2000-02-173915REPS1372302000-02-17—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills13723R99213723Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.1372309:31:0013723Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill will amend the Corporations Law to increase protection for employee entitlements. It will send a very clear message to corporate employers that deliberately avoid obligations to their employees and it says to them that their conduct is not acceptable. It is not expected that the bill will have a financial impact on the Commonwealth. At present, employee entitlements receive priority under the Corporations Law. The entitlements that are protected include wages, superannuation contributions, leave and retrenchment payments. Under the priority, employees are paid in full after the expenses of the winding up, to the extent of the company's available unsecured assets. As a result, employees are paid before the debts of other unsecured creditors, but not out of assets secured under a fixed charge, such as a mortgage. Employees are, however, paid out in priority to certain floating charge holders.In the wake of a number of high profile failures of corporate employers in late 1998 and 1999, the government examined a number of options for increasing the protection for employee entitlements. In July last year, the government put proposals for the amendment of the Corporations Law to the states and territories at the Ministerial Council for Corporations. At that meeting, which I chaired, the ministerial council gave its in-principle approval to the proposals. Draft provisions were prepared to give effect to the proposals and were forwarded to the ministerial council for approval in November 1999, in accordance with the requirements of the Corporations Agreement. Earlier this year, ministerial council members gave the necessary approval for introduction of the bill into parliament, allowing the government to proceed with the bill at the earliest available opportunity. This bill will increase the protection for employee entitlements in two ways: firstly, by extending the existing duty on directors to ensure that their company does not engage in insolvent trading and, secondly, by introducing a new offence which targets agreements and transactions entered into for the purpose of avoiding payment of employee entitlements. A breach of the new offence provision may lead to a court ordered payment of compensation by those involved. Further, serious breaches can result in criminal penalties.The Corporations Law already contains a prohibition on insolvent trading by directors. However, the existing duty may not cover a situation where a company confers a financial benefit on another party that is not a debt. The first limb of the bill extends the current duty on directors not to engage in insolvent trading to include uncommercial transactions. Civil penalties and criminal sanctions may flow from a breach of this duty. Further, directors may be personally liable for losses suffered by creditors. It would not be appropriate for directors to be personally liable for a transaction required of a company by order of a court. For this reason, court ordered transactions do not fall within the scope of the expanded duty, even though such transactions could be voidable under other provisions of the Corporations Law.This amendment has implications for the protection of employee entitlements. It also impacts on the prosecution of directors involved in `phoenix' activity and recovery actions by liquidators for the benefit of all creditors generally. Directors who breach the duty knowingly, intentionally or recklessly could be prosecuted under existing provisions of the Corporations Law. Further, they could be subject to a court order to pay compensation to the company for their breach. This compensation would be available to be distributed amongst all the company's creditors on liquidation, including its employees. The second limb of the bill inserts a new part 5.8A into the Corporations Law. The new part targets agreements and transactions entered into to prevent the recovery of employee entitlements. The entitlements that are protected are those that receive preferential payment on winding up under the Corporations Law—that is, wages, superannuation contributions, injury compensation, leave entitlements and retrenchment payments. This bill makes it clear that the entitlements need not be owed to the employee. For example, they could be owed to a dependant.The bill prohibits a person from entering into arrangements or transactions with the intention of avoiding the payment of employee entitlements or of significantly reducing the amount of entitlements that employees can recover. The object of this offence is to deter the misuse of company structures and other schemes to avoid the payment of entitlements to employees.Persons who breach the new offence can be prosecuted. They could be subject to a fine and imprisonment of up to 10 years. Under the general principles of criminal law, a penalty may be imposed on people who aid or abet a breach of the provision.There is no requirement that the person be a director of the company or related party. Therefore, the provisions of part 5.8A have a very wide effect. They cannot be avoided by arranging the prohibited transactions through non-related parties.Court ordered compensation for employeesThere are existing provisions in the Corporations Law that allow creditors to recover compensation. However, they are limited to instances where the company was trading when insolvent or, more generally, where a court has ordered damages in addition to, or in substitution for, the grant of an injunction.To increase the scope for recovery of entitlements by employees, the bill provides that a person in breach of the new offence provision can be ordered to pay compensation to employees. The amount of compensation is the loss or damage arising from the breach that the employees have suffered.The bill includes safeguards to ensure that an orderly winding up of a company is not hampered by actions to recover employee entitlements. The measures include notice to the liquidator of action under the new provisions and time limits to give the liquidator time to consider whether he or she will take action against a company's directors for alleged breaches of the Corporations Law. These measures will enable the liquidator to maintain control of the settlement arrangements associated with liquidations. The bill also limits the exposure of persons in breach, to ensure that they are not subject to multiple penalties in respect of the same action.ConclusionThe government is serious about protecting employee entitlements and assisting employees who have been short-changed by their employer. This bill will help prevent corporate employers from avoiding their obligations to their employees and will provide employees with greater confidence that the entitlements they earn will be paid to them.In conjunction with other government initiatives in this area, this bill reflects the government's commitment to assist the employees of failed companies to receive their due entitlements.I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and recommend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills13724R100313724Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.1372409:41:0013724Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.As we approach the centenary of Federation, our minds naturally turn to trying to understand the nature of Australia today, 100 years after its move to Federation in 1901. The 2001 census provides a unique opportunity to provide such a window on Australian society in 2001. This bill will ensure that name-identified 2001 census information from households which provide explicit consent on their census form will be kept by the National Archives of Australia. The information will be then preserved for future genealogical and other research, after a closed access period of 99 years. This will be a valuable commemorative activity for the centenary of Federation and will give today's Australians the chance to provide a gift to future generations, in the form of a comprehensive picture of the people and the society we are 100 years after Federation. All name-identified information from past censuses has been destroyed. The retention of such information in future censuses was recommended by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in its report, Saving Our Census and Preserving Our History. The government agrees with the committee that saving name-identified census information `for future research, with appropriate safeguards, will make a valuable contribution to preserving Australia's history for future generations'.Australia has a justifiably strong reputation for the quality of its census information, which provides the statistical foundation for decision making by the public and private sectors. This reputation has been achieved not only by the Australian Bureau of Statistics' sound work but also by the public trust that the information collected will be protected. The government believes that nothing should be done which will put at risk public cooperation and hence the quality of census information. For this reason, and in keeping with good privacy practice, the bill requires the consent of households before the name-identified information is kept. This information from households which do not consent will be destroyed as soon as statistical processing is completed. The Australian Bureau of Statistics will be working with the Privacy Commissioner on how that consent should be sought and to ensure the requirements of the PrivacyAct1988 are met.Also, the bill ensures that in the closed access period, the retained name-identified information is completely protected whilst held by the ABS and by the National Archives of Australia. The information will not be available for any purpose within the 99-year closed access period, including use by a court or tribunal. The public can be confident this picture of Australia will, in a very real sense, be preserved in a time capsule, unavailable for 99 years, but available as a message to our descendants in 2101.The bill relates only to information from the 2001 census and not to all future censuses. Given the importance of high quality censuses, the government believes a decision on future censuses is best made in the light of the experience in 2001.The bill also allows for an administrative change in the form of a name change for the Australian Archives to the National Archives of Australia.I commend this bill to the House and commend the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills13725R99013725Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.1372509:47:0013725Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The amendments proposed in this bill ratify changes to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 in relation to tobacco and petroleum excise which have already taken effect. These proposals were tabled in parliament on 21 October 1999 and 24 November 1999 respectively.The changes are part of the government's reforms for a new tax system. Tobacco productsFrom 1 November 1999 a `per stick' rate of excise for tobacco has applied on most cigarettes, lightweight cigars, bidis and any other lightweight tobacco products marketed in stick form. Prior to the per stick rate, tobacco was taxed on a per kilogram rate. This encouraged the manufacture of low value, low weight cigarettes packaged in large packets. The taxation advantage had skewed consumption towards lightweight, high volume cigarettes, which experts consider more harmful on health grounds.The per stick arrangements are similar to those used for taxing tobacco in most other countries.All other tobacco products, such as heavy cigarettes, cigars, roll-your-own and pipe tobacco will pay duty on a per kilogram rate. The rates have been set so that there is parity between cigarettes subject to the per stick rate and roll-your-own tobacco.These arrangements also replace the complex arrangements that were introduced as a measure to shore up state revenue, when business franchise fees on tobacco products were held to be unconstitutional by the High Court.To address the illicit tobacco industry, this bill also inserts a definition of tobacco to clarify when tobacco leaf becomes excisable. This will restrict access to tobacco leaf to registered growers, dealers and licensed manufacturers.Petroleum productsThis bill also addresses petroleum excise evasion activities.Petroleum excise was being evaded by some parties by exploiting weaknesses in the tariff structure that allowed certain fuel substitution activities to occur. These activities, such as replacing petrol or diesel fuel used as a transport fuel with product which is subject to a lower rate of excise led to unfair competition and destabilisation of the marketplace.As of 15 November 1999, the particular tariff items that were being abused were removed.The changes do not impose an additional excise liability. Arrangements are in place to ensure that those with a legitimate need to access certain products at a free rate of duty can do so.The changes complement the marker system the government introduced in January 1998 that required excise free petroleum products to carry a chemical marker. The marker system also makes it illegal to sell these products in circumstances that attract the highest rate of excise, such as for use in an internal combustion engine and on-road use.The changes also more clearly deliver the government's decision to make certain recycled products subject to excise.As I mentioned earlier, this bill simply confirms changes to the excise tariff made by proposal which the parliament has already considered.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills13726R99113726Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.1372609:51:0013726Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 and is the second in this package of two bills which introduce per stick rates of duty on tobacco products and tariff measures to further combat fuel substitution.The amendments contained in this bill have been previously tabled as customs tariff proposals and now require incorporation in the Customs Tariff Act.Schedule 1 of the bill introduces a per stick rate of customs duty of $0.18872 per stick, a rate which has operated since 1 November 1999.Schedule 2 of the bill commenced on 15 November 1999 and contains the customs tariff measures to deter fuel substitution. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills13727R100413727Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.1372709:52:0013727Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936to introduce a temporary levy in order to partially offset the costs of Australia's defence expenditure in East Timor. With the East Timor crisis the government faced little choice but to act to avert a humanitarian tragedy. This involved significant costs—costs that were unforeseen at the time the budget and the final A New Tax System tax reform package were put together. The temporary Defence-East Timor levy is an appropriate response to a significant spending pressure that was both urgent and unforeseen.The levy will apply only for the 2000-01 year of income.The gain to the revenue from the bill is estimated to be $900 million in 2000-01.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills13727R99313727Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.1372709:54:0013727Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill amends the sales tax law to ensure that certain modifications relating to vehicles driven by, or used for, transporting disabled persons are not subject to sales tax. This measure will be of particular significance to the Paralympic Games in Sydney this year by helping to ensure that the transportation needs of the participants are met. This measure was previously announced and has application from 26 June 1998. It also amends the employee share scheme provisions in division 13A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936as announced by the Treasurer on 2 September 1999. The proposed change to the law recognises that the market value of shares and unlisted rights to acquire shares, under an employee share scheme offered in association with a secondary or subsequent public offer of shares, is more equitably reflected in the public offer price of the share. This will provide certainty to both employers and employees as they will be in a better position to assess the tax consequences of their investment decision. The amendment will apply to shares and unlisted rights acquired from 2 September 1999.The bill will also amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 by allowing extensions of time for the lodgment and correction of ultimate beneficiary statements. It provides trustees of closely held trusts with the power to recover the ultimate beneficiary non-disclosure tax they paid, including any additional tax or penalty, from ultimate beneficiaries, trustee beneficiaries, or interposed trustees or partnerships whose provision of incorrect information, or refusal to provide information, led to the liability to ultimate beneficiary non-disclosure tax, but only where the gross amount has been distributed in certain circumstances. Further, it clarifies that section 254 extends to ultimate beneficiary non-disclosure tax obligations.The amendments apply to present entitlements created after 4 p.m. on 13 August 1998 Australian eastern standard time.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills13728R100213728Bill presented by Mr Entsch, and read a first time.1372809:57:0013728Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of the bill is to amend the Petroleum (Australia-Indonesia Zone of Cooperation) Act 1990 and related acts to reflect the fact that the United Nations Transitional Administration in East TimorUNTAET-has- replaced Indonesia as Australia's partner in the regulation and administration of petroleum operations in the Timor Gap.The reason for the change is related to the recent developments in East Timor. On 26 October 1999, Australian time, the United Nations established UNTAET as the administrative and legal authority for East Timor, following East Timor's rejection of Indonesia's offer of autonomy within the republic. From that time, Indonesia had no sovereign rights in the area covered by the Timor Gap Treaty. UNTAET, acting on behalf of East Timor, has agreed to assume all the rights and obligations previously exercised by Indonesia under the Timor Gap Treaty, and this was formalised through an exchange of notes between Australia and UNTAET on 10 February 2000. The agreement with UNTAET applies retrospectively from the date of the United Nations Security Council resolution establishing UNTAET, therefore achieving a smooth and seamless transition between Indonesia's exit from the Timor Gap Treaty and UNTAET's entry into a treaty relationship with Australia. The agreement with UNTAET is without prejudice to the position of the future government of an independent East Timor. This bill includes the text of the notes exchanged between Australia and UNTAET in Dili on 10 February 2000.The Timor Gap Treaty arrangements have worked effectively since coming into force in 1991, and have facilitated the expenditure of over $US700 million on petroleum exploration and development in Area A of the zone of cooperation. The first commercial production of petroleum commenced in July 1998 with the development of the Elang-Kakatua oilfield. It is currently producing at the rate of about 14,000 barrels of oil per day and will provide revenues to both treaty states at a rate of about $US3 million per annum. There are other potential projects in the zone of cooperation, including the Bayu-Undan and Sunrise-Troubadour gas-condensate fields. On the basis of current knowledge, development of these fields could involve capital expenditures of about $A15 billion, and they could be brought into production by the early to mid-2000s.While it is the government's normal practice to have legislation in place before a treaty comes into force, this was not possible in relation to the agreement with UNTAET. It was necessary that the treaty enter into force with retrospective effect and as soon as possible to provide continuity and certainty in the legal arrangements for existing and future commercial operators in the Timor Gap Zone of Cooperation, as well as to provide an early flow of revenue to UNTAET. In the circumstances, it was not desirable to delay the entry into force of the new treaty to allow time for passage of the relevant legislation. The enactment of this bill will also contribute significantly to investor certainty in the Timor Gap. This will be achieved by amendments to the Petroleum (Australia-Indonesia Zone of Cooperation) Act 1990, where necessary, to reflect the change in Australia's treaty partner from Indonesia to UNTAET. The bill will validate actions of the ministerial council and the joint authority since 26 October 1999, and will also enable the continuation of a range of Australian taxation, customs, immigration, crime and quarantine laws relating to petroleum operations in the Timor Gap. The related acts which have been amended consequent to the changes to the principal act are: Crimes at Sea Act 1979; Crimes at Sea Act 2000; Customs Act 1901; Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986; Income Tax Assessment Act 1936; Migration Act 1958; Passenger Movement Charge Act 1978; Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act 1978; Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967; Quarantine Act 1908; Workplace Relations Act 1996.In most cases, the consequential amendments to the various acts are relatively minor. In many instances they amend the relevant act by using expressions such as `Timor Gap', `East Timor' and `UNTAET' in sections where `Indonesia' or the `Republic of Indonesia' previously appeared. For example, changes to the Migration Act 1958, the Passenger Movement Act 1978 and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands Act) 1967 only involve the substitution of the term `Timor Gap' in place of the term `Australia-Indonesia' in the definition of area A of the zone of cooperation. However, some of the changes to existing acts are, of necessity, more detailed—notably those relating to taxation provisions and the application of the criminal law under the Crimes at Sea Act. With respect to taxation, it has been necessary to provide further guidance as to the meaning of the terms `resident of a contracting state' and `competent authority' to ensure the current operation of the treaty and the Taxation Code after 26 October 1999.The Crimes at Sea Act 1979 contains provisions governing criminal law and law enforcement in Area A of the zone of cooperation, consistent with the requirements of the treaty. These provisions apply Northern Territory criminal law to petroleum related activities and provide a framework for law enforcement cooperation between the treaty partners. As well as amending these provisions of the 1979 act to reflect the change in Australia's treaty partner, this bill also inserts equivalent provisions, as amended, in the Crimes at Sea Act 2000, which is currently a bill before parliament. The Crimes at Sea Act 2000 will be the Commonwealth's part of a new cooperative crimes at sea scheme involving Commonwealth, state and Northern Territory legislation. The amendments to the Crimes at Sea Act 2000 will commence at the same time that the Crimes at Sea Act 2000 replaces the Crimes at Sea Act 1979.As I noted earlier, the treaty arrangements we have entered into with UNTAET will not change the rights and responsibilities of companies and persons working in the Timor Gap but merely provide for a continuation of those arrangements with effect from 26 October 1999. It is therefore appropriate for the bill to retrospectively amend the relevant legislation to 1.23 a.m. Australian Central Standard Time on 26 October 1999—the time when the United Nations Security Council established UNTAET. However, the bill has been carefully framed to ensure that the impact of the amendments on the criminal law will be beneficial only. There is an express provision that prevents any retrospective criminal liability arising under the amendments. Further, immunities from prosecution provided for under the Crimes at Sea Act 1979 are explicitly preserved from retrospective abrogation. While the changes to the treaty arrangements in this bill will enable continuity in the arrangements under the terms of the Timor Gap Treaty, they will have no direct financial impact on companies and individuals or the government. However, it is likely that projects currently awaiting approval could, if developed, provide several tens of millions of dollars per annum to both East Timor and Australia for a period of 10 to 20 years commencing in about 2004. Investor certainty in the rules that will apply in the Timor Gap are a necessary prerequisite for such projects. I am confident that the actions taken to date and the provisions contained in this bill will establish a favourable climate for those investments following a period of great uncertainty. It is clearly in the national interest that these legislative amendments be approved as soon as possible. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.Committees13730137301373010:08:0013730Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to parliament: CSIRO/University of Queensland Joint Building Project, St Lucia, Queensland.CSIRO has entered into a joint venture agreement with the University of Queensland to provide a major new research facility on the site of the existing CSIRO Cunningham Laboratory at St Lucia in Queensland. The complex will accommodate the University of Queensland's new Institute of Molecular Bioscience and staff of the CSIRO's Divisions of Tropical Agriculture, Health Sciences and Nutrition, and Plant Industry. The new complex will provide research accommodation for approximately 285 CSIRO staff and visitors, together with accommodation for Institute of Molecular Bioscience researchers, students and visitors.It will comprise a new laboratory complex with a total gross floor area of approximately 36,000 square metres with the following components: CSIRO biology laboratories; University of Queensland biology laboratories; shared chemistry laboratories; CSIRO computer laboratories; University of Queensland computer laboratories; CSIRO specialist laboratories including analytical chemistry, greenhouse and herbarium; University of Queensland specialist laboratories including structural biology, synthetic chemistry and vivarium; and shared facility support areas including library, conference facilities, information technology support, administrative support, central wash-up, workshops, and delivery, waste and stores areas. Associated site works include an independent structured car park, with capacity for 220 cars, together with service infrastructure upgrades, roadworks and landscaping.Construction of the complex will enable CSIRO and the Institute of Molecular Bioscience to bring together in one structure a large and critical mass of molecular biology skills, equipment and facilities. It will also bring together a range of supportive and complementary activities, such as synthetic, inorganic and organic chemistry, biometrics, bioinformatics and microscopy. Co-location of CSIRO and the Institute of Molecular Bioscience on the St Lucia site will provide opportunities for highly valuable interaction with the wider University of Queensland faculties. The Institute of Molecular Bioscience will add a further positive dimension to the capability of each of the CSIRO groups housed within the complex to fulfil their charters to deliver economic, social and environmental benefits to Australia.The proposal has a budget of $106 million, of which the CSIRO component is $50 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, initial site clearance works are anticipated to commence in March 2000, with completion of the works scheduled for 2002. In its report the committee has recommended that this project proceed, and CSIRO agrees with the recommendations of the committee. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for its support. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills13730R977BillsR97813730Debate resumed from 9 December 1999, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.10:13:0013730Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—The bill covers various separate subject areas agreed to between the government and the opposition as part of the business tax package. These bills are the second part of legislation on that business tax package. The bill covers refunding of excess imputation credits, removing the intercorporate dividend rate on unfranked dividends, providing an income tax exemption for venture capital distribution from pooled development funds to Australian super funds, pooling of depreciation allowances and consequential amendments flowing from the reduction in the rate of company tax. Since 1998, Labor has repeatedly called for bipartisanship on business tax reform. After much urging by the business community, the government finally conceded the importance of such an approach. The Treasurer finally accepted our offer of a common approach, to the benefit of the business community and the nation. Business needs the certainty in its tax arrangements that goes beyond one electoral cycle, and that can only be achieved through support by the only two parties that can form a government. Labor has delivered that certainty and has honoured its word concerning support for the government's legislation, including swift passage through the parliament. That is what occurred last year with the first business tax package, and we continue that facilitation here today in the House.However, cooperation is a two-way street. The Treasurer still has a lot more legislation on this package to put before the parliament. Despite the measures in last year's package and the important measure in this bill, vital integrity measures remain unlegislated. The three key areas where the parliament is awaiting legislation are: dependent contractors, non-commercial losses and the entity regime. These are essential to meet the test of revenue neutrality. At least two of these—the dependent contractors, and the non-commercial losses—must be introduced in the next fortnight of sittings, and the entity regime must be introduced for passage by 30 June to meet the timetable commitments already made by the Treasurer.The Treasurer's agreement with Labor promised not only that he would deliver the above measures in name but that he would deliver measures that would raise the substantial revenue promised in his press releases. We want the Treasury to sign off on that legislation so that it produces the same result as was included in their calculations at the time of the release of the package. There is no room to fudge for the Treasurer, no room to wiggle. He has a binding obligation to deliver. Business cannot take the goodies but duck the measures to pay for them. Revenue neutrality was the condition the government attached for the introduction of its GST. Labor support reform, but because we have a GST—something that we opposed—the revenue neutrality test must be met. The GST is unfair in that it shifted the burden from high income earners to low and middle income earners. This was a circumstance we were not going to allow to be repeated with further tax cuts to the big end of town.It is a matter of great regret that, instead of focusing fully on business tax reform—on bedding down the legislation and informing the business community of the new regime—the government has been obsessed, and is now swamped, with trying to explain its GST. The policy attached to the GST has forced aside all other priorities for the government. It is more important for the coalition than are health, education and law and order. It is more important to them than business tax reform or clamping down on tax avoidance. It is the Prime Minister's No. 1 priority, with the possible exception of his brother's business affairs. That is a sad indictment of his goals and his lack of vision for this nation.This obsession with the GST is about to impose a massive burden on business, especially small business. It will be difficult enough for small business to cope with the changes in the business tax package, some of which are potentially very large, but they will also have to cope with the GST, the new pay-as-you-go-system and a host of other issues as well. Labor argued that this was not all necessary, and again we have been shown to be correct. Unfortunately, there will be many small business casualties from the government's misplaced priorities.Yesterday the Treasurer was caught out lying about the price effect. He has consistently said that, under the GST, prices can never go up by 10 per cent. He said it could not happen, but it has. Big W and children's clothing was the example given yesterday. No wonder this Treasurer fought so hard to avoid dual tagging being allowed by the retailers. He has told us in the parliament that he did not know that this was happening. If the Treasurer of the nation, who has introduced this tax, does not know what is happening, how does he expect the Australian public to know what is happening? We have been told that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is investigating Big W to this effect, but the ACCC has been talking to Big W for months on this issue. How could this be allowed to happen? There are boundless stories of pricing up off the back of the GST. For all its bluster, when did the ACCC act and come out publicly on the Big W issue? It was only after Labor raised it in this parliament. The ACCC is a toothless tiger, and it was caught out yesterday. It would appear that the only investigations it is making are into Big W and Accor, the hotel group, and only because Labor has raised them in the parliament. There are eight million stories in this dog of a tax. Big W and children's clothing is just one of them. The ACCC has asked Big W to withdraw the tags. Big penalty! The Chairman of the ACCC, Professor Allan Fels, will jump in front of a television camera as soon as you can blink, but he will not turn up to Senate estimates to be asked questions about the capacity of the ACCC to police this dog of a tax. He will not come to Senate estimates hearings. Oh no! That is much too lowbrow for him. He is always in front of the television camera blustering about the $10 million fines if retailers are caught out rorting this system, but what did we see yesterday? A slap on the wrist, `Take the tags off, Big W.' Do we know whether Big W have done it correctly or wrongly? Has there been any indication by the ACCC on this? The 10 per cent has been fully applied on the examples that we used yesterday. Just think about it. The Treasurer would have you believing that it should not go up the full 10 per cent—in fact, he goes further and says it cannot—but it did. But he says it should not go up, because of the so-called embedded taxes. He loves to rave about the wholesale sales tax. There is no wholesale sales tax on children's clothing. Some of the examples he used yesterday were imports. Imported products attract very few embedded taxes, and that is why Big W will continue to argue for the full 10 per cent hike.Professor Fels has said that a full 10 per cent flow-on is possible under his guidelines, thus contradicting the Treasurer. The Treasurer has told this country time and time again that prices cannot go up by 10 per cent, and the prices watchdog yesterday said they can. The tags may have been withdrawn, but will the 10 per cent still stay when this tax comes in? We will not know until a month before the tax comes in. So open and so transparent is this system that they will not tell us for a month before its introduction, just as they will not tell us the formula for guaranteeing that petrol will not go up under the GST. That was their promise, but they have not produced a formula whereby they can adjust the excise downwards to compensate for the GST coming in.This government has lied through its teeth on this GST, and it has been found out. The ACCC will not comment on what the government continues to parrot. According to the ACCC, prices can go up by 10 per cent, but Treasurer Costello continues to propagate the fantasy that no prices will go up by 10 per cent. The Treasurer must be the only person in the country who believes the GST will not lift prices by 10 per cent. The government said the inflation impact of the GST would be 1.9 per cent. There is a big difference between 1.9 per cent and 10 per cent. The compensation package is based on 1.9 per cent inflation, not 10 per cent. Consumers have been dudded twice: dudded through higher prices and dudded through inadequate compensation.We have the Prime Minister telling his colleagues in the party room to hold their nerve: `Don't go out and break ranks; don't back down.' We have Minister Anthony sitting at the table here in the parliament saying that the 10 per cent tax is a great new thing, but going to his electorate and telling people that he is trying to get it eased for caravan parks. You are a hypocrite, Minister. Not only are you defying your leader, you will be slapped down by him, too. Get your act together. You say one thing in here and another thing in the electorate, and you will be found out for that hypocrisy. Yours is a marginal seat, brother—no wonder you are panicking.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MP10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition— XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony—What do you know about regional Australia?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The minister will cease interjecting. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will refer his comments through the chair. The minister will quieten down, please.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The interjection has just been made as to what I know about regional Australia. I know a lot; the Treasurer knows nothing. The Treasurer's view for regional Australia is, `Cut your wages and we'll put your petrol up at the same time.' A good deal for regional Australia! How many times has the Treasurer gone out to regional Australia—this great listening, caring Treasurer? When he does, does he go in that tinted-window car to hide from the electorate because he loves this tax so much that he does not want to be recognised for its introduction? I know all about regional Australia. The Treasurer has no empathy with them. He wants them to take cuts and to take petrol price hikes.But it was not just Big W that was caught out breaching this 10 per cent. Accor, the largest hotel group, as I understand, in the country was another. As I understand it, since that revelation yesterday, there have been very agitated phone calls to the Accor group from the government, very concerned that this is happening and trying to get the company to write a letter saying that it is not true. We will wait for question time, and we will probably see the letter produced. But the trouble is that we have the price list that the Accor group put out which shows that the full 10 per cent has been passed on.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony—What about the bed tax?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The bed tax, my friend, does not apply to the hotel that the Treasurer is booked into for the Olympics. It is outside the central business district. Get your facts right.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony—You're monitoring where people are staying, are you?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—We were told yesterday by the government that, if the price of that group went up by the full 10 per cent, you did not have to stay there. The trouble is that the Treasurer is already booked into the Novotel at Brighton-Le-Sands. His department has booked him in for the Olympics. I think they have made a booking for something like 20 days in the Kings Suite. XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony—Jealous, are you?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I am not jealous. This is a person who has egg all over his face. He got hit in the face with a pie warmer last year and now he has been hit by a caravan with his little episode yesterday in terms of the impact of the GST on caravan parks.But again we have the problem. The Treasurer is staying in a hotel where the full 10 per cent is being passed on. He said that the full 10 per cent cannot be passed on. Yet his own department booked him into the Kings Suite for the Olympics, and they would have been quoted the full 10 per cent. If the government cannot police its own price mandate, if the government cannot insist that nothing goes up by 10 per cent, how can ordinary Australians?The dual tagging has demonstrated that once people are shown what the impact of this GST is they will realise how much is being taken out of their pockets every time they purchase and realise how much they were deceived by this government. We have tried on four different occasions in this place to get an amendment up to require the government to put the amount of the GST on receipts, and the government and the Democrats have opposed us at every point. What do they have to hide? What they have to hide is what was exposed yesterday with the Big W example: the full impact will be passed on. We will continue to run this, and we will run it in your electorate too, Minister Anthony. We will be outside supermarkets up there saying, `Larry Anthony might be telling you one thing here, but he won't vote for disclosure. He thinks this tax is such a terrific thing, but he wants to hide it.' This is Larry Anthony—honest, open, with integrity. Rubbish! He is a hypocrite, and we will expose that hypocrisy as we continue.We have the Prime Minister pretending that, when Labor is telling the truth about the GST, we are somehow engaged in a scare campaign. The Minister for Health and Aged Care got it right the other day in question time when he talked about the government's scare campaign on the GST. It was just another gaffe from a gaffe-prone minister, but it was the most telling type of gaffe because it was the truth. The only scare campaign in Australia involves John Howard's false characterisations of Australians speaking their minds. The government are so desperate they regard legitimate questioning and legitimate community debate as scare campaigns. They try to tarnish genuine community concerns as being baseless and somehow Labor's invention. It is not, especially in country Australia—and the arrogance of ignoring strong community sentiment will come back to the haunt the Prime Minister in due course. I will go now to the specific proposals in the bill. Refunding of excess imputation credits: the dividend imputation system ended the previous double taxation of dividend income and was a major business tax reform, introduced by Labor in 1986, under which companies pay dividends out of income on which they have paid company tax. These are known as franked dividends. This means that the company tax paid on the income is available as a credit to the shareholder. The tax credit can then be used to offset the income tax payable by the shareholder.Although imputation credits can be used to reduce an individual's or a superannuation fund's income tax liability to nil, excess credits were of no value to taxpayers. This bill proposes to refund to taxpayers any excess imputation of credits that may be left after offsetting the credits against their income tax liability. The classic example of such a situation is a low income person who earns a little investment income—for example, a full rate age pensioner. They face no income tax liability on their income and therefore cannot obtain the benefit of the excess franking credits attached to the small amount of dividend income they receive. Under this proposal, they will obtain a refund of their income tax from the Taxation Office, representing the excess imputation credits. Labor included this proposal in our taxation policy prior to the last election. Therefore we have no difficulty supporting the proposal because it is our policy. It builds on the major reform accomplished by Labor almost 15 years ago and it improves the current taxation situation faced by low income investors, especially retired Australians.Secondly, there is the removal of the intercorporate dividend rebate on unfranked dividends. Currently, public companies obtain a rebate, known as the dividend rebate, on dividends they receive whether they are franked or not. This rebate leads to tax avoidance opportunities which cost the revenue several hundred million dollars per year. The bill proposes to remove the rebate except where dividends are paid within a company group. This will bring public companies into line with the treatment of private companies. The measure will close significant tax avoidance opportunities, and is strongly supported by Labor. This measure replaces an earlier proposal, deferred company tax, which was rejected by the Ralph inquiry because of the possible impact on foreign investment in this country. The measure will raise significant revenue: around $600 million over the next five years, which is about $400 million less than the deferred company tax proposal that it replaces.Thirdly, there is the provision of an income tax exemption for venture capital distribution from pooled development funds to Australian superannuation funds. The bill proposes to provide a significant stimulus to venture capital investment by Australian superannuation funds. This is achieved by providing a special rebate that allows superannuation funds to receive venture capital gains free of tax, where they are earned through investments in a pooled development fund. This is a significant reform and it is in line with Labor policy. It will provide a significant incentive to superannuation funds to invest in Australian ventures. The measure should increase the retirement income of superannuation fund members over the long term as they will have access to high, long run returns in the developing segments of the Australian economy.Labor supports, and indeed has long advocated, a business tax system which fosters investment, job growth and innovation, including greater investment in venture and patient capital and in research and development. We support the greater commercialisation of Australia's R&D and innovative effort. This measure will assist that goal. But we have also argued that more is needed than simply changes to taxation. We need to develop a venture capital-innovation culture in this country. Venture capital is an area for which we were able to get bipartisan support from the day the government announced its business tax package. The reason for that of course is that Labor took to the last election a proposal in relation to venture capital whereby we recognised the need to attract overseas pension funds to this country. Those overseas pension funds operated in their own countries in circumstances in which the capital gains tax was much lower than applied here. Of course, if it were lower than here, why would they invest here? Our argument—because evidence had been put to us that we were missing out on investment opportunities in the development of this country, and of course the name of the game has to be about jobs and the building of our industries, and about new industries in particular—was that this was a vital area that needed to be attracted. So we proposed, going into the last election, changes to attract the US pension funds. But the notion was not just to attract their capital; there was also the notion that, if you have got their capital, you will also attract their expertise, the people who actually manage the investments—manage the venture capital—and who have experience in taking up the idea and working it through the start-up phase to commercialisation. We also require that these funds invest in partnerships with Australians so that we instil that culture and develop the networks of expertise so that we can keep more of the inventions and the research here and develop them more here to the nation's advantage.This is an area in which countries like the US have had a long period of experience. We had to tap it and we needed to make the tax system, along with other programs, ensure that we did. The US has probably had some 30 years of experience in this area, and it is not an experience that can be obtained overnight, although it is very interesting that a country the size of Israel has made huge inroads into this area, as has Ireland. Both of those countries have understood the importance of attracting not only the capital but also the expertise, the means by which the capital is managed wisely. So it is against that background that we welcome the initiatives in terms of the overseas pension funds, because there was a barrier to venture capital coming to Australia.It is also interesting to note that when we took this issue to the last election the government rubbished us on this measure—the measure that they are now agreeing with us on. They said then that it would not work. At the time, they had obviously not considered the detail. It was too much of a knee-jerk response and too much of a rejection of the notion that we should develop a bipartisan and agreed position on a number of these areas. Now they have come to the party. The government have picked up our suggestions. We legislated the foreign pension fund measures last year, and today we are dealing with the concession for Australian superannuation funds. We welcome these measures, and we welcome this about-face by the government. It is an important move for venture and risk capital in the country, and it will be good for innovation and jobs.The next area is the pooling of depreciation allowances. The bill proposes to implement two reforms of the depreciation provisions. It proposes to replace, except for small business, immediate deductibility of the items of plant costing $300 or less, with a right to pool together all items of plant costing less than $1,000 and to depreciate that pool as a single item of plant over four years. It also proposes to allow taxpayers to add items of plant to the above pool if they have been written down to less than $1,000 under the diminishing value method. These proposals are part of the abolition of accelerated depreciation and associated reform of capital allowances, the bulk of which were legislated last year. These proposals will yield significant net savings over the forward estimates period. In addition, they should significantly simplify the compliance burden on taxpayers. Labor supports these measures as they represent a substantial simplification of depreciation arrangements for minor items of plant and equipment. These will all enjoy a common regime, which should lower compliance costs substantially, especially for business. Removing existing capital allowances is not all a negative for business. This measure shows that simplification can be achieved in this context, substantially assisting business whilst still protecting the revenue. The final area that the bill covers is the consequential amendments flowing from the reduction in the rate of company tax. The dividend imputation system and tax concessions applying to infrastructure borrowings need to be adjusted when the company tax rate is changed in order to maintain the current effective treatment of the dividend imputation system and the infrastructure bond concession. This is a terribly important measure, particularly for regional Australia. Similar adjustment to the imputation system has occurred in the past when Labor changed company tax rates, and it is not opposed by us. We support it. The amendments are essentially technical in nature and, in keeping with my commitment not to delay the passage of the bill, we will facilitate its speedy passage. But my colleagues have important contributions to make, and I commend their comments, along with mine, to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Tuckey) adjourned.Miscellaneous137361373610:40:0013736Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Forestry and Conservation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—On behalf of the Australian Law Reform Commission, I present the 89th report of the commission entitled: Managing Justice—A review of the federal civil justice system.Bills13736R977BillsR97813736Debate resumed. 10:41:0013736Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I have listened very carefully to the speech of the shadow Treasurer this morning on these new business tax system bills, and I heard nothing from him in real terms as to the opposition's policies on business, on innovation and on the way forward for Australian business. All he did was complain that there was more to do and more reforms to implement. Mr Deputy Speaker, you might recall that earlier this week during question time the Treasurer observed that the shadow Treasurer was yet to make one speech on the economy. There has been nothing on Labor's economic policies. He has not spoken on employment, on inflation, on growth. I thought, `That can't be right. Isn't that what shadow Treasurers are meant to do: tell the public what the opposition's policies are in respect of the economy?' So I thought that this morning, in his first speech to the House for the year 2000 on legislation that has far-reaching economic implications for Australia, the shadow Treasurer would, somewhere along the line, weave in some aspect of the opposition's policies. But there was nothing—just an acknowledgment that business tax reform is necessary, that the government has got it right and support for the government's reforms.But then there were complaints that we have not covered everything, that we have not covered aspects such as dependent contractors. It is funny how these issues were not priorities for Labor in its 13 years in government. So the Treasurer is yet again correct in his assessment of the shadow Treasurer and the opposition policy vacuum. The shadow Treasurer's performance—if I can dignify it that way—this morning evidences that, amidst the sound and fury that accompanies day-to-day politics from the opposition, seismic changes occurring in our nation can often be obscured, and their wide-ranging implications missed, by the rhetoric, the unsubstantiated claims and the scare campaigns.The bills before the House today allow me the opportunity to remind the parliament of what has proven to be a matter of national economic redefinition: the transformation of the Australian economy from a commodities based, unstable and conservative economy to an economy that, while underpinned by the efforts of the world's most productive farmers and miners, is geared to a new world of finance, services and technology, catering for consumers here and overseas. It is an economy more insulated from the unstable commodity cycle and more open to innovation and diversity. That does not mean we are in a comfort zone; some may find it discomforting that a single information technology firm, Microsoft, has a total capital value in excess of the total capital value of all mining firms—not of all mining firms in my state of Western Australia, the foremost mining state in Australia or indeed in the Commonwealth, but globally. Compare $US600 billion for a company founded only two decades ago with $US350 billion for an entire industry that has been in development since the most prehistoric times. The Howard government is the first Australian federal government to recognise that these momentous changes to the way in which Australians work, invest and conduct their business require equally significant changes to the way the Commonwealth operates. The key to modifying the Commonwealth's operations in this regard is tax reform. The battle for a fairer, more efficient and more effective personal and indirect tax system has been fought and won by the federal government, despite the negativism and, I must say, rank ignorance of the opposition. Tax reform is now law. The shadow Treasurer can keep blustering, but he is standing on the wharf throwing streamers; the ship has left. On 1 July 2000 the largest personal income tax cuts in Australian history will return to taxpayers over $12 billion. At the same time, all indirect taxes will be removed from the shoulders of business and a single rate GST will apply to most goods and services. Pensions will be increased, as will other income payments. The new frontier is now business tax reform, and the government's approach to making business more productive and taxation fairer and more efficient has been outlined by the Treasurer during the past few months. I cannot fathom the logic of the shadow Treasurer claiming credit for this after Labor's 13 years in government when they did nothing. This legislation represents an important step in that business tax reform process, and the two bills before the House today seek to make important changes to imputation credits, to venture capital investment incentives, to low value pooling, to an intercorporate dividend rebate and to other provisions of the income tax law. Perhaps taken individually, one by one these provisions might seem matter of fact and not of great moment in terms of reform, but taken collectively and in the context of the wide-ranging reforms to the fundamental tax treatment of Australian business they represent the hope, the vision and the commitment of this government for a more internationally competitive industry environment that rewards innovation and achievement, for greater investment, growth and employment and for greater interaction with the international business community.The particular provisions of these new bills include, first, reforms to imputation credits. The present income tax laws do not allow for the refund of imputation credits in excess of a taxpayer's income tax liability. I know this issue well, for many retirees in my electorate of Curtin have discussed with me their frustration with a tax system that does not allow them to benefit from the franking rebate on franked dividends they receive. What occurs effectively is that lower income earners, especially the aged, end up paying tax on income from dividends at a rate higher than their marginal tax rate. It was recognised by the review into business taxation chaired by John Ralph that individuals resident in Australia and in fact superannuation funds ought to pay tax at their appropriate tax rate rather than the corporate tax rate. As a consequence, it was recommended that excess imputation credits ought to be refunded to those taxpayers. This will assist self-funded retirees and low income individuals. From 1 July 2000, provided this legislation is passed, these taxpayers will no longer be at a disadvantage in this way. The changes will apply to residents who are individuals, super funds, approved deposit funds, pooled super trusts and life insurance companies, in essence ensuring that individuals and super funds are taxed at their appropriate rates, because of course the company distributing the dividends may have already paid tax at the company tax rate on profits before distributing them as profits. Secondly, as to venture capital investments, this is a very exciting reform designed to encourage even further venture capital investment in Australia—investment with real benefits for Australian workers and investors. What the government is seeking to do is enable complying superannuation funds and other such bodies to receive venture capital gains free of tax through pooled development funds, PDFs. At present PDFs still pay tax at a rate of 15 per cent on venture capital gains, which reduces the return to investors and renders this type of investment less attractive. That impacts on small and first time businesses seeking venture capital investment. With the Australian economy as strong as it has been in the last few years, with consistent and dependable economic expansion now a reality, we have got to continue to make the benefits of this economy reach out to every corner of the country, to continue to expand and widen the circle of opportunity for more Australians. What we are seeking to do is promote investment in innovative Australian firms which are seeking to raise new capital, make more money available for start-ups and venture capital projects, get new Australian industries up and running and encourage Australian inventiveness by providing the opportunities for investment. What all this leads to is more jobs that come with those projects. Last week in Melbourne there was a national innovation summit, at the conclusion of which the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources announced the formation of a high level implementation group to carry forward the outcomes of the summit. In his closing comments the minister said that there was a shared vision among the delegates which committed the nation to developing a culture that stimulates, nurtures and rewards creativity and entrepreneurship. I am delighted to hear the shadow Treasurer taking up similar words this morning and claiming them as his own. The minister noted at the conclusion of the national innovation summit that increased globalisation and the rapid rate of change have placed firms in a highly competitive environment where new markets and new competitors are consistently on the horizon. He said that companies that neglect investment in innovation put their futures at risk. Measures such as contained in this legislation support those ideals. The particular provision in relation to venture capital will encourage venture capital investment by way of a special franking rebate. This will be welcomed by complying super funds, approved deposit funds and pooled superannuation trusts, and life insurance companies and friendly societies as well in relation to their superannuation business.A venture capital franking rebate will be allowed. This rebate represents capital gains tax paid by an eligible PDF on venture capital gain while still permitting the dividend representing the capital gain to be tax exempt. To complement this reform and prevent abuse of this concession the New Business Tax System (Venture Capital Deficit Tax) Bill, also before the House, imposes a tax equivalent to the franking deficit tax on a PDF which overallocates venture capital franking rebates to its shareholders. I note in passing that this legislation is derived from the important reforms made to encourage venture capital investments by non-resident tax exempt pension funds, reforms that were introduced by the Howard government and passed by the parliament last year.Thirdly, I turn to the provisions for low value pooling. It is important to note that, contrary to some assertions, the new business tax system reforms will provide tangible and real benefits to smaller businesses, in this specific instance, through the reduction of taxation compliance costs.In order to ensure that small businesses are not disadvantaged, the Howard government will make certain that the removal of the immediate deduction for plant costing $300 or less does not apply to firms whose average turnover is less than $1 million. These businesses will retain the immediate deduction, so they will continue to benefit. From 1 July 2001, these businesses—where the average turnover is less than $1 million—will be subject to the simplified tax system under which these 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 on average over five years. Other firms will be offered the option of pooling all plant costing less than $1,000. There will be a further option for pooling plant that has been depreciated to less than $1,000 under the diminishing value method. This pooled plant will be depreciated over four years using the diminishing value method. Pooling of these smaller deductions will reduce the number of depreciation calculations required from taxpayers and will therefore decrease compliance costs and record keeping requirements. As we know, compliance costs are a concern for small business and this measure provides some relief.The legislation also refers to company rate changes. Perhaps the two most important changes to business taxation included in the government's reform program are the dramatic reduction in capital gains tax by 50 per cent, a move that is certain to boost employment and growth and assure Australia's place at the forefront of the global economy, and, secondly, the reduction in the company tax rate. Under the government's reforms, the company tax rate will be reduced to 34 per cent for this coming financial year, 2000-2001, followed by another reduction to 30 per cent from 2001-2002. This will make Australia a very attractive proposition for business, one of the most attractive in the region. As a consequence of these changes, the dividend imputation system will require amendment, along with the infrastructure borrowings rebate provisions as they both rely on the prevailing company tax rate.In short, this measure will convert existing franking account balances so that they are based on the new rate of 34 per cent from 1 July 2000, as well as provide that franked dividends paid on or after 1 July 2000 will carry imputation credits reflecting the 34 per cent rate. I remind the House that the dividend imputation system was designed to avoid double tax of dividend income by imputing tax paid at the company level to shareholders when they receive franked dividends from a company, and the shareholders are generally entitled to offset the amount of tax paid at the company level against their own liability. As well, these measures calculate the infrastructure borrowings rebate by reference to the new 34 per cent rate. This legislation will ensure that these elements of the taxation system reflect the wider changes to the corporate rate.Finally, turning to the intercorporate dividend rebate, the Review of Business Taxation recognised that the present arrangements allow for confusion and avoidance in relation to dividends between companies. To remedy these difficulties, the government proposes not to allow a rebate where a dividend is unfranked, unless that dividend is paid within a wholly owned company group. Where a resident company receives an unfranked non-portfolio dividend and on-pays it to its non-resident parent, the denial of the rebate will effectively be negated by allowing a deduction for the on-payment. This measure ensures that we do not impede investment in Australia by non-residents through an incorporated joint venture, for example. This measure also has the effect of reducing compliance costs as companies eligible for the rebate will not have to go through the process of calculating it.The new business tax system reflects this government's confidence in a bright future for Australia. As an economy, we are growing even faster than the United States. This result has been achieved despite the greatest economic catastrophe in Asia, our primary market, since the Second World War. I could not put it better than the following words do:The Australian economy is clearly characterised by strong economic growth, low inflation, moderate wage growth and improved international competitiveness. Unemployment over the past year has also declined remarkably with the strength of Australia's labour market performance showing encouraging signs for the year ahead.I am indebted to the ACTU for that quote from its 1999-2000 living wage submission.As the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation said in response to a question I asked of him yesterday during question time, we are now the world's greatest shareholding democracy, eclipsing even the United States. We are now a model for good government and economic management for our region and we have an ongoing reform agenda. We have the largest futures market in Asia and the largest share market in the region outside of Japan. Our ASX was the first after NASDAQ to go all electronic and the first to list itself on its own market. Many new opportunities await us as we enter this new century. These opportunities are especially relevant for a state like Western Australia, where we are well placed to provide a financial services hub for Asia, perhaps the non-Japan area of Asia. We are already strongly connected to this region by longitude and time zone—and it is certainly not lost on any Western Australians that technology overrides distance when you are dealing with the north-south scenario and the same time zone—and of course we have existing connections in our region by virtue of trade and friendship. With the reforms embodied in the new business tax system, we have a further opportunity to make Australia a stronger economy, a prosperous nation, a better place to do business and of course a better place to live. We are a viable investment market and, given our economic stability, our markets can be a safe haven for the world's capital markets. It is measures such as the ones contained in this legislation that add to making this objective a reality.11:00:0013740Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I rise to speak on the New Business Tax System (Miscellaneous) Bill 1999 and the New Business Tax System (Venture Capital Deficit Tax) Bill 1999. At this stage of the economic cycle the budget should be in surplus, but it is well known that the government is struggling to maintain a surplus, as evidenced by its decision late last year to introduce the so-called Timor tax, which is designed to raise revenue to bring the budget back into surplus. The government admitted that, without the Timor tax, it would be in deficit in the coming financial year. Why is it that, at this stage of the economic cycle, after several years of sustained economic growth, the budget is close to being in deficit? The answer is quite simple. It is associated with the introduction of the GST. The government is giving $6 billion to $7 billion in net income tax cuts on 1 July. More than half of those income tax cuts are going to the top 20 per cent of income earners.We may ask the question: why is the government so committed to giving large income tax cuts to the top 20 per cent of income earners in Australia? The answer is quite simple. It is trying to buy community acceptance of its GST. It is struggling in that regard. In the last day or two in question time and many times before that, we have witnessed the government stumbling and being unable to explain the GST, particularly the price impacts of the GST. It is trying to buy community acceptance of this odious tax. I suggest that the documentation that has been issued by the government on repeated occasions, including $19 million of taxpayer funded publications before the last election, should be titled `Not Tax Reform, A New Tax'. The government is trying to convince the people of Australia that the GST is going to be good for them, and it is failing in that regard. We saw the Treasurer yesterday saying, `We've got this wonderful new advertising program.' But it is funded yet again by the taxpayers, and I am quite sure that it will be a propaganda program. It is time that the government started telling the truth about this tax.We need also to ask: what is being sacrificed along the way? What is being sacrificed by this government's commitment to provide income tax cuts to the wealthiest people in Australia to buy support for the GST? To answer that question, we might entertain the economic notion of opportunity cost. What is the opportunity cost of the government persevering with the GST? The opportunity cost is the lost opportunity for Australia of the Commonwealth government to be investing in the nation's future. I will cite a few startling statistics. They are in fact from a speech given by the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, on Friday of last week. It may shock members of this parliament to know that Commonwealth funding to universities fell as a percentage of GDP from 0.94 per cent in 1996 to 0.82 per cent just two years later. Commonwealth spending on science and innovation as a percentage of GDP has come down from 0.71 per cent to 0.64 per cent, again in just two years. Business expenditure on research and development, having risen steadily from 0.33 per cent of GDP in 1995 to 0.85 per cent in 1996, has now fallen two years in a row to just 0.71 per cent today. Remember, that has happened in a situation where the OECD average is much higher, at 1.2 per cent. Finally, Commonwealth spending on labour market programs has been cut from 0.41 per cent of GDP in 1996 to 0.32 per cent just two years later. We may ask why the unemployment rate in the United States is so much lower than it is here in Australia. Some people say that it is because of labour market flexibility, but the true answer lies in this: the percentage of the Australian work force with a post-school qualification is 28 per cent. In the United States, the corresponding figure is 37 per cent. The percentage of the Australian work force with a university level qualification is just 17 per cent. In the United States, it is 28 per cent. That is the big difference. One country is investing in its nation's future, and another country is not. Australia is falling badly behind in the information economy, where it is so vital that the federal government invests in the nation's future to lift the skills base and qualifications and improve the education outcomes of people. That is vital if we are to compete in the information age, yet the government is not interested in that. It is actually cutting investment in these vital areas as a proportion of GDP.The new economic reform agenda must be this: the federal government must invest in the nation's future. During the 1980s and the early 1990s, there was a micro-economic reform agenda. It was a worthy agenda. It was the liberalisation of international markets and the gradual reductions in Australian protection. It was the floating of the dollar and the liberalisation of financial markets. All of these things needed to be done, and they were done by a Labor government. But there is now a new economic reform agenda to which the government seems completely oblivious, and that is the agenda of lifting the skills base of the Australian economy so that we can be competitive in the post-industrial era of the new economy.The government has no vision. It has no vision for investing in the nation's future; all it wants to do is to cut the top marginal rate of income tax. The Treasurer has declared himself `an income tax cut man'. The Treasurer has said that he wants to push the top marginal rate of income tax out to many times average weekly earnings. There is the contrast: on the one hand you have the coalition parties, who are committed to a nightwatchman society, and on the other hand the Labor Party, which is committed to a knowledge nation. By a nightwatchman society I mean that a coalition government believes that the imperative is to continue reducing income tax for the highest earners in the country, financing that by cuts in education, health and other vital basic services. A nightwatchman society means that the government, in this case the coalition government, believes that the only imperatives for a national government are in areas such as defence, foreign affairs, and law and order. All of the other functions of government should be privatised, abandoned or shuffled off to the states. That is exactly what this government is doing. It has no commitment to investing in the nation's future. Kim Beazley and the Labor Party, on the other hand, are committed to a knowledge nation, which means extra resources going into lifting the education attainment of this country so that we can compete in the information economy of the new millennium.If Australia is to have the capacity to make this vital investment in the nation's future, it needs some revenue in order to do that. I refer here in particular to the integrity measures, Mr Deputy Speaker. You may recall late last year that agreement was reached between the government and the Labor opposition on the business tax reforms. Some of those reforms are here before us today. The Treasurer undertook, as part of that agreement, to proceed with the so-called integrity measures. They were chiefly measures to deal with family trusts. The other main integrity measure was cracking down on dependent contractors. We are very anxious to see that legislation because the Treasurer said that, as a part of the arrangement that was reached with us, he would be bringing forward that legislation. It is very important that that legislation be brought forward so that these measures can start on the date on which they are scheduled to start. The dependent contractor measures are scheduled to start on 1 July, so we are keen to see that legislation. Where is the legislation? The need for these extra revenue measures and the spending cuts that may well occur in the next budget is due primarily to $6 billion worth of tax cuts for the high income earners of Australia, because that is what the high income earners will get. There will be $12 billion in gross income tax cuts, and $6 billion of that will be going to the high income earners—all in exchange for the GST. We find ourselves in a situation where this entire GST fiasco is threatening the health of the Australian economy. We have seen references today in the Financial Review to the Treasurer actually saying, `Look, we are in a bit of a fix. We are going to have to be very tight on spending because we do not have a lot of money around and we are committed to maintaining surpluses.' We agree with a commitment to maintaining surpluses because that is so vital to the health of the Australian economy. But there is the spectre of a wages blow-out.The problem is that, if there is a wages blow-out, that will be quite damaging to the Australian economy. No-one wants a wages blow-out. Professor Dixon, in work that he performed for the Senate inquiry into the GST, has estimated that there could be in the order of 100,000 jobs lost if there were a wages catch-up to the cost-of-living increases associated with the GST. The best way of avoiding wages flowing on in a cycle as a result of these cost-of-living increases is for the government to start telling the truth about the true impact of the GST on the cost of living. Mr Deputy Speaker, how would you feel if you were an Australian family being told by the government that the cost-of-living increases associated with the GST would be no more than 2.75 per cent? How would you feel when day after day it was being revealed that that was not true, that prices are already going up in advance of the GST and that on quite a number of insurance policies there is a full 10 per cent GST? We were told by the Treasurer that the prices would not go up by the full 10 per cent. Air fares are going up by an amount much higher than that predicted by the government. It is vitally important that the government tell the truth about the true price impacts of the GST, because Australian families are saying they are being misled about the price impacts, that they are going to be much higher and therefore they will need to seek redress for those cost-of-living increases through increased wages. Then we get into a wage-price spiral, and no-one wants that. The government itself has been saying that petrol prices will not rise as a result of the GST. This was a commitment that the government made before the last election. But just recently, on the Sunday program on 6 February, when Treasurer Costello was asked whether the government would use the highest regional price or some average price in adjusting for the GST, he said, `There are limits on this.' As the shadow Treasurer said: yes, that is for sure—the city limits. There is every prospect of petrol prices going up as a result of the GST, breaking the government's promise that they would not.The Australian Automobile Association has confirmed that petrol prices will rise. I will quote from Lachlan McIntosh, the Executive Director of the Australian Automobile Association, who said on 2 February this year:The government plans to apply the GST to excise increases, which means it will be a tax on a tax, forcing petrol prices up at a higher rate than inflation. The GST introduction will increase the inflation rate so motorists can expect a substantial jump in petrol excise in 12 months. Over a number of years, this tax on a tax will continue to compound, costing motorists hundreds of millions of dollars and providing the government with a huge growing hidden revenue base.He is quite sure that petrol prices will go up. For the Australian community, particularly those in rural and regional Australia, petrol prices will go up and people in those areas will get a shock and say, `We need to be compensated for this.' But there is no compensation for these petrol price rises because the government said they would not happen.On car prices, the package that the government released before the last election said that motor vehicle prices would fall by 8.3 per cent. Then the Prime Minister repeated that pre-election promise when he said, on the John Laws program of 23 September 1998, that the price of the average new car would fall by eight per cent. The Treasurer joined him and said they would fall by $2,000. Yet the industry minister, much more recently and well after the election, denied that the government ever said that car prices would fall. He claims that the government had only ever said that the amount of tax on cars would fall. He said, `We don't dictate prices. It is a matter for the manufacturers and the dealers and everybody else as to what the ultimate price will be.' So it looks like car prices will not fall by 8.3 per cent, as promised by the government. On beer prices, the Prime Minister said before the last election, `There will be no more than a 1.9 per cent rise in ordinary beer.' He may say that he was referring only to bottle shop prices, but he certainly left voters with the impression that beer prices would rise by only 1.9 per cent. More recently, Treasury officials have admitted that beer prices over the bar will rise not by 1.9 per cent but by seven per cent. That means a $2 pot or middy will cost around $2.14 after 1 July. There are so many examples of prices going up already and by much more than the government has predicted, and that therefore feeds into the prospect of a wages blow-out. Examples were cited by the shadow Treasurer yesterday when he showed that pyjamas would be going up in price by a full 10 per cent. There are numerous examples of this. But I was dismayed to find that the Australian Taxation Office has joined in the propaganda campaign to mislead the Australian people. I have downloaded a document from the Australian Taxation Office, which says, amongst many other misleading statements:Prices will not go up by the full 10 per cent because old unfair price taxes such as the wholesale sales tax will be removed and many things will be GST free.Yet Professor Allan Fels of the ACCC has said that prices can go up by the full 10 per cent. Why? Because, in many instances, the wholesale sales tax reductions will not be sufficient to prevent that from happening. There are a lot of items to which no wholesale sales tax is applied at all, including all services. The Treasurer might talk about embedded wholesale sales tax, but there is not a lot of embedded wholesale sales tax in services. The other critical point is that the ACCC allows for compliance costs to be added into the calculation of the increased price of products and services associated with the GST. If you are allowing for those compliance costs—and I can understand why they would be allowed for—then of course prices can go up by the full 10 per cent. The ACCC has repudiated the Treasurer even today saying, yes, they can go up by 10 per cent; they would need to see the evidence. I am sure the evidence will be forthcoming in the form of the compliance costs, because the compliance costs for many businesses are going to be enormous.So the Treasury is joining in this propaganda campaign of the government saying that prices will not go up by the full 10 per cent because old unfair taxes such as the wholesale sales tax will be removed. The wholesale sales tax does not apply to services, and it does not apply to most basic goods. That is regarded as unfair, and it