convicted abroad.There were, however, four cases that were referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. Three of these cases went to trial. Two were unsuccessful, a third was abandoned on medical grounds and, in 1992, the SIU was closed down by the Labor government before charges could be laid against the fourth suspect. In 1995, Robert Greenwood, the former director of the SIU, launched a strong attack on the then government, accusing it of actively frustrating and undermining the operation of the SIU.It is interesting that the then Labor finance minister, Peter Walsh, in his autobiography, Confessions of a failed finance minister, said that, as finance minister, he tried to prevent the establishment of the SIU and hoped that `the crazy exercise would be terminated'. It is instructive that Mr Walsh made this additional claim:Whatever moral force the argument for the War Crimes bill had, was somewhat diluted by the contemporary behaviour of the Israeli Army in Gaza and the West Bank . . . One would hope that former Senator Walsh's views did not play a role in the previous government's decision to close down the SIU.It did become apparent, however, from the three trials that were conducted, that it is very difficult to successfully prosecute in Australia individuals who are alleged to have committed crimes against humanity in other countries, particularly when those crimes occurred some time ago.Australia is not the only country to face the challenge of bringing to justice suspected war criminals who have migrated to their country. Both Canada and the US have been confronted with numerous cases of suspected war criminals in their jurisdiction. They have responded to those cases with a variety of measures, including revocation of citizenship and deportation of more than 50 individuals found to have been engaged in crimes against humanity.In Australia, there is still public concern over suspected war criminals residing here. The most prominent of those persons is a Mr Konrad Kalejs. Mr Kalejs immigrated to Australia in 1950 and gained citizenship in 1957. He travelled to the US soon afterwards and became a successful property developer. In 1984, he was arrested in the US, and deportation proceedings were commenced against him. He is accused by the US Justice Department of having been a senior officer in the Latvian auxiliary security police, a pro-Nazi unit that killed tens of thousands of people during World War II.In 1994, the US Federal Court of Appeals determined that Mr Kalejs should be deported to Australia. According to the judge, Mr Kalejs was:. . . a key officer in a unit that killed tens of thousands of innocents. Kalejs and his unit had two other duties besides killing Jews in the Riga ghetto . . . The unit joined the German SS in so-called anti-partisan activity, which was little more than a cover for arresting and murdering civilians.In 1994, Mr Kalejs was deported to Australia. In 1995, he left Australia for Canada where he was arrested, declared persona non grata, and, in June 1995, returned to Australia.In September 1995, Kalejs was again arrested at Toronto airport after making a second trip there, and he was detained by authorities until his immigration hearing. On 18 August 1997, a Canadian immigration tribunal ordered Mr Kalejs deported back to Australia and found that he had been `an accomplice to the acts of murder, forcible confinement, enslavement and torture.' The tribunal found that Mr Kalejs had `violated the laws of war and committed war crimes, or crimes against humanity.' The Canadian tribunal also found that Mr Kalejs `was a party to the offences of murder and kidnapping.'Mr Kalejs was deported back to Australia. The office of the minister for justice has advised that the DPP concluded that the evidence available here is insufficient to launch a successful criminal prosecution against Konrad Kalejs.In November 1997, Latvia made a mutual assistance request to Australia for documents concerning genocide and war crimes involving Mr Kalejs. I am advised by the minister's office that, following a comprehensive review of relevant departmental files, a considerable amount of documentation on Mr Kalejs was provided to the Latvian authorities in response to their request for assistance. Australia also has had discussions with Latvia and Lithuania with a view to establishing extradition arrangements with those countries.It is important to note that this legislation is not in response to any one case or individual; rather, it is designed to regularise our extradition arrangements in respect of accused World War II criminals who may be seeking sanctuary in Australia. As the minister has said, this move sends out a strong message internationally that Australia is not, and will not be, a haven for suspected World War II war criminals.The challenge for our society is to find a way in which we can work with the international community to ensure that principles of justice apply to those involved in crimes against humanity who may seek a safe haven or refuge in Australia. It is a tragic reality of the second half of this century that crimes against humanity, atrocities, war crimes and attempted genocide did not end with the end of the Second World War. Indeed, if we look at Rwanda, Cambodia, the attempted extermination of people in Iraq, and more recently in East Timor, it is apparent that such acts of carnage have not abated as the 20th century draws to a close.The moral imperative from the extermination of more than six million Jews during World War II was to never forget but, as time draws on, the memory of the international community does drift.There are some who argue that many of those who were engaged in war crimes during World War II are now old men, that time has moved on and that we should forget the past. There are those who argue that it is too difficult and too costly to bring to justice men who have committed crimes many years ago. Indeed, there are some who even argue that we should not concern ourselves with crimes committed in a foreign land.But the rule of law is not some fashionable policy from which we can pick and choose. If a man lives in our midst who is responsible for the deaths of one or 30,000 civilians, do we not have a responsibility to see him brought to justice? Can there really be time lines on mass murder? Can we seriously evoke a forgive and forget response to those who have committed crimes against humanity?Dr Colin Rubenstein, the executive director of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, argues:. . . neither the passage of time nor vagaries of location should become pretexts for inaction in the pursuit of justice. If individuals who reside in this country have committed crimes against humanity in other countries, then we should take every measure possible to assist in bringing those individuals to justice. As Mark Baker, the Melbourne University history academic, has written:A passport is not a confessional box where one secures absolution from guilt.In the period following World War II, inadequate vetting procedures created favourable circumstances for suspected war criminals to seek sanctuary in Australia. If a crime can be graduated, it is hard to envision a more heinous crime than that committed by individuals who have been complicit in genocide, the deliberate effort to destroy a national, racial or ethnic population. Future generations will not judge us well if we do not take every measure possible to bring to justice those who have committed crimes against humanity. This bill is an important part of that process. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.11:26:0013393Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—The War Crimes Amendment Bill 1999 , concerning the extradition of war criminals, will be some small consolation to the Australian public and even smaller consolation to those who still suffer with memories of the atrocities committed during World War II, many of whom are my constituents. As has been outlined by the member for Kooyong, there are strong reasons of legal uniformity for supporting this bill, which changes the level of legal proof needed by countries seeking extradition of war criminals from Australia. Bipartisan support for this bill should not lead the government, particularly the Minister for Justice or the Attorney-General, to think that there is approval for what some regard as their inaction in tackling these issues of war crimes since this government has been in office.In all fairness to this government I would say, however, that it is probably not the only one whose handling of this issue is legally, ethically and politically problematic. Our inaction in Australia is currently affecting our reputation overseas. Only last weekend, the influential US current affairs program 20/20, watched by an estimated 60 million viewers around America and hosted by America's premier current affairs interviewer Barbara Walters, alleged that mass murderers are able to live comfortably in Australia without fear of prosecution, as compared with the United States, which has continued to regularly prosecute and deport Nazi war criminals.The current government's response to these queries since it has been in office was summed up by the Attorney-General in 1997. Indeed, it was taken up again by the minister for justice in her various media appearances on Monday in response to the 20/20 program. I would sum up their attitude as insouciance and inaction. In my view it is, quite frankly, embarrassing. The minister told the 7.30 Report that she would not look into these matters herself. Rather, in a bureaucratic sidestep, she said that this was a matter for the Australian Federal Police. She knows full well that the Australian Federal Police are under the clear impression that the government does not want this matter raised or prosecutions recommenced.One gets the impression from the media appearances of the minister for justice that she has kept herself in splendid ignorance of some of these issues: benign neglect, the blind eye to the telescope. At least that is how she came across in her response to the 20/20 program, when Mr O'Brien interviewed her on the 7.30 Report. She was asked whether she supported a past government's decision in 1992 to disband the Special Investigations Unit. The SIU was set up within the Attorney-General's portfolio to investigate and prosecute, under the amended War Crimes Act 1945, any individuals found to be residing in Australia who had committed crimes against humanity during World War II.We know that the minister for justice was not in government then, but she claims to have been advised that one of the cases that had been put by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, regarded by the unit as its strongest case and above the three cases which had been unsuccessful, did not proceed because the Director of Public Prosecutions decided there was not enough evidence to proceed.We know that this is simply not true. The minister and the government know that. After three unsuccessful prosecutions, mounting pressure from the then Liberal opposition and growing expenditure, policy fatigue set in. The then government announced that it would close the Special Investigations Unit. With only weeks until the closure of the unit, something of a battle developed between the SIU and the then Attorney-General and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions over the fourth and most significant war crimes case, PU38, involving a gentleman called Karlis Ozols, who has been mentioned a number of times by previous Attorneys, so I am not doing anything unusual in mentioning his name here. Ozols was a volunteer in the SS auxiliary, the Arajs Commando, and still lives peacefully in Melbourne. He should and could have been dealt with by Australia's legislation if the recommendation of senior independent counsel, Mr Peter Faris QC, had been addressed. This is in direct juxtaposition to the minister's ill-advised comments that nothing further could be done on this matter, according to her advice.On 28 June 1992, Faris concluded his advice to the DPP, estimating that, while some research still needed to be completed, it would take only another three months to have all of the evidence prepared for trial against Ozols, that there was already a prima facie case for mass murder and war crimes. Mr Faris set out a number of charges and advised, `It would be wrong to shut the investigation down. Justice demands the investigation be completed.' The DPP sought to continue the investigation but the then Attorney-General resisted and referred the matter to the Australian Federal Police where the file has remained in a drawer. No prosecution was ever commenced; the investigation was not completed.In March 1996, of course, the government changed hands and in 1997 a statement by the present Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, announced that the case was concluded and that there was little chance of success in pursuing it to finality. The documentation surrounding Karlis Ozols remained tightly restricted by the Federal Police and the Attorney-General's Department until late 1997. Indeed, the full circumstances surrounding Ozols was never put in the final report of the SIU to parliament.In June 1992, Faris, the former head of the NCA, had gone through all of the charges, particularly as far as Mr Ozols was concerned. It is interesting to consider the three charges that he specifically put. Let us have a look at some of them. The first was that Mr Ozols was involved in killing people himself, as a lieutenant in the Latvian SD at Maley Trostenets. Mr Faris said there was a prima facie case that Ozols had committed war crimes between July 1942 and 27 September 1943 at Maley Trostenets. The second charge that he suggested there was a prima facie case for advancing was in the Minsk ghetto where, as the commander of the Arajs Commando, Ozols was directly and indirectly responsible for deaths.Finally, Faris said that between 8 and 9 February 1943, Ozols and other members of