2000-03-163915REPS84502000-03-16—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Private Members' Business148451484509:31:0014845Mr Beazley, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent private members business notice No. 3 from being called on forthwith.The Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 37, says this—Motion (by Mr McGauran) put: That the member be not further heard. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—You idiots! XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—It is an ambush. You should have discussed it with me.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I doubt whether members in the chamber can even hear the question being put and may not therefore know what they are voting on. The question is that the Leader of the Opposition be not further heard. 09:36:00The House divided. [ (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 75Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson,M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Southcott, A.J.State Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.67Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Wilton, G.S.Question so resolved in the affirmative10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?09:39:0014846Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—It is seconded. This oleaginous, illiberal Prime Minister and his cowardly backbench—Motion (by Mr McGauran) put:That the member be not further heard.09:41:00The House divided. [ (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 75Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.68Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Question so resolved in the affirmativeMotion (by Mr McGauran) agreed to:That the question be now put.Original question put:That the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to.09:45:00The House divided. [ (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 68Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.75Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Question so resolved in the negative. Bills14848R0003614848Bill presented by Mr Anthony, and read a first time.1484809:47:0014848Mr Anthony, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill deals with a range of initiatives announced in the 1999 budget relating to international portability and to an extension of the requirement to seek comparable foreign payments to persons from all countries. The measures relating to international portability include the standardisation of the portability rules, phasing out of special needs pensions, and the extension to two years of the short residence rule. The bill makes technical amendments to the provisions of the Social Security Act 1991which provide for the pension bonus scheme and the retirement assistance for farmers scheme. The effect of the amendments is to ensure that the four per cent increase in the rate of income support payments that was introduced as part of the government's tax reform package applies to applicants under both those schemes.The bill also provides for the use of tax file numbers for data matching purposes, with the objective of strengthening compliance with the provisions of the social security law. The Australian Taxation Office currently provides Centrelink with information on a regular basis, and data matching is carried out using identity data such as name and date of birth. This approach can be ineffective due to difficulties in identifying customers who either inadvertently or deliberately provide different details to the two organisations. The Privacy Commissioner's Office was consulted in the development of this proposal and all data matching will be undertaken in strict observance with the Privacy Commissioner's guidelines. Further technical amendments are also made to other social security legislation and a consequential amendment is made to the Health Insurance Act 1973. I present the explanatory memorandum and commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.Bills14848R0003714848Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.1484809:50:0014848Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.I am introducing a bill to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974. This bill will amend the price exploitation code by inserting a new provision prohibiting misrepresentations as to the effect of the new tax system changes. This will ensure that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is the central point for all complaints across Australia. However, all states except Queensland have agreed to allow the ACCC to investigate ANTS related misleading conduct. Last year, the government inserted part (5)(b) into the Trade Practices Act 1974 to provide the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission with powers to monitor prices in order to stop consumer exploitation and excessive profit taking in the transition to the new tax system. The states have adopted the schedule version of part (5)(b) to establish the national price exploitation code. The provision contained in this bill extends the operation of the price exploitation code. The primary aim of this new provision is to enable the ACCC to take enforcement action against misrepresentations by suppliers in relation to the effect of the new tax system changes. In particular, this new provision gives the ACCC powers to take action against ANTS related misrepresentations by unincorporated entities operating within one state. Therefore, in Queensland if a business increases prices and attributes it to the GST, the ACCC, the national GST watchdog, will be powerless to act. In every other state except Queensland the ACCC can use its expertise, it specialists and its months of price monitoring and research to ensure that Australian consumers are not being ripped off. Specifically, the bill will prohibit conduct that falsely represents the effect of A New Tax System changes or misleads or deceives a person about the effect of these reforms. Breaking the law will attract the same penalties as price exploitation—generally, a fine of up to $10 million for a company or up to half a million dollars for an individual. These penalties are substantial and demonstrate the government's determination and commitment to address community concerns about exploitation in relation to the transition to the new tax system. Businesses across Australia will have nothing to worry about, however, as long as they do not engage in misleading and deceptive conduct when making ANTS related representations. If a business is unsure or needs clarification on representations it is making, it is free to call the ACCC's line on 1300 302502 or to access the ACCC's web site.This provision will apply from when the bill starts and continue until two years after the implementation of the GST. To achieve economy-wide coverage of the bill over incorporated and unincorporated suppliers the new provision has also been inserted into the schedule version of part 5(b). The amendment to the schedule may apply as legislation across Australia with little or no action required by the states and territories and with effect in most jurisdictions from two months from the start of this amendment. Of course, each jurisdiction retains the discretion to declare that the amendment take effect at an earlier date or not take effect at all. However, I know that all states, except Queensland, are very enthusiastic about having the ACCC oversee ANTS related misrepresentations in their states. All states except Queensland understand that, allowing the price monitoring experts at the ACCC to investigate the tax related misleading or deceptive conduct is the best protection they can give consumers. For example, if a local business in a state misrepresents the effect of the GST, the ACCC will have power to take action. However, in Queensland the ACCC will be powerless to investigate this local business. The only losers from the Queensland government's decisions will be Queensland consumers.In the context of the 2000-01 budget process, the government will consider the resourcing implications to enable the ACCC to carry out the functions and to exercise the powers that it is given under the amendments to part 5(b) contained in the bill. The bill also amends The Trade Practices Act 1974 to clarify the ACCC's legal basis for performing certain access undertaking functions. The amendments will apply to existing undertakings accepted by the ACCC but do not extend to the ACCC's existing powers and are consistent with the original intention of the legislation. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.Bills14849R101214849Debate resumed from 9 March, on motion by Mr Anthony:That the bill be now read a second time.09:56:0014849Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—Before commenting on the detail of this bill, I would like to make a few observations about the Child Support Scheme. The introduction of the Child Support Scheme a decade ago attempted to put in place a set of principles that I think no-one could disagree with—that is, that parents share in the cost of supporting their children according to their capacity and, secondly, that adequate support is available for all children not living with both parents. The third important reason for the establishment of the Child Support Scheme is the principle that government should not be expected to pay the costs of supporting a child where one or both parents have the financial capacity to do so unassisted.These are all fairly uncontroversial facts, and ones that any reasonable person would concur with. The problems that many people currently have with the system lie in the judgments it makes about people's capacity to pay, in what circumstances exceptions should be made and how the collection of payments is enforced. The difficulty lies in the fact that complaints about child support are divided evenly between those who pay and those who receive. For every aggrieved payer who argues they are forced to give too much towards the upbringing of their child, there is a payee arguing that they are struggling to meet these costs and they have not got their payment through on time. All of us would certainly be aware of this issue in our own electorates. Some of these issues are resolvable if the government of the day is prepared to work through these issues and talk to the people whom the scheme makes requirements of or guarantees to. But it is important to recognise that the system will never have the capacity to resolve the disappointment and hurt that often go hand in hand with family separation and divorce. The successful resolution of these very human issues lies outside the scope of the Child Support Scheme, and indeed lies outside the scope of the role of government. This is an area in which the current government have failed to show leadership and support. They have stripped around $5 billion of social services and other supports from our community, creating a huge social deficit. These services directly assist people to cope with the personal dimension of separation. The government have introduced an unfair tax—the GST—that actively discriminates against those most vulnerable in our community, in spite of the rhetoric by the government about battlers. Child support payers and payees, struggling to mend their lives and go forward, are being slugged. The GST will push up the cost of child support, putting people under further stress. We need to examine very carefully the impact of these changes with the GST. In particular we need to have a close examination of whether some in our community will lose.The core issue is whether, as a result of the GST, payments that are designed to support the upbringing of children are adequate. While the government claims that people have been compensated, it remains unclear in the case of child maintenance whether payments will keep pace with higher costs. That is because a custodial parent who is receiving appropriate payments from a non-custodial parent meeting their commitment is not in receipt of family assistance. Therefore they will not be a beneficiary of any increase in family assistance, however inadequate that may be, designed to compensate for the introduction of the goods and services tax.In addition to that, payments by non-custodial parents will not take into account the income tax cuts which people will receive on 1 July as a result of the introduction of the GST. Therefore, my concern is that custodial parents who are already struggling to get by may indeed be worse off as a result of the GST. This is an area that needs examination by the government, because any further economic stress placed on custodial parents will also lead to social disadvantage being reinforced. This needs to be viewed in the context of the fact that a lot of that social support has been taken away by the cuts to social services since the election of the Howard government in 1996.Only this week, we have seen a classic example of how the GST will put pressure on the most vulnerable in our community. Indeed, the Minister for Community Services would be well aware of that particular group in our community—permanent caravan park residents—because he has 6,649 of them in his electorate of Richmond. Unfortunately, we have seen from this government a refusal to even have dialogue with these Australians. That sends out a message that this government is not prepared to listen to the concerns of the most vulnerable people in our community who, as a result of the ideological agenda being pursued by this government, will suffer the most as a result of the introduction of the GST.We do have an obligation to make the child support system as fair and painless as we can. I think we still have some way to go before we can truly say that child maintenance is being delivered in this way. This legislation is a step in the right direction in that it seeks to ensure that the system applies fairly and equally to those living outside Australia, whether they be a payer of child support or a recipient. This bill also amends Australian domestic law to enable Australia to fulfil its international child and spousal maintenance obligations. The proposed amendments provide for regulations to be made which prescribe for matters relevant to the recognition and enforcement of child support and spousal maintenance liabilities. I will go through some relevant examples: the enforcement of administrative assessments; allowing the Child Support Agency to make an administrative assessment even though the payer is not resident in Australia and does not have an Australian taxable income; in the case of New Zealand, providing that the creation and variation of liabilities will be able to be undertaken only in the country where the payee is resident; obliging each country to assist in locating payers, serving notices and providing advice