is going to be replaced by a so-called fair GST, in the eyes of the tax office, which will apply to virtually all basic services and to a huge number of basic goods.I am absolutely dismayed that the tax office could put itself in a position where it is just another arm of the government's propaganda machine. The tax office is supposed to be an independent organisation, and yet they produce documents like this which are highly misleading, full of subjective statements and all designed to give people the impression that prices will not go up by the full amount and that they will be fully compensated. It says, for example, that there will be no GST on basic food, health or education. There will be GST on a huge number of education expenses: on school uniforms, on many books, on public transport to and from school and on shoes and socks. They say there will be no GST on health. People are going to get a rude shock when they find the range of health products on which there will be GST, including skin creams, tampons, sanitary pads, feeding pads, breast pumps, pregnancy kits, spectacle frames, contact lens solution, first-aid kits, bandaids, antiseptic and lozenges. How are people going to respond? They will seek higher wage rises in association with the GST when the truth becomes known. I call on the government to start telling the truth about the true price impact of the GST and the tax office to revert to its normal independent role and stop joining the government in its propaganda about the GST. We will be watching with great interest the taxpayer funded advertisements that are going to be put to air trying to sell this unfair GST. That should be a factual campaign, not propaganda, as enjoined by the Australian Taxation Office with the Prime Minister and Treasurer of this country. (Time expired)11:20:0013744Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise specifically to address the bills before the House, the New Business Tax System (Miscellaneous) Bill 1999 and the New Business Tax System (Venture Capital Deficit Tax) Bill 1999. My comments will principally go to the latter rather than to the former. These bills, as the House is aware, have the support of the Australian Labor Party. The principle of bipartisanship has been applied to this set of bills because it is the collective view of the Labor Party that they represent a positive contribution to business tax reform. This has been to the great chagrin of the Australian Treasurer, Mr Costello, who throughout the debate on business tax reform in this chamber and in the broader community had in his heart of hearts a great hope that the ALP would oppose the business tax reform so that he could simply position us as being oppositionists in the political marketplace. Regrettably, we did not accommodate the Treasurer's political strategy, because the view within the Australian Labor Party was that the overall requirements of business tax reform in this country are pressing and go beyond the immediate partisan divide.There is also a clear contrast between the Labor Party's approach to business tax reform and the issues which arise in that other element of so-called taxation reform which has been before the parliament, namely, the GST. My colleague the member for Rankin has just addressed elements of it. The key differentiation in our evaluation of these two sets of legislation is as follows: there has been absolutely no evidence produced through any of the Senate inquiries conducted into the goods and services tax in the course of 1999 that that tax reform of itself will generate any measurable additional increment to economic growth in Australia. Quite apart from its deleterious impact in terms of social justice and equity, there was, purely on the economic argument alone, no convincing set of evidence before any of the Senate committees that a consumption tax would produce a growth dividend other than that which would be produced in the normal set of circumstancesconsistent with the business cycle of the time.By contrast, when we look at this set of proposals for business tax reform, there is some evidence that the implementation of this raft of measures will in fact add to the overall level of investment activity in the economy and therefore provide an additional increment to growth. That constitutes, in the evaluation of the Labor Party, the key distinguishing principle as to why we oppose the GST yet support this raft of measures which are wrapped up in the Ralph set of reforms. However, Labor Party support for this set of initiatives is not an unconditional one. It has always been advanced on the basis of a clear principle of revenue neutrality. We have yet to see before this parliament clear evidence from the government, from the Treasurer—from Botswana Pete—that those integrity measures which have been outlined in the Ralph package of reforms will in fact be introduced. That is essential from our perspective to ensure that any revenue gap emerging in the budget will be closed by the introduction of these measures. The Labor Party has adopted the posture of a constructive opposition, notwithstanding the daily demonisation in this place that we are simply a pack of oppositionists out to score political points. Our view on this matter, on business tax reform, has been a considered and constructive one based on lengthy evaluation of the proposals contained within the package, including those currently before this chamber, within the internal debates of the party. Turning to the specific bills which are before the House and in particular the one concerning venture capital, it is legitimate to ask this question in the debate: what does the venture capital deficit tax bill do in terms of its impact on international and domestic investment perceptions of investment opportunities in this country, and what as a consequence will occur in terms of added activity in the economy? Ralph in his set of proposals recommended CGT exemption for non-resident superannuation funds, including US pension funds, which invest in so-called pooled development funds, on the condition that such funds enjoy tax exempt status in their country of origin. The government response, supported by Labor, accepted this recommendation and to extend the CGT exemption to Australian super and similar bodies, making them able to receive both tax exempt franked dividends from PDFs and to claim a refundable credit for any company tax on those dividends, assuming that this had not already been used to offset other liabilities.Interestingly, pooled development funds as such were a product of a previous exercise in business tax reform in this parliament during the period of the Labor government. In 1992, the PDF Act was specifically brought into being to provide tax concessions for investors in risk capital in small to medium enterprises not able to generate sufficient capital from the general capital markets. The rationale behind the pooled development fund proposal contained in Labor's 1992 act was twofold: to unlock the growth potential of new ideas, new business opportunities, new growth potential for small to medium enterprises and, in effect, to partially subsidise this growth by offering a tax concession to venture capitalists as a price premium to in fact offset the extra business risk associated with this sort of investment activity. This is of course particularly critical in the start-up period for new SMEs in which the return on capital could never compete with the expectations of general capital markets in terms of a normal and acceptable rate of return, let alone a rate of return which would be necessary to warrant an extension of bank credit to such enterprises in the form of a normal bank loan. In other words, the traditional formula of debt and equity to fund business activity in this sector through the traditional institutions managing these instruments was insufficient. It is worth reflecting on what has occurred in the six years or so in which PDFs have been operating in this country as a consequence of that Labor government business tax reform of 1992. In the period since then some $328 million has been raised by Australian PDFs, and $215 million of this equity has already been invested in 185 separate investee companies. If we look at the sectoral breakdown of this activity it is equally interesting. Thirty-eight per cent of the total available investable funds which have gone into enterprises already have gone into the service sector, 31 per cent into manufacturing and six per cent into agriculture. This data has been provided by the PDF registration board. What we have therefore seen with pooled development funds is a great start to the development of venture capital markets in Australia. It now of course needs to be taken to a new level by reducing the CGT liability facing Australian super and similar fund investments in pooled development funds and, secondly, by expanding massively the quantity of available capital to Australian SMEs by providing a CGT-exempt regime for overseas super and similar funds.Therefore, this set of reforms which we have in this legislation before the House and that which preceded it in the latter part of last year are entirely consistent with Labor's historical record of business tax reform. They are consistent with Labor's 1992 policy initiatives in business tax reform with the establishment of PDFs in the first place. They are also consistent with the sorts of recommendations that the Labor Party took to the Australian community in the 1998 federal election. A further matter which is relevant to this debate is what will be the impact of this new taxation system as it relates to venture capital on real additional activity in the economy. It is worth reflecting in this debate that there is a diversity of opinion in the Australian business community as to what is now likely to occur. Deloittes, interestingly, undertook a survey in 1999I think, from memory, in conjunction with the Venture Capital Management Fund Associationof some 32 overseas venture capital organisations, both in the United States and the United Kingdom. The survey asked a simple set of questions: namely, what was impeding the operation of those venture capital funds into Australia and what would be necessary to unlock their investor interest in Australian equities in the venture capital SME sector. The conclusion of that survey by Deloittes was that Australia was missing out on some $600 million to $1.9 billion of potential venture capital because of the previous taxation regime. A second conclusion was that total CGT exemption would be necessary to bring about taxation neutrality with other tax environments with which those US and UK funds were operating in order to change the attitude of those venture capitalists to direct equity investments in this high risk sector in Australia. According to the survey, 75 per cent of those venture capitalists who were interviewed said that, unless the CGT rate came down to zero and there was a total exemption, they would still not consider investing here, even if there was a partial exemption. When we look at surveys like this we must attach a degree of scepticism to the interests which drive such surveys. After all, if you are sitting in London or New York and someone walks in from Australian Deloittes and says, `We have a survey here which says, “What do you need to do in order to come to Australia to invest in high risk venture capital activity in small to medium size enterprises down under. Would you like a partial capital gains tax exemption or a total capital gains tax exemption?”' you do not have to be Einstein to conclude which way they would answer. When self-interest is in a race you always know that it is trying and always likely to have its nose ahead. It also raises the question of international comparisons of various taxation rates, not just in terms of capital gains but company tax and broader tax levels in general. This is a broader debate which is of enduring importance not just to this nation but internationally. I refer to the question of jurisdiction shopping, driven by taxation rates in different jurisdictions around the world. Plainly, this debate on capital gains tax as it affects US super funds in particular and the debate we have also had in this chamber about our headline company tax rate are driven in large part by international tax comparisons, couched in terms of international tax competitiveness, as the means by which continued international investor activity in this economy must be sustained. It is parallel to the debate we have had in this country for some decades about jurisdiction shopping between the various states of Australia in terms of the state taxes and charges which they offer to different investors, both domestic and foreign, seeking to set up businesses in this country. It is also parallel to what is emerging as a great international debate about the so-called `race to the bottom'a race to the bottom across developed and developing economies in terms of tax rates, a race to the bottom in terms of labour standards, a race to the bottom in terms of environmental standards. All of these matters are serious matters indeed which require serious and separate debate, and are not to be simply dismissed. Both this CGT debate, which we are partly having today, and the company tax debate, are recent and graphic illustrations in this country of how international tax competitivenessthe danger of jurisdiction shoppingactually drives the taxation debate here as in other countries. It raises a very legitimate question for all of us in this chamberleft, right, centre, wherever we come from across the political spectrumand it is this: where does this race stop? Ultimately, the interest of global capital is to have as minimal or as negligible a taxation regime imposed on it as possible. The unstated agenda of global capital is to transfer the entire taxation burden, if at all possible and if political jurisdictions agree, to either income or consumption. On that latter point in particular we have seen a graphic illustration of that switch in the taxation mix in this country with the introduction of a consumption tax by the government. This broader debate about the race to the bottom, about international tax competition and where it all leads in the long term, about our respective parties' ability to continue to generate enough revenue in this country to fund the legitimate social policy objectives of government, is a debate which we as a nation must have. When we turn to the specific questions alive in this particular legislation, however, we must come back to what precise impact this set of measures regarding CGT exemption will have in terms of real additional economic activity. It is worth looking also at other people who have examined this matter in some detail. I refer to a recent publication by Peter Chapman in the Australian CPA journal of July last year entitled `Venture capital: financing growth'. One of the interesting things which he concludes concerns the role of venture capital small risk companies in generating disproportionately high levels of employment growth and export growth relative to other economic actors within the Australian economy. I quote: In 1997, the Coopers & Lybrand public policy and economics unit conducted the first study of the economic impact of venture capital in Australia. The key findings of this study, based on data from more than 100 small- and medium-sized venture-capital-backed companies, was that between 1992 and 1996 venture capital backed companies increased staff numbers by an average of 20 per cent compared to average employment growth of two per cent in the top 100 Australian companies. They also experienced sales growth of 42 per cent per annum (with export growth of 27 per cent per year ) compared to six per cent sales growth for the top 100 Australian companies. Mr Chapman goes on: Exploitation of new technology is not the only way that venture capital helps to generate economic growth. Venture capitalists also provide capital for management buy-outs where management acquire, perhaps from a large corporation, mature businesses which are no longer central to the plans of the present owners. Frequently, the result of the transfer of ownership from absentee landlords to incumbent management is that businesses which may have been languishing, are reinvigorated. We can see, therefore, from the professional literature on the subject, that there is a direct correlation between a vibrant venture capital market investing in higher risk SME activity with higher rates of employment growth and export growth. It also provides business managers who have been active in companies which have been the subject of substantial ACA activity the opportunity to take out from the original parent company a useful and discrete business unit and to develop that further by using capital provided by a market which is sensitive to their immediate requirements. The literature also offers some scepticism, however, about whether in fact we have a drought of venture capital in this country and whether part of the problem lies in the ability of the marketplace to organise, throw up, distil or effectively broker sufficiently mature business opportunities for venture capital markets to consider. I quote from Mr Chapman:A 1998 survey of venture capital by Arthur Andersen covered 22 Australian-based professional venture capital managers with over $1.4 billion under management. For the second year, the surprising discovery was that this group had over $700 million of capital available but not committed to business opportunities. Several foreign venture capitalists, not covered by this survey, have also announced unused availability of more than $500 million for the Australian marketplace.Mr Chapman continues:We need to change the mind-set that venture capital is not available in Australia and focus instead on how to help businesses become `investment ready' and able to access the available capital. It would be more productive if those currently focusing their energies on a perceived lack of capital helped to bring together business opportunities and the existing sources of capital.Those are interesting observations, the essential logic being that there is already a quantum of investment capital out there and the actual problem in the marketplace at present partly consists of an inability to throw up in bite-sized chunks and well-developed and mature business opportunities companies which are in direct need of capital injection and which have a reasonable prospect of generating growth from an injection of funds from existing sources of capital.Therefore, it is very important to have a balanced view about all this. Plainly, the logic underpinning the bill is that by unlocking international sources of capital we will add to the total pool of available funds for investment. That is necessary. That is useful. It will also provide added internal competitiveness within existing venture capital markets. But the challenge facing the Australian business community is the development of a new niche in the service industry to prove up potential projects that will be able to tap into these funds. As I said at the beginning of my address to the House, the Labor Party supports the logic which underpins this set of bills before the parliament. It has done so in a spirit of bipartisanship, because we are ultimately persuaded of the logic that this will add to a growth of the Australian economy which would not otherwise occur. It stands in stark contrast to a consumption tax which does the reverse. (Time expired)11:40:0013748Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—In this debate led by the shadow Treasurer, I have followed the other members of the Labor Party in supporting the elements of these bills. We have before us two bills in this cognate debate: the New Business Tax System (Miscellaneous) Bill 1999 and the associated bill that deals with deficit tax as a subset of the miscellaneous bill. My comments will go to the principal bill, that is, the one on miscellaneous matters. Of the four key elements involved in that, I will deal with three of them. I also wish to place the debate on this bill in the larger context of reform of the taxation system as a whole, with reference to particular elements of it.The member for Curtin argued that the shadow Treasurer should have come in here today and presented and argued for all of Labor's economic policies. The fact is that we have specific bills before us today. The shadow Treasurer spoke specifically to those bills and used a series of wider arguments in relation to the impact of a series of changes the government had made. The shadow Treasurer is only in a position to outline what he and the opposition chooses as necessary in this debate, and not what the member for Curtin wants. She set up a false target. She said the Labor Party should be talking about not what is in these bills and associated matters but something else altogether. Well, we will not. We will be talking about these bills, and not only the associated matters that relate to the present and will run into the future but also the underlying fundamentals.Reform of the Australian taxation system did not start in March 1996. I note that historically from 1975 until March 1983, there was not much reform of the Australian taxation system. Through most of that period, who was Australia's treasurer? The answer: John Winston Howard, member for Bennelong and the current Prime Minister. One of the things driving the GST, which we will have imposed on us as from 1 July, is that in 1975 the Asprey report came down. The report argued for a broad based consumption tax. Mr Howard, throughout his entire period as Treasurer, could not get his beloved consumption tax up. He has finally been able to do it. We have also got a series of other changes.But in the period that Labor was in government, there were a raft of changes which were not shallow but extremely deep. In 1985-86 fundamental changes were made to the whole of Australia's taxation system to address imbalances within the system. The then opposition, now government, opposed changes to the treatment of entertainment. Equally, throughout the period we were in government the then opposition fought against changes to fringe benefits tax. At every turn, they resisted serious changes to the taxation system which were meant to make it fairer and to ease the burden on ordinary Australians by making the business community, and particularly the sharks within that community, pay their fair rate of tax.Labor is supportive of what is being done in these bills, as Labor has been supportive of the general changes in the business tax area, but with a series of riders. The key rider is that the changes need to be revenue neutral. Secondly, the changes should not create a situation where there can be exploitation of the Australian taxation system by elements of the business community.The key first purpose of this miscellaneous bill is to deny the intercorporate dividend for unfranked dividend payments between resident companies that are not members of a company group. The Ralph review tackled the question of changed circumstances and suggested that there were three possible ways to go about fixing up the loopholes that were being exploited by accountants, lawyers and people operating companies around Australia who sought to useand will seek to use in the futurethe Australian tax system as a cash cow for their companies. The Ralph review looked at a series of three options: a deferred company tax, a resident dividend withholding tax and the one which has been adopted here, a tax on unfranked interentity distributions. That is, if you have a company group and you pay unfranked dividends within that company group, that should be treated as an entity. The Ralph review recommended that final option to the government as superior to the others. The government has taken that up within this bill. It is about making a series of modifications to tighten up Australia's tax regime in this area. The opposition support this measure as we support measures which tighten up the system so that people cannot exploit it and the Australian taxation system cannot be used as a cash cow. In government, we tightened the Australian taxation system to ensure that it was fairer, that there was less burden on the community at large and that the system operated more effectively. I underline the key point that it is the government's charge to ensure that not just the efficiency but the certainty and the fairness of the Australian taxation system are not ripped apart by those who would seek to simply benefit from changes that are made. These changes are necessary. We support them.There is one other key rider in relation to the business tax changes. With the trumpeting that we have had from the Treasurer about the changes in capital gains tax, in reducing the capital gains tax to 25 per cent, he effectively has reduced it to what is the average rate of tax for an ordinary taxpayer. When people look at Australia's rates of personal income tax, what they primarily see is just the marginal rate of tax. If someone's marginal tax rate is 47 or 49 cents in the dollar, people only look at that. When you talk to most people in the work force who are working overtime, their great complaint is that they will pay almost half of what they are getting in tax because they are on the marginal rate. All the time that Labor was in government and all the time that this crowd has been in government, the reality has simply been this: the real rate of tax a person pays is about 23½ to 24 per cent. When you average out all the concessions at the bottom and the lower rates, that is what we are looking at. No-one has yet been able to convince the community at large that that real rate of tax is what should be looked at. I think we should be talking about it a lot more. It affects Australia's productivity, the effectiveness of our work force, the willingness of people to work harder and longer—or, in recent years, being forced to do that for lower remuneration. We need to change the mindset by an emphasis on the real rate of tax rather than marginal rates.The change to capital gains tax is effectively no great bonus to most people because, if they had capital gains taxed at 47 per cent, they would still be paying an average of about 25 to 30 per cent. The critical problem is that the capital gains tax changes were driven by the stockbrokers. The Ralph review recommended that the changes happen. The stockbroking community was completely behind that. Why were they? Why did they want stockbroking and share trading to be opened up with the change from a nominal rate of tax to a real rate of tax? It was because they would get greater turnover and they would be able to earn more money because the share trading would turn over much faster.We will have to watch what happens in the coming years. The big gap in all of this is what will happen in terms of speculative gains. During the period 1977 to March 1983, the Taxation Office had a very great problem in terms of speculative gains. Labor, during its period of office, made changes to capital gains tax directed towards not giving the benefit to those who would simply operate as speculators but providing a more stable basis for long-term investment for the broad community including superannuation funds—which we built up. So Labor supports the first of these changes, in relation to the key questions of what the tax office needs to do and this government needs to do to make sure that our system is not ripped apart.The second purpose of this bill is to allow a refund of excess dividend imputation credits. Labor supports this change. We support it for the people on small incomes—the retirees on fixed incomes from returns on investments and also people on pensions who have got a very small return from investments. Previously, they were in a position that if they got tax credits from those investments they generally were not allowed to use them. A person on a pension got no benefit whatsoever; with this change, they will actually get a refund from the Australian Taxation Office. That is a good thing; it will give people a bit extra. For most retirees on relatively low incomes those extra returns will also be welcome; it is important to them and we support this change. The bulk of the Australian people will be in that position and get some small return from this and that is welcome. The key problem with this change, which has not been heralded by the Treasurer or anyone elseand this is something that will be borne out over timeis that the great beneficiaries are already in an extremely good financial position. I want to deal very quickly with what the Minister for Finance and Administration said yesterday in the parliament—it was also dealt with last year—when he was trumpeting about Australia's share ownership and how Australia is the greatest share owning country in the world. A couple of corrections need to be made to that. The people who will chiefly benefit from this change will not be the vast majority of Australian people, because their benefit will be very small. What the Minister for Finance and Administration has not included at all is the issue of quantum: how much benefit will go to people? How much benefit will go to what percentage of the Australian people? Share ownership did not start in March 1996. This government has built on the shoulders of giants. It has built on the fundamental changes made by Labor when it was in power between 1983 and 1996. The most fundamental change was superannuation. When John Howard was Treasurer, prior to Labor coming to power, superannuation was something precious reserved for people who worked for certain companies and people who worked for certain government departments. For the majority of Australian people, it was not there—at the end of the track, they got a pension, and that was it. Labor's changes fashioned a new system of superannuation, making it broad and deep. Next year, super will go to nine per cent as a result of Labor's changes.Superannuation is of fundamental importance to Australia because of the benefit it gives people in their retirement. The pooled superannuation funds will be the great ballast and balance of this Australian community. Australia, historically, has not had the money to develop itself. Throughout our history we have been dependent on foreign capital. Last year, because of the pressure from and the urging and insistence of Labor, legislation was changed to enable US pension funds to put a small part of their funds into Australian venture capital. That was an important change. The third change that we have here is for that purpose: to give the same treatment to Australian superannuation funds, so that they will be able to put more of their funds into Australian venture capital, so that small and medium enterprises will have a stronger chance of getting access to the capital that they need. They will not be dependent on US or European pension funds but will be able to access capital from Australian funds and be dealt with on an equal basis. They will be able to do this because of what Labor did with superannuation in the greatest reform and change of Australia's taxation and payment system that we have seen. It is enormously significant that, when this government came to power, it chopped off the extra six per cent superannuation that Labor had in line. After the 1993 election, Labor brought forward by one year the first tranche of its tax cuts; it paid those one year early. The second tranche of tax cutsan extra six per centwas to be commuted into superannuation benefits: three per cent from employers in productivity payments and the other three per cent from workers. That extra six per cent that should have been going into superannuation funds will not be there until Labor comes back to power and legislates to bring that great change back into centre place. It is enormously important for the economy as a whole. Why is it so important? Because we need depth and strength in Australia's stock market and we need it from Australian funds if the whole of Australia is to benefit most from our stock market and from our economic activity. We will not get it unless we have great depth in the superannuation funds. Labor support these changes. Given that we pushed the situation in relation to US funds, the corollary is that our own funds need to be dealt with in the same way. It is an extremely important area. Australia has been thin in regard to the depth of its share ownership. The reason that we are now the greatest share owning country in the world is that Australians have had the opportunity to go into superannuation funds, and most of the investment will be found through those superannuation funds. This government have flogged off 49 per cent of Telstra, our greatest asset, and they want to flog the other 51 per cent. But we will fight them right down to the wire to make sure they do not do it. We will also fight them down to the wire to make sure they do not flog off all the additives to Telstra that can make it a bigger, greater and stronger company, giving returns back to the prime Australian shareholder—the Australian community, those 18 million people who owned 100 per cent of it and own only 51 per cent now. With Telstra and a whole series of floats coming up, including AMP and NRMA, there are a greater number of people in the share market. But the key question is: what depth of investment is there from people? Most people have very little, and we want to see more investment, particularly through superannuation funds.These bills are not sui generis. They do not just arise of themselves and they do not just arise out of a federal coalition government. These bills fit into a broader context of change led by the Australian Labor Party in office where the fundamental changes were made to our tax system and to our superannuation system. What is sui generis is the business tax system as presented by this government as a result of the Ralph review. These bills go to long held arguments within the business community about how things can be changed. Labor has indicated its support of the broad range of these, particularly the measures before us here today.We need to think not only of now but also of where we need to go. Other Labor speakers in this debate, and the last speaker in particular, made the point that we need to invest for the future of the economy. That is why it is sensible to do these sorts of things. That is why it is important to get venture capital. In the next century, which is the 21st, given we are in the last year of the 20th century and the last of the second millenniumcontrary to what the media would tell us—the underpinning for Australia's economy will be in the knowledge area and the telecommunications area. Australia needs to benefit from that. The changes incorporated in this bill, with pooled superannuation development funds able to invest in Australia and invest in these areas, are not only welcome but also important and needed. That is why they have our full support. I commend the bill to the House.14:01:0013751Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I would like to compliment speakers from both sides for their intelligent application to the details of this legislation. Often our debates of this sort range across all types of topics, many of them unrelated to the exactitude of the legislation before the House. Apart from the odd political swipe as speakers from the Australian Labor Party have gone through, we have been able to deal with the facts of this legislation and have expressed in the House today a great deal of bipartisan support for the measures contained in these taxation bills. To many people, taxation is a dry topic, but the areas that we are examining today affect small businesses and retirees and are beneficial to the community at large. This is a miscellaneous bill which contains details of changes the government announced in October last year when the Treasurer announced the government's response to the Ralph report on a new business tax system. That is what we are dealing with today. The first matter has the incredible title of `Refunding of excess imputation credits'. Most people would wonder what that was about. In simple terms it means that when a retiree or a small investor invests in something and they do not take an immediate profit from their investment and the interest is not paid but deferred, a calculation is done of what the interest earning could be and what the tax may be on that implied earning. Of course, the taxation implied is always at the medium rate and, for many small income earners, that is far above what they would normally pay in taxation. Past practice has been for the Australian Taxation Office to hang on to that bit of surplus between what the small investor's income would normally be, the tax they would pay on that and the tax charged by this imputation process. The government is changing that today, and the measure is effective from 1 July. So, from 1 July, people will have these calculations made on exactly what their income tax is. What a change this is! It is reflected in so many of the things the government is currently doing. It is reflected in the pay as you go taxation system which applies to small businesses. No longer will a calculation be done to guess what an income tax calculation may be for small business; it will be exactly on the amount of profit a business has earned and it will be paid after the period that they have earned it. There is a process of significant reform going on which will create a fairer system. People will be able to predict their income and the way in which it is going to be taxed. They will know that the more they save the less they will be taxed and, the more that they invest, the fairer the taxation system will be from now on. I think these are good measures. They are good changes.The debate today has not reflected the smokescreens and the carry-on that we get at question time, where all the theatrics of the Australian Labor Party, the opposition, the press and everybody combined tend to make it difficult for the average citizen to understand what is going on and so they become concerned and confused. But this is a typical decision of this government—making sure that small investors are not taxed above the rate that they should be taxed at; in fact, ensuring that they are taxed at their right level of income. For too long, the tax office has been able to convince the parliament that a `near enough' calculation is good enough for individuals and that, putting on an average figure, whether it be on a small business or a small investor, is close enough. Today we are looking at the refunding of excess imputation credits so a person will actually get back in future that difference between the tax calculation of the average imputed taxation and what the person's actual tax figure is. It is a good change. It is a worthy change. So are the next changes in this legislation, the venture capital investment incentives. The most commonly heard thing amongst my community in the hills district is that small businesses cannot get enough money to expand. Those businesses say, `We have a great product or idea but we can't take it further. Normal banking processes are so rigid, tightly controlled and so related to fee charges and interest movement on credit cards that the banks are not as interested in supporting small business in a venture capital way.' There are one or two that do but generally bankers are not interested in small business venture capital. Since this government was elected, it has been focusing on the availability of venture capital for small businesses, from the establishment of an investment fund to changes to capital gains taxes—and I will deal with that again shortly. And today we have this measure allowing incentives for companies, particularly superannuation funds providing investors with an encouragement to invest in innovative Australian firms.The real winners from this process are those entities which are eligible for the venture capital franking rebate. Superannuation funds, approved deposit funds and pooled superannuation trusts have been debarred from this area, but in the United States they have been active out there, and we wonder why there is so much private investment in the United States of America in venture activity—something that is innovative, different and has a chance of success but is a little more risky than is a normal up-front business, where the details are well established and the calculations of profitability can easily be seen. This is for the person that goes beyond the normal. This is for the person with a good idea, not a crazy one. This is for the person that has proved they have prototype products and orders and that they are on the verge of expanding their business. So the venture capital changes we are seeing in this legislation today will allow some of those pools of funds, resources and financial support to be used by the superannuation industry and other approved funds if they see that they are to their advantage. The changes allow them to start investing in venture capital schemes without penalty. Does this put at risk the funds of people who have paid superannuation? No, it does not. There is no compulsion in this process; it must be a carefully calculated decision that super funds and the managers of funds will take, having assessed the qualities of the businesses they are investing in. It will be instead of having super funds investing offshore. I find some objections to the savings of Australians being invested in areas where we do not have much control. It is far better for us to be using techniques like this to encourage superannuation funds to roam across the opportunities for investment and to select without penalty those things which they can see will benefit their superannuants and their retirees eventually and will also be advantageous to Australian industry.That is another good sound measure taken by this government as a part of its changes to company taxation and business taxation, a new business tax system. We have the introduction of a new personal income tax system, which is coming into being on 1 July this year. It will produce great and significant personal income tax cuts. I do not know what those characters in Victoria are carrying on about, demanding extra money for a GST: some of those guys on $1,200 a week will get multihundred dollar benefits in tax cuts and, if you in fact calculate a tax cut as a wage rise, an extra 50 per cent on that. If those characters down there who are storming the streets and carrying on, embarrassing their Labor colleagues in government, were in fact to be fair dinkum about this, they would understand the great benefit of the personal income tax cuts that are coming on 1 July.Let us refer to the business changes too, because the investment changes and the incentive to innovation that is offered by the change in funding in this legislation are part of a package which substantially cuts business taxation. It offers an opportunity for capital gains to be retained, within small businesses in particular, and carried forward into further investment. It is part of a total package and it is not just an isolated effort by somebody with a bright idea. It is part of a calculated, well-researched, well-developed and well-explained process of change for business taxation in Australia.So it is very appropriate that the government's priorities are seen clearly now as we approach 1 July 2000 when, first of all, the income tax cuts for personal taxpayers are put in place. Most of the business changes will not be implemented until 1 July 2001, but some of them are coming into practice and activity at this moment. Most of them will be delayed for one year as it is very proper that, first of all, the government deals with the sorely needed changes in the taxation of individuals and then, after doing that, goes ahead with changes that need to be made to business taxation following the production of the Ralph report into business taxation.As part of that package I have mentioned a couple of things—the substantial cuts in company tax, the prospect of rolling over a capital gain into the next business and the fact that, if a person has held a business for 15 years or more and that taxpayer is at least 55 years of age and intends to retire or has become incapacitated, that person gains the whole of their capital gain tax free. These are sensible things. A person involved in a business is able to carry the value of that business into their retirement instead of having to cash it up, pay taxation, devise some process not to or even, to some extent against their good judgment, fritter it away with an overseas trip or something like that. The benefit of holidays is obvious to anyone, but that is not their preferred solution. Now the government is able to give hard working families their preferred solution so that they can carry forward the value of that asset into their retirement so that, across the period of their retirement, they will benefit—day to day, week to week and year to year—from their hard work. I think that is a great change, one for which the government needs to be complimented.There will be a reduction in the hard rigour for small business of doing an annual stocktake75 per cent of small businesses will be relieved of that. Depreciation provisions are going to be simplified, so assets of $1,000 or less are going to be written off in the year in which they are acquired. That is an excellent process for small farmers and for small business. Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, I know that you would understand the great significance of these changes, not just for the small businesses in the city areas but for those in country towns and for farmers, because the benefits flow on to those people as well. They are a total group, all actively involvedmany of them with their families on their own properties or in their own businesses. Assets with effective lives of less than 25 years will be able to be included in a pool and depreciate at a rate of 30 per cent. It is a process which is going to be advantageous for the small businesses and the producers of Australia, and here today we are putting into train one of the actions of this process—we are dealing with the venture capital opportunities. For the innovator, for the person who wants to make changes, this legislation allows investors greater scope to invest. The benefits from the total tax change for the new business tax system will apply to 95 per cent of Australian businesses and to 99 per cent of Australian primary producers. That is a massive change and it is reflective of the significant changes we are on the verge of seeing with the personal income tax changes and the introduction of the goods and services tax. Low value pooling is also part of this legislation. As a key element of the government's reform process, there is the immediate prospect of pooling all plant costing less than $1,000 so that it can be written off immediately. The pooled plant will depreciate over four years using a diminished value method. Of course, small businesses can retain their immediate deduction for this. So the benefits of this simplified taxation system, of the changes to the business tax processes, are very substantial. The infrastructure borrowings and those consequential amendments are also contained in this legislation. The intercorporate dividend rebate offers better control of great networks and conglomerates. That has always worried the Australian PAYE taxpayer: how do these big companies shift money around, and why are they not taxed? This does not look at what is a complex problem but it tightens up the process, as one previous speaker described it.I conclude by saying that it is good to see the House agreeing about changes that are welcome changes, some of which go back a long time. Somebody said that if it were not for the Hawke government we would not have the superannuation schemes that we have now. That, in part, is true. But this government in the short time it has been in office has picked up so many things, changed so many things and is moving ahead in so many areas that you wonder why 13 years were wasted with Hawke and Keating as they played games with the international value of the Australian dollar, with Australian interest rates and with Australian employment opportunities. When you come to calculate the benefits, I do not know what they were. The Accord got us through a difficult period in our relationship with the union movement, but how did that benefit us? It really only created further excessive claims and a government captive to the union movement, a government which had to consult the union movement before every budget and during every budget. These changes are part of an innovative, dynamic government plan that has brought into place a change in personal income taxation starting 1 July and a change in business taxation starting in the period up until 1 July 2001. It is a government that will move on to further plans with further vision and ideas and not be confined to resting on its laurels and saying, `Vote for us because we've done a good job.' That will be part of it, but there will be continuing plans for the future as well.12:20:0013754Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—I would like to reiterate, as others have on this side of the House, that we support this complex piece of legislation known as the business tax package, of which the New Business Tax System (Miscellaneous) Bill 1999 is part. First of all, I would like to address some remarks to that part of the bill. The opposition's support for this package was based on three provisos. The first is that this package, primarily directed toward the business community, pay for itself—what is known as revenue neutrality. That is, it would not depend on cuts to community services and the like, which is in effect taking from the ordinary taxpayer to give to the business community. This package does not envisage that. The second proviso is that the package implement effective anti-avoidance measures and the third proviso is that the package be seen to encourage investment. We have been assured time and time again that this package will indeed pay for itself, and I am sure the Treasurer will be held accountable by this House if it is found otherwise. The package's self-funding partially derives from the anti-avoidance measures. In particular, revenue will come from the taxing of private trusts in the same manner as companies, and by a reasonable assumption that with a lowering of the capital gains tax rate this will result in more declarations of capital gains. Unfortunately, we believe that more could have been done to encourage research and development initiatives in this package.There are some good things in this particular bill for the ordinary taxpayer and small business. The first one I focus on is the refunding of excess imputation credits. In Australia, which currently boasts the largest number of shareholders per capita, as the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation was reminding us yesterday, the proposed refunding of excess imputation credits contained in this bill is welcome. In particular, self-funded retirees on low incomes will benefit from this policy. Take, for example, a full age pensioner who may derive a small amount of return from dividends. He or she will now receive this as a tax refund. It is pleasing to note that this policy is one which Labor proposed prior to the last election, so obviously we have no problem with its implementation. The next area is removing the intercorporate dividend rebate on unfranked dividends. This policy sees public companies brought into line with private companies and closes a big hole previously used for tax avoidance. Pooling of depreciation allowances unfolds in two parts and is particularly relevant to small businesses with a less than $1 million turnover. As we know, that is the majority of small businesses. It allows for small items of plant to be combined up to a $1,000 threshold and to be depreciated as a pool. Subsequently, as items are written off and the pool falls below $1,000, the pool can be topped up on a continuing basis. This and other initiatives will simplify, especially for small business, the tax burden and should reduce compliance costs.Let me say something about the other bill, the New Business Tax System (Venture Capital Deficit Tax) Bill 1999. This bill provides an income tax exemption for venture capital distributions from pooled development funds to Australian superannuation funds. The opposition supports these changes, as the member for Blaxland says, because the proposed changes are revenue neutral and because we believe that these changes will be used by the business community for productive investment. We believe that changes to the treatment of venture capital will, as the member for Griffith said earlier in this debate, have a projected positive effect on economic growth and particularly employment, which the Labor opposition is very interested in.Returning to the first bill, as I said earlier, the opposition supports this new business tax package and supports the process by which this package was developed. The consultative process that was part of the Ralph review into business taxation was thorough and, many people have said, thoughtful. In my view, this stands in stark contrast with the process by which the goods and services tax stumbled and spluttered into the forefront of the current government's policy focus. While the new business tax system is based on the Ralph review, the GST is nothing but a mishmash of recycled ideas, some borrowed from as early as the 1930s. Used in Europe now, it has contributed to the vast cheese mountains and wine lakes and so on that they have there. What those of us interested in economics found to be the worst thing about it was that there was absolutely no modelling. It is indeed astounding that the government can engage in a relatively thorough process on one issue such as the business tax changes and be diametrically opposed to any community comment on the GST. We have to remember how the government fought the Senate inquiry throughout those months when the GST was being considered. When we on this side of the House, or any other group or individual in society, criticise or draw attention to inequities or unclear aspects of the GST, we are now being labelled as scaremongers. The government's defensive behaviour on the GST is truly bizarre. It appears to be a personal crusade on behalf of a few frontbench members of the coalition while their backbench members carry the bag and bear the brunt of community opposition to this ridiculous tax. Not only does the government have difficulty explaining the tax to professionals and experts alike but also its own ministers grapple with explaining the tax's irregularities, as the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, with his high reputation prior to January, knows to his great personal cost. The GST flat tax has not been well thought out at all and, with 60 per cent of the electorate at large not wanting it, it is extraordinary that the government should persist with its absurdities, such as the GST on sanitary products and the like. It is interesting to note that the Democrat element of the wider coalition that voted for this package is now trying to escape from some of its implications.The ongoing implications of this poorly devised GST flat tax are innumerable. For example, while the government has succeeded in granting small business owners some relief from the taxation administrative burden with the new depreciation measures, it has increased the compliance burden for small businesses with the GST. The wholesale sales tax which the GST is supposed to replace imposed on just 75,000 businesses the necessity of keeping records. The GST has no such limitations. Indeed, it is suggested that 1.4 million businesses and individuals in Australia will be the Prime Minister's tax collectors. The GST is everywhere. As you will have seen on recent TV advertisements, some opportunistic software companies are taking advantage of the general ignorance and confusion surrounding small business obligations to GST compliance. I for one hope that the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation reports to the House on more than one example of prosecuting GST profiteers. How can the government get one policy process, such as the business tax package, so right and the other so wrong? It is truly astounding. But it knew that this was bad policy and it was defensive right from the beginning. The government sought no advice on its GST policy outside of Treasury because it knew that it would be all bad news.I commend to the House these business tax measures contained in the business tax package and in these two bills, particularly those that simplify the complexities of compliance for small business. I hope that many of the venture capital measures will have employment and economic growth generating effects, particularly in my electorate on the new IT businesses that will appreciate these changes. Unfortunately, a lot of good policy contained in these bills will be undone by the ill-conceived GST.12:30:0013756Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—I rise to support of the New Business Tax System (Miscellaneous) Bill 1999 and the New Business Tax System (Venture Capital Deficit Tax) Bill 1999. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak about these bills as I have long been a passionate supporter of the need for reform of the taxation system in this country. The purpose of this legislation is simply to deny the intercorporate dividend of unfranked dividend payments between resident companies that are not members of a company group, to allow a refund of excess dividend imputation credits, to exempt from tax franked dividends paid to resident complying superannuation funds and similar bodies by pooled development funds, and to allow items with a value of less than $1,000 to be pooled for the calculation of depreciation deductions.I shall begin by outlining the measures in the new New Business Tax System (Miscellaneous) Bill 1999 and I will then discuss the New Business Tax System (Venture Capital Deficit Tax) Bill 1999. I begin with the refunding of excess imputation credits. The dividend imputation system was introduced in 1989 to remove the double taxation of company profits that were subjected to tax both in the hands of the company and as dividends in the hands of shareholders. The imputation system allows a credit for company tax paid that may be used to offset tax liabilities by a taxpayer during the year received but cannot be carried forward into future years. The current law does not allow a refund of imputation credits that exceed the taxpayer's income tax liability. The common example is that of retirees who have low taxable incomes and may receive franked dividends but are unable to benefit from the franking rebate because it exceeds their income liability. This is patently unfair to those low income earners who have a marginal tax rate of less than the company rate. For anyone who believes that only rich people own shares or that this measure will not assist many people, I need only to point to retirees, to the lower income earners. All lower income earners, particularly retirees, are currently penalised by their inability to claim excess imputation credits. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may well be aware of a recent study of share ownership produced by the Australian Stock Exchange which showed that Australia is now the largest share owning nation in the world, a matter that my colleague just mentioned a moment ago. Of the adult population in Australia, 53.7 per cent or 7.6 million Australians own shares in Australia either directly or by way of managed funds. We surpass other great share owning nations such as Canada, the US and the UK. I make the point because the study showed, amongst other things, that share ownership in Australia has jumped from 14 per cent to 22 per cent in the 18- to 22-year-old age bracket—18- to 24-year-olds are traditionally in the lower income bracket and should benefit from this measure. The study also confirms that share ownership is spread firmly across all income brackets; 22 per cent of Australians on less than $30,000 a year own shares. They will be the great beneficiaries of this measure.This bill will have a positive impact on these growing groups of Australians. I am pleased that we are encouraging and rewarding those who save and invest. In fact, I am particularly pleased to be able to speak about this issue as I recently had the opportunity and pleasure of speaking at a meeting of the Association of Independent Retirees in my electorate about the government's taxation reform. That group told me that the previous government had done nothing for them. In fact, under the previous administration they felt they were being punished for their frugalness, and their reward for living off their savings was a punitive tax and unfair capital gains tax regime.I am pleased to report that the opposition scare campaign in this area has not worked with this group. In fact, self-funded retirees recognise that this coalition government has recognised their sacrifices and is rewarding them through the current taxation system for being independent. This group of retirees also noted that this particular measure would mean a boon for them. Schedule 2 of the bill will substitute a new division 67 in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and deal with rebates for tax offsets. It provides that imputation credits will be available to not only individuals but trustees assessed for a resident beneficiary's share of a trust.Superannuation funds, approved deposit and pooled superannuation funds, life insurance companies and registered organisations such as friendly societies will also be eligible for the excess imputation credits. This should see a lessening in the distortions for investment decisions for complying superannuation funds. In the most simple terms possible, this measure ensures that individuals are taxed at their appropriate marginal rate of tax on assessment and it is a very pleasing matter that this government has corrected this long-established inequity.When the Ralph review was under way, representatives of small business put a very strong submission to the Ralph inquiry, pointing to the possible adverse effect that some reforms may have on this sector and the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia sought special treatment for small business. The government responded very positively to this request and there were a number of measures announced that were aimed specifically at benefiting the small business sector which, as we know, is the quiet achiever and the powerhouse of the Australian economy.I mentioned earlier the campaign of misinformation and the scare tactics that the members across the chamber were engaging in. Mr Deputy Speaker, I bring to your attention the recent Morgan and Banks survey, which shows that 91.2 per cent of all small businesses are confident of being ready for the new tax system. I also note with interest that, of all the major industries, it is the media which is the least confident about being ready for the new taxation system, although 82.4 per cent of the industry is confident of being prepared for the introduction of the new tax system. Perhaps this says something about who influences the media. However, I digress. I was discussing the measures which the government introduced specifically targeted at small business. In fact, the chief executive of the Council of Small Business Organisations said: The Government has targeted its response to Ralph directly at small business. All areas bar one, which have been identified by the sector, are clearly addressed or earmarked to be addressed against an understandable time line.This brings me to the pooling of low value assets, where the government particularly looked after the small business sector. Pooling low value assets is a key element of the government's important reforms in the capital allowance area. This measure will remove, except for small business, the immediate deduction of plant costing $300 or less. The immediate deduction will be replaced by an option of pooling all plant costing $1,000 or less. There is also an option for plant that has been depreciated to less than $1,000 under the diminishing value method to be pooled. This pooled plant will be depreciated over four years using the diminishing value method.Currently, income producing plant and equipment may be depreciated using either prime costs or depreciating value methods over the effective life of the asset. The government has introduced measures in the New Business Tax System (Capital Allowances) Act 1999 so that items costing $3,000 or less may be written off immediately. This bill proposes that those items or assets purchased at a cost of less than $1,000 should be able to be pooled or depreciated and written off. The rate will be 18.75 per cent of the cost of an item allocated to the pool in the tax year and 37.5 per cent of the value of the remainder of the pool. Items can of course currently be pooled, but only where they are subject to the same rate of depreciation and all other conditions are satisfied, such as the condition that the asset be used solely for income producing purposes. This measure eases these conditions. Small business will be able to continue to write off items valued at less than $300 right up to the introduction of the simplified tax system, whereupon small businesses will be able to immediately write off assets of up to $1,000. Assets with an effective life of less than 25 years will be able to be pooled and written down, on average, over five years. For larger businesses, this measure will mean less calculations of depreciation and, of course, easier compliance for all businesses, both big and small.I turn now to the company rate changes and the franking account and infrastructure borrowing rebate consequentials. This measure amends the dividend imputations and infrastructure borrowings rebate provisions in the income tax law to reflect the reduction in company tax rate proposed by the new business tax system. Specifically, this measure ensures that existing franking account balances are based on the new company tax rate of 34 per cent from 1 July 2000. It provides that franked dividends paid on or after 1 July 2000 will carry an imputation credit reflecting the 34 per cent rate. This measure will also calculate the infrastructure borrowings rebate by reference to the new 34 per cent tax rate. Under the income tax rates bill No. 1, the company tax rate will be reduced to 34 per cent for the 2000-01 income tax year, followed by another reduction to 30 per cent for the 2001-02 and later income tax years. The dividend imputation system, as you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, is reliant on the prevailing company tax rates. The system is designed to avoid double taxation of dividend income by shareholders when they receive franked dividends from a company. The infrastructure borrowings rebate provision also relies on the prevailing company tax rate in determining the level of rebate available.I am proud to be a part of the government that has had the courage to massively reform the taxation system, which will not only ensure Australian businesses have the best opportunity to survive, which they battled to do under Labor for some 13 years, but also enable our companies in Australia to successfully grow, employ more Australians and be competitive. A 30 per cent company tax rate will be internationally competitive and will bring Australia's rate more into line with the rates in other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. This will increase Australia's attractiveness as an investment location, strengthening Australia's prospects for investment as well as the economic and job prospects I mentioned a moment ago. Australia's high rate of company tax has long stifled growth and entrepreneurship in this country, and it is recognised that dropping the rate of company tax in conjunction with capital gains tax reform will give business an enormous boost. I wish to speak briefly on the intercorporate dividend rebate. This measure ensures that, where a dividend is unfranked, no rebate will be allowed unless the dividend is paid within a wholly owned company group, and allowing a deduction on the on-payment will effectively negate, where a resident company receives an unfranked non-portfolio dividend and on-pays that to its non-resident parent, the denial of the rebate.This option will help address the unintended loophole created by the existing section 46—which implements the intercorporate dividend rebate—frees from tax most unranked dividends between entities as well as the added complexity of a wide range of associated and other specific anti-avoidance provisions relating to the section 42 rebate. Currently the taxation law treats resident companies, for example private and publicly owned companies, differently in this area. To ensure that there is no impediment to investment in Australia by non-residents through an incorporated joint venture, the effect of removing the rebate will be offset by a deduction in certain circumstances.It is with great excitement that I turn now to the venture capital investment incentives that are an important part of the new business taxation system. You may well ask, Mr Deputy Speaker, what it is that excites me about venture capital initiatives. In response I would say that you may be aware that I have been serving recently as a delegate to the 54th General Assembly of the United Nations.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—You've been doing a stirling job!RI4Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSER—I thank my colleague for that recognition. During that time I had a further opportunity to recognise the value to Australia of the importance of the venture capital industry, particularly to business and small business. The largest source of venture capital in the world is the US pension funds. There is approximately $US80 billion globally in venture capital, of which $US55 billion is in the United States. Europe, Asia and Israel have their venture capital sourced from the US. Australia has never received one cent of these investments because we had what I and most others would describe as a very hostile taxation system.We may now be able to attract some of these funds because of these measures. This incentive encourages venture capital investment by enabling complying superannuation funds and like entities to receive venture capital gains free of tax through pooled development funds. The special franking rebate, which will be known as the venture capital franking rebate, will mean that capital gains tax is paid by the pooled development funds on venture capital gains while still permitting the dividend representing the capital gain to be exempt. Roger Allen, co-principal of the high-technology fund manager Allen and Buckeridge, told the ASX Perspective, first quarter 1999, page 55:It will be hard enough to convince US Investors that Australia has world-quality R&D, innovation, and business formation. At the very least we need to remove this disincentive.By `this disincentive', Mr Allen was referring to the fact that pooled development funds pay tax at a rate of 15 per cent on venture capital gains. This obviously reduces the return to investors and makes investment in Australia much less attractive than in other countries. Unlike investment in blue-chip stocks, venture capital investors do not expect continuing dividends. Investors generally enter venture capital deals knowing that capital gains are the only gains they are likely to get. To give you an idea of how important these venture capital changes are, let me give you an American example. All over the world, private enterprises are shedding jobs. In the USA since 1980, it has been estimated that approximately 44 million jobs have been shed. In the same period, around 73 million jobs have been created, predominantly in companies which are backed by venture capital. The US is possibly the easiest country in the world to gain venture capital backing, and it is paying off where it counts: in jobs. This is where the future is. In a nutshell, the problem that Australia had is that a tax on capital gains discouraged investment in venture capital industriesindustries that spawn technological advancement and create new jobs.It is important for the Australian economy and for job creation and economic growth that we encourage the investing of venture capital in Australia. It gives me an enormous pride to endorse the bill. I think this will help Australian business and will grow the Australian economy. The changes in the venture capital area are enormously important and beneficial to our business. (Time expired)12:50:0013760Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—Initially, I would like to thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate on the New Business Tax System (Miscellaneous) Bill 1999 and the New Business Tax System (Venture Capital Deficit Tax) Bill 1999 which are currently before the chamber. We, as a government, are particularly proud that we are in the process of putting in place a new, modern and competitive tax system. Our predecessors ran away from this challenge and we are pleased that we stood up, regained the support of the Australian people and are in the process of implementing that mandate. We have put in place a new tax system which will benefit individuals, families and business. This new tax system replaces an unfair, outdated, uncompetitive, inefficient and, in the long term, unsustainable tax system, which we inherited upon election to office in 1996. The government is also pleased that it has been able to get its business tax reforms through the parliament swiftly so that we are able to give greater certainty to business and taxpayers generally. More legislation will follow this year.Honourable members will be aware that the business tax reforms that we are legislating are based on the recommendations of the review of business taxation conducted by three eminent businessmen. The review consulted the community widely, and this has resulted in these reforms being strongly welcomed by both the business and farming communities. Since the government outlined the proposals for business tax reform, we have continued to consult widely in the Australian community and with Australian business on the details of implementation. This continues the widely applauded consultative approach which began with the Ralph review.Already the government has legislated reductions in capital gains tax and company taxes. It is illuminating to note that from 1 July this year individual taxpayers will have to pay capital gains tax on only half of any capital gain that they make. Together with the government's income tax cuts, this means that 80 per cent of taxpayers will have their maximum rate of capital gains tax at 15 per cent. Australia's company tax rate will also become one of the lowest in the region. It will be slashed from 36 per cent to 34 per cent for the 2000-01 income tax year, and right down to 30 per cent thereafter. Scrip for scrip rollover relief has also been legislated by the government. This will be available where interests in one entity, company or fixed trust are exchanged for interests in another equity as would typically occur as a result of a takeover.There are also a number of measures that will assist small businesses in particular, such as the simplified tax system and capital gains tax reductions. Small business is the engine room of the Australian economy and produces an amazing proportion of jobs in Australia. For many small business taxpayers, tax will be payable on a maximum of 25 per cent of a capital gain on the sale of active small business assets from 21 September 1999. A capital gains tax exemption will apply in certain circumstances where small business taxpayers have held an active asset continuously for 15 years. This is a pretty impressive performance by any criteria. Another important part of the business tax reforms is the boost that will be delivered to venture capital. Foreign pension funds from specified jurisdictions that are exempt from tax at home will be freed from tax in respect of income, including capital gains earned on the disposal of eligible venture capital investments in Australia. Honourable members will be aware that this matter has already been legislated through the parliament.Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis, you will be interested to know that Australian widely held superannuation funds and like equities will be able to receive, effectively tax free, venture capital gains derived through a pooled development fund. This is one of the measures that we are debating today. It is interesting that we are the government that has been prepared to have the courage to stand up and say that, as we approach the Centenary of Federation, we cannot continue with an outdated and ramshackle tax system. The Labor Party were in office for 13 years, terminating their role on the Treasury bench in 1996. The Labor Party, however, have been quick to stand up in the parliament, as they always do, and roll out lots of negativity seeking to criticise the very important and beneficial changes which this government is making. Let me draw to the attention of honourable members some of these fairly extreme examples where Labor members are simply unprepared to give the government the credit that we deserve.The honourable member for Blaxland referred to the refunding of imputation credits. He made the most incredible accusation. Mr Deputy Speaker, even you would have been shocked by it. He made the assertion that the refunding of imputation credits will benefit only a small proportion of the community taxpayers whom he said are generally well off anyway. The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation in the parliament over the last couple of days has pointed out that we have turned Australia into the greatest share owning democracy in the world. We have brought about a situation where more Australians own shares than do the citizens of any other country, so we are talking about a large number of Australians. We are not talking about the filthy rich. We are not talking about the well off. We are talking about ordinary, decent mums and dads who have been prepared to work very hard to make a future for their children and, in doing so, are building a wonderful future for Australia.Let me just indicate where the honourable member for Blaxland is wrong in this particular area. It is clear that the refunding of imputation credits will benefit low income earners and self-refunded retirees rather than the high income earners who pay tax at higher rates and therefore would not have excess imputation credits. It is a simple case of mathematics. The honourable member for Blaxlandwho used to work for the former Prime Minister who was, shall we say, responsible for building up a huge budget deficitought to perhaps undertake some mathematics lessons. It is clear that this measure, which has been praised widely by the community and indeed spoken very strongly in favour of by coalition members, will benefit only those whose marginal tax rate is less than the company tax rate. Superannuation funds are also entitled to a refund of imputation credits, and this will benefit the funds and, through them, ordinary workers who have been deserted by the Labor Party and who have been moving to the coalition over the last couple of elections in enormous droves.The honourable member for Rankin claimed that the budget was going into deficit due to personal income tax cuts, especially to the wealthy, to pay for the GST. We have the Timor levy; it is before the parliament at the moment. Nobody could have assumed or understood that Australia was going to be called upon, as we have been, to protect the interests of the people of East Timor in the way that we have. We have received, not only from the United Nations Secretary-General but from people around the world, very strong praise for the decisive way that Australia was the first nation prepared to stand up and be counted and make sure that the interests and the rights of the people of East Timor were looked after. The Labor Party, of course, have supported the government in this and they ought to be given credit for this. But it is ridiculous that the honourable member for Rankin crawls into the chamber and suggests that the budget is going into deficit because we are giving personal income tax cuts to the wealthy. The simple fact of the matter is that we have skewed the tax cuts towards middle Australia. The higher income earners do not get the same level of tax cuts as those less well off—and this is a government for ordinary, middle Australia; a government for the working man. If the member for Rankin is going to come in and make assertions in the parliament he ought to make sure that they are in fact accurate.The member for Rankin also tried to persuade us that there was now a lost opportunity, because of this government's actions, to invest in Australia. He suggested that we are now not having research and development in universities and that somehow our new tax system is responsible for what he sees as this nefarious development. We ought to note that investment in Australia is encouraged through the business tax changes. Any objective, economic, literate observer would know that these business tax changes will encourage investment, and the things that encourage that investment will include the cut in tax rates, the venture capital rebates and cuts in capital gains taxes.I listened very carefully to the very thought provoking contribution by the honourable member for Forrest. He spoke about the importance and benefits which will flow to Australia as a result of the changes in venture capital rules. The member for Forrest ought to be congratulated on his very close attention to this particular matter and his recognition of the important reform contained in this particular legislation. The member for Griffith also said that he wanted to see announced the introduction of integrity measures which would lead to what he referred to as revenue neutrality. The honourable member for Rankin ought to dip into the parliamentary database and he would see that already a range of measures have been introduced to the parliament and actually been passed through this place. These measures have already become law. Other measures will come in the coming months. The member for Rankin referred to what he claimed was government propaganda about the GST, referring to Australian Tax Office brochures. There is a thirst for knowledge about Australia's new tax system. On 1 July we will have a new tax system as we have entered the new millennium. Would it not be the height of irresponsibility if, as a government, we decided not to tell people about the changes to our new tax system? It is ridiculous when the member for Rankin comes into the parliament and suggests that somehow the Australian Tax Office ought not to issue brochures. He says that ATO brochures are a government propaganda campaign. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Australian Tax Office brochures explain to the taxpayers of Australia the law as legislated by this parliament.Honourable members interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Honourable members opposite ought not to interject because they are part of a parliament which, for 13 years, failed to bring about the real and meaningful tax reform which is one of the great prides of this particular Howard government.Let us look at Labor's approach to business tax reform. The member for Griffith said Labor had adopted the role of a constructive opposition. I have to say that in respect of business tax reform, Labor has certainly been constructive. They have supported what the government has proposed, and full credit to them for this. Let us quietly applaud the Labor Party for the approach it has taken to business tax reforms and its joining with us legislatively to respond to the Ralph report. But let us not give them too much praise. You know the Labor Party should not be given too much praise. The distinction we ought to draw is that the Labor Party, while supporting the government on business tax reform, has had a totally bankrupt approach to the general issue of tax reform in Australia. The applause for Labor is a bit one-handed, sadly, and you cannot hear that applause because the Australian people can see through the ruse that the ALP has adopted.The Labor Party has been happy to let the government do all the hard yards in reforming their failed broken tax system and, yet, would you believe, the very many state Labor premiers in Australia were prepared today to sign on the dotted line and grab all the revenue that will flow from the GST. It is appropriate to point out that following the introduction of our new tax system all of that GST revenue will pass through to the states and they will now have a more realistic basis for the future provision of important government services. They will be able to carry out their constitutional responsibility. They will have the funds to properly look after hospitals, schools, police and roads. This government is the first government which has been prepared to give to the states sufficient funding so they are able to carry out their roles under the Australian Constitution. I would like to pause for a moment to praise the contribution by my colleague the honourable member for Curtin. She quite rightly lauded the historic tax reform which this government has brought in and pointed out that it will benefit both Australia and small business in this country. The member for Curtin makes thought provoking and very substantial contributions in relation to a range of debates before this parliament. Let us just look at the benefits which will flow through to the people of Australia from our new tax system. There will be a $12 billion cut in personal income tax. This will be the largest personal income tax cut in history. It will mean people will have more money in their pocket and they will be able to spend it or save it in an accordance with their own priorities. As a result of our tax changes, more than 80 per cent of Australian taxpayers will have a marginal tax rate of no more than 30 cents in the dollar. This certainly should be applauded. We have brought about a substantial increase in pensions, benefits and family assistance. This a government which is family friendly, and the benefits, reforms and assistance which we have given the Australian families since our election in 1996 are reforms of which we as a government have every right to be justifiably proud. We have abolished a range of complex, outdated and distorting taxes, most notably Labor's wholesale sales tax which was levied at a multiplicity of irrational rates from zero up to 45 per cent, or thereabouts, and it was very difficult to know just what was taxed at one rate or why a particular rate was chosen with respect to a particular item. What we are doing is doing away with Labor's wholesale sales tax. Until the Labor Party addresses the particular provisions of this bill, what they do is in effect say that they support the wholesale sales tax. I do not know how any reasonable and rational person could support Labor's wholesale sales tax. It is a 1930s tax system which is grossly out of date. The Treasurer constantly points out that only countries like Swaziland still retain such an outdated model.I mentioned before our new internationally competitive system of business tax. It will have a reduced company tax rate and I have outlined the progressive reductions in company tax rate. There will be significantly lower capital gains tax rates—and I challenge members opposite to deny that they have had complaints about capital gains tax rates from their own constituents—and we are bringing about a range of incentives for small business; for example, significant reductions in transport costs for rural and regional Australia and major reductions in business costs, especially for exporters. We are getting taxes off exports and, of course, that will make it easier for us to compete in the international marketplace. A moment ago I referred to the way that all of the GST revenue will be flowing through to the states. That is particularly important.You do not get anything out of life unless you are prepared to put in the hard yards. This government has been prepared to grasp the nettle and endure the criticism from special interest groups because we have brought about reform that is in the interests of the nation of Australia. Labor's opportunistic and hollow argument that they will roll back the new tax system is the ultimate policy bankruptcya cynical exploitation of a few items of implementation will not detract from the enormous benefit that tax reform provides to our nation and to Australian families. The negativism of the opponents of tax reforms, those opposite, will not weaken this government's resolve nor dampen our focus on the national interest in pursuing tax reform and addressing the deficiencies of Labor's antiquated tax system. The shadow Treasurer yesterday showed just how hopeless the Labor Party is. He showed that it is a party which has absolutely nothing of substance to say on tax reform. These two bills before the parliament are important measures further implementing our government's wide-ranging reforms that will give Australia a new business tax system. We are proud of these reforms, as we are of the whole new tax system which is being introduced. I thank honourable members for their support and commend these bills to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.13764Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Bills13764R97813764Consideration resumed from 9 December 1999, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.13764Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Bills13764R60413764Consideration resumed from 15 February.Senate's amendments— (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 6), before item 1, insert:1A Section 4Insert:Chief Executive Officer means the Chief Executive Officer referred to in section 44A.(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 11), after item 2, insert:2A After section 11Insert:11A Publication of timetable A timetable and procedures to assist the Council to make recommendations to the Commonwealth on the application of the Reserve under paragraph 7(1)(c) must be published each year, in the manner and form specified in the regulations.(3) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 12), after item 6, insert:6A Subsection 16(6)Repeal the subsection.6B At the end of subsection 18(3)Add “This subsection has effect subject to subsection (6).”.6C Subsection 18(5)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (5) After receiving a strategic plan, the Minister must either: (a) approve the plan; or (b) give the plan back to the Council with a request for the Council to give the Minister a different strategic plan for the same period. (6) If the Minister requests the Council to give him or her a different strategic plan, the Council must do so as soon as reasonably practicable. (7) A strategic plan comes into force: (a) immediately after the end of the period covered by the immediately preceding strategic plan that was in force; or (b) when it is approved by the Minister, if the Minister approves it after the end of that period. (8) The Minister must cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament a copy of a strategic plan he or she has approved, within 15 sitting days of that House after he or she approves it.Note: The heading to section 18 is replaced by the heading “Approval, commencement and tabling of strategic plans”.6D Before subsection 19(1)Insert: (1A) During the period for which a strategic plan is in force, the Minister may request the Council to give him or her a variation of the plan.6E At the end of subsection 19(1)Add “The Council may do so on its own initiative or as a result of the Minister requesting the Council to give him or her a variation of the plan.”.6F After subsection 19(3)Insert: (3A) After receiving a variation of a strategic plan, the Minister must either: (a) approve the variation; or (b) refuse to approve the variation.6G Subsection 19(4)Omit “a variation of a strategic plan is given to the Minister”, substitute “the Minister approves the variation of the strategic plan”.6H Paragraph 19(4)(b)Omit “receipt”, substitute “approval”.6J ApplicationThe amendments of sections 16, 18 and 19 of the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992 made by this Schedule apply in relation to strategic plans for periods starting after 30 June 2000.6K Paragraph 20(b)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) the Chief Executive Officer;6L Section 22Repeal the section.6M Subsection 23(1)Omit “Secretary to the Council”, substitute “Chief Executive Officer”.6N After subsection 25(2)Insert: (2A) Subsection (2) does not prevent remuneration of the Chief Executive Officer as described in section 44C.(4) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 17), after item 8, insert:8A Paragraph 37(2)(c)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) the Chief Executive Officer;(5) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 18), after item 16, insert:16A After Part 5Insert:Part 5A—Chief Executive Officer44A Chief Executive Officer (1) There is to be a Chief Executive Officer of the Council. (2) The Chief Executive Officer is the executive officer of the Council having responsibility for its day-to-day activities. (3) The Chief Executive Officer is to act in accordance with: (a) the policies (if any) determined in writing by the Council; and (b) the directions (if any) given in writing by the Council to the Chief Executive Officer.44B Appointment (1) The Chief Executive Officer is to be appointed by the Minister by written instrument. (2) The Chief Executive Officer holds office on a full-time basis. (3) The Chief Executive Officer holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 5 years.44C Remuneration (1) The Chief Executive Officer is to be paid the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, the Chief Executive Officer is to be paid the remuneration that is prescribed. (2) The Chief Executive Officer is to be paid the allowances that are prescribed. (3) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973.44D Resignation The Chief Executive Officer may resign his or her appointment by giving the Minister a written resignation.44E Other terms and conditions The Chief Executive Officer holds office on the terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not covered by this Act that are determined by the Minister. The terms and conditions that the Minister may determine include terms and conditions relating to termination of appointment. 44F Acting appointment (1) The Minister may appoint a person to act as the Chief Executive Officer: (a) during a vacancy in the office of Chief Executive Officer, whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office; or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Chief Executive Officer is absent from duty or from Australia, or is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office. (2) Anything done by or in relation to a person purporting to act under an appointment is not invalid merely because: (a) the occasion for the appointment had not arisen; or (b) there was a defect or irregularity 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.16B At the end of section 45Add: (3) Each of the following persons must perform his or her functions or duties in accordance with the directions of the Chief Executive Officer: (a) a member of the staff of the Council; (b) an officer or employee of the Department performing services under arrangements made under subsection (2); (c) an officer or employee mentioned in paragraph 48(1)(d) performing services under arrangements with a person mentioned in paragraph 48(1)(a) or (b).(6) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 18), after item 16, insert:16C Subsection 51(2)Omit “Assistance”, substitute “Subject to subsection (2A), assistance”.16D After subsection 51(2)Insert: (2A) The Chief Executive Officer must notify the recipients of grants of assistance by the date set out in the timetable published under section 11A for that category of grants.(7) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 22), after item 18, insert:18A Paragraph 81(2)(e)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (e) the Chief Executive Officer; (8) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 28), at the end of the Schedule, add:21 Paragraph 82(2)(c)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) the Chief Executive Officer.13:12:0013766Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I move: That the amendments be agreed to.This bill amends the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992 to streamline the council's processes so it can more effectively maintain its role as a national leader in the field of public health research and advice. Additional amendments became necessary following the Health and Medical Research Strategic Review and cover two main issues. Firstly, the amendments make provision for the minister to approve the council's strategic plan providing a greater degree of transparency and accountability. Secondly, the amendments allow for the appointment of chief executive officer of the council, while repealing the existing position of secretary of the council. The opposition has also moved amendments to ensure that a timetable will be published each year, which will give researchers time to plan ahead for the next projects. The government is happy to accept the amendments. I thank members and senators for their contribution to the debate.13:13:0013766Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—This bill, the Health Legislation Amendment Bill No. 3 1998, was introduced in November 1998 and the opposition was pleased to support its passage through the House of Representatives at that time. Despite its alleged urgent nature back then, the bill has sat on the Notice Paper in the Senate. The original bill contained a range of minor amendments to the legislation for the National Health and Medical Research Council. The government is now moving, as the minister has just indicated, two substantive amendments to establish a new position of Chief Executive Officer of the NHMRC and to give the minister power to approve strategic plans prepared by the chief executive officer, who will be a departmental officer given the powers that would normally be enjoyed by a board. The opposition is supporting both of these measures, although I would have to say they do not go as far as we would wish. From our point of view, it is time the NHMRC was given more independence from both the minister and the department. We certainly look forward to a time when that will occur. It is true that the creation of this chief executive officer position is a start, but as all will be aware, the Wills review of the National Health and Medical Research Council recommended not only the appointment of a full-time chief executive officer, but the restructuring of current organisational arrangements to create greater independence for the office of the NHMRC. Wills argued that in the absence of increased autonomy, separate identity and internal career paths, the council and its secretariat would not be credible in the states and territories, who are of course the providers of public health care services. The close linkage of the careers of the secretariat with the department potentially leads to conflicts of interest. The Wills review envisaged a more autonomous, research-literate staff. It recommended the development of a memorandum of understanding between the NHMRC and the department to clarify roles and responsibilities. Nevertheless, the government's amendments are a first step towards establishing the NHMRC in the autonomous way that Wills had envisaged.It is certainly the case that both sides of politics are very proud of Australia's record as a world leader in the field of health research, not only from those who are so well known, the latest and most significant, of course, the Australian of the Year, Gus Nossal, but it is the case that the greatest resources are all those scientists who work in laboratories all around the country. These people keep Australian medicine at the forefront and they depend on the NHMRC to set priorities and fairly distribute funds on merit.The opposition also welcomed at the time of the last budget the government's commitment to a long-term doubling of funds for research. Unfortunately for Australia and the research community, the increase in medical research funding has been more than offset by cuts in other areas of research, particularly cuts to university research funding and overall grants to university funding, which, of course, meant that the infrastructure which underpins the universities' research effort has been dramatically curtailed. Next year expenditure on research across the government will be $100 million less in constant prices than it was in Labor's last year of government. In relative terms, Australia remains a very poor investor in research. Figures in the Wills report highlight that we are near the bottom of the scale in the OECD. Australia spends just $28 per head compared to an average of $66 per head for the OECD countries and around $80 per capita in Japan and the US. It is true that the minister counts us as among only eight countries capable of high level medical research, but unfortunately our expenditure is still far too low.One of the other major areas where the Wills report recommended change which we are still waiting for is to tackle the serious problem of a lack of career structure for researchers. Pay scales remain well out of line with comparable overseas salaries and below Australian standards for high class professionals. We certainly did—and this debate has just gone through the parliament—welcome the government's adoption of what was in fact Labor's 1998 election commitment to change the capital gains tax regime to encourage investment in the Australian research industry by overseas pension funds and Australian superannuation funds. (Extension of time granted) I will certainly look forward to the additional investment that will be made as a result of those changes.The additional amendment we are considering today, on top of those moved by the government in the Senate, is the opposition's amendment to give some certainty about the date on which grants will be announced. The need for this amendment arose because last year we had a number of anxious researchers calling up concerned that the announcement of the NHMRC grants for the year 2000 had not been made despite the NHMRC having passed on its recommendations to the minister a month earlier. I am pleased that the minister has agreed that in the future the scientists will be able to get some certainty about when these grants will be announced so that they can plan for their year ahead. We certainly do need to continue this process of reform of the NHMRC, as outlined in the Wills report. I think these are first steps and I hope that we can work together to take them further.13:19:0013768Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I can understand the honourable member's desire to have the NHMRC more independent from the department. I felt the same way when I occupied her position. It is very easy in a large organisation to find researchers and people who have a particular gripe against the organisation concerned. However, I suspect that, should she become health minister, she will find the same thing I found—that is, the NHMRC offers the whole policy process of government a very great benefit and the Commonwealth Department of Health would be very much diminished by losing its connection with the National Health and Medical Research Council.One of the great challenges I have had in the last few years as health minister is to try to get more of an evidence base into medical practice. To have an organisation like the National Health and Medical Research Council as part of the department has been enormously beneficial.The honourable member mentioned the Wills recommendations. They will be implemented. The memorandum of understanding, for example, is not a legislatively based one so we do not need to pass legislation to bring in most of Wills's recommendations but we do need a legislative amendment to bring in the position of CEO, which is why the amendment was moved.The next point I would make is that the honourable member makes a mistake in referring to the NHMRC only in terms of science. The NHMRC has four principal committees. One is the Medical Research Committee. But it is also much bigger than that. While it is scientists who tend to get our ear, we should not forget that the National Health and Medical Research Council is also the Australian Health Ethics Committee, the National Health Advisory Committee and the Strategic Research and Development Committee and, in this sense, the body is much bigger than all its parts. Trying to meet the need of scientists is very important, but they are not the only need and they are not the only group the NHMRC serves. They themselves forget this sometimes.Finally, I wish to make some comments on expenditure on research. I have been very keen to see Australia increase its expenditure on biomedical research. I am delighted I was able to convince my colleagues to double the NHMRC's base funding. I will make two comments in reply to the honourable member. The amount of research a country puts out is directly proportional to how much work is being done on the back bench. The figures that she used also include a lot of money that went to merchant bankers in schemes that proved useless and inefficient tax deductions. In the end, I think she would find, if she wants to measure it in terms of workers on the back bench, we are actually doing quite a lot better.I cannot but not mention the Labor Party's own effort here: when I came to government, the promise by Paul Keating in 1993 to make two per cent of health expenditure our expenditure on medical research was a pea and thimble trick. That money had not been put into the base funding of the NHMRC, but it was short-term money that ran out and expired at the end of the full year forward estimates cycle. In the 1996 and 1997 budgets I had terrible difficulty finding the money just to plug the gaps and to stand still because of this. This is in spite of the fact that when the announcement was made by Labor in the 1993 and 1994 budgets they said it would be ongoing. It was never. When we have doubled the amount of funding for the NHMRC at the end of the five-year process, the base funding will then be three times what it was when we came into government in real terms, even after allowing for inflation. All that said, I welcome the Labor Party's support, I welcome their constructive amendment and I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills13769R100013769Bill presented by Dr Wooldridge, and read a first time.1376913:24:0013769Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Health Legislation Amendment (Gap Cover Schemes) Bill 2000 amends two acts—the National Health Act 1953 and the Health Insurance Act 1973. This piece of legislation is important as it addresses one of the more challenging issues facing private health insurance, namely, the medical gap. The gap is the difference between fees charged by doctors for in-hospital medical services and the combined health insurance benefit and Medicare rebate.We have made some significant advances in this area over the last 18 months. The number of people being covered by gap products and the number of hospital admissions being covered by gap products has gone up, I believe, around 25 per cent just since the December quarter of 1999. It really took off since we allowed changes whereby doctors could come to arrangements on hospital based gap cover, an amendment moved in 1997. It was from there that Melville Private was the first hospital in Australia to offer such arrangements.There has, however, been a problem with the current arrangements in that the very significant part of the medical profession finds that this is completely unacceptable and the advances we have had to date have been over the bodies, so to speak, of the medical profession and they have opposed it at every single move.The measures contained in this bill will enhance the attractiveness of the product of private health insurance by giving the health insurance industry an additional means by which it can offer known gap insurance policies. The bill provides for ministerial approval of gap cover schemes. The approval criteria will be contained in regulations. Those regulations are not yet available. I concede that they are important and will need to be properly examined by the opposition before they can give a final position.The bill requires health insurance funds to demonstrate that the operation of any proposed gap cover scheme will not have an inflationary impact. This is not an absolute standard. In exercising powers of approval, I would ensure the gap cover schemes would not have an inflationary impact over and above those associated with gap product already developed under existing arrangements. But in doing this, I am trying to send a clear message that we simply will not allow any open-ended scheme and we will not allow a scheme that allows medical fee inflation. But we are sending something of an olive branch to the medical profession in saying, `It's now over to you to work with health funds to see if you can come up with products that are to the benefit of the consumers.' I believe this is possible.The model that has been put to me is what is called a service delivery scheme—in effect, Medicare at a general practitioner level as a service delivery scheme whereby a person goes to a GP, the GP may choose to bulk bill or may alternatively choose to give the patient an account. Over time, most GPs have come to charge no gaps at all on their GP products but, then again, that is an individual GP's choice and a consultation by consultation choice.This reform is an integral part of our government's desire to make private health insurance better value for consumers and part of a long-term process and long-term plan with health insurance. That includes lifetime health cover, a 30 per cent rebate, a change to prudential requirements and changes to prosthesis, one of the most rapidly growing areas of private health insurance expenditure. These measures therefore serve to enforce our commitment to a robust Medicare system complemented by a viable private health system. Consumers have consistently demanded no or known gaps in return for their health insurance premiums. We have listened to those demands and this bill has delivered the framework within which this policy may be offered and our existing successes expanded. The bill is evidence of our commitment to ensuring that choice and freedom offered by the private health system remains viable to all.As I mentioned, while the current legislation allows the gap to be covered in circumstances where a hospital or fund-based agreement exists with the practitioner providing the service, this bill will enable the gap to be covered without the need for formal contractual arrangements between practitioners and funds. Despite the rapidly increasing coverage of gap products, there is still very great friction in this area. I hope that this bill will allow time for the different parts of the industry to start working together, something that should have happened a very long time ago.The measures contained in the bill are significant in the history of private health insurance. It is the first time health funds and doctors have been able to agree on strategies for dealing with gaps. In this sense it should be commended as an example of people working together.I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill and I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Bills13770R92813770Consideration resumed from 16 February.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 45, page 14 (lines 10 to 26), omit section 29.(2) Schedule 1, item 45, page 18 (line 33), omit “or 29”.(3) Schedule 1, item 92, page 44 (line 33), at the end of section 70, add: ; and (j) the storage, handling and confidentiality of any statement given under section 40L and the use which may be made of any such statement, including any limitations on such use.(4) Schedule 1, item 92, page 44 (line 33), at the end of section 70, add: ; and (k) AFP employment decisions and the values on which such decisions must be based, including: (i) impartiality and professionalism; and (ii) merit; and (iii) freedom from discrimination; and (iv) openness and accountability; and (v) fairness; and (vi) equity in employment; and (vii) effectiveness; and (l) the review of AFP employment decisions.13:31:0013770Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.The Australian Federal Police Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 provides for significant reforms to the organisation of the Australian Federal Police, underpinning its role as a law enforcement organisation with a national and international focus. The achievements of the Australian Federal Police in fighting organised crime and addressing the globalisation of crime have been recognised by honourable members and senators in addressing the need for this bill. In this light the opposition has supported this bill and the initiatives contained within it. I thank the opposition for that support. The passage of the bill is an excellent result for the Australian Federal Police and for the community.The government has accepted amendments to the bill in the Senate. Amendments 1 and 2 remove proposed section 29 from the bill. This section provided for the automatic termination of the employment of an Australian Federal Police employee where the employee is convicted of an offence punishable by at least 12 months imprisonment.The government has responded to the concerns raised by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee in relation to this provision. Important powers of termination for serious misconduct and for conviction for a criminal offence are still retained in the act and in the regulations. Amendment 3, which provides a regulation-making power in relation to the storage, handling and confidentiality of financial statements provided by AFP employees complements this integrity provision and reflects the concern of the government for privacy protection.Amendment 4 allows for regulations to be made expressing the values underpinning employment decisions in the AFP and providing for a review of employment decisions. While the AFP has a review mechanism available in the industrial agreement process, a regulation will ensure that there is also review available in respect of future agreements. I commend the amendments to the chamber.13:33:0013771Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration for his remarks and preface what I am going to say by indicating that I might ask the indulgence and assistance of the parliamentary secretary, given the way in which the business of the House is proceeding. There is other legislation which is not suitable to come before this place before question time, so I will speak more extensively in relation to these matters than I might otherwise. If I could ask my friend the parliamentary secretary on occasion to stand and respond to the remarks I make, it may make that process even more simple for both of us.The parliamentary secretary has indicated that the government had two principal objectives in introducing the bills: to provide more flexibility in the Australian Federal Police employment regime, consistent with the Australian Federal Police reform program; and to recast and clarify the commissioner's powers of command. The bill alters the statutory employment framework so there can be greater reliance on industrial agreements and the removal of fixed term statutory appointments.Of course, in the lead-up to this legislation, the government and the Australian Federal Police themselves, through their association and their membership, were engaged in discussions regarding the establishment of a workplace agreement and that, of course, has now been settled. So this legislation, in a sense, provides a legislative basis upon which that can operate, consistently with a regime which does not apply out of harmony with the approach that the government has taken generally with respect to the arrangements that it is seeking to put in place.The opposition supports in principle the reform of the Australian Federal Police legislation, and particularly the government's intention that it sharpen the AFP's capacity to address the criminal environment which exists today. It was the Australian Labor Party in government which started the reform process within the Australian Federal Police and we are therefore strongly supportive of its ongoing implementation. However, we are very anxious that in this process, which also involves restructuring of the commissioner's powers of command and discipline, the legitimate industrial interests of those who serve within the Australian Federal Police are not ignored or left in an ambiguous situation, as some of the provisions in the bill appeared to the opposition and to some who gave evidence before the Senate committee which examined this legislation.So, in the course of our first response to this legislation and later as a result of that report from the Senate committee, the opposition proposed a number of amendments, some of which, after discussion, were agreed to by the government. I think the amendments improve the structure of the legislation and give to those within the Australian Federal Police confidence that the legislation will provide a better system to ensure that some of the key issues that concern them in relation to their employment and their advancement within the service will be dealt with on a proper and impartial basis.I turn to those particular matters which the parliamentary secretary has identified and I address them one by one. The first of the issues that we were concerned about and which the Senate reported upon was the mandatory dismissal provisions. The mandatory dismissal provisions were not raised by the opposition with any view that there should be any leniency with respect to serious misconduct within the Australian Federal Police. As the parliamentary secretary has correctly noted, there are extensive and enhanced powers of the commissioner to deal with allegations of misconduct. (Extension of time granted) So there are very extensive powers to discipline already existing within the legislation. What concerned the Senate committee in looking at this is that there can be situations where, despite the technical commission of an offence which carries the possible sentence of 12 months or greater, the actual conduct may be, on examination, quite trivial. We may find circumstances whereby a better response, rather than dismissal in those cases, may be counselling; it may be a series of processes that go to internal management issues rather than the necessity of removal by statute of that officer from the service. The possibility of laws which have general application having unjust particular application is no better exampled than by the instance of the mandatory sentencing arrangements which we are currently concerned about as they apply in the Northern Territory. It is a provision the Northern Territory administration said will apply because of concern in the community regarding the commission of property crimes and a desire to enhance protection of victims. It has had what I would hope is an unintended consequence. That is, a 15-year-old boy finds himself in prison for 28 days without a circumstance any of us as members of parliament thought at all warranted. Then there was the tragedy that emerged as that young person was taken from his home at Groote Island and transferred to Darwin in quite alien and different circumstances and in the course of his imprisonment took his own life. I mention that merely by way of example that passage of laws which are mandatory in their application and give rise to no discretion can have quite severe and, one would hope, unintended consequences. The government in this instance has been alive to that circumstance and has accepted that section 29 of its proposed legislation not be proceeded with.What it does now mean is that, where an Australian Federal Police officer is convicted of an offence, all the circumstances in relation to that matter must be considered. The circumstance and possibility of a long-serving police officer of impeccable character being dismissed near or at the end of his career for an offence which does not draw a sentence of imprisonment, while certainly a matter of disciplinary action, is not an instance which any of us would regard as appropriate to require dismissal.Clause 28 of the bill provides a general power of the commission to end the employment of any Australian Federal Police employee subject only to the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act. We believe, and the government has accepted, that deleting clause 29 from the bill and leaving all dismissals to be dealt with under an amended clause 28 is the correct way of dealing with the matter and, of course, schedule 1, which the Senate has returned to us, effects those changes.The next matter which is the subject of discussion and comes back to us from the Senate relates to the storage, handling and confidentiality of financial statements. This is a good step that the government has introduced and is an improvement on that which we left to them when we left office. It provides a framework whereby declarations in relation to financial interests and probity statements of those who serve in the Australian Federal Police be provided to make transparent to the commissioner the circumstances which might give rise to any conflict of interest. (Time expired)13:43:0013772Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—Since coming to power, the government has accorded a very high priority to reforming Commonwealth administration to maximise the provision of quality services to clients and overall value for money to the Australian taxpayer. The government's initiatives to devolve decision making to Commonwealth departments and agencies, remove prescriptive controls and provide much greater flexibility in the workplace are leading to improved productivity within the public sector and better outcomes for the community. A key part of the public sector's role in support of a stable, healthy and financially secure society is an effective regime of law enforcement to address current and emerging criminal threats to people, property and institutions. The Australian Federal Police is the major instrument of Commonwealth law enforcement and its major responsibilities are to enforce Commonwealth criminal law and protect Commonwealth and national interests from crime in Australia and overseas. Fundamental to the government's reforms within the public sector workplace is enabling the relationship between employers and employees to be determined by the parties at agency level. Consistent with this approach, the amendments to the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 will provide for most employment arrangements in the AFP to be settled under the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. Relevant provisions of the AFP Act will continue to apply in relation to staff deployment and, quite understandably, also in relation to disciplinary matters.This particular bill will enable the highly prescriptive employment regime deriving from the AFP act to be replaced with the framework I mentioned a moment ago, which gives much greater flexibility. The government recognises that the member for Denison has been cooperative with respect to amendments and the alterations contained in the bill before the chamber. The government and the opposition previously differed on some aspects of these amendments. However, in politics, as in life, one has to accept that the possible is what one might have to be satisfied with rather than necessarily what one would ultimately desire. That is why the government accepted amendments in the Senate to this bill. We have not accepted all the amendments but we accepted a number of them. These amendments which we are indeed processing in the parliament at the moment will ensure that the Australian Federal Police Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 achieves both the objectives outlined by the minister in her second reading speech while taking into account concerns expressed by colleagues in the other place.The AFP legislation is very important. I am pleased that in this first week of financial sittings we will be able to dispose of it so it will be able to become law and take effect. I also want to point out that in the legislation as an anti-corruption measure and to complement the reforms to the Australian Federal Police employment framework, the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 is being amended to provide the commissioner with the power to compel AFP employees to submit financial declarations. I think that was the area that the member for Denison was commencing to traverse when the clock was so unkind to him.AFP employees will be required by written direction to periodically give the commissioner statements about their financial affairs. The statements must be accompanied by any documents requested by the commissioner and must be provided within two months of the request being made. The regulations will provide for penalties for failing to provide a financial statement and the provision of false information will constitute the making of a false statement for which disciplinary punishment is available. A person is not excused from giving a financial statement on the grounds of self-incrimination. However, any statement given is not admissible in evidence of proceedings other than disciplinary proceedings. This is another way in which we are making sure that the Australian Federal Police, which has a world-class reputation, remains corruption free. I commend the amendments to the House.13:48:0013773Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I indicate that the amendments in schedule 1, item 92 add a provision that provides for the making of regulations for the storage, handling and confidentiality of those statements that the parliamentary secretary just referred to. As I indicated, we certainly believe it is an improvement to have the power to require the making of those statements. Nonetheless, of course, it is a quite legitimate matter for serving members of the Australian Federal Police to want to be absolutely reassured that that information which naturally would have its personal and confident aspects would be properly secured and maintained, and those regulations will address that. I think that improves the confidence that everyone will have that the system will work well. From the perspective of the industrial interests of those working within the Australian Federal Police, the most critical amendments that have been added in the Senate are those relating to the power to make regulations, which are inserted now as subsections (k) and (l). They provide that regulations can be made about AFP employment decisions and values on which such decisions must be based. The values that are set out include impartiality and professionalism, merit, freedom from discrimination, openness and accountability, fairness, equity in employment and effectiveness. Of course, one would expect that the organisation, operating properly, would naturally continue to apply those criteria, and those criteria largely reflect the language that is contained within the recently passed Public Service Act amendments.There is also a provision to make regulations with respect to the review of AFP employment decisions and, of course, employment decisions include decisions in relation to advancement. That was a very important industrial relations matter, because hitherto it has always been an accepted part of the industrial relations framework within the Australian Federal Police that those advancement decisions can be the subject of review.Whilst these provisions provide only for the power to make the regulations and are not expressed in the much more detailed terms that the opposition first proposed in relation to the amendments we put forward—in other words, we intended to include in the act itself a legislative framework which would have covered all these matters—we were reassured by the minister that the government intends to make comprehensive regulations to ensure the continuing applicability and availability of a framework which requires decisions to be made on the basis of those values and the availability of review.As part of the process of discussion and agreement between the government and the opposition, Senator Vanstone, the Minister for Justice and Customs, tabled in the Senate a letter from herself making the undertakings that such regulations would be in place and effective before the termination of existing employment circumstances, which contain those rights. So those undertakings are there in the Senate. The minister has made plain to us that she will proceed on that basis and that that will indeed make certain that any future changes in relation to an agreement between the Australian Federal Police and the government must comply with those basic principles. That, of course, is essential. The government had perhaps taken it for granted, but we thought it was very important to put it up front and explicitly as a legal requirement in relation to the way in which the legislation is drafted.Of course, as the parliamentary secretary has said, not all was sweetness and light between the government and the opposition. In one particular area the legislation that has been returned to this House does not contain amendments which were proposed by the opposition. (Extension of time granted) The provisions that I refer to are those that we proposed to establish a standing joint parliamentary committee for the oversight of law enforcement. It is a matter, I believe, of real regret that the opportunity to do this has not been seized. The draft that was put forward would have created within this parliament a 10-member committee charged with the oversight of all law enforcement operations that are conducted by Commonwealth agencies.Currently this parliament has only one committee that looks at law enforcement—the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. I believe that that committee has done a very good job of work over the last decade and has been consistently an important parliamentary institution for two reasons. One is to have some public confidence that the undertaking and work of that institution, the National Crime Authority, is the subject of examination by this parliament; and the second is that those who work in law enforcement and whose operations are touched by the work of the National Crime Authority have a forum to discuss the ways in which legislation can be improved. How much better would it be were we able to have a more comprehensive regime that would apply comprehensively to all law enforcement. We think the government has failed to take the opportunity of a constructive inclusion in this legislation for a joint parliamentary committee to be tasked with a duty of consulting Commonwealth law enforcement agencies and to provide to the parliament advice in relation to the assessment of the strategic environment which the Commonwealth law enforcement agencies face and the resources they need and the targets that they should be addressing. It is true, as the parliamentary secretary says, that the environment in which law enforcement operates now has changed dramatically. Crime now is international in its scope and the threats that we face as a nation have changed substantially over the past decade. This parliament has no standing process, no proper and coordinated basis for bringing together the work of the institutions we have in place—the Australian Federal Police, the financial task force, AUSTRAC, the National Crime Authority, and the various other agencies that have an influential role in law enforcement. It has no basis for assessing whether or not the framework of law enforcement is adequate to the task that we now face. It strikes me that the government has made a grave mistake to be so complacent in relation to this matter.I have the greatest respect for the professionalism and work of the Australian Federal Police. It is no criticism of them to make the obvious point that many parliaments in the past have been too complacent about the operations of law enforcement. The belief that there is nothing occurring that warrants the concern of the parliament has been often misguided. So I simply make that point and say that that was an opportunity missed. It was an opportunity missed which not only was put forward by the opposition but also had the very strong support of the Australian Federal Police Association itself. You had a circumstance where there was not only the opportunity that the opposition provided but also the support of the AFPA in this regard. That is an opportunity I think will be regretted in the future.In concluding could I make two remarks about those who have assisted the opposition in this matter. Firstly, to the Australian Federal Police Association, thank you very much for your constructive engagement in this process. Secondly, to the staff of the minister, and to my own staff in particular, Peta Murphy and George Haddad, who were working under extraordinarily tight time frames and in circumstances where this legislation came into the parliament two days before its expected commencement for discussion in the Senate and had to work overnight in order to discuss these amendments and come to the agreements which we did but to differ on those points that I have referred to: all worked very well and ought be commended for that work. 13:58:0013775Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—The honourable member for Denison persists in talking about a joint standing committee. I just want to point out that that proposal has been voted down comprehensively in this chamber and in the other place. So the honourable member gets marks for persistence, but the points that he makes have been judged by this parliament, which has voted against such a joint parliamentary committee. I commend the amendments to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Questions Without Notice137751377514:00:0013775Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware that Diabetes Australia in New South Wales has written to its members stating: We are unable to offset the cost of the GST ... and have no choice but to add GST to your membership subscription. This is calculated at ten per cent of the monthly membership subscription. Minister, why are you making it more expensive for diabetics and their carers to get dietary help and educational support for their illness? Doesn't this full 10 per cent increase in subscription fees represent another broken GST promise? 13775Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—It certainly does not. It represents a mistake by Diabetes Australia because their costs will not go up 10 per cent. 1377614:01:0013776Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House of any threat posed to funding of public health and public education by any roll-back of the GST? 13776Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Boothby because he has pinpointed in that question the fundamental reality that the great beneficiaries of the goods and services tax, when it comes into operation on 1 July, will be the public providers of education, of health and of many other services provided by the state governments. What the opposition has to explain to state governments, and what the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have to explain to their own front bench, is that if the GST is, to use their beloved language, `rolled back', then there will be less money available for public education, there will less money available for public hospitals, and there will be less money available for police services. The reason Peter Beattie and Bob Carr signed up with alacrityXH4McGauranMr McGauran—And David Crean. ZD4Mr HOWARD—And David Crean. They went through this great charade. They said, `Prime Minister, this is an outrageous propositionbut, please, where do I sign?' Privately, the Queensland Premier has said to me on a number of occasions, `I acknowledge that Queensland is a great beneficiary of the goods and services tax.' But knowledge of how good the goods and services tax is for the states is not limited to the state premiers. It is now common knowledge on the front bench of the opposition. That is why the finance spokesman has warned against any rolling back of the GST. That is why the member for Dobell, who is trying to be an education spokesman, is saying, `Please, don't roll back the GST, because there will be less money available for government schools. There will be less money available for all of the education programs that I would like to propose.' Isn't it ironic that the man who would be the education minister of Australia wants to roll back funds for education? That is fundamentally what he wants, because it is not restricted. That old operative from Queensland, the shadow minister for family and community services, is alive to this, too. He has warned the Labor Party's frontbench that if it starts rolling back the GST there will be less money available for Labor's social programs. All of this provides bipartisan support, if I can put it that way, for a simple proposition—that the goods and services tax is the greatest boon for publicly provided education, health and police services that this country has ever seen. That is why the states have signed up to it. That is why it ought to have the support of every person in this country who believes in a decent level of public services. For years we have had the states saying to the Commonwealth—whether you had a Labor Prime Minister or a Liberal Prime Minister, whether your state premiers were on the conservative side of politics, such as Bjelke-Petersen and Court, or whether they were on the Labor side of politics, such as Burke, Beattie and others—'What we need is a growth tax. We need to have a tax that rises over time so that we can provide adequate and increased levels of services.'For the first time since the end of World War II we are going to provide that via the goods and services tax. When the goods and services tax comes in, you will have an unprecedented level of growing financial support for those basic services. Any suggestion that you roll that back is a threat to the funding of government schools. It is a threat to the funding of public hospitals. It is a threat to the funding of adequate police services. That is why Lindsay Tanner, Wayne Swan and Michael Lee are sounding the warning bells. While their deputy leader and leader are talking about rolling it back or walking it back or strolling it back or running it back, they are saying, `Please, just leave it where it is. Let them carry the responsibility of putting it in. Let them carry the leadership role of reforming our tax system. Let us hope and pray that we can ride in on the back of it. But, for heaven's sake, don't touch it once we are there, because it is an absolute bonanza for the publicly provided services of the nation.' That has to take the cake for political hypocrisy!1377714:07:0013777Mr Beazley,MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Apropos the question that was just asked of the Prime Minister, is it not a fact that you simply intend to use the GST and rolling it forward to eliminate Commonwealth responsibilities for special purpose payments? Isn't that why the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration, in debate a couple of days ago said this, and are you aware of it: Of course you need a reduction in specific purpose payments and there will be a removal of Commonwealth funding of some health, some education and community services because we are passing the GST revenue through to the states.So under your proposition is it not the case that the states get the GST money and then you rip it right off them in their special purpose payments? Who's the hypocrite now?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Before I call the Prime Minister, I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that I was in fact denied the latter part of the question. I trust it was in order, because he was not directing it to me. I call the Prime Minister.13777Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, that little—what should I call it?—question or outburst or explosion might have had a scintilla of credibility if the person who was responsible for the outburst had not unfortunately predicted on 16 June 1999, when being interviewed by Geoff Parry, that in fact the GST was not going to raise as much revenue as we were suggesting. You cannot have it both ways. In that question you cannot run around and say that it is not, and then start suggesting that it will not raise as much revenue. What he was alleging when he was interviewed by Geoff Parry was that we would be suggesting that the states could keep the indirect taxes that are going to be abolished with the proceeds of the GST. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot allege in June 1999 that it is not going to raise as much money as you have predicted and then allege in February of the year 2000 that it is going to raise so much more money that we are going to use that as an excuse to cut back funding in other areas.We have an intergovernmental agreement in relation to specific purpose payments. This is something the Leader of the Opposition cannot escape from, and his frontbench know it. His frontbench are already unnerved by this campaign being run by him and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. They are going around to every interest group that has got a complaint and saying, `If you vote for us, we will roll the tax back.' Every time they ask a question in this House on behalf of an interest group, they are really saying in code to that interest group, `If you vote Labor, we will take the tax off the thing that you have complained about.' In the end there is some accountability on taxation reform. We have been honest enough to say to the Australian people that this country needs taxation reform. We have fought an election on taxation reform and this taxation reform is going to give to the states of Australia the highest level for increasing provision for education, health and police that this country has ever seen. Every time the Leader of the Opposition talks about rolling something back or exempting something, what he is really doing is blowing a hole in funding for government schools, for government hospitals, for police services and all the other services that have to be provided by the states. The good news for those states is that Lindsay Tanner, Michael Lee, Wayne Swanthe virtuous trio on this issueand all the other people have blown the whistle on this attempt by the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to blow away the greatest thing that any federal government has done for the finances of the Australian states since the end of World War II. We intend to remind the Australian people and the states of this great deal in the months that lie ahead in this very interesting debate.1377714:12:0013777Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. The goods and services tax gives the states a secure source of revenue with which to fund essential services for the community. What effect would a roll-back of the GST have on the capacity to deliver social services?13778Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for McEwen for her question. I note, as she said in her question, that revenue from the goods and services tax goes to state governments to fund essential services. We had one of the usual stunts from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition yesterday when he came in with pyjamas and complained that there was a 10 per cent GST on them. As he came to the dispatch box all he had to say was one simple thing: `The Labor Party policy is to abolish 10 per cent GST on pyjamas.' That is all he had to say. That is all he had to do. If he was complaining about 10 per cent GST on pyjamas, he could have walked to the dispatch box and given an undertaking to repeal it. And then, to tempt fate, he went on Channel 9 this morning and was asked this question: `If the GST is going to be so damaging to Australian consumers, why not commit the Labor Party now to dumping it?' It was not a bad question. And his answer was: `Look, because we've said ... um ... once it's in ... um ... you can't unscramble the eggs.' Opposition members interjecting— CT4Mr COSTELLO—Oh, you poor old thing! It would be the simplest law imaginable to say, `GST is repealed and wholesale sales tax is imposed.' It is the simplest law possible. Here we have a copy of the Labor Party tax policy. All we need is for you to pull out your pen and say, `If I am ever Prime Minister I will repeal GST.' All you have to do is write the first principle on your tax policy: if I am ever Prime Minister, I will repeal GST. That is all he has to do. Pick up the biro—no, not the glass. Pick up the biro. `If I am ever Prime Minister, I will repeal GST'—the first proposition of the Labor Party tax policy. I can see the Daily Telegraph headline tomorrow, `Labor's tax policy', and a blank front page. If it is so damaging, why not commit the Labor Party to dumping it? That was not a bad question that you were asked on Channel 9 this morning.Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—Oh, hypocrisy, thy name is Labor. Steve Bracks, on 3AW on 25 January 2000, said this:We had a system where there could have been a great tax if there was a GST on all products. Now it is not. It is questionable whether the states will ever get a growth out of this.Steve Bracks is complaining that there are now exemptions in the GST. Poor old Steve. I got a letter from David Hamill, MLA, Labor Treasurer of Queensland. He wrote that he has received representations for certain dermatological medicines to be declared GST free. This is what the Labor Treasurer of Queensland wrote to me on 18 January 2000:As you are aware, broadening the existing list of GST-free items has the potential to adversely impact on the quantum of GST revenues that are available for distribution to the Commonwealth and state governments for the delivery of core services. Changes to the GST-free list for these products may set a precedent for other parties to seek relief.Hamill has written to me saying, `Whatever you do, don't make anything GST free. We won't be able to deliver core services.' On the radio, Bracks said, `Oh, we have now got exemptions. We are not getting enough revenue.' The Labor Treasurer of Tasmania, David Crean, has written to me saying, `We need the GST to recover our state position.' Bob Carr is promising $20 million of infrastructure out of GST revenues and the hypocrites of the Labor frontbench are going around saying, `We are opposed to GST.' Well, pull out the pen, put it in writing, let the Australian people know it, and cease this hypocrisy.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—Hypocrites!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Moreton will withdraw that remark.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—I withdraw it, then.1377814:18:0013778Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—We know who was caught napping. My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Are you aware that the Sydney Theatre Company has not only added the full 10 per cent to its price but rounded up to push the price increase over 10 per cent? For example, the play A Month in the Country—something you should try, Treasurer, instead of cutting their wages and putting up their petrol—has gone up from $40 to $45. Do you still stand by your promise that nothing will go up by 10 per cent or more?13779Mr Costello,MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I have never seen you so agitated. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition thinks A Month in the Country is the Bordeaux winegrowing regions. Honourable members interjecting— CT4Mr COSTELLO—The tinted windows in the back of the Roller—that is what he thinks. I will look at that Roller when I next see it and see if it did have tinted windows. If there are any complaints that organisations or individuals are using tax changes to promote price increases, they can be notified to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. I note, in passing, that a complaint had been put in about Big W on the price exploitation line. The ACCC commenced questions on 11 January and, according to its release, on 2 February it put to Big W that it should withdraw those price tickets. Big W announced last night that it was withdrawing them. This is a classic example of how the government's mechanisms work. If there are further complaints, I would recommend to people that they do the same thing and contact the price exploitation line.1377914:20:0013779Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—My question is also to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen reports that the Accor hotel group plans to increase its room charges by 10 per cent? What is the Treasurer's reaction to these reports?13779Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Yesterday, I was asked a question by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who said:In reference to his promise that nothing will rise by the full 10 per cent under the GST, is he aware that the Accor hotel group have announced that they will be increasing all of their room charges by the full 10 per cent ...I should have taken the Prime Minister's advice when he said that one should never rely on anything that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says, because that statement made to the House yesterday was utterly false. This afternoon, Accor Pacific has issued a press release which is headed:Accor not to increase room charges by 10 per cent.It reads:Australia's largest hotel group Accor will not be raising room rates by the full 10 per cent of the GST. Analysis by the company has highlighted that some cost reduction will be able to be passed on to guests following the 1 July 2000 imposition of the GST. The Chairman said limited savings can be passed on in relation to accommodation charges. More substantial savings should be possible in the food and beverage area.This release was put out today because the allegation was made in the House yesterday by the Deputy Leader of the Oppositionfalsely, as he always does. It prompted an ACCC inquiry, and the media release was put out in response to that ACCC inquiry. The release finishes up by saying:Mr Baffsky said that, in the whole context of the issue, it is important to make valid comparisons between similar products. `It is not helpful to muddy the waters with ill-informed assertions.'I wonder whom he could have been referring to when he said, `making ill-informed assertions'? This is the old technique. Every day you come in here, you make a false accusation and you get the media to run it. By the time somebody responds to it, you have made another one so that you have the media onto the false allegation of the day. If this were being done for some coherent purpose, we could understand it, but do you know what it is being done for? It is being done by a group of people who are so hotly opposed to the GST that, if they ever get elected, they are going to keep it. That is their position. This is nothing but an attempt to try to poison public debate. They have no policy. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to start writing one, the page stands blank before him. `Point 1: Labor tax policy: I irrevocably commit myself to abolishing GST.' That is all you have to do—pull out your 22 per cent wholesale sales tax biro and write it.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table a document that predates the letter that they have just eked out of Accor. It shows the price release by Accor, with the prices going up the full 10 per cent. We got in early, brother!Leave not granted.1377914:25:0013779Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Minister, I refer you to the Treasurer's promise that nothing will rise by the full 10 per cent under the GST. Are you aware that the cost of this book, Anzacs, by Peter Bowers will increase on 1 July 2000 from $16.95— SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—How do you know that?83RMr EDWARDS—Because I can read! It will increase from $16.95 to $18.95. That is a full 10 per cent. Are you also aware that it is published by Australia Post, a Commonwealth government agency represented by you in this House. Minister, if your own agency does not know how your new tax works, how do you expect ordinary Australians to understand it?13780Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I am very happy to take that question. I would be very interested to read the book by Peter Bowers, who I understand is an ex-journalist. I would also be very interested to know how Mr Bowers priced it—whether he claims that the price rise is solely due to tax changes or whether he claims that the price rise is for some other reason—for example, his wanting to make more money.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order of relevance. Is it now legitimate to put it up the full 10 per cent if you can make more money?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Treasurer will address his attention—CT4Mr COSTELLO—I would have thought one of the most obvious things—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer does not have the call, nor will he get the call while members on my left behave so outrageously.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the Minister for Forestry and Conservation.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, I would be very happy to look at it. Obviously it has already been published, and GST does not apply. I would have thought that would be a bit of a problem for your argument, because the GST applies on 1 July 2000.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order which goes to relevance. If it would assist the Treasurer, it says RRP until 30 June 2000.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. That point of order had nothing whatever to do with relevance, as the Leader of the Opposition is well aware. This abuse of standing orders will not be tolerated.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, if there are legitimate complaints in relation to that, we will refer them to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission so that it can be looked at. Price is determined, as I have said on a number of occasions, by a whole host of factors. Price is determined not just by cost to production. Price is determined by market conditions, price is determined by retail margins and price is determined by other competing products. As we have always made entirely clear, price and tax are two different things.If somebody tries to pass off a price change as being solely and exclusively the result of a tax change and that constitutes price exploitation within the meaning of the Trade Practices Act, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is entitled to investigate that. If that amounts to price exploitation, it has at its disposal fines of very large sums of money which it can obviously impose on those people who have engaged in either price exploitation or misleading and deceptive conduct.1378014:30:0013780Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Would the minister inform the House of recent information about the successful implementation of the new tax system?13780Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I have received the first report of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to the government on the GST and ANTS implementation process and I am releasing it today. It deals with a number of issues. The first and most significant issue is in relation to the first tranche of tax cuts associated with the ANTS package. Last July the government reduced wholesale sales tax on a range of goods from 32 per cent to 22 per cent in the lead-up to the new taxation system. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission reports that the flow-through of price cuts for consumers was higher than expected. The ACCC expected price cuts of between five and seven per cent. In fact, business has delivered price cuts in excess of seven per cent to consumers. These are facts, not speculation. Most businesses surveyed—in fact, 99 per cent—passed on the wholesale sales tax cuts. So, under our tax system, TVs, video players, CD players, sound systems, video cameras, watches, clocks, clock radios and cameras—to name a few—are already in excess of seven per cent cheaper. That is in addition to the $12 billion of personal income tax cuts that are to come in on 1 July. The key reason for these larger than expected price cuts is competition in the marketplace. If a shop down the road is passing on the full tax cut to consumers, then your business will suffer if you do not pass on those tax cuts. The good work of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission continues in a number of areas. It will continue with its monitoring of over three million prices across Australia. In its report it reveals that it has handled over 2½ thousand complaints via its GST hotline and has investigated 175 of the substantive issues. The ACCC has a number of court enforceable undertakings. Moreover, one businessman has already gone to jail. Competition and the work of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission are ensuring that consumers are the full beneficiaries—in fact, more than full beneficiaries—of the tax cuts. More is to come, and this augurs well for 1 July.1378114:34:0013781Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, are you aware of the document Seminar Program 2000, with your photograph on the front, which was mailed to your office two weeks ago in which the Department of the House of Representatives advises that, as a result of the GST, seminar charges will increase on 1 July 2000 from $215 to $236.50? That is a full 10 per cent. What action have you taken in regard to this advice, or do you take action only after matters have been raised by the Labor Party in parliament?13781Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—We take action whenever we are notified of matters, and we have a price hotline which consumers can ring. It is the first time, of course, that there has ever been one. When the Labor Party increased wholesale sales taxes from 10 per cent to 12 per cent, 20 per cent to 22 per cent and 30 per cent to 32 per cent, there was never any price exploitation guideline, there was never any ACCC monitoring, there was never any compensation for pensioners, there was never any income tax cut and there was never any increase in family allowances. In relation to books generally, the government has announced not only the abolition of the wholesale sales tax—which applies, of course, to printing—but also a book printing scheme. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. The question did not relate to the cost of the book with the Treasurer's photo on the front but the cost—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat and I will rule.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, you must allow me to make the point. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business has made a point of relevance. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—I will resume my seat, but I have not made my point of order.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business wants me to rule on relevance on the basis that the Treasurer's comments have been focused on books and not on seminars.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—How do you know that?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the Chief Opposition Whip. All that I have done is to relay precisely what the Manager of Opposition Business said to me less than 10 seconds ago. The Treasurer's answer has to be deemed as relevant, given all that he has said, and comments about the book currently being dealt with, and no Speaker could possibly rule the question of books as irrelevant to any issue about seminars. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—With respect, Mr Speaker, you did correctly interpret my question but I want to—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the Manager of Opposition Business have a further point of order?5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Yes, my point of order is: how you can rule that the book bounty is relevant to the price of seminars, because that is what he is talking about?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have just done so. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.CT4Mr COSTELLO—It was not a book bounty at all. If he had let me finish the sentence, he would find it was a scheme that was put in place for Australian books to actually subsidise the price of Australian books. That is what I was going to say. That was part of the agreement that the government had entered into with the Australian Democrats and which we have put in place. As I said before, the government has precise guidelines. They have never been put in place before, never were put in place under a Labor government and never applied to any tax increase in relation to a Labor government. We have a very active, independent commissioner, Professor Fels, we have an exploitation line and we have $10 million enforcement powers. If there is a belief that anybody is trying to use tax changes to get a price increase and passing off a price increase on the grounds that it is a tax change when it is not, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has full powers to investigate and fine those engaged.1378214:38:0013782Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, yesterday you outlined to the House details of the government's Employee Entitlements Support Scheme. Would you now inform the House of any further support which exists for this scheme?7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—When are we going to see something for Scone?13782Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Wentworth for his question. To the interjection: the government's proposal is, and we are acting on this basis, that the scheme starts from 1 January. We are proceeding with this on an administrative basis. We have taken something like 85 calls up to yesterday, there were more calls again today from employees and we are going about the business of ascertaining the facts in respect of each and every one of those employees, not just Scone Fresh Meats but also other businesses and so we are proceeding accordingly.Opposition Member—You said Scon this morning.WI4Mr REITH—And I corrected myself to say Scone. In respect of support, I can advise the House that we have had a letter from the Minister for Gaming and Racing in New South Wales, dated 2 February, on behalf of those workers. He said that these workers and their families need urgent assistance and support. He went on to say that they ought to be included in any package offered to retrench workers. Of course, subject to ascertaining their personal details, which we are starting on the job of doing so, then they are certainly eligible in that sense.I am also pleased to advise the House that I have had some unexpected support for the 1 January start-up date, and that is a letter from the federal member for Hunter dated 8 February. It took a little while to work its way through the system and to hit my desk, but it was pleasing to have support from the Labor Party for 1 January, seeing that the rest of the hypocrites on the other side have been attacking the 1 January date as inappropriate. He has written to me including a letter from the Cessnock City Council regarding the protection of employee entitlements. He supports the city council and the city council wants a date, wants 1 January, so there is a bit more support there.In terms of the circumstances at National Textiles, I should note that in the press today we have the administrator there making a simple point that AWM currently employs approximately 250 persons—that is a business down in the seat of Braddon—and that if the deeds are not approved and the cash injection is not received then its business is in jeopardy and this could put at risk the employees' jobs and ongoing trading. This is in his report. So, as the week draws to an end, the fact is that this is the first government to actually do something for these workers and actually put a scheme in place to give these workers some genuine reassurance about their prospects as a result of losing a job and losing the entitlements that go with it. As the week draws to an end, the reality of Labor's true position on this whole issue is now starting to become clear for everybody. As we were saying at the start of this week, the Labor Party's only interest in this whole issue was just an opportunistic, populist approach simply because they could score a few points out of it—absolutely irrelevant to the interests of the workers. The proof I have of that is a radio interview this morning by none other than one of the most senior Labor Party people in Australia today, namely, the Premier of New South Wales. He was asked about the circumstances facing these particular meat workers. One of the things he said was that, in respect of National Textiles, they put money in there—and you will remember that we put money in but so did New South Wales; in fact, they were out there arguing it should be fifty-fifty—and they were prepared to do the right thing and so should the federal government. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—What about the other arrangements?WI4Mr REITH—Well, let me just get the facts straight hereI will say more about what Mr Carr had to say. He was also misleading people because he said, `We were prepared to put money in on the expectation the federal government was about to introduce a national scheme.' Well, I have a letter from Jeff Shaw, which I would be happy to make available to anybody who asks, that makes the point that it was a one-off package without prejudice to negotiations on a comprehensive national scheme, so he has misled people.But, incredibly, this story of Bob Carr is the same story you would get if Kim Beazley were running this country. That is, when it finally comes to the crunch, he was asked the question, `Will the Labor Party in New South Wales help these workers?' and what was the answer? `No, we will not be.' In other words, for those particular workers the New South Wales Labor Party is not prepared to lift a finger and support a basic scheme to protect those people's employee entitlements. This is the Labor Party, populist and opportunistic, but when it comes to the real job of actually providing assistance they are not prepared to lift a finger. They offered a lot of advice to us—the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Hunter and all the others on the other side—about what we ought to do in the last case. Let us see if they have got what it takes to take on the New South Wales government and force them, embarrass them, into doing the right thing by workers.1378314:44:0013783Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. He would be aware, of course, that Premier Carr suggested it was the federal government's responsibility and that of the employers to provide the scheme. Are you aware, Prime Minister—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition knows that was defying the standing orders. Out of deference to his office, I allow him to continue. Will he please ask his question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Are you aware, Prime Minister, that New South Wales has put $2 million on the table to pay the workers at National Textiles right now—he has made that amply clear—without any link—Honourable members interjecting—PE4Mr BEAZLEY—It is true.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is entitled—PE4Mr BEAZLEY—He is heckling me.