the Latvian Arajs Commando under his command assisted the Germans in killing more than 2,000 Jews in the Slutzk ghetto. Mr Faris and the SIU were not concerned about issues of identification which were so important in other cases that have been considered around the world, including the very famous issue of Mr Ivan Demjanjuk and his identity. First of all, Mr Faris established that there were overseas witnesses and then he established that there were local witnesses, some of whom I have spoken to personally. Some of them were about 12 or 13 and had known Mr Ozols all of their lives.Thirdly, was a killing order from SS Obersturmfuhrer Strauch in which Hilfsbeamten or supernumerary Ozols name was specifically included as a person responsible for various killings. Finally, in the state court of Hamburg in 1979, the German government requested an interview and extradition of Mr Ozols to participate in various other trials that were taking place against members of the Arajs Commando. The German court established all of the details of Mr Ozols' presence at all of the three incidents that Mr Faris QC recommended, via the DPP, to the Attorney-General as the reason for a prima facie case being necessary.In North Queensland recently, a person who some would describe as an elderly pensioner has been charged as the alleged perpetrator of the murder of two children that took place more than 20 years ago. No-one in this parliament would suggest that because this gentleman is an age pensioner no charges should be pursued against him. The statute of limitations does not apply, according to any of us, to the charge of murder, and I think it is simply being consistent that we ought to apply it in these cases ourselves. The member for Kooyong spoke of the moral imperative that drives a democratic society like Australia in these kinds of issues, in remembering why we participated in that great struggle for democracy during the Second World War. I believe that this moral imperative should have been behind all of our actions in dealing with all of these issues, including the government's welcome amendment to repeal section 22 of the War Crimes Act 1945.If people feel that perhaps these issues do not apply to Australia, I remind them of events that took place immediately after the dropping of the Special Investigations Unit and the policy fatigue that took place at that time. I go first to what happened in Bosnia. The war crimes that took place there led to the United Nations setting up special war crimes investigators. Ironically, the person who is now most prominent in seeking prosecutions against war criminals in Bosnia and Serbia is our own Graham Blewitt, who was the last head of the Special Investigations Unit that was too early sent into legal oblivion by a previous government and whose work should have been taken up by the current government.If we look at the disgraceful situation perpetrated by Indonesian military authorities in East Timor after the 30 August referendum, the widespread international community view and the view of the UN Human Rights Commissioner is that war crimes and crimes against humanity may have been perpetrated in East Timor by the then military authorities of Indonesia. If people feel that in dropping our interest in war crimes we have in any way contributed to this expectation in some areas of the international community that war crimes and crimes against humanity such as those perpetrated in Bosnia and East Timor have in any way been lessened, we stand partially to blame for that development.I conclude by indicating my support for these amendments to the War Crimes Act 1945. I hope that the now democratic countries of the Baltic take the opportunity to use Australia's new ability to assist them in extraditing the two or three people who have been talked about internationally as people who may be in Australia and who, according to the democratic and historical experience of those Baltic countries, it is seen as essential to bring to those countries for trials and examination of their activities during World War II against citizens of those countries. I commend this amendment to the War Crimes Act 1945.11:39:0013396Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I think we all agree that we do not want to see Australia a haven for war criminals. The War Crimes Amendment Bill 1999 that we are debating here today will lead to the repeal of section 22 of the War Crimes Act. That will mean there will no longer be any need to establish a prima facie case prior to the extradition of people overseas for trial on issues in relation to alleged war crimes.One of the important principles involved is that international boundaries should not allow a person to evade criminal justice. One of the things that is referred to again and again in the literature surrounding this legislation is the fact that over the years we have seen, across the world, closed borders. Those closed borders, and the lack of ability to view proceedings behind those borders, have resulted in and facilitated fairly lurid media headlines from time to time when it has not been possible for a trial to proceed because of allegations occurring on one side of the boundary and people existing on the other side of the boundary.For example, I refer to some of the headlines that have gone before in the Australian Jewish News such as that on August 27 this year. It said, `Nazis in Australia: too late, says expert', and the article refers to media revelations that Australia secretly recruited known SS members, former Nazi storm-troopers and Nazi party members to work here as scientists and technicians after World War II. The same article states:Not every German was a Nazi and not every Nazi was a war criminal.But there is in that kind of a lurid presentation of the details a clear imputation that some of those people may have been involved in war crimes.What is a war crime? I will not go into all the details here. A war crime is defined in sections 6, 7 and 8 of the War Crimes Act. I am quoting here from an article by Gillian Triggs:A serious crime is a war crime if it was:(a) committed: (i) in the course of political, racist or religious persecution; or (ii) with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such, and(b) committed in the territory of a country when the country was involved in a war or when the territory of the country was subject to an occupation.War is defined by section 5 to mean war `in so far as it occurred in Europe in the period beginning on 1 September 1939 and ending on 8 May 1945'.That basically sets out what the War Crimes Act is dealing with, but I can go on into the article by Gillian Triggs and look at the consideration of people where, as I stated earlier, the allegations involved activities that were alleged to have occurred on the other side of borders that were for some time closed. I want to refer now to a case involving Mr Polyukhovich and the article by Gillian Triggs. She says:Mr Polyukhovich was seventy-two when, on 26 January, 1990, he was charged with nine offences (later amended to eighteen) alleging the murder of twenty-four men, women and children and of having been knowingly involved in the murder of 850 Jews in the Ukraine between 1941 and 1943. The day before he was to appear in the Adelaide Magistrates Court committal proceedings, Polyukhovich was shot in the chest and wounded. This delayed proceedings but did not cause them to be terminated.A litte further on in the article she says:Polyukhovich was committed to stand trial in the Supreme Court of South Australia on two charges relating to the killings of six people. In other words, prima facie evidence was found to exist in that case—that is, prima facie evidence as established within the Australian judicial system.The subsequent trial of Polyukhovich in the Supreme Court of South Australia came to an abrupt end when the indictments were quashed for lack of evidence. Apparently the court was not satisfied as to the credibility of the witnesses and was not prepared to allow such evidence as there was to go to the jury.That case indicates an example in which prima facie evidence was found to exist. What we are dealing with here is the idea that it is not necessary to find prima facie evidence, and that is certainly the case in all other matters apart from allegations of war crimes. In all other matters, dealings between international authorities occur because of extradition treaties on which there is no necessary evidence at all. All that is needed to be established is that there is a domestic law in Australia—in other words, an extradition agreement with that other country—and that there is an allegation and a request from that country for that to proceed.When we consider the needs for extradition, under the Extradition Act 1988, which will become the relevant act once section 22 of the War Crimes Act is repealed, there are protections in place. I want to refer in particular to the protections given to the Attorney-General. Before someone can be extradited, the Attorney-General has to be satisfied that there is no extradition objection in relation to the offence; that on surrender to the extradition country the person will not be subjected to torture; and that, where the offence is punishable by a penalty of death, special circumstances apply.The Attorney-General must consider one of the following alternatives: one, the person will not be tried for the offence; two, if the person is tried for the offence, the death penalty will not be imposed on the person; three, if the death penalty is imposed on the person, it will not be carried out. Further, the Attorney-General can satisfy himself or herself that a special assurance has been given in relation to the person. I am not covering all the specific details, but the Attorney-General also has discretion to consider that the person should be surrendered in relation to the particular offence.The international principle is that extradition proceedings have no function in determining whether someone is guilty or innocent. They are simply an administrative matter. Is the person concerned liable under our law to be surrendered up to another country to face trial? In other words, do we recognise their law and do they recognise ours? That is the basis on which an extradition agreement exists or does not exist.In the past there have been questions about whether people extradited to Warsaw Pact countries, under the former Warsaw Pact, would be provided with a fair trial. We have all heard allegations—it is probably a clear fact—that under those regimes there were political juntas and military juntas conducting show trials. There would be real concern in the mind of the average Australian that those things would have been occurring. However, since the collapse of the Soviet empire and the break-up of Yugoslavia, many ex-Warsaw Pact nations are now moving towards the mainstream in terms of their governance and in terms of their legal system.I think we would all have seen the notes that have been issued illustrating this bill which list a number of countries from that area. Is there any reason why we should not develop extradition agreements under our law with those particular countries? Can we establish those agreements? I would submit that we should be setting up those agreements. As I said, those borders have been an impediment for years to the proper review of people's behaviour or crimes alleged against them. Now is the opportunity to clear the air on those issues. Therefore, obviously I commend this bill.We would have to establish an extradition treaty with those nations before we would be obliged under our law to give up someone. I had a particular look at some of those ex-Warsaw Pact nations. I asked myself, `What other ones are there, apart from the ones listed as moving down this path? Are there some recalcitrant ones?' Obviously there are. For example, what is the position with Serbia? Would Australians in general like to see someone extradited to Serbia? I think many people would be concerned about that. Clearly that is not going to happen because we do not have any extradition agreement with them. We have nothing within our domestic law that would require an Attorney-General to give up someone for trial in Serbia.As these nations move towards the mainstream in terms of their governance, then we can make these agreements and we can then see justice done. Where there is an allegation made, it can be followed down the burrow. People can then determine whether there is a case to answer under the appropriate regime, and the decision can be made.There have been some examples. In 1997, Latvia sought documents regarding alleged genocide and war crimes by Mr Kalejs during the Second World War. It is possible that Latvia may seek to extradite Mr Kalejs when it has completed its examination of all this material, and an extradition treaty would facilitate that. By removing this requirement for an examination of prima facie evidence in such a case, Australia is clearing the way for such a thing to occur.Another example occurred when Lithuania sought information from Australia on alleged war crimes by Antanas Gudelis of Adelaide. A report in the Australian Jewish News of 30 July 1999 says:Mr Gudelis, 87, immigrated from Germany with his wife 50 years ago and became an Australian citizen. He is suspected of the mass murder of civilians in the Lithuania town of Kupiskis during World War II.The article goes on to say:Mr Gudelis was previously investigated by Australia's Special Investigations Unit (SIU), but prosecution did not proceed. The SIU was set up in 1987 following allegations of alleged war criminals . . . It investigated a number of cases of alleged war criminals under the War Crimes Act 1945.Four cases were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but none was successfully prosecuted before the SIU was closed down by the Federal Government in 1992. The government has been criticised since then for lack of political will on the issue of alleged war criminals living in Australia.I think this legislation puts an end to that kind of criticism.