so that maintenance liabilities can be enforced; allowing the Child Support Agency to collect overseas maintenance liabilities which have not first been registered in an Australian court under the Family Law Act 1975; and, requiring reciprocity in legislative presumptions of parentage. All these measures in this bill appear to the opposition to be uncontroversial in nature. Whatever anyone may think of other parts of the system—and I recognise that there are concerns on the part of both payers and payees—this measure seems to be fair and reasonable. As a result, the opposition will be supporting this legislation.10:06:0014851Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I will just set the scene for the bill that we are discussing today—the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. This bill has its origins in the report of the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues brought down by the Hon. Roger Price in November 1994. The bill stems from one of the recommendations that was contained in that report. Certainly for members, child support in the community was one of the issues that was right up there in lights. I think all members of the House of Representatives have had constant representations from either custodial or the non-custodial parents in relation to unfairness and inequities that they see in the system. How to manage the issue of child support is certainly very difficult when families break up. It is a very difficult issue for the government to manage fairly for both the parents and also the children of that particular union. The problem is also exacerbated by the fact that one size never fits all—everything is not black and white—and for governments to try to meet all of those competing concerns is extraordinarily difficult when it comes to the very real human problems that are involved.From my perspective, the current issues that are very important in the minds of people who are affected in this way are matters like that of families which become separated by distance, where a family breaks up and one parent decides to move to the nearest capital city a thousand kilometres away or to the other side of the country and the other parent then does not have access to his or her children. It is very difficult for the government to deal with that particular issue. I just wish parents themselves could deal with things in the interests of their children. The next problem is that, even if parents are separated by long distances, some parents for one reason or other choose not to allow the other parent access to the children. The question of access is certainly very significant for constituents who come to see me. And it is on both sides. This is not a male or a female thing or a custodial or a non-custodial thing; you see it on both sides of the ledger. It is very sad indeed when one parent tries to use the children against the other parent. I just wish that marriages never broke up in the first place, but I guess that is an impossible dream. It is really sad for the children when you see this. Another issue that continues to come before us as members of the parliament is the question of the cost of children—how much money should be paid across and how that should be managed. That is something that members on both sides of the House wrestle with. Generally it surfaces because the non-custodial parent is poor, is unable to get on with their lives and is unable to start a new relationship or a new family. You see some very sad cases indeed. It happens to not only people in relatively poor circumstances but also people in relatively well-off circumstances, and there are reasons for that.I suppose the government has gone a long way to addressing many of these problems. I was remarking earlier today that it has been the experience in my electorate office that we are seeing fewer constituents with problems with the Child Support Agency or problems related to child support payments. Last year—my memory says July—the government introduced a number of new initiatives that came out of Mr Price's recommendations in particular. It was a pity that they were so long in coming because, when they did come, there was strong support in the community for the particular amendments. The bill we are discussing today is also a response to the 1994 report. Unfortunately it has been a long time coming, but it is often very difficult and very time consuming when you have matters relating to other governments and you have to put all of that together. I guess that is code for: sometimes the bureaucracy does not move all that fast. The initiatives last year were in three major categories. They were in relation to changes to the amount of child support payable, changes benefiting second families and changes to improve administration. Initiatives such as these have resulted in some quite remarkable changes within the Child Support Agency itself. The CSA has been improving its client service. I have certainly noticed that in Townsville. The people in our Child Support Agency are extraordinarily caring and extraordinarily cooperative with my office. They bend over backwards to try to solve problems. They understand that when one partner or the other comes to see them that they are emotionally upset and, in the emotion of the moment, tend to say things they really should not have said or do not mean to say. In that sense, the Child Support Agency is very understanding. As members we get claims that if a male goes into the Child Support Agency he is seen by a female who is obviously anti-men. That is just not true. The Child Support Agency is very sensitive to those sorts of things. If a man ultimately thinks that is the case and wants to see a male client service officer he can do that. But I can assure anyone who is listening to this particular broadcast that that is not in the CSA's charter, and the staff of the CSA are very careful to try to avoid being put in that particular situation.One of the pleasing things is that now over 44 per cent of parents do not need to pay through the Child Support Agency; they pay each other directly. That is a step in the right direction. If parents who are separated can get on well and, as mature adults, can talk to each other and make arrangements and recognise their liabilities, that is a good move forward. I welcome that and support that. I also note, on a technical matter, that the agency's costs have been falling, that the average cost of collecting each dollar has gone to just 13c. That the agency's operational costs are falling is a terrific result for the government. I also note that, if you ask the agency's clients and look at research on the agency's professionalism, you see that is certainly improving. The clients are saying that actions taken by the agency to improve client service are working. Again, I would say to anyone who may be listening to this broadcast that, if they feel that they have a particular problem with the agency, it can be sorted out. They should contact their local member, who would have close links with the agency. I have never had a problem in Townsville in my electorate in being able to resolve any issues of that kind of nature.In relation to the bill before the House, I am particular interested in and supportive of—as the member for Grayndler is—the arrangements for enforcement of overseas obligations either way. That is, the obligations of Australians who are overseas can be enforced while they are overseas and the obligations of foreign nationals in this country can be enforced within Australia. That is a good move forward. It is understandable that the most number of cases that require this kind of assessment are between Australia and New Zealand. I think everyone would understand why that would be. When this bill goes through, we will have arrangements that will allow cross-Tasman enforcement not only of court orders but also of administrative assessments. Administrative assessments are very important because more and more we are tending towards putting administrative assessments in place because they save the very high costs of going to the Family Court. Of course, the very high costs of going to the Family Court are another matter for discussion at another time. I have had constituents complain to me that their partner has gone overseas specifically to avoid child support payments or has made their arrangements so that they can avoid child support payments. This bill will go a long way towards ensuring that those responsibilities are met. I have certainly seen that some smarties among Australians, in situations where they had an Australian assessment, have found they could go to New Zealand, for example, and obtain an assessment there for the specific purpose of extinguishing arrears owed under Australian maintenance orders. That is disgraceful. This bill will put an end to that and the smarties will get their comeuppance.Of equal importance is the fact that this bill will enable arrangements between the 19 countries that are members of the Hague Convention. For practical purposes, this bill will see Australia's accession to the Hague Convention having the same effect as establishing many bilateral reciprocal arrangements. In that sense, I certainly think we would all support that. The other area of specific interest is the arrangements with the United States of America. As I understand it, child support arrangements in the United States are dealt with on a state by state basis, so the Australian government has been having difficulty in finding a mechanism by which it can enforce Australian orders in the United States. In the reverse case, the states of the United States have had difficulty in enforcing orders or assessments in Australia. Fortunately, the US State Department has proposed that the Australian government sign a new agreement with the US federal government which would put the existing arrangements on a federal level. That is terrific. That is a very good outcome. The agreement with the US federal government will provide for the recognition and enforcement of administrative assessments of child support.I am very pleased to support this bill. I am certainly among those in the parliament who have some very significant feelings for the parents and children who are affected by separations and marriage breakdowns. I, along with many of my colleagues, want to see done whatever can be done to help both sides of those situations. While wishing that it did not happen in the first place, I recognise that it seems to be a characteristic of modern life that a lot of marriages do not last and I will certainly do what I can to assist where these terrible break-ups happen and where hurt and distress permeate families, including children. I am very strongly supportive of this bill and I thank the opposition for supporting the bill today.10:21:0014853Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—The debate on the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 providesus with an opportunity to discuss some of the issues concerning our responsibility as legislators in respect of the rights of children. It is an interesting bill because it reflects the work done by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in particular and also some of the positive efforts that have been made stemming initially from the recommendations made by the joint standing committee on family matters. Nevertheless, those recommendations have been pursued through our department of foreign affairs and it ought to be congratulated for the positive efforts that it has made.It is interesting that this bill is coming forward from the government at this time because, when you compare it with other things that are happening in the area of support for children, it reflects the contradictory positions which the government is taking on family and children. On the one hand, we have some positive developments such as this but, on the other hand, we have things done by other departments which appear to be opposed to the rights of children, or at least to contradict them. The issue that is live in relation to the rights of children is the mandatory sentencing question. It is interesting to compare the two matters, because one of the provisions involved here is an international agreement, the Hague Convention. We are here looking at signing a convention to protect the rights of children and yet, at the same time, this country is ignoring another international convention concerning the rights of children in relation to the mandatory sentencing issue. I think this brings out the fact that we really have to be a lot more consistent, as a parliament and as a society, in our attitudes to the rights of children. Much has been said about the mandatory sentencing issue. I am one of those who is appalled at the idea that children, in particular, should be subjected to mandatory sentencing. I am also concerned that the Liberal and National parties, because of the internal problems which they are having in trying to get a coherent position on this issue, have prevented the debate and discussion of this question in the House of Representatives and have prevented debate on the bill that went through the Senate. Of course, this is not the only matter in which the government's positions on support for children are contradictory. It is very interesting that the department of foreign affairs has done this very positive work, but have a look at what is being done, for example, by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Here we are talking about supporting children in this bill but, as was made very clear in the Four Corners program the other day and by me and others who spoke on the refugee bill that went through the parliament last year, people who are being granted temporary refugee visas at the moment are not allowed to have their wives or children join them. So we grant them refugee status—previously it was permanent residency. That was one issue, and I have made my position clear on that. Not only are we not giving them permanent residency but we are also saying to them that they cannot for three years—until we determine what we are going to do with this three-year visa—bring their spouses and their children to join them. I am not talking about brothers and sisters or parents; I am talking about their spouses and their children. I would be interested to know what the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade thinks about the international perception of Australia, given that provision.This is the way the government is proceeding. It is proceeding on a contradictory basis in relation to these international conventions concerning family and children. On the one hand, it says, `We'll give people rights.' On the other hand, it says, `We won't give people rights.' In fact, it is taking rights away, because previously when we granted people refugee