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will allow the chair, at least, to complete his sentence. The Leader of the Opposition, I was about to say, is entitled to ask his question without interruption.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—I apologise.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Without any link to the settlement of a deed of arrangement? Is he aware that Mr Carr, the Premier of New South Wales, made that amply clear an hour ago? Without any link to a settlement of a deed of arrangement, will you do the same and join Premier Carr in paying these workers immediately so that they can meet their urgent requirements to feed their families? 13784Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—Let me make some initial comments, and I think the PM may supplement them. I have not seen those particular remarks of Mr Carr's, but the fact of the matter is that, as the cabinet sat down to make this decision, the advice we had from the administrator was that, if there was a liquidation, there would be $600,000 and, if the deed of arrangement was proceeded with, there would be $7 million. You do not need to be an accountant to work out that, if there is $7 million in the kitty, that is a much stronger position for the employees. The total amount outstanding was $11 million. There was $7 million coming in under that scheme, leaving a balance of $4 million, and we were prepared to put up a net amount of $4 million. In fact, we were prepared to put up on a fifty-fifty basis. With New South Wales, we are prepared to put in more than that so that, up-front, the workers would get their entitlements and then, as the funds came back in, there would be a reimbursement to the scheme to make sure that not only were they provided with their entitlements but they had some money up-front and the security that went with that.7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—If the member for Prospect is anxious to ask a question, she might like to consult the whip. The minister has the call.WI4Mr REITH—The only other advice I can give the House on the matter specifically is that this week I received a letter from Mr Carr seeking further details on the actuality of the arrangements. As I understand it, my department and his department have been having some discussions. The truth of the matter is that, as displayed by Mr Carr's comments, he was prepared to put his hand in his pocket and do the right thing when he thought there was a vote in it, but when it comes to the Scone workers he walks away from them.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Before I recognise the Leader of the Opposition, I am assuming that the question has been fully answered.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—I was going to answer it. I thought he was taking another point of order.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—No, the Leader of the Opposition is seeking leave. I do not know for what purpose—that is not necessary. I was merely indicating that I need to know whether or not the question is fully answered.13784Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I wanted to add to the answer given by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to make the obvious point that it really has to be the gimmick to end all gimmicks for the Leader of the Opposition to alternately demand that we support the workers and then attack my integrity for doing that. He is now a co-conspirator with the New South Wales Labor government in not helping the workers in the meat factory. I make the very obvious point that, if these workers are to get their full entitlement, and if we shed the hypocrisy and put aside the point scoring and are serious about these fellows getting $11 million, the only way the men and women can get $11 million is through a combination of two circumstances: the money from the New South Wales and the federal governments and the $7½ million coming from the deed of arrangement.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—That's not right.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says that is not right. I will simply rely on the words of the administrator: `There is at the end of the day in my opinion only one effective option and that is approval of the proposed deed of arrangement.' He then goes on to say this: `On a liquidation basis, it is estimated that there would be only $645,336 available for distribution to employees, excluding the liquidator's costs involved with any investigation issues.'Our commitment to these workers is genuine. We have demonstrated that—we have endured a lot of hypocritical criticism along the way—and this cheap gimmick by the New South Wales Premier and the Leader of the Opposition will be seen by the workers for what it is. If you want the $11 million, you have got to have the combination of the deed of arrangement and the contributions of the two governments. As for this continuing suggestion being made by the Leader of the Opposition and some people in the media that you really want a liquidation if you really want to chase the directors of the company, I would make the simple point that the administrator says in his report that there would be no funds in a liquidation to pay the costs of pursuing any possible action. So on that score also, if you really want to hold the directors accountable, the best way of doing that is to have an ASIC investigation, backed by $140 million a year of resources to conduct the investigation. If you allowed the company to go into liquidation, not only would you dud the workers but you would deny the liquidator the resources to pursue the directors if that were appropriate. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I seek leave to table an excerpt from Premier Bob Carr's conference where he says, `Our $2 million is there on the table for the workers of National Textiles now. It is not conditional on any deed of arrangement. I make this offer'—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Leave has been granted. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.1378514:51:0013785Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister inform the House as to how the government is improving services in rural and regional Australia, particularly in regard to postal and telecommunication services? Is the minister aware of alternative policies in delivering postal and telecommunication services?13785Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Members of the House might like to know that I have actually been prompted to think a little about this question as a result of a press release put out by the member for Batman headed `Labor will give regional and rural communities their voice back'. It proclaims that this will be done through a `strong commitment to Australia Post and Telstra'. I thought this was interesting and that we had actually done a pretty strong job here and had some pretty good things to talk about. So I went and had a bit of a look, and I found that in relation to postal services we have given, for a start, a commitment that no post office or mail centre will close in regional Australia. We have introduced a service charter for Australia Post that requires a minimum retail presence of 4,000 postal outlets, of which 2,500 must be in rural and regional Australia. We are continuing vital subsidies to 700 licensed post offices in rural and regional Australia. We are working with Australia Post to deliver new and innovative services, like the pilot program that Senator Alston and I recently launched to provide Commonwealth Bank business services through Australia Post's electronic network. More than that, in the time that we have been in government we have opened 51 new post offices around Australia. I thought that was a pretty good record. Then I went and had a look at what happened to post offices when those opposite were in power, and I found that, whilst we have opened 51 new post offices and we have a solid commitment that none will be closed, while they were in government 270 Australian post offices closed. That is their commitment: to give a voice back through their commitment to Australia Post and Telstra. And between the years 1990-91 and 1995-96 alone we lost 195. Then there is their commitment to telecommunications. The record shows that Labor took the same wrecking ball approach to this area. If it wasn't for the coalition, tens of thousands of rural and regional Australians would have lost their mobile phone service as well. Their spokesman over there conceded that they had signed a contract to phase out analog phone services. The fact is that, whilst we have provided an alternative with the CDMA now being wound out as a replacement, they were going to leave tens of thousands of people not only without a capacity to post a letter, which they had done when they were in government, but also without the ability to use a mobile phone service. The fact is that, when it comes to services from Telstra and when it comes to services from Australia Post, they are the ones who took away rural voices. We are the people who are putting them back in spadefuls. 1378614:56:0013786Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, I refer to your statement that there are `limits' on your promise that the GST will not push up petrol prices. Will you guarantee that the GST will not push up petrol prices in Warburton, Western Australia, where motorists are currently paying $1.25 a litre?13786Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I have made it entirely clear on behalf of the government that the government will be implementing its election commitment in full. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Oh, we know that.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!CT4Mr COSTELLO—The government will be doing that in such a way that we equalise back the price by reducing excise. If you happen to be in business, because you get GST back, the cost of petrol will fall by 10 per cent. If you happen to be in places like Warburton in Western Australia, the diesel fuel which brings everything in and brings everything out, which under the Labor Party has excise of 44c a litre—IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—Petrol.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory!CT4Mr COSTELLO—will fall to 20c a litre. So the great thing for the people of Warburton is that there will be a 24c a litre fall in diesel excise between the coalition and the Labor Party for everything that goes in and everything that comes out.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Indi has been very patient this week, and I now recognise him.1378614:57:0013786Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—You are very kind, Mr Speaker. My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services, and I think the Leader of the Opposition should listen carefully—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Indi will come to his question or he will find that he will be waiting even longer.XU5Mr LIEBERMAN—Minister, what recent information is available on the performance of the Job Network in helping job seekers find work, like the Leader of the Opposition—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Indi will resume his seat.1378614:58:0013786Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, can you confirm advice from the ACCC that they have only employed two people to enforce your GST petrol price promise? Is this one of the limits you were referring to on the Sunday program?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I call the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Costello! Where is he?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned! He gets more tolerance than almost anyone else in this place, and he should exercise more restraint.13786Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—The ACCC have substantial resources to be able to appropriately monitor prices right across Australia, and they are doing that through a range of measures, including contracting out to price monitors, which includes a large number of people moving around to a large number of places and accumulating over three million prices during the price monitoring phase.DK6Mr HOCKEY—The question that should be asked is: what has the Labor Party ever done about price monitoring? What did the Labor Party do to monitor the price impact on consumers when it introduced its l-a-w wholesale sales tax increases? What did the Labor Party do to monitor the impact on consumers when it put up petrol prices? The Labor Party has always treated consumers with contempt and it is high hypocrisy for the Labor Party to start asking questions about price monitoring.1378615:00:0013786Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would the minister inform the House when he expects the release of results from the Australia-wide literacy assessments that were conducted late last year? Further, why is the government placing so much emphasis on the national literacy plan? 13787Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Australian taxpayers and parents spend about $14 billion a year on schooling.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—And will be spending more under the GST.BT4Dr KEMP—And, of course, more money will be available, as the Prime Minister points out, under the GST revenue to the states. Taxpayers and parents are entitled to know about the performance of these schools in terms of how effectively young people are being taught the basic literacy and numeracy skills that they need for life. The veil of secrecy which has shrouded the literacy performance of schools is about to be lifted. Let us make no mistake: this veil of secrecy has been in place because of the Labor Party's alliance with the Australian Education Union to suppress the release of information about the literacy performance of Australian schools. This was a problem that the Leader of the Opposition did nothing about when he was in office. He was weak. He caved in to the unions and had no plans whatever to tell Australian parents what they wanted to know. He sat on data and information that would have told them and he made sure that that information was never published. The Howard government has put in place an agreement with the states and territories to make sure that parents will get this information. Last year, children in every state and territory were assessed against the national literacy standards for reading, writing and spelling. The results of these standards will be available in the next few weeks. The first state to make its results public is South Australia. South Australia has reported that 83 per cent of its year 3 students were at the national standard for reading. That means that 17 per cent of the students in South Australia at year 3 were below the national standard for reading. I want to congratulate the South Australian minister, Malcolm Buckby, for releasing these results, for highlighting the extent of the issue—which Labor set out to conceal throughout its entire 13 years in office—for putting an honest statement on the public record and for addressing the issue. I am also advised that, in addition to South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory have already forwarded their results for incorporation into the national report on schooling. The remaining states—Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland—are due to forward in the next few days their results for national reporting. I am pleased that the Premier of Victoria has stated that Victoria will release its results. So, within a very short time, the Australian community will have available to it, for the first time in 20 years, an accurate assessment of the literacy standards and performance of Australian schools. It has taken the Howard government's leadership in education to make this information available to taxpayers, parents and the community. The Labor Party did nothing when it was in office. It has no plan to do anything now. Its election policy at the last election promised nothing in relation to the publication of literacy results. This government is fulfilling its commitment to Australian parents.1378715:04:0013787Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, have you instructed the Minister for Community Services to stop informing residents in his electorate that there is still hope for a change to the GST treatment of caravan parks and mobile homes, and have you instructed the Minister for Trade to stop informing caravan park and mobile home residents in his electorate that permanent residents will not have to pay GST on their site fees and that they are GST free?13787Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I would perhaps rhetorically ask: have you instructed the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to stop promising to roll back the GST when you know that that will do such enormous damage to government schools and to government hospitals? As far as my communications with ministers are concerned, they are friendly, open, always informative and always valuable in the public interest. I do not instruct ministers; I provide them with advice. Being commonsense men and women, they respond to that advice in a very intelligent fashion.The last time we had a frontbench meeting about the GST, we did not argue, the way they did over there, about whether it should be rolled back. The last time we had a meeting about taxation reform, we all agreed on a number of things. The first thing we agreed on was that we were not going to allow a dishonest fear campaign by the Australian Labor Party to deny the Australian people the greatest tax reform since World War II. The second thing we agreed on was to remind the Australian people that, come the introduction of tax reform, average families would be $47 a week better off. We also resolved to remind the Australian people—the state premiers do not need any reminding of this—that the GST will mean a guarantee of rising revenues for the states in the years ahead and therefore more money for schools, more money for hospitals and more money for police. That is why David Hamill is petrified at the prospect of the GST being rolled back. What David Hamill was really saying in that letter was that the Labor Party should have supported the original package without exception. What he was really saying was that it was a great pity that the government had to compromise with the Democrats. There is one party that could have saved that compromise, Mr Speaker, and oddly enough it is the party of David Hamill.83NHall, Jill, MPMs Hall—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order and it goes to relevance. The Prime Minister is in no way referring to the misleading information that the ministers have given to people living—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister was asked a question about the role of two of his ministers and their comments about the GST, and he was commenting on the GST. I believe he dealt with the question of the two ministers but he may have something further to add.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, when we last discussed this matter we resolved to communicate those benefits to the Australian people. One of those is the evident benefit to the states of Australia of the GST. Whatever you may think about other aspects of it—and there will be debate—it is simply absolutely uncontestable that the states will be better off under the GST. Therefore, there will be more money for public schools, more money for police, more money for roads and more money for public hospitals. The premiers know that, the state treasurers know it, and Wayne Swan, Lindsay Tanner and Michael Lee know it. That is why they are growing increasingly unhappy with the idea of rolling it back, because if you roll it back you are taking money back from the states and you are taking it away from government schools. I was out at a magnificent government school in Chapman this morning. I would not have thought that the Labor Party wanted to take money away from government schools, but that is essentially what they are on about. Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions Without Notice137881378815:10:0013788Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer may proceed.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, I have just had some preliminary advice on the book Anzacs. I am informed that Anzacs was commissioned by Australia Post. It was distributed through Australia Post retail outlets and mail marketing. The recommended retail price was set by the marketing manager, who did not take account of the fact that there would be a reduction of sales tax on production. As a result of that, Australia Post has ordered the deal pricing to be removed.DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will excuse himself from the House under the provisions of standing order 304A.The member for Hotham then withdrew from the chamber.Questions to the Speaker137881378815:11:0013788McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I have a question for you, Mr Speaker. I refer you to the Treasurer's answer regarding the cost of seminars conducted by your department after July 2000. Are you aware, Mr Speaker, that on page 5 of this booklet under the heading of `Costs' it says, `After 1 July GST will apply and the charges will be $236.50'—that is, an increase of 10 per cent? Mr Speaker, in line with the Treasurer's advice, will you refer this matter to the ACCC for a ruling? 13789SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I shall, in the first instance, seek some advice from my department and, if I have an answer before the House rises this afternoon, report back to the House.1378915:12:0013789Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I have a question for you, Mr Speaker. In question time today, two ministers sought to add to answers: the Treasurer, who added to an answer after question time, and the Prime Minister, who added to an answer during question time. Have you suspended the requirement under standing orders, and in particular on page 521 of House of Representatives Practice, that ministers can only add to answers after question time or is it being selectively applied?13789SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Chifley would do very well to withdraw the last part of that question or find himself in deep trouble.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—I withdraw any implication.10000Mr SPEAKER—Let me then respond. As every member in the House familiar with the standing orders ought to know, the Treasurer exercised the usual courtesies and sought the opportunity to add to an answer, which was granted. The right to add to an answer is always available to the Prime Minister, but is not available to other ministers, should the Prime Minister be responding to an answer.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—Mr Speaker, I apologise if I have not understood the standing orders10000Mr SPEAKER—I shall take the matter up with the member for Chifley separately if he feels there is something in my response—QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—No, I was going to say that I understood, Mr Speaker, that more than one minister could answer—10000Mr SPEAKER—The member for Chifley and I have dealt with this matter. I will take it up with him outside the House. He will resume his seat.Documents137891378910000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 32 of 1999-2000 entitled Performance audit—Management of Commonwealth non-primary industry levies.Ordered that the report be printed.Documents1378915:15:0013789Mr Reith,MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following paper:Medibank Private Ltd's Equal Employment Opportunity and Equity and Diversity Annual Report for 1998/99Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Adjournment13789Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Monday, 6 March 2000, at 12.30 p.m., unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour for the meeting.Matters of Public Importance137891378910000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Lilley proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the Government to admit the true effect of the GST on prices and as a consequence failure to provide adequate compensation to offset its impact on the weekly budgets of low to middle income Australians.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:16:0013789Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—One of the reasons the Australian Labor Party is so emphatically opposed to the GST and why we will roll it back is the savage reduction in the living standards of Australian families and Australian pensioners. It could be repealed today. 4G4Downer, Alexander, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley will resume his seat.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Come forward. We will support a repeal. Let us see how genuine you are.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley will resume his seat! I warn the Minister for Foreign Affairs.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—This GST package is so unfair to Australian families that the additional cost of raising a child under the GST is calculated at 30c. What we have seen in this House over the past couple of days when ministers have been answering questions is just how unfair the package is. We have seen price increases of 10 per cent admitted to freely when the government have gone around this country for the past 18 months claiming a price effect of 1.9 per cent. What does that do? That eats away at the compensation packages. That eats away at the tax cuts. We have seen what the impact will be on rents. What does that do? That eats away at the tax cuts. It does not matter where you look, it does not matter where you go in this country and it does not matter where you live, you are not going to get the benefits from this tax package that the government is claiming you will. A very large proportion of Australian families and pensioners are going to be substantially worse off. In answers in the House over the last 24 hours, we have heard we have a tax package which will give benefits to the few and will be funded off the backs of the many. That is what will happen.The Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Community Services, the Minister for Trade, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and dozens of backbenchers are going around this country saying anything and doing anything to obscure its real impact. What a tangled web they weave. We saw this in the House yesterday on the issue of residents of caravan parks. Residents of caravan parks and mobile homes will be the only renters in this country that will have the GST applied directly to their rent. They will automatically be far worse off than the government is prepared to admit. The Minister for Community Services, Mr Anthony, came in here at the end of last year and said that the 50 per cent application of the GST on long-term accommodation will be a terrific thing for those people, they will be much better off, and they are dancing in the streets out there supporting the application of the GST to their site fees and their rents. Of course we do not have a GST on rents at Kirribilli, we do not have a GST on rents at Point Piper, but we do have a GST on rents for those people who live in mobile homes and in caravan parks—the most vulnerable people in the community who live on very low incomes.But then what do we get? We get the Minister for Community Services, Mr Anthony, saying one thing down here at the end of last year but saying last week in his electorate, `I do hope that there can be a change there. I think even some of the park owners would prefer not to have that option because it is putting the heat on them because they do have an option, whether to charge or not to charge.' He went on to say: `And I hope I can come back to you shortly and I will, through your representatives, and hopefully there can be a change.' That was Mr Anthony, the member for Richmond. The Minister for Trade is out there doing the same thing—one thing in Canberra, another thing on the North Coast. What was he saying? He was saying: `I would like to assure you that residents who occupy accommodation in a caravan park or holiday village on a permanent basis will not have to pay the GST on their site fees. This will be treated in the same way as rental on a house or a unit.'Well, it is not. How would any of these people know? They all live on the North Shore of Sydney, like the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation sitting opposite. They are not paying the GST on their rents. But if you live in a small mobile home, for which you have paid $100,000, in the Tweed or up in Wide Bay you will be paying the GST on your rent. That is the whole point. This government essentially believes in the greatest good for the smallest number and all the rest can just take the crumbs off the table. That is what the compensation in this package is going to amount to for many millions of Australians—simply crumbs. At the moment we have a government that has presided over the biggest cuts to family services in Australian history. What has that created? It has created a huge social deficit. The government has the hide to go around the country talking about a social coalition. It is not a social coalition; it is a social catastrophe. While we have had reasonable levels of growth, long-term unemployment is increasing and poverty is growing. The benefits of growth are not being shared fairly in this country. The benefits are going to the few, the many are missing out, long-term unemployment is rising, poverty is rising, kids are not stopping in school and intergenerational poverty is simply continuing to increase. This government is not fairly sharing the benefits of growth. When you look at the social figures and the impact on families, you will see it has effectively taken the heart out of growth, which everyone in the community was supposed to share, and it has given it to a few at the top. On top of that—this is before the GST starts—it is going to create a tax system that will cause a flood of poverty. The wealthy will get wealthier and the poor will simply get the GST, just like all those people in those caravan parks and mobile homes.This will be particularly harsh on families, and on families on relatively high levels of income as well as low levels of income. It will punish anyone who consumes all of their income. As I said before in this House, every time a family has a child they will move up a tax bracket, because the principle here is that the more you earn the less you pay; the less you earn the more you pay in tax. That is the whole principle. That is what you will find when you look at the compensation arrangements, and that is what you will find when you look at the tax cuts. So when it comes to all the distortions and untruths about how beneficial this is for families and for pensioners, what you will get from the Prime Minister through Treasury is a gold medal performance at distortion—lies and untruths about the benefits that are supposed to flow to the many. They will not flow to them at all, as we will see in a moment. All of the compensation arrangements of this package are based on a 1.9 per cent inflation rate and, as the price impact goes up over that 1.9 per cent, the supposed benefits—even in the government's own terms—rapidly disappear. That is particularly the case when you consider that the Treasurer has now admitted to a five per cent inflation rate and the Reserve Bank has owned up to a five per cent inflation rate. And what do we get? Compensation to pensioners is at four per cent, inflation is going up by five per cent and, as we know, the government will take half of that four per cent back anyway, so pensioners will be substantially worse off. All beneficiaries will be substantially worse off. They will be substantially worse off because they will be hit by the higher inflation rate because it will impact most markedly on those necessities of life on which they spend all of their income—on food, accommodation and clothing. But the government modelling for this package assumes that the expenditure patterns of pensioners and low income families are no different from those of the minister opposite or of Kerry Packer. So the higher the inflation rate the greater the impact on those clothes from Big W and the greater the impact on food. Even with the changes that were made in the Democrat deal last year, something like a third of all food consumed by low income Australians will have the GST on it, so they are whacked there. Something like 75 per cent of the expenditure of people on low wages or incomes will still be impacted on by the GST. So these people will lose substantially. That is the case with food and it is also the case with housing. The government in its package says, `Oh, well, there will be an impact on rents of something like 2.3 per cent,' but already in Sydney we are seeing rises much greater that—and before this package comes in. Of course, as we know, renters generally do not have the GST applied at the end point of their rents—they are input taxed—but rents will go up, and this will be particularly the case in Sydney.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Where do you get that from?2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Where do I get that from? Do you live in Sydney, Minister? Do you know what is happening in the rental market in Sydney? Do you know what is going on down there? Increases of something like $30 a week are occurring in the Sydney rental market. That is enough to blow away in one fell swoop half the tax cuts for someone earning $50,000 a year. It just goes in the impact on rents. But let us get back to families, because that is where it will really impact. It will impact on those people who spend most of their income on the necessities of life—on food, even when it is taxed, on clothing, on electricity— 2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—A third of all food is still taxed, but you appear to be ignorant of that fact—and that is the problem. Why don't you go out and live in the real world and find out what is going on with Australians? What is actually happening to them in their daily lives? The ABS household expenditure survey reveals that 75 per cent of the budgets of low income earners will still be hit by the GST, and that includes a pretty big impact on food. Families with three or more children spend something like $98 a week on housing costs compared with couples without children, who spend something like $76 a week. Such families spend something like $23 a week on energy costs compared with couples who spend just $16. What is the point here? The point is very simple: families with children will have their standards of living very substantially eroded, and it will not be compensated for by the new tax scales. The stench of this package really emerges when you look at the tax cuts up the income scale. Even with the Democrat changes, a family earning $30,000 a year and with three children will get just $16 a week in tax cuts compared with a couple earning $100,000 a year who will get $60 a week in tax cuts. This means that children born into a family earning $30,000 are worthy of just a quarter of the tax cut of children born into a family earning $100,000. That is obscene. Australians are now seeing this. They are seeing the advertising; they are seeing what is going on in the supermarkets; they are starting to ask questions about where the benefits are coming from. Go out there with your publicly funded advertising and tell them how little most Australians will get for the price rises that are happening in the supermarkets now and which will be happening at an even greater rate after 1 July.So the government's so-called family package is nothing more than an attempt to try to compensate for an unfair tax. It has some small increases in family allowances and family payments. The compensation, as I said before, is based on the ridiculous assumption that the price impact of a GST for each child is 30c. That is what it is based on. So, if you are a single income family earning $41,000 a year and with two children aged six and 11, the new payment will provide just $2.50 a week extra for each child per week. That is a terrific compensation package, isn't it? And doesn't it really go to the heart of why the compensation is insufficient and of how unfair the tax cuts are and what the government is really on about? This is a government which is simply very strong on taxing the weak and very, very weak on taxing the strong. And it does not matter whether you are dealing with caravan parks or people who rent houses in Sydney or where the family lives in this country: most families will be substantially worse off.But it gets worse. It gets much worse for pensioners. And it gets much, much worse for retirees. The GST is an automatic devaluation of the life savings of any self-funded retiree. I will not go through the figures about how worse off many self-funded retirees will be. DK6Hockey, Joe, MP2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—But when they find out they will be right up your ribs, Minister, because they had high expectations of this government but they are getting nothing. You will be rounded up.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The minister will be silent and the member for Lilley will address his remarks through the chair. Ignore the minister, please.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. But pensioners, as I said at the beginning, get a four per cent risethey are getting that for a five per cent inflation rateand the government will take half of it back when they get the next rise, depending on when that will be. It will probably be March 2001. They can see this already. They read the Pensioner News. Pretty pictures of Larry Anthony, the member for Richmond, in the Pensioner News will not save backbenchers in this House who have large percentages of people in mobile homes in caravan parks in their electorates. They will not save you either, Minister Hockey. You will not be able to go out there and explain away the rank unfairness and stench of this package. That is why we have an emphatic commitment to roll back the GST and to lift the burden on the weakest and most vulnerable, to do something about the impact of the GST on small business, to look at its impact on jobs, and to roll it back in the areas of health and education—areas which were supposed to be GST free but which are not in many cases. Nothing will have a greater impact on families than the impact of the GST in the areas of health and education. As I said at the very beginning, a consumption tax is anti-family. It punishes those people who struggle to earn money, who work hard day in, day out, to provide for their families, to make a better life for their children. Every time they have an extra child, under this government they go up a tax bracket. That is why we need a fair taxation system in this country. (Time expired)15:31:0013793Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—The member for Lilley is a hypocrite.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—You will withdraw that statement.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I am sorry; the member for Lilley constantly contradicts himself. It happens to be a habit of the entire front bench of the Labor Party. On the one hand, as was enunciated in question time, the Labor Party is saying what an outrageous tax the GST is, but, `We are going to keep it.' Nicholson did a cartoon, `Kim Beazley's pathway to the future', his spending plans riding the yellow brick road, which is a GST. The bottom line is that the Labor Party is showing abject hypocrisy when it comes to taxation treatment of the community, particularly the disadvantaged community in Australia in 2000. I urge the Leader of the Opposition to heed the words of the member for Lilley enunciated in the Australian this morning. I quote: Community affairs spokesman Wayne Swan warned that Labor might be forced to bring forward its detailed policy on the tax because of the rising political intensity of the issue... The article further states:Opposition finance spokesman Lindsay Tanner has warned the front bench about committing an ALP government to further rollbacks of the GST, for fear that the party will be left short of money to fund its social programs. The first point about that is that if the shadow minister for finance were on top of his portfolio he would have worked out that all the GST funds goes to the states. The proceeds of the GST, as a growth tax in revenue, as the economy grows, go to the states, which have the growth area of expenditure, which is hospitals, schools, roads and police. The Labor Party's hypocrisy on this issue is heightened by the fact that under the Labor Party, which was not prepared to properly address Commonwealth-state financial issues, the New South Wales government and a number of other governments around Australia issued poker machine licences to fund their expenditure habits. They continued to up the ante on gambling, up the ante on land tax, up the ante on a whole lot of hideous taxes—payroll tax and a range of others—in order to fund their expenditure, which was out of control in the Labor years in state government. Under those circumstances when the Labor Party come in here like a gaggle of hypocrites and suggest that they are going to roll back the GST and improve services to the community, it does not stack up. There has been no blow torch to the belly of the Labor Party on this. Yet it has to come. Let us take the static out of the taxation issue at the moment, often fuelled by the Labor Party and some of its mates, and look at the obvious benefits of the coalition's current taxation proposals. If we go back to 11 June 1999, we see on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald, `GST: Why everyone's a winner. Sole parents and single income families, reap the big tax breaks.' This is an opportunity to remind the House of just how significant the benefits of the GST are for families. The GST is going to deliver significant personal income tax cuts. It is going to deliver the abolition of wholesale sales tax and four state taxes: bed tax, stamp duty on the transfer of shares, financial institutions duty and bank account debits tax. It will deliver cheaper diesel fuel, it will deliver cheaper petrol costs for business and it will deliver cheaper exports. It is streamlining compliance. As compensation for the GST there is $2.4 billion of family assistance to around two million Australian families. There will be a four per cent increase in the pensions up front, and increased income tax thresholds for families with young children. When did the Labor Party ever care about families with young children? I will tell you when. Did they do it when they increased wholesale sales taxes from 10 per cent to 22 per cent, from 20 per cent to 22 per cent, from 30 per cent to 32 per cent, as compensation for the l-a-w tax cuts that were promised to the Australian people by Paul J. Keating in 1993? Where was the compensation, Member for Lilley? Isn't that hypocrisy from the Labor Partygoing to an election promising l-a-w tax cuts and then increasing taxes on the staples of the people most affected without any compensation whatsoever? Isn't that hypocrisy? It is the same sort of hypocrisy that brings the Labor Party into the parliament each day yelling, `What about this? What are you doing about this?' Yet the Labor Party had a history of increasing taxes. The Labor Party says, `Well, the wholesale sales tax never affected the people—the staple food or diet and so on in their everyday life; it never really affected the battlers of Australia.' In 1985 when the Labor Party increased the wholesale sales tax on biscuits, ice-cream and other snack foods from zero per cent to 12 per cent, the battlers out there were not affected. In 1995 when the Australian Labor Party increased the wholesale sales tax on Australian fruit juice products from zero per cent to 12 per cent, did they compensate the battlers out there for that? What about muesli bars and other bars? In 1988 when they increased them from zero per cent to 22 per cent, did they compensate the battlers out there for that? The hypocrisy of the Labor Party comes through at each point. They come into this place or go on the airwaves and scream to the Australian people, `We're on your side,' while the other hand is in people's back pockets and their purses. `We are not taking away. We're with you, the battlers. We will put a token tax on the rich (and then we will tax biscuits). We will put a token tax on the rich (and then we will go and tax muesli bars). We will put a token tax on the rich (and then we will go and tax fruit juices.)' That is the Labor Party way of doing things. They tax the food the battlers of Australia eat every day but they do not tax caviar, and the Labor Party is defending this system. That is the hypocrisy we are trying to convey to the Australian people. Through all the static created about the introduction of the new tax system, the truth will come through. The truth is that the Labor Party is full of hypocrisy when it comes to income tax, when it comes to wholesale sales tax and when it comes to the GST. When it comes to a range of taxation initiatives, they have got form for being hypocrites. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.Today I have released the first report of the ACCC about the pass-through effects of the reduction in the wholesale sales tax. This is not about holding up speculative price tags. It is not about what may occur on 1 July. It is about the issues that happened last July. It is about facts, not fiction. The proof of the pudding is in the report from the independent regulator: that prices became cheaper on goods than they would have expected. They expected the 10 per cent wholesale sales tax to pass on between a five and seven per cent reduction in prices for consumers. It flowed through at higher than that. Competition out there in the business and retail world is delivering full flow-through benefits to consumers. So the punters out there are beneficiaries. If you believe the Labor Party, only the top end of town buys videos, TVs, radios, hi-fis, CD players, clocks or watches. All the other punters and battlers out there sit around a candle at night reading Charles Dickens—that is, if you believe the Labor Party. They do not understand that the creeping and insidious taxation system that they left us left Australia in a paralysed state. It meant that the people who were going to pay for the tax were the Australian workers. They were the people who were going to pay for Labor's taxation system. So we are waiting to hear from you what your policies are. What do you want to do? It is a blank sheet of paper now. Is it going to be ever thus? How are you going to roll back? The member for Hotham goes on Stan Zemanek's program and says to him, `The more exemptions you have the more complicated it gets.' And in another breath the member for Hotham is saying, `Roll 'em back, boys. Let's go. Heave 'em out. `Roll 'em back. Let's start rolling back the GST.' So why doesn't the member for Lilley explain what the changes are going to be and how the Labor Party is going to pay for them? 2V5Swan, Wayne, MPDK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Oh yeah! We'll tell you all in good time! The Australian people deserve an answer now. The Australian people want answers now. They do not want to hear your hypocrisy. They do not want to hear your babble. They do not want to hear the psychobabble of the Leader of the Opposition. They want to hear facts; they want to hear reality—not the guffaw that comes out of recidivistic parliamentarians like you. They do not want to hear that. They want to hear factual policy from the Leader of the Opposition, and we are waiting to hear it too.As we approach 1 July, every scare campaign is going to be wheeled out by the troops on the other side. They will be hoping that on 1 July the sun does not rise and Armageddon is here. If that is the case and they are putting all their eggs in that basket, they had better hope that that occurs. They had better hope that it is Armageddon and that the sun will not rise, because if it does rise all of a sudden they are going to be caught like a kangaroo in the spotlights of a truck. And do you know what? We will be driving it and we will run right over the top of them.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—It's the surfers that are going to get done.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—The surf will die out. `Mark Occhilupo' Beazley is not going to be able to ride his Malibu into the sand. Under those circumstances, what does the Labor Party stand for? It stands for hypocrisy. It stands for irony. It stands for ripping off the battlers of Australia. We have seen many examples of that over the last few days. What about the example of workers' entitlements? The Labor Party ran around saying, `We want you to do something for the workers,' and then they had the hypocrisy to come into this House and lambast us for doing exactly what they asked us to. `Putting the workers last' is the Labor Party motto, except if they are in a union, where they put the union officials first. The union officials always come first in the Labor Party; the workers come last. We are seeing it in Victoria under Bracks at the moment. We are seeing it in the policy development of the Labor Party and we are seeing it in the hypocrisy of the behaviour of the Labor Party in the parliament: put the workers last; put the battlers last; put ourselves first. Have all the members of the Labor Party who were born in the back of a Comcar ride up to Parliament House and rule the world. They will say, `We won't tell the battlers what to do, and they'll be right.' `She'll be right,' is an epithet that will be on your policy grave and the policy grave of the Leader of the Opposition. (Time expired)15:46:0013795Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am pleased to second the remarks of my colleague the member for Lilley This discussion exposes the problems caused by this government's GST. They are caused by problems of ignorance and lack of caring. One point which has been quite topical over the last two days is the issue of the GST on residents of caravan parks. Perhaps the government's position is best demonstrated by the comments of the Treasurer, Peter Costello, on 7 February on ABC Radio. He said:... I was asked, for example, this morning about long-term rents and caravan parks. An interesting question if you happen to run a caravan park. How many people in Australia run caravan parks, I mean, amongst your listeners there would be some, but I imagine most of your listeners would be in regional businesses or farming businesses, where they're totally inside the system. They don't have to wonder about esoteric questions like applying the GST to long-term rentals in caravan parks.Maybe the Treasurer knows now just how esoteric this question is. There are 161,000 Australians, those most vulnerable in our society, who live in caravan parks because they cannot afford to live in the sorts of homes and luxury units paid for by the family trusts of those opposite on the front bench. What does the Treasurer have to say to the most vulnerable Australians? He says it is an esoteric question. Why has the government got itself into this mess? It is because they do not understand that all Australians do not live with harbour views or views of penthouses, like the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. When we asked this question of the then minister, Warren Truss, on 9 February 1999, his response was: What are caravan parks if they are not tourist accommodation ... He would not know that 161,000 Australians are in fact living permanently in those caravan parks and they are getting organised. They are coming after the member for Richmond, the member for Lyne, the member for Leichhardt, the member for Fairfax, from right up and down the coasts of New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. The 13,000 Australians who live in caravan parks in the marginal electorate of Kalgoorlie have a baseball bat ready to remind this government exactly what the impact of the GST on caravan parks is.We have not seen just that lack of understanding. This government has been totally misleading as to what the impact will be. The member for Lyne distributed a leaflet to his electorate before the last election which said:I would like to assure you that residents who occupy accommodation in a caravan park or holiday village on a permanent basis, ie over 28 days, will not have to pay a GST on their site fees. This will be treated in the same way as rental of a house or unit and is GST free.How does that sit with the member for Richmond, his National Party ministerial colleague? Once again we have one message here in Canberra and one message out there in the electorate. The government think that things like tape recorders do not exist. Last week, Larry Anthony said to a public meeting in his electorate:But I do hope that there can be a change there and I think even some of the park owners would prefer not to have that option because it's putting the heat on them because they do have an option whether to charge or not to charge.He went on to say:... and I hope I can come back to you shortly and I will, through your representatives, and hopefully there can be a change.How does that sit? On the one hand you have the member for Lyne telling people during the election campaign there is no GST on site fees in caravan parks. Then you have the Minister for Community Services, who is responsible for this legislation, saying, `I'll go and see the Prime Minister and we'll make some representations.' He is the minister in charge, and the 6,649 permanent residents of caravan parks in Richmond will be reminded day after day exactly what his position is. He has more positions than Peter Reith had on the republic. He said, `Think about the comments of the member for Lyne,' then, `Think about the comments of the member for Richmond'. Then, listen to this. On 12 October, I asked the Minister for Community Services, the member for Richmond, a question about the GST on caravan parks and his own comments in the Daily News, the local Tweed paper, of the week before. The week before, when I was up there talking to people in caravan parks, informing them of what was going to happen to them, he said:Site fees are not the same as rent—That is what he said—and this is nothing new.`No big deal,' he said at that time. Well, the campaign is gaining momentum. Compare this with the actions of the member for Lyne. He said in parliament:As they well know, prior to the last election we were very open and transparent about the GST, particularly the relationship that it had to rent and particularly the relationship that it had to mobile home parks.Oh, yes! Really open. They distributed leaflets and direct mail letters to every single resident of those caravan parks and told them—lied to them—that the GST would not be applicable. I have made a few visits up and down the coast of Australia. People such as the member for Leichhardt and the member for Richmond say, `Oh, well, it won't impact on them,' but the problem they have is that, come 1 July, they will know that they cannot run and they cannot hide. It is not surprising because, whichever way you look at the GST, it is the most vulnerable people in society who get hit. The GST applies not just on caravan parks; boarding houses have been hit by the same mistake. The spivs across there do not understand that 161,000 people live in caravan parks permanently because they have no choice, and 35,000 Australians, as at the last census, live permanently in boarding houses. They are the most vulnerable. They are people with physical disabilities. They are people with mental health disabilities. They are people who cannot afford other forms of accommodation. But what is happening to them? They are being hit by the GST as well. If you rent a property in Kirribilli or Yarralumla down the road here, or in any of the richest areas in Australia, you will not pay GST, but if you are renting a room in a boarding house—if you have a room which is cramped up in the inner suburbs of Sydney or Melbourne or Newcastle or Brisbaneyou will pay the GST on your accommodation, and that has an impact on real battlers. One example of that is Mr Patrick Drage. He lives in a boarding house in Crystal Street, Petersham, in my electorate. There are six boarding houses next to each other, and there are 42 people living there. There are no vacancies, and there is a waiting list. That is the reality of Sydney accommodation in the year 2000. Mr Drage has paid $140 per week at his Crystal Street boarding house for the last two years. When asked about this, Mr Drage said:I go without meals as it is, if it goes up another $14 or so, that's meat and bread I'll have to go without. I go to the (Exodus) foundation at Ashfield every week and pretty much everyone else here does too. I can't read or write, I had silicosis all my life and couldn't go to school. I didn't vote for the GST, it's going to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.That is the bottom line of what this government is about. If you try to buy a house under the First Home Owners Scheme, you will be worse off unless you can find somewhere for under $90,000. If you are a private renter, it is estimated that your rent will go up by 10 per cent. If you are paying a strata title, your fees on the strata title will be hit. There has been effectively a $140 million cut in public housing. If you are in community housing, those organisations will become tax collectors. That is the impact of this government's GST on just one sector, yet they would have us believe that no-one will be worse off. Well, we know they will be worse off. Come 1 July, a lot of people over there on the government side will be worse off because they will be looking for jobs. They know that the people of Australia will not support this unfair, uncaring tax. (Time expired)15:56:0013797Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—I am not sure if I am here today to respond to an MPI or to respond to a vicious and unjust attack on the member for Richmond—a fine National Party minister. I note the member for Lilley's attempt to quote the member for Richmond. If the member reads the quote again, he might understand what a member of parliament really does. As the member for Lilley's transcript, which he so helpfully provided yesterday, said:The member for Richmond said, `Now, I can't give you a guarantee today, because I'd be fibbing to you. But I do hope there can be a change there.The member for Richmond has not said one thing in his electorate and done another in Canberra. The member for Richmond has not made a promise he cannot keep. The member for Richmond has said that he will represent his constituents. This is what a National Party member of this place does, unlike members of the Labor Party, who fail every time to represent their constituents. The member for Richmond is committed to his principles, but you would not know what principles mean.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I assure the honourable member for Riverina that I do. She might be careful how she phrases it.83OHull, Kay, MPMrs HULL—I am addressing my remarks to the member of the Labor Party, I am sorry, for the benefit of his constituents.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—You should address your remarks through the chair.83OHull, Kay, MPMrs HULL—Perhaps the MPI today should read `The failure of the opposition to admit to the true effect of the GST prices'. As a consequence, the opposition has failed to provide recognition for the government's adequate compensation, which will offset any impact on the weekly budget of low to middle income Australians by introducing $12 billion in tax cuts, by providing assistance worth more than $2.4 billion per year to around two million families and by providing a wealth of assistance to people on social security, to self-funded retirees and to pensioners. In fact, families are major beneficiaries of our new tax system. The government is providing assistance for most families by providing an extra $140 a year per child, by providing additional assistance of $350 a year per family for single income families, including sole parents with a child aged under five years, by extending assistance from 1 October 1999 to families with older dependent children not receiving youth allowance and by increasing the maximum assistance for child care for lower income families. The second part of the family package increases incentives for low to middle income families to escape the poverty trap that was so readily entrenched by Labor. We are also increasing the level of income at which family assistance begins to be income tested to $28,200, a projected increase of $3,850 a year. We are also allowing families to keep 70c of every dollar of income they earn above the free area instead of the current 50c of every dollar. The free area is the amount of income that a person can earn before their payments start to reduce.The third part of the family package simplifies the administration of family assistance with the Family Tax Benefit, Part A providing help with the cost of raising children and the Family Tax Benefit, Part B providing extra help to single income families and child-care benefits helping with child-care costs. Combined with personal income tax cuts, these measures will greatly increase the rewards for low to middle income families.As an integral part of the new tax system, every taxpayer will receive personal income tax cuts from 1 July 2000, unlike the Keating l-a-w promised tax cuts in 1993. Did they deliver those promised tax cuts? No. Instead they put wholesale sales tax up and put it on products that had never had a wholesale sales tax. Fuel went up 7c a litre. In fact, in the 13 years of Labor excise on fuel increased from 7c to 34c a litre. Did the Labor government offer any compensation for their attack on all Australians? No, not one cent. Finally, the outdated and unfair wholesale sales tax has been phased down. There are a range of foods which are currently sales tax free that will be GST free and should not change in price. The prices of a range of food items that currently attract sales tax of various levels and will be subject to the GST are also likely to fall. Choice identified that the average basket of groceries will drop $3.12 when the GST is introduced. The statement was made after surveying 143 supermarkets in 24 cities and towns across Australia. Interestingly, the consumer watchdog magazine stated:Most food is GST free and shouldn't become dearer. Some groceries should even drop in price as they're now subject to a sales tax that'll disappear under the GST.These findings from Choice clearly demonstrate the benefits that we can look forward to on 1 July. People, and particularly families, will have more money in their pockets—around $40 per week—to spend on items such as food, which, as demonstrated by Choice, will be very much cheaper.The government will increase the maximum rates of all social security and service pensions by four per cent from 1 July 2000. The four per cent increase will be paid as a pension supplement on top of the base pension. The increase will consist of an up-front advance of two per cent and a real increase of two per cent. Other associated allowances will also increase. For instance, the pharmaceutical allowance and mobility allowance will be increased by four per cent on 1 July 2000 and rent assistance will be increased by seven per cent.DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim Fischer—How much?83OHull, Kay, MPMrs HULL—Seven per cent. We now come to the functions of the opposition. During its period out of office, an opposition's chief task is to recruit potential members from its back bench and to weld them into a cooperating team. It uses its respite from government to refresh its members with new ideas and to formulate alternative policies. The Labor Party has been in respite, well rested and refreshed, for 4.5 years and they still have no policies. Refreshment and respite indeed! The Labor caucus is already divided on Simon Crean's plans to roll back the GST. Today's Australian comments: Opposition spokesman Lindsay Tanner has warned the front bench about committing an ALP government to further roll backs of the GST for fear the party would be left short of money to fund its social problems. That is policy: `We don't have one but we'd better not roll back the government's because we're going to have problems. We've got social problems.' Yes, indeed, you have social problems. You have caused social problems. You speak of failure. This MPI suggests that the government has failed. You dare to speak of failure. You failed when you were in government and you have failed in opposition. You do not and cannot perform the real role of opposition—let alone a government—and that is to frame a set of policies so as to offer the electorate a genuine choice of alternatives. You are a failure. There is no failure in this government.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion is now concluded.Bills13799The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Privacy Amendment (Office of the Privacy Commissioner) Bill 1998Ministers of State and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1999Criminal Code Amendment (Application) Bill 1999Customs Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999Import Processing Charges Amendment Bill 1999Committees13799137991379916:05:0013799Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the amended report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members' business on Monday, 6 March 2000. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber.Report—by leave—adopted.The report read as follows—Amended report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 6 March 2000The Selection Committee has amended its determinations relating to the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 6 March 2000. The amended order of precedence and allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION RE-PORTSPresentation and statements1 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DEL-E--GATION TO TONGA, COOK ISLANDS AND FRENCH POLYNESIA: Report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Tonga, Cook Islands and the First Pacific Community Conference, French Polynesia. The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 15 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.2 FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on a visit to East Timor, 2 December 1999.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 15 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.3 TREATIES—JOINT STANDING COM-MITTEE: Report 29: Singapore's use of Shoalwater Bay, Development Cooperation with PNG and Protection of new varieties of plants.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 15 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNoticesMr 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. (Notice given 9 December 1999.)Time allotted—private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—5 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—5 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.2 DR EMERSON: To move—That this House:(1) acknowledges the irritation caused to television viewers by the broadcasting of advertisements at volumes or pitches greater than those of normal programs;(2) notes that neither the Broadcasting Services Act nor the Commercial Television Code of Practice requires television stations to broadcast advertisements at the same sound level as their programs;(3) notes that at present the only recourse for viewers unhappy about the volume of advertisements is to complain to the television stations or the advertisers; and(4) calls on the Government to amend the Broadcasting Services Act to empower the Australian Broadcasting Authority to regulate the volume and pitch of television advertisements. (Notice given 24 November 1999.)Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3 mr schultz: To move—That this House notes:(1) places on record concern about the continued activity of the NSW Government in relation to the control of Ovine Johne's Disease (OJD) in sheep being without precedent in animal disease control in Australia;(2) notes that as at April 1999 over 900 farms were identified as being affected or suspected of having OJD in rural NSW alone, with most of these properties being in quarantine;(3) further notes the serious economic and social problems being faced by sheep and wool producers because of a growing concern that employment of veterinarians is a greater factor in the current enthusiasm for control than concerns for the disease free status of the industry; and (4) calls on the Federal Government to freeze all funding under the National Ovine Johne's Disease program until such time as an investigation is undertaken into NSW Department of Agriculture procedures to ensure its actions are based on sound scientific and socio-economic grounds. (Notice given 18 October 1999.) Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Committees13800138001380016:06:0013800Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—On behalf of the Publications Committee, I present the 12th report of the 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. Bills13800R95513800Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith. Bill agreed to.13801Bill (on motion by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop)—by leave—read a third time.Bills13801R94713801Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.13801Bill (on motion by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop)—by leave—read a third time.Bills13801R70813801Consideration resumed from 16 February.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 9), after “17,”, insert “17A,”.(2) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 4), at the end of the clause, add: (4) Item 26A of Schedule 1 is taken to have commenced on 15 June 1988. (5) Item 27A of Schedule 1 is taken to have commenced on 6 July 1995.(3) Clause 4, page 2 (after line 25), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) For the purposes of section 97AB of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, a fee that: (a) was charged to a person at any time before the commencement of this subsection by an external service provider for a service provided under that Act, under regulations under that Act, or under the Civil Aviation Orders; and (b) disregarding the amendments made by items 26A and 27A of Schedule 1, was validly charged;is taken to have been agreed between the external service provider and the person. (2B) The amendments made by item 27A of Schedule 1 do not affect the validity of any regulation made before the commencement of that item, so far as the regulation prescribed fees other than for services provided by, applications or requests dealt with in any way by, or anything done by, an external service provider (within the meaning of section 97AB of the Civil Aviation Act 1988).(4) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 23), after item 17, insert:17A Paragraph 28(1)(c)Omit “domestic commercial”, substitute “regulated domestic”.(5) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 24), after item 26, insert:26A After section 97AAInsert:97AB Charging of fees by external service providers (1) An external service provider may charge a person such fee as is agreed between the external service provider and the person for any service provided by the external service provider under this Act, the regulations or the Civil Aviation Orders. (2) The fee is payable to the external service provider. (3) The fee must not be such as to amount to taxation. (4) If the fee is unpaid, it is a debt due to the external service provider and is recoverable in a court of competent jurisdiction. (5) In this section:external service provider means a person who is the holder of a delegation under this Act or the regulations, or who is an authorised person within the meaning of the regulations, other than a person in any of the following capacities: (a) a member; (b) an officer; (c) a person who provides services to CASA under a contract with CASA; (d) a person who, under a contract with CASA, provides services to the public on CASA's behalf; (e) an employee of a person referred to in paragraph (c) or (d).provide a service includes deal with an application or request or do anything. 27A At the end of paragraph 98(3)(u)Add “, other than services provided by, applications or requests dealt with in any way by, or anything done by, an external service provider (within the meaning of section 97AB)”.16:10:0013802Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.The government has moved a number of amendments to the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1998. These amendments have been agreed to by the opposition. The amendments are of a machinery nature which clarify the legal validity of existing arrangements in relation to regulatory services performed by persons outside the Civil Aviation Safety Authority who are authorised persons or delegates of CASA. Specifically, the amendments are required to achieve the following objectives: firstly, to make it clear that CASA's fee regime applies only to regulatory services done by CASA; secondly, to authorise third parties outside CASA to charge market fees for providing regulatory services; and, thirdly, to validate retrospectively the existing charging practices of third parties outside CASA. I commend this bill and the government amendments to the House.16:11:0013802Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I seek to make a few comments on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1998, including the amendments to be agreed to. In doing so, I indicate that this bill was passed yesterday with the support of the opposition in the Senate. The legislation is part of a review program designed to overhaul the civil aviation regulations and orders. The opposition supports timely and progressive reform of Australia's aviation system to ensure that it is modern, fair and, most importantly, safe for all Australians. In saying that, I believe that all Australians particularly identify with those objectives. It is therefore important that the aviation system looks after the safety and wellbeing of all Australians—particularly those flying aircraft, those living under flight paths and those who rely on aviation for the operation of their businesses or for the safety of those communities.The passage of this bill, which is before the House this afternoon, provides an opportunity to address some of my concerns over the management of aviation safety, which I believe are related to the bill before the House this afternoon, by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Yesterday, my colleague Senator O'Brien, who carried the bill in the Senate on behalf of the opposition, went into some detail with a litany of examples of mismanagement of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. What he showed was the total contrast between the current minister and his predecessor. From the bells and whistles hands-on approach of the previous minister, Mr John Sharp, we now have the distracted, completely hands-off regime of the current minister, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anderson. Both these approaches, and also the intervening inactivity of Mr Vaile, have left the Civil Aviation Safety Authority a broken, demoralised and rudderless organisation.The minister managed this week to table the CASA corporate plan, which is central to the issues that I raise this afternoon. The truth of the matter is that he had to do this. The problems of the minister and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority were exposed by the Australian National Audit Office in performance audit No. 19 released in November 1999. We have had the shameful situation where the Civil Aviation Safety Authority was in breach of its own act. The Civil Aviation Act requires the board to prepare an annual corporate plan and to present it to the minister. The Audit Office pointed out that this had not been done and that it had happened once since the authority was established in 1995. The act also requires the minister to table the corporate plan in the parliament. Obviously, this proviso was also breached: the minister had nothing to table. The minister had not ensured that he had something to table, which I believe would have been his ministerial responsibility in actually keeping the authority up to the mark in accordance with the requirements of the act.The implication of this is that there has been no consistent, clear, documented strategy or plan for aviation safety in Australia, which goes back to the very issue I raised at the outset: our need to ensure that the Australian aviation system is modern, fair and, most importantly, safe for all Australians. It is no surprise, therefore, that the direction has been lost and the morale and spirit of CASA staff have been so affected. From a public policy and accountability perspective, the Australian public has not had an opportunity to assess, challenge or discuss the corporate plan, and CASA has continued in its disorganised, shambolic way. The description in the audit report as to why the corporate plans were not produced provides evidence of the damage caused by the political instability in this organisation. Too many ministers, senior managers and board members have been so engrossed in their own agendas that they have forgotten their accountability to the Australian public as required by acts of this parliament. The minister needs to get his attention more on aviation safety than on running the National Party, moralising and being the Deputy Prime Minister. The audit report made a raft of recommendations for improving aviation safety and CASA's operation. I want to read from some of those overall conclusions and recommendations made by the Audit Office. I want to do this because I think they need to be further exposed and discussed in the context of what I believe is an important bill, the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1998. When you go to those recommendations, they seem so obvious that it is horrifying to think of the management safety defects that necessitate such references. (Extension of time granted) The report made reference to the following priority areas:...ensuring entry control assessment and decision-making processes are properly documented and greater attention is paid to existing operators' previous compliance history ...Fairly fundamental. It continued:...ensuring that surveillance is planned, conducted and reported in accordance with ASSP procedures as the audit findings indicated that these identified requirements had not always been adhered to;developing and implementing risk-based analysis processes that are applicable to the different industry sectors and ensuring that staff are appropriately trained in their use ...Fairly fundamental to the operation of any organisation. It continued:...identifying those operators with a significant history of non-compliance and developing appropriate enforcement strategies ...And the one I referred to earlier was this:...addressing corporate governance issues such as completing a corporate plan—imagine having to bring this to the attention of the minister—...and providing it to the Minister in accordance with legislative requirements; monitoring adherence to management priorities; formal promulgation of changes in policy; systematic analyses of safety information to identify trends and risk factors involved; and developing meaningful performance indicators for management and accountability purposes;The minister stands condemned for not forcing the issue and having to have his hand forced by the Audit Office. It is quite basic stuff, I would have thought. We must also remember that these managers and the minister are being paid big money to do a job which is about the safety of Australians in the air. It requires more attention and adherence to the requirements of this parliament from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I quote again from the recommendations:...developing mechanisms that would provide senior management with assurance that the regulatory standards are being applied in a consistent and equitable manner and in accordance with established documented procedures; and enhancing procedures for examining, implementing and finalising action on all recommendations directed to CASA as a result of investigations, inquiries and reviews and to monitor and report on progress in implementing those recommendations.Clearly, in supporting the bill before the House this afternoon, it was appropriate that I draw the attention of the House to the issues that I have raised. I believe that they are fundamental to the operation of the bill once it becomes an act of this parliament, because it is about continuing to ensure that we have an appropriate aviation system in Australia that is adhered to by all. All I can say in conclusion is that the time has come for the minister to take his responsibilities in transport seriously, to not have to rely on the Audit Office to force his hand to do his job and to guarantee that in the future all Australians can go to bed of an evening safe in the knowledge that not only is the Australian aviation system modern and fair but, more importantly, we have a minister and an authority that put safety first and foremost and require that our aviation authorities are not only seen but required to do the right thing by Australia's travelling public. Second best is not good enough. The minister has clearly proven to date that he has been inadequate as a minister. It is the Audit Office that has driven responsibilities and required the government to table in this House the requirements of the act. The minister should have been up to the mark. The minister should have been putting pressure on CASA. The minister should have been in a position to ensure that the Audit Office was not required to do the minister's work. I commend the bill, as amended, to the House.16:21:0013804McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I support the remarks made by the honourable member for Batman, particularly his remarks that the government's aviation policy is in a shambles. We have not seen a better example of that than in the last week or so out at Bankstown. People who were part of a government agency, the Sydney Airport Corporation, which is entirely owned by the government, held a secret meeting out at Bankstown airport with a whole lot of country mayors, a few National Party MPs and a few other country MPs and started to have a hard sell on why Bankstown airport should become the regional aviation hub of Sydney.If you want an example of how you could create a very unsafe circumstance in aviation in Sydney, it would be to turn Bankstown airport into a regional aviation hub. For the Sydney Airport Corporation people to press that issue, for them to use the authority they have over Bankstown airport, which is a subsidiary of theirs, to go out and run this plan, I think is nothing short of a scandal. Indeed, when I first had this matter drawn to my attention by Senator West, I could not quite believe it. I took it up with the member for North Sydney because I know that he is very interested in aviation matters around Sydney airport, as well as with my Labor colleagues the member for Blaxland and the member for Grayndler. I have to say that the member for North Sydney had no idea about this either. It is now even more surprising and worrying when one sees in the AAP news on Wednesday, 16 February that the minister in charge of this organisation, Mr Anderson, who is the minister who has control of these Sydney airport people, said that the Sydney Airport Corporation is way out of line. Mr Anderson said that the corporation is not responsible for making decisions about Sydney's long-term airport needs and the proposal does not represent government policy. It makes you wonder what is going on here. Here we have got a government agency, a wholly owned corporation of the government, the Sydney Airport Corporation, running a plan of their own for what should be the regional airport arrangements of Sydney, running a plan of theirs to sink the government's plan to build Badgerys Creek airport, and the minister says it is out of line. It is more than out of line; it is downright disgraceful. What these people are trying to do is undermine the government's announced policy of doing something about a second airport for Sydney. The government needs to come clean on this as well because, if these people are telling the truth, they are trying to make Bankstown airport the second airport for Sydney. If you make Bankstown airport the second airport for Sydney, that is going to be an aviation disaster and a safety disaster. They are saying that they want to get all the regional operators to fly into Bankstown. That begs the question as to how you classify Canberra. Is Canberra a regional airport? If it is, are we going to find the ridiculous circumstance where international visitors who want to come to this city will fly into Sydney airport, get put on a train out to Bankstown and then fly out of Bankstown? What this is all about is the Sydney airport commercial operators wanting to run the policy, rather than the government. What the government needs to do is get up and make the decision about Badgerys Creek, announce that decision and ensure that these government agencies that are out of control are brought back into control. The government needs to make a decision and make it quickly so that its own public servants know what the reality is. 16:26:0013805Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—I concur with the comments made by the member for Watson and the comments made by the shadow minister. As the local member for the electorate of Blaxland—SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I was remarkably tolerant of the member for Watson in that I did not interrupt his flow on matters which are clearly outside the ambit of the bill. Whilst I was very tolerant on that occasion, I do not intend to be tolerant for the next two.