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Why?84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—Because it provides the opportunity for these people to be tried in areas where these things are alleged to have occurred. It is reasonable for people to continue to actively question the government on this issue because it is a very emotional one, but I do think that by opening the door for scrutiny overseas by the very people who are making the allegations, and by not keeping this impediment of prima facie evidence, Australia is coming to a position that is workable. I would be interested to hear what the member opposite has to say about that.It is a situation that is difficult. It has raised tremendous expectations in the past, only to have them dashed. I do not anticipate that that sort of thing is going to stop in future just because we do this, particularly so many years after the fact, but the point is, steps are being taken.I would like to reiterate that the end of the communist era means that these issues can be opened up to scrutiny. They can be tried in an environment which Australians would have trust in and would believe to be accurate. It means that the system in those countries is increasingly transparent. We in Australia need to facilitate the flow of justice in relation to these very emotional issues.As I said, this bill opens the way for that to occur. I welcome the support that has been forthcoming from members opposite in relation to it. It is important that such an emotional issue does not degenerate into a point scoring exercise. On the whole, that kind of temptation has been avoided in the past, and I hope that will continue to be the case in the future. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.11:54:0013399Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—It is my pleasure to speak on the War Crimes Amendment Bill 1999 , and I support the legislation. However, I have to say this legislation is long overdue because it is at least seven years since most of the Iron Curtain countries gained their independence and yet we are only just acting on this matter now. It has been far too slow in coming.Both sides of the House are, I think, open to criticism in relation to this matter. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry is correct in saying that the whole episode of war criminals from the Second World War in relation to Australia—and the approach of all governments—is a very sorry story. The fact is that, during that period after the war, a number of Nazis, fascists and people of very dubious background were allowed into Australia. When I consider the sorts of checks we make now on people who have legitimate reasons to come to Australia, as compared with what we did then with regard to some people whose background and motivation were amazing, I think this matter needed to be examined.I have been around for a few years. In 1987, thinking that we would be doing something, I supported the bill which set up the commission. By 1992, when there was not a single successful prosecution, those of us who took an interest in the matter were appalled. Not only had it cost the nation several million dollars but, as the honourable member for Denison has now pointed out in relation to this bill, we were frustrated by certain other factors. One was that in every case, rather than dealing with this matter in cooperation with other countries, we thought we would simply deal with it by trying people, or thinking about trying people, under Australian law with Australian practice. They would then have to pass the stricter criteria that are at present in our system.That would have been okay if our nation and certain sections of our bureaucracy had not covered up the fact that, when these characters came to Australia at that time, some of them knew of their background. Why has there not been an inquiry into this matter? We have all sorts of parliamentary and other inquiries but we have never had an inquiry into this very serious issue—the cover-up of war criminals who came to Australia after the Second World War. Yes, we had a War Crimes Tribunal established, but its business was to find individuals, not to look into the question of what actually happened in the Australian processes that allowed these people to come during that period. This is very serious: I am not sure that we have learnt from our history.I take this opportunity to say that I hope the parliament at some stage looks into this matter, looking into the role of our intelligence agencies, our immigration department and other bureaucracies that were involved in covering up the fact that some of these people who came out here had been directly responsible for the killing of a large number of innocent people, including Jewish people.I now turn to the question of what happened when we did form the War Crimes Tribunal and the sorry tale from 1987 to 1992—we never got a single conviction. We have been criticised in international circles about this. I remember that, at the time they wound it up, we were told that we had done our best and we had gone around trying to find information. In the case of the one person they managed to actually get before a court, it did not proceed in the end because they claimed that the information was not sufficiently powerful in relation to our judicial system.One wonders whether it would not have been better to start up an investigation into what actually happened in terms of the total process rather than set up a narrow tribunal that looked into the prosecution of individuals. Why were all those people who came here—they may since have died or there may not be sufficient evidence of all their misbehaviour—allowed into this country? Why were they not checked? Who covered up for them? We never investigated that.We are now being told by the minister in her second reading speech that the reason for this amendment is that things have changed in Europe, and that some of the countries that were behind the Iron Curtain are now part of the European family and we therefore needed to make some extradition treaties with them. But there is a problem: we have suddenly discovered that the criterion called the prima facie case that we have in the legislation under section 22 does not apply to all countries. Not all countries have a similar criterion. Why we suddenly discovered this after all these years is an interesting question.As the honourable member for Blair said earlier, even if we formed these extradition agreements with Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and several other countries in the former Soviet Union and perhaps even countries in the former Yugoslavia, because they have a different system of dealing with this—that is, a civil code system instead of the same criminal code system of the kind that we have—we still would not be able to get the extraditions going. That is why we want to get rid of section 22. I agree with that; the only thing is that we should have done it years ago. Many of the people who have been guilty of these crimes have now passed away or they are very old, and the possibility of putting together evidence, even under the civil code system, becomes much more difficult.Having said all that, I think we should now actively take advantage of the passing of this legislation and say that Australia is ready to cooperate with these countries in cases like this. We should, firstly, speedily ensure that we have extradition agreements and, secondly, where there are requests from these countries, deal with them under the civil code system of that particular country so that people can be extradited and dealt with for the things that they have done.I said earlier that maybe we have not completely learned the lesson of that previous experience. I would be interested to know whether the War Crimes Amendment Bill or the War Crimes Act as it stands will actually be applicable to the crimes against humanity issues that have arisen in relation to a number of places. I am referring particularly to former Yugoslavia. Will this legislation allow us to carry out extraditions against people who may have been involved in crimes against humanity in the former Yugoslavia? Will this legislation ensure that people who may have come from the former Yugoslavia who may be guilty of crimes against humanity are covered by the amended War Crimes Act? I would be interested in the minister's response to this issue.The terminology has changed in international forums from `war crimes' to `crimes against humanity'. This is important because of what happens in internal civil war type situations. In situations where there are ethnic conflicts within a particular country, there is no formal declaration of war but there are crimes against humanity. Will this amended legislation be able to deal with that sort of issue? If not, I would suggest that we have missed an opportunity to actually get Australia involved in an international effort in relation to these matters.We have had a number of sensational incidents in relation to this term `crimes against humanity', the most famous being the Pinochet case in Britain, where Spain requested the extradition of the former president and dictator Mr Pinochet for crimes against humanity committed while he was president of his country.Let us assume that we had a Pinochet type personality here in Australia and a country requested the extradition of that person. Would this legislation, as amended, cover that sort of incident? Would it cover that type of case? If not, why not? If we have amended legislation, why haven't we taken account of this matter in order to deal with that sort of contingency? And you do not have to be a president. You can be a significant player who has been responsible for crimes against humanity in one of these situations—in a civil war, in an ethnic conflict or, as in the Pinochet case, where the crime is against one's own people.I would be interested to find out whether the amended legislation is going to cover these situations. If not, I would like to say that I am pretty disappointed that it does not and that there ought to have been further amendments to this legislation to deal with that sort of issue. If the intention of this legislation is to overcome bottlenecks in relation to the past, in relation to 30 or 40 years ago, we should also have learnt from the hard lessons of that time and be ready to deal with more contemporary cases.We are talking now about dealing with crimes against humanity in relation to East Timor. We have made quite a bit of fuss about that, and of course I agree that we ought to be pursuing it. But what about our own legislation? For example, what if somebody from Indonesia manages to become a permanent Australian resident or citizen and it is discovered that that person was involved in East Timor human rights abuses? Would that be covered under this legislation?I think it is very important that we confront these issues. We do not want to be left with the following comment made by the Vice-President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry at the end of the Australian process when he said:Now we have the benefit of 10 years to look at the legislation that was adopted—that was the 1989 amendments to the War Crimes Act—we can see that it failed. It not only failed to deal with that one situation, it failed to deal with the other cases.What is left is a situation where the information, the allegations, the research is all out there and there's still more that can be conceivably done if the government was willing to devote the resources.Perhaps that point ought to be taken on board as well. Perhaps we have not devoted sufficient resources in the right way when dealing with this issue.As we move towards the new millennium and we look at casting off some of the worst aspects of our history, one of the worst things in our history has been the fact that war criminals were able to come to Australia and survive here when they had done awful things and that, by the time we got around to doing something about it, many of them had either passed away or the evidence had disappeared. We have not even seriously investigated why all of that happened.When we are facing up to the future, when we have seen the situations that have occurred in various places around the world, especially in the former Yugoslavia, and we know that there may be people here who have been involved in some of these crimes, let us make sure that we have the weapons, that we have the legislation and that we have the political will to pursue any such people so that we do not repeat the episode which occurred after the Second World War in relation to the Nazis. I support the legislation.12:11:0013402Stone, Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLP10—in reply—I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. It was pleasing to hear that members of the opposition support the very important amendments contained in the War Crimes Amendment Bill 1999 . In particular, I was pleased to see the support from the opposition shadow minister for justice and customs, the member for Denison.The member for Calwell, Dr Theophanous, raised a number of important issues. For example, he talked long and hard about the amendments contained in the bill being about 10 years overdue. It is indeed a shame that the previous government did not listen to the member for Calwell, who was part of that government. No doubt he called for those sorts of amendments in his time but the then government did not listen or respond. The good news is that this government has acted very promptly indeed, so we have before us today this bill which repeals section 22. This bill was introduced in 1998 but it lapsed when parliament was prorogued and it has been reintroduced very promptly following the re-election of the government. On that front, I should think that the member for Calwell is somewhat better pleased with the performance of this government in relation to the matter.The member for Calwell