status we gave them the right to bring their spouses and their children. We did not give them automatic rights about brothers and sisters or anything like that, but at least we gave them that fundamental right—the right of a person to be united with their spouse and their dependent children. I believe the failure to put that provision in—even if you let the three-year rule go through—is cruel and contrary to international obligations. I would urge the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, if anybody is here from the department, to make this point to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Many international bodies, such as the Refugee Council of Australia and Amnesty International, have made representations about this cruel provision in the new refugee category.So here we have some positive legislation for child support, but negative things are also being done—I have already mentioned the mandatory sentencing issue—such as the treatment of the new category of refugees where their children cannot join them. But there are other things, and this goes to the heart of how these arrangements work. At the moment we have a situation where, judging by his performance yesterday, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs seems to think that there are votes to be gained by getting up and slamming the family reunion program. He keeps saying that the family reunion program is costly and so on. Everything that he said yesterday about that matter of the parents was completely misleading and his so-called facts were false. But that is another story.The point is this issue in relation to children. Let us address this issue. When a person is granted permanent residence now in Australia after coming through some immigration program or some refugee program—leaving aside the matter that I mentioned before but taking the normal refugee program or the permanent residence program—especially in the permanent residence program, if an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident marries someone from overseas, is the House aware that in some countries it can take as long as 18 months for the spouses to be united? This is not because there is some question of the genuineness of the issue but simply because there is a de facto queue placed on the union of spouses. In some cases, we also have children involved in these matters. So here we are on the one hand saying, `Let us put into place these regulations and these new arrangements so that we can make sure people meet their obligations to child support, but on the other hand there are issues about our failure to support marriages when we have a situation where people who are genuinely married can wait up to 18 months for their spouse to come to Australia. The minister tries to justify this on the basis that he has some kind of quota in relation to these matters. But there should not be quotas when it comes to the fundamental, basic right of marriage. Assuming that a marriage is genuine, we should not be saying to people, `If you as an Australian citizen marry a person from overseas or you have a child with somebody from overseas, you should be separated from them.' I point all these matters out because it seems to me that some coherence is required on family and child policy. We cannot treat people differently. On the one hand we are saying, `Look, here are some very positive developments.' I support these developments. I support the enforcement of child support arrangements where one person is in one country and one is in another, if that is what they choose. But how about things like visitors' visas? I have raised this issue in parliament on a number of occasions. With the current situation in respect of visitors' visas, if we have a separated couple and the father, for example, wants to come and visit the child in Australia, it is likely under the current arrangements that that person is going to have a lot of trouble if they are coming from certain countries simply to visit their child and to do the right thing as the non-custodial parent.We are saying that, yes, we are going to try to enforce that you meet your obligations as a non-custodial parent in terms of payments—and I support that—but we are also not doing anything about asking the department of immigration about this visa policy, especially as it applies to countries other than the 29 where you can get automatic visas to visit Australia. What about those other countries? What is happening to non-custodial parents in these cases? It is an interesting question, given the fact that visitors' visas from these areas are being seriously hampered. Notwithstanding the protestations of the minister, from some countries a very high rejection rate occurs, even for relatives coming to visit in Australia.We ought to think about this in terms of the impact on children. If we are genuine—and again I congratulate the members of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and those in the Department of Family and Community Services who were involved in these positive developments—then we have to get some coherence here. If we support children and we support ensuring that the non-custodial parent pays their fair share in orders of the court, we also ought to be saying to the non-custodial parent, `You can come to Australia and visit your child or children.' We also ought to be taking up these other issues which are creating separation of spouses and of at least one parent and their child or children. From a humanitarian point of view it is time we really tried to get the different sections of the government into one coherent totality in respect of these issues. I am not here making an appeal for political point scoring; I am here saying that if we as a society are really interested in the welfare of children then we have to have coherence. We have to get rid of the contradictions that exist in our policies in relation to the rights of children. I repeat again what I said at the beginning, that we have to face the issue of mandatory sentencing of children, we have to face the issue of the refugees who are here and who cannot be united with their children and we have to face all the various bureaucratic things that are put in place with regard to married people or people who are separated being able to visit their children in Australia. All of those things have to be addressed if we are actually to ensure that child support means not merely making sure that people pay their financial obligations but looking after the welfare of children in a broader sense. If we are going to do that, then we have to ensure that the provisions in this bill are also met. The Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Maintenance Liabilities is an excellent convention and, even though it is somewhat late in the piece, nevertheless it is a good thing that Australia is now going to sign this convention and is going to participate in the requirements of the convention. But, of course, the convention covers only a number of countries; it does not cover all the countries that we are concerned about, given that we are an immigration society and given that we have people here from virtually every country in the world. I would be interested to know from the minister what proposals are in train for ensuring that we meet obligations with respect to other countries. I know that the bill is structured in such a way as to allow the formation of new regulations with respect to other countries, but does the minister himself have any proposals for new arrangements with countries beyond those which are mentioned in the bill and, in particular, those countries from which recent migrants have arrived? I am speaking especially about countries in Latin America, in Asia, in Africa and in the Middle East. This bill does not actually cover most of those countries. I would be interested to know, Minister, whether you have in train discussions, either through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade or through your department, for putting into place arrangements for these other countries besides the ones that are referred to in the bill. In relation to the United States of America, which is another section of the bill, having lived in the United States myself for a couple of years and having seen what happens between the different states of America in relation to maintenance arrangements, which can become a complicated process even within America, I think it is a very good thing that we are signing this new agreement at a national level. Those people in our embassy in Washington and others who have been involved, including the United States Embassy here, who have initiated this new agreement ought to be congratulated, and I support that agreement.In conclusion, I call upon the government to consider the possibility that on the question of the rights of children there should be an interdepartmental committee of some kind, or perhaps a number of ministers getting together, so that we can have some consistency on the question of the rights of children and that we all in this parliament try to legislate consistency in relation to children across the board and do away with mandatory sentencing, do away with this dreadful thing about refugees not being able to unite with their children and overcome the other hurdles in this bill that I have mentioned. I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Anthony) adjourned.Bills14856R1008BillsR100914856Debate resumed from 9 March, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.10:42:0014856Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—The bills before the House today, the A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits) Bill 2000 and the cognate bill, constitute further evidence of the hypocrisy of the government on the question of roll-back of the GST and of the rest of the tax package. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister both promised earlier this year that they would not be making any further changes to their tax proposals, but these bills breach yet again these undertakings. They breach them in two ways. First, there is further legislative amendment to the GST act to insert the new exemption. This is something that the Treasurer said there would not be. On the Neil Mitchell program on Monday, 24 January, when asked, `Does this mean no more changes?' the Treasurer said:Well, it does mean that we are not changing the legislation, that we've got it right. As you implement these things there have to be further rulings, but they are just rulings as to how the tax office applies the concepts. But we're not changing the legislation. Here they are today changing legislation. They are doing it by inserting a new exemption, and inserting a new exemption is something the government claims is bad if it is done by us but apparently good if it is done by them, if it can be done without, in their view, any adverse effects.Secondly, the bills also involve a significant policy roll-back concerning the cap on fringe benefit exemption for public benevolent institutions. This roll-back backdown will cost almost $300 million over the next four years. So much for the notion that it is Labor out there saying, `Let's roll it back in this area and let's roll it back in that area,' while the government say, `No, can't do roll-back. Roll-back makes it more complicated.' Here they are by this bill announcing roll-back to the tune of $300 million over four years. On 25 February, the Sydney Morning Herald reported a spokeswoman for the Treasurer commenting on this issue. She said:If the loophole is left open it means it will have to be funded by some other part of the budget.In other words, if the government makes any further concessions on this FBT cap, the cost of that will have to be borne by expenditure cuts in other aspects of the budget. Since then, the Treasurer has increased quite substantially what his spokeswoman has called a `loophole'. He has increased the loophole in the forward estimates by almost $300 million, a fact confirmed in an official briefing. This decision has worsened the budget bottom line, because of the actions of not the Senate, not the opposition, but the Treasurer.The roll-back does not just end there. Yesterday, the Treasurer was at it again. His press release No. 13 announced a change in the GST rules for small businesses which provide financial services as an incidental part of their business—something he claimed earlier this year was unnecessary. The Treasurer is simplifying the administration for small business. He is proposing to change his complex dog's breakfast of a tax to make it simpler. Labor welcomes such announcements because, amongst other things, they confirm our criticisms of the complexity and flaws in the legislation. The changes are consistent with the direction that we will be taking. He and other members of the government have been attacking us, claiming that any further changes to the GST will make it more complex, yet they are forced to make changes themselves. As for the complexity, it is impossible to make this GST more complex. It has already achieved world best practice in terms of its complexity. Certainly Labor will be focusing on reducing the compliance burden on small business as part of its roll-back response. The change announced by the Treasurer yesterday confirms that further simplification is necessary.There is now some professional estimate of the actual size of the initial compliance burden of the GST. I referred to this in the House yesterday in asking a question of the Treasurer, who refused to answer it—but that is not unusual; he refuses to answer all questions. It was supplied unwittingly by probably the fiercest advocates of the GST, the National Farmers Federation. They have ideologically pursued the GST for years. They have been a shameless cheer squad for this most unfair and inefficient of taxes. Yet what did they tender yesterday as evidence in the national wage case hearings? They tendered a report by Professor Binh Tran-Nam of ATAX from the University of New South Wales called The implementation costs of the GST in Australia: a preliminary analysis. Remember: this is referring to the initial costs of preparing for the GST, not the ongoing costs. The estimate of the initial cost is $4.3 billion and it collects $27½ billion in a year. This is an extraordinary take in terms of the return. The implementation and social compliance costs are $4.3 billion, according to the National Farmers Federation expert report. Of this, $2.8 billion is business initial costs and $1.5 billion is government costs. On page 9, the report says:As a result of its GST implementation, Australian business will incur an additional one-off net cost of about $2.8 billion. This amount is very significant, representing about 10% of the expected GST revenue of $27.2 billion in 2000-01.So it is