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: this bill is about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. It is about airline safety. The minister has moved moving amendments about airline safety. If the civil aviation authority want to turn Bankstown airport into a regional airport and the second airport for Sydney, that is the most unsafe, stupid thing you could possibly do.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The honourable member will not debate the issue by way of the point of order. I would remind honourable members that the question before the House is that the amendments made by the Senate be agreed to. Honourable members should recognise that that is what is actually before the House at present.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—I will go on to the matters of safety in relation to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the length of time it took for this to get through the Senate, and all of the problems we have had in Sydney and in particular in the airport at Bankstown. Bankstown is the largest general aviation airport in this country. In the past months we have seen, with the fuel crisis affecting every one of the operators at Bankstown airport, that there have been direct, apparent, clear safety problems for the whole of general aviation right throughout Australia but in particular for all of those businesses that are in my electorate at Bankstown airport. What should be the focus of the administration of Bankstown airport and the Sydney Airport Corporation, which governs Bankstown airport's operation? The focus should be on the safety of those aircraft. The focus should be on fixing the fuel crisis, on getting those planes back into the air.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—I again raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that the member is way outside the guidelines that you gave him at the beginning. I repeat that I was very tolerant and did not interrupt the member for Watson. I do think that the member for Blaxland must observe your guidelines and speak to the bill, which is a machinery bill dealing with regulatory fees.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: the bill deals with a number of things. It deals with fees, it deals with regulations and it deals with the whole matter of safety.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I remind the honourable member for Blaxland that the question before the chair is that the amendments be agreed to. It is akin to a consideration in detail debate. It is the schedule of amendments that had been circulated, and I invite the honourable member to continue his contribution in that context.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will. In his second reading speech, which is pertinent to these amendments because it goes directly to the bill, the minister said that this bill will set up a regulatory regime to allow a clear, concise and outcome focused regime for civil aviation in Australia. I could not be more pertinent to the bill in relating the problems there have been at Bankstown. Instead of having their eye on the ball, the Sydney Airport Corporation have been doing the government's dirty work for it. They have been trying to push Bankstown as a regional airport. They have not been concerned about safety considerations. What they have been trying to do is take10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member is straying a little.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—Do we have a clear, concise and outcome focused safety regulatory regime in Australia? It has taken more than a year to get us to this point. We have a massive safety crisis at Bankstown at the moment. The government should be concentrating on fixing that. It should not be concentrating, as it has through the Sydney Airport Corporation, on trying to nobble Bankstown and all those operators attempting to deal with safety issues. It is a key and important thing for the people of Bankstown that our general aviation airport stay as it is, that it does not get rolled into a regional airport, with resultant massive safety problems from trying to combine two separate operations, that the government stops the phoney war and that it makes the final decision about a real second airport for Sydney. (Time expired)16:31:0013806Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am pleased to make a contribution to this debate on amendments made by the Senate to the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1998. The issue of air safety, as the member for Batman and shadow minister has reiterated, is about safety in the air and safety on the ground. I want to talk about those two issues. With regard to safety in the air, one of the important issues is air space. In Sydney at the moment Sydney airport is having a public inquiry into the precision radar monitoring system. The PRM is designed to increase the capacity of the airport, in particular on the main north-south runways. It is designed to do that in order to maximise the number of flights in and out of Sydney airport.At a briefing given by Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd and Bankstown airport last Friday, they proposed, firstly, that Bankstown be the major airport for regional airlines in New South Wales, with all regionals to be shifted there. Secondly, they said, `In the meantime we will exclude propeller flights, the small flights, from the cap of 80 movements at Sydney airport.' Clearly what they are aiming at is moving up to 120 movements per hour, which is a threat to safety for the people who live around Sydney. If you were aiming to make Bankstown an upgraded regional airport, you would need a radar monitoring system such as PRM because those airports are so close together. So now we have the government's agenda exposed: more jets in and out of Sydney airport, more planes over Bankstown and the south-western area of Sydney and no decision on Badgerys Creek. So we have a decision which means hell for people around the inner suburbs of Sydney, hell for the people around the south-western suburbs of Sydney and no real decision with respect to infrastructure.The idea of jets in and out of Sydney airport is also relevant, with safety being pushed aside in the interests of profits in the lead-up to privatisation. The Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd is determined to maximise the sale price of that airport, and you will do that if you exclude the smaller operators from the regions of New South Wales and bring in the jets from 6 a.m. until 11 o'clock at night. One of the things that is important when we consider anything to do with civil aviation is not just the safety of people in the air but the safety of people on the ground. It is simply not viable to operate two major airports, that is, Sydney and Bankstown, using the air space available. It is a threat to the people on the ground in Sydney and it is also a massive rebuff to people in regional New South Wales. To give one example, Hazelton Airlines have said that at the moment they plan to go ahead with an administrative centre near Orange in New South Wales which will bring jobs. They have said that, if they are forced to go to Bankstown, they will not proceed with that proposal. I have written to Brendan Nelson who is Chair of the Sydney Airport Community Forum demanding a special meeting10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member for Grayndler will resume his seat.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—Mr Deputy Speaker, as I said before, I think I have been quite tolerant in not intervening earlier in the way that Labor Party members have strayed outside the terms of the debate. I would ask you to draw the member in line and have him return to the subject matter that is before the chamber.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I ask the honourable member for Grayndler to return to the Senate amendments that are before the House.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—I will conclude my comments by saying that safety is an important issue for people who travel on aircraft and also for people on the ground. This bill has been a long time coming. It is a bit rough when we are discussing the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1998 in the year 2000, but perhaps that is consistent given the prevarication that we have seen on building Badgerys Creek airport, in spite of the fact that they have a successful EIS. I conclude by saying that with regard to the PRM, which will have a massive impact on air safety, the government is stifling debate. The two meetings of the public inquiry are in Gordon and Hornsby. There are a lot of people in between Sydney airport and Gordon and Hornsby. There are no meetings south of the Parramatta River. Of the 13 libraries where the information is available, 12 are north of the Parramatta River on the North Shore of Sydney. It shows the North Shore bias of this government which is consistent with the plans that they have made with regard to flight tracks in Sydney.16:36:0013807Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—I am delighted that the opposition do support the government's amendments to the bill. However, I was somewhat disappointed at the remarks of the member for Batman who chose to make a personal attack on the minister. Let me simply say that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services is a minister whose concerns and diligence to duty are certainly above reproach and certainly above the paltry comments that were made by the member for Batman.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills13807R75313807Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills13807R92913807Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills13807R95813807Debate resumed from 24 November 1999, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.16:39:0013807Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—This is an example of the worst form of government decision making, resulting in legislation which really is inadequate to the task that is required of this parliament. The Customs Legislation Amendment (Criminal Sanctions and Other Measures) Bill contains a number of important provisions and a number of draconian and quite uncalled for measures. It was introduced into this parliament on 24 November last year. The government then pressed the case upon us on 6 December that there was urgency in the passage of this package of legislation because it contained within it measures which were necessary in the lead-up to the Olympics to criminalise the import into Australia of some performance enhancing drugs. We sought at that time to find a solution to the urgency of those provisions. Unfortunately we failed when we insisted that the legislation, because it contained not merely those provisions but a raft of other measures, have some scrutiny by this parliament. The scrutiny that it has received to date has been the scrutiny of the Senate committee. Naturally, the time frame that has been allowed, with the Senate committee calling for submissions late in December and ensuring that the report of its findings could be available for the commencement of this sitting, has inevitably meant that measures which normally would have attracted significant public attention, particularly in relation to civil liberties matters, have not had the scrutiny that one would expect of them. The fact that there are only three speakers on the list in relation to this legislation really belies the importance of this legislation. It is actually some of the most significant legislation that this parliament has had before it. The time frame in which this parliament has been given the opportunity to look at this legislation and the innocuous name of the measure—Customs Legislation Amendment (Criminal Sanctions and Other Measures) Bill—hardly do justice to what it contains. The opposition is very concerned about the provisions in this legislation. It contains significantly increased penalties for a range of import and export offences, including custodial offences. It includes increased Customs powers to conduct external personal searches by use of new technology, for example ion scanning, and for the videotaping of those searches. It includes powers of arrest to cover the new offences. It extends the period for which Customs may retain seized goods, principally of an evidential nature. It gives Customs officers the power to open postal items without the supervision of Australia Post. It makes some technical arrangements in relation to the appointment of the chief executive officer of Customs. So what we have here, in a sense, is a mix of measures, some obviously requiring our urgent attention, others of a simple administrative nature and yet others of a complexity and significance in terms of their civil liberties implications which cannot be done justice in the time frame that has been allowed for these matters.I am contemptuous of this government for the way in which it has dealt with the introduction of this legislation. It is not as if the fact that Sydney is holding the Olympic Games in the year 2000 is a matter which might have suddenly come to mind late last year. When I was Minister for Justice, contingency plans were on foot at that time for security and other arrangements in relation to the pending Olympic Games, and I attended planning meetings in relation to that. Those responsible for policing the intention of having a drug-free Olympics have been publicly calling on this government for well over two years to address some of the matters that this legislation deals with. So to find ourselves in a position where essentially the government has, at the last minute, cobbled together a package of legislation that includes those provisions relating to sports drugs but tacks them onto a whole range of other measures which do not get the proper scrutiny of this parliament—and will not get proper scrutiny—is a matter for which I have the greatest contempt.I turn to the provisions of this legislation. The opposition believes it is vital that the legislative approach to the importation of illicit drugs is consistent and appropriate, and this legislation is far from that. It has all the smell of cobbled together, knee-jerk legislation based on an approach to illicit drugs with respect to which this government has so misled the Australian community. It has a consistency with the war on drugs rhetoric, which is misguided, misplaced and out of step with what is really going on in the Australian community. We are concerned that the increases in penalties that are proposed in this bill have no coherent foundation whatsoever and are likely—as, for example, with mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory and other instances where people throw together pieces of legislation in order to address what they see as a perceived public concern about certain matters—to have quite severe unintended consequences.Take a couple of instances. Currently, the penalty for bringing 100 grams of cannabis into Australia is a fine of $4,000. Some might say that is far too low. By contrast, in the ACT, for example, the penalty for possession of 100 grams of cannabis or less is $100. Here, where we stand in parliament, if a person living in the ACT were convicted of possession of cannabis, the penalty for possession of 100 grams or less would be $100. In South Australia you are entitled, under an administrative offence, to grow up to three cannabis plants. In this bill, anyone stupid enough to travel to Australia with 100 grams of cannabis, which in the old measurement is about three ounces, will find themselves liable to the new penalties not of $4,000 but of $250,000 or 10 years imprisonment. What we have here is reefer madness. It is an extraordinary situation. There have been a range of measures with no public discussion, no examination of the task forces that have been established in relation to drug policies and no evaluation by expert groups. None of those issues has been canvassed in a larger domain. They have been swept up with legislation dealing with sports drugs and introduced to this parliament with no proper public exposure or consideration. That is just one example of the measures in this legislation which we, as an opposition, have great concerns with. We do not resile from the approach that serious importations of drugs are serious matters and must be dealt with seriously, but we have great concerns that we have moved from coherent and responsive policy making to knee-jerk, ad hoc and unthought through responses which will not be effective in protecting the Australian community or safeguarding the interests of Australian citizens. I will return to this theme at a later stage because we do propose to move, in respect of these matters, a second reading amendment which expresses the opposition's concern in relation to these larger issues.I want to go to some further technical points that concern the opposition. I might say that we have had some constructive discussions with the government and its advisers in the last couple of days. I understand that some of the matters upon which we have expressed concern will be the subject of government amendments. We will certainly be moving opposition amendments at the consideration in detail stage, but I am very pleased to acknowledge and welcome the undertakings we have received that the government will be moving further amendments in the Senate, for example, with respect to the way in which any search using the new technologies might be conducted and the right of people to refuse that if they are fearful or concerned about what might happen by way of medical risks they might incur and other matters of that nature.There is one matter of particular concern upon which we could not agree, and I find it extraordinary. It is in relation to the proposal in this legislation that officers of the Customs Service no longer need to ask Australia Post to open private mail that they search as it comes through mail exchanges. Under the current arrangement, Customs officers who find suspicious postal items have to have them opened by Australia Post officers. The Customs Legislation Amendment (Criminal Sanctions and other Measures) Bill 1999 proposes removing that safeguard. Removing a safeguard that demands the presence of an Australia Post official will leave a vacuum. It means that one Customs officer can open any piece of mail sent into Australia or through the postal exchanges without having to present it to the Australia Post officials to open it on their behalf, which is the current arrangement. It is not much of a safeguard that exists presently, but it does mean that the opportunity for two things is very constrained. The first of those two things is the opportunity for that Customs officer to see some mail sent by somebody they know, to open that mail, to read whatever is in it and then to return it—certainly with a sticker saying it has been opened but to return it. That opportunity will now exist. Secondly, it must be the case that, if you have law enforcement officials—and Customs officers in this regard are acting as law enforcement officers—acting without supervision, the prospect of framing people is enhanced. It could easily facilitate corrupt practices.There really are serious reasons to be concerned about the propriety of allowing Customs officers to open or to read private letters without proper checks and balances. To pretend that abuses of these kinds of powers do not exist is totally naïve. We know, for example, that within state police forces it has happened quite frequently that those who have charge of the motor registry have been willing to use that access to find out information about girlfriends or about people they want to trace, or to provide that information to private investigators or the like. So a regime has come into place because of that. But we do not have the safeguards here. We will have a situation quite unlike any other private communication that we protect. Even the Australian Federal Police and ASIO are not allowed to intercept phone calls or electronic communications without a warrant. Yet here we have essentially this government proposing legislation that does not require judicial authorisation or any second person to be present in relation to the opening of our private mail. That is an extraordinary situation. It is akin to the kinds of regimes you might find in a police state. Certainly I do not mean any malice towards Customs officers, the vast majority of whom I am certain approach their tasks with the greatest of respect for the legal framework in which they are supposed to operate. But to pretend that, in an organisation of the size of Customs, there are not some people who will abuse this is just silly. That is why we have checks and balances, just as we have checks and balances for the Australian Federal Police, for the National Crime Authority, for ASIO and for every other agency that has a law enforcement function which entitles it to intrude on our personal privacy. So why is it now that the only agency that will exist in Australia that has no responsibility either to seek judicial authorisation or to require some oversight, some checking, will be the agency which can rifle through our mail? Personally, I find it quite offensive that somebody might select a letter I had been sent or had sent to somebody and extract that from the mail, yet not be subject to the kinds of safeguards that presently exist. There is not much of a safeguard, as I say, but at least there is a safeguard. It is pretty hard to imagine that there will be ongoing collusion between an Australia Post officer who will have to open the mail and the Customs officer who will come there from time to time to check whether there may be some suspicious articles. Certainly it might happen once or twice, but it will not happen on an ongoing basis. They will move; they will change. But it can happen if you have unsupervised officers proceeding in this way. It is a fundamental violation of the kinds of safeguards that we have insisted on in legislation after legislation in this parliament. And I am amazed that this government still proposes to proceed in this way.To return to the larger concern, the first point I make is that we do accept that there is some urgency in dealing with the sports drugs issue. We wish it were not so. This legislation should have been before this parliament two years ago. We could have had a proper look at it and had a bit of a think about what we are actually doing. There are some big public policy issues here that we really have not had a chance to reflect upon. There is, for example, the degree to which we should criminalise, by the state, those who wish to use steroids. It is a bad thing to use steroids; it is probably bad for your health. Lots of these drugs are available without prescription in other countries. What is the degree to which we want to impose severe and draconian penalties upon large numbers of our fellow citizens, to make criminal actions which hitherto have been the subject of warnings and concern but not the sorts of penalties that we are talking about here—really severe penalties: years in gaol, hundreds of thousands of dollars of fines—when we do know there is a very large user group already, although we are not sure how large? Are we trying to operate on the basis that everyone in these situations is suddenly a major threat to national security? What expectations have we placed on sporting organisations, for example, to play their part in terms of a regime that asks them to undertake proper checks? How far is the balance properly set? Increasingly we are moving down this path of criminalising behaviour that is indulged in by many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Australian citizens. Come back to that: hundreds of thousands or millions of Australian citizens. I have received, for example—leaked at this stage, but I understand it is to be presented later next month—the Australian Illicit Drug Report which shows that, since the launch of the Prime Minister's National Illicit Drugs Strategy comprising no less than 10 committees and costing $295 million, illicit drug use in Australia has actually risen, and 40 per cent of the population over 14 years of age have tried cannabis at least once in their lives. Forty per cent is several millions of Australians. At least 400,000 people have used amphetamines in the last 12 months. The abuse of prescription drugs, of course, is continuing to increase, and the greatest health risks that we still face as a community come from the abuse of tobacco and alcohol. We still face escalating heroin deaths and the increasing availability of and reduction in the price of heroin. This brings us to a very large question which really requires us to have some thought about where we as a nation are leading ourselves. How far are we seeking to move to the American model where over two million Americans are in jail—60 per cent for exclusively drug offences? We have to think through the consistency of an approach which says that, if you live in the ACT and you have 100 grams of cannabis, you can be fined $100. If you are stupid and go overseas to, for example, the United States or for a holiday to South-East Asia and you think, `I couldn't find my 100 grams in Australia; I will bring it back. I will stick it in my pocket or hide it internally'—as people do—and then you get caught, you will get a minor slap on the wrist in the ACT. What is a Federal Court judge or magistrate going to do when they are faced with that person and the penalty that they are then asked to impose treats that person as a trafficker—what sort of trafficker brings in three ounces of cannabis?—and presents them with the possible imposition of a fine of $250,000 or 10 years in imprisonment? The range of penalties is becoming more and more bizarre. We need to get a serious grip on what kind of society we are seeking to move towards. Some people have made the obvious point that we are starting to develop a perverse symbiotic relationship between the state and the market and the rapid global growth in some forms of crime, particularly drug trafficking. Susan Strange has written a book called The Retreat of the State. She says that a key factor in the growth of organised crime has been the policies of national governments. She says: Demand from the consumers in the market has always been one side of the coin when it comes to the profits of organised crime. The other side has been the role of the state. Profitability is always increased when a trade in goods and services is declared illegal. This has been true of gambling, prostitution, alcohol, guns, pornography and, of course, drugs. Barriers to entry are raised because risk is increased and the means to manage or reduce the risk are not available to all. A monopoly rent results for the supplier. It is hardly surprising that organised criminal gangs, like other transnational enterprises, have seen new opportunities for profit in diversifying their activities. Only recently has there started to be a serious discussion about the implications of how we deal with transnational crime. The leading literature on this is a book called The Illicit Global Economy and State Power. In it, Peter Andreas describes what is happening as a simultaneous tearing down and building up of the state regulatory apparatus, the creation of a minimalist state in regulating the legal economy and a maximalist state in regulating the illegal drug economy. Coming back to what Susan Strange said, she points out:In recent years the majority of governments have taken two intrinsically conflicting decisions on the possession and sale of drugs and on the financial transactions through the banking system involving clean and dirty money. The first has been declared to be on the wrong side of the law. The second has been tacitly admitted to be on the right side in as much as only the most feeble attempts have been made to make the banks responsible as criminal accessories to the laundering of money acquired by criminal activities, whether bribes, robbery or illegal trafficking. The contradiction between the two decisions, that selling drugs is illegal but handling the proceeds of the trade is not, is putting the entire system of state authority at risk. We are confronted by this because we still have inordinately weak provisions in relation to money laundering. We do not have a civil forfeiture regime in this area. The Mr Bigs are able to skate through the system relatively effectively, notwithstanding ever increasing amounts of seizures. Of course there are ever increasing amounts of seizures. If you read the report on the availability of illicit drugs you will know that there is so much of it out there that there are bound to be increasing amounts of seizures. So the Mr Bigs skate through. Forfeiture provisions aimed at those who are actually commercially trafficking in drugs and which would hit people where it hurts have not been put in place. But we have this mad knee-jerk response of criminalisationthe maximalisation of criminal behaviour, where the citizen can find himself in jail for years and years for acts which are common in our community. This I find to be completely bizarre. If the intention of this government or the international community in pursuing this course was to reduce the availability of drugs, it has been an abysmal failure. I will quote in relation to the information: Since the 1970s, annual heroin seizures have increased from just over one to more than 21 metric tonnes internationally; cocaine seizures have increased from two to over 300 metric tonnes, while those of cannabis, from 2,000 tonnes in the early 1970s, reached the record figures of 53,000 tonnes in 1987. Assuming in the long run that you have roughly the same amount of seizures of the stock, you are getting massive increases in the volume of drugs being traded illegally. Currently the illicit drug trade is valued at over $500 billion a year, and it continues to grow. The US Drug Enforcement Agency estimated that in the early 1990s Mexico earned more than $7 billion a year from the drug trade, making it a leading, if not the leading, generator of foreign exchange in Mexico. In 1999last yearin Australia a study estimated that the illicit market for cannabis in this country was worth more than $5 billiona country reputed for hard drinking amazingly generating more than twice the amount spent on wine. So, if it was meant to reduce utilisation and use, it has been a failure. But, if it was meant to minimise harm, it has been a worse failure. We still see the overfocus on prohibition. These new knee-jerk responses are increasingly leading us to send messages to users that are not believed. We cannot get across effective health education and social messages. We do not develop programs. We run away from needle exchanges. We throw up our hands in horror. We do not deal with the fact that people in our community are dying. We run away from those issues—the realistic and sensible things that can be done practically—and we overfocus on a war on drugs, which all the evidence shows has been a gift to the marketers of drugs. If ever there was a serious campaign for decriminalisation, which Strange puts up as the alternative for the increasingly repressive policies at a state level, I bet I know who would be funding that campaign against decriminalisation. It would be those who now profit from it. Of course they would, because it is their monopoly rents that the state, by way of these mechanisms, is increasingly feeding, giving them comfort in ensuring that they have a substantial and significant market for what they are undertaking. As Strange says, the internationalisation of this means that an effective war on drugs requires global cooperation to implement repressive policies and the transfer of law enforcement responsibilities from the national to the international level.I do not know how far we want to go down these paths, but I am starting to become extremely worried about how the government is moving in relation to these matters. To treat the millions and millions of Australians that they know perhaps stupidly or unwisely or unhealthily and certainly illegally engage in these practices as if they are all fit to go to jailas the United States has done, filling their jails with these people and creating a massive social cost with no sense of reducing the availability or supply of drugs in that country or in any other state where these practices have been attempted—seems to me to be a practice doomed to failure. So we need to have a serious think about where we are going on this, particularly when we start to expand the net to include not only heroin, cocaine and everything else that we are naturally concerned about but also steroids, non-prescription drugs and various other things that we know many in the community have used and abused. It is bad to deal with these issues without education or health messages and the like, to criminalise and bundle them in together—as this legislation has done—without a proper debate or a forum for it. We propose a second reading amendment which should be debated and discussed in a serious way by this House's committee. I move:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:(1) calls for an approach to illicit drug use which acknowledges that law enforcement alone cannot be a sufficient response to the health and social problems that confront us as a society in relation to illicit drugs, and policy makers and the community must focus on the effects of drug use on youth, and on developing harm minimisation strategies;(2) is of the opinion that the Bill is a misguided response to the issue of illicit drugs in Australia, as the `war on drugs' rhetoric is misguided, misplaced and out of step with what is really going on in the Australian community; (3) is concerned that the increases in penalties contained in the Bill, have no coherent foundation and may lead to unintended and grossly unfair consequences; and(4) whilst accepting that there are sound public policy reasons in the lead up to the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games to support special measures to prohibit the importation of performance enhancing drugs, notes that there has been inadequate public consultation in the development of these measures and the other penalty measures in the legislation, and calls on the Government to refer these issues to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for a comprehensive review after the Sydney 2000 Games have concluded.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the amendment seconded?UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin Thomson—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.17:10:0013813Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—I rise to speak in support of the Customs Legislation Amendment (Criminal Sanctions and Other Measures) Bill 1999. The purposes of this bill are to amend the Customs Act 1901 to provide increased penalties for a range of import and export offences, including custodial sentences; to amend the Customs Act and the Australian Postal Corporations Act 1989 to enhance customs powers to detect illicit drugs; to amend the Customs Act to make a number of technical amendments relating to narcotic drugs and other prohibited goods provisions; and to amend the Customs Administration Act 1985 in relation to the appointment of the chief executive officer.I turn firstly to the issue of amending the Australian Postal Act to enhance customs powers to detect illicit drugs. It is extremely difficult to estimate the quality of illicit drugs brought into Australia for the obvious reason that they are illicit. The Australian Postal Corporations Act contains provisions enabling mail to be opened and examined in certain circumstances. Under section 90S, an international mail article can be opened by an authorised examiner—usually an Australia Post employee—in two circumstances. The first circumstance is if a Customs officer asks the postal officer to do so. The second circumstance is if there are reasonable grounds to believe the article contains something on which customs duty or sales tax should be payable, or it contains something carried in contravention of import or export laws. In either case, a Customs officer may then check the postal article. If an article is opened and then later returned to the post, it carries an Australia Post endorsement stating that it has been so opened.The amendment will allow Customs officers to open and examine a postal article that they reasonably believe contains unlawful drugs or chemical compounds. The article must be in the course of the post between Australia and a place outside Australia. This is necessary because Customs's ability to examine articles covertly for illicit substances is restricted. For the sake of the community in the war against drugs and in the war against illegal doping in sport, that is not a restriction that we should generally encounter. I appreciate that there are questions of privacy, but let us discuss what we are dealing with here. I will go onto drugs in sport in the lead-up to the Olympics in a moment, but let us first examine the figures. Seizures by Customs through the postal environment and examination of cargo resulted in some 525 seizures of steroids, DHEA and hormone drugs in 1997-98. This leapt to a massive 907 seizures in 1998-99. Illicit drugs seized through postal or cargo environments include 644 seizures of cannabis representing 45.7 kilograms; 20 seizures of cocaine representing 12.5 kilos; 8 heroin seizures; 61 ecstasy seizures; and 1,567 seizures of other drugs.During the year 1998-99, 508.3 kilograms of heroin was seized by Australian Customs officers. This figure is more than double the 1996-97 seizure of 236 kilograms. The Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence reports that since 1994-95 the number and amount of cocaine seizures at customs barriers have gradually increased. In fact, since 1 January 2000 Customs and the Australian Federal Police have seized 638.7 kilograms of cocaine. Already that is twice the average for 1998-99, and it is only February so far.Drugs and the importation of illegal weapons into this country are very important issues. If there is something that the parliament and this government can do to protect our children and our society, then we should do it without question. Currently, the Australian postal act restricts the ability of Customs to open and examine mail articles covertly, an important part of the success of control of delivery of illicit drugs imported into Australia. The laws of this land provide that the conduct of controlled operations by law enforcement officials including Customs officers is permitted in certain circumstances. The concept of `controlled operations' is contained in section 15H of the Crimes Amendment (Controlled Operations) Act 1996, which inserted a new part 1AB into the Crimes Act 1914. Controlled operations are linked to the Customs Act 1901, which means that controlled operations can only be authorised in relation to the investigation of offences involved in the importation of narcotics. The operation must involve law enforcement officers and may involve law enforcement officers engaging in conduct that would normally constitute a narcotics goods offence. I can certainly say that successful controlled operations take a lot of drugs off the street. I am sure you will have seen the recent headlines, with one record haul of narcotics by Customs and law enforcement officials after another. For example, on Wednesday, 2 February of this year, a customs operation netted some $120 million worth of cocaine.I cannot say enough how important it is that Customs be given the power they need to protect Australia from drugs. Every time we get drugs before they hit the street we do well. But if we turn our heads and back off for even a moment we send a message to the drug smuggling community, and the flow will pretty soon turn into a torrent. I noted recently that the Labor Party's minority report in the other chamber made the following recommendation:It is recommended that the bill be amended to align penalty provisions more realistically with community expectations without pandering to the desire to impose draconian but essentially irrelevant and ineffectual penalties.The Labor Party is soft on drugs. No other conclusion can possibly be drawn from its recent statement. If the Labor Party believes that penalties proposed in this bill are draconian or unbefitting the crime of drug smuggling, then I would suggest that it is the Labor Party and not the government which is entirely out of step with community expectations in regard to this matter.Item 5 of schedule 1 provides that an article opened and returned to the post by a Customs officer under new section 90T must carry an endorsement that it has been opened by the Australian Customs Service and the reasons why it was opened. This allows a measure of transparency. I should point out that there is very little difference in allowing an Australia Post employee to open a package on the suspicion of illicit substances and allowing a Customs officer to open a package for the same reason. The most important difference, though, is that Customs are comprehensively trained in this area and have the power to detain and to combat drugs.Division 1B of part XII of the Customs Act includes provisions which deal with the circumstances in which persons reasonably suspected of carrying prohibited goods be detained and subjected to a `frisk search', an `external search' or an `internal search'. The bill provides for an amendment creating a new subsection 219R(11A) to (11C), which will enable equipment prescribed in regulations to be used in external searches. Under the new amendment, a detainee will still be required to consent to an external search or prescribed equipment, and the Customs officer or police officer will also be required to explain to the detainee exactly what the prescribed equipment is, what risks there may or may not be, and what it is being used for. A Customs officer can use prescribed equipment where a detainee does not consent, provided the official obtains an order from an authorised person which expressly directs prescribed equipment to be used. New subsection 219R(11B) provides that if the use of prescribed equipment requires body samples to be obtained then only samples from the outer surface of the detainee's hand can be used.There are safeguards built into this amendment about what sort of prescribed equipment can be put into the regulations. The first safeguard is that only equipment capable of indicating whether a person is concealing prohibited substances on their body may be prescribed in the regulations. Secondly, the CEO must consult with any relevant authorities before equipment can be prescribed. Thirdly, the CEO must provide a statement to the minister of the day that the equipment is safe and can be operated by a person without professional qualification. Then and only then can a piece of equipment be prescribed by regulation. A Customs officer who uses prescribed equipment must be authorised to do so and trained in its operation. The training scheme must also be set out in the CEO's statement. To further protect the detainees, a new section includes as a condition of external searches that the request and subsequent consent to an external search must be recorded on videotape or other means. A recording of the search must also be made, and the detainee must be aware of that recording being made. If a videotape is made, then a copy of the recording must be supplied to the detainee. This will protect not only the detainee but also the Customs officer and should see a reduction in the number of complaints in this particular area. Any copies made which are not required for any legal proceeding impending or otherwise will be destroyed as soon as practicable, and within 12 months. There are opportunities for extension if a magistrate agrees for special reasons.I understand that the Minister for Justice and Customs has been examining closely the use of technologies that could be used in personal search procedures such as body scans, X-rays, particle detectors, thermal imaging and swabbing kits. Following detailed expert examination of this technology and, I imagine, given the rapid rates of advancement in these technologies, there has been a decision to include a provision in this bill to allow new technologies to be used as an alternative to removing articles of clothing. I know, from my experiences of Customs, that they have strict operating procedures that are designed to reflect reasonable balancespreserving a person's dignity and liberty and the protection of the community as a whole. We need to find ways of dealing with this sensitive area, with community protection always at the forefront of our minds. I think new technologies will walk this line. It will be cleaner and neater, and it is a much more dignified way to conduct these searches, both for the detainee and for the Customs officer.Mr Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Questions Without Notice138151381517:24:0013815Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Earlier today I was asked a question about a book, Anzacs, by Peter Bowers and its price as from 1 July 2000. I had not seen the book when I was asked the question, nor have I yet seen it. I became aware later in question time that the book had been priced by the marketing manager of Australia Post and that the pricing had been withdrawn—a matter I disclosed to the House by adding to my answer at the end of question time.I spoke by telephone to Mr Bowers this afternoon, and he is upset that I may have suggested in my answer that he was either trying to take an unfair profit from the book or using the story of Anzacs for undue profit. I acknowledge that the Anzac story is a very deep and meaningful story to him and his family. It was not my intention to suggest that he was taking an unfair or undue profit from it, and he is not. If my words were taken by anybody to the other effect, I apologise to him.Personal Explanations1381517:25:0013815Mr Slipper,MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?0V5Mr Slipper,MPMr SLIPPER—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.0V5Mr Slipper,MPMr SLIPPER—In question time today the Leader of the Opposition referred to a statement in the appropriation debate this week, in which I referred to specific purpose payments. My intention, which is entirely clear from the context of my remarks, was to refer to general purpose payments, as I was making the obvious point that the states will be receiving all the revenue from the GST in return for certain other general payments the states currently receive. There is no intention to cut aggregate specific purpose payments to the states, and this is perfectly clear from clause 5(v) of the Intergovernmental Agreement signed by all Labor state premiers, as the opposition well knows. Committees138161381613816Motion (by Dr Wooldridge)—by leave—agreed to:That Mr Ronaldson be discharged from the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and that, in his place, Mr Billson be appointed as a member of the committee.Adjournment13816Motion (by Dr Wooldridge) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.1381617:27:0013816Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The GST is a grossly unfair tax. It is a tax that will tax every aspect of our life. It is a tax that will have the greatest effect on those people who have the least disposable income. Nowhere is that more evident than in the area of residential rent. Before the last federal election, the Prime Minister guaranteed that no-one would pay GST on residential rent. I repeat: no-one. Obviously that was a non-core promise, because the Prime Minister and his Treasurer are intent on imposing a GST on the rental paid by people who live permanently in residential and mobile home parks—people who in most cases own their own homes. This is despite the fact that the Minister for Trade, as did the Minister for Community Services, promised the residents in his area that, if they occupied accommodation in a caravan park or a holiday village on a permanent basis, they would not pay GST on their site fees. He obviously feels it is a very unfair tax because, as has already been said, he told a meeting of residents—people who live in and own their own homes—at Tweed Heads last week, `I hope that there can be a change.' The Minister for Family and Community Services wants a change. I think there is a way forward because other members in his party have raised the issue with the Prime Minister. I was really disappointed in the Prime Minister today when he refused to answer the question he was asked about whether or not he was going to talk to these ministers and stop them from misleading residents who live in parks.The government is treating these people as second-class citizens, creating a situation where they are treated differently to any other renter despite the fact, as I have already said, that these are people who own their homes and, if they are receiving any sort of Centrelink payment like a pension, they also receive a rental allowance. Obviously, Centrelink believes that they are renting. Obviously, Centrelink sees them in the same way that they see all other renters, but unfortunately the government does not. I believe that this is a decision made by some bureaucrat sitting in a room who has absolutely no idea what these residential parks are like, has absolutely no idea that these people are not on holidays and that, in many cases, they have lived there for 12 or even 20 years. They have substantial homes and they live there and believe that they are the same as any other person who is paying rent. I do not think these bureaucrats know anything about the parks; that the people who live there pay their own electricity, their own gas and they mow their own lawns. If there is a problem with their house, they repair their own house. The manager or the owner of the park does not. They are not supplied with food. They are not supplied with cleaning services. They are responsible for their own residence, just like any other person who rents.There is one park within the Shortland electorate—Valhalla—where the people living there are 55-plus. They paid for the heating of the swimming pool. The residents raised $7,500 to heat the pool. They pay $440 a year for ongoing heating of the pool. They helped build the hall and they furnished the hall. Their social club pays for the gas and electricity. Yet these people are going to be charged the GST on their rental while someone who lives in central Sydney in an elite apartment where they have a pool, a gym, et cetera, and who does nothing to contribute to the upkeep of those premises, will not have to pay any GST. It is a disgusting state of affairs that we can discriminate against these residents who need assistance more than other people who are living with a larger amount of disposable income. The Treasurer referred to charging residents living in residential parks as esoteric. I call it criminal, discriminatory and double standards.1381717:32:0013817Washer, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—I wish to alert the House to the detrimental impact that an ACCC investigation is having on visiting medial practitioners, or VMPs, in my electorate at the Joondalup Health Campus. The ACCC has informed the WA branch of the Australian Medical Association that an agreement they brokered for VMPS at the hospital breached the Trade Practices Act because it resulted in a collective agreement on price. This agreement was entered into in good faith, with the full knowledge and cooperation of the Department of Health while the hospital was still owned by the Crown. The AMA has admitted this breach and is trying to negotiate a settlement with the ACCC. Now it seems that the ACCC plans to make individual doctors suffer. They have served section 155 notices on approximately 30 VMPs working at Joondalup. Many of these doctors, who are understandably concerned about this legal action, are considering withdrawing their services from Joondalup. This is an area already suffering from a lack of medical services, and a doctor leaving the VMP system at Joondalup is very damaging. On a wider scale, this also has the potential to create dire consequences for the entire VMP system in both metropolitan and rural areas. These doctors also entered into this agreement in good faith and with the first and foremost desire to provide continuity of care for their patients. I believe they are being unfairly targeted by the ACCC, which are intent on some kind of witch-hunt which is completely unnecessary and certainly not in the public interest. As the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's own annual report states, the commission does not automatically pursue prosecutions when the act has been breached. They first of all consider if the breach was a blatant disregard of the law, if it caused significant public detriment, if the prosecution will have a deterrent effect and if they need to test the reach of the act. In this case, the only reason I could possibly fathom as to why the ACCC could cause so much damage to the VMP system is that they are trying to teach doctors a lesson about competition policy or that they want to test the reach of the act.Given that the VMP agreement was entered into in good faith and the conduct was stopped as soon as the breach was pointed out, I cannot see how the ACCC can justify this act. If they are trying to prevent further breaches of the act by doctors and organisations like the AMA, then surely a positive and constructive approach would be more beneficial for the health sector and their patients. Their taxpayer funded heavy-handedness will do a lot of damage to health services in my electorate, and I call on the commission to justify why this action is in the public interest.1381717:36:0013817Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Last year my wife, Adriana, through me, wanted to express her outrage in this House on behalf of all women about the Howard government's discrimination against women in applying the GST to sanitary products. With all the recent faxes, letters, emails and conversations I have had with many women, I should have taken Adriana's advice. Today I am standing up for women, standing up to the Prime Minister and standing up against Dr Wooldridge. One of my constituents, Mrs Margaret Morgan of Russell Lea, deserves great credit for her campaign to make the community aware of the inconsistency and unfairness of the government's position on this matter. Margaret Morgan set up online petitions on her web site `Mother and Child'. This was reported extensively in the Daily Telegraph on 27 January this year. There has not been any tax on tampons or other sanitary products since 1948. The Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Wooldridge, refuses to be drawn on the issue of exempting tampons from a GST because, according to Dr Wooldridge, tampons are not a matter of public health but a matter of personal hygiene. However, I bring to the House's attention that on 3 December 1996 the minister issued a press release entitled `Women's health under the microscope', which commences: Preliminary Research findings from a study of women's health to be undertaken over a 20-year period, has found that problems with body weight, menstruation, tiredness and stress are key concerns of women.The Australian Medical Association president, Dr David Brand, has asked the Prime Minister to recognise menstruation as a women's health issue. The AMA believes that tampons are a necessity rather than a luxury. Tampons are currently on the therapeutic goods list. Both the AMA and gynaecologists believe that tampons are health goods, particularly where they are used to alleviate the symptoms of menorrhagia or excessively heavy bleeding. Further, with the advent of hormone replacement therapy, women might be required to use these products until their 70s.For me to gain a better understanding of the products, Adriana took me to a supermarket in my electorate of Lowe and showed me a full range of the products. For the benefit of Dr Wooldridge, tampon packaging carries an important health warning and a leaflet inside the package which provides more information about the product. The warning reads:Tampon use has been associated with Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS)—TSS is a rare but serious disease which may lead to death.There are many other items too long to describe here, and I suggest all men take a long look at these products the next time they visit a supermarket. It is disgraceful that women should be taxed on something over which they have no control. These products are necessities in the lives of women. Manufacturers can price them to suit themselves. Each year women spend $200 million on these products.A member of the Howard government, the honourable member for Leichhardt, Mr Warren Entsch, was reported on 16 February on Channel 10 as referring to protests about breastfeeding and sanitary products as `nonsense', saying that half a dozen protesters wearing T-shirts `I bleed and I vote' really is quite offensive. For the information of the House, I am holding a copy of the member for Leichhardt's speech made in this chamber on 24 February 1997 when he went to great lengths to highlight the disease, toxic shock syndrome, just over two years after a 13-year-old Queensland girl tragically became a victim of this syndrome. What an opportunist is the member for Leichhardt!Taxation on tampons is an unfair and discriminatory tax on women. The government must act in the interests of all women to ensure that those who are most likely to be living in poverty are not worse off and that families with daughters are not discriminated against. Why are penile clamps and Viagra GST free when tampons and other sanitary products are specifically cited as taxable? This is a triumph for double standards. This attitude is the sort of blatant discrimination that women have worked so hard for a very long time to eradicate. Where was the Democrats leader, Meg Lees, when the negotiations on women's sanitary products were taking place with the Howard government last year? Obviously, Senator Lees left this one to the blokes to negotiate.One of my constituents, Mrs Joan Collie, a grandmother from Concord, rang my office recently. She told me she voted for Mr Howard at the last election and is furious at this tax. She feels her granddaughters are being discriminated against because they are engaged in sport and need to use a variety of these products at different times. In relation to the ridiculous comparison drawn between men's shaving products and women's sanitary products, she has asked me to relay a message in this House to the Prime Minister: men can reuse a razor blade, Mr Howard, but women cannot reuse a tampon. I would like to encourage all women and men to support the Women's Electoral Lobby National Action Day, to be held on 25 February in all major cities. In concluding, I would like to send a strong message to the Prime Minister and the minister for health that they have let the women of Australia down. Finally, in the words of Margaret Morgan to me on behalf of women, the Howard government is reminded: they bleed and they vote. 1381917:41:0013819Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—As this is the beginning of the school year, it is a good time to alert parents and children to the real dangers of marijuana. There is a perception in the general community that marijuana is not as harmful as tobacco smoking and that it is a soft drug. Even worse, it is often described as a recreational drug. There is hard evidence that nothing could be further from the truth. Marijuana is in fact a dangerous and highly addictive drug. About 2.7 million Australians use marijuana each year and more than 200,000 are dependent upon it. A recent trial found that it is almost impossible to quit the drug once addicted. One of the traps of trying marijuana is that its effects include tolerance at first, leading to dependence and then an inability to cease use.It is interesting to note that a 30-month study of 229 users by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre found that only 10 per cent of marijuana addicts were able to stop using it after a series of counselling sessions. This study was the world's first scientifically controlled study of this type and it found that a major problem for users trying to quit is the community attitude that cannabis is not a drug of addiction. Quitting marijuana has a similar level of difficulty to quitting tobacco—97 per cent of participants experienced withdrawal symptoms. Two marijuana cigarettes have the impact of smoking 21 to 28 tobacco cigarettes and contain more carcinogens. Marijuana smoke produces airway injury, acute and chronic bronchitis, lung inflammation and decreased pulmonary defences against infection. Smoking one marijuana cigarette leads to airway deposition of four times as much cancer causing tar as does tobacco smoke.Many parents of children who are affected by marijuana will be well aware that marijuana causes mental disorders. These include acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks, flashbacks, delusions, depersonalisation, hallucinations, paranoia, depression and uncontrollable hostility. Marijuana has long been known to trigger attacks of bipolar or manic depressive psychosis and schizophrenia. Parents should be aware that current research shows that marijuana users are six times more likely to develop schizophrenia than are non-users. The recent Australian study showed that many users experienced depression and they also attributed problems with concentration and memory, isolating themselves from others and lack of motivation to their cannabis use.Marijuana is different from any other drugs of addiction in that it is fat soluble and its effects persist much longer than the effects of alcohol, which is water soluble. Intoxication lasts much longer than alcohol. The use of marijuana during pregnancy is associated with babies of low birth weight and intellectual impairment a decade or more later. Babies born to mothers who use marijuana during pregnancy have an elevenfold increase in non-lymphoblastic leukaemia. In males, marijuana lowers the libido, diminishes testosterone production and lowers the sperm count. In females, marijuana is known to disrupt hormone cycles.The attitude that cannabis is not a drug of addiction has meant the state of knowledge about symptoms and treatment is poor. Australians spent about $5 million on marijuana last year, which just went up in smoke. Dependent users spent an average of 27 per cent of their income on cannabis. The message I want to get through, in particular to parents of 13- and 14-year-olds, is that it appears that most dependent users begin smoking marijuana at the age of 15.I have arranged a series of drug awareness meetings for parents in my electorate to provide information on the real dangers of marijuana and to promote an excellent program for parents called `How to drug-proof your kids'. The next meeting will be next Monday evening, 21 February at Club Menai. The speakers will include Dr John Anderson, a consultant psychophysiologist and Tony Wood, the father of the tragic Anna Wood. The theme of my antidrug meeting is simply `Users are losers'. My purpose is to help empower the parents and families of my electorate to deal with the drug problem and to drug-proof their kids so that they may grow up to inherit the promise of their Australian birthright. There is some hope in marijuana addiction. There are successful quit marijuana campaigns. But the first step is for parents and kids to hear and learn the truth rather than the deception about marijuana that permeates our communities and encourages our children to try this very, very dangerous drug. 1382017:45:0013820Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—On a day of government free fall on the GST, just before the adjournment debate began we witnessed Mr Slipper, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration—if you like, the deputy finance minister—move into damage control. He has been sent into this chamber by the PM and the Treasurer to claim a misrepresentation. This is what Mr Slipper said on Tuesday of this week in relation to the government's intention to cut the special purpose payments of the states. I quote from page 13464 of the Hansard:For the first time in living memory, the states of Australia will be given the opportunity to carry out their constitutional function. They will be given the money. They will be given the cash. They will be given the financial ability to deliver on their responsibilities under the Australian Constitution. Of course you need a reduction in specific purpose payments and there will be a removal of Commonwealth funding of some health, education and community services, because we are passing the revenue through to the states and they will be able to carry out their functions under the Constitution as was originally envisaged by Australia's founding fathers.That is what Peter Slipper, parliamentary secretary, said on Tuesday. He now wants this place to believe that he was referring to general purpose payments, not specific purpose payments. He says that that was obvious from the context of his contribution. It is not. What is obvious is that their plan is and always has been to cut the special purpose payments when the GST was introduced. They promised with the GST a growth tax and they got the states to sign up on the basis, `You can keep the growth tax and we will not cut your special purpose payments.' Now what they want them to do is, because they have a growth tax, accept cuts to their special purpose payments. The truth of the matter is that the GST replaces the general purpose payments. That was the whole purpose for its introduction. So the deputy minister could not have been referring to general purpose payments when he spoke in this chamber. This is a government that continues to get caught out about their intentions, and when they are found out they either go into denial or they are forced here to come in and try to smooth over the cracks.It is not just Mr Slipper, it is not just the deputy finance minister, that let the cat out of the bag and said that it is their intention to cut the special purpose payments. It is also none other than the Prime Minister. This was reported on 11 February in an interview with Neil Mitchell, radio 3AW. John Howard then let slip that Commonwealth funding to the states for hospitals and other important areas such as education and housing will be cut because of the GST. I just want to go to the transcript of that. Mitchell, who is interviewing, says:And we have touched on that. The state government here says this will be to cut the funding to hospitals. Is that right?`That' is the GST. The interview continues:Prime Minister: Well, what will happen, Neil, when the GST is introduced is that because we will be abolishing a lot of indirect taxes we are making allowance for that in the payments that are being made to the states.Mitchell: So you are providing less funding.Prime Minister: Well, we are providing less dollars because the costs of operating will fall and the real financial position will be the same.Mitchell: Well, the state government says not. They say that they will be $20 million worse off.The Prime Minister goes on to say, `Well, there will not be any cut, actual cut, in the value of federal government support. The nominal dollars will be less.' In other words, he told the premiers—he got them to sign up—that they would not be taking by the back door of special purpose payments what states were getting through the front door from the GST. We have got the deputy finance minister putting the lie to that and we have got the Prime Minister on public radio also putting the lie to it. What this government is doing is tearing up their agreement with the states, and what we are going to see as a result of the GST is special purpose payments cut by the Howard government. (Time expired)1382117:50:0013821Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—Tonight I rise briefly to pay tribute to Brendan Percival Hansen, whom a number of members acknowledged in the House in the adjournment debate on Tuesday night. Brendan Hansen was a particularly fine person. He was a true son of Maryborough, a city that he served for his whole adult life. Brendan Hansen was a man with a great sense of equity, and he demonstrated this during his life. His great love was the ALP, which he served with great distinction as an alderman, a federal member and a state member. He did not step away from his party when he enjoyed the exercise of power. He went on to serve the party in many other ways such as in organisational activities, and he was for many years president of the Maryborough branch.Brendan stayed close to the community. I have a vivid memory of him as a young man in Bundaberg not coming up to the big rugby league grand finals and things but coming up quietly one Sunday morning to attend the breakfast of the rugby league referees, the people who hold the game together in the area, so to speak. In his home community his sense of equity was reflected in the way he served organisations like the National Fitness Council and the Housing Action Group. Along the Queensland coast the housing action groups form a very important part of looking after the less fortunate in those communities. Brendan, who died in December, was elected alderman of the Maryborough City Council in 1961, and the same year he became the federal member for Wide Bay. He was defeated in 1974 and returned to local government in 1976 as the Deputy Mayor of Maryborough. In that capacity he was elected as the state member for Maryborough in 1977 and held that office for two terms. You might ask why Paul Neville would be praising this Labor member. I actually stood against him in 1969, and it was a very interesting campaign. The hardest thing about that campaign was that Brendan Hansen was so well liked. A lot of people who unashamedly voted Liberal and Country Party, as it was then, in state politics would vote for Brendan Hansen in federal politics because of his character and the fact that he was so well liked and was so close to people. He also had a great personal courtesy. It seems to be a characteristic of members for Wide Bay that Brendan Hansen, Clarrie Millar and now Warren Truss have been people of exceptional courtesy. I read his maiden speech, and it is interesting that nothing much changes over 40 years. Back in 1961 he had a vision of the occupation he loved, shipbuilding, and he had a vision for the then Australian National Line. He, like many of us, knew how important those communications were for Australia. He also had a great love for the railways and had a vision for standard gauge rail lines. He was a great family man, with eight children, who served his community, his church, this parliament, the state parliament with great distinction. I salute him.1382117:55:0013821Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—The Keating Labor government introduced the Commonwealth Dental Health Program in January 1994. It was introduced following recommendations from the 1991 National Health Strategy. The specific aims of the program were to reduce barriers to dental care, to ensure equitable access to appropriate dental services, to improve the availability of effective and efficient dental interventions and to achieve high standards of program management, service delivery, monitoring, evaluation and accountability. There were two separate components of the program: the emergency dental scheme and the general dental scheme. A total of $245 million was provided by the Commonwealth under the program over the four years from 1993-94 to 1996-97.One of the most disastrous decisions by this government following its election in 1996 was to abolish the program. Why was this decision bad and who was it bad for? Over the past 18 months I have seen many of my constituents whose oral health and overall health have been put at risk because of the abolition of the Commonwealth dental scheme. Let me outline the most recent distressing situation that I have come across. My constituent, Mr Jack Mason, contacted my office concerning the loss of his dentures. He is on an age pension and he has had dentures for around 20 years. In the past under the Commonwealth scheme he would wait only a matter of weeks for dental care. On this most recent occasion, though, Jack's doctor referred him to the local dental clinic where Jack was advised that he would have to wait four years for the replacement of his teeth. It is a situation which would have been rectified in a matter of weeks had the Commonwealth dental scheme still been operating. Jack's situation is further complicated in that he suffers severe sleep apnoea and requires treatment while sleeping to stay alive. Recently he was recorded during sleep as stopping breathing as many as 295 times in five hours. He requires a machine to ensure he maintains open airways. In order for this equipment to work, he needs his teeth to prop up the mask which seals his nose. He cannot fit this mask without his teeth. I hope that Jack is able to get replacement dentures as a matter of urgency, but for many people who would not think of coming to their member of parliament, state or federal, such a long waiting period could have quite tragic consequences. Jack came and met with me to discuss his own experience and to tell me why he thinks the Commonwealth Dental Health Program should be reinstated immediately. Jack is also having great difficulties eating. He can only eat soft things such as soups and stews. This diet would contribute to concerns which compound his health problems. Jack wanted to know what was the good of having a good budget surplus when something as basic and fundamental to human health as teeth cannot be provided to people. I told Jack that prior to the 1998 election Labor was committed to introducing a new Commonwealth dental health program, that under a Labor government funding will be built up to a maximum of $100 million a year so as to ensure that holders of pensioner concession cards and low income families could access emergency and preventive dental care. It will also include a pilot nursing home visiting service to assist older people whose ability to look after their own teeth has been reduced. All of us, whether in opposition or in government, have met constituents like Jack. These people are suffering needlessly, all because this government wanted to slash the bottom line and save less than $100 million a year—the same amount which this government spends each month on providing a 30 per cent rebate for all those other Australians who can afford private health insurance. This government would prefer that older and disadvantaged Australians go without basic dental health care.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 6 p.m., the debate is interrupted.House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.Notices13822The following notices were given:Mrs Crosio to present a bill for an act to provide for the establishment and administration of a scheme to guarantee the payment of wages and accrued liabilities owed to employees in the event of employer insolvency, and for related purposes.Mr Kerr to present a bill for an act to provide for a civil forfeiture scheme for the proceeds of criminal activity and other related purposes.Mr Kerr to present a bill for an act to amend the National Crime Authority Act 1984 and other related purposes. Mr Kerr to present a bill for an act to amend the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 and other related purposes.Mr Andrew Thompson to move—That the House:(1) urges Telstra to pursue its obligations to Australia's rural and regional dwellers with full vigour; and(2) acknowledges that full privatisation of Telstra would:(a) allow Telstra to pursue more valuable commercial opportunities to the benefit of its shareholders;(b) deliver to the Government sufficient funds to pay off entirely Australia's federal sovereign debt; and(c) ease upward pressure on interest rates in a climate of rising oil prices.Dr Southcott to move—That the House: (1) recognises that one quarter of all wholesale sales tax revenue is raised from cars and component parts;(2) recalls the submissions made to the Industry Commission's Inquiry into Assistance for the Automotive Industry which called for the introduction of a broad based consumption tax;(3 ) welcomes the abolition of the 22% wholesale sales tax on cars and the introduction of a 10% GST;(4) recognises that a 10% GST will increase the affordability of motor vehicles and will improve the international competitiveness of the automotive industry; and(5) supports the $12 billion in income tax cuts which will increase households' disposable income.2000-02-17—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members138241382413824Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—In the small amount of time available I would like to take the opportunity to place on the official record the fantastic services to the House of Representatives by Bjarne Nordin. I have had the privilege of working with Bjarne through the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, as it is now called, a committee I have served on since I came to this place in 1993. Bjarne has had a remarkable service record with the House of Representatives, dating back to 1976. In the years that followed his enrolment in the system in 1976, Bjarne worked in the Tables Office and in the Bills and Papers Office before moving to the Committee Office in 1978. Bjarne rose rapidly through the ranks, being promoted to secretary of the ACT Committee in 1985. After a brief secondment as secretary to a review of health and welfare services in the ACT, he was appointed secretary to the newly established standing committee on community affairs in 1988, a position he occupied until his retirement last week. Until last Friday, Bjarne was the longest serving committee secretary and the second longest serving officer in the Committee Office in the House of Representatives. Those facts do not in any way do justice to the fantastic contribution made to this parliament by Bjarne Nordin. Those of us who have had the privilege to work with Bjarne in the committee hearings, whether they be in this place or as we wandered throughout Australia, cherish wonderful memories of a very dedicated, professional and charming person. The many reports he was associated with bear testimony to his fantastic skills as a committee secretary. Everyone who was privileged to be on his committees witnessed a real craftsman at work.Like many in this place, I am going to really miss him as a true friend. Committee work has its relaxing moments, as you no doubt are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, and there are memories for all who worked with him. I guess those we will cherish the most are the many games of 500 we played on the VIP flights as we crossed Australia, and the barramundi steaks we ate as we watched the sun go down at the Darwin Sailing Club. I know I speak for all committee members when I wish Bjarne all the best for the future. We will never forget his amazing contribution to the House of Representatives and to the nation.1382413824Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I rise today to congratulate Michelle Cole, the Liberal candidate in the state seat of Bundamba.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—She was a local.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—She was definitely a local. I want to congratulate her on her excellent performance. Her husband, Paul, also made a very good effort. I want to congratulate the campaign director, Bob Harper; the Oxley FEC Chairman, Andrew Fairman; and others, including the previous candidate and the current Bremer branch chairman, Jeff Matijasevic.It is a very tough row to hoe to stand in a seat in ALP heartland like that. The former member, Bob Gibbs, is now in Hollywood. The one issue that has been a constant in that electorate over the last several elections has been Bob Gibbs's complete lack of attention to it. He is the man who was living in accommodation in parliament house, and his address was listed as `care of the hotel'—or something or other—in Bundamba. He was so rarely seen there. He was a phantom just like the other phantom, and we know what is happening to him. Despite all that, people in that electorate still voted for the ALP. These people are wedded to it and you cannot blame them for that. When Labor wanted to run a candidate in this electorate the first thing they thought of was to drag in the local ACTU President, John Thompson. They stuffed around with that for a while.6K6Elson, Kay, MPMrs Elson—He called a strike two days later.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—That is right. After the election was over he threw a strike. He took all the trains off to really torment the people of Bundamba who then had to walk, drive their cars or whatever. But I am getting off the subject. When John Thompson was obviously such a lemon, they resorted to the electorate secretary and put her up.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—She lives outside the area.