was also very concerned in that he felt there had never been in this country any investigation of potential bureaucratic cover-up in relation to alleged war criminals slipping through the net immediately after the Second World War, and since, coming into this country. He alleged that perhaps there was some bureaucratic cover-up at that time and there had never been any concern from any government of the day to check allegations which I presume have been made over a number of years.Under Prime Minister Robert Menzies there was an independent inquiry which looked at whether or not there was any incompetence or deliberate cover-up in terms of people coming to this country who were potential or alleged war criminals. I refer the member to Parliamentary Paper No. 90/1987, which will give him access to the findings of that inquiry. I will read briefly from paragraph (3) of the section headed `Findings':While Australian officers in Europe endeavoured to prevent the acceptance for migration to Australia of persons responsible for war crimes, and these endeavours must have prevented many war criminals from entering Australia, there were serious limitations, particularly in early years, in numbers and geographical spread of staff available to do the necessary checking and equally serious gaps in the data against which Australian security officers would have made their checks, particularly in relation to non-Germans. These limitations and gaps would have made possible the entry of persons responsible for war crimes although the number of persons so admitted would have been a minute proportion of the enormous number of persons who migrated to Australia in the post-war years.Paragraph (4) refers to chapter 7 of the report in the following terms:. . . no person admitted into Australia under arrangements with U.K. or U.S. intelligence agencies, to the knowledge of Australian authorities, appears to have been the object of charges or allegations as to commission of war crimes although there is a possibility that, particularly before 1956, former employees of such agencies may have entered Australia without the knowledge of Australian authorities.Certainly, the Liberal government of the day tried very hard to sort out if there were problems deliberately perpetrated when it came to letting people into this country who should not be here.The member for Melbourne Ports was most concerned about the US current affairs program 20/20, which screened last week. It suggested that it is quite an easy thing to live in Australia as a war criminal. The member for Melbourne Ports was quite rightly concerned about Australia's reputation if that sort of thing were true, and he seemed to think that that in fact was the case. That television program was followed up last week by the 7.30 Report.Of course, the member for Melbourne Ports, like the US 20/20 producers and Australia's own 7.30 Report producers, failed to stress the fact that we have very different systems in place when it comes to how we go about prosecuting alleged war criminals. For example, the US uses the Immigration Nationality Act 1952, which allows for the deportation of any alien who was simply associated with the Nazi government or any area occupied by the forces of that government with any established Nazi assistance. There is no need to prove a suspect has any personal involvement in any war crime. The proceedings are civil. So the association has to be proved only on the balance of probabilities. As well, if the suspect concealed wartime activities when applying for a US visa and that concealment was found to be a wilful and material misrepresentation, then that is also additional grounds for deportation.On the other hand, Australia must, under the War Crimes Act 1945, prove the actual commission of a war crime within the meaning of the act or an ancillary offence such as aiding and abetting beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is subject to rigorous criminal, evidentiary and procedural requirements. The suspects have the same rights in Australia under the law as any other Australian suspected of committing a serious crime. So the Australia government of the day—and I think most of us would agree it would continue—was concerned that the fairness of the Australian criminal justice system should not be perverted for the sake of easy popular convictions based on inadequate evidence.Deportation was not an easy option under Australian law. Until 1998, there was a limit of 10 years before the commission of an offence of giving false information in applying for Australian citizenship after which a person would no longer be liable for deportation for that offence. In 1998, our government removed that time limit, but the effect of the amendment was prospective only. Therefore, people who have already received the benefit of the time limit cannot be deported now under the amended provision. I hope that the member for Melbourne Ports understands that we have different systems. It is easy to say that the US has many points and Australia zero, but that is comparing apples and pears. Let me reiterate that the War Crimes Amendment Bill 1999 deals with very serious issues of a long time ago, but time has not indeed dimmed any Australian's sense of justice when it comes to prosecuting and assisting with prosecutions of those alleged of war crimes.Section 22 imposes a specific requirement for the content of extradition requests to Australia with respect to conduct which would be covered by the act—in other words, certain crimes committed in Europe during World War II. Currently such requests must be accompanied by the presentation of evidence which establishes a prima facie case that the person has committed the alleged war crime. The main justification for the repeal of section 22 is that it is no longer appropriate to include this onerous requirement for war crime extraditions, particularly following the emergence of newly independent states in Europe from behind the Iron Curtain.In principle, Australia is interested in establishing modern extradition arrangements with these countries which have now been accepted as members of the Council of Europe. So the enactment of this bill, together with the completion of these new modern extradition arrangements, will increase significantly our ability to cooperate with other countries which seek our assistance in bringing alleged World War II criminals to trial. I think all Australians would be with us today in agreeing that this is a very important amendment. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Adjournment13404Motion (by Mr Neville) proposed:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.1340412:20:0013404Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Today I would like to pay tribute to all the members of the Lilley Pricewatch team. They do important work detecting price rises in supermarkets. They act as a thermometer detecting heat seeking price rises.The Pricewatch surveys were commenced by my predecessor, Mrs Elaine Darling, and they have been carried on by me since 1993. From relatively humble beginnings, the survey has expanded to a total of 27 supermarkets located within and adjacent to the electorate of Lilley, which is situated in the northern suburbs of Brisbane. A fixed basket of 38 grocery items is surveyed at irregular periods by a group of volunteers. Naturally, we have no prior knowledge of any promotions or specials involving items included in our basket and we record both the everyday shelf price and a special price, if applicable.We take extreme care to ensure the accuracy of our surveys. On receipt, they are scanned to establish whether any apparent errors are recorded. If uncertainty exists, a second check of the store is carried out. The results are maintained on spreadsheets which provide the data to enable an analysis to be carried out. For much of this year, we have been reporting price increases at a rate three times the increase in the CPI and that is a matter of extreme concern.In particular, I would like to pay tribute to a number of people from the Pricewatch team: Mavis Sinclair, Gaye Tatasciore, Edwina Anderson, Valmai Fisher, Carol Langfield, Brigit Langer, Eunice Jenkin, Bernie Kingston, Louin Wright, Noeline Coran, Sylvia Davey, Gregory Hughes, Christine Gordan, Ben Thompson, Gwen Thomas, Janette Ryan, Bobby Flanagan and Jules Shegog, Joan Ross, Claire Don, Rona Belton, Lola Palmsellers, Karina King, Ailsa Tryst, Gwenneth Smith, Maisie Llwellyen, Donna Smart, Louise Koster and Janette Bohan.The other thing that there is a lot of community concern about is increases in the price of milk. This year, in Brisbane, the price of milk has risen something like 12 per cent, and that is when there has been an official inflation rate of 1.1 per cent. The price of a litre of milk was $1.17 at the beginning of this year and it is now $1.32. Many people living in the northern suburbs of Brisbane are extremely concerned and have written to me about this matter. For example, a letter from Taigum said:I am thoroughly disgusted at the increases in milk prices. We have two children to encourage to drink plenty of milk so they grow up healthy and have strong bones and teeth, but the more it costs to buy each week, the less I encourage them to drink.From Boondall:My husband and I receive a Carer's Pension and are caring for three intellectually disabled people (also on Pensions) in our own home. We have no other source of revenue—savings or super. If these types of price rises continue and are not off-set by pension rises, we will soon find it impossible to care for our charges.From Deagon:With the rise in the price of milk, we are now in a situation where it is cheaper to give our children Cocoa-Cola than to provide them with this necessary nutrition of milk, and have no doubt this will happen with the poorer people of our country.People are being savaged by price rises. I am extremely concerned that this is yet another example of price increases being introduced ahead of the GST. If price increases on milk are already outstripping inflation 10 times over, what will happen to the price of milk when the rate of inflation is five per cent, as has been predicted by analysts like the Commonwealth Bank and now the Reserve Bank? KPMG, in a government sponsored study, have already predicted a GST from 1 July will add at least 7.5 per cent to food prices and this will be on top of the pre-GST price rises currently hitting consumers.If the Howard government and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission cannot protect families from price hikes on basic dietary necessities like milk and bread before the GST is introduced, I am extremely concerned at what actions we can expect in a post-GST environment.Following the increase in the price of milk, I decided to look at the legislation to see whether the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission would do anything about it. I was surprised to find that they could do nothing about it unless there was a special reference from the Treasurer to the ACCC about milk in Brisbane. Accordingly, I have written to the Treasurer, Mr Costello, saying:. . . I earnestly request that you exercise your powers under s.18(1) of the Prices Surveillance Act 1983 and require the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission to hold an enquiry into the two price rises by Pauls Limited and the two rises announced by Dairy Farmers which have occurred since deregulation. Although the rises did not coincide exactly, they became effective within one week of each other.The terms of reference should include an investigation into the possibility of collusion in setting prices and also whether Pauls Limited is using its pre-eminent market strength to manipulate the Brisbane market.(Time expired)1340512:25:0013405Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—National institutions are important windows into the character of a country. They are literally the embodiment of the historical, social and artistic standards of its people. Quite rightly, we take enormous pride in institutions like the High Court, Questacon, cultural vehicles like the Australian Opera, the Australian Ballet and the Sydney and Melbourne symphony orchestras or, for that matter, repositories like the National Library and the Australian War Memorial.No less so should be our National Art Gallery. What it displays of Australian art is a window into the artistic and cultural qualities of Australia. Equally, what it displays from overseas is Australia's endorsement of what citizens of this country see and appreciate. A national gallery should be showing the best of the best. That said, I heartily endorse the action of the National Gallery Director, Dr Brian Kennedy, in cancelling the Sensation exhibition. This is an exhibition which features an image of the Virgin Mary splattered with elephant dung, a wall-sized portrait of a convicted child killer, a cow's head live with maggots, dead animals in formaldehyde and a head sculpted from an artist's blood—hardly edifying stuff.I am no prude and, in broad terms, I abhor censorship, but this country needs to preserve certain mores, and there are times when we should draw a line in the sand. For example, we do not tolerate the depiction or promotion of paedophilia in any art or film form. In fact, a bill which will shortly be before us will not even allow young adults to be used to represent or depict paedophilia. I also believe that we should not tolerate the denigration of religious symbols of any religion. I supported the decision to remove the Serrano photographic exhibition in 1997 and, on similar grounds, I support this decision to reject the Sensation exhibition.It is one thing to take the mickey out of the pomposity of the clergy as Dave Allen was wont to do in his TV programs, but it is totally different to depict the foremost symbol of Christianity in an immersion of urine as Serrano did. This is about the most offensive depiction imaginable to any practising Christian. To represent the Virgin Mary with