going to cost business 10 per cent of the amount collected of the 10 per cent GST just to get ready for it—just as an initial hit—and that figure excludes the $2 billion per year in ongoing costs that the government admits to in its regulatory impact statement on the GST legislation. So much for an efficient new tax system. But the government has assumed away this problem. PRISMOD, the government's tax package model, ignores the problem of compliance costs completely. Can you imagine this? The compliance costs of business are $2.8 billion and the government wishes them away. It just wishes away $2.8 billion worth of the impact on the economy and the impact in terms of compensation. It assumes there are none, when there are many billions of dollars worth. Indeed, I would suggest that the Speaker's office has personally been involved in some GST pricing implementation issues concerning its seminars. It has had some first-hand experience in this regard, Mr Deputy Speaker. It knows just a fraction of the compliance nightmare that business will be confronting. Professor Binh Tran-Nam knows about this too. His NFF paper goes on to say: Most of these costs will be ultimately passed on to the consumers. This will add further pressure to the one-off rise in the consumer price level as a result of the introduction of the GST. The initial inflationary pressure was not considered by the federal Treasury in its analysis of the GST-induced consumer price rise.Understand that point: here is the government saying that the GST impact on inflation will be minimal, when it has ignored this huge hit. Not only is the rate of inflation important when it comes to the driving up of interest rates—and we have already seen evidence of that in advance of the GST coming in—but it also goes to the question of compensation. If compensation is being awarded on the basis of a lower than realistic inflation rate, of course they will claim that people are being adequately compensated; but they are not because they are being compensated off a false base, a base on which the NFF's own submission to the national wage case has blown the government's case out of the water. What they have done is to out the Treasurer on this, on one of the serious economic flaws which, again, has been alluded to, pointed out and demonstrated by Labor from the start through the Senate inquiry process. It is the professor's next observation that is so devastating for the government. He continues:Most seriously, the high implementation costs of the GST cast doubts on the supposed welfare gains of the GST-based tax reform. Simplicity is, after all, an aspect of efficiency.He then goes on to compare the estimated long run efficiency gains by both Professor Peter Dixon and by the Prime Minister's preferred modeller, Mr Chris Murphy of Econtech. What does he conclude when he takes into account what other models say about this? He says:The estimated increase in tax operating costs is clearly much higher than the most optimistic GST-induced efficiency gains estimate.In shorthand, GST costs significantly outweigh the benefits. This tax is not simple. It is not efficient. It is very costly and, on top of that, it is incredibly unfair.Let us go to the detail of the bills that are before us. As most members would know, fringe benefits tax is a tax on employers on the value of non-salary and wage benefits provided to their employees. It is imposed on employers to facilitate compliance and administrative efficiency. There are only 67,000 FBT taxpayers, compared with probably millions of employees deriving fringe benefits. It collected $3.3 billion in 1998-99. The Ralph Review of Business Taxation proposed to shift the FBT from business to individuals. The Treasurer rejected that proposal, and rightly so. In that he showed the hypocrisy inherent in the GST because it is imposed on every consumer in terms of them paying, rather than there being a smaller number of collection points. He said that the current collection method—that is, in relation to the FBT—was very efficient, which it is. Yet he is proposing the most inefficient method for collecting the GST. With the GST, he has created at least one and a half million new taxpayers. Every small business around the country is now going to be an unpaid tax collector for the federal government. Currently, the indirect tax system—the wholesale sales tax—is collected by just 75,000 units around the country. It raises more than half the revenue of the GST in an infinitely more efficient way.So, while Labor's position on efficiency and simplicity is consistent, the Treasurer's is totally inconsistent. FBT is levied at the maximum marginal rate applicable to individuals, plus the Medicare levy, reflecting the fact that the overwhelming benefit from fringe benefits goes to high income earners who would otherwise face this rate of tax on salary or wage income. Certain non-profit and charitable bodies obtain fringe benefits tax exemptions or concessions by way of a rebate. The government claims that these concessions are being abused and in this bill has proposed limits on the concessions. Despite the fact that the FBT is legally levied on employers, it is most often borne, at least in part, by employees in their salary package arrangements. Obviously, such an impact varies between employers. There are four basic areas of change to the FBT that are proposed in this legislation. One is to limit the currently unlimited fringe benefits tax exemption for certain employers, namely public benevolent institutions—which, for the purposes of the ongoing debate, I will refer to generically as `charities'—and public and private non-profit hospitals and to limit the rebate arrangements applying to other non-profit bodies such as private educational institutions, sporting bodies and some other charitable bodies. It also covers provisions covering the GST's complex interaction with the FBT system, including a new increased grossed up formula, new exemptions for remote area housing benefits and meals provided by primary producers, and technical amend-ments to the way fringe benefits are treated in the calculation of liability under the Medicare levy surcharge.As for the limitation on FBT exemption for non-profit bodies, the proposed limit for charities, hospitals and other non-profit bodies is contentious. The government argues that the current provisions are being abused, although the non-profit sector disputes the claim. There is evidence of widespread use of the FBT exemptions by charities—up to 30 per cent of salaries—and, in some states, extensive use in the public and not-for-profit hospital systems. Victoria was particularly active in using salary packaging in the Kennett years. It is not limited to senior executives and doctors but includes large numbers of nurses and other staff. The loss of the FBT exemption would have serious implications for the continuing operation of some charities and hospitals.Labor has been arguing since 19 October last year that the issue of the impact of the whole of the taxation system, including the FBT, on the non-profit sector should be examined by an independent inquiry. We renewed the call for an inquiry when this bill was introduced. The inquiry could have been completed by now if the government had listened to our suggestions, but it did not. What it did instead was to sit on the legislation until last week. Now it is trying to blame non-government parties for its delay. Unfortunately, it succeeded to some extent with some in the press gallery, but the claim is absolutely false. This was a policy announced 18 months ago by the government but it did not bring the legislation in till last week. It still has to get through the Senate and it is supposed to operate from 1 April. Labor has not been given adequate time to fully consider all of the complexities in the bill but we are being cooperative in the passage of it, nevertheless. There is no public data on the behaviour of non-profit bodies regarding FBT other than some aggregate data in the Treasury tax expenditures statement. This information deficiency is one of the key issues that we need the independent inquiry to address. Nonetheless, there is considerable revenue estimated to be raised from the measure—some $170 million in the next financial year, rising to $190 million by 2003-04. So the parliament needs to be aware of the full data on this important issue. The key issue is that the government's proposals involve withdrawing this $170 million a year in revenue from the charitable hospital and non-profit sectors. The key question that then arises is: how will it impact on service delivery from these vital community and public organisations? The government has never addressed how this reduction in resources will be accommodated by the sector and this bill is not accompanied by any offer of compensation to offset the inevitable rise in the wages bill with these sectors. Indeed, the issue has not even been publicly raised by the government at all during the debate. We need to remember that the government, of its own accord, has modified its original proposals in this bill. The original proposals treated all FBT concession bodies the same in imposing a $17,000 grossed up exemption limit per employee. What is now proposed is a differential scheme. Charities and other bodies face a regime of $25,000 grossed up exemption per employee but hospitals retain the limit of $17,000. A harsher regime, therefore, will apply to hospitals than to charities. No explanation has been given as to why the government has made that distinction. The distinction has cut nearly $300 million out of the forward estimates over four years. This roll-back, therefore, has reduced the funding available for the next four years by $300 million. Labor is being consistent in its call for an inquiry into the whole impact of the tax system on the charitable and not-for-profit sector. We call again on the government to institute that inquiry so that the FBT proposal can be examined in the context of the full tax environment faced by these bodies, including the GST, about which there is much consternation in this sector. I now move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of this bill: 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 calls on the Government to institute an independent inquiry into the impact of the tax system, and proposed changes to the tax system, on the charitable, non-profit and public health sectors so that the provisions in the bill can be properly assessed”. I call on the government again to support this process. It could have been completed if they had listened to us five months ago. If the government does not institute an independent inquiry, a Senate inquiry will be pursued. Let us remember that the delay has been entirely of the government's doing. It reflects its unsuccessful efforts to reach an agreement with the Democrats. The second aspect of this legislation deals with the interaction of the GST with the FBT. It is an interaction that is terribly complicated. It dramatically and further complicates the regime. Just so as you understand this new efficient tax system, Madam Deputy Speaker, the publication that I have in front of me is the calculation or the interaction done by Ray Regan of the GST's effect on the FBT. That is one aspect only of the GST, but look how thick it is. It runs to 212 pages, and this is before the legislation we have here today. That is the complexity of this tax just as it interacts only with the fringe benefits tax. Forget about all the other complexities associated with this great new simple tax, Minister. You cannot even explain it in terms of caravan parks, even though you tell them one thing in your electorate and come and vote a different way down here. But go and tell them this is a simple new tax, when you need almost a telephone book—DT4Crean, Simon, MPDT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I will tell you about your deceit, my friend, in your electorate. You tell them that they will get relief from you and that you will be in there batting for them in relation to caravan parks in your electorate, in which there are many residents and voters. Are you going to do that, Minister? Are you going to stick by your claim on caravan parks? You are a fraud, my friend. You tell them up there that you are going to give them relief and you come down here in your obsequious way and rat on them. You will not do it. The nightmare will simply get worse and worse. The other fact to remember—XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPDT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—What is this babble over here? Go back to the caravan parks and explain your hypocrisy, my friend. The other fact to remember is that these proposals involve a very significant increase, of nearly $1 billion.MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr Baird—Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The bill we are discussing is quite specific. It is the A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits) Bill 2000. There is no relationship with caravan parks. I ask you to draw the member for Hotham back to the bill. He is clearly moving right outside the areas of this particular bill.10000Kelly, De-Anne (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—Generally, Speakers allow wide-ranging debate, but perhaps the matter of caravan parks is somewhat specific. The member for Hotham might be good enough to talk about the new tax system bill. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I accept that, Madam Deputy Speaker. The reference to caravan parks, of course, was to the minister's hypocrisy, which I think is well known and will continue to become widely known in his electorate as time goes on. But the fringe benefits tax income provided in the form of benefits means that John Howard and Peter Costello are taxing income at record levels. The new gross-up rate involves a 10 per cent increase from 1.94 to 2.13. The huge increase in income tax simply reinforces the hypocrisy of the coalition on tax. They run around falsely accusing Labor of putting up income taxes and then they do what they accuse us of. This is one example in the bill, and then you have the Timor tax as another one.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony—You are against Timor; is that right?