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—Not only that; I think at one stage she was also an electorate secretary for Vince Lester. She is obviously part of the Labor clan from way back. The outcome is that Michelle Cole got a swing to her of almost three per cent, which I think is quite an achievement, given the fact that the destructive influences of One Nation continue to apply in that seat. The last time that seat was contested, One Nation received a total of 34 per cent of the vote. They also ran Heather Hill this time. How many elections can Heather Hill try to contest? It is incredible. She will be running in Bundaberg next. But notwithstanding Hill's destructive influence, Michelle Cole did an excellent job. I congratulate her and her campaign team on a job well done.1382513825Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—On Monday, 7 February, BHP confirmed that it had sold Australian coking coal to Japanese buyers at a bargain basement price. The announcement puts at least 4,000 jobs at risk. At least 1,000 jobs are threatened in my own region, the Illawarra, and there are further substantial job threats in the Bowen Basin in Queensland; starting today with the loss of 40 jobs at Collinsville. I was aware that BHP negotiators had caved in to Japanese buyers one full week before the official confirmation by BHP representatives. The CFMEU mining division officials and I were tipped off about the five per cent price cave-in from sources close to the negotiators in Tokyo. Indeed, we tipped off the Illawarra Mercury a full seven days before the official announcement. BHP representatives denied that any settlement had been reached. In other words, the deal with the Japanese buyers for our coal had been signed, sealed and delivered, but BHP just did not have the courage to confirm it publicly.BHP was deliberately dishonest with the Illawarra region and the community in the Bowen Basin. I cannot understand why they kept quiet about this disgraceful cave-in for a full seven days. Did BHP expect that nobody would notice that their cave-in in Tokyo would establish the benchmark for coking coal that other coal producers in this country will now be bound by? Did they expect that there would be no adverse critical reaction from the Illawarra community? I have said many times in this place that Australia requires a centralised coal marketing authority to ensure fair negotiations over the price of our coal commodity. Each time we go to Tokyo to negotiate on an individual, case-by-case basis the Japanese negotiators know that they will make a meal out of the Australian producers. As always, Australian coal producers hardly ever think about the national interest. Market share is what counts for them, and the individual company bottom line. I continually hear the line about the market and the realities of international commodity prices—and, of course, the usual criticism abounds regarding the establishment of a centralised coal authority. But what about the commodities we sell in the international marketplace like wool, wheat and meat? We sell these products in the international marketplace through a centralised body covering the particular commodity, but for some inexplicable reason the coal commodity is different. The Japanese are very clever in the purchase of commodities from around the world. The clever strategy is based only on the national interest of Japan. Given the absolute cave-in of a week ago on coking coal, we can now only hope that further negotiations by BHP for its full range of coal exports to Japan and elsewhere will be concluded positively. The pressure on jobs in the Illawarra is very real. BHP can run the gauntlet of public scrutiny for its Tokyo cave-in, but it can never hide when the workers are sacked because of their bargain basement sell-out of Australian resources. (Time expired)1382613826Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—In this parliament we hear a range of views, which I guess is what this place is all about. It is a great pity, though, that the media in this country do not reflect the range of views that are often expressed here. In fact, in my own city of Brisbane, the Murdoch media monopoly is imposing upon the people of Brisbane some suspect news judgment day in, day out. 83TRudd, Kevin, MPCK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—They report whispers involving the Liberals and Nationals, but only the roars about the Australian Labor Party. In fact, it is time for that monopoly to go. The people of Brisbane, the people of Queensland, do not deserve it. The organisation involved certainly does not deserve it. The member for Griffith should be very careful not to interject during this speech, given that he has a vested interest as a part-time employee of News Ltd.The convergence of the various media outlets means that cross-media ownership rules, as they currently exist in this country, are fast becoming redundant. The owners of various media want rights and access to other forms of media, but if they want those rights they should exercise some real responsibility. The very simple measures of responsibility for media are accuracy in reporting and a range of views offered so that people can form opinions about matters. Journalists, in particular, should be testing claims that are made to them—claims from oppositions about governments and claims from governments about oppositions. We constantly see juvenile headlines instead of quality research journalism in this country. In this nation now we have simply the worst performing media outlets in the world.All too often politicians are responding by lowering their own standards. The glib four-second grabs are what media outlets want, and the glib four-second grabs are what politicians are giving. People in Australia and people in my electorate deserve facts, not conjecture. Journalists are, by definition, those who keep a journal. They should be recording facts; they should exercise duty of care, just as government agencies have to do, to make sure that in years to come the claims that government agencies make can be tested for evidentiary purposes in courts of law.The media are important in a free society, yet most people do not hold journalists themselves in any great level of regard or respect. The lowering of their integrity is in fact a major problem and a major threat to the freedom of this nation. Some months ago in this place, I proposed the concept of a media ombudsman. The idea of a media ombudsman is not to control the media but rather to protect them from themselves, to give the average person the opportunity to claim and counterclaim matters reported in the press and to seek redress when and if appropriate. I think these matters are important. As I said, a free press is an important part of a free society, but the wrongful exercise of that freedom is a threat.1382713827Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—For the record, the member for Moreton just said that I am an employee of News Ltd in Queensland for the commentary I provide to the Brisbane Courier-Mail and other News Ltd outlets. In the period since I have been elected to this legislature, I have not received a red cent from News Ltd for anything I have written.I rise today in connection with a recent event in the Griffith electorate—the Australia Day Awards. We call them the Griffith Australia Day Awards. I would like to thank Mr Bill Appleby, Mrs Claire Darvill, Father Ralph Bowles, Mrs Ellen Hill, Mrs Anne Landsberg and Mr Ken Corley for their contribution to a committee which nominated a range of local people deserving awards for their contribution to our local community.I would particularly like to acknowledge the following people who received awards: Mrs Carmel Heath for her tireless contribution to netball in the Cannon Hill district; Mr Leo Petinakis for his contribution to the local cricketing community; Mr Col Farquhar for his endless contributions to the wellbeing of our veterans; Mr Wayne Cameron for his sterling efforts on behalf of the local environment; Mr John Evans for his equal efforts in the bushcare movement in the south eastern suburbs; Mr John Reynolds for his extraordinary efforts in the Coorparoo and Districts RSL, particularly in his work with those veterans who need physical assistance; Mr Eric Vickerman for his considerable contribution to our local bushland heritage; Mrs Judy Jennings, who has been a long valued member of the Carina State School P&C and who has worked in a range of activities associated with that school; Mr Gerald Behan for his work with the local St Vincent de Paul; Mr Robert Thacker, who has been active in the Buranda Therapy Group in assisting people with disabilities; Mr Barry Wilson for his work in local environmental activism; Mrs Margaret Baxendell for her work with the Cannon Hill 60s & Better Association; Miss Lynden Nichol for her work with the Whites Hill State School, in particular for longstanding service as president and vice-president of the school P & C association; Ms Helen Quin for her work with the Carindale Police Citizens Youth Club; Mr Ted Hoare for his extraordinary contributions to the Eastern Suburbs District Cricket Club and for encouraging youth sport in general; Ms Kim Roper, who has worked for a long time as a voluntary welfare officer for the Women's Auxiliary Air Force for three to four days a week; Mrs Betty Rees for her contribution to the Queen Alexandra Home; Ms Annie Enders, who has also worked extensively with the Carina Senior Citizens Club; Mr Brian Dutton, who has been active as a fire prevention and fire safety education officer in our local community; and Ms Kay Connor, President of the Carina Senior Citizens Club, who has been very active in supporting the senior citizens in our local community. I extend my congratulations to each of these award recipients. We look forward to this being an annual event in the Griffith electorate.1382713827Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I want to stand up for Northern Australia this morning in relation to an issue that needs more public scrutiny than it is getting at the moment—petrol prices. How can it be that in Townsville the price of petrol is something near 80c a litre and the price in Brisbane is 69c a litre? We have petrol coming into the port of Townsville straight from the refinery. It comes into the port of Brisbane and yet we have something like a 12c a litre difference in price. Equally, how can it be that perhaps 60 or 70 kilometres out of Townsville the price of petrol is probably 6c a litre cheaper than the price in Townsville? What goes on in this industry? Why is the transparency not there? Why is it that we cannot get to the bottom of these price differentials that cause such great concern to motorists?Let me give you another example of discrimination. We have all seen the Woolworths situation where you can get 6c a litre off your petrol if you present your dockets. In the member for Forde's electorate, the price of petrol can get down to 63c a litre—you get 6c a litre off. But in Townsville, Woolworths only gives 2c a litre off, no matter what. How can that be? We ought to take pretty good note of the ANOP research, which indicates that the price of petrol is the single most frequently mentioned concern when motorists are asked in an open-ended question to nominate the most important issues affecting them as car drivers. All we regional members know that. We know the situation. We have to get to the bottom of this. I think that motorists are not just concerned about the current price of petrol but also about the variations that go on: the tax collected from the petrol and the difference between the petrol prices in city and country. City and country price differences are a particular concern in regional areas as the daily prices fluctuate all over the place.It is also time for the government to particularly look at how we relate the price of petrol to the perceived condition of roads. There is an opportunity in the coming period to look at the excise that is collected on petrol and how that might be spent to improve the condition of roads in regional and rural Australia. I know that perhaps there is not a lot of sympathy for this among some members, particularly city members, but it is time that we stood up for rural and regional Australia and had a look at how we might hypothecate some of this excise for the benefit of our road system in Australia.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 2752, the time for members statements has concluded.Bills13828R95513828Debate resumed from 24 November 1999, on motion by Mr Anthony:That the bill be now read a second time.09:59:0013828Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise to speak this morning on what is largely a non-controversial bill, the Albury-Wodonga Development Amendment Bill 1999. In doing so, I want to make some passing comments on the historical context in which the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation was developed. I also want to make some relevant comments about where we believe the debate about regional development is at the moment.As the Main Committee understands, the bill in effect will start the long process of winding up the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation that was established way back in 1973. The Albury-Wodonga Ministerial Council decided in its 1995 and 1997 meetings to finally wind up the development corporation and to dispose of all of its land and assets. The Albury-Wodonga Development Financial Assistance Act of 1973 provided a mechanism for funding land acquisition in New South Wales and Victoria, but it is no longer required as the state corporations are to be abolished. The bill also provides for the repeal of that act.I believe that the bill is significant because it provides a historical backdrop to the stark differences in approach to regional development policy by the Labor Party and the coalition parties, differences that are just as evident today as they were 30 years ago during the Whitlam government's period of office. It was in 1973 that the Whitlam Labor government had a vision to create regional centres throughout Australia by direct government involvement. Although the success of its ideas on regional development can be argued, at least that government had ideas about what we should do as a nation. It was prepared to at least have a go to try and lend some support to regional development. I dare to suggest that the same could not be said of the current government, which is totally bereft of ideas and treats people in rural and regional Australia with politically driven disdain. In contrast to the current government's approach, Labor's vision today is one that will give back to regional and rural communities their services that in many cases have been ripped away in recent times.The bill is especially significant given the truly amazing scenes we have witnessed in recent weeks when the Prime Minister headed off on his bush apology tour. Despite his glib assurances, it is clear that the Prime Minister has not fully understood that his government's abandonment of regional development is one of the most regressive, short-sighted policy mistakes of recent decades. And unfortunately, despite his bush tour, he still does not understand the difficulties of the bush. I believe that, without a coherent strategy for regional development and a fair sharing of opportunities between and within regions, the Prime Minister does not seem to realise that many rural and regional communities will fall further behind. No amount of touring Australia in VIP aeroplanes and white cars by the Prime Minister, in a vain attempt to show that he is listening, is going to convince angry rural and regional people that he has not turned his back on them. The Howard government has cut 32,000 jobs, a fifth of the Commonwealth Public Service, since 1996. People have not forgotten the massive job losses that have occurred across the board in the ABC, and in Medicare, tax and social security offices in their towns. They will not forget that at least 40,000 jobs have been lost from Telstra in preparation for its various sell-offs—and the Prime Minister now suggests that there is more to come.I am not talking about a public versus private debate; I am talking about what the Howard government has ripped out of communities, especially in rural and regional Australia. When I travel around the country, people always bring up one of the first low acts of the current government: the abolition of the department of regional development in the 1996 budget. I believe that decision represented a fundamental statement of what the Howard government believes. At that time they so proudly declared, as the minister said, that there was no role for the Commonwealth government in regional development. They even renamed the department, taking out the reference to regional development. But look at them now. How things change when the polls turn a little bit. It is little wonder that people feel left behind because they have been left behind by this government from its very first decision to abolish the office of regional development in its very first budget in 1996. Talk about sinking the boot into rural and regional Australia.The people in Australia's 200 regions with double-digit unemployment are entitled to be asking the Howard government why they have neglected them for so long. The people in these communities want to know how they can repair the damage done by the rapid economic and social change of recent decades that has pressured many firms and services out of rural and regional communities. I do not believe that they are interested in empty rhetoric about a floor being placed under rural and regional services—the Prime Minister's most recent promise in an endeavour to win back support in regional Australia.Alternatively, Labor's approach is not about building a floor under services; it is about constructing the whole artifice, with as many people involved as possible at a grassroots level. We all know that change is inevitable. The challenge for this government and all governments at all levels is to assist communities in dealing with that change. That means that the government must be more flexible than it has traditionally been. It means that a strong Telstra and Australia Post need to be assured—if anything, guaranteed—in rural and regional communities so that we can secure services for all Australians, irrespective of whether they live in the bush or metropolitan Australia.I might say also in that context that I believe that a potentially strong coalition exists between the suburbs in metropolitan Australia and people in rural and regional Australia. The debate is very much about where you live. It is about locational disadvantage. There is just as much locational disadvantage in some suburbs in Western Sydney as there is in some rural and regional communities. In raising these concerns about services, I would seek to argue just as rigorously that some suburbs of metropolitan Australia are entitled to join with some regions of rural and regional Australia to make sure that their voices are finally heard in government at all levels. Locational disadvantage is a very strong issue in those communities. Unless we come to terms with some of those locational disadvantage problems then we are going to ensure that Australia divides. Those who have are going to draw further and further away from those who do not have because of locational disadvantage difficulties. I believe the debate should not just be about profits. It is not a debate about the public or the private sector, it is a debate about people and ideas. It means that when a community loses its financial services the government is supposed to be working with the community to respond to that reality. It means that when a community faces major economic restructuring, the government must be working with that community to develop new industry opportunities. It means that when a community suffers problems relating to crime or drugs, the government must be working with that community to overcome those problems. It is not about a `social coalition' from which the government pulls back and hopes donations will make up the slack; it is about a real commitment in government, not just in dollar terms but in delivering to communities what they need and when they need it. It is about new partnerships based on the parties doing what they do best—not weaker government but smarter and committed government. It is about an agenda, as Whitlam sought in 1973 with respect to this bill, that incorporates new measures to revitalise rural and regional Australia. It is about new partnerships between business, government and the community. It is about empowering people at a grassroots level. That means taking a proper look at creating, retaining and developing businesses and industries. It means identifying new business opportunities and industry clusters. It means appreciating that information, and communication technologies hold the key to the knowledge nation. It is about broadening the debate about infrastructure. It is no longer just about roads, railways and bridges. Infrastructure development is also about investment in people, ideas, education and training, the new infrastructure requirements to overcome the gap that exists between some areas of rural and regional Australia and metropolitan Australia. It is about coming up with innovative regional economic strategies that involve stakeholders and shared information. It means placing a premium on labour market programs and work force development initiatives and developing new approaches to learning. It means building social capital and defining new roles for all levels of government. It means all levels of government breaking down some of the jealousies and the differences which are now required in order to come to terms with the problems of rural and regional Australia, and better cooperation at a local, state and federal level.When people ask me why the Howard government is on the nose in rural and regional Australia, the answer is simple: it is because our national government has made itself irrelevant to people's lives in those communities. Our national government no longer serves the purpose that it is meant to serve. It no longer serves all Australians. Too many people and places have to go it alone. That is what the Howard government's ideology is all about. It is about leaving it to the market, the trickle-down theory. As you move around rural and regional Australia today you come to the very quick conclusion that more is required than the market, that in fact there is a role for government in rural and regional Australia, a proactive role based on being smart and trying to work out how you give local communities not only the enthusiasm that they have but more importantly the necessary resources in some instances to overcome the barriers that are holding them back. That is what the Albury-Wodonga bill is actually about. It is about building and empowering that community. Our responsibility is to learn from the lessons of the Whitlam and successive governments, irrespective of their political persuasion, and to face up to the fact that, in a lot of ways, all of us have let down rural and regional Australia. The time has come to learn from our mistakes and work out how to reinvolve and re-energise ourselves at a national level. We must roll up our sleeves and get back to being involved in rural and regional Australia and try and improve their lot. It is on that fundamental point that Australians are beginning to see the difference between a Howard government and a future Kim Beazley Labor government. If you put the muzzle on the people for long enough, when you try to take it off you will find them biting back and biting hard. Just ask the coalition in places such as New South Wales and Victoria about that and consider the recent election outcomes, including the Queensland by-elections of recent weeks.6K6Elson, Kay, MPLS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Yes, I note the intervention—and I refer to the successful caucus meeting of the Liberal Party in Brisbane yesterday—all nine of them. We all know about backbiting, disunity and undermining the leader, don't we?In conclusion, I also note that, in the winding up of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation, there is also a potential return to the Commonwealth of the order of $15 million in 2000 and 2001. That return in future will depend on the successful disposal of assets and may fluctuate depending on market circumstances. I also understand that in 1995 the ministerial council, in winding up the corporation, entirely resolved that the corporation should progressively sell off many of its assets, including commercial and residential real estate. In order to protect real estate values in the region, this sell-off has been subject to minimum prices set by the respective state valuers general.On the question of the return to the Commonwealth, I also note from recent discussions I have had with people from the Albury-Wodonga area that there is a burning debate about a potential bypass for the highway instead of the highway going through the centre of the community. In the light of community concerns and growing support for the bypass, maybe the Commonwealth government should revisit the decision that the highway continue through the centre of the community. This could be done in association with the Victorian and New South Wales governments for the purposes of seeing whether or not the potential return from the sale of the assets of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation could be better utilised by allocating them to make up the difference between the cost of the highway upgrade through the main community and the cost of the bypass.The debate is an important one because it is clearly proven that many communities along the highway believe that it is better to have the bypass rather than the upgrade through those communities. This is an issue that ought to be debated. It reflects the concern of the local communities. It is something that all of us should debate in a non-political way. There are potential financial returns to the government from the sale of the corporation. They could be used as a contribution to the extra costs of the bypass, which would potentially be a better long-term decision for the Albury-Wodonga community.I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. It does represent an historical endeavour by a previous Labor government to support rural and regional Australia. It also reminds us that there is room for improvement for all of us. Not only rural and regional Australia but also some suburbs in metropolitan Australia believe they are missing out. There are major problems of locational disadvantage going to infrastructure and, as a community, we have to make sure that we attend to those issues to ensure that we do not see the return, for example, of the ugly head of political parties such as One Nation.10:14:0013831Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for recognising me. I welcome the previous speaker, the member for Batman, to his new portfolio. We are sorry that the member for Dickson spat the dummy and moved on from the portfolio. That was her decision, or a decision taken by other people. I wish the member well in the portfolio. I have seen him on a VIP plane once or twice; I just remind the member of that. I also remind him of a great captain, Sam Benson, a former member for Batman, who had a bit to say about party unity and loyalty over the years. There are aspects of the matter which I know the member for Indi will take up, especially on the bypass. Let me simply say that has a big Victorian flavour about it. Once the Victorian government built a freeway to a T-junction on the Lincoln Causeway, it placed the onward bypass decisions on the New South Wales side in a straitjacket because of a necessity to complete the traffic flow in the second Lincoln Causeway to carry the traffic to the north from that T-junction where the freeway currently ends.I must say our national government is not seen as irrelevant in country Australia or rural and regional Australia as we address this Albury-Wodonga Development Amendment Bill. In fact, to pick one thing small, medium and large, with my colleague the member for Indi, I went in to bat and finally secured SBS television for Albury-Wodonga, something which was never done under the previous Labor government. On a larger scale, I went in to bat very strongly at the cabinet table to ensure that the biggest single bridge allocation flowing out of the Federation Fund was in fact to the Murray River bridges, some $44 million for bridges at Corowa, Echuca, Robinvale and Euston in the west of my electorate and I am proud of that. On rail, which is a nationwide policy matter, let me just highlight to my colleagues that, from 1 July, all diesel fuel excise tax will be abolished on rail operation be it passenger train, freight train or, at long last, a tourist railmotor running from Glenreagh to Dorrigo using diesel. There will be no diesel fuel excise tax on rail after midnight on 30 June. Commencing 1 July this year, even the Walhalla tourist railway, dear to my heart, which I helped obtain a million dollars for as a priority, is going to be covered by that positive decision.Turning to the legislation in more specific terms, let me say that the Albury-Wodonga Development Amendment Bill 1999—now 2000—reflects the maturing of Albury-Wodonga in more ways than one as we move ultimately to a sunset circumstance and those tremendous cities, the exciting and dynamic cities of Albury and Wodonga, power into the 21st century and the third millennium. I would dwell on just two aspects because I know my colleagues will be pursuing other aspects. It is to reflect the expanded export action which has flown from the onward growth of Albury-Wodonga and the attraction of a couple of very key companies by decentralisation policy to Albury-Wodonga, just a few years ago now. I highlight the knowledge that overseas magazines and trade and cultural expos take particular interest in trade and export stories but this is about jobs. Here in Australia it is about a win-win situation. I refer especially to BTR which makes gearboxes in Albury. Last year BTR exported 34,000 gearboxes from Albury to Korea for installation in the four-wheel drive Musso as part of a breakthrough which I had a fair bit to do with and which is now building in strength especially as the Musso is about to be introduced to the Californian market. It is suggested that that market will prefer automatic gearboxes over manual gearboxes for their version of the Toorak tractor or Santa Monica tractor. That will mean even more gearboxes going from Albury to Korea and then being exported as part of the globalisation of cars generally from there to the world.I give full marks to Uncle Ben's and others who have developed major export programs involving millions of dollars of pet food. On a smaller scale, Cooper Tools, the biggest tape measure exporter from Australia is now cracking some of the big Northern Hemisphere markets and some of the Asian markets. It is interesting to go into the Cooper Tools factory and see yards, feet and inches, which is the requirement of course of the USA market for the ultramodern Cooper Tools tape measure. I salute the export effort which has flown from the growth of Albury-Wodonga, which has involved products a long way from the more traditional agricultural value-adding products. However, there are plenty of those going on as well as pasta flows from the Riverina to Tuscany—last-known location Italy—and to the supermarkets of Tuscany, Italy.In speaking to and supporting the legislation, I give one last example on the export front: a tiny company at Thagoona that makes, under franchise, Malibu boats. Xavier West and his team there produce a truly excellent niche product. Its price will actually be coming down on 1 July—definitely, absolutely, no qualification; that is from Xavier's own direct comments and he is preparing for that. They too are now entering the export arena, on a small scale. This is about decentralisation, but it is a complex pattern. It is also about export and that is always good in terms of jobs. It is not the only answer in getting the right cultural and social mix and the right economic base for an area. That will see further developments, for example, in the tourism gateway role of Albury-Wodonga. The legislation has some modest changes. I will not dwell on them in detail; they have been outlined well enough in the ultimate version of the explanatory memorandum and the ultimate version of the second reading speech, enhanced as that version has been by the input of the minister and others. I commend the legislation.10:21:0013833Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—It is really because of the intervention of Gough Whitlam, who was Prime Minister of this country, that we deal with this legislation today. It is important and appropriate to pay tribute to the interventionist attitude of the Whitlam government in its approach to regional development. I am sure there are at least a few members in this House who understand the story of laissez faire economics and how that term came to be given to free market economics. The story goes that the monarch at the time had a meeting with business people and said to them, `What do you want from us, the government?' And the call came back from the business people, the merchants and the traders, `Laissez faire.' That is, `Let us be. Let us alone.'That is not what the people in regional Australia are saying about the national government. They do not want to be left alone by government, left to their devices, because the market in itself does not produce equitable outcomes for people living in rural and regional Australia. The Whitlam government was on the right track when it intervened to try and tilt the balance in favour of those people living in rural and regional Australia. This is what is called for today. We need more direct intervention by the national government to give it some relevance to people living in rural and regional Australia.It has been mentioned by some of the previous speakers that there will be a dividend to the Commonwealth, a return to the Commonwealth in the financial year 2000-01 of the order of $15 million. This is a substantial amount of money, money that was allocated for regional development by the Whitlam government as a result of its intervention to try and make things a little bit fairer for people living in rural and regional Australia. I would contend that it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure that this $15 million which is going to be got by the federal government is earmarked for regional development purposes only. We should not allow this $15 million to go into general revenue to be spent on all manner of development around capital cities such as Melbourne and Sydney. We should hang onto this money which has been put into regional development in the first place and make sure that it goes towards other, new regional development initiatives. If we are to be true to the memory of that interventionist government, we need to ensure that this is the case.I do not come in here with simple platitudes and words about how this should be spent on some vague or unclear regional development enterprise. I am sure that most people in this chamber today would have read the Productivity Commission's report on the impact of national competition policy on rural and regional Australia. I suggest that, if there are members in this place who have not read that report, they should go and read it, and go and read it quickly, because it is a comprehensive report which deals in some detail with the impacts that national competition policy has had on rural parts of Australia.For the benefit of the chamber I will quote a few remarks from the Productivity Commission inquiry. Under the heading `Estimated regional effects of national competition policy from model', they note: Only one of the 57 regions modelled is estimated not to benefit from NCP in terms of output; That was the Gippsland statistical region. Further on, on page 102, they quote a submission provided by the Latrobe Shire Council—which is in my constituency—which states:Many of those who have lost full time jobs have remained in the area ... In some cases, those who have remained are hoping for better times, but many have been unable to sell their houses to finance a new life elsewhere. Of particular concern is the large pool of highly skilled but narrowly experienced workers in their 40s and 50s who now find themselves with few prospects.On page 108, and this is a direct quote from the Productivity Commission, the report says:The hardest hit areas in country Australia have included the LaTrobe Valley ... Port Augusta and the Hunter Valley.And on page 113, under the subheading `Employment impacts', the report states:Most significantly, the LaTrobe Shire Council ... said that, as a result of electricity reform, its region had lost between 6000 and 8000 direct jobs, equivalent to 10 per cent of the Shire's total population.In table 10.6, under the heading `Estimated regional impacts of NCP reforms', the Gippsland statistical region is shown to have had a negative employment impact of minus 8.54 per cent. It is worth noting for comparison that the Hunter statistical region, as reported in this table, actually had a positive employment impact of 1.54 per cent. So our region, the Latrobe Valley, has had a negative impact, of negative 8.54 per cent, but the Hunter, which seems to have got everyone's attention of late for the hard times it has fallen upon, has actually had a positive impact as a result of NCP of 1.54 per cent.The report goes on to state on page 260 that, in nearly all cases, the positive impacts of national competition policy more than offset the negative aspects of other reforms, except in the case of Gippsland. And at the bottom of page 260, the report says:For example, because of reform of electricity generation, Gippsland in Victoria is estimated to have the largest net loss of jobs ...I do not mention those quotes from the Productivity Commission inquiry for no purpose. It is my contention that the money gained from the sale of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation assets should be put into stage 1 of the Commonwealth's response to the Productivity Commission's findings in that inquiry. I think that would be an appropriate use of that $15 million of Commonwealth regional development money. I hope that we can try and move this issue forward in the spirit of bipartisanship.To add weight to the Productivity Commission inquiry's findings into the plight of the Latrobe Valley and Gippsland generally, it is worth quoting a comment made by Tim Colebatch, who is the economics editor of the Age newspaper. Mr Colebatch states in the last column of his article:The problems of the LaTrobe Valley have been left to fester for so long, however, that its future seems grim.I think Mr Colebatch is right—the problems of the Latrobe Valley have been left to fester. And if they are left to fester further, I am sure that the future of the Latrobe Valley is not a bright one. I think we can go a step in the right direction by allocating the $15 million which the Commonwealth will receive from the sale of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation assets towards a response to the Productivity Commission inquiry findings.If we were to do an assessment of the 57 regions which were modelled by the Productivity Commission, we should be looking to do an evaluation of which areas have been hit hardest. If we use all of those regions to constitute 100 per cent, we should be able to determine how much pain, if you like, in the interest of national competition policy objectives, has been borne by areas like the Latrobe Valley, Port Augusta and the Hunter Valley, and calculate an appropriate ratio to determine what to do with that $15 million which the Commonwealth might allocate as stage 1 of its response to the Productivity Commission inquiry. When Tim Colebatch said that the problems of the Latrobe Valley are so bad that its future seems grim, that was said before the most recent announcement by the Howard government with regard to federal government funded jobs in the region. I think everyone knows that the Latrobe Valley has been hit very hard as a result of national competition policy, with some 10,000 or 11,000 jobs being lost directly in the power industry. That has provided a dividend to big business who now get electricity some 30 or 35 per cent cheaper than what they used to get before it was privatised. We also lost in the order of 1,200 or 1,500 jobs in the textile, clothing and footwear sector in the Latrobe Valley. So we have paid the price; we have paid the price in the interests of national economic direction.It was interesting to hear the Prime Minister, when announcing the special assistance package to the workers at National Textiles, nominate the criteria he required regions to meet to get this special top-up assistance. He mentioned that it had to be, firstly, in a region of high unemployment and, secondly, it had to be in an industry which had been affected by national economic direction. If the Latrobe Valley does not qualify for special assistance under that criteria, I am not sure what region does. We have lost an enormous amount of jobs as a direct result of national economic direction, and we are in a region that has unemployment of about 15 or 16 per cent in the Latrobe Valley. The Prime Minister made a promise some two or three weeks ago, when doing his sham bush tour, that there were going to be no more jobs taken out of regional areas as a result of federal government policy. I, for one, was heartened and hopeful that that would actually be the case. But it took only three weeks for the Prime Minister to break that promise to the people of the Latrobe Valley, people who have already borne an inordinate amount of pain at the hands of national economic policy direction. I am referring to the recent decision made by Telstra, in which, last time I checked, the Commonwealth was still the 51 per cent major shareholder. Telstra announced it planned to shut down the Telstra call centre in Morwell. This centre has been around for many years and employs 65 men and women. For those people in this House who do not know, the unemployment rate in Morwell, which is a large town in the Latrobe Valley, is 19 per cent. We just cannot afford to lose any more jobs. I do not know where you go from 19 per cent unemployment. Do we go up to 24 per cent or 25 per cent? What sort of a community are we going to have once we get into 24 or 25 per cent unemployment? This is disastrous, and it is reckless of the government to be proceeding with this type of behaviour.I have written to the chief executive of Telstra and to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Richard Alston, about the matter. On behalf of the workers and their families I hope that they will see fit to intervene in this situation and make sure that Telstra is not allowed to close down the call centre in Morwell and thereby put 65 good, decent, hardworking people on the scrap heap in an area which already has 19 per cent unemployment, and rising. It is that sort of intervention that people living in rural and regional Australia are looking for. It is the type of intervention which the Whitlam government was prepared to undertake when it established the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation when it saw a clear role for the federal government to be involved in rural and regional development. I recall the comments made by a previous minister for regional development in the Howard government, John Sharp, when he stated, quite famously, that there was no clear constitutional role for the Commonwealth to be involved in regional development. I disagree with him. I think he is wrong. I think that, overwhelmingly, people in rural and regional Australia do see a clear role for the Commonwealth to be involved in intervening in their interests and advancing their interests through appropriate federal government policies and legislation. We cannot allow more and more jobs to be pulled out of rural and regional areas; otherwise you might as well simply put up a big fence around all of those regional areas and write them off as not being economically viable. The market in itself does not produce just and fair outcomes for people living in rural and regional Australia. That is why people living there want to see an interventionist approach and an interventionist style from federal governments. I have spoken in the chamber previously about my passionately held belief that in Gippsland we need a Gippsland advantage fund, in the same way that the Hunter region has the Hunter advantage fund, which is made up of a contribution of $10 million from the Commonwealth government, $10 million from the state government and, to their credit, I must say, $5 million from BHP. I quoted before from a table which assessed the impact that national competition policy has had on the Gippsland statistical region. For the purposes of what I am about to say, I will again quote those statistics to the chamber. In the Hunter Valley, when it was assessed by the inquiry into the impacts of NCP on rural and regional areas, it was found to have had a positive impact on employment of 1.54 per cent, whereas in the Gippsland statistical region it has had a negative impact of 8.54 per cent. Whilst $25 million has gone into that community to try to right the wrongs with respect to national competition policy, which the report says has actually made the place a bit better, our region has got an unambiguous outcome from this report that we have suffered at least four times worse than any other of the 57 regions assessed by the Productivity Commission. That is why Gippsland's claim for a Gippsland advantage fund is not unrealistic or unreasonable. In fact, if anything, it is only an appropriate response from the federal government to deal with the very real concerns which we have in our community.I have mentioned in the chamber previously my belief that we should also have funded from the Commonwealth around $5 million or $10 million to go into the better public housing urban renewal project in the Latrobe Valley, which would create opportunities for around 80 or 90 apprenticeships to be conducted by Gippsland Group Training in the construction industry, as well as providing improved streetscapes and better public housing for public housing tenants in the Latrobe Valley.I do not think that what I call for today is unrealistic. I think that any fair minded person who was assessing what should be done with the $15 million which the reforming Whitlam government put into regional development all those years ago would have to say that we must make sure that this money stays in regional development; that we must make sure that anything we gain from the sale of these assets goes back into the rural and regional areas of Australia and is not lost in general revenue. It would be a tragedy if any of this $15 million went into some arts project in Balmain or into some trendy part of Melbourne like Toorak or South Yarra. When you look at the needs of areas like the Latrobe Valley, we are crying out for the use of that $15 million. If any of that money were to go towards building some sort of modern plinth on which people could put some type of fine, trendy, modern art, I would view that as a tragedy and not in keeping with the best objectives which the Whitlam government set out to achieve when they established the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation.This is a serious matter which we are talking about, and I hope that the government and government members of parliament take seriously and in the spirit of bipartisanship my recommendation to them that this money be set aside for regional development purposes only. I once again implore the Prime Minister, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and the Chief Executive of Telstra to intervene to make sure that those 65 workers in Telstra do have a job in the future and that they do not cast these people out onto the scrap heap in an area of 19 per cent unemployment. The spirit under which the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation was established was an interventionist spirit, and it is exactly that spirit which people living in rural and regional areas want to see more of. I only hope that the federal government understands and listens to what the people in rural and regional Australia are saying and sees fit to make sure that this $15 million goes back into rural and regional communities.10:41:0013837Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I support this legislation, the Albury-Wodonga Development Amendment Bill 1999, as one of the local members on the Victorian side along with my colleague Mr Fischer, the member for Farrer, on the Albury side. It obviously is of great interest to me to see the further steps along the path of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation's history. I would like to briefly say that the bill is designed to simplify the structure and streamline the functions of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation and to facilitate the agreed winding-up processes. Those winding-up processes were in fact inherent in the establishment of the growth centre by the Labor Prime Minister Mr Whitlam and two coalition government premiers from New South Wales and Victoria. So in fact it was a partnership across all political boundaries when they came together to establish the growth centre.The funds from the disposal of assets as provided in the bill are a progression again of the original generic agreement that the dividends from the Australian taxpayers' financing of the Albury-Wodonga Development Project would eventually return to the Australian taxpayers. Former minister under the Keating government and Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Brian Howe, was the minister responsible for cementing in the arrangements with New South Wales and Victorian governments that the dividends would return to the Commonwealth and the states would also be repaid for their financial advances. This bill actually proceeds along that path. It is not a Howard government decision that the moneys go to the consolidated revenue of the Commonwealth and are returned to the states for their advances. It is ratified by the Howard government, but the agreements to do that were made by previous governments and supported on both sides of parliament, I understand, when they were first agreed to and discussed.I am obviously very proud of the achievements of people from the region of Albury-Wodonga, north-east Victoria and the Riverina and southern New South Wales area—the area of my colleague, the member for Farrer, the Hon. Tim Fischer. I am proud to say that the Albury-Wodonga area is now regarded as one of the fastest growing regions in Australia, and Wodonga is regarded as the fastest growing regional city in Victoria. But in the whole region of the catchment of north-east Victoria and Goulburn we are seeing significant economic investment and job creation. In fact, unemployment has dropped about two to three per cent. Whilst I am not being carried away with those figures—I want to see them continue for a year or more—I am very excited by the growth of jobs and the lowering of unemployment in those areas.The member for McMillan, obviously passionately arguing for his community, as he should, reflecting their aspirations and wanting to address the very serious economic problems in the Latrobe Valley—and they are serious—has asked that the money from the Albury-Wodonga dividends be allocated by the Commonwealth towards regional development. I am proud and happy to say that the Commonwealth is doing that to assist regional Australia not just with the dividends from the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation but also with other vast amounts of money.Let me quickly give you some examples to refresh your memory. Firstly, in less than four years of government, the Howard coalition government has created 596,000 jobs since March 1996. That is 200,000 more jobs than in Labor's last six years of office. The unemployment rate of January 2000 was 6.8 per cent compared with 11.2 per cent in December 1992 under Mr Keating's prime ministership. Inflation was 1.8 per cent in the December quarter compared with the average of 5.2 per cent under Labor. The interest rate is 7.3 per cent—it went up recently. The standard variable mortgage rate today is 7.3 per cent, down from Labor's level of 10.5 per cent, and there are those of us who can remember the double-digit interest rates that we had just a few years before 1996 under Labor. There has been an increase in apprenticeships in Australia and in regional Australia, but there is more to be done. In fact, 140,000 new apprentices are in training—a 15 per cent increase since 1995. The tax system is being reformed, despite obstructions, knocking and scare campaigns from the Labor party and others. In regions such as the Albury-Wodonga region, a great value adding export region of Australia where great companies are winning markets overseas against stiff odds, the tax reform package will enhance the competitive advantages of Australian value added exporters. This will be possible because of the removal of the embedded taxes and the dreaded wholesale sales tax, which remarkably and sadly Mr Beazley and his colleagues still argue should be retained. This is quite a remarkably stupid political position to be in. I think the Labor Party should be ashamed of itself for being in this position, particularly in the first year of the new century.In less than four years—I emphasise again—other efforts have been made by the coalition government to address the very serious problems that exist in Australia, particularly in regional and country Australia. We are dedicated to continuing our efforts and to improving upon them. The Prime Minister, in his recent tour, said that he was not satisfied with the action taken so far. He said that there was more to be done and that to address the differences and difficulties of regional and country people required a greater effort. He committed his government to further efforts.Already we have seen some remarkable and valuable achievements. The shortage of doctors in rural areas has been addressed for the first time. Michael Wooldridge has done a remarkable job in that area. In 1997-98, doctor numbers increased by 5.3 per cent in rural Australia and by 19.6 per cent in remote areas. There is more to be done. We are providing a $60 million rural retention program to encourage long-serving doctors. We believe it is far better to keep a doctor who is already there than to try and attract a new one. We need to do that, too, but we need to have a policy that enhances and encourages the doctors who are already there to continue to practise there. In my electorate of Indi, more than 70 doctors are receiving the rural incentive annual payment. This will assist us to persuade them to stay and act as mentors for young doctors coming in to learn about the remarkable new challenges that are confronted by doctors coming to rural areas to practise. It is different from the city.We are in fact looking at work force incentives for pharmacists. We have put $500,000 a year into a program to help recruit and retain pharmacists in rural and remote areas. We have established a scholarship scheme—an $8 million funding initiative. About 186 country students will receive $10,000 per year to study medicine. In respect of the John Flynn scholarships, nearly 600 medical students will receive financial support to work in a country environment and, hopefully, to become doctors permanently in regional Australia.The current budget provides an extra $170 million for rural health, including over $40 million for 30 new regional centres. I am proud to see that the other day the government released its new regional health community policy, which has $40 million of new money. It is directly pitched to communities of less than 5,000 in country and regional Australia to enable them to develop from the ground up the primary care services that they would like to see, such as a palliative care service in the home with volunteers assisted by trained people and perhaps to fund new mental health nurses or a qualified nurse to assist the local doctor to give him some respite with some of the work that he does. This very innovative program has been very well received and has a lot of flexibility. Those moneys are of course on top of the increase that we have made to the Commonwealth-states Medicare agreement. A lot of it is spent in country and regional Australia. I understand that Victoria will receive, over the next four years, more than $600 million more than they had under the previous Keating government Medicare arrangement. That represents, I think, more than a 30 per cent increase in funding by the Commonwealth government to public hospital acute services. We have increased the home and community care programs—something that I am very pleased to see. Having people stay in their home and their own community, with support systems such as community transport systems, home nursing and the like, is absolutely invaluable for small country communities. We have increased funding in those programs by more than 10 per cent. The member for McMillan talks about his hopes that the dividend from the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation to the Commonwealth will be used to fund certain programs. Without wanting to be cynical—because I know the sincerity of the member—I can tell him that the moneys that he wanted for his own electorate will in fact exceed the dividend from the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation for this year and next year anyway. It is an indication of the vast demand that we see that needs to be funded. The funds from the Albury-Wodonga Development dividend, dedicated by the former Labor Deputy Prime Minister, Brian Howe, to go into consolidated revenue, are actually helping the Commonwealth government to fund these exciting programs in regional Australia.We also of course have seen the fantastic development of the environmental fund, the Natural Heritage Trust, from the sale of the first tranche of Telstra. In my electorate, millions of dollars have been allocated already because we are part of the Murray-Darling and the Murray River starts in my electorate. We have enormous responsibilities there and we have spent a total of $128 million under the Natural Heritage Trust in Victoria alone in the last three years, some of it in my electorate. There are nearly 2,000 regional and country environmental projects that have been funded under the Howard government's exciting Natural Heritage Trust.We have established postal and Medicare easy claim services and rural transaction centres in country and regional areas. Ian Macdonald, who was with me in the electorate last week, is doing a fantastic job in helping to develop those rural transaction centres and to restore services for very small communities who are losing their banking services. I think the banking industry deserves condemnation for its last decade of closures without addressing its social and corporate citizen responsibilities. I do acknowledge that some of the banks are now addressing them and trying to redress some of the errors that they made but the Howard government is acting to provide these transaction centres in a very innovative way. They are very welcome.One great disadvantage for regional and country areas has been the tyranny of distance and the cost of telecommunications and other systems of communication. It has always been a battle for people like me, who have tried to attract industry and investment into regional and country Australia, to hear the proposed industry talking about the difficulties of the extra cost overlays. I am pleased to see that the Howard government is addressing those and making very significant investments in regional and country Australia to improve the telecommunication system. We have got, as my friend Tim Fischer said, SBS television now for hundreds of thousands of rural and country Australians. They never had a chance under the previous Labor government. The Labor government would not listen and did not do anything in that regard. We have now got that and we have got more rollouts to come. We have the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund. We got a grant of $600,000-odd into Wangaratta to provide additional training and services in small country towns around Wangaratta, to establish Internet services training, small business access and the like. An extension of mobile phone infrastructure and Internet services is going on. My personal wish is that we put more emphasis on subsidising satellite telecommunications systems in regional, country Australia. In years to come that will be the way to travel. We are very happy to see work being done there, but there is not enough money available in the first four years of government to address all these things. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that he intends to dedicate himself to addressing those areas to ensure that people do get a fair go—that people in city and country get a fair go. The party that I proudly belong to, the Liberal Party, is a broad church dedicated to serving and fostering the partnership between city and country Australians, because indeed that is the way the nation must go. The country people must help the city people and the city people must help the country people together to develop and deliver strategies that will strengthen the fabric of this great nation, built on the sacrifice and hard work of both city and country people. That is the partnership that the Howard government is dedicated to working towards strengthening, to ensure that people receive a fair go.I would like to acknowledge the leadership of the chairman of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation, Mr Bill Hanrahan, and his board members. They are doing an excellent job in fulfilling the functions required of them by the New South Wales, Victorian and Commonwealth governments. I acknowledge also the chief executive, Mr Dennis, and the staff of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation. It is important that the corporation deliver a program and a strategy that will ensure that the assets of the corporation, owned by the Australian taxpayers, are managed properly, that there be an orderly sale of those assets and that the marketing of them enhances the future growth of Albury-Wodonga and the region and ensures that the dividend to the Australian taxpayer is also protected.I emphasise that the money which was dedicated to consolidated revenue by previous ministers, under the Labor government, is being used by the Howard government to fund and help fund a range of services for city and country people. From just the brief outline that I have given, it can be seen that a substantial sum of money is being expended by the Howard government for regional and country communities. I hope that the member for McMillan will be able to achieve some funding approvals to help him to address the very sad position of people in the Latrobe Valley. I recognise and support the need for all Australians to give greater emphasis to helping these areas with double-digit unemployment. It is a very sad thing. I think that if we all work together in partnership and put aside party politics we can do a lot better in that regard.I am a little sad that the recent tour by the Prime Minister has attracted some cynical comments from the other side of politics. I would have thought that those on the other side of politics, if they genuinely wanted to help country and regional people, would be praising and encouraging Australia's Prime Minister to continue along the strategy and path that he has demonstrated so ably at the beginning of this working year. He has indicated that he intends to travel further and more extensively, listening to country and regional people to get their good ideas. They have got fantastic ideas; they are very innovative people.We have great leadership in regional Australia. People are not negative—they are very positive. We have an alpine agricultural forum, for example, ably led by the chairman, John Brown, of Brown Bros wines of Milawa. We are bringing together there all the agricultural producers in that rich region—producers of wine, nuts, flowers, vegetables, you name it—and we are going to market all our products as products from the alpine area. We will be in the world markets, we will be in the regional markets and we will be gaining more wealth for Australia and creating more jobs by those ideas. We are also working hard in developing Australia's timber industry. Sadly, Australia still imports more than 50 per cent of its total timber requirements. Many of those requirements are being supplied in an inappropriate way from forests in Asia and other areas where the trees should not be cut down. In north-east Victoria, in my region, I have got fantastic people who, with the assistance of the federal government, are developing plantations and forests, both on crown land and in private plantations. Our aim, our dream, is that we will make Australia self-sufficient by sustainable timber production. That will also help farmers attain viability in areas where they are producing products that are no longer necessarily viable.The Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation is an important chapter on regionalism in Australia's life. I am sure that the story will continue to be one that will provide growth, dividends to the Commonwealth, more payments to regional country Australia, as we all want, and the ability to show that country regional people can create jobs, investment, employment, trade and overseas market development if we are given the right settings and the right support from all levels of government. 11:01:0013841Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The Albury-Wodonga Development Act 1973 established the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation to acquire and develop land and other real estate in and around the Albury-Wodonga area. New South Wales and Victoria each established a state corporation to operate in conjunction with the Commonwealth corporation. The Albury-Wodonga Ministerial Council, comprising the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victorian ministers with regional development responsibilities, was established to provide general oversight and direction to the three corporations and development in general.The Albury-Wodonga Ministerial Council decided at its 1995 and 1997 meetings to wind up the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation and to dispose of all its land and assets. The Albury-Wodonga Development Amendment Bill 1999 puts into effect the decisions of the Albury-Wodonga Ministerial Council. The original establishment of this corporation, back in 1973, was all about regional development. I was therefore reminded of the Prime Minister's tour of various parts of rural and regional Australia recently, to which the previous speaker, the member for Indi, referred. The Prime Minister made the accompanying statement early in February:I don't want to see any further services, government services levels withdrawn from or taken away from the bush. This statement might have been just a little more plausible had it not come only days after the closure of the cashier services at the Albury-Wodonga offices of the Australian Taxation Office, at the Townsville office of the Australian Taxation Office and at other regional as well as metropolitan offices on 1 January. So we can see from this decision that the Howard government is not in the slightest serious about development in Albury-Wodonga, notwithstanding the title of this bill, just as it is not serious about regional development in other parts of Australia, such as Townsville.The Prime Minister's attitude to rural and regional government services is reminiscent of the carpenter in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass. Honourable members might recall the walrus and the carpenter inviting the oysters to a picnic and in fact eating the oysters at that picnic. The last couple of verses go: “I weep for you,” the Walrus said.“I deeply sympathise.”With sobs and tears he sorted outThose of the largest size. Holding his pocket handkerchiefBefore his streaming eyes.“O Oysters,” said the Carpenter.“You've had a pleasant run!“Shall we be trotting home again?”But answer came there none -And that was scarcely odd, becauseThey'd eaten every one.The Prime Minister's statement that he does not want to see any further government services withdrawn represents—just as the poem represents—crocodile tears, because we have seen some 38,000 Commonwealth Public Service jobs withdrawn from New South Wales during the term of this government as part of some 105,000 jobs being withdrawn nationally from the Commonwealth Public Service. On rural and government services, Prime Minister, you are a little bit late.If the tax office closes its cashier services at places like Albury-Wodonga and Townsville and other places, where are these jobs going? The day before yesterday I received a response from the Treasurer to a question on notice. One aspect of my question on notice concerned changes to the number of staff in the tax office in the various states over the last few years. For example, tax office staff in Victoria have gone down from 4,100 to 3,100 in the space of two years, a drop of 1,000 officers, or some 25 per cent. In New South Wales the drop is even more substantial: from 4,800 to 3,300, a drop of 1,500 staff, or down 31 per cent. Similarly, in Queensland, some 680 staff, or 26 per cent of that state's tax office staff, have been lost. In South Australia there has been a drop of over 30 per cent. In Tasmania there was a drop of 12 per cent. There is just one place where the taxation staff have increased, and that is the ACT where 1,300 staff have been added to tax office numbers, a dramatic increase of some 45 per cent.What that amounts to is sucking staff into the GST policy making vortex. That process of sucking tax office staff away from the regional areas into the vortex has gathered even more momentum since the date from which those figures that were provided to me by the Treasurer apply, that is, 31 August last year. Since November, we have seen 1,900 staff recruited by the tax office for GST work. Of those, some 1,000 come from internal positions; that is, from the small business section and from the individual non-business section. Those areas have provided some 1,000 officers for the GST part of the tax office, and those positions have not been backfilled. As a result, tax office energies have been directed towards the GST to the detriment of that regional presence and the other responsibilities that we would all expect of the tax office.Closing cashier functions at Albury-Wodonga means that taxpayers can no longer walk into an ATO office and pay their tax, nor their HECS, nor their child support bills, and nor can they make on-the-spot inquiries. It also results in the processing function in the ATO regional offices being centralised. It is an issue which I have raised in the House a number of times. When I heard the Prime Minister's statement about no more cutbacks in regional services, that really would, in the words of Paul Keating, have made a cat laugh.Harry Asquith, the National Business Manager of the tax office, wrote to me on 15 October last year to inform me about the closure of the cashier service at the Moonee Ponds tax office. In that letter he wrote: The decision to close all ATO cashier facilities follows the successful implementation of alternative methods of payment.He went on to say: ... it is now estimated that less than 6% of tax and related payments are made at ATO branches.So, this is the tax office's defence of their closure of cashier services. But surely the point is that there are still six per cent of people who have been going to the tax office to pay their tax bills, pay their HECS bills, and pay their Child Support Agency liabilities.A number of days before the Prime Minister said that he did not want any more closures of these regional services, these people were being denied the opportunity to do what they customarily do. The Prime Minister has allowed the tax office to go the same way as the banks and other large corporations by making itself less accessible and more impersonal. Closing face-to-face functions, introducing faceless electronic communication and relying on call centres is all a recipe for taxpayer alienation. Indeed, I can recall statements made by the National Bank of Australia when they closed a branch in my electorate. They talked about the alternative options that people would have. They noted that there were fewer customers coming through the branch and that therefore it was appropriate that the branch close. Of course, they had increased the cost of face-to-face transactions, thereby setting up that situation whereby people became reluctant to visit the branch. The logic here is that, because some people have changed their behaviour, other people can be forced to change their behaviour as well. I am sure that people will find a way, but not without a considerable degree of unhappiness and a considerable degree of unfairness.Moving processing functions out of the individual offices and centralising them will also cost jobs in regional areas. The trend here is firmly downhill. It is like a domino effect: as each service is closed, it helps create a justification for the next closure. Now that there is no cashier function and no on-the-spot inquiry service, how difficult would it be to see the rest of the service close? You can imagine the scenario: since the closure of the local face-to-face functions of the tax office, it has been found that there is no reason for the continuation of any localised service. Field officers will remain but will work from home offices and receive their work via the Internet and video hook-up. There will be an Internet kiosk and phone line at the post office—if that has not already been sold—and at the regional transaction centre. All other office functions can be performed in Sydney or Melbourne as they are simply processing functions. By centralising these functions, the tax office achieves greater economies of scale and hence saves funds. I do not think that scenario represents fantasyland at all. I think it represents exactly what will happen unless we get serious about jobs and services in regional areas.Labor is opposed to this trickery and, as indicated yesterday by our regional services spokesman, the member for Batman, we will put a stop to the further reduction of access to services in rural and regional Australia. As the member for Batman said:Labor will ensure all Australians have access to a range of physical and online services through a strong commitment to Australia Post and Telstra.The Howard government's cut and burn approach to regional services has left people feeling not just left out but angry at a government that has ignored them. This is the difference between Labor and Liberal in rural and regional Australia. We understand the access issues involved with being outside a metropolitan area and will work to solve them. The Howard government still believes that regional development is not a federal government issue and hence has no interest in taking any action to prevent the ongoing isolation of the largest part of Australia.11:12:0013843Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I thank the members for Batman, Farrer, McMillan, Indi and Wills for their contributions to the debate this morning on the Albury-Wodonga Development Amendment Bill 1999. Unfortunately, of course, for those who have listened, there was very little mention of this particular bill from opposition spokesmen. The member for Batman came in here today in the hope that we would think that he actually knew something about country and rural and regional and remote areas of Australia. I, for one, was not convinced, and I am sure that many of my colleagues would not have been either. It is fair to say, as he did, that some suburban areas of the country are suffering just as other areas of country and more remote areas across Australia are suffering as well. That is a true statement. There would be suburbs in my own electorate that that would apply to. However, I remember what Labor did to Australian National and how that ran down and became a state of chaos with the loss of so many jobs over the years. They can hardly claim great fame in this area.The member for Farrer, as you would expect, having such a great understanding of that area, was able to point out the benefits of the Federation Fund to the Albury-Wodonga area. The member for Indi was able to put straight and bring to the record eloquently the many achievements of the current government of which he is proud. I have to say that I agreed very much with him when he said that country must help city and city must help country. What a great partnership that would be. The whole country would then be working for the benefit of all citizens.The member for McMillan—and I do appreciate the fact that he must have been a very small boy when Mr Whitlam was the Prime Minister, and perhaps he has not done a lot of reading about that time—spoke in glowing terms of this great interventionist government and how country people would want to return to that intervention. I would remind the member for McMillan—if he is listening back in his room, and I hope he is—that the country people en masse voted against the Whitlam government. It was that election that brought me from not having a particular interest in politics to campaigning hard to see the defeat of the Whitlam government because it had done such an appalling job for Australia.The member for McMillan, for instance, talked about how he hoped that any financial benefits that came back to the Commonwealth from this exercise would not be spent on art. I am sure the minister here at the table would well recall the outcry when all that money was spent on Blue Poles.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—It is a great picture, though.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—It is. But the member for McMillan could perhaps just check up on some of those things because people certainly rejected that type of approach. Just as Mr Whitlam and his government failed the country and country people, so did the current Leader of the Opposition when Mr Beazley was finance minister. When we came to government we found ourselves with a debt of over $10 billion. Country people would remember that time of the Labor government when interest rates hit such a high rate and farmers went out of business, small country towns suffered and small businesses collapsed. There can be no worse fate for any business or any farm or any citizens right across the country than when they find their life savings going down the drain through high interest rates. What brings about high interest rates? It is a result of bad financial management. What brings up $10 million worth of debt? It is bad financial management. If any opposition spokesperson thinks that they can drum up a few little scares about these issues and easily hoodwink people across the country, they might find that they are very much mistaken.Now to get to what this bill really is all about. Very briefly, essentially this bill will simplify the structure and streamline the functions of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation in preparation for its abolition by a future act of this parliament. The bill will also facilitate the withdrawal of the states from the 1973 joint Commonwealth-states scheme to develop the Albury-Wodonga region. The bill implements decisions of successive federal governments and the Albury-Wodonga Ministerial Council to wind up the corporation and the scheme. The bill provides for the negotiation of a complementary winding up agreement to detail arrangements for the withdrawal of the states from the scheme. The bill also provides for the repeal of the Albury-Wodonga Development Financial Assistance Act 1973, which will be no longer relevant with the withdrawal of the states from the scheme. I again thank members for their contributions and commend the bill to the parliament. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills13845R94713845Debate resumed from 25 November 1999, on motion by Dr Wooldridge:That the bill be now read a second time.11:15:0013845Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I will be very brief. This is obviously an important bill in relation to our relations with Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It is a non-controversial piece of legislation that extends a mutual recognition agreement currently covering European Union countries to include those three nations. Australia entered into the original MRA in 1997. In order to implement part of the agreement parliament passed the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Act 1997. This legislation allowed the Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care to accept conformity assessment certificates issued by conformity assessment bodies in the EU.The MRA states that therapeutic goods manufactured in EU countries, including registrable medical devices and listable devices to which the certificates apply, meet all Australian regulatory requirements relating to quality, safety and efficacy. Acceptance of the certificates precludes the need for further evaluation or assessment of the products before they are included in the Australian register of therapeutic goods and approved for general marketing. The current bill extends the MRA to three members of the European Economic Area: Liechtenstein, Iceland and Norway. The MRA will lead to a decrease in regulatory cost to Australian companies wishing to export therapeutic goods, including registrable medical devices and listable devices, to the EEA and to EEA companies exporting to Australia.I do not think I can say much more directly on the bill other than that I wish it a speedy passage. I certainly intend to support that passage. I am hopeful that the member for Bradfield is now ready to say something about the bill.11:20:0013845Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—The Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill 1999 is necessary as a consequence of the changes that are happening not only in the Australian economy but also internationally as we move from an agrarian labour intensive economy to a knowledge based one. For a $1.5 million industry in therapeutic devices in Australia, it is necessary to facilitate trade relations between Australia and the EFTA member countries. There has been considerable pressure applied to the government, quite rightly, to implement this agreement, and any further delays, I think, would attract criticism from the industry sector and the public. In that context, some of the remarks that I just heard were actually quite inappropriate.As has been consistent with everything the government has been trying to do, not only in this area but in numerous others, it is going to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape for the industry and give better access to consumers for new and safe medical devices. These products, of course, include a range of things: heart valves, prosthetics, drug delivery machines, bandages and dressings.Aligning regulatory requirements will avoid unnecessary red tape, improve access to overseas markets and give, I think, quite extraordinary opportunities for Australia to maximise benefits from existing and future international agreements on medical devices. As I said in my introductory remarks, this industry is worth $1½ billion which, in terms of the global market, represents about one per cent. Whether we like it or not, we are a part of the global market, and we in Australia have to ensure that we remain an active, relevant and influential player, as the Parliamentary Secretary Senator Tambling has said. This legislation gives effect to the agreement made by the government in September last year to adopt internationally accepted classification and essential requirements from the European Union. It enables us as a nation to continue to play a leading role, as one of the big five countries, to pursue the internally harmonised model. Importantly, it also maintains the TGA's role in improving products for supply in Australia, and to assess medical devices to European standards and the memorandum of understanding with the European community. It is a measure that obviously should be commended to the parliament and should be supported strongly by not only the industry but both sides of the House, and as such I commend it to you.11:22:0013846Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—Firstly, I thank the member for Bruce for his brief contribution and the member for Bradfield for his rather more lengthy contribution—but of good and constructive content; the length being comparative, not in actual length of time.The amendments contained in the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill 1999 relate to the regulation of therapeutic devices. Specifically, the bill will extend the regime of the Australian and European Community Mutual Recognition Agreement to include Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland, thereby extending it to include all European economic area countries. The European Community Mutual Recognition Agreement came into effect on 1 January 1999 and covers eight industry sectors, including medical devices and pharmaceutical good manufacturing practice. The European Community Mutual Recognition Agreement enables assessing—that is, testing, inspection and certification—of products traded between Europe and both Australia and New Zealand to be undertaken in the exporting country. Designated conformity assessment bodies within the European Community assess medical devices for inclusion on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods by certifying that their assessment processes are consistent with Australia's pre-market approval requirements. Conversely, the Therapeutic Goods Administration—the TGA—in Australia can undertake conformity assessment of Australia and NZ manufactured medical devices for entry into the European market. High risk medical devices are excluded from the agreement for an 18-month period of confidence building between the two parties.The bill complements other reform initiatives being undertaken by this government. I have regard for the regulation of therapeutic devices and commend it to the House. I might add that, having sat on the original public accounts committee hearing into therapeutic goods whereby our existing arrangements had their origin, I think I was among those who argued early in the piece that having this sort of reciprocity was an effective and sensible way to proceed and would keep the costs down while maintaining the wellbeing of Australians who are using those goods. I commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Adjournment13846Motion (by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop) proposed:That the House do now adjourn. 