elephant dung is equally offensive. If these images are not blasphemous, what is?We have no established religion—quasi or otherwise in this country—nor would I advocate it for one moment, yet it would be fair to say that many of our laws, our legislative procedures, the conduct of our universities and our military traditions have their genesis in the Christian tradition. While this should not be lorded over citizens who are atheists, humanists or from other religious traditions, it is entitled to be treated with equal respect. Our Jewish and Muslim communities object to any denigration of their religious or cultural traditions or symbols, and they are quite entitled to do so. But it seems to be fashionable by some in the arts community and the media to denigrate Christian symbols with some of the most outrageous and offensive depictions of these Christian symbols, and that is what is happening with this exhibition called Sensation.The Sensation exhibition denigrates not only Christian symbols but also the quality of young artists. Apparent justification for exhibitions such as Sensation has gone along the lines that it is the duty of the gallery, as a national institution, to show young artists of another country and what they are doing. But, as art critic Giles Auty said in the Australian on 30 November, the objection here is that the art collected by the exhibition coordinator, Charles Saatchi, is not generally typical of anything at all.The images depicted by the artists in this exhibition are, at best, on the fringe of artistic acceptance. They are simply trying to gain attention by being outrageous. Allowing work like that to be included in our national gallery does not send a positive image to our youth and denigrates the standing of a fine national institution.1340712:30:0013407Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise today to address the question which has received increasing media attention, that of databases and the concern that many Australians have about what information is being stored about them and for what purpose. I want to use two examples today. The first is the decision by Centrelink to outsource to a direct marketing company, Salmat, the information which will be sent to Centrelink clients. This decision needs to be put in the context of the Auditor-General's report on privacy in Centrelink which drew attention to a number of inadequacies there and noted that they could not give a report on outsourced activities from Centrelink because they simply did not have access.This is quite a serious issue. This company will now have access to 6½ million names. The contract is worth some $32 million. Of great concern is that, as I understand it, at the time that the contract was given to Salmat, they were under Federal Police investigation for fraud. So there is a great deal of concern about the security of customers' details and information as a result of this decision by the government.The second issue I wish to raise is that of tenancy databases. As you may be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are a number of private companies that hold personal information about tenants. Tens of thousands of tenants are listed on these databases, which contain information collected from tenants at the time they apply for a rental property. These databases can then be accessed by agents and landlords for a fee as a way of checking the rental history of the individual. Commonly known as bad tenant databases, the principal objective of these is to pass information between agents and landlords about the desirability of different tenants.The principal problem with these databases is that lack of regulation enables database operators to list tenants with no proof of any wrongdoing by the tenant. Moreover, once tenants find themselves on such databases, they find extreme difficulty in having themselves removed, whether or not they are responsible. An ongoing case in Sydney underlines the problems associated with the operation of tenancy databases.Mrs Christine Lindsay, of Baulkham Hills, is a small business owner who is currently in rental accommodation. Due to her hectic schedule she has in the past paid her rent a couple of days late, but she has always been able to pay and she has never defaulted on her rent for the fortnight. The practice between the agent and herself has been that if her rent is late the agent has called her and she has been able to run down to the office and pay her fortnightly rent. However, Mrs Lindsay's real estate agents have now joined TICA, a default tenancy control system. In November this year Mrs Lindsay was 14 days late with her rent. Instead of the normal friendly phone call, she received a threatening letter in the mail from TICA. The letter informed her that her debt had been placed on the national tenancy database. The letter then stated:Due to your actions you may now find difficulties in freely obtaining rental accommodation.It went on to say that she might have problems obtaining credit in the future. This terrifying letter was delivered to a small business woman who was just 14 days overdue and has always paid her rent in the past. She had no ability to find out whether her name had been removed from the list.Indeed, in order to check whether your name is on the tenancy database, you need to call the company and give them your current address and drivers licence number, thus providing the database company with even more personal information than they may already have. For the privilege, you will charged $4.95 per minute from a regular phone and more from mobile phones. It is in the database company's interest to have more names on the list, rather than fewer. Member organisations pay to look up names and, in some circumstances, pay if the database company is able to find the tenant's name on their list.In other instances, they have been listed on databases when they have never even lived at the property where the breach was supposed to have occurred and have found it difficult to have themselves removed. Moreover, there are no clear regulations about the maximum length of time that a tenant is to be listed. Tenants might find themselves on lists many years after the supposed breach is committed.I understand that a series of national privacy principles have been proposed as part of a current review of the Federal Privacy Act. However, the Privacy Commissioner has stated that the legislation will be complaint driven rather than provide protection through proper regulation over the sensitive area of the collection and transfer of personal information. Apart from the discrimination against those who are often the weakest link in the housing chain, tenancy databases and their inherent problems highlight some of the broader issues surrounding privacy regulation in Australia. This parliament should not support private companies being able to develop highly sophisticated and extensive databases on Australian citizens. (Time expired)1340812:35:0013408Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise today to speak about an issue that the residents of Kurnell are facing. The federal government has in place a program which covers the cost of insulating houses which are subject to aircraft noise levels at or above the 30 Australian Noise Exposure Forecast, ANEF, and also schools and churches which experience considerable noise exposure. Residents in my electorate living in the suburb of Kurnell experience noise which is in the 20 to 25 ANEF range, and as such are not compensated for noise insulation they may wish to undertake in their homes.I think that this is unfair. The residents of Kurnell experience more aircraft noise than any other area in the entire confines of Sydney and also more than any other in Australia as 55 per cent of all aircraft go over Kurnell. The latest figures show that between 52 and 53 per cent of all aircraft go over Kurnell, yet the residents get no compensation for insulation of their houses at all because they fall just outside that requirement.People wishing to build houses or an extension in Kurnell must comply with a whole gamut of building regulations of the Sutherland Shire Council, which ensures safety and privacy from neighbours, conformity with the general style of surrounding buildings and so on. They must also comply with Australian Standard 2021, which relates to aircraft noise insulation. This standard dictates that new properties within a 20 to 25 ANEF contour must be insulated against aircraft noise. This is a requirement of the state government regional environmental plan No. 17, clause 23(2). On a typical house, such as the one proposed for construction by Kevin Davis of Kurnell, noise insulation measures cost around $45,000. Some noise measures include installing two windows and one frame and the hiring of acoustic engineers, for example.I find it grossly unfair that residents are forced to pay such high costs. I have a letter from Mr Kevin Davis who intends to build a new house in Kurnell. He writes:A condition of our building approval from the Sutherland Shire Council, is to provide noise insulation measures Australian Standard AS2021. Apparently this is a requirement of the State Government Regional Environmental Plan No. 17 Clause 23(2). We have now let a contract for the construction of our house and our Builder has given us a written statement that the aircraft noise insulation measures cost $58,650.Some of the noise measures are quite extensive.What we have in this situation is a double whammy: on the one hand, 53 per cent of all aircraft take off and land over the residents of Kurnell, yet they do not receive anything for noise insulation; on the other hand, when they build an extension or a new home, they are subject to massive costs not experienced anywhere else in Sydney. I think this is grossly unfair. It is time that the various government authorities come together to solve this problem for the residents of Kurnell.1340912:38:0013409Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—The Ipswich region has for some time received unfavourable media and negative publicity from a variety of sources. This has caused many people—including me—in our community to be concerned with the perceptions and the images of the region and the city of Ipswich. I could go on about how hard done by we are or how it is not fair that we cop more than our fair share of negative projections and images of where live, but there is clearly no use in complaining or hoping that just by ignoring the issue it will go away or somehow change will occur unaided.There is a real spirit of pride in the community of Ipswich, in the Ipswich City Council and in the Ipswich business community, which have united in an endeavour to positively change the image of the Ipswich region. Ipswich is a city that has been part of the shaping of Queensland, a city steeped in a history that is very much part of its future. But it is also a city that is at the forefront of regional change and innovation, preparing to take the region and its residents well into the 21st century.To achieve this change, the city of Ipswich through its council will be launching a campaign to highlight the strengths, character, history and achievements of this great region. Sometimes the best way to bring about change is to start by leading. That lead will come from positive efforts to address and eradicate negative media perceptions of the area.One of the biggest problems we have is that some in the media, and sometimes even some of our own people, have been the city's harshest critics. It is time for all of us to turn that around and push for a balance and for positive images to be portrayed in place of the negatives that are always existent if you do not work hard enough to see the positives.By increasing awareness, we can build pride in our local communities and, by uniting local and diverse interest groups, we can promote common good. Through the Pride campaign the city will build confidence in visitor experiences, and that will involve acknowledging our many heritage sights and places of interest to all Australians.Ipswich is very similar to many regional cities throughout Australia. It has colourful people, colourful places and an abundance of potential. For that potential to be realised, we will need to use all of these assets to promote and build a new image. Any good campaign must also be backed by the people. And there is no more positive way to show support than through buying local goods and services. This will attract new business, trade and investment and increase economic activity, which will in turn create jobs and help build a strong vibrant tourism industry.I am confident in saying that Ipswich is well and truly on the map—and for all the right reasons. It is the first city to have launched the global information links concept, a true innovation well ahead of its time. GIL, as it is affectionately known, has delivered on actually bringing Internet services and information to the region even before it became popular in recent government proposals.Ipswich has a cutting edge interactive gallery called GAL, based on delivering the latest technology and delivering services for a changing expectation. Ipswich has a new university and a new racetrack, which recently hosted the seventh round of the Shell Touring Car series as well as having the Willowbank International Speedway. Ipswich is truly a city that is on the move.Beyond all of this, our city has a great sense of community. We do things for ourselves. We have fantastic community groups, large numbers of volunteers that donate their time to others and community based organisations that work hard to make living in this region better for all. And their work should be more loudly applauded.It is incumbent on every stakeholder in Ipswich to play their role. I call on our local media to take a new approach in reporting many of the positive events that occur in our city. I call on all our elected representatives in all levels of government, regardless of their political persuasion, to sweep in 2000 