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—These are your tax increases, my friend. The reasons for the need for these provisions is that generally employers obtain a credit for the GST they pay on providing their employees with fringe benefits. The credit has to be taken into account by the FBT system or else the GST will provide a concession to employees obtaining fringe benefits relative to employees who use their salary to purchase the same fringe benefits on which they would pay the GST. The regime is not opposed by Labor at this stage based on initial cursory examination, although there may well be anomalies in some areas. Industry sources have not yet had time to fully analyse the legislation. Further complications also arise where fringe benefits which are GST free are input taxed. But it does not stop there. There are complementary provisions to amend the GST legislation. Just a few weeks ago the Treasurer told us that there would not be any more legislative changes and then he comes in and changes legislation. If he can do it on these, why can't he do it on the other things, including your caravan parks, Minister? These deal with the situation where an employee receives fringe benefits from an employer but makes a contribution to some or all of the cost.There are also in this bill important exemptions for remote area housing and some meal expenses. The concessions apply not only to housing but also to housing loans, residential fuel and other housing costs. Remote area housing was defined as housing which is not within 40 kilometres of urban areas of 14,000 population in 1981, or within 100 kilometres of an urban area with a population of 130,000 in 1981. This is obviously of major benefit to many remote area employers and their employees such as in the mining industry. It is estimated to cost $35 million a year. But of course this was not the original government policy, either. This is also roll-back. The government's original proposal was to provide relief in respect of employees in the mining industry. This was Labor's proposal prior to the last election as well. However, the financial impact statement in the explanatory memorandum at page 1 notes:The FBT exemption for remote area housing has not been previously announced.And that is very interesting because this is the explanatory memorandum that was issued by the Treasurer. Again, it says: The FBT exemption for remote area housing has not been previously announced.But the Treasurer announced it in a press release issued by his office back on 25 November. Then he issued an explanatory memorandum that does not even recognise that he announced it before. It is a further unfunded roll-back to the tune of $15 million a year. In fact the opposition thinks that the memorandum is incorrect for the reason that I have outlined. He announced it, but the explanatory memorandum which he released does not know what he did. He does not like to call it roll-back. He says, according to today's Financial Review:It's a more technically robust and better system to achieve the original policy intent.Sounds like roll-back to me, and of course it is roll-back. The date of that press release is also interesting because it was a week before he made that other famous foray into his solution for regional Australia: `Take a pay cut.' This is the Treasurer's view as to how you get things going in the regions: `Take a pay cut.' It was also in the same newspaper article that he said he would not be going to the Olympics; that he was going to invite visiting heads of state to eat pizza on their knees with him—but he has booked the king suite at the Novotel. (Time expired)10000Kelly, De-Anne (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—Is the amendment seconded?LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—I second the amendment moved by the shadow Treasurer.11:12:0014862Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise today in support of A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits) Bill 2000 which is part of the government's ongoing program of introducing the new tax system which will be a major benefit to the people of Australia. There is no doubt about the hypocrisy of the member for Hotham. If you want to talk about hypocrisy, just go back and look at the ALP documents before the last election and you will see where the hypocrisy comes from. Not only does the member for Hotham not have any plans himself about how he is going to develop a tax system for Australia; he also says that as of 1 July he has no plans to roll back the GST. He has plenty of criticisms day by day, day in and day out, but so critical is he and so concerned is he that as of 1 July he will simply allow it all to happen. That shows great conviction, great concern, as we all know. Let me draw to the attention of House what was included in the ALP's 1998 election manifesto, chapter 6, entitled `Paying for the benefits'. This is your manifesto, not that of this side of the House. This is what you say, yet you have the audacity to comment about hypocrisy regarding the minister and the chair. Let me read what you guys had to say about it:A Labor Government will reform the Fringe Benefits Tax to limit the value of FBT benefits that can be provided by certain institutions which enjoy concessional FBT treatment to $17,000 of grossed up benefits per employee.So concerned are they in moving these amendments today, this legislation actually refers to what they had in their own documents. Talk about hypocrisy: before the election this was a good way to go, but after the election we suddenly see all these obstacles. They have delayed these provisions in the bill for months. They would not reach agreement. They were continually running to the media and talking about the problems—yet here we have the provisions included in this bill in the ALP manifesto: concessional FBT treatment of $17,000 of grossed up benefits per employee. I also note in that that fringe benefits are able to be used to avoid means tests for some taxation and social security measures which ignore the value of fringe benefits to calculate eligibility. All the way through, they have said one thing before the election but presented a very different situation after it. We all remember that being done in a previous election when Prime Minister Keating announced his l-a-w proposals for tax cuts. It is the same hypocrisy; these are the same provisions. Before the election the opposition said, `This is how we are going to fund it. We are going to cut back these FBT provisions and the generous treatment of $17,000.' But then the government introduces provisions which are for $25,000 for certain charitable institutions and $17,000 for all hospital employees. That amount has a certain ring to it: it was actually included in the ALP documents. I cannot understand the level of sheer hypocrisy that exists on the other side. Don't you think people remember what you said before? It is quite simple where you stand: you stand for nothing except cheap politically expedient moves.Let us turn to the provisions of the bill. This is all part of the announcement by Senator Rod Kemp in December last year. Senator Kemp advised that the government would:... introduce legislation to clarify the interaction between the fringe benefits and the GST. Once enacted the legislation will ensure that the supply of goods and services by an employer to an employee is not subject to GST where the supply is subject to fringe benefits tax (FBT).It was foreshadowed at that time, and we have been waiting for the Democrats and the Labor Party. They have been dragging their heels saying, `This is unfair to charities; it is unfair to hospitals.' It is unfair to everyone they can think of. They have no provisions and no practical solutions and they are in total contradiction of the document they put out before the last election. This bill is about making the system fairer for all Australians; it is about equity. There is no doubt at all—and I am sure all members would agree—that rorting of the FBT system has occurred by charitable institutions. There is no doubt about that. Everybody is agreed on that. There is clear evidence of that. But isn't it appropriate that, where this has occurred, we can close the loopholes to ensure that we have equity. Why should it be that an employee in one organisation has to pay the full rate of tax and another employee in another organisation is simply able to cash up half of their income in FBT? That sort of inequity and unfairness goes against the very grain of Australia. The provisions in this legislation recognise that an employee who works for a non-profit organisation or a charitable institution is clearly recognised as such and that while, very often, they are not able to be paid as much, they provide a very worthwhile activity in the community. That is why the first $25,000 for those charitable institutions is recognised as FBT exempt. And hospital employees, because of their significant role in public health care, have the exemption of $17,000. I think we would all agree that $17,000 is a pretty fair amount. If you choose the average Commodore or Falcon and look at the costs of running that vehicle—for example leasing and maintenance costs—they would undoubtedly add up to $17,000. It means that employees in public—not private—hospitals are actually able to have a normal car FBT free under those provisions. It is recognition of the particular role that the charities and hospitals play.The bill also provides measures for remote housing. In terms of the actual provisions—the overuse of the FBT concessions by PBIs—it has been going on for a long time. It is recognised that this has gone on, and the way in which the whole tax provisions have been manipulated to allow for at least half of the salaries in these benevolent institutions to be taken away in FBT provisions is simply unfair. It is a question of equity; it is a question of fairness, even though we recognise the worthwhile and significant activities that these charities take on board in Australia. Of course, the Australian community depends on them very much—I know a lot of the key players in these charities. We all recognise the Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul and World Vision. They play a magnificent role in our society for which we are all very grateful. Not by any means would we want to take away from the rights of these organisations or the special role that they play in Australia. It is simply a question of saying that, with clearly recognised charities, we will provide up to $25,000, which will provide not only cars but also some provision for housing. I think that is appropriate, but it is also putting firmly on the table that we will not allow a continued use where there is no limit on the FBT that is able to be used by hospitals and recognised charitable institutions. Nor will we allow manipulation of the FBT-free provisions, which they have done in the past. I think that is entirely appropriate and entirely fair.We clearly knew what the ALP's position was before the last election. It has suddenly changed and we now have the provisions announced through the amendments moved by the member for Hotham. It is also clear that the ALP must recognise that, in terms of the budget provisions, unless the requirements contained in this legislation are enacted, there will be a $400 million hole in the budget. They are always very good at coming up with where money should be spent—on this, that and the other—but there are no suggestions as to how this $400 million can be replaced. It is simply rhetoric and cheap political opportunism from them.I think it is also important to say that the government recognises, and is thankful for the fact, that the vast majority of eligible employers do not abuse the current FBT exemptions. We are not saying that there is widespread abuse; most people do the right thing. We simply want to remove loopholes that allow the exploitation of the FBT treatment. It is also important to note that the threshold will not include benefits that are already exempt or not classified as benefits under existing law, such as the superannuation provisions. On top of this, the concessional methods of valuing some benefits greatly increase the total value of benefits that will fit within the threshold. Let us look at the question of remote area housing. I think this is an important provision. We need to look increasingly at the requirements of regional Australia and remote Australia. I myself have had representations from the police. They talked about the way in which they live in remote areas and that they have no choice when they are sent to remote areas. They are required to live in government housing, provided by the police force, and they would be required to pay FBT on the houses they occupy. Where individuals are in a remote location—and the definitions are contained in this legislation; for instance, locations more than 100 kilometres outside larger towns or cities of 100,000 or more and more than 40 kilometres outside smaller towns—there is recognition that this will make it much fairer to those who, because of the requirements of their job, have to live in these locations.In the past these exemptions have been provided for primary producers, and I think it appropriate that that was the case. Obviously, the government has decided to extend this exemption to not only the primary producers and those people involved with mining companies but all employees so that there is fairness for those who are posted perhaps as part of a medical requirement or as part of a police force—anybody who has to go to these remote locations—and who are provided with housing and meet the criteria. They will be exempt from the FBT provisions in the bill. When announcing the change last year, the Treasurer said:This measure will provide assistance to small businesses, remote area communities and State and local government and highlights the government's commitment to the promotion of regional Australia.The Deputy Prime Minister, who has done so much for regional Australia and outback Australia, as you would know, Madam Deputy Speaker Kelly, and whose own electorate includes significant sections of outback Australia, reiterated these comments. He said:This move relieves some of the cost burden for labour in regional, rural and remote Australia, flowing on to more jobs and more people in the bush.I think that is to be welcomed. I talked to the police association as recently as yesterday, and I know that they welcome the provisions included in this bill. Not only does it relate to housing; it also allows an FBT exemption for all meals, excepting meal entertainment, that are provided on a work day to primary production workers in remote areas. That was part of the National Party's campaign platform in 1998. They promised in 1998 and here they are delivering it. We can contrast that with the Labor Party's manifesto before the last election: they promised they would limit it to $17,000. What do they do when they come in? They throw it away. They want to forget it and say, `We're the heroes to charities. We don't want to have any restrictions. We'll just totally ignore what we said before.' I think the contrast between a party of integrity and a party of immediate political opportunism is clearly noted.Moving on to the new gross-up formula, I think