1384711:27:0013847May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—I rise today to congratulate the owners and staff of three pharmacies in my electorate who recently celebrated an important event in their pharmacies' professional life. Healthpoint Chemist Group—with pharmacies at the Pines Shopping Centre in Elanora, at Tweed Heads and at Palm Beach—is one of the first groups in Australia to be accredited under the Pharmacy Guild of Australia's Quality Care Pharmacy Program. It is also the largest accreditation to date, with 74 staff members from the group's three pharmacies successfully completing the program. The program is a guild initiative which demonstrates that the public is receiving the best possible quality of pharmacy services and health care advice. This is an important achievement and I take this opportunity to congratulate the pharmacies' owners, Russell Watt, Tony Bugela and David Aprile, and their staff, for being trail blazers.For most of the time since the Pharmacy Guild of Australia was established in 1928, pharmacists in this country have enjoyed a very high reputation for quality service and advice about the use and effects of medications. With such community support, it could have become complacent. However, the guild is striving to achieve higher and higher levels of professional service throughout Australian pharmacies. Today, the Pharmacy Guild predicts that well over 5,000 pharmacies throughout Australia are implementing the Quality Care Pharmacy Program which was introduced last year.Community pharmacies are very much a part of our daily lives. Along with other key health professional groups, community pharmacists have a responsibility to help to ensure Australians enjoy optimum health care. Community pharmacists are certainly regarded as crucial players for essential health care to be both accessible and affordable. Australians from all walks of life rely on their community pharmacists for authoritative advice on maintaining their health, how to manage symptoms associated with minor ailments and whether they should see a doctor.As well as their traditional role of providing advice and counselling on the use of medicines, community pharmacists are increasingly entering into cooperative partnerships with general practitioners and other health professionals, becoming part of the medication team. Pharmacists are among the most highly regarded people in our communities. I know that personally from my own experiences with sick members of my family, and I know that from the Morgan poll, which reinforces my own belief through research. The continuing success of pharmacies depends on even higher standards of professional advice and service, so I welcome the quality care program as a thoroughly practical way for a pharmacy to demonstrate its commitment to those objectives. I congratulate the Pharmacy Guild for having the wit to see how important it is to strive for world's best practice and to then set up the program to achieve it. We have an excellent pharmacy system in Australia. It is probably the best in the world. People enjoy and value being able to walk into a pharmacy and ask for advice about medications and other health concerns.You only have to go overseas, feel unwell and search in vain for a pharmacy to realise just how important the Australian tradition of community pharmacy is. I am sure we all want to see the present system of pharmacist-owned community pharmacy maintained and strengthened. That imposes an obligation on pharmacists as well. If ownership is going to stay the way it is, a pharmacy has to show that it is playing its part through continuing education, insisting on the highest professional standards and engaging with the community to demonstrate the public benefit of and need for the current arrangements.The Howard government certainly recognises the contribution the Pharmacy Guild of Australia has made in recent years in implementing a series of pioneering in-house pharmacy reforms and innovative policies and programs to improve primary health care and health education in Australia. It is very important to have a professional accreditation program but it is doubly important to see it working for the benefit of the community. Once again I congratulate the owners and staff of Healthpoint Chemist Group on their achievements in becoming one of the first pharmacies in Australia to win accreditation under the Pharmacy Guild of Australia's Quality Care Pharmacy Program. 1384811:31:0013848Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—There is something very fishy about the Job Network as a whole. There is something very fishy about the latest round of contracts awarded. And there is something very fishy about Employment National's recent near death experience.The setting up of the so-called Job Network was remarkable because it was not done under any legislative framework. Contracts were handed out to brokers on-selling their rights. We all remember the lucky contract winner whose address was a flat in Lakemba and whose only office furniture was a mobile phone. There are serious grounds to believe that Job Network is in breach of the Employment Services Act 1994. The question of compensation to the private employment service providers, if the network is found to be illegitimate, then arises. It will cost big time. It will be because this government, like the Kennett government, has contempt for parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.If governments can cloak everything with commercial-in-confidence, the punters cannot ask questions. They do, but there are no answers as to what is exactly going on with their $3 billion investment. They are not allowed to know. I would like to know why in the December contract announcements Employment National got the shaft in my electorate of Fowler. It is a difficult employment market there because of cultural diversity and a low skill base, but they are young and motivated, and many speak other languages. It is a global village in 50 square kilometres. It is very international. It is Asia and Europe. It is the north and the east, and it is in the south-west of our biggest city. They are proudly Australian.All they need is specialist employment and training support of the sort you could expect from Employment National, but Employment National, with all its experience in providing services to a broad client base, its understanding of accountability and its commercial good sense, will be closing its doors in my electorate of Fowler. That is something very fishy.The three-year reprieve offered to Employment National is simply incredible. This is ideological. Did anyone in this government think that somehow, if Employment National were unable to pay its way, somebody other than the taxpayers would pick up the tab? This government almost succeeded in strangling Employment National to death. Perhaps the Employment Services Act has saved it. Perhaps its only shareholder is busy dreaming up a scheme to get around the Employment Services Act and dispose of Employment National.If that is so, or if the Job Network turns out to be legal, it will concern me that, if Employment National performs with distinction, the Howard government will try to privatise it. If it performs badly, they will try to sell it off—have it liquidated. Talk about sabotage! A lot of dedicated staff came across to Employment National. They brought their knowledge of the market. They brought their training. They brought their expertise. Now the 1,500 staff of Employment National—fewer, following the closure of so many sites—are looking for jobs for themselves. Morale, like business confidence, is critical to the whole operation and it is damaged. The finger points to this government which takes the view that if you are out of work it is your own fault.It is very suss. Here we have the government as a sole shareholder in a government business enterprise. The GBE sells its services to the shareholder, which sets its own price. The Australian taxpayer is going to subsidise an unprofitable Employment National for three years. In other words, it is back to the CES with its labour exchange role, but without the comprehensive labour market programs to tune up job applicants to respond to local labour market demand. And this is at a time when the government has failed to do anything about long-term joblessness. This is at a time when employers are showing less optimism about employment growth. This is at a time when interest rates are being put up to cool the market. We want the lid opened on this appalling, mismanaged and murky fiasco. We want to know how such irrational thinking serves employers, job seekers and taxpayers. We want to know how this fits in with the ethics of public administration, how it accommodates any reasonable idea of accountability, how so much public money can be spent without the scrutiny of the parliament. I want to know why, in the electorate of Fowler, where Employment National will no longer have a Job Network presence, only one additional site has been approved overall, while the Parramatta electorate, which is marginal Liberal, with less than half the employment, expanded its sites by—(Time expired)1384911:36:0013849Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—Not only is parliament now sitting for the first time this year, but our school students are all back at school. As this is so, I would like to take this opportunity to quote from the Australian Council of State School Organisations issues paper `Dealing with bullying—parents' rights and responsibilities'. As a mother of three boys, I have found that bullying has affected my family in a number of different ways. Two out of three have been bullied while at school, while one has been counselled for bullying, although each situation is equally traumatic. As the issues sheet states, it is important for a parent of children at school to:Watch for the warning signs—If your child loses appetite or complains of stomach aches or headaches, mopes around and is unhappy and anxious, consistently does not want to go to school, lacks confidence and has few good friends, listen closely and talk to her or him sympathetically. Find out what his or her problems are.Talk to the teachers in your school—Whatever the problems, talk to the teachers in your school. They can take account at school of the problems a child is facing. If the problems are due to bullying and harassment within the school, the majority of teachers and principals will want to take immediate action. In most cases this will make a real difference.Be aware of your rights—Do not hesitate to take action if you have concerns. Schools have a responsibility and are usually keen to provide a safe, supportive learning environment for your child. If the school does not take satisfactory action, go higher up, from the class-room teacher, to the principal, to district or regional officers, and to appropriate departmental officers.If all else fails, you have the right to see your state and federal members of parliament. The paper recommends also:Get support from your parent organisations—Parent organisations are not the place to discuss individual cases and should not get involved in the early stages. However, parent organisations can provide support in dealing with principals and departmental officers. Do not hesitate to contact them if you feel you are not getting the right treatment.Be active in your school community—Get involved in your local parent organisation or school council -to make sure that you can make a difference. The paper continues:Make sure that the school council and principal are informed about bullying and that they develop appropriate policies and strategies collaboratively with parents and teachers. Make sure that the parents are properly informed.Demand that governments provide the support that schools and teachers need—Make sure that your Department of Education not only has appropriate policies but also practices in place, developed collaboratively with parents and teachers. Make sure that Governments are aware of how important safe learning environments are to parents. This will ensure that schools and teachers get the support they need.Be realistic and positive—Schools exist in an imperfect society where bullying, (i.e. repeated oppression, psychological or physical, of a less powerful person by a more powerful person or group of persons), is present. Most teachers are doing their best to eliminate bullying under often difficult circumstances. Support them in their work. In the school, as in adult life, most inter-personal issues will sort themselves out, for children are developing social beings, like all of us. There was recently an incident in one primary school in my electorate where a young girl of eight years of age was being harassed by a male student who was only 11. He wanted the young girl to be his girlfriend. He was able to somehow take a knife to school, and during each recess and lunchtime he would threaten the little girl if she would not spend some time with him in inappropriate ways. The mother went repeatedly both to the teachers and to the principal. Nothing was done until she contacted my office and we got in contact with the state education minister, who then took action. While bullying may or may not be a priority for some people, if left and not dealt with it can have dire consequences.Many students are subjected to bullying or harassment at some stage, but for most this is minor and episodic. However, bullying can be systematic and relentless, as in this case in the primary school in my electorate. The long-term consequences can include depression, major psychosis and suicide. Many schools do a very good job of creating safe and supportive learning environments, with ongoing programs in their schools. (Time expired)10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before I call the next speaker—and I am sorry that the member for Fowler is not here—there appears to be a growing tendency for speakers to continue to speak once they have been told that their time has expired. Let us try to observe the standing orders and cease and desist once time is up.1385011:41:0013850Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I rise to express my anger at the plans by Telstra to close down its service centre in Bendigo and write off about 65 jobs. I want to demand that the Prime Minister intervene and urge the board of Telstra to withdraw these plans. You would all be aware that the Prime Minister went on his panic bush safari recently and assured country Victoria—and, indeed, country Australia—that there would be no more loss of services and jobs.We believe that the Prime Minister has an Akubra compassion for the country when he is in the bush: he puts it on when he hits the backblocks and he tosses it aside when he has gone. Somebody was unkind enough to suggest that the Prime Minister resembles a roofing nail as he ponces around regional Australia in this Akubra, and you all know what happens to roofing nails. Roofing nails get hammered. Indeed, that is exactly what happened to the Prime Minister during his regional Australia visit: he got hammered well and truly.I do note that there are coalition backbenchers also telling the Treasurer that he should be going to the bush, and I suggest to the Treasurer of Australia that if he decides to go bush he should leave the Akubra at home and just stick to the Driza-Bone. After all, if he sticks to his Driza-Bone, he probably would not even know he is wearing it.Only days after the Prime Minister went to the country, it was revealed that Telstra intends to close down its service centre and eliminate some 65 jobs in Bendigo. It is no wonder the country does not believe or trust the Prime Minister. The federal electorate of Bendigo is now set to lose nearly 500 jobs because of the PM's privatisation mania. The electorate has already lost over 200 Telstra jobs. These losses are on top of the 200-plus Bendigo district jobs lost with the moves to privatise Australian Defence Industries.The government has a two-faced policy towards the country and the seat of Bendigo. The PM now claims he has two policies for the country. One, allegedly, is to stop the job losses; the other is to privatise Telstra. Only one is reality; the other is fairyland. These policies cannot work together. Privatisation means job losses, especially in the country. This government is underhanded in its privatisation policies, and indeed Telstra is also underhanded. It refuses to openly admit it plans to close down the Bendigo service centre. Why? Because it wants to wear the employees down and demoralise them so that they cannot resist. I note that the Prime Minister promises us a social bonus from privatisation, and he has actually created the Federation Fund. Who pays for that fund? It is paid for by the Bendigo district workers who have lost their jobs with Telstra, and he has not even delivered on that promise. In fact, Senator Alston promised $2 million out of the Federation Fund in the lead-up to the last federal election for the redevelopment of the Bendigo Art Gallery. That promise has not been delivered. That promise was first made 18 months ago, but there is still no money. In fact Senator Alston said that the $2 million was as good as in the mail. Australia Post is a very efficient mail carrier, and it does not take 18 months to get a letter from Canberra to Bendigo. Where is that $2 million? We need it, and we are going to hammer this government until it arrives.With ADI, the PM himself gave a personal assurance in Bendigo before the 1996 election that he had no plans to sell ADI. I can remember his exact words: `No, no and no. We have no plans to sell ADI.' It has been sold. We have lost 200 jobs in Bendigo, and who knows what the future might hold. After the election he put the ADI plant on the auction block, wound down the jobs and now he has sold it off completely. Privatisation is a betrayal of country jobs. We saw it with the former state premier Mr Kennett. He promised that Bendigo would get more jobs from his plan to privatise the North Bendigo Railway Workshops. What happened? Of the 262 jobs in 1992 at the railway workshops, it now has 30 people employed; it has lost almost 90 per cent of its jobs. That devastates Bendigo's economy and it is all down to privatisation. Mr Kennett openly boasted in Bendigo during the 1999 state election that he was personally pushing for the privitisation of ADI.During the same week the PM was promising the country no more loss of services and jobs, the Westpac bank exposed the hollowness of this alleged example. As part of a large scale reduction of jobs in country Victoria, they announced that they were scaling down their Bank of Melbourne operation at Castlemaine, which is in my electorate, and dumping five workers. How much more can the country take from this deceitful Prime Minister? If Mr Howard is fair dinkum, he will step in and stop Telstra's assault on jobs in Bendigo, Morwell and, indeed, Preston. Country people are not conned by the Prime Minister's Akubra hat. They know what is going on underneath it and they demand a change.1385111:46:0013851Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—One of the great joys of representing Deakin is witnessing first hand the vitality of the community in building partnerships and putting in place initiatives that lift the social morale. It is true to say that local government comes in for its share of criticism, often justified. In Deakin we have two municipalities which are progressive, innovative and contribute to the wellbeing of the ratepayers.The eastern end of Deakin lies in the city of Maroondah, which is in good hands under its current mayor, Maureen Naylor, and an extremely energetic and capable CEO, Mike Marasco. For five years now the city has run a program entitled Leadership Maroondah, with the objective `to identify, develop and support leadership qualities and initiatives in the Maroondah community'. The program involves a nine-month community leadership development program to encourage better citizenship and build the commitment to society through working together.Up to 15 people are chosen each year to share experiences with other community leaders who have set an example with their contribution to the community. People of all ages, cultures, backgrounds and professions are eligible and there is an attempt to have a blend of different resources in each year's intake. The program incorporates a mix of skills building and attention to issues affecting Maroondah. Central to the program are the community projects undertaken by the participants with the help of council staff, previous graduates and others. In fact, the graduates of the program have formed their own independent group, with the moniker LeMar Grads. It continues to support Leadership Maroondah and aims to make it a self-sustaining, self-empowering community resource. As LeMar Grads gains more of a critical mass, its input into the program will be greater. Each year brings a group of committed graduates with diverse experiences and interests who in turn pass on their knowledge and assistance to others. One of the great advantages to this program is that it is self-perpetuating—so much so that one may view it as a local movement that is taking place. With nearly 70 graduates, Leadership Maroondah involves ongoing give and take between sponsors, participants and graduates, with the community being the ultimate winner. This year Maroondah won a National Innovation Award for this program. Maroondah developed, with the National Bank, a leadership program manual to enable any other municipality the opportunity to develop their own program. I commend all members to familiarise themselves with the program manual. Perhaps it will have some relevance to their own area.Leadership Maroondah has been involved in quite a number of success stories and I will mention but a few of these: a mentor program in Eastwood Primary School; Equipment Recycling Network Inc., which won a National Community Link Award in 1997, and last year its founder and Leadership Maroondah graduate Sue McKoy won a Tattersall's Award for Enterprise and Achievement, as well as a Deakin Australia Day award which I had the pleasure of giving her this year; a twilight festival at Ringwood Lake for thousands of local people; publishing a comprehensive parks and recreation guide; conducting community forums on Australia Day; and conducting an auction to raise money for charity. Some of these projects will continue and become Maroondah traditions. It is exceedingly gratifying to have in Deakin such a keen interest in helping others. With community groups, service organisations and neighbourhood enterprises flourishing, Deakin is proving again to all why it is the heart and soul of Melbourne.I laud the city of Maroondah and the sponsors, graduates and participants in the Leadership Maroondah program. I know the program will produce community activists and community leaders. I understand that this year's program may be under threat. I trust that this is not the case and urge all councillors in the offices of Maroondah to recommit themselves to what can only be described as a great local success story. They have created a treasure in Melbourne's east; a treasure for the people of Deakin, one they can learn from and participate in. I look forward to the Maroondah leadership program going on to bigger and better things. I look forward to working closely, as I have done in the last four years, in partnership with not only the graduates but also the rest of the community for the benefit of the people of Deakin.1385211:51:0013852Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—In August last year I received a delegation of senior constituents from my electorate. The purpose of the meeting was to highlight to me the plight that many in the community face in terms of access to the health services in their local area. At the top of the list was the need for the establishment of a Medicare office in the suburb of Belmont. My principal concern is to represent the constituents of Swan in obtaining better and more appropriate services in their local area. I, along with the residents of Belmont and surrounding suburbs, think that this matter is extremely important. Therefore today I have tabled a petition with 1,300 signatures calling for a Medicare office in Belmont.Belmont is a rapidly growing inner metropolitan local government area that has recently undergone what many would consider a metamorphosis. Over $300 million has been spent on redeveloping the Belmont shopping centre and surrounding precincts. It now has an extra 55 shops and, for the first time, a cinema. The surrounding arterial roads have been extensively modified to cater for the growth in demand. In fact, $1.2 billion over eight years is to be spent within the city of Belmont. The perplexing thing about all this development is that for the 19,000 people living in the immediate area there is no Medicare office. The reality is that community members living in the central geographic region of Belmont who need to lodge a claim form will, at the very least, have to travel to East Victoria Park. When they arrive they will find an agency, not a Medicare office, and their forms will be sent to Perth for processing. If they really want a discussion to sort out problems, they must be prepared for a journey—in fact, they should pack their bags. They will have to venture into the city centre or to Cannington just to speak to a Medicare officer. After meeting with the delegation led by Mr Cameron Hogg, a notable community leader in the Belmont area, I sought to highlight to the appropriate minister the problem of a bustling region with declining services. I should have known better. In November, in reply to my letter of concern, Senator Tambling declined to consider the establishment of an office. As Mr Hogg indicated:I now have to travel miles to the nearest branch of the bank; I now have to go to East Victoria Park to lodge my Medicare claim. I am 75 years of age. It takes me two hours to catch two buses, wait for them, walk to the shopping centre, and then I have got to do it all again to return home.What of the disabled in the area? If they live in the Belmont region they would also have to struggle across town on public transport facing worse inconvenience than Mr Hogg. Let us for a moment consider that they make this trip. For a concession fare it will still cost the senior, a single parent, a student or the unemployed person $1.20 per trip. Do that regularly and it takes a fair bit of your disposable income when you are doing it tough.As many of us are aware, due to this government's callous attitude, many in my electorate are doing it this way. There are almost 7,000 of these people—students, the unemployed, the disabled, the elderly and others on low incomes—in the immediate area. I must say, the Medicare officers in my electorate used to provide a superb service to my constituents. The decision to close the Medicare office in Victoria Park, for example, as so many of us know, had nothing whatsoever to do with the commercial results of Medicare. It had to do with dismantling Medicare.When the closure was first mooted, when the first leak came, we said at that time that this was the first step by this government towards dismantling Medicare. The actions of this government in relation to the public health system mirror that taken by the Fraser government. During the seven-year life of that administration, there were nine different health schemes all aimed at destroying what was then known as Medibank. Today's Medicare is a later version of what was then Medibank and, bit by bit, the Fraser government dismantled it. This government also does not seem to understand that the people who use the cash claims offices of Medicare do so because they have to. In many parts of my electorate, people go to the doctor, pay their bill and go straight to the Medicare office to get their cash. They get that refund so that they can then go to the pharmacy to buy whatever prescription they have been given. It is a critical and necessary part of life for many who are sick, disabled or temporarily incapacitated and who have a dramatic shortage of funds. I call on the government to reconsider the matter. A Medicare office must be established in the population centres of the electorate of Swan. This includes reinstating the office at Victoria Park and establishing a new Medicare office in the growing area of Belmont.Main Committee adjourned at 11.56 a.m.Answers to Questions in Writing13854The following answers to questions were circulated:13854(Question No. 1)113854McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) What percentage of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) budget is directed to (a) compliance activity, (b) audit activity and (c) research into and implementation of tax reform projects.(2) Has the Government directed the ATO to concentrate more staff and funds in the area of tax reform; if so, has extra funding been provided to the ATO for the purpose.(3) Will the Government provide more funding to the ATO for compliance and audit activities.13854Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) (a) Taking a broad definition of compliance activity, around 80.5% of the ATO's budget is directed to compliance activity, including GST when it is fully staffed. (b) The proportion directed towards field activity is around 30% including GST, when it is fully staffed. (c) Details of costs associated with implementing the Government's tax reform initiatives are included in the 1999/2000 Treasury Portfolio Budget Statements on page 73.(2) As per the answer to 1(c).(3) Information about the resourcing of the ATO is contained in the Portfolio Budget Statements. 13854(Question No. 450)45013854Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 18 February 1999:(1) How many staff were employed by (a) Ministers, (b) Senators and (c) Members (i) in total and (ii) at each classification level at 1 July in each year since 1988.(2) How many staff were employed at each classification level by Ministers at 15 February 1999.13854Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The staffing establishment of (a) Ministers, (b) Senators and (c) Members was as follows at 1 July of each year shown.(a) Ministers (personal staff only) Classification19881989199019911992199319941995199619971998Principal Adviser 122223223555Consultants23031282729383034112Senior Adviser 33534323341394140394047Media Adviser 43737383840413939333234Adviser 55555576064636363767678Assistant Adviser 64144575858494353313438.5Personal Secretary 78080787783808385676676Other121410116.5655111TOTAL292297301306324.5318306322253255281.51 Prior to August/September 1990 classification was Principal Private Secretary 2 The actual number of consultants engaged as at 1 July of each year shown3 Prior to June 1990 classification was Senior Private Secretary 4 Prior to June 1990 classification was Journalist5 Prior to August/September 1990 classification was Private Secretary6 Prior to August/September 1990 classification was Assistant Private Secretary 7 Includes Secretary and Typist(b) and (c) Senators and Members as at 1 July each year. These figures include all electorate and those personal staff provided to other Government office-holders, the Opposition, the Australian Democrats and independent Senators and Members. Classification19881989199019911992199319941995199619971998Private Secretary Grade 4A22232233332Senior Adviser21222224Media Adviser 144444434334Adviser 2134465Private Secretary Grade 344555455445Private Secretary Grade 277775799789Private Secretary Grade 191061016191515161721Assistant Adviser 2448101210181719Asst Private Secretary Grade 21415182323252624212122Asst Private Secretary Grade 1911121212141315111213Clerk 1212121212.7212.7212.7213.7211119Personal Secretary 311558109.59.5121213Steno Secretary Grade 11012111111111111101010Other22221.5222Electorate Officer4677678.3680.3680.3680.3680675677680680680TOTAL751758.3768.3780.3791.52803.72801.22804.228028068161 Prior to June 1990 position classified as Journalist2 Prior to August or September 1991 position classified as Assistant Private Secretary3 Includes Personal Secretary, Secretary, Typist and Admin Assistant4 Electorate Officer Grade 1, 2, 3 until 22 September 1993 and Electorate Officer Grade A, B, C thereafter. (2) As at 15 February 1999, the personal staff establishment of Ministers was: ClassificationEstablishmentPrincipal Adviser 5Consultant 2Senior Adviser 50Media Adviser 34Adviser84Assistant Adviser 41Personal Secretary78Total29413856(Question No. 465)46513856Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) Did the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) recently send a series of fact sheets on GST transitional arrangements, entitled `Important tax reform information', to businesses across Australia in an unaddressed A4 envelope; if so, (a) how many envelopes were mailed out, (b) what was the total cost of mailing the information packs, (c) what was the cost of printing the fact sheets and covering letter and (d) which Appropriation Bill covered the funding for printing and posting the information packs.(2) What is the total cost, including staff salaries, of maintaining and monitoring the ATO's (a) World Wide Web site at www.ato.gov.au and (b) faxback system.(3) How many ATO staff are employed maintaining and monitoring the (a) web site and (b) faxback system.(4) How many ATO staff are attached to the Tax Reform Business Education and Communication Project.(5) What is the annual salary of each person referred to in part (4).(6) What is the running cost of the project.(7) Do other Tax Reform Project teams exist within the ATO; if so, (a) how many, (b) what are their specific responsibilities, (c) how many staff are attached to each project team, (d) what is each project's overall running costs and (e) which Appropriation Bill covers the funding for the project teams.(8) How many GST fact sheets has the ATO produced in total.(9) What are the titles of each GST fact sheet.(10) What was the total cost of preparing the fact sheets.(11) Which Appropriation Bill covered the funding for printing and posting the fact sheets.13856Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes.(1) (a) 798,200 envelopes were mailed out in February 1999.(1) (b) The total was $234,689.(1) (c) $299,485.(1) (d)Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99.(2) (a) Expenses for the 1998-99 financial year were $1,103,620.(2) (b) In relation to the ATO's faxback system, known as “A Fax from Tax”, expenses for 1998-99 were $148,700.(3) (a) The equivalent of 2.5 ATO staff managed the website for the 1998-99 financial year.(3) (b) The system is automated, and as such requires minimal staff time. (4) As at 11 November 1999, 130 staff were attached to the Tax Reform Business Education and Communication Project. (5) The salaries of staff are private.(6) Details of running costs of all such projects are outlined in relevant Budget Papers, Portfolio Statements and the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. (7) Yes.(7) (a) There are six major Tax Reform project teams in the ATO. The teams are responsible for Personal Income Tax, GST, Business Tax Reform Implementation, Australian Business Number, Pay As You Go and Withholding Reform and Excise. In addition, there are a range of sub-projects underway covering different elements of the tax reform projects.(7) (b) Personal Income Tax has 6 sub projects - Binding Oral AdviceShorter Period of Review Simplifying Personal Income TaxFamily Assistance ReformSavings Bonus for Older AustraliansPrivate Health Insurance RebateGoods and Services Tax (GST) project is responsible for aspects associated with the introduction of a GST including -Legislation & Support for the LawRegistration & Liability AssuranceComplianceWorkforce & LogisticsBusiness Education & CommunicationsSystems & ProcessingThe Business Tax Reform Implementation project is responsible for aspects flowing from the Review of Business Taxation. This project includes assisting in the development of business taxation policy, design and development of legislation and administration.The Australian Business Number project is responsible for providing implementation, business and systems support for the proposal to rationalise identification of businesses. This project will also establish registers of income tax exempt charities and gift deductible entities.The Pay As You Go (PAYG) and Withholding Reform project is responsible for provision of Client Account Infrastructure, matters associated with Withholding Obligation changes and establishing a new PAYG Income Tax Instalment System.The Excise project has been transferred to the ATO from Customs and is responsible for Excise reform including: Tobacco; Alcohol; Wine Equalisation Tax; and the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme/Diesel and the Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme. It should be noted that at 30 June 1999 the Diesel Fuel Reform arrangements were not finalised. As such, no costs have been attributed to Diesel Fuel Reform in 1998-99.(7) (c) All projects except GST, have overlaps between tax reform project activities and business as usual both within the ATO and with Customs in the case of Excise reform. ProjectStaffing at 30 June 1999Personal Income Tax31Goods and Services Tax262. This compares with approx 645 full time equivalent staff who worked on Wholesale Sales Tax as at February 1999Business Tax Reform Implementation95Australian Business Number123Pay As You Go and Withholding Reform 51Excise7 (7) (d) Details of running costs all such projects are outlined in relevant Budget Papers, Portfolio Statements and the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.(7) (e) Appropriation Bills (No. 1) and (No. 3) 1999-2000.(8) As at 30 November 1999 the ATO had produced more than 10 million individual facts sheets covering 35 topics.(9) I refer the honourable Member to the Members and Senators New Tax System Briefing Kit, which has been sent to her office containing all the Fact Sheets. Alternatively all the Fact Sheets can be accessed on the Tax Reform Website.(10) The total cost will not be calculable until the completion of the implementation, because Fact Sheets are regularly updated and reprinted. As such, the cost is ongoing. (11) Appropriation Bill (No 3) 1998-99 and Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1999-2000. 13858(Question No. 660 and 663)660 and 66313858Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 1 June 1999:(1) Has the Minister or a department or agency administered by the Minister provided grants to the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) or bodies related to the NFF since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) in each case, (i) what was the nature of the grant and (ii) for what purpose was it provided and (b) what total sum was provided.(2) To what boards, committees or other bodies for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility have (a) Mr Donald McGauchie (b) Dr Wendy Craik or (c) other officers of staff of the NFF been appointed since 2 March 1996.(3) What sums has the Commonwealth paid in (a) sitting fees, (b) board fees, (c) travel costs and (d) related expenses with respect to each appointment referred to in part (2).13858Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Legal Aid in native title matters is provided to respondents and non claimant applicants under s 183 of the Native Title Act, the Special Circumstances (Native Title) Scheme and the Common Law (Native Title) Scheme. Prior to 30 September 1998, assistance was also available under these schemes to native title claimants. The amount of assistance provided since 2 March 1996 in this regard was as follows:1995-96 $949,145 (this figure is for the full financial year)1996-97 $2,303,3501997-98 $4,056,9641998-99 $7,308,977A number of grants of legal aid have been made to farming organisations which are members of the NFF in the various States and Territories of Australia in relation to advice and/or legal representation in native title cases. However, it is not possible to break down the distribution of the above grants to the NFF or bodies related to the NFF without conducting a search of a large number of relevant files, and then possibly having to seek further information as to whether a particular pastoralist or pastoralist organisation had some connection with the NFF. This would be an unreasonable diversion of resources.Applications for legal aid are treated in confidence. This practice extends to neither confirming nor denying that particular applications have been received and accords with the requirements of the Privacy Act 1988. Consequently, it would not be appropriate to provide information in relation to any individual applications for assistance for legal representation.Nevertheless, it can be said that most of the assistance has been provided to pastoralists. In 1998-99, 65% of assistance was provided to pastoralists/farmers. Some of these recipients are incorporated, some are individuals and some are associations.(2) Mr John Mackenzie was appointed on 30 July 1998, as the NFF representative, to the Legal Aid (Native Title) Consultative Committee.Dr Wendy Craik and Mr John Mackenzie of the NFF are members of the National Native Title Tribunal's National Liaison Committee.(3) Mr McGauchie has not been appointed to any boards, committees or other bodies.(4) Membership of the Legal Aid (Native Title) Consultative Committee does not attract sitting fees and Mr Mackenzie has not been paid any sitting/board fees. Mr Mackenzie has been reimbursed for travel costs from Brisbane to Canberra since his appointment. These costs total $1,272.40.No monies were paid to Dr Wendy Craik and Mr John Mackenzie for their one attendance at a meeting on 16 April 1997.13858(Question No. 705 and 708)705 and 70813858Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Attorney-General and the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 7 June 1999:Has a Department or agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility entered a contract with or made a grant or payment to an organisation registered under subparagraph (a) 188(1)(a) or (b) 188(1)(b) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996; if so, in each case, (i) which organisation, (ii) what sum was received and (iii) in what State or Territory is the organisation located. 13859Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I have been advised by my Department and agencies within the portfolio that payments have been made to the following organisations: (i) Organisation(ii) Sum received(iii) State or Territory in which the organisation is locatedCommunity and Public Sector Union (CPSU)$7,119.05New South WalesPastoralists' and Graziers' Association of Western Australia (Incorporated)$319,640.00Western AustraliaSouth Australian Farmers Federation Industrial Association $206,809.86South AustraliaUnited Graziers Association of Queensland (Union of Employers)$1,659,111.80QueenslandWestern Australian Farmers Federation Industrial Association $16,937.00Western AustraliaVictorian Farmers Federation Industrial Association$426.88VictoriaNSW Farmers' Federation (Industrial) Association$62,507.60New South WalesUnited Firefighters' Union of Australia $925.00Australian Capital TerritoryMedia, Entertainment and Arts Alliance$370.00New South Wales1 Paid under contracts through the public tender system2 The period involved is taken to be form 31 December 1996, being the date of effect of the relevant criteria for registration of organisations under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, to 7 June 1999; and the relevant organisations are taken to be those registered as at 7 June 1999.13859(Question No. 782)78213859Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, upon notice, on 29 June 1999:(1) Did a recent decision of the High Court restore the powers of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal to review the decisions of trustees; if so, will he seek advice on the constitutionality of the Takeovers Panel proposed to be established on enactment of the Corporate Law Economic Reform Bill 1998.(2) Does the Corporate Law Economic Reform Bill 1998 propose that the powers assigned to the Takeovers Panel would prevent parties from taking matters to the courts during the bid period.(3) Is he able to say whether parties involved in takeovers would be prevented from taking action in the courts if the unamended Corporate Law Economic Reform Bill 1998 was enacted.13859Hockey, Joe, MPMr HockeyDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) On 17 June 1999, the High Court handed down its decision in Attorney-General (Cth) v Breckler & Ors. The High Court's decision considered the validity of the role of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal and, in effect, upheld the validity of the Tribunal's power to review the decisions of trustees.Following the High Court's decision in Breckler, the Government sought advice from the Australian Government Solicitor on whether the decision had any implications for the role of the Corporations and Securities Panel proposed under the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998. As the honourable member would be aware, the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Act 1999 has been passed by Parliament and has received Royal Assent. The major reforms, including the Panel reforms, will commence on 13 March 2000. (2) and (3) Under the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Act 1999, the Corporations and Securities Panel is to become the sole forum for the resolution of takeover disputes during the takeover bid period. The Act provides that a court may stay any proceedings in relation to a takeover bid or proposed takeover bid until the end of the bid period (subsection 659B(2)).During the bid period, the bidder, the target company, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission or any other person whose interests are affected by the takeover bid may apply to the Panel for a declaration that unacceptable circumstances have occurred or for an order, amongst other things, to protect the rights and interests of any person affected by the circumstances (section 657C).During the bid period, only the Australian Securities and Investments Commission or another public authority of the Commonwealth or a State may commence court proceedings in relation to a takeover bid or a proposed takeover bid (subsection 659B(1)).13860(Question No. 857)85713860Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1999:(1) Has his attention been drawn to a speech given by the Assistant Treasurer titled “The Government's approach to superannuation” on 28 May 1999 in Brisbane, where the Assistant Treasurer announced that the Government is committed to allow, by the year 2000, employees in accumulation funds to move their benefits between funds; if so, what measures are proposed and when will they be introduced into the Parliament.(2) Did the Assistant Treasurer state that the Government had become aware that superannuation investment rules were being circumvented by some arrangements; if so, (a) of what arrangements is the Government aware, (b) when did the Government become aware of the arrangements and (c) what is the cost to Government revenue of the circumventing arrangements.(3) Will the Government introduce legislation giving effect to proposals to allow the splitting of superannuation assets in the event of divorce; if so, when.(4) Will funds with fewer than five members be allowed to invest up to 100 per cent of their assets in business premises leased to members or the employer-sponsor of the fund; if so, (a) what impact will the proposal have on the requirement for trustees to maintain a diversified investment strategy and (b) could the proposal see 100 per cent of a fund's assets invested in one particular asset.13860Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. The Government will provide details on this matter in due course.(2) Yes. The issues relating to the new investment rules were outlined in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No 4) 1999.(3) Yes. Details will be provided in due course.(4) Yes. The other requirements of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (the SIS Act) will still apply, including the requirement that trustees formulate an investment strategy that has regard to a range of relevant factors. Subject to the fund's investment strategy, the investment rules, and other requirements in the SIS Act, trustees have always had the option of placing a fund's assets in a single investment.13860(Question No. 991)99113860Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 October 1999:(1) How many employees does the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) employ in the Large Businesses and High Wealth Individuals Compliance Area in 1999-2000, how many were employed in 1997-98 and 1998-99, and how many will be employed in 2000-01.(2) How many employees does the ATO employ in the Superannuation Guarantee compliance area in 1999-2000, how many were employed in 1998-99, and how many will be employed in 2000-01.(3) For information concerning performance standards from its outsourced information technology supplier, EDS/BHP, does the ATO rely on EDS/BHP itself to provide that information; if so, will the ATO examine independent performance monitoring of its outsourced information technology supply. (4) What measures of performance does the ATO have concerning its outsourcing of the distribution of Group Certificates, and will it make those measures publicly available.(5) How many employees does the ATO employ in WA in 1999-2000 and how many were employed in 1997-98, 1998-99 and in August 1992, August 1996 and August 1999.(6) How many employees does the Australian Taxation Office employ in (a) SA, (b) Vic., (c) NSW, (d) Qld, (e) Tas, (f) the ACT and (g) the NT in 1999-2000 and for each State and Territory, how many were employed in 1997-98 and 1998-99.(7) What percentage of complaints concerning businesses tax avoidance were audited in (a) 1994-95, (b) 1995-96, (c) 1996-97, (d) 1997-98 and (e) 1998-99, and is it a fact that this figure has dropped to as low as 1000 of 25 000.(8) How many full time equivalent positions existed in the ATO in August (a) 1992, (b) 1996 and (c) 1999.(9) How many Senior Executive Service positions existed in (a) the ATO and (b) WA offices of the ATO in August (i) 1992, (ii) 1996 and (iii) 1999.(10) Do WA offices of the ATO receive staffing in a ratio equivalent to other States; if not, why not.(11) How many full time equivalent positions will be employed at each new call centre to be established in (a) Tas, (b) Vic. and (c) NSW.(12) How does the ATO decided on staffing levels in the various States.(13) How many full time equivalent positions will the ATO base in WA in its GST section.(14) Are all services provided by the ATO available in all States; if not, what, and where, are the services available.(15) Does processing of tax returns physically occur in each State.(16) Has the Tax Commissioner received performance pay associated with downsizing in the ATO.13861Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) No. of ATO Full Time Equivalent Employees in Large Business & High Wealth Individuals Compliance 1997-981998-991999-20002000-01 (est)1165125912181200By comparison, the numbers employed in 1995-96 and 1996-97 were 1165 and 1185 respectively.(2) In the Superannuation Guarantee compliance area, the ATO employed 54 employees in 1998-99, 84 in 1999-2000 and is forecast to employ 84 for 2000-01.(3) EDS is required to achieve or exceed the service levels stated in the Services Agreement and to measure and report their performance against the service levels to the ATO. EDS is also required to use appropriate measurement and monitoring tools and procedures to measure their performance accurately. EDS provides the ATO with access to those measurement and monitoring tools and procedures on request so the ATO can verify that EDS is accurately measuring their performance.Where EDS fails to meet a service level, EDS is required to prepare and deliver to the ATO a report identifying the service problem and the status of the remedial efforts being undertaken in regard to the service problem.The ATO will appoint an independent benchmarker to review periodically the service levels and service charges being provided to the ATO under the Services Agreement and compare them with world's best practice for comparable services being provided by other organisations.In addition, the ATO, or the ATO's nominated Audit representative, has the right to perform a broad range of audit tasks including; examining EDS's performance of any of the services, EDS's efficiency in performing the services and EDS's compliance with its obligations under the Services Agreement.(4) The contract that Personnel had with the distributor of the Group Certificates was a subsidiary contract to the broader ATO contract for the 'Provision of a Publications Distribution Service'. The subsidiary contract has listed the elements that were to be delivered by the provider including the timeframe for delivery. There were no other performance measures included under this contract. The contract required the contractor to enter into a service level agreement within one month of the making of the agreement. At the time of the mailout, because of the infancy of the primary contract, the service level agreement had not been made.These measures are publicly available in accordance with Commonwealth and industry standards and guidelines.(5) As at 31 August 1999, the ATO employed 1288 staff in West Australia. This includes paid, unpaid, operative and inoperative staff and the Child Support Agency (CSA). Staff employedin the WA branches of ATO in 1997-98 were 1364.47 full time equivalent (FTE); in 1998-99 there were 1323.79 FTE; and on 31 August 1992 there were 1593; on 31 August 1996 - 1503 and on 31 August 1999 - 1288.(6) Below is a table of the numbers of staff employed by the ATO. The figures include paid, unpaid operative and inoperative staff and the CSA. STATE1997-981998-991999-2000As at 31 August 1997As at 31 August 1998As at 31 August 1999Vic415340503123Tas396372347NSW484347353325Qld259625961916NT** 1358ACT299533704332SA13451296929** The Northern Territory was not identified as a code location at the time and figures may have been listed as part of South Australia.(7) The ATO is unable to provide the requested figures for the 1994/95 to 1997/98 years because the information was not recorded in a centralised location.For 1998/99 there were 17,535 tip offs received in relation to perceived tax evasion by businesses. All of these cases have been reviewed, 5027 cases were considered to require more thorough profiling, and 1552 audits were completed.(8) (a) August 1992: 19501 staff. (Note - this is not an FTE figure. It includes inoperative & unpaid staff.) (b) August 1996: 17464.16 (c) August 1999: 16516.23(9) No. of SES positions in existence in the ATO and WA Offices August 1992*August 1996*August 1999#ATO146145211WA Offices874* Figures include SES positions for the CSA as they were under the charge of the Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner). # As of 29 October 1998 CSA moved to the Department of Family and Community Services. Therefore, the CSA's seven SES positions have not been included. (10) ATO Corporate has a higher percentage of staff located in the ACT due to the Corporate Centre being located in Canberra.Most ATO Corporate service delivery processes are spread generally throughout the ATO, with numbers roughly equivalent to client base in each region (eg Facilities Management, Finance and Human Resource Services). An exception to this is the Personnel (payroll) section, which has been located only in two cities (Sydney and Melbourne) for efficiency reasons. (11) (a) The ATO has established a call centre in Burnie, Tasmania with 40 FTE positions. The Excise call centre in Hobart will have 8 FTE which will be supplemented by up to an additional 6 FTE to meet workload peaks. (b) The ATO is currently establishing a call centre in Melbourne, Victoria with 227 FTE positions. (c) The ATO is establishing a call centre in Penrith NSW with 300 FTE positions.(12) Generally, the business lines make their own decisions about staffing levels in the various states, after taking into account a number of factors such as:location of clients and size of client base;operational requirements;existing staff profiles in the states;business outcomes and service delivery standards; andmaximising efficiencies and economies of scale. With regard to IT staff, since outsourcing, most are Canberra based, but there are still some small centres supporting Taxlan and training around the country. (13) Current planning is for 349 FTE positions to be based in WA by April 2001.(14) Generally, all services provided by the ATO are available in all States. There will be exceptions of course when new services are being rolled out or old services are being closed. Physical presence for most GST services is provided in all States except for the following services: Processing Centres located in Albury and Penrith and Call Centres located in Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania and Western Australia (to commence in April 2000).(15) The processing of individuals' tax returns is undertaken in all States.(16) The Commissioner has not received any performance pay associated with downsizing in the ATO.13863(Question No. 992)99213863Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 October 1999:(1) Is there currently a review of the ATO's methods for ensuring employer compliance with the Superannuation Guarantee Levy (SGL).(2) Does the ATO have the staff resources to follow up every complaint about compliance with the SGL.(3) What is the ATO's strategy for dealing with Employee Notifications (ENs) for (a) casual and (b) part time employees.(4) Are there different strategies for casual and part time employees; if so, what is the difference.(5) What selection criteria are used for projects such as employers in Cairns, hairdressers and child care centres which, under the current compliance strategy for SGL, receive special attention.(6) What level of independence do ATO staff in the Superannuation Guarantee compliance area have to follow up complaints made by employees, including prioritising certain ENs.(6) Are certain ENs not acted on; if so, what are the criteria for this and are employees who put in ENs told upfront what are the criteria.(7) What recourse do employees have for the enforcement of the SGL, aside from reporting it to the ATO.(8) What sum was gathered by the Australian Taxation Office under the `General Interest Charge' for employers who did not pay their SG on time in (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97, (c) 1997-98 and (d) 1998-99.(9) How many employers were charged the `General Interest Charge' for not paying their employees SGL on time in (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97, (c) 1997-98 and (d) 1998-99.(10) How many employers were charged the `General Interest Charge' for not paying their employees SGL on time in (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97, (c) 1997-98 and (d) 1998-99.13863Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) completed a performance audit of the Australian Taxation Office's (ATO) administration of the Superannuation Guarantee (SG) which was tabled in Parliament in November 1999. The objective of the performance audit was to review the ATO's administration of the SG Act and to identify relevant opportunities for improvement. The ANAO assessed the ATO's administration of SG using a risk management framework. Overall the ANAO found that the ATO's administration of SG was sound. In relation to SG compliance, the ANAO provided an endorsement of the ATO's risk-based approach.(2) The ATO has the resources to follow up all employee complaints in relation to SG compliance as part of a number of pro-active and specifically targeted strategies in dealing with employee notifications.(3) The strategy developed for casual workers and part-time workers is the same as that for other notifications received on SG compliance.There are certain SG compliance projects which deal with these types of employees. For example the Short-Term Employers project targets employers who employ part time, casual and seasonal workers.Other projects are also looking at industries where there are a large number of part time and casual workers as identified from risk assessment activities. Such industry based projects include the Hairdressers, Hotels, and Retailers project.(4) See above.(5) The selection criteria used for projects such as employers in Cairns, hairdressers and childcare centres depend on the specific project. As a general rule, the process of selecting projects is based on a variety of methods including analysis of the SG compliance database, results from previous surveys, findings from previous projects and from anecdotal evidence provided by those within the ATO who have expertise on SG and other tax related compliance issues.For projects such as the hairdressers and childcare centres project; the selection was based on the risk assessment and analysis of the SG compliance database. The information provided from ENs, anonymous information and other sources indicated that these industries were `high risk' in terms of SG compliance.In relation to the Cairns project, a survey led to Cairns being considered for project work. In addition to the survey, analysis of the SG database also indicated that Cairns was an appropriate area in which to run a project. Therefore, a project was initiated in an attempt to improve compliance for all employers within that geographical area.Projects such as the ones listed above are just three examples of the forty-four projects that form part of the ATO's SG compliance process.(6) There are varying levels of independence given to ATO staff in the process of following up complaints made by employees, including prioritising certain ENs. However, the risk assessment process is centralised to ensure a consistent national approach can be taken in assigning risk indicators to the notifications that are received.(7) All ENs received are actioned. The ATO uses risk assessment methods to allocate the most efficient strategy to deal with the notifications received. Different types of follow up are determined depending on the risk assessment of the case.(8) Only the ATO can enforce SG. (However, in cases where employers have obligations under industrial awards to provide superannuation support for their employees, the Department of Employment Workplace Relations and Small Business or an industry fund may be contacted by employees to follow up non-payment of superannuation entitlements).(9) The General Interest Charge came into effect on 1 July 1999 and late payment penalty applied in 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 years. The figures below show the late payment penalty/General Interest Charge which applied as a result of SG late payments for the years in question. These are rolling figures as compliance activities undertaken at present are still raising interest for non-compliance in past years.Results for the 1998-99 year reflect the situation that the due date for payment has only recently passed and compliance activity for shortfalls in this year has recently been initiated. SG Assessment YearLate Payment Penalty Collected (a) 1995-96$2,354,960(b) 1996-97$1,984,957(c) 1997-98$1,012,652(d) 1998-99$111,817(10) The General Interest Charge came into effect on 1 July 1999 and late payment penalty applied in 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 years. SG Assessment YearNo. of employers who have paid Late Payment Penalty(a) 1995-966,867(b) 1996-976,007(c) 1997-984,771(d) 1998-991,878As stated in Question 9, these totals are rolling figures as compliance activities undertaken at present could still be raising late payment penalty for non-compliance in past years.13865(Question No. 993)99313865Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 13 October 1999:(1) Further to his answer to a question without notice (Hansard, 23 September 1999, page 7870), what is the increased state of readiness of the additional battalions required to sustain a deployment of 4500 personnel.(2) How many battalions will be placed on increased readiness.(3) How many personnel are involved.(4) What call will be made on reserves.13865Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The requirement depends upon the anticipated deployment duration and the nature of the units being deployed. Expanding on the answer provided to a question without notice (Hansard, 23 September 1999, page 7870), an additional two battalion groups are required at a state that will allow them to deploy on operations.(2) The readiness of two additional battalions, the 4th and 6th Battalions, The Royal Australian Regiment, is being increased.(3) The authorised strength of the Army is being increased from 23,000 to 26,000 - an increase of 3,000.(4) Members of the Reserve have been given the opportunity to render full time service for a fixed period.13865(Question No. 1009)100913865McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 21 October 1999: (1) What are the dates and subjects of the conventions in the Hague system that are not mentioned in the answer to question No. 863 (Hansard 29 September 1999, page 8306).(2) On what occasions, in what circumstances and with what results did his Department last consider accession to the conventions.(3) How many countries are parties to each of the conventions.13865Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (3) The information requested as to the dates, subjects and parties to the Conventions is publicly available on the internet website of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, the address for which is http://www.hcch.net/e/index.html.(2) Australia has ratified or acceded to eight Hague Conventions. Most recently, in 1998 Australia ratified the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption (29 May 1993). Ratification of, or accession to, a Hague Convention involves the use of significant resources by the Attorney-General's Department in examining the implications for Australian law; in conducting consultations with Commonwealth, State and Territory agencies and the legal profession; in preparing recommendations to Government and in the preparation and passage of implementing Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation. In view of these resource costs, work is undertaken by the Department only where there is a demonstrated demand or need for Australian ratification of a particular Convention. At present the Department's work on Hague Convention matters is focussed on:administrative work required under Hague Conventions to which Australia is already a party (including the resource intensive case work required under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980));public consultation and participation in the Australian delegation attending meetings of a Special Commission of the Hague Conference which is drafting a new Convention on Jurisdiction, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters; and work with relevant Commonwealth, State and Territory agencies on ratification of three Hague Conventions.The three Conventions which are currently being considered for ratification, in consultation with State and Territory Governments, are:The Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (19 October 1996). The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and the Community Services Ministers' Council recently gave in principle approval for Australia's ratification of the Convention. Further progress depends on the drafting and passage of amendments to Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation.The Convention on the International Protection of Adults (2 October 1999). The Attorney-General's Department has published an Issues Paper and is currently conducting consultations with relevant State and Territory authorities on possible Australian ratification of the Convention.The Attorney-General's Department will shortly be conducting consultations with relevant Commonwealth, State and Territory agencies with a view to Australian ratification of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions relating to Maintenance Obligations (2 October 1973). Ratification of the Convention would assist in implementing the November 1994 recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues for the improvement of Australia's existing arrangements for co-operation with overseas authorities in child support enforcement.13866(Question No. 1012)101213866Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 21 October 1999:(1) Has his attention been drawn to claims in the September 1999 edition of Vietnam Veteran that a highly placed person in the Repatriation political system in Canberra has accused the Vietnam Veterans Federation of Australia (VVFA) of political partisanship, and that applications for financial assistance on behalf of veterans may be rejected because the VVFA has criticised him.(2) Is the person who made the threats a senior member of his staff: if so, will he take action against the person.13866Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) I have seen the claims in the Vietnam Veteran. The article does not identify any particular person as having made comments of the type referred to, and I have no reason to believe that any member of my staff holds the views claimed in the article. Grants have been administered in accordance with guidelines which are widely publicised and I assure the honourable member that all applications continue to be processed under those guidelines.13866(Question No. 1020)102013867O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 21 October 1999: (1) When will the Government release the report on the Shipping Industry Reform which he commissioned.(2) What information is he able to provide on the contents of the report.13867Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Government is considering the report of the Shipping Reform Working Group that I established to examine a range of issues associated with the Australian Shipping Industry. The Working Group, when submitting its report, advised that the report had been prepared on the basis that it would be confidential advice to the Government.(2) Until the Government has considered all of the issues raised in the report I am not prepared to release details of the report's contents.13867(Question No. 1021)102113867O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 sked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 21 October 1999:To ask the Minister for Transport and Regional Services - Has his attention been drawn to the recent decision by the British Government to introduce a package of tax measures aimed at attracting British owned or controlled vessels to register under the British flag; if so, what information is he able to provide on the composition of the package and its expected impact.13867Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Government is aware of the introduction of a Tonnage Tax in the UK to support the suite of measures already in place. It has been adopted to replace the Corporations Tax for shipping operators. The new tax supports a range of other fiscal incentives already on offer to British shipping which, while being generous, were insufficient to win back vessels to the British register.Its likely impact is uncertain but estimates by the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicate it will cost £20m to £40m (AUD$52.4m to $104.7m) per annum, depending on the number of vessels returning to the UK flag.13867(Question No. 1022)102213867O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 21 October 1999:(1) What measures is the Government proposing to take to strengthen Australia's international flag fleet and participation in international shipping.(2) When will the measures be implemented.13867Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Government is considering a range of options identified in the Shipping Reform Working Group report.(2) The decision to adopt a particular course of action will take place once full consideration of all options has been made.13867(Question No. 1027)102713867Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LawrenceXS4FremantleALP00 asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 22 November 1999:(1) Has his Department recently provided grants to the (a) National Council of Women of Australia, (b) YWCA and (c) Federation of Business and Professional Women; if so, how many women (i) from each State and Territory and (ii) in total are direct or associate members of each organisation.(2) How many, and which, State or National organisations are affiliated with each organisation.(3) What is the cost of membership or affiliation in each case.(4) Are conditions placed on membership or affiliation; if so, what. 13868Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No(2) Not applicable(3) Not applicable(4) Not applicable13868(Question No. 1028)102813868Hollis, Colin, MPMr HollisDH4ThrosbyALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 22 November 1999:(1) Is his Department instituting a change to the payment of employer incentives for the Commonwealth New Apprenticeships Incentives Program; if so, (a) when is the change in payment procedures to apply; and (b) what is the new payment procedure.(2) Have group training companies indicated that they will face significant financial difficulties due to the new payment procedure for employer incentives; if so, will he address those particular concerns.13868Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Two policy amendments were introduced for new commencements and recommencements in New Apprenticeships. The minimum Commonwealth waiting period before an employer can submit a claim for an incentive (for Certificate II) has been extended from one month to three months, in line with Certificate III and IV and part time New Apprentices, and employers are now required to provide evidence that training has commenced, rather than been organised, other than in exceptional circumstances, as set out below:(a) The changes were introduced for all commencing and recommencing New Apprenticeships from 1 September 1999.Employers who commenced or recommenced a New Apprentice before 1 September 1999 will maintain the one-month waiting period for Certificate II and three-months for Certificate III or IV and all part time New Apprenticeships, prior to claiming an incentive. (b) The minimum Commonwealth waiting period before an employer can submit a claim for Commonwealth New Apprenticeships incentives for a Certificate II commencement or recommencement has been extended from one month to three months. This will mean a three-month waiting period will apply to all claims for incentives.The evidentiary requirements for an employer to verify that a New Apprentice is in receipt of appropriate New Apprenticeships training have been strengthened. Where a registered training organisation can be engaged within six months of commencement or recommencement of a New Apprenticeship, the signature of the registered training provider is required on the Commonwealth Claim form to verify that training in accordance with the negotiated training programme has commenced. Upon receipt of the completed form, the New Apprenticeships Centre pays the incentive. This new requirement includes all the training delivered under the flexible New Apprenticeships arrangements.(2) Group Training Companies were informed by letter of the upcoming changes in May 1999. The delay in payments for Certificate II New Apprentices and the new evidentiary requirements may mean that Group Training Employers need to modify their current agreements with host employers.13868(Question No. 1034)103413868Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 22 November 1999:(1) How many kilometres of the Hume Highway between Sydney and Albury are not duplicated and remain single carriage.(2) What works are being undertaken to assist the duplication of the highway, including by-passes of rural towns and the Albury road program associated with the national highway program. (3) What costs are associated with the works referred to in part (2) .(4) What is planned in the next five years to completely duplicate the sections of the Hume Highway between Sydney and Melbourne, and what sum will this cost.(5) What is planned in the next five years for any part of the Hume Highway, which is not duplicated.13869Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Currently 129 of the 520 kilometres of the Hume Highway within NSW are not duplicated. (2) and (3) Construction of the Bookham bypass ($64.5M) is underway, and will add a further 15 km of dual carriageway. This project will be completed by the end of 2000. Meanwhile, work on a major interchange at South Gundagai interchange ($8.8M) was completed in September 1999. Pre-construction activities are proceeding on the proposed Albury upgrade ($180M-stage 1) and duplication of the Sheahan Bridge ($24.45M) at Gundagai. In 1999/2000 the Government will also spend an estimated $19M on maintenance and minor works along the Hume Highway. (4) and (5) Apart from the above projects, planning for a dual carriageway bypass at Coolac ($62M) is near completion with construction expected within the next 5 years. The Government foreshadows further investigation of several other works along the Hume Highway that have been identified by NSW for possible upgrading, including dual carriageways at little Billabong and from Kyeamba Hill to Kyeamba Gap. Decisions on funding will be taken in the context of coming budgets, and as traffic and safety needs warrant. The Government will continue to fund maintenance and minor improvements under the Safety and Urgent Minor Works Program. The 294 kilometres of Hume Highway from the Victorian border to Melbourne is fully duplicated with the last section (Wangaratta bypass) completed in 1994.13869(Question No. 1036)103613869Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 22 November 1999:(1) How many Kosovar refugees were brought to Australia.(2) How many Kosovar refugees remain in Australia and where are they located.(3) Have any Kosovar refugees broken the conditions of their temporary visas.(4) On what basis were payments made to Kosovar refugees to meet their undertaking to return to Kosovo.(5) What sum was paid in total for each method of payment referred to in part (4).(6) On an itemised basis, what has been the cost of the Kosovar refugee commitment by the Government, including the costs of travel, accommodation, education, general health, dental care, and catering.13869Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) 3924 Kosovar evacuees were brought to Australia under the safe haven operation in May and June of this year. A further 31 babies have been born in Australia.(2) At 10 December there are 498 Kosovars remaining in Australia. Most of them (366) are located at Bandiana safe haven and (71) East Hills. There are 61 who reside in the community in Western Australia, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia.(3) One Kosovar evacuee is known to have broken the conditions of the temporary visa. I did not extend this evacuee's visa as I did for all other remaining Kosovar evacuees. This individual is now in Australia unlawfully. The evacuee violated conditions of the visa by working more than 20 hours per week and not notifying the Department of his whereabouts after leaving the haven. The police have also issued an arrest warrant for this individual regarding a break and enter matter. (4) The Australian Government introduced a Winter Reconstruction Allowance to assist returning Kosovar evacuees to re-establish their lives, homes and livelihoods when they returned to Kosovo. The allowance was $3000 per adult and $500 for each child (under 18 years).The Government announced the allowance on 24 August and it was available for all who returned before the end of October 1999.The allowance made good economic sense as the amount of the allowance was offset through savings in accommodation and other support costs of the safe havens. The allowance was attractive to the Kosovars as it represented close to two years' (pre-war) earnings for the average worker. It also allowed the Kosovars (many of whom had their homes and personal items looted and destroyed) a means to re-establish themselves before the European winter set in.The allowance was paid to 2268 Kosovars who left Australia between 31 August and 30 October 1999.A number of families were unable to leave before the end of October because of illness and I have agreed to pay them the allowance if they leave as soon as they are fit to travel.(5) The total cost of the WRA to date has been $4.1m.(6) The total Government commitment to Operation Safe Haven is $92.4m of which $49.9m has been allocated to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA), $25.4m to Department of Defence and $17.1m to Department of Health and Aged Care (DHAC). As the lead agency responsible for the overall co-ordination of the operation, DIMA has been responsible for meeting the costs of the following items: offshore processing, transport (to and from Australia and the Safe Havens), reception and social support (including education). At 30 October 1999 DIMA's total expenditure on the above items was $27m of which $.36m was spent on offshore processing, $14m on transport, $1.6m on reception and $11m on social support (including $3.3m on education). The Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care is funding the States for the provision of health services (including torture and trauma services) to Kosovar evacuees. DIMA is reimbursing DHAC for the costs of torture and trauma services. The health services being provided to the Kosovar evacuees are based on protocols developed by DHAC in consultation with the relevant States. The total expenditure on general health care (including torture and trauma services) to date has been $10.6m. This amount includes all health services including acute care and dental services. A split between dental and other health services is not yet available.The Department of Defence has been responsible for the providing accommodation and physical support at the havens. To date the Department of Defence has spent $24.7m on Operation Safe Haven of which $7.3m has been spent on accommodation and catering and $1.5m on on-arrival transport and providing a daily bus service for centre residents.13870(Question No. 1037)103713870Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 November 1999:(1) What is the annual sum allocated for Contact Centres that facilitate contact of children with separated parents.