with a rejuvenated approach to our region, and to promote the city in all of their dealings.I call on our business leaders to be confident of the business potential they have within their reach, to compete hard with other cities like Brisbane and, especially, to never sell themselves short on what they can deliver for this region. Ipswich has many businesses that can take on the world, and many of them actually do win. I call on all our community and church leaders to promote the good work they do and be proud of the services they provide in our community.Finally, I call on every resident of Ipswich to take every opportunity to participate in the Ipswich Pride campaign. It is their efforts in the end that will make all the difference. I look forward to a bright and prosperous future for the city. Ipswich is truly the smart city, the cultural city and the heritage city. It is a city constantly on the move.1341012:43:0013410May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—Today I rise to speak in support of the introduction of daylight saving to put a halt to the confusion and inconvenience experienced by many residents in south-east Queensland and in my electorate of McPherson. I call on the Queensland government and, in particular, Labor Premier Peter Beattie to take a stand and introduce daylight saving to bring the south-eastern corner of the state into line with other major cities on the eastern seaboard. The situation between the Tweed and Gold Coast is simply ridiculous once again as we enter the summer months.South-east Queensland residents are behind the eight ball by being an hour behind New South Wales, Victoria and Hobart during the summer months. Without a doubt, residents of south-east Queensland want this confusion to end. They want a stop to the inconvenience, the puzzlement and the exasperation.Residents and business people in south-east Queensland are suffering. Business is particularly affected, and people living and working on opposite sides of the border experience confusion and major inconveniences which impact on family life. There is also no doubt that, for the sake of tourism, daylight saving is absolutely necessary.In a poll conducted last week by our city's metropolitan daily newspaper, the Gold Coast Bulletin, almost two-thirds, 64 per cent, of residents responded by saying they wanted daylight saving introduced. Only 30 per cent voted against the idea. Seven years ago, when a referendum was held on the issue, the result was similar: 66 per cent voted yes in 1992 and 33 per cent voted no. Unfortunately, the rest of Queensland voted against daylight saving so it was not implemented. There is no doubt what the people of south-east Queensland want, but the Premier of Queensland is just not listening.Mr Beattie has told Gold Coast residents that during this term of office he will not address their concerns on the daylight saving issue. He has said that he will hold a referendum on the issue if he is re-elected for a second term. These comments are not good enough. Queensland needs to introduce daylight saving immediately for the economic benefit of south-east Queensland residents and business people. The Premier needs to give serious consideration to bringing the south-east corner in line with other major cities on the eastern seaboard. Referendums are extremely costly and do not immediately address the problem of daylight saving. In addition, with the Olympics coming up, different time zones are going to cause confusion for athletes and visitors to our nation.I have also called on the state member for Currumbin, Mary Rose, to lobby the Premier for his support in putting a stop to this confusion at the border. As the only government state member on the Gold Coast, Mrs Rose has a responsibility to address the concerns of residents and business people in south-east Queensland. I strongly support comments made by the Prime Minister last week suggesting a shake-up of Australian time zones. Under the current system, Australia has four different time zones over summer, which makes life more than a little difficult. Under such a move, south-east Queensland would move to daylight saving with Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart. For the sake of residents and business people in south-east Queensland, daylight saving needs to be introduced as soon as possible.1341112:47:0013411Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—To continue my speech this morning on illegal immigrants, I would now like to quote a letter from Mr John Gordon which was published in the Advertiser on Tuesday, 30 November 1999. The letter is entitled `Think Twice', and it sums up the feelings of many of my constituents in Makin. It states:So it may be tough on the illegal immigrants, boat people or whatever they are called when they are housed in solid construction buildings at Woomera. They should be given the same conditions that I and hundreds of other workers at the construction camps at Phillip Ponds, Koolymilka and Woomera West had to put up with in the `50's. Two men shared a tent and we were issued with an iron trundle bed, mattress, pillow, two blankets, no linen, a kerosene lantern, washbowl, enamel plates (two of), knife, fork and spoon.To shower we had to hand pump water up into a showerhead, and if it was cold we had to light a fire under a copper and then pump. We were allowed two bottles of beer every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Wine and spirits were a prohibited import but some was smuggled in. We survived and built the rocket range. These conditions may make illegal persons think twice about coming. Molly-coddling them and making them feel at home is like putting out the welcoming mat. Turn the boats around or tow them back to the ports they came from—that would be a far bigger deterrent.I can confirm that these conditions experienced by Mr John Gordon and others is true, as my father as a legal migrant to this country in the 1950s also lived in a tent for two years while he helped build railways at Islington in Adelaide, South Australia.1341212:48:0013412Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I want to read briefly from the Northern District Times of this week, which says in its opening paragraph, page 3:Telopea Post Office made history on Monday after becoming the only branch to survive closure and reopen its doors thanks to the remarkable community support.I want to thank Bruce Darley from Darley's Butchers in Telopea, Bernie Smith from the Telopea Newsagency and Susan Salt from the Telopea Hair Studio. In particular, I want to thank my Labor local government colleague, Lord Mayor David Borger, who worked very closely with us in a remarkable community campaign to turn around the monolith of Australia Post and to refocus on its local customers. That is what happened in Telopea. I want to invite all Australians to come to the street party which will be held at the Telopea shopping centre on Friday, 17 December at 4 p.m. to celebrate what is a great milestone in people power, in community activism. It is a great success story for one gutsy local community.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The time allowed for the debate has expired. The committee stands adjourned until a day and hour to be announced by the Deputy Speaker.Main Committee adjourned at 12.50 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing13413The following answers to questions were circulated:13413(Question No. 815)81513413Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) Are persons under age 60 but in receipt of income support excluded from the proposed one-off Aged Persons Savings Bonus; if so, why.(2) Are retirees and those on support payments, who are aged under age 60 excluded from the bonus; if so, why.(3) Has he received advice that the age 60 limit is not discriminatory; if so, what are the details.(4) Is it possible to include certain groups of payments within the guidelines so that those genuinely retired under age 60 are included in the bonus provisions; if not, why not.13413Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The amended answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Persons aged under 60 years in receipt of Commonwealth income support payments will receive a 4 per cent increase in those payments on 1 July 2000. Other associated allowances such as the pharmaceutical allowance and the mobility allowance will also increase by 4 per cent and the maximum rent assistance rate will increase by 7 per cent from 1 July 2000.(2) See answer to (1). In addition, persons aged under age 60 can benefit from significant reductions in personal income tax. If those persons have dependent children they can also benefit from the families package component of the new tax system. Self-funded retirees aged 55 or more who are not in receipt of a Commonwealth income support payment will be eligible to receive the Self-Funded Retirees Supplementary Bonus which provides a one-off, non-taxable payment of up to $2,000 for a single self-funded retiree or up to $2,000 each for a self-funded retiree couple.(3) See answer to (1) and (2).(4) The Government's new tax system is designed so that all Australians share in the benefit of tax reform. Persons genuinely retired under age 60 can benefit from elements of the new tax system such as the income tax cuts; the Self-Funded Retirees Supplementary Bonus; the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate/benefit introduced on 1 January 1999; and redesigned company tax ar rangements, whereby excess imputation credits will be refundable to resident taxable individuals and complying superannuation funds.13413(Question No. 874)87413413Hollis, Colin, MPMr HollisDH4ThrosbyALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 24 August 1999:What international (a) conventions, (b) treaties and (c) agreements have been implemented by federal legislation since the answer to question No 764 (Hansard , 21 November 1996, page 7361).13413Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I note that the honourable member has asked for this information in a series of questions going back some years. In the Government's response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee report Trick or Treaty? Commonwealth Power to Make and Implement Treaties, a commitment was made to provide an annual list to the Parliament of Commonwealth legislation specifically implementing treaties. The complete lists for 1996-1997 have been compiled and are set out below. The 1998 list is under preparation and will be tabled as soon as possible.I am informed that the following Acts passed by the Federal Parliament during 1996 and 1997 expressly implemented international conventions, treaties or agreements. Included under the name of each Act is a brief explanation setting out the relevant international convention, treaty or agreement or other matter of international law.Dairy Produce Amendment Act 1996 (No 3 of 1996)This Act complements the Dairy Produce Levy (No 1) Amendment Act 1996 in providing the legal framework for the administration of the dairy market support scheme by the Australian Dairy Corporation. The provisions of the Act revise the definitions of market milk and manufacturing milk, by reference to the Dairy Produce Levy (No 1) Amendment Act 1996 to allow the established milk payment practices of the dairy industry to continue unchanged and to remain consistent with the World Trade Organisation Agreement.Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Amendment Act 1996 (No 4 of 1996) This Act introduced minor but necessary amendments to ensure consistency between industry milk payment practices and the dairy market support legislation. Following the Uruguay round of trade negotiations, Australia introduced new arrangements from 1 July 1995 to deliver assistance to dairy producers through a clearly defined and transparent domestic support scheme. Administration of the scheme by the Australian Dairy Corporation (ADC) is on the basis of industry milk payment practices which were not consistent with the legislation. This Act retrospectively aligned the market support legislation with the administrative arrangements of the ADC. The market support arrangements remain consistent with the World Trade Organisation Agreement.Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1996 (No 7 of 1996)This Act amended the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989 to ensure that Australia can discharge its obligations under international instruments relating to the control of transboundary movements of hazardous waste. The Basel Convention was drafted to cover the process of final disposal and recovery operations of hazardous waste, and both kinds of processes are included in the Convention definitions under the single term `disposal'. The principal Act had to be widened to cover a wide range of hazardous wastes from which valuable materials are to be recovered. Amending the Act remedied the discrepancy between our international obligations and our domestic legislation.Customs Tariff (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1996 (No 15 of 1996)The Act introduced changes to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. The 1995 Tariff Act reflected some 350 changes to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System of the World Customs Organisation in 1993. Australia became a party to the Convention in 1987. The 1995 Tariff Act gave effect to Australia's obligations to align its tariff structure with the international standard. The 1987 Tariff Act was repealed by Part 3 of the 1995 Tariff Act with effect from 1 July 1996. Schedule 1 of this Act allows for the update of all references from the 1987 Tariff Act to the 1995 Tariff Act and its corresponding provisions to ensure their continued effectiveness. Schedule 2 allows a similar update to several types of instruments such as by-laws and Tariff Concession Orders.Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Act (No 1) 1996 (No 18 of 1996)This Act introduced amendments to various Acts for which the then Department of Primary Industries and Energy had responsibility including the Offshore Minerals Act 1994 ('Minerals Act'). Section 15 of the Minerals Act was amended to preserve the integrity of licences granted under the Act, the boundaries of which might be affected by changes in the location of the territorial sea baseline. Previously the section applied only where changes to the baseline might be caused by natural processes such as tides or storms. The amendment expanded the section to apply it to changes in the location of the baseline resulting from acquisition of new data or reconsideration of existing data.Australian Sports Drug Agency Amendment Act 1996 (No 20 of 1996)This Act amended the Australian Sports Drug Agency Act 1990. This amendment allowed the Australian Sports Drug Agency (ASDA), amongst other things, to work more cooperatively with international sports organisations to conduct tests both at major sporting events and out of competition on an annual basis. It further enhanced the role of ASDA in aiming to eliminate drugs in sport in line with anti-doping agreements that Australia has concluded with other countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada, France, New Zealand and Norway, and is in line with the Council of Europe Anti-Doping Convention to which Australia has acceded.Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Fees) Amendment Act 1996 (No 26 of 1996)This amendment to the Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Fees) Act 1991 allowed the Government to collect the full telecommunications carriers' share of the United Nations International Telecommunication Union (ITU) contribution. The unamended Act would not have allowed this as the collection of the full telecommunications carriers' share of the ITU contribution would have exceeded the amount provided for under the Act. The ITU is a UN specialised agency which is concerned with international cooperation in the use of telecommunications and the radio frequency spectrum.Crimes Amendment (Controlled Operations) Act 1996 (No. 28 of 1996)This Act amended the Crimes Act 1914 to exempt from criminal liability certain law enforcement officers who engage in `controlled operations' to obtain evidence of offences relating to narcotic goods and related purposes. The Act gave effect to certain provisions in the UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988, which deals with controlled operations to counter organised and sophisticated traffickers.Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (No 32 of 1996)One provision of this Act requires the Law Reform Commission to aim at ensuring that the laws, proposals and recommendations it reviews, considers or makes are, as far as practicable, consistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and that in performing its functions it pays regard to all of Australia's relevant international obligations.Taxation Laws Amendment (International Tax Agreements) Act 1996 (No 39 of 1996)This Act gave legislative force to the provisions of the double taxation agreement between the Australian Commerce and Industry Office and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office signed on 29 May 1996 in Canberra. The Act inserted the text of the Agreement into the Income Tax (International Agreements) Act 1953 as a schedule to that Act.Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (No 40 of 1996)This Act regulates the provision by Australia of international assistance in criminal matters when certain requests are made by a foreign country, and it facilitates the obtaining by Australia of international assistance in criminal matters. The Act applies to all foreign countries unless the Regulations provide that it is subject to any mutual assistance treaty between that country and Australia and any multilateral mutual assistance treaty (being a treaty to which that country is a party).Airports Act 1996 (No 42 of 1996)This Act provides the legislative framework for granting leases to airport specific companies and the transfer of assets and obligations associated with those airport operations from the Federal Airports Corporation. The Act provides for Australia to require airport operators to meet international airservice obligations, and if necessary, specific regulations can be made to this effect. A specific object of the Act is the implementation of international obligations relating to airports such as those contained in the Convention on International Civil Aviation.Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Act (No 2) 1996 (No 59 of 1996)This Act introduced amendments to a number of Acts for which the then Department of Primary Industries and Energy was responsible. These amendments include the repeal of the International Sugar Agreement Act 1978. The latter Act approved appropriations for the purpose of giving effect to the International Sugar Agreement 1977.These amendments also concerned the management of chemicals subject to import and export restrictions under international obligations such as the prior informed consent procedures. Obtaining information from the National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals is a part of this management role.Workplace Relations and other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (No 60 of 1996) This Act provides a framework for cooperative workplace relations which promote the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia by, inter alia, respecting and valuing the diversity of the work force through the prevention and elimination of discrimination and by assisting in giving effect to Australia's international obligations in relation to labour standards.Carriage of Goods by Sea Amendment Act 1997 (No.123 of 1997)This Act amended the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991 ('1991 Act') which introduced a regime of marine cargo liability intended to be equitable and efficient, compatible with arrangements existing in countries that are major trading partners of Australia, and to take into account developments within the United Nations in relation to marine cargo liability. The Act removed the trigger from the 1991 Act for implementing the Hamburg Rules (Articles 1 to 26 of the United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea) and replaced it with a mechanism for regular review regarding international adoption of the Hamburg Rules. In addition, this Act added to the 1991 Act a regulation-making power which enables a number of other amendments to be made to the way the amended Hague Rules, relating to carrier liability for loss or damage to marine cargoes (Articles 1 to 10 of the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading 1924), operate in Australia.Customs Tariff Amendment Act (No.2) 1997 (No.192 of 1997)This Act introduced changes to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. The amendments contained in Schedule 2 of this Act abolished the Canadian margin of preference on certain petrochemical products. These changes took effect from 1 January 1997. Concerns had been expressed for some time regarding the overall balance of benefits under the Canada-Australia Trade Agreement, CANATA. CANATA provides for the exchange of tariff preferences on a range of products traded between the two countries. Following consideration of these and other related issues, CANATA preferential rates of duty were removed from Canadian imports of certain petrochemical products.Schedule 4 of this Act contains amendments which abolished customs duty on imported sugar and certain sugar by-products and implements Australia's tariff obligations under the Information Technology Agreement. The Agreement seeks the elimination of tariffs on technology and telecommunications products by the year 2000. Schedule 4 of this Act also contains amendments that reinstated the intended tariff assistance on surgical drapes and clarified our international tariff obligations in regard to certain types of lamps and power supply units for computers. Environment, Sport and Territories Legislation Amendment Act 1997 (No. 118 of 1997)The Act amended the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 ('the Sea Dumping Act') to bring it in line with current sea dumping practice and to ensure that Australia can meet its international obligations agreed to at the November 1993 Consultative Meeting of the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter ('the London Convention'). Section 35 of Schedule 1 of the Act inserted Schedule 3A—3C into the Sea Dumping Act which concerns phasing out sea disposal of industrial waste, incineration at sea, and disposal at sea of radioactive wastes and other radioactive material, respectively. The Act also made a number of minor technical amendments to the Ozone Protection Act 1989 which implements the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.Fisheries Legislation Amendment Act 1997 (No. 120 of 1997)Schedule 3 of this Act amended the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984. The Fisheries Legislation Amendment Act governs rights of fishing in waters between Australia and Papua New Guinea, in accordance with agreements made in the Torres Strait Treaty regarding sovereignty and maritime boundaries between the two countries. Clause 1 of Schedule 3 inserted new section 15A into the Act. Section 15A enables the Minister to determine a management plan for a fishery in an area of Australian jurisdiction. A management plan must set out its objectives and methods for achieving these objectives. Amongst other things, a management plan may specify how the fishing capacity of a fishery is to be measured and what fishing capacity is permitted for the fishery.Foreign Affairs and Trade Legislation Amendment Act 1997 (No. 150 of 1997)This is an omnibus Act that amended four Acts administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The major amendments:. extended to observers the same standard diplomatic privileges and immunities provided to inspectors carrying out challenge inspections under the Chemical Weapons Convention (amendments to the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1944);. allowed regulations relating to an international organisation to come into force at the same time as the treaty establishing the organisation comes into force for Australia (amendments to the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963);. tightened the eligibility criteria for international organisations and people connected with those organisations to be entitled to privileges and immunities in Australia (amendments to the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963);. enabled specific privileges and immunities to be extended to international tribunals in accordance with Australia's treaty obligations (amendments to the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963);. implemented the provisions of a Protocol between Australia and the International Atomic Energy Agency to provide for expanded declarations of nuclear and non-nuclear related activities and increased access to locations where nuclear material is customarily used (amendments to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987).International Monetary Agreements Amendment Act 1997 (No. 127 of 1997)This Act amended the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 to allow Australia to adhere to the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB), and to simplify the framework for conducting and recording Australia's other financial transactions with the IMF. This reduces the administrative costs associated with these transactions and enhances their transparency. The terms and conditions of the NAB as agreed by the Executive Board of the IMF on 27 January 1997 are scheduled to the principal Act.International Tax Agreements Amendment Act (No.1) 1997 (No.80 of 1997)This Act provided legislative authority for the entry into force of an exchange of notes amending the comprehensive Double Taxation Agreement between Australia and Vietnam. The exchange of notes with Vietnam took place on 22 November 1996 and the text forms a Schedule to the principal Act. The notes give effect to Australia's undertaking in 1992, the time the Double Taxation Agreement with Vietnam was signed, that Australia would grant tax sparing for specified Vietnamese tax concessions. Tax sparing describes the situation under which Vietnam offers tax concessions to attract foreign investment. Under the tax sparing credit arrangements, an Australian investor taking advantage of specified tax concessions is deemed to have paid the tax actually forgone by Vietnam for the purposes of Australia's foreign tax credit rules.International Transfer of Prisoners Act 1997 (No.75 of 1997)This Act enables Australians and certain other persons having community ties with a State or Territory of Australia who are imprisoned overseas, and foreign nationals imprisoned in Australia, to be returned to their home countries to complete the serving of their sentence, and enables persons who have been convicted by the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda to be transferred to Australia.Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 1997 (No.34 of 1997)This Act is an omnibus Act that amended a number of Acts falling within the portfolio of the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice. Schedule 7 of the Act amended the Family Law Act 1975. The amending Act extends the jurisdictions of State and Territory Supreme Courts and the courts of summary jurisdiction to determine matters arising under the regulations on the Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Act 1997 (No.126 of 1997)This Act allows appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for payments required to be made under the Convention establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). Australia signed the Convention on 30 September 1996, subject to ratification. MIGA was established on 12 May 1988 as one of the World Bank group of financial institutions designed to encourage the flow of investment to member countries and, in particular, to developing member countries. The functions of MIGA include issuing guarantees against non-commercial risks in respect of investments in a member country which flow from other member countries.Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 (No.76 of 1997)This Act established a Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Reserve, using some of the proceeds of the partial privatisation of Telstra, to fund environmental projects. These include the National Vegetation Initiative, the Murray-Darling 2001 Project, the National Land and Water Resources Audit, the National Reserve System and the Coasts and Clean Seas Initiative. Australia is a party to a number of international treaties that attempt to redress the decline in the quality of the natural environment and protect the environment from further decline. These include:. Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer;. Convention on Biological Diversity;. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora;. Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal;. Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage;. Framework Convention on Climate Change; and . Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat.Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Fees) Termination Act 1997 (No.50 of 1997)This Act terminated the imposition of fees under the Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Fees) Act 1991. It imposed a licence fee in respect of general and mobile telecommunications licences for the financial year ended 1 July 1997 and increased the limit on licence fees to allow for recovery of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's costs attributable to competition matters arising from its new communications rate. The amount, which is determined under the regulations to this Act, is the proportion of the Commonwealth's contribution to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) that is recovered from carriers. The ITU is a UN specialist agency concerned with international co-operation in the use of telecommunications and the radio frequency spectrum.Telecommunications Act 1997 (No.47 of 1997)This Act implemented the new regulatory framework for the telecommunications industry. Section 366 allows the minister to declare that a specified Convention is binding in relation to the members of a specified class of carrier or carriage service provider and that they must act in a way consistent with Australia's obligations under that the Convention.Telecommunications (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1997 (No.59 of 1997)This Act provided for the transition to the new framework by treating acts done under the Telecommunications Act 1991 as if they were done under the corresponding provision in the Telecommunications Act 1997. Section 74 of the 1991 Act applies to carriers who are signatories within the meaning of the Operating Agreement relating to the International Telecommunications Satellite Organisation (INTELSAT) and the Convention on the International Maritime Satellite Organisation (INMARSAT). The Minister may notify those carriers of the general policies of the Government that are to apply in relation to the carrier's performance of its functions as a signatory. Section 365 of the 1997 Act largely mirrors section 74 of the 1991 Act. Clause 64 of this Act continues the operation of any notification under section 74 after 1 July 1997 until a direction is given under section 365 of the 1997 Act.Transport Legislation Amendment (Search and Rescue Service) Act 1997 (No.130 of 1997)This Act facilitated the amalgamation of the Commonwealth's civil maritime and aviation search and rescue coordination functions into one national centre, and increased the number of ordinary members on the Board of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority from three to four, allowing for the appointment of an officer of the Department to the Board at the discretion of the Minister. To this end, the Act made consequential amendments to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority Act 1900, the Air Services Act 1995 and the Civil Aviation Act 1988. The amalgamation continues to allow Australia to fulfil its obligations under the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974, the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue 1979 and Article 7 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation. These Conventions relate to the provision of adequate search and rescue services for persons in distress at sea or in aircraft.13418(Question No. 921)92113418Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 21 September 1999:(1) Has Centrelink changed the way recipients of the Parenting Payment Single are reviewed so that only parents earning income must lodge a review every 12 weeks; if so, why.(2) What type of information are recipients of Parenting Payment Single now required to include in the 12 weekly reviews.(3) Is it necessary for Centrelink to have this information for working parents but not for non-working parents; if so, why.(4) Does treating non-working recipients of Parenting Payment Single more favourably than working recipients encourage parents not to take financial responsibility for themselves and their families; if so, to what extent; if not, why not.(5) What measures are in place to review the effect of changing the way entitlement to Parenting Payment Single is reviewed.13418Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes. The previous Parenting Payment Single (PPS) review strategy "over reviewed" sole parents without earnings and the new strategy will be more cost effective, particularly with respect to the cyclical reviews. Customer Service would be improved by eliminating unnecessary and unproductive reviews.The improvement in face-to-face interviews has been made possible by redirection of resources from the 12 weekly reviews to interviews with all PPS customers eight weeks after date of grant. These reviews have been recognised as a par ticularly effective way of identifying changes in domestic circumstances. Also, as the initial contact with Centrelink can be an emotionally distressing time for PPS customers, the face-to-face interviews will provide Centrelink staff with an opportunity to offer information about services available to assist customers and to remind them of their notification obligations.(2) The type of information now required as part of the 12 weekly review is the same as in the past, that is, a complete review of entitlement to Parenting Payment.(3) Centrelink requires the same information from both working and non-working customers. All PPS customers may, at some stage, be requested to complete the information contained in the 12 weekly review form. Sole parents who are not in paid employment may receive the form as part of an annual random sample of 5,000 customers.(4) By transferring resources to the more effective face-to-face interviews, staff will be able to reinforce customers' obligations and provide details of how Centrelink can assist these customers to find work. Given these interviews will take place at least eight weeks after they have separated from their partner, it is more likely that customers will be receptive to information about becoming financially independent.In recognition of the pressures faced by sole parents in paid employment, more flexible lodgement options have been made available as part of the new review process. While customers previously had to personally lodge their 12 weekly review forms on one particular day, they now have the option to lodge personally or by mail within a 14 day time frame.(5) To ensure the modified review process is effective and efficient, Centrelink has developed a set of performance indicators which it is monitoring on a monthly basis. These indicators include the number of reviews undertaken, cancellations, changes in payments and the value of upward or downward variations in payments.In September 2000, a Post Implementation Review (PIR) will be conducted to evaluate staff and customer feedback on the modified review strategy.13418(Question No. 985)98513418Quick, Harry, MPMr QuickAV5FranklinALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 13 October 1999:(1) How many subscribers to ABC Concerts have there been from 1995 to 1999. (2) How many sales of the ABC Magazine 24 Hours have there been from 1995 to 1999.13419McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The ABC has advised that it does not keep subscriber lists. It maintains attendance records for ABC Concerts, broken down by State and type of concert, which are published each year in its Annual Report. The total attendance at all concerts for each of the years requested is: 1998-99—1,091,465; 1997-98—1,058,011; 1996-97—1,009,477; 1995-96—937,253.(2) The ABC has advised that, to obtain sales figures for the full period, it would be necessary for the ABC to pay the distributors a fee for accessing their archives. However sales figures for 1999 are outlined below:MonthSalesJanuary 199912995February 199911991March 199911623April 199910836May 199910835June 199910384July 199910557Sales figures for August-October 1999 are not yet available.13419(Question No. 1010)101013419McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 21 October 1999:Will he bring up to date the answer to question No. 517 (Hansard , 9 August 1999, page 6321) concerning Australian nominations to the International Court of Justice.13419Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:One additional appointment has been made to the Australian National Group since the answer to question No. 517. The current members of the Australian National Group are:The Right Honourable Sir Ninian Stephen, K.G., A.K., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., K.B.E., HON.LL.D., Q.C.The Hon Justice Murray Gleeson A.C.Dr Gavan Griffith was also a member of the National Group until 19 November 1999 when his term expired.On 31 August 1999, the nominations by the Australian National Group of candidates for election to the International Court of Justice were forwarded to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The National Group's nominations were as follows: Judge Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom); Judge Gilbert Guillaume (France); Judge Christopher Weeramantry (Sri Lanka); Judge Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar).13419(Question No. 1011)101113419Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 October 1999:(1) Has his attention been drawn to the plight confronting many aged persons in receipt of pensions whose rent in private tenancies is calculated on a percentage of their pension.(2) What steps is he taking to ensure that that the component of GST compensation which will increase pensions post-GST is not lost in automatic rent increases.(3) Has he considered paying the GST compensation as a separate component of pensions similar to the manner in which pharmaceutical benefits is paid; if not, why not.13419Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1), (2) and (3) The Government has legislated to increase the maximum rates of all social security and veterans' pensions by 4 per cent from 1 July 2000. The 4 per cent increase will be paid as a pension supplement on top of the base pension. The base pension will continue to be underpinned by the Government's legislative commitment to maintain the single rate of pension of at least 25 per cent of Male Total Average Weekly Earnings. The 4 per cent pension supplement will consist of both a real increase of 2 per cent and an up-front advance of 2 per cent.In addition, the maximum rate of rent assistance will increase by 7 per cent, on 1 July 2000.Also, as part of the new tax system, Commonwealth, State and Territory leaders signed an Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations. Under the Intergovernmental Agreement, all States and Territories committed to ensure that the increase in pensions and allowances specified in the tax reform package will not flow through to increased rent for residents of public housing where rent is linked to the level of pension or allowance.13420(Question No. 1032)103213420Evans, Martyn, MPMr Martyn EvansN36BonythonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 22 November 1999:(1) Has his attention been drawn to legislative action in Massachusetts and in British Columbia to require tobacco manufacturers to disclose the list of ingredients and additives in tobacco products.(2) Will he take similar action in Australia.(3) Does he or his Department have information on the additives in tobacco products; if so, will he make the information public; if he is not aware of the list of additives, will he take action to determine what chemicals are added to tobacco products and make the information available to the public.13421Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes, I am aware of tobacco product legislation currently in place in both British Columbia and Massachusetts and the proposal in Massachusetts to strengthen existing regulations.(2) The Department is currently negotiating with Australian tobacco manufacturers to develop an agreed voluntary disclosure protocol. In correspondence with the tobacco manufacturers, I have suggested that the British Columbia legislation provides a good model from which to develop an industry wide protocol.(3) Information on some additives in tobacco products is available on the Internet, including the British Columbia Ministry of Health web-site, the Philip Morris web-site and the UK Action on Smoking and Health web-site. The voluntary disclosure protocol will facilitate disclosure of information on the ingredients and additives in tobacco products sold in Australia. The protocol will ensure an unprecedented level of tobacco product disclosure in Australia. A significant aim in the development of this protocol is to ensure that information on ingredients and additives is made available in a way that effectively informs the public about tobacco products.