it is important and is required as part of the transition to the new tax system. The main interaction between the GST and the FBT will be through the grossing-up of FBT. The legislation introduces a new gross-up formula that takes the GST inputs into account. As we all know, under the new tax system, employers registered for the GST and with an Australian Business Number will be able to claim GST input credits on any business related purchases, including most fringe benefits. The new formula recovers any input tax credits received in the provision of a fringe benefit to an employee or their associate.It must be noted that the new formula only applies to those fringe benefits where the employer is entitled to claim a GST input credit for the benefit. Should that benefit be GST free or should the employer not be able to claim input credits, the existing gross-up formula will continue to apply. This formula is also necessary to further ensure that the tax treatment between cash salary and fringe benefits remains neutral following the arrival of the GST. Were this new formula not to exist, the incentive would be there for employees to convert cash salary into fringe benefits, thus avoiding the GST on those items. Quite obviously, the new grossing-up formula is a vital part of this bill and the new tax system as a whole. Finally, we have the Medicare amendment that is part of the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999. Under current law, a one per cent Medicare levy surcharge is imposed on a person's reportable fringe benefits total in the year of income. The tests to determine liability are based on a person's or couple's combined income and reportable fringe benefits.The surcharge introduced by the government can be avoided if an individual takes out private health insurance, which is a great incentive. I cannot remember the member for Jagajaga complimenting the government on this provision to encourage people into the private health system, thereby relieving the pressure on government run hospitals, but we know the member for Jagajaga for her hypocrisy. We look forward to her explaining why her manifesto before the election was to limit the `rorting' to 17 per cent and why she suddenly finds it politically expedient to run around the hospitals saying, `I'll be your saviour. I'll help you out. I'll bag this system.' Never mind the manifesto she put her name to before the election. Does she revoke the manifesto of 1998 to restrict packaging to 17 per cent of their income? Will that be the case? Will she totally ignore that and say, `No, we didn't mean that. We're terribly sorry; we made a mistake. Yes we said it, but we believe we were totally wrong'? Will she say it, or will it all be part of the normal ALP rhetoric to say one thing before the election and after the election to conveniently forget about it and to run all over Australian hospitals saying, `We'll help you out. You can charge whatever you want in terms of the FBT. You can manipulate the tax system so that you can have this gross exploitation of the benefits that are there, where often half of the salary is taken in FBT provisions'? I look very much forward to the member for Jagajaga explaining this dichotomy of views—one view before the election and another after it.There are provisions in this legislation that will do much to ensure the avoidance of the rorting of the FBT provisions. It recognises clearly that the great majority of non-profit organisations and charitable institutions have done the right thing. We do recognise the important and significant roles of people who work in hospitals and for charities—they are clearly acknowledged and recognised. This legislation will do much to remove the provisions to exploit the system. It also recognises the difficulties that face those who live in remote locations. It ensures that they will not be required to pay FBT on the cost of their housing or their meals in those locations. This is significant and important legislation, and I commend the bill to the House.11:32:0014865Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—It is with great pleasure that I follow the member for Cook in the debate on the A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits) Bill 2000. I emphasise to him that, not surprisingly, he failed to mention the Labor Party's commitment before the last election to make sure that public hospitals would not be left worse off as a result of any FBT changes. That will not be the reality of this bill, if it goes through in its current form without any compensation. The member for Cook is leaving the chamber. He obviously does not have any interest in finding out what the impact of this bill is going to be on public hospitals. The serious impact of this bill on public hospitals is going to be revealed.The member for Cook and this government should think about why hospitals have had to resort to this type of salary packaging. Why is there widespread use of salary packaging by hospitals in different states in this country? The real reason is the inadequate level of funding provided by this federal government, which has set the scene whereby hospitals in a variety of states are starved of funds and are desperately struggling with staff numbers to maintain operations in the face of growing demand from patients and increasingly expensive medical technology and medicines. We hear stories day after day about declining standards and increasing problems in our public hospitals due to a lack of staff and inadequate training.The latest issue of our nursing homes has made all of us sick to our stomachs. It is yet another indication of the lack of commitment by this federal government to properly funding our public health institutions. It is therefore not surprising that public hospitals and other public benevolent institutions have been operating as not-for-profit hospitals and nursing homes. They have had to take the opportunity to package staff salaries to reduce the costs to the organisations—to our public hospitals—while giving the employee the same or greater take-home pay as their fellow employees without packages. We particularly need to look at the experience in Victoria, where the public hospital system has been using salary packaging to a greater degree. One suspects—I have to say I am being kind to a premier who has, fortunately, left the political scene—that under Jeff Kennett, the Liberal government in Victoria had a deliberate policy of pushing hospitals into maximising the use of salary packaging as a means to reduce the states' contribution to our public hospitals and to push a larger share of the costs of the public health system onto the Commonwealth. So it was a double-barrelled attack that the public hospitals in Victoria had to take into account—cuts in public funding from the Commonwealth, with the Liberal government under Jeff Kennett at the same time saying, `I don't want to be left carrying this baby all by myself. I am going to force as many staff as I possibly can onto salary packaging so I don't have to pay the bill.' It was a cynical manipulation by the Kennett government to cover up its own cuts to the public health budget. If this bill goes through in its current form, with no compensation to public hospitals, it will leave the new government in Victoria with a bill of around $100 million—a very serious amount of money—and there will be major problems for our public hospitals. And that is just in Victoria.This method of salary packaging has also been used in other states. Not surprisingly, the biggest problems are in the Liberal states. In the Liberal states of South Australia and Western Australia we also see an extensive use of salary packaging in our public hospitals for exactly the same reason that Jeff Kennett did it—to basically palm off the costs of public hospitals onto the Commonwealth in an underhand way because they do not have a commitment to public health. They wanted to cut their funding to our public hospitals, and this was one of the ways that they went about it. Public hospitals which face the loss of the current FBT arrangements, which we see in this bill, will face a huge problem in attracting and retaining staff, particularly if—as we currently have it with this government's proposal—there is no compensation for this change in FBT arrangements. The current budgets in all the states are insufficient to provide existing staff with competitive take-home salaries because, up until now, they have been predicated on the availability of packaging. Whether we like it or not, that is how the budgets have been arrived at. If we want to make sure that the tax system is fair and everyone makes a reasonable contribution and concessions are transparent and restricted to those areas where we want to make sure we get the appropriate public benefit, we need to recognise that, if we go down the path the government are insisting on with this change to public hospitals, it is going to leave the public hospitals very short indeed. What are they going to do with all the staff who have been salary packaged? Will those staff have to look for employment elsewhere? We already have a critical shortage of nurses. This issue does not only apply to the high income people. I think many in this parliament might think that it is only the top people in the public hospital system who have been salary packaged in this way. That is just not the case. People have been salary packaged right throughout the public hospital system. So it is not going to be only those at the top who are going to be affected; people right throughout the public hospital system are going to be affected.It is therefore absolutely unacceptable for this bill to proceed without the government putting forward a detailed plan as to how they will avoid a disastrous impact on our public hospitals. But one would imagine that that will just follow in the current tradition of this government. The government will say, as we have heard the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Wooldridge, say so many times recently, `Oh, well, it's not our problem. Public hospitals are run by the states; they can sort it out.' But this is a problem that the federal government are imposing on our public hospitals—one that is theirs to fix. They are the ones who are changing the FBT arrangements. They are the ones who are going to leave the public hospitals with the enormous problems of how they are going to retain staff and how they are going to make sure that our public hospitals can continue to deliver the services that the public rightly demands. But, of course, the government are going to say, `It has absolutely nothing to do with us. We just pay the states whatever we want to and the states can pick up all the other problems we might create as a result of FBT legislation.' That is the attitude of this government, and the impact on our public hospitals will unfortunately be there for all of us to see if there is no appropriate compensation. Unfortunately, it is also the case that we do not have any decent data on the behaviour of the non-profit bodies regarding FBT, other than some rather aggregate data from Treasury's tax expenditure statement. So, to this point, we have really suffered from a lack of detailed information on how the FBT is currently being used by the charitable and non-profit sectors. This severely limits the capacity of the parliament to consider how these measures that we are debating today are going to impact on these very important sectors, particularly those delivering such critical services in the charitable area. That is why the opposition has been saying for some time now—since last October, in fact—that we believe that, before the parliament can properly consider the impact of the fringe benefits tax changes included in this bill, an independent review of the taxation arrangements for the charitable and non-profit sectors and the impact on public hospitals is necessary. We do not want to have a situation where, in the process of solving one problem, this legislation produces a raft of other problems. I have just outlined what the problems will be in the public hospitals and how serious they will be. The other area in health is going to be in rural Australia, both for rural health services and particularly for Aboriginal health services—and I will come to those issues in a minute.Not surprisingly, the government do not want to have a look at the detail of what the impact of these changes, particularly on public hospitals, is going to be. They just want to wash their hands of the responsibility of funding public hospitals. So what we have done in the Senate this morning is lay down the terms of reference for a Community Affairs References Committee inquiry. I will not go through the details of that—that will be on the Senate Hansard for everybody to see. If the government were serious about being concerned about how this FBT legislation is going to impact on the charitable and non-profit sectors and on the health sector, they would hold this legislation and have a proper inquiry to make sure that we understand the impact and so that appropriate changes can be made to rectify any problems. Aboriginal medical services as well as the public hospitals have indicated that the measures contained in this bill are going to place significant burdens on their budgets and immediately result in a reduction in services. This is really about a reduction in resources in public hospitals, Aboriginal health services and rural health services, and the government have never addressed how this reduction in resources is going to be accommodated by these critical health services. This bill is not accompanied by any compensation for any of those sectors. It is true that we have seen the government modify its original proposals from those it put forward before the election, but public hospitals are left at a limit of $17,000 exemption per employee. These problems will be very serious and I want to give an indication of just how serious they will be for a person in a public hospital earning, say, $60,000 a year and taking home 30 per cent as a non-cash benefit. They currently have the option of $18,000 in package benefits. The $17,000 cap that the government is proposing is equivalent to a real value of $8,755, substantially less than the $18,000 typically paid now. That is the reality of what we are going to be facing in our health services, which are trying to attract GPs out into rural and remote Australia, into Aboriginal medical services, and are trying to make sure that we get adequate staffing in our public hospitals. It is the case that regional and remote health care organisations have used the exemptions to good effect to attract qualified staff to often difficult areas and retain them. There are a number of specific benefits in addition to accommodation. Accommodation is not the only