(2) For 1999-2000, (a) how many centres are funded, (b) by what sum are they funded and (c) in which electoral divisions are they located.13870Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Contact services are funded by the Attorney-General's Department, and administered by the Department of Family and Community Services through the Family Relationships Services Program. (1) The amount allocated through the Family Relationships Services Program in 1999-2000 for existing contact services is $1,200,691. However, the Government announced in the 1999 Budget an increase in funding for contact services of $15.4m over four years, commencing in the 1999-2000 financial year. The additional funding will be used to establish a further 25 contact services in urban and regional centres across Australia. (2) (a) There have been 10 contact services funded through this Program for 1999-2000 to date, however the service in Campbelltown, NSW closed last year and will be re-tendered shortly. As noted above, it is expected that there will be a further 25 services in operation before the end of the year.(b) The attached table specifies the amount of funding allocated to each existing contact service. (c) The attached table also specifies the electoral division in which each existing contact service is located. CHILDREN'S CONTACT SERVICES FUNDING AMOUNTORGANISATIONSTATE1999/2000ELECTORATE$Marymead Child and Family CentreACT78,481FraserCentral West Contact Services, Macquarie Legal Centre IncNSW165,634ParramattaCentacare Northern TerritoryNT66,522DarwinLogan West Community Centre IncQLD147,604BrisbaneBowden Brompton Community Legal Service IncSA110,025HindmarshRelationships Australia, TasmaniaTAS92,710DenisonBrimbank Community Centre IncVIC157,679BurkeMallee Family CareVIC120,047MalleeAnglicare Western AustraliaWA116,497PerthSUB-TOTAL1,055,199Campbelltown Service*NSW145,492WerriwaTOTAL1,200,691* Note: This is the amount allocated to the Campbelltown service for the full financial year. As that service closed during 1999, the full allocation will not be spent this financial year13871(Question No. 1040)104013871McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 22 November 1999:(1) Has the Government received a request from a representative of the people of East Timor for assistance in providing radio facilities for East Timor; if so, will the Government act on the request.(2) Will the Government recommission the broadcasting transmitters in Darwin previously operated by Radio Australia.13871McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:To date, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has not received a formal request from a representative of the people of East Timor for assistance in providing local radio facilities. However, he has received a number of representations, including those from the United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET) and local organisations such as the Australia East Timor Association and the Australian Council for Overseas Aid, seeking the recommissioning of the Cox Peninsula facility in order to provide a broadcast capability to East Timor.In light of these representations, the Government considered the possibility of recommissioning the Cox facility which ceased operating in 1997. After careful consideration, the Government concluded that no useful purpose would be served by such a move because the site is not configured to provide a service to East Timor. Radio Australia has advised that any region within a thousand kilometre radius of Darwin, including East Timor, could not expect a reliable broadcast service from the Cox Peninsula transmitter. Radio Australia has instead taken action to boost its service to East Timor from its Shepparton transmission site. Radio Australia is presently providing twenty hours of broadcasts daily to East Timor in English or Indonesian. These broadcasts include news, information and current affairs programming.The ABC has also chosen to lease offshore transmission facilities to extend Radio Australia's service coverage to Central and Western Indonesia, which are not accessible from the Shepparton site.Under this arrangement, Radio Australia is currently providing two hours of broadcasts daily to Central and Western Indonesia from leased Taiwanese facilities. I understand that the ABC is pursuing further leasing options.The ABC's decision demonstrates that the broadcaster is well able to increase its transmission capacity to the region without the need to reopen the Cox facility at great cost and some delay. It is Government's intention to offer an interim non exclusive licence to occupy the Cox Peninsula transmission site, pending resolution of the Kembi land claims under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.Although the Government does not propose to make carriage of Radio Australia a requirement of the tender process for the Cox facility, the Government would have no objection to Radio Australia using the Cox facility if it can come to a commercial agreement with the successful bidder.13872(Question No. 1042)104213872Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 November 1999: (1) Has the Australian Federal Police (AFP) completed its investigation into allegations that Mr Christopher Corrigan committed perjury while giving evidence in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission; if so, has the AFP referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP); if so, with what recommendations. (2) If the matter has been referred, what action has the DPP taken. (3) If the investigation has not been completed, what outstanding matters is the AFP investigating with respect to the allegations, and has the AFP questioned (a) Mr C Corrigan, (b) Mr P Scanlon, (c) Mr B Clayton, (d) Mr M Wells, (e) Mr P Kilfoyle or (f) Dr S Webster with respect to the allegations.13872Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1), (2) and (3) In line with a long standing policy adopted by successive governments I will not comment on current operational activities or confirm or deny whether the AFP is conducting particular inquiries.There are sound and proper operational and privacy considerations which prevent speculation on investigations that may or may not be conducted by the AFP.13872(Question No. 1043)104313872McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan5I4FraserALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 November 1999:(1) Did the Australian Taxation Office, together with the New Tax System Advisory Board, recently send poster-sized lists of New Tax System seminars, giving times, venues and dates, to electorate offices.(2) Were the seminars in the ACT conducted from 27 to 29 September 1999.(3) How many persons attended the seminars in the ACT.(4) Were lists sent to ACT Members on 20 October 1999; if so, was that 3 weeks after the final seminar for the ACT had been conducted.(5) Will additional seminars be conducted in the ACT.13872Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes.(2) Yes.(3) Records show 1,114 attended the 7 seminars held in the ACT. (4) Lists were included in a Media Kit that was sent to all Members and Senators on 22 September 1999, which was one week prior to the first seminar in the ACT being conducted. The seminars were advertised in national, metropolitan and regional newspapers in the week commencing 11 September 1999. Advertisements appeared in the Canberra Times on 11 September and 18 September 1999.(5) Additional seminars for the Charitable and Non-profit Sector were conducted in the ACT on 29 November, 3 December and 11 December 1999. The schedule of the Australian Taxation Office activities to follow up on the 1999 seminars is yet to be determined.13873(Question No. 1045)104513873Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 22 November 1999:Have any Australian forests obtained certification of sustainable forest management in accordance with the requirements of (a) the Forest Stewardship Council, (b) ISO 14000 or (c) similar certification systems; if so, what are the details.Is he able to say whether forest certification systems are in place in APEC countries; if so, (a) in what countries and (b) what specific certification schemes are in place.Has the Government adopted a formal attitude towards certification; if so, what are the details.13873Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Forestry and Conservation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1)(a) I am not aware of any Australian forests that have obtained certification under the Forest Stewardship Council's scheme.(b) I am advised that North Forests, operating in Tasmania, has obtained ISO14001 certification for its Environmental Management System (EMS) in December 1998.I am also advised that a number of state forestry agencies and some major private forest owners are in the process of developing their EMSs to the ISO14001 standard.(c) I am not aware of any alternative schemes currently operating in Australia. However in response to growing demands for certified timber, Australian Governments, in partnership with Australian forest owners and industries, have decided to sponsor the development of an Australian Forestry Standard. The standard will provide a basis for voluntary certification of forest management in Australia.(2) (a) and (b) The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has not done a comprehensive study of certification schemes operating in APEC countries. I am advised that considerable resources would be needed to research the answers to this question which would require an unreasonable diversion of the resources of the department. I am not aware of any consolidated study of certification conducted within APEC member countries.A review paper entitled International Approaches to Forest Management Certification and Labelling of Forest Products, produced for the Australian Government, provides comment on a range of countries, including some members of APEC. A copy has been placed in the Parliamentary Library.(3) One of this Government's primary policy goals in the forests area is for the adoption of sustainable forest management practices within all Australian forests. Sustainable forest management is a fundamental element of the National Forest Policy Statement to which the Government is firmly committed. It is also a foundation of the RFA processes that will guarantee the Australian forest industry security well into the future, while also providing a world class forest reserve system.Certification is one of many tools for promoting sustainable forest management. Currently, certification and labelling schemes are principally market driven and operate primarily without direct Government intervention. The Government has no policy of changing this approach provided that the market operates fairly, allows access to all forest growers and managers and schemes remain credible. By way of demonstrating a partnership approach to achieving sustainable forest management, rather than a more interventionist approach, the Federal Government is jointly sponsoring the development of the Australian Forestry Standard in partnership with industry and State and Territory Governments. The Australian Forestry Standard will set a domestic and international benchmark for the achievement of sustainable forest management. It will also be the basis by which independent third parties may audit the performance of Australian forest growers and managers, including for the purpose of certification.Recognising that the proliferation of International certification and labelling schemes have the potential to undermine the credibility of quality schemes, I have initiated International discussions on the issue. At my direction, Australian officials hosted an International meeting on certification and labelling, in New York, which was aimed at developing Australian understanding of certification and labelling issues and to present a model to ensure that schemes are comparable and to promote equivalence. This meeting was well received and has established Australia as a leader in international discussions on this issue. 13874(Question No. 1046)104613874Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 November 1999:(1) For which clasps of the (a) Australian Service Medal 1945-75, (b) Australian Active Service Medal 1945-75, (c) Australian Service Medal 1975- and (d) Australian Active Service Medal 1975- has eligibility been extended to (i) civilian Defence employees, (ii) civilian Defence contractors, (iii) accredited Red Cross and Salvation Army personnel and (iv) members of the Merchant Navy.(2) Has eligibility for any clasps of the medals referred to in part (1) been extended to any additional categories of civilian personnel; if so, what are the details.(3) What criteria are used to by the Government to determine whether the particular circumstances of a deployment justify the extension of eligibility for military medals to civilian personnel.13874Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The information on which clasps of (a) the Australian Service Medal 1945-75, (b) the Australian Active Service Medal 1945-75, (c) the current Australian Service Medal and (d) the current Australian Active Service Medal may be found in the Commonwealth of Australia Special Gazette Notices and Determinations which are held in the Parliamentary Library. Additionally, in order to be eligible for the Australian Active Service Medal 1945-75, personnel were required to meet the eligibility criteria for certain Imperial Awards. This information may be obtained from the London Gazette Notices which are held at the National Library.(2) Yes. Other prescribed Australian Government workers and Philanthropic Organisations. This information is available in the Commonwealth of Australia Special Gazette Notices and Determinations pertaining to the clasps to the awards of the Australian Active Service Medal 1945-75, Australian Service Medal 1945-75, Australian Active Service Medal and Australian Service Medal, also held in the Parliamentary Library.(3) The criterion used to justify the extension of eligibility for military medals to civilian personnel is whether or not the civilian personnel are directly supporting the Australian Defence Force in the theatre of operations of concern.13874(Question No. 1052)105213874Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 23 November 1999:(1) Who are the members of the Government's Rural Transaction Centre (RTC) Advisory panel.(2) What criteria are applied by the RTC Advisory Panel in the selection of RTCs.(3) Has the Government agreed to all the recommendations of the RTC Advisory Panel for selection of RTCs; if not, why not.(4) How many applications for RTCs were received in the first two funding rounds.(5) Which applications referred to in part (4) were rejected and from which House of Representatives' electoral divisions were they.(6) What applications for funding of RTCs were successful, what sum was granted in each case, and which House of Representatives' electoral divisions are successful RTCs located.13874Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The members of the Rural Transaction Centres Panel are: Carol Armstrong, NT. Pastoralist, involved with the School of the Air, NT Cattlemen's Association, Member of the Chief Minister's Women's Advisory Council. Jane Bennett, TAS. Cheese maker, President of the Tasmanian Rural Industry Training Board, Board Member of the Tasmanian Electronic Commerce Centre. 1997 Rural Woman of the Year. Russell Broadbent, VIC. Member for Corinella from 1990-1993 and McMillan from 1996-1998. Noel Hicks, NSW. Alderman of Broken Hill from 1971 to 1977, and Mayor from 1974-75 and 1976-77. Member for Riverina from 1980-1998. Andrew Hunter, NSW. Executive director of Teletask, founding co-ordinator of the Walcha Telecottage. Barry Moyle, QLD. Mayor of Johnstone Shire. Chair of the Johnstone Farmers Council and member of the Regional Advisory Committee.Ruth Robinson, SA. Runs family property. Former Branch Chairman of the SA Farmers' Federation.Dr John Stone, QLD. Local government councillor, medical practitioner, and company director.David Taylor, WA. Retired General Manager of Business Banking at BankWest.(2) Applications for Project Assistance under the RTC Programme are considered against the following eligibility criteria. The criteria are not listed in order of importance and applications will not necessarily have to meet all of the criteria to be successful.The existing availability of services and the likelihood of services being provided in the near future by other providers;The extent of community support and management;The extent to which the applicant and others will contribute;The extent of support from State/Territory and local government and the relationships with their initiatives, such as one stop shops and telecentres where appropriate;The long-term viability of the project after Federal Government assistance ceases; andThe environmental and heritage impact of the project.(3) The Advisory Panel does not make recommendations to the Minister. To date the Minister has taken account of the advice of the Advisory Panel and his decisions have been consistent with the Panel's assessments in relation to all applications considered.(4) 17 applications for Project Assistance and 47 applications for Business Planning Assistance were considered in the first two funding rounds.(5) In Rounds 1 and 2 the following eight applications were not approved for funding. One application, from Dargo Community Group Inc. was referred to the Rural Communities Programme for consideration. ApplicantType of ApplicationElectorateMurilla Shire CouncilPAMaranoaShire of KojonupBPO'ConnorKilkivan Shire CouncilPAWide BayYowah Opal Mining Community Services Inc.BPMaranoaCity of PlayfordPABonythonDargo Community Group Inc.BPGippslandMacedon Ranges Shire CouncilBPBurkeShire of DowerinBPO'Connor(6) The following 10 applications for Project Assistance Funding to establish RTCs were successful in Rounds 1 and 2 of the programme: Cabonne Council (Eugowra)Calare130,000Gresford Community GroupPaterson100,000ApplicantElectorateSum Granted $Urana Shire CouncilFarrer120,000Aramac Shire CouncilCapricornia70,000Crows Nest & District Tourist & Progress AssociationBlair38,000Dirranbandi Progress Association IncMaranoa110,000Kalbar Regional Organisation for Promotion (KROP)Forde60,000District Council of Barunga West-Port BroughtonGrey120,000St Marys Association for Community DevelopmentLyons84,190Welshpool & District Advisory Group IncGippsland140,000TOTAL$972,19013876(Question No. 1055)105513876Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 November 1999:(1) How many individual projects has Australia contributed to as part of efforts on micro credit within the Overseas Aid Budget.(2) How many organisations referred to in part (1) were already operating prior to the aid contribution.(3) What were the estimated start-up costs of those organisations which were not already operating.13876Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) On current estimates Australia has contributed to approximately 132 projects involving microcredit or microfinance within the overseas aid budget over the period 1996/97 to 1998/99. This is the period for which we have readily available disaggregated figures on microfinance activities. The level of microfinance in different projects varies substantially, from 100 percent down to less than 5 percent.(2) Project documentation indicates that most of the organisations referred to in (1) were already existing. (3) As indicated in (2) above, most organisations funded already existed. It is possible that some microfinance projects funded through Australian Non Government Organisations (NGOs) involved the establishment of microfinance organisations. However, AusAID does not maintain information on start-up costs of such activities. 13876(Question No. 1056)105613876Albanese, Anthony, MPMr AlbaneseR36GrayndlerALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 23 November 1999:(1) As of 22 November 1999, how many applicants for the visa subclass (a) 103 and (b) 804 had been given a queue date.(2) As of the 22 November 1999, how many applicants for the visa subclass (a) 103 and (b) 804 were still being processed and had not yet been given a queue date.(3) In the 12 months from 22 November 1998 to 22 November 1999, (a) how many applicants for visa subclass 309 or 100 have been refused under section 501(2) of the Migration Act as it applied prior to 1 June 1999, or section 501(1) having not passed the Character Test as a result of paragraph 501(6)(c) of the Migration Act after 1 June 1999, and (b) what is the breakdown of numbers for each overseas post.(4) Of the applicants refused 309 or 100 visas under these particular provisions of the Migration Act in the 12 months from 22 November 1998 to 22 November 1999, how many had (a) previously unsuccessfully applied for Onshore Protection Visas, (b) lodged appeals through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, (c) been convicted of a criminal offence in Australia and (d) been convicted of a criminal offence in Australia relating to their application for an Onshore Protection Visa. (5) Has he or his Department given any directions to overseas posts regarding the interpretation of these particular provisions of the Migration Act when assessing spouse visa applications; if so, what were the directions given.13877Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) As of 22 November 1999 there were 3,619 offshore parent (103) applicants and approximately 386 onshore aged parent (804) applicants who had been given a queue date.(2) As of 22 November 1999 there were 11,567 parent (103) applicants that were still being processed and had not yet received a queue date.Due to some temporary difficulties with the new onshore reporting system (which are currently being resolved), I am advised that a precise count of the number of onshore parent subclass (804) applications on hand is not available. An estimate is that the number as at 22 November would be slightly higher than the 3,462 aged parent (804) applicants who were still being processed and had not received a queue date as at the end of June 1999.(3) (a) In the 12 months from 22 November 1998 to 22 November 1999, the number of applications refused for visa subclasses 309 or 100 under the sections of the Act identified in the question was 27. (b) The breakdown of this number by overseas post is in the table below. POSTApplications for visa subclasses 309 or 100 refused under subsection 501(2) of the Migration Act as it applied prior to 1 June 1999, or s501(1) having not passed the Character Test as a result of paragraph 501(6)(c) of the Migration Act after 1 June 1999Ankara0Athens0Auckland2Bangkok2Beijing0Beirut1Belgrade0Berlin/Bonn0Cairo0Colombo0Guangzhou0Ho Chi Minh City1Hong Kong0Islamabad0Jakarta0Kuala Lumpur0London2Los Angeles0Manchester0Manila17Moscow0Mumbai0Nairobi0New Delhi0Ottawa0Paris1Phnom Penh0Port Moresby0Pretoria0Santiago0Seoul0Shanghai0Singapore0Suva1Tokyo0Vienna0Warsaw0Washington0(4) Of the applicants refused 309 or 100 visas under the particular provisions of the Migration Act in the 12 months from 22 November 1998 to 22 November 1999: (a) 18 had previously applied unsuccessfully for Onshore Protection Visas; (b) two had lodged appeals through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; (c) one had been convicted of a criminal offence in Australia; and (d) none had been convicted of a criminal offence in Australia relating to their application for an Onshore Protection Visa.The answers to question 4 are as advised by overseas posts.(5) The directions that have been given to overseas posts regarding the interpretation of subsection 501(2) are;(a) Ministerial Direction No. 5: General Direction under Section 499-Visa Refusal under Section 501 [issued on 25 November 1997]Ministerial Direction No 17: Direction under Section 499-Visa Refusal and Cancellation under Section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 [issued on 16 June 1999].The following Departmental policy instructions have also been issued:(b) Migration Series Instruction 164: The Character Requirement. [Issued 22 April 1997](c) Migration Series Instruction 245: The Character Requirement: Visa Refusal and Cancellation under Section 501. [Issued 2 July 1999]Migration Series Instruction 254: The Character Requirement: Visa Refusal and Cancellation under Section 501. [Issued 20 September 1999]13878(Question No. 1057)105713878Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 November 1999:(1) Further to question No. 974 (Hansard, 6 December 1999, page 12917), has he or his Department obtained a copy of the article The Elgin Marbles: Questions of Stewardship and Accountability written byWilliam St Clair and published by Oxford University Press at pages 391-521 of Volume 8 (1999) Number 2 of the International Journal of Cultural Property.(2) Will he and his Department take account of the article in reviewing the question of the Parthenon marbles.(3) Has his attention been drawn to representations by the US President to the British Prime Minister arguing for the return of the Parthenon marbles to Athens; if so, will those representations change Australia's position on the matter.13878Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows:(1) Should a copy be required, one could be obtained from various library sources.(2) The position of the Australian Government on the question of the Parthenon marbles remains unaltered as was reaffirmed in the answer to question 974 of 12 October 1999. Should a review be undertaken we would of course take account of all relevant material. (3) I am not aware of any representations the US President may have made to the British Prime Minister on this matter. Australia's position remains nevertheless unchanged.13879(Question No. 1060)106013879Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 November 1999:(1) How will the GST apply (a) to a house built, owned and lived in by an owner builder prior to 1 July 2000 and first sold after 1 July 2000 and (b) to a house built and lived in after 1 July 2000 by an owner-builder prior to sale. (2) Why did the Government decide to treat owner-builder residences in the way outlined in part (1).13879Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) In both cases, a house built, owned and lived in by an owner builder would qualify as a new home under the definition of `new residential premises' in the GST Act because it has not previously been sold as a residential premise. However, whether the purchase of materials and equipment to build the house are creditable acquisitions, and whether the sale of the house is a taxable supply, will depend on the circumstances.Where the owner-builder acts in a private and not a business capacity and constructs a house for use as a private residence, and then sells it, the house would be neither constructed nor sold in the course of carrying out an enterprise. Therefore the sale is not a taxable supply but an input taxed supply. The owner builder will not be entitled to input tax credits for any GST paid on acquisitions of materials and equipment to build the house, and will not be accountable for GST on the sale. Where an owner builder constructs a house in the course of carrying out an enterprise, for instance, where a builder constructs a house with the intention of selling it, the sale would be subject to GST. The owner-builder would be able to claim input tax credits and an income tax deduction in respect of the construction costs. Where a builder adopts a pattern whereby he constructs and lives in a number of homes over a relatively short period of time, say a home a year for three or four years, the builder would be regarded as undertaking an enterprise of house construction and sale because it is clear that his sole purpose of construction is not his own domestic use. In this case the sale of the new premises would be a taxable supply.(2) The Government has decided on this treatment to ensure comparable treatment to other owner occupiers.It is only where builders construct and sell homes in the course of carrying out an enterprise that GST will apply.13879(Question No. 1066)106613879Griffin, Alan, MPMr GriffinVU5BruceALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 6 December 1999:(1) Does Section 38-47 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act covering other GST-free health goods state that a supply is GST-free if it is a supply of goods of a kind that the Health Minister, by determination in writing, declares to be goods the supply of which is GST-free.(2) Is there a process for applying for the determination: if so, what is it.(3) Has the process been made public.(4) Have any products or class of products already been exempted; if so, (a) which products or class of products and (b) what was the reason for their exemption.(5) Has the Government received any applications requesting certain products or classes of products to be exempted; if so, (a) who made the request, (b) which products or classes of products were included, (c) what was the decision and why was it made and (d) who was consulted.(6) What criteria are used to decide which products will be GST-free under this section and who was consulted in the development of the criteria. (7) Is there a mechanism for appeal.(8) If a product is already free from sales and wholesale sales tax due to its status as a public health product, will it still attract GST.(9) What is the estimated loss of GST revenue from the exemption of goods specifically covered by this section.(10) Is this an on-going process.(11) Are people who suffer from eczema and psoriasis considered to be sick for the purposes of this section.13880Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) to (6) Subsection 38-47 of A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 was inserted into the legislation to give effect to the Government's agreement to extend GST-free status to sunscreens, folate pills, condoms and lubricants. Whilst the sub-section provides discretion for other products to be included in the Health Minister's determination, the Commonwealth intends to seek the approval of the Ministerial Council to include only the above products at this stage. In these circumstances, applications for other products have not been assessed.The products that will be GST-free under this sub-section were agreed in negotiations between the Government and the Australian Democrats.(7) The determination is of a legislative character, so would not ordinarily be subject to judicial review in the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. It is however a disallowable instrument. It is a requirement that disallowable instruments be gazetted and tabled in each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days after being made. Such instruments may be 'disallowed' by a House in the next 15 sitting days, in which case the instrument ceases to have effect. (8) The Department has not examined products currently free from sales or wholesale sales tax to see whether the exemption under Section 38-47 should be extended to them. However, many other health and aged care products/services are GST-free.(9) It is estimated that the total cost to revenue of making condoms, lubricants, folate pills and all sunscreens GST-free would be in the order of $15 million annually.(10) See answer to question two to question 6.(11) Creams and other products for eczema and psoriasis which are prescribed by a medical practitioner; or are restricted such that they can be bought in a pharmacy only, or on the advice of a pharmacist only, will be GST free. This is consistent with the treatment of all other ailments. 13880(Question No. 1070)107013880Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr Ripoll83EOxleyALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 6 December 1999:(1) How many aged persons does the Government estimate will qualify for the Aged Persons Savings Bonus component under subsection 23(3) in Part 3 of A New Tax System (Bonuses for Older Australians) Act.(2) How many qualifying persons does the Government expect will receive less than $500 under the scheme.(3) How many aged persons does the Government expect will receive no bonus at all.13880Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) 345,000 members of the veteran community.(2) 100,500 of the veteran community.(3) My Department does not hold income information for the entire Australian population of aged persons, and as such it is unable to estimate the number of aged persons who will receive no bonus at all.13880(Question No. 1071)107113881Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 6 December 1999:(1) In each Queensland Centrelink office since 1 January 1998, (a) how many and (b) what types, including (i) forced, (ii) voluntary, (iii) non-bona fide and (iv) bona fide, of redundancies have been offered.(2) What criteria were applied to determined the type of redundancy offered.(3) What tax is applicable to each type of redundancy offered.13881Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Redundancies since 1 January 1998 - Centrelink Queensland Offices LocationForcedVoluntaryTotalBona fideNon-bona fideBrisbane Area Support Officenil8585Annerleynil18220Bundabergnil1111Caboolturenil2121Caloundranil44Chermsidenil1919Chermside Student Services Centrenil314Control Review & Recovery, Brisbanenil25227Fortitude Valleynil26329Gympienil1414Hervey Baynil55Indooroopilly Student Services Centrenil33Maroochydoornil1313Maryboroughnil1010Mitcheltonnil88Mt Gravattnil1616Nambournil819Nundahnil12719Redcliffenil819Strathpinenil77Stones Cornernil1616Toowongnil12416Wynnumnil7916National Pay Centre Brisbanenil88Area Support Office, Central North Qldnil1717Aitkenvalenil99Cairnsnil4343Gladstonenil1111Mackaynil2020Mt Isanil1414Rockhamton Student Assistance Centrenil11Rockhamptonnil2222Townsvillenil77Westcourtnil213Youth & Student Services nil9110Area Support Office Pacific Centralnil4343Beenleighnil1313Biggera Watersnil1919Dalbynil11Goodnanil77Inalanil1515Ipswichnil1111Nerangnil1111Palm beachnil2525Robinanil22Southportnil1313Toowoombanil2121Warwicknil99Woodridgenil1717Audit & Evaluation Brisbanenil11Call Centre Brisbanenil22Computer Service Centre Brisbanenil99Total73134765Note: The determination of bona fide or non-bona fide refers to the taxation treatment of severance benefits for voluntary redundancies. (2) Redundancies in Centrelink are determined in accordance with the Centrelink Development Agreement (page 88) in which an excess employee is defined: (i) “The employee is included in a group of employees, as defined by the delegate, where there is a greater number of employees working at a particular level than is necessary for the efficient and economical working of Centrelink;(ii) The services of the employee cannot be effectively used because of technological or other changes in the work methods of Centrelink or changes in the nature, extent or organisation of the functions of Centrelink; or(iii) The duties usually performed by the employee are to be performed at a different locality within Centrelink, the employee is not willing to perform duties at that locality and the delegate has determined that these provisions will apply to that employee.” Where an excess staff situation is identified ie: 2(i) or 2(iii) above, employees are consulted and are invited to express interest, or are invited to accept voluntary redundancy. (3) Redundancies under 2(i) and 2(iii) above would normally be deemed bona fide under Taxation Ruling 94/12. Severance benefits for these redundancies are taxed at the concessional rate.Redundancies granted under 2(ii) above are deemed non-bona fide on advice from the Australian Taxation Office and are therefore taxed at the marginal rate.13882(Question No. 1072)107213882Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 6 December 1999:(1) Did he state in his answer to question No. 712 (Hansard, 24 August 1999, page 8981) that considerable resources would be required to research the answer to the question across the portfolio which would represent an unwarranted diversion of the resources of the Department. (2) Is he able to say whether answers to that question have been provided by all Ministers, except the Minister for Justice and Customs and the Attorney-General.(3) Will he now answer the question; if not, why is his Department the only Department unable to provide the information sought.13883Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Forestry and Conservation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry answered question No. 712 on my behalf.(2) Whether or not other Ministers have answered that question will be a matter of public record.(3) I am still advised that considerable resources would be required to research the answers to these questions across the portfolio. This would still represent an unwarranted diversion of the resources of the department. A diversion that I am still not prepared to authorise.13883(Question No. 1073)107313883Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 6 December 1999:(1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in The Canberra Times on the 23rd November 1999 which reported that his Department had squirreled away $100m from the sale of DAS businesses to meet future efficiency savings payments.(2) Was a sum of this magnitude from the sale of DAS businesses not paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) in 1998-99; if so, (a) what was the sum involved, (b) why was the sum not paid into the CRF and (c) was advice sought from the Auditor-General or the Attorney-General's Department on the appropriateness of this treatment; if so, what was the nature of the advice.(3) Was any of this sum used to fund Departmental outlays or meet the efficiency dividends from departmental restructuring detailed on pages 1 to 35 of the 1998-99 Budget Paper No. 2.13883Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) There was no sum from the sale of former DAS businesses paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) during the 1998-99 period as there were no sales of DAS businesses undertaken or completed during 1998-99. During 1997-98, however, a total of approximately $440m was received by the Commonwealth as proceeds from the sale of several former DAS businesses and these funds were remitted to the Consolidated Revenue Fund by OASITO.(3) No. The efficiency dividends from Departmental restructuring were fully funded from within the department's running cost forward estimates.13883(Question No. 1076)107613883Hollis, Colin, MPMr HollisDH4ThrosbyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 December 1999:(1) Is he able to say what action has been taken to (a) identify those persons responsible for the injuries inflicted upon, and subsequent death of, Mr Santose Budi, radio operator of the MV Glory Cape offPort Hedland on 31 October 1995 and (b) punish those responsible for the ill-treatment of the remaining Indonesian crew members of the MV Glory Cape at the time Mr Budi was attacked by the ship's Chinese and Korean officers and crew.(2) Has action been taken by the Government to ensure that the MV GloryCape's flag state investigated Mr Budi's death and prosecuted those responsible.(3) Has the MV Glory Cape called at an Australian port since the incident; if not, is he able to provide details on the ship's present status and location.13883Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a)The issue of the fatality on board the Glory Cape on 1 November 1995 was the subject of a finding by the District Coroner at Port Hedland on 7 May 1997. A copy of this finding has been provided to the Table Office. (b) The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) advised the Panamanian maritime administration of the incident. However, AMSA has been unable to determine what actions the Panamanian authorities have taken in response to their representation.(2) The circumstances surrounding the incident on the Glory Cape were considered by the Western Australian State Police in preparing their report for the Coroner. In addition, the issues which fell within AMSA's safety jurisdiction were addressed as part of the normal port State control process. The Panamanian maritime administration was advised of the incident involving the vessel. The recent Ship Safe Report highlighted this incident and the Government has accepted a recommendation for further action.(3) It is reported that in April 1997, the vessel was sold to Greek interests and later, in August that year, the vessel was renamed the SD Glory under Panamanian registry. Information available to AMSA indicates that under the name of Glory Cape, the vessel did not return to Australia following the incident at Dampier in November 1995. However, following the change of name in mid-1997, it has been reported that the vessel made three calls at Australia to pick up cargoes of coal, sugar and grain.13884(Question No. 1079)107913884Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 7 December 1999:(1) Is he able to say what is the cause of the delay in WA enacting legislation complementary to the International Transfer of Prisoners Act which would allow it to participate in the scheme.(2) When does he expect WA to pass the complementary legislation.(3) How quickly could Australia enter into an international agreement with the US to enable the transfer of prisoners between both countries, once domestic legislation is in place.13884Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) I am advised that the delay in the WA Government introducing complementary legislation on this matter has been due to two main factors the need to resolve with the WA Government important issues relating to the administration of the transfer scheme and the other competing legislative priorities of the WA Government. I am advised that the issues relating to the administration of the scheme were satisfactorily resolved and a bill was introduced into the WA Parliament on 17 June 1999. However, due to the proroguing of the WA Parliament at the end of the Autumn Session that year, the bill lapsed and was re-introduced on 14 September 1999.(2) I am advised that the WA Parliament is expected to pass the bill during its Autumn Session this year.(3) I am advised that it is not possible to provide a firm timetable regarding the entry into force of international agreements under the scheme, as the Commonwealth will need to finalise administrative arrangements with the participating States and Territories once all of the domestic legislation is in place. With respect to transfers between Australia and the US, the Government proposes to seek to accede to the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, to which the US is already a party. The Government hopes that transfers pursuant to this agreement will commence this year. 13884(Question No. 1080)108013884Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 December 1999:Since the conclusion of the waterfront dispute is he able to say whether the Chairman of Lang Corporation or Patrick Stevedores has made comments relating to the cost to importers and exporters of importing or exporting goods. If so (a) do the statement relate to prices for Australian importers and exporters and (b) what are the prices.Has the Government made approaches to Patrick Stevedores or Lang Corporation about the need to pass on the benefits of the increased productivity, particularly the higher crane rate lift, to Australian importers and exporters. 13885Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Evidence given to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee by the Chairman of Patrick Stevedores, Mr Corrigon on 27 August 1999 related in part to charges for stevedoring services.Mr Corrigon stated stevedoring charges are less than 50% in real terms of what they were 12 years ago. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) also found that while there have not been significant reductions in stevedoring charges, the current level of charges are similar to levels achieved during a stevedoring price war in 1996. This represents a continuing and significant cost saving to shipping lines that, in turn, contributes to lower freight charges for Australia's international trade.Mr Corrigon gave no specific information relating to stevedoring charges and stated the Government did not ask for specific undertakings in relation to future stevedoring charges. Mr Corrigon stated charges for services are a matter of commercial negotiations between the respective parties.Patrick and P&O Ports, the two major stevedores, have both committed to the Government's benchmarking objectives for waterfront reform. They were not asked to provide specific undertakings in relation to future stevedoring charges other than a commitment not to pass on the current levy which will repay the funds provided by Government to ensure all stevedoring employees made redundant as part of the reform process received full redundancy requirements. The latest report from the ACCC states the stevedoring company's are absorbing this levy.13885(Question No. 1085)108513885Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 December 1999:(1) When will the Government make a decision on whether or not a second Sydney airport will be constructed at Badgerys Creek.(2) What consideration has the Government given to the concerns of western Sydney residents regarding (a) potential aircraft noise impacts, (b) air quality impacts in regard to community health, (c) water quality and (d) lifestyle change.(3) What consideration has the Government given to the close location of the airport to Warragamba Dam, a major water supply to the Sydney area.(4) Has the Government given further consideration to building a second airport outside the Sydney basin; if not, why not.(5) Has the Government considered the proposal of a high speed train linking Sydney with an airport outside the overcrowded Sydney basin; in not, why not.(6) Has a cost benefit study been undertaken into the Badgerys Creek proposal.13885Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Government is actively considering how best to meet Sydney's future airport needs.(2) Aircraft noise, air quality, water quality, lifestyle change and a wide range of other potential environmental impacts were addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the second Sydney airport proposal. The Final EIS, which was released on 30 June 1999, took into account the issues raised in the submissions on the Draft EIS and the comments from the independent auditor. In a statement on 3 September 1999, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator the Hon Robert Hill, indicated that the EIS was the most rigorous and comprehensive in Australia's history. His review of the EIS found no insurmountable environmental issue that would prevent the project proceeding, although the cumulative impacts of the proposal would require careful environmental management. Senator Hill also made a number of recommendations to ensure that the environmental management regime would be consistent with worlds best practice. These recommendations are under consideration.(3) The possible hazards and risks to the Warragamba Dam from aircraft using an airport at Badgerys Creek were specifically addressed in the EIS. (4) The EIS discussed suggested alternative sites for a second airport both inside and outside the Sydney basin. (5) The EIS discussed the feasibility of servicing an airport outside the Sydney basin with a high speed train. (6) A detailed benefit cost analysis of the Badgerys Creek proposal was included in the EIS Supplement published in June 199913886(Question No. 1086)108613886Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 7 December 1999: (1) What sum has the Government allocated to each community based child care centre in the electoral division of Prospect in 1999-2000.(2) Is this level of funding a decrease or an increase on previous years' funding for each centre.(3) What will be the level of funding for each child care centre in the electoral division of Prospect in 2000-01.(4) According to current needs based planning, which suburbs in western Sydney have the greatest need for child care facilities.(5) In which suburbs of Sydney has there been the highest rate of growth in the child care sector.(6) What is the average family income in Sydney suburbs which have received the highest sum in child care funding in 1999-2000.(7) Will the Minister extend needs based planning controls after the current allocation period finishes on 31 December 1999; if not, why not.13886Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) (2) (3) (5) and (6) The detailed information required to answer the honourable member's question is not readily available in a consolidated form. To collect and assemble such information solely for the purpose of answering the honourable member's question would be a major task and I am not prepared to authorise the expenditure of resources and effort that would be involved.(4) According to the latest high need area determination (July 1999) which determines the type of care required by location, the suburbs in western Sydney that have been identified as requiring additional care are:. Parramatta - for centre based long day care, baby care only (0 - 18 months old); . Baulkham Hills - for Before & After School Hours Care and Vacation Care only.(7) I have not sought to extend the legislation limiting new centre based long day care places that expired on 31 December 1999. It was not extended because the limit of 7,000 places was not met in either year of the supply limit period. With demand being well met in many areas, growth in new places is expected to be steady over the next few years. The Government is keen to ensure that new growth is well targeted and therefore will be working closely with local government and other key sectors to encourage the establishment of services only in areas of high need. We are closely monitoring trends in the sector and if necessary have the capacity under the family assistance legislation, currently before Parliament, to reintroduce a supply limit for long day care centres. The legislation will take effect from 1 July 2000.13886(Question No. 1087)108713886McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 December 1999:(1) Has an attempt been made to implement Mode 8 of the Long Term Operating Plan at Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport.(2) Is it the case that that attempt has been postponed due to software problems and that those software problems, if unaddressed, will cause problems with approaching aircraft and TAAATS implementation. (3) Will he arrange for an independent safety audit to be undertaken of the effectiveness of any replacement software.(4) What are the complexities involving Mode 8 which were identified in the draft Long Term Operating Plan and what has the Government done to address or overcome those complexities.13887Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am advised that Mode 8 of the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) at Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport is available for implementation.(2) Airservices Australia advises that implementation of Mode 8 of LTOP was delayed in order to upgrade the Surface Movement Radar to display changes to the aerodrome layout resulting from extensive taxiway work undertaken by Sydney Airports Corporation Ltd.(3) Airservices Australia advises that, in accordance with normal practice, a safety case has been completed for Mode 8.(4) Airservices Australia advises that many of the complexities identified in LTOP are being overcome by the upgrade to the Surface Movement Radar and proposed workload redistribution in the Control Tower.13887(Question No. 1093)109313887Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 8 December 1999:Was the issue of microeconomic reform one of the Government's reasons for its involvement with the Patrick Stevedores vs MUA dispute. If so, was one aspect of microeconomic reform the lowering of costs to importers and exporters via a greater per hour crane life at Melbourne and other Australian ports.What was the price of loading (a) full, (b) half and (c) quarter container with Patrick Stevedores (i) prior to the Patrick MUA dispute and (ii) on 8 December 1999.13887Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Government's objective for waterfront reform is to boost productivity, lower costs, improve reliability, emphasise skills and training, and introduce an effective occupational health and safety regime. The approach taken by Government in conjunction with the stevedores has set in train a durable reform process predicated on the notion of continuous improvement that will lead to Australia finally having a reliable, efficient and world class waterfront.Because of their commercial value the details of contractual arrangements between the stevedores and their customers are not released. However, as part of the monitoring associated with the Government's waterfront reform package the Treasurer has directed the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to monitor prices, costs and profits relating to the supply of container terminal stevedoring services in a number of ports. The aim being to provide information about the progress of waterfront reform at the terminals and on whether the stevedores have absorbed the cost of the current levy. The ACCC has released its first report covering the period February 1999 to June 1999. The report states that the stevedores have absorbed the cost of the levy. It also contains a general analysis of the structure of the stevedoring industry and historical trends in stevedoring charges.13887(Question No. 1095)109513887McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 8 December 1999:(1) Is it a fact that (a) Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport (KSA) serves 53 international, national and regional carriers, (b) KSA handles 45% of Australia's total flights, or 275 000 aircraft movements a year, yet it occupies the smallest piece of land of any of the country's major airports and (c) in terms of commercial aviation movements, KSA is an Asia Pacific leader and that KSA ranks comparably with New York's LaGuardia and JFK airports, and well ahead of Singapore's Changi airport and Tokyo's Haneda airport. (2) Has his attention been drawnto claims by Qantas pilots that KSA is the most disorganised airport in their network.(3) Is he concerned by the pilots' concerns and what steps will he take to ensure that the pilots' concerns are addressed.13888Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) At 30 June 1999, Sydney KSA was served by a total of 53 carriers, including 38 international scheduled airlines (including 6 cargo airlines and excluding codeshare services). There were also 2 domestic airlines (Ansett and Qantas) and 13 regional airlines operating scheduled services at the airport.(1) (b) Sydney KSA handled an estimated 249,750 scheduled airline aircraft movements in the 1998/99 year, accounting for 43.7% of Australia's scheduled international airline aircraft movements, 21.9% of domestic airline aircraft movements (Ansett and Qantas) and an estimated 14.3% of regional airline aircraft movements. Fixed wing aircraft activity at Sydney KSA amounted to some 273,644 aircraft movements in the 1998/99 year.Sydney KSA occupies a land area of 881 hectares, while the newer Melbourne Tullamarine airport has an area of 2,365 hectares, Brisbane airport covers 2,685 hectares and Australia's fourth major airport, Perth airport is 2,110 hectares in area. Australia's other major airports include Adelaide airport with an area of 762 hectares and Hobart airport with 499 hectares while Darwin airport is situated on 306 hectares.(1) (c) According to the Airports Council International's annual worldwide traffic report for 1998, Sydney KSA, with a total of 279,152 aircraft movements (including helicopter movements), ranked as the world's 49th busiest airport. New York's JFK airport ranked 35th with 362,182 aircraft movements and New York's La Guardia airport ranked 36th with 358,045 aircraft movements in 1998. The highest ranked Asian airport was Tokyo's Haneda airport with 236,695 aircraft movements (ranked 68th). Bangkok airport in Thailand ranked 98th with 178,458 aircraft movements and Singapore's Changi airport ranked 100th with 177,372 aircraft movements in 1998.The United States of America (USA) remains the world's leading aviation market with 39 of the top 50 ranked airports. The 451,373 aircraft movements at London's Heathrow airport ranked that airport at number 17, the highest ranked non-USA airport.No.(3) NA.13888(Question No. 1096)109613888McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 8 December 1999:(1) Has the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) claimed that noise sharing policies have forced aircraft to land outside International Civil Aviation Organisation standards, which stipulate that landing aircraft operate within a maximum of 15kt. crosswinds and 5 kt. tailwind.(2) Has a BASI investigation found that aircraft have been requested to land with crosswinds of up to 25 kt., concluding that the landings produced the undesirable effects of reduced safety margins and increased complexity of the surrounding airspace.(3) Have there been international incidents in the last 3 years, when aircraft have been forced off a runway by crosswinds in excess of 15 kt; if so what were the circumstances of those incidents.(4) Is it Government policy that safety should prevail over noise sharing modes of operation; if so what steps has he taken to ensure that safety considerations are given that priority.13888Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. In the BASI Air Safety Report Systemic Investigation into Factors Underlying Air Safety Occurrences in Sydney Terminal Area Airspace, Section 1.10 Operators states:“Operators of high-capacity aircraft were concerned about the crosswind component of 25 kts that was acceptable for the continued use of runway modes at Sydney. The `close-set' parallel runways 16/34 and the short length of 25/07 and 34R/16L, were cited as the reason for this concern. Whilst most agreed that it was within the crosswind capability of both the aircraft and the flight crews to use these runways in significant crosswind, there was general agreement that it had served to erode the safety margin. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has recommended that compliance with published noise abatement procedures should not be required in `adverse operating conditions' such as when `the crosswind component, including gusts, exceeds 15 kts'. It was reported that the International Federation of Airline Pilots Association (IFALPA) has recently `black banned' the Amsterdam airport following an accident in which a Boeing 757 veered off the runway whilst the flight crew was attempting to land the aircraft in similar crosswind conditions. Amsterdam airport has similar noise-sharing requirements and crosswind policies to Sydney.” The Bureau also noted that the Australian Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) Sydney noise abatement procedures allow for the continued use of dry runways with a crosswind component of up to 25 kts and a downwind component of up to 5 kts. Continued use of wet runways is permissible with a crosswind component of up to 25 kts with no downwind component, or a crosswind of up to 15 kts with a downwind component of up to 5 kts.(2) The BASI Air Safety Report Systemic Investigation into Factors Underlying Air Safety Occurrences in Sydney Terminal Area Airspace, Section 3.0 Findings states: “The current policy of operating the short runways at Sydney with up to 25 kts of crosswind has reduced safety margins for arriving and departing aircraft and has increased the complexity of the surrounding airspace when some aircraft operationally require alternative runway for arrival or departure.”As a consequence of this finding, BASI issued Recommendation R980164.“Airservices Australia, in conjunction with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, reconsider the current policy of routinely operating the short runways at Sydney with up to 25 kts crosswind when other runway options are available.”In response CASA undertook a review of the 25 knots crosswind criteria and this review involved consultations with Airservices, the aviation industry and the pilots' associations. Following that review CASA indicated that it considered that the practice of routinely operating runways with up 25 knots of crosswind before initiating a change of nominated runway does not pose an unacceptable safety hazard.(3) Yes. The Bureau is currently aware of one incident - please refer to the answer to Question 1.(4) Yes. In establishing the noise sharing arrangements at Sydney Airport under the Airport's Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) the former Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon John Sharp, formally directed Airservices Australia to undertake formal safety analyses of the operational components of the Plan prior to their implementation. Airservices Australia advises that a safety case was undertaken for each stage of LTOP implementation. The safety cases found that the various procedures to implement LTOP were safe to introduce and implementation was conditional on safety requirements identified in the safety cases being in place. 13889(Question No. 1099)109913889McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 8 December 1999:(1) Has his attention been drawn to claims made by the Air Traffic Controllers union that all the attention on noise has made Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport (KSA) dangerous and that landing conditions at Sydney are ludicrous.(2) What steps will he take to address those concerns.13889Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) Safety factors have been the overriding consideration in establishing the noise sharing regime at Sydney Airport. In establishing these arrangements under the Sydney Airport Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) the former Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon John Sharp, directed Airservices Australia to undertake formal safety analyses of the operational components of the Plan prior to their implementation. Airservices Australia advises that a safety case was undertaken for each phase of LTOP implementation. 13890(Question No. 1100)110013890McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 8 December 1999:(1) How many subclass 676 visitor visa applications were made in (a) Pakistan, (b) the UK and (c) the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in each year over the period 1995 to 1999.(2) How many subclass 676 visitor visa applications were rejected each year over the period 1995 to 1999 from (a) Pakistan, (b) the UK and (c) the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.(3) How many subclass 676 visitor visa applications were rejected on the second application each year over the period 1995 to 1999 from (a) Pakistan, (b) the UK and (c) the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.(4) How many subclass 676 visitor visa applications were rejected on the third application each year over the period 1995 to 1999 from (a) Pakistan, (b) the UK and (c) the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.13890Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) It is not possible to provide all of the historical data that the honourable member has requested as prior to November 1998 only information on visa grants was sent from overseas posts to the Department's Central Office in Canberra. The number of applications made by citizens of FYROM prior to November 1998 is not available. I can say, however, that during the years 1995/96, 1996/97 and 1997/98 the number of visitor visa applications made by all nationalities in Pakistan and the United Kingdom were as follows:Pakistan95/96 359496/97 381797/98 4229UK95/96 307,87696/97 332,075 (315,042 manual visas and 17,033 ETAs)97/98 369,196 (132,727 manual visas and 236,469 ETAs)The number of applications made at Australian posts from 1 November 1998 to 31 November 1999 for citizens of Pakistan, the UK and FYROM were:Pakistan 5094UK 82662 (+449,161 ETAs)FYROM 2273The majority of visitor visa applications were for 676 short stay visitor visas, however, the figures also include long stay visitor and business visitor visa applications. (2) The number of applications rejected during the years since 1995/96 are as follows:Pakistan95/96 127196/97 130097/98 1866UK95/96 45696/97 38597/98 504Rejections Nov 98 to Nov 99Pakistan 2688 UK 297FYROM 965A higher rejection rate is a consequence of a higher level of scrutiny of applications in high-risk environments. I have instructed Migration Officers overseas and in Australia to ensure that they balance their deliberations between the need for a quick response within the context of available resources, and the need to protect Australia from the possible entry of non bona-fide tourists.Officers of my Department have for many years accumulated data on the relative risk of visitors remaining in Australia beyond the term of their visitor visa. The Risk Factor, Public interest Criterion 4011, was introduced by the previous Government in the early 1990s.In the case of Pakistan and FYROM the past actions of their countrymen and women have resulted in the inclusion in the Risk Factor. The Risk Factor schedule includes male Pakistanis 20 to 49 and above 60 and females aged more than 20 and Macedonian males and females aged 20 and above. The visitor non-return rates for these two countries are 41% for FYROM and 14% in Pakistan. You have asked for a comparison with the United Kingdom. The visitor non-return rate for the UK is 1.9%. The global average is 2.1%.(3) As each application is considered as a new and separate application, the Department does not keep statistics on the number of subsequent applications. Where later applications are supported by new information that is adequate for the decision-maker to be assured that a genuine visit is intended those applications will be approved. (4) This question was answered in (3).13891(Question No. 1101)110113891McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 8 December 1999:What are the specific reasons for him identifying the category of Males 20 to 49 inclusive from (a) Pakistan and (b) the Former Republic of Macedonia as worthy of inclusion as a high risk group as per paragraph 4011(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Migration Regulations 1994.13891Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Public Interest Criterion 4011, which is referred to as the “Risk Factor”, includes countries from which there were more than 500 visitor arrivals and have a visitor non-return rate greater than 3 times the global average. In addition to the larger visitor sources, countries from which there have been more than 50 but less than 500 visitors and have a visitor non-return rate greater than 6 times the global average are included. The global average is 2.1%. The Risk Factor is based on data drawn from the 1996/97 year. At the time of review this was the most recent full year available that allowed visitors to complete travel under multiple entry visas.- The “risk rate” is based on the number of visitor arrivals who have:- lawfully departed after the expiry date of their visa: or- departed without a lawful visa; or- remained in Australia on a further substantive visa after the expiry of their arrival visa; or- remained in Australia on any class of bridging visa after the expiry of the arrival visa; or- remained in Australia without a visa.In order to obtain a visitor visa, applicants are required to present evidence to DIMA decision-makers that they have every intention of departing Australia before the expiry of their visitor visa. The Migration Regulations provide for some visitors to seek an extension of their stay after arrival or to change status to permanent residence. However, when data shows that visitors from certain countries use these provisions at a rate many times the global average, decision-makers must question the evidence supporting the application for a genuine visit.Referring specifically to the groups that you have mentioned. The non-return rates for Pakistani and Macedonian males aged 20 to 49 are: 1996/9720-2425-2930-3940-49Pakistannumber of arrivals66135470378Non-return rate25.8%22.2%15.5%8.5%FYROMnumber of arrivals2365122154Non-return rate52.2%66.2%60.7%38.3%13892(Question No. 1107)110713892Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 December 1999:(1) Further to his letter to the editor of The Bulletin of 14 December 1999, was his most recent representation to Indonesian General Wiranto about violence in East Timor made on 29 July 1999.13892Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) My most recent representation to General Wiranto on the issue of violence in East Timor was made on 29 July 1999, during my visit to Indonesia. (2) It has not been the policy of Australian Governments to disclose the details of confidential discussions with foreign government officials. However, this was one of numerous representations which the Australian Government made to the Indonesian Government, including at Head of Government and Foreign Minister levels, registering our concern at the increasing violence and intimidation in East Timor, the issue of the Indonesian Government's support for militia groups, and the need to rein in the militias. 13892(Question No. 1110)111013892McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 9 December 1999:(1) How many applications for permanent residency were made by accountants from South Africa in (a) 1993-94, (b) 1994-95, (c) 1995-96, (d) 1996-97, (e) 1997-98 and (f) 1998-99.(2) How many of those applicants were granted permanent residency in each year.13892Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) - (2) While a person with Accountancy skills may enter Australia under any visa subclass, only those entering under the Skilled Stream of the Migration Program are required to have their skills assessed as part of the migration process. The relevant visa subclasses are 105 (Skilled Australian Linked, formerly Concessional Family), 106 (Regional Linked), 121 (Employer Nomination Scheme) and 126 (Independent). Table 1 below gives a summary of the number of South African accountant applications received and processed in Pretoria in each year in the Skilled Stream.Table 1: Accountant Applications Lodged and Processed YearLodgedDecidedGranted% Approved1993/1994198898393%1994/199516215311877%1995/19963671559159%1996/199728715211274%1997/199819530423477%1998/199927739536893%A detailed break down of this, including the relevant visa subclass is at Table 2 below.Of those cases that were not approved, this does not necessarily mean that they failed to meet the skill level for the occupation of Accountant. There could be a number of reasons for this, including withdrawals or applicants not achieving sufficient points for the age or sponsorship factors. 13893(Question No. 1111)111113893McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 9 December 1999.When skills assessing applicants for permanent residency, are accountant applicants made aware that they are required to meet statutory requirements to (a) work as a company auditor and (b) provide advice on taxation matters; if so, where is this information contained in the Department's procedures advice manuals.13893Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:To be awarded points for the skill factor, applicants must be assessed to have skills (ie qualifications and work experience) equivalent to the “Australian standard”.In relation to the occupation of Accountant, the required Australian standard for migration purposes was set in consultation with the National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition (NOOSR), the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants (ASCPA) and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Australia (ICAA). All accountant type skills assessment are undertaken by the ASCPA and ICAA, the relevant professional bodies responsible for the recognition of overseas-trained accountants seeking to migrate to Australia.While there are no legal requirements governing the employment of Accountants in Australia, those who carry out specialised accounting functions (eg company auditors and those who provide advice on taxation matters) are subject to statutory requirements. Generally, all successful applicants are advised to contact the relevant authority in their intended State/Territory of residence for further advice on requirements to practice their profession in the State/Territory.The information on statutory requirements can be found in sections 2.2 and 4.10 of the Procedure Advice Manual 3 (PAM3) for the occupation of Accountant.13893(Question No. 1112)111213893McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 9 December 1999:In order to pass a skills assessment as an accountant (occupational classification ASCO 2701), is an applicant required to meet specified academic and professional standards; if so, do the South African qualifications (a) Bachelor of Commerce (University of Withwaterstrand) and (b) Institute of Commercial and Financial Accountants of Southern Africa meet the NOORSR Country Education Profiles for the Accountants skills assessment.13893Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The current minimum Australian eligibility requirement is an Australian Bachelor degree with a major in Accounting and completion of relevant institute/society examination and experience requirements. These requirements are set out at Section 2.1 of the PAM3 guidelines for Accountants.In relation to an overseas applicant, s/he must hold an overseas Bachelor degree that is comparable to an Australian Bachelor degree. The overseas qualification must have an accounting major and include adequate coverage of certain accounting subjects. However, in relation to an applicant who did not major in accounting, only the ASCPA or the ICAA have the authority to determine whether s/he meets the Australian standard for an Accountant. In addition, to gain professional membership of either the ASCPA or the ICAA, overseas applicants may be required to study additional subjects in Australia that may include Australian company and taxation law.A Bachelor of Commerce from the University of Witwatersrand is recognised as comparable to an Australian Bachelor degree under NOOSR's Country Educational Profiles for South Africa. However, as outlined above, possession of a Bachelor's degree is not sufficient to meet Australian standards for the occupation of Accountant.At present, only professional accountants from any member society of the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants are recognised by the ASCPA and ICAA. In relation to the Institute of Commercial and Financial Accountants of Southern Africa, the standing of this association has not been assessed. It is, therefore, not recognised in Australia at this time. If a South African applicant holds ICFA membership but does not also hold a comparable Bachelor degree, the applicant will not meet the “Australian standard” for migration purposes as an Accountant.In the case of an applicant who holds ICFA membership as well as a Bachelor of Commerce from Witwatersrand University or a comparable Bachelor degree, it will not be possible for ASCPA or ICAA to determine whether the applicant will meet the Australian standard without a full skills assessment.13894(Question No. 1113)111313894Hollis, Colin, MPMr HollisDH4ThrosbyALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 December 1999:(1) Has he received the final report by the Productivity Commission into the progress of rail reform.(2) Was the final report received by the due date of 5 August 1999; if not, why not.(3) When will the final report be tabled or publicly released.13894Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes(2) Yes(3) The Government is considering a joint response to the Productivity Commission Report Progress in Rail Reform, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Micro-economic Reform Report Tracking Australia and the Rail Projects Taskforce Report Revitalising Rail. The Productivity Commission Report is expected to be tabled and publicly available during the Autumn Session.13894(Question No. 1116)111613894Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 December 1999:Are artists entitled to offset the costs of their art practice against other income for income tax purposes; if so, will the implementation of the Ralph report continue this entitlement; if not, what test or tests will the Government apply to determine the eligibility of artists to offset such costs?13894Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Taxpayers who carry on business as artists are able to offset losses made in the course of carrying on that business as an artist against other income.The implementation of the Ralph Report will continue this entitlement provided the taxpayer is carrying on business as an artist and satisfies at least one of five tests, which are listed in Attachment A to my Press Release of 11 November 1999.13894(Question No. 1118)111813894Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 9 December 1999:What steps will the Government take to ensure that the new electronic three month business visas for overseas performers will not allow producers to sidestep local labour market tests.13894Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:There is no new electronic three month business visa for overseas performers. Business visitors to Australia who wish to stay for up to three months and who have access to the Electronic Travel Authority (ETA), have been able to use the business visitor version of the ETA since 1996. The ETA is provided electronically through a travel agent when airline bookings are made and has dramatically changed the way we deal with legitimate short-term business interests from low immigration risk countries.The business ETA has been used over the past 3 years by IT contractors, visiting sports teams, overseas media and entertainers. With the Olympics next year, the smooth entry of these people will become even more important. My announcement on 22 October highlighted my intention to issue a Ministerial Direction to provide clearer guidance on the increasingly broad use of the business ETA. While the ETA has been available since 1996, I am aware of concerns within the entertainment industry regarding use of the business ETA by overseas performers. In response to these concerns, I intend to consider further how these concerns may best be accommodated.13895(Question No. 1122)112213895Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 December 1999:(1) Has his attention been drawn to a report prepared by Mr Peter Faris QC for the Deputy Director of Prosecutions, which states that Mr Karlis Ozols is the highest ranking alleged war criminal living in Australia and that Mr Ozols and his company have been directly or indirectly involved in the mass murder of thousands of people.(2) Did he, in March 1997, announce that the Ozols case was closed, even though Mr Faris had advised that there was sufficient evidence to indicate that a prima facie case existed against Mr Ozols for crimes against humanity, for mass murder and for war crimes; if so, why.(3) Is he able to say whether (a) Mr Faris advised the Deputy Director of Prosecutions that the Ozols case needed a further three months preparation and (b) the Minister for Justice told the ABC 7.30 Report on 6 December 1999 that there was not enough evidence there to proceed.13895Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. I am aware of the report relating to Mr Ozols which was prepared by Mr Peter Faris QC for the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions in June 1992. (2) I have no record of making such an announcement. The case against Karlis Ozols has not been closed.The case against him did not proceed because in the Director of Public Prosecution's (DPP) view, the existing material was not sufficient. When the Special Investigation Unit was closed, the Department referred the incomplete case to the Australian Federal Police (AFP), which carried out a review of the investigation, including consultations with the DPP, the War Crimes Prosecution Support Unit and Mr Peter Faris QC, who had provided advice to the DPP in relation to the matter.The DPP advised that it could not make a final decision on prosecution until further investigations were undertaken.I am advised by the AFP that in, its professional view, the likelihood of obtaining probative evidence, as a result of those further investigations, was extremely low.I am advised that the situation was reviewed again by the AFP in 1997 and it was concluded that the likelihood of obtaining probative evidence remained low.(3) (a) Yes. Mr Faris concluded that further enquiries and investigations were required which he estimated could be completed in three months. However, as noted in (2), there was no guarantee that those investigations would result in material that would be sufficient to lay charges.(b) The Minister for Justice and Customs stated that the DPP had decided there was not enough evidence to proceed.13895(Question No. 1123)112313895Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 9 December 1999:(1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a report prepared by Mr Peter Faris QC for the Deputy Director of Prosecutions, which states that Mr Karlis Ozols is the highest ranking alleged war criminal living in Australia and that Mr Ozols and his company have been directly or indirectly involved in the mass murder of thousands of people.(2) Is the Minister able to say whether Mr Faris advised that, although only three months more research was required, a prima facie case existed against Mr Ozols for crimes against humanity, for mass murder and for war crimes; if so, why did the case not proceed. 13896Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes.(2) Yes. While a prima facie case existed against Mr Ozols for breaches of Australian war crimes legislation, the evidence did not warrant the laying of charges until further investigations had been conducted. I am advised by the AFP that, in its professional view, the likelihood of obtaining probative evidence, as a result of those further investigations, was extremely low.The AFP reviewed its earlier decision in 1997, which reaffirmed that a further investigation could not be justified on the information available. 13896(Question No. 1124)112413896Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 9 December 1999:(1) Was the case against Mr Heinrich Wagner, concerning the murder of 19 children in Ukraine, dropped in 1992 because of Mr Wagner's alleged ill-health.(2) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a story on the ABC's 7.30 Report on 6 December 1999 which indicated that Mr Wagner is currently in good health; if so, can the case now proceed; if not, why not.13896Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The prosecution of Mr Wagner was discontinued on 9 December 1993. The decision not to proceed with Mr Wagner's trial in 1993 was based on medical evidence of his then state of health. (2) My attention has been drawn to the story on Mr Wagner on the ABC's 7.30 Report on 6 December 1999. I have not been made aware of any medical evidence which contradicts the basis upon which that decision was made or which reveals the current state of Mr Wagner's health.If evidence is forthcoming that Mr Wagner's health is, indeed, sufficiently improved to withstand the stress of a criminal trial, the question of a prosecution could be reviewed.The health of the accused would not be the sole consideration in deciding whether to commence a new prosecution. The sufficiency of the available evidence would also need to be reviewed, including the availability of witnesses who may themselves have become ill or died during the period since Mr Wagner's prosecution was discontinued.