issue. The government has addressed to a degree the issue of accommodation but, as I will indicate in a minute, that will not be sufficient for some rural areas. There are a number of other areas that rural GPs in particular have raised with me. There is no doubt that transport is a major issue, as are travel for study purposes and subsidised professional development arrangements. As for child care, a GP from a rural town in Western Australia raised that yesterday with me as an issue that is emerging in rural towns.National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations, which represents around 100 Aboriginal health services throughout Australia, is also very concerned about the impact of the bill on the capacity of these Aboriginal medical services to attract and retain health professionals particularly in rural and regional areas. They rely on salary packaging to recruit and retain staff within—and this is the critical thing—their fixed global budgets. The work undertaken in these centres is highly demanding and the services already have difficulty, even with this FBT arrangement, in retaining skilled staff. The full exemptions from the FBT had allowed them until now to offer salary packages which were more competitive than people might have been able to get elsewhere. To quote NACCHO:Aboriginal Health Services have no means within their fixed budgets to absorb increased FBT liability, and any unfunded liability will inevitably lead to staff losses and retraction or cessation of services.That is really what it is about. So much for the red light going on in the Prime Minister's office whenever any threat is made by any government legislation to rural health services—and that is what this bill is going to do. The red light is obviously not flashing. As someone said in the House the other day, obviously someone has nicked off with the globe, because this bill will have that immediate effect. As the Aboriginal health services have said, they have no means within their fixed budgets to absorb the increased FBT liability and this will inevitably lead to staff losses and a reduction in or a cessation of services. That is what we are really facing in practical terms. A loss of medical officers, nurses and other administration staff, forcing a reduction in health services in the community—that will be the result of this government's legislation that we are debating today.We cannot have the Prime Minister out there saying that the red light is going to flash and then the next day a piece of legislation being brought into the House for debate and no consideration being given to the impact on rural and remote health services, beyond the housing issue, and no consideration being given to how this is going to have such a specific impact on our public hospitals. It is important that we get to the bottom of this issue and have a proper inquiry, a Senate inquiry, so that at least the government is informed about what the impact of these changes will be on these critical sectors of our community—our public hospitals, our rural and remote health services and, within that, our Aboriginal health services.11:51:0014868Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—The previous speaker, the member for Jagajaga, made much of the fact that welfare and services generally in remote areas will be affected because of the introduction of these changes. The point was absolutely missed that, without some viability in the bush, in remote areas, there is much revenue lost that can support these particular packages. The introduction of FBT was the result of some very ham-fisted moves by the ALP back in 1986. They say that a blunt instrument does a lot of damage. A blunt instrument in the hands of the ALP does damage indeed, and this particular legislation—the A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits) Bill 2000—to collect tax on benefits paid to employees in remote areas has gone a long way to creating the situation we have in remote areas of Australia today; that is, an outpouring of population to the coast.My electorate of Kalgoorlie is all remote area—91 per cent of Western Australia—and the FBT has done more to damage resource development in that area than any other piece of legislation. This bill provides the opportunity to remove the provision of housing to employees in remote areas from the clutches of FBT, and that is the best news that we have had in the bush for a long time. Prior to the introduction of this legislation in 1986 by the ALP, the Pilbara iron ore industry, the salt industry and the mining industry were doing very well. Communities were built in areas where previously there was desert, isolation and a sparse population. Towns were established, and those towns were viable and complete entities. They had a work force. They had every facility necessary for a good community. There were volunteer groups and sporting groups, and there were educational facilities that were equal to the best in the cities. Even though the operations were being worked around the clock, with a three-shift work force there was a great deal of voluntary action in those towns—voluntary action in the form of volunteer fire brigades, St John Ambulance drivers, welfare support groups and playgroups. All manner of services were provided because we had a viable population base. When FBT was introduced, the mining companies found that they had to pay tax on the facility that was provided for their employees, namely housing. There was a change of heart. Suddenly, it became a financial burden for those mining companies. The situation was revisited. Many decisions were made to the detriment of those communities. The first decision made was that this could perhaps be countered by giving over to private ownership those houses that had been provided previously at very low rentals to employees. Having chosen home ownership in the majority of cases, many of those mining families decided that, if they were to own a house, they could own a house elsewhere. This induced the idea in company boardrooms to create the fly-in fly-out situation. It was not long before those remote area towns started to lose their populations. More and more of the employees were opting for the fly-in fly-out situation and moving to coastal areas—predominantly to the city areas of the coastal fringe. With the reduction in population, small business infrastructure in those towns started to wane. There was simply no profitability there, because those small businesses were being forced to provide housing and then to pay tax on that housing. So the inclination to employ a large number of people passed. Staff numbers were reduced and service was reduced; the number of customers had already been reduced. You saw small business in country areas going down the drain—all down to Labor's FBT.Having had fly-in fly-out arrangements with a three-shift work force for some period of time, mining companies recognised the further economic advantages in reducing those three fly-in-fly-out shifts to just two, and the 12-hour shift was created to keep those mines and operations running around the clock. With a 12-hour shift in those remote towns, you now have half the population working while, at the same time, the other half of the population, in the main, is sleeping. The volunteer efforts in those towns today is down to an all-time low. There are simply not the people available to participate in the volunteer fire brigade. They are screaming for St John Ambulance drivers. The child-care facilities are going down through lack of volunteers and through lack of customers, due to the depletion of the population in those towns. You have a situation where there is no such thing as inter-town sporting competitions any longer because there are no people there to make up the sporting teams. As I said, the population that is flying in and out of the towns is either sleeping or working—there is no time for the niceties of community spirit.A further exacerbation of the problem comes in the area of safety. With the 12-hour shifts, men are being stretched and accidents are occurring. With the fly-in fly-out situation, families back on the coast are disintegrating because the main breadwinner of that family—the father of the household, in the main—is absent for at least half the time and the fabric of the family is collapsing.The effect of this bill will be to exempt all remote area housing from FBT. It is my hope that such a reversal may eventually lead to not just a rethinking of the 12-hour shifts and the fly-in fly-out arrangement but the re-creation of communities in remote areas, which will give back vibrancy to those towns. It will give back a reason for there being a town, because suddenly we will have a community again. The upshot of that, of course, is that we will have a greater opportunity for resource development and we will have less stress on community facilities in the city. Speaking of community facilities, one of the further, insidious effects of fly-in fly-out—in the main, created by FBT—is that Australian Bureau of Statistics figures now form the basis for capital grants to local government. Those statistics show a very small population in the bush, because the majority work on a fly in-fly-out basis and their normal place of residence is somewhere on the coast. So the local government facilities in the bush are not getting the funding necessary to provide the infrastructure for that working population who, if they have a spare moment, use the local swimming pool, the local library, the local theatre or hall and all of the other services provided by local government. They contribute nothing towards the cost of those provisions because the capital grant that would be given on their behalf is given to another location as part of their residential local government area. So the area where they are most using local government facilities gets no financial benefit at all. The casual observation made by people travelling through these remote areas about money that is earned in these areas is, `You've got a mine. You've got a viable resource development going on there. You've got a very large work force. This must be a viable town.' The simple fact is that the wages earned in those towns by those fly-in fly-out individuals are spent elsewhere. So the small business infrastructure that might remain in that town is getting no fillip whatsoever. The sad thing about this of course is that by now, with the depletion of population, you have declining educational facilities, day care facilities and every other facility in the bush. This legislation will, hopefully, put an end to that and at least provide a start. Once again we will have equity for small business, because small business having to bring managers and employees generally from other parts will be able to provide housing for those individuals in the short term without having to pay an FBT.This bill also provides for the exemption of the cost of providing meals—that is, meals other than entertainment—on a day-to-day basis for primary producers' employees. This has impacted for a long time on shearing sheds across my electorate. Shearers who take a meal provided by the pastoralist are an additional cost to the pastoralist because the meal is considered to be a fringe benefit. How on earth can you have a shearer working eight hard hours on the floor of a shearing shed and have the meals provided being considered a benefit? It is an absolute nonsense. It is just one of the nonsenses that was created when the ALP introduced this legislation in 1986. So we are going to exempt those meals provided in the course of a working day from FBT.The other thing that this legislation will do is stop the overuse of the concessional FBT treatment for public benevolent institutions. We have heard much whining about the fact that there is going to be some change in this area, but I say again that without the Commonwealth grants to hospitals and states generally to provide for these not-for-profit facilities and without those funds that are generated in resource development and pastoral industries across my electorate there will be no funding to public institutions. I believe it is a very salient point. This bill is a great breakthrough for remote Australia. It is certainly a breakthrough for my electorate, and I commend it to the House.12:03:0014870Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—The A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits) Bill 2000 seeks to bring further changes to the taxation treatment of Australia's many charitable and not-for-profit organisations. I think it is sometimes forgotten that there are something like 10,000 charities in this country which have virtually millions of members. Every one of these charities, under this government, is about to become a tax collector. That is something that we should think about. This bill is part of that process, where the government is, through a combination of the GST and FBT changes, placing a significant burden on many charities. In the process of doing that, it is effectively placing a tax on compassion and is effectively putting forward a tax on helping people. It is also going to be a tax on volunteering. We have had a lot of debate in this House, particularly about the application of the GST to charitable organisations. We should recall the Prime Minister's commitment when he said:I do not accept for a moment that the application of the GST will be damaging to the charitable sector.It will, and that has been documented. We have heard evidence from organisations like St Vincent de Paul, the Uniting Church, the Adelaide Central Mission and many organisations throughout this community that the GST will place a huge burden on them. Recently we had a report from the Australia Institute which looked at all of the issues associated with the taxation of charities. That report found among other things that unregistered entities will not be able to claim refunds of GST on their inputs. That is the government's position. As a consequence of that, they will face cost increases of around seven per cent. That fact is being completely ignored or denied by the government, but it remains the reality for many organisations in this community. The Australia Institute found that if sales by charities fall by around 15 per cent due to a GST induced rise of 10 per cent in the price of giving—and that has been the overseas experience—individual charities could face losses of up to 11 per cent as a result of the GST. They also found the average real loss of income for the sector would be three per cent or more, and they found that the impact on volunteers would be severe. The report predicted that the potential reduction in a volunteer's donation of time would be around 30 per cent. That would be an economic loss to the nation of something like $230 million. So we are dealing with very important matters here which go to the heart of what sort of society we want to be and which go to the heart of the capacity of voluntary organisations in our community to serve their community. I cannot see how this government can talk genuinely about the concept of a social coalition when they are out there, through a combination of measures, taxing the capacity of voluntary organisations to help those most in need. It is completely inconsistent.Most importantly, in the whole package GST compliance costs are not being compensated for at all. Fundraising and other activities that assist charitable organisations to deliver services are still being slugged by the GST, contrary to what the government says. The core problem with this government's approach to charities, and it is reflected in this bill, is its sheer ignorance about the reality of charities' daily functioning and how they operate. It is simply the case that it does not know and does not care. We have seen so much evidence of this in the bills before the House. The whole proposal to put a GST on site fees, for example, for those residents in mobile homes in caravan parks, simply reflected the government's ignorance. It did not know that there were 160,000 people in Australia who lived in these circumstances—it simply did not know. And it simply does not understand how charities operate and what the impact of these measures will be.That brings us to the FBT proposals in this bill. The government do not fully understand the adverse impact of these proposals on many charitable organisations, which will cause for those organisations significant stress and significant pressure on their capacity to fund their existing levels of activity. What we on this side of the House say is that, if the government think that there is a very substantial problem with the FBT—and they do by the revenue estimates that they have produced—and if it is being rorted and if that needs to be stamped out, why don't we have a full independent inquiry into the combined impact of the GST and FBT changes on the sector? Why don't we get it all out there? Why don't we have an independent inquiry which gets to the bottom of this matter? We owe that to all the volunteers and all the participants in the charitable sector to at least give them the benefit of a hearing. What they have been saying to me as I move around this country is that there will be for some of them a severe adverse impact from some of these FBT changes. Nobody quibbles with the objective of eliminating rorting in the system, but equally nobody should be quibbling with the fact that some of these changes will not be doing anything other than hurting organisations which are working very hard within the framework of the existing law to serve the community. So we do have the view that there should be an independent inquiry and that it should have the scope to examine the whole issue of how the charitable organisations are treated within the tax system—and that includes FBT and GST. We need that inquiry because there is insufficient information at present to properly evaluate the anecdotal claims of rorting on the one hand against the concerns on the other that some charities are going to be unviable if their current fringe benefits tax treatment is capped at the rate proposed by the government in this bill. Let us measure that; let us test it in a full independent inquiry. The Taxation Office gave the opposition a briefing on this matter and it admitted in that briefing that it does not yet possess the information on how charities currently use fringe benefits tax exemptions. It admitted that. In so doing, it confirmed that we do need a wider inquiry. Without further investigation, it is not possible to say how current rules should be changed to allow legitimate assistance while removing any abuse. If we fail to investigate this issue properly and thoroughly and this measure were to pass, some charities will have been punished without accurate evidence proving that there has been abuse in the system. I have got to say that the level of concern that I have picked up as I move around Australia, and particularly in my home state of Queensland where there are not as many charities which may necessarily have people on big packages, indicates that the proposed cap may result in many of these organisations having to lay off staff or reduce services to the most vulnerable. That needs to be tested. They have come to me, and I am sure they have been to members of the government and members of the backbench right across this parliament. Many of these people are very genuine. So we have a serious problem here and it needs to be addressed in a very serious way. That is why we on this side of House believe that this whole matter should be tested in an independent inquiry. That is the position of the opposition. It is necessary because the combined impact may seriously disadvantage many charities in our community. The Senate Community Affairs Committee some time ago attempted to examine those issues, but at that stage the government refused to provide any detailed information on its taxation proposals or their impact, and we are not much further advanced from there. But there is plenty of evidence out there from people who work very hard to make this country a better place that if we do not have that independent inquiry we will be seriously punishing not only those organisations but also the people they serve.Of course, when the sector contemplates the changes to the FBT, they have to do that in the context of the impact of the GST, which is applied right across the sector to these organisations. You could not find a starker example of why we say this is a government which is weak in taxing the strong and strong in taxing the weak. The starkest example of that is the impact of the GST on the charitable sector. When you strip away all of the rhetoric, all of the nonsense that the government talks, the charitable sector is going to be paying the GST, and that is why we say the GST is a tax on compassion and a tax on helping people. It is going to pick up the most basic fundraising activities of the charitable sector. This government will simply go down in history, when it comes to the GST component of this, as the first government in this country that decided to turn the charitable sector into tax collectors.The charitable sector has already been caught with massive cuts to funding, creating an enormous social deficit. It has had massive increases in demand despite general economic growth, because the growth itself is not being shared fairly. Now the government comes along and says, `Well, you are not doing enough. We are going to take a lot more from you.' That is effectively what the application of the GST to the charitable sector means. We have said that this bill should be the subject of a full, independent inquiry. What we have said generally about the question of taxation is very simple: we will roll back the GST. We will do it with some consistent principles, the first of which is to alleviate its impact on the weakest and most vulnerable sectors of our society, namely, the charities. Secondly, we will alleviate its impact on small business, its impact on those areas which are supposed to be GST free and its impact on employment. They are the principles we operate on. This country is diminished by taking the steps that this government is taking across the board to turn each and every one of our charities in this country into a tax collector. Welcome to John Howard's social coalition. 12:16:0014873McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I am pleased to participate in this debate on the A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits) Bill 2000 because of my interest over many years in the taxation of fringe benefits. I well recall the introduction of the fringe benefits tax back in 1986 when the then Hawke government were unable to explain to taxpayers and employers how to implement the tax. At that time, there was a famous pink booklet that I spent a number of hours studying, trying to understand what the impact of the tax was on individual employers and individual employees, and the way in which the tax should be interpreted. We have an interesting scenario in this parliament today where members of the Labor Party are suggesting that we need yet another inquiry into a tax which they introduced into the parliament and which they refined during their time in government. At the end of that time, the way in which the tax should be implemented was still in many ways incomprehensible. So it is all very well for the shadow Treasurer and the member for Lilley to call for an inquiry into the provisions before the parliament today.It might be worth looking at what the changes to the fringe benefits tax are going to be and what they in fact incorporate. As members of the parliament would be aware, the fringe benefits tax is a tax on those benefits that historically had escaped taxation. It was conceded by both sides that there needed to be some form of attack upon that tax loophole. There was great argument at that time about the fact that the tax was to be paid by the employer, not the employee. That was a movement away from the canons of taxation: that those who received a benefit, an income or a remuneration should pay the tax. However, I concede the point that, because of the complexity of it, the current government have maintained that situation. In the new tax changes that will come in on 1 July, there are some changes to the fringe benefits tax.Let us see what we mean by the `benefit'. The fringe benefits tax includes any right, privilege or service or the use of something— for example, the use of a car, house or equipment. That covers a multitude of activities, and the total revenue received from fringe benefits tax is about $3.2 billion. I make that point: of the total budget, $3.2 billion is received from fringe benefits tax. Governments need to have that revenue, and it does ensure there is less evasion of people's obligation to pay a fair amount of tax. The use of a car provides a very large percentage of the total $3.2 billion in tax revenue. The ownership of something, for instance, clothes and goods, is a smaller proportion of the revenue received. The enjoyment of a privilege or facility, a cheap loan or school fees and the provision of a service, for example, a skill or labour, are the other items. Who pays the fringe benefits tax? As I have said, the employers pay. There has been a lot of argument about that. That will continue to be the position, whether they are sole traders, partnerships, trusts, corporations, unincorporated associations or government bodies. We will talk about unincorporated associations in a minute.The lodging of the returns will hopefully be improved. As members would be aware, the fringe benefits tax is now going to be assessed on 1 April each year. It begins this year, on 1 April 2000. Under the new taxation proposals, it will be paid in four instalments, on 21 July, 21 October, 21 January and 21 April. It is quite clear what will happen. There will be a special form for paying the fringe benefits tax. That is a tidying up of the arrangements that provide $3.2 billion to the government.Changes are being foreshadowed by the government in relation to benevolent institutions, including a requirement that fringe benefits for employees of benevolent institutions be limited to $17,000. The limit will be $25,000 for other employees. Members of the opposition have raised that matter. The member for Lilley and the shadow spokesman really have no logical answer to what the government is attempting to do. They in the opposition have been committed to a fringe benefits tax. They instituted the tax. They have supported it and they have defended it, yet they come into the parliament and say, `Look, it is all a bit difficult and we should have yet another inquiry into the benevolent institutions.' Put in very simple terms, the government are saying that, on all the evidence available, the fringe benefits tax has been exploited by some benevolent institutions and that there needs to be a tidying up of this position. It might be worth while defining what a public benevolent institution is under the tax act. The definition reads as follows: An institution is considered benevolent where its dominant objective and activity is the immediate and direct relief of poverty, sickness, distress, misfortune, destitution and helplessness and it directly provides relief to persons requiring it. An organisation must satisfy certain tests to qualify as a public benevolent institution; including, being non-profit making, being established for the benefit of a section or class of the public, and providing relief without discrimination to every member of the public which it aims to benefit.That is a fairly lengthy description of a public benevolent institution, but it does take in all the hospitals. The government's approach in the A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits) Bill 2000 is to limit the amount of fringe benefit that is paid to employees of hospitals or public benevolent institutions to $17,000. That is based on the historical experience. A number of those institutions saw a loophole and managed to increase the total, personal remuneration of doctors and other medical personnel by upping the fringe benefit component, so much so that the receiver of the salary, so-called, had a very large component of fringe benefit from which the Australian Taxation Office received no benefit because the benevolent institution had this exemption. While members of the opposition might complain that they have had a lot of cries for help from hospitals around Australia, saying that the thing is fundamentally difficult and bad, I say that the evidence I have seen suggests that this loophole has been exploited by some people who have seen reason to benefit their employees in an unfair way compared with the rest of hardworking Australians.If you look at the other categories that are genuinely exempt, they are international organisations and religious practitioners. I do not think the religious practitioners will have a problem with fringe benefit—I do not think it will be increasing because their employers are not generally overwhelmed with money. When you look at some of the evidence of benevolent institutions, the national industry association for disabilities and the Australian Catholic Health Care Association understood that a problem was emerging. They said to their associations that a limit of 30 per cent of the total remuneration package should be constituted as a fringe benefit; that that would be a fair thing. Even the Western Australian Department of Health suggested the same thing. They understood that there was rorting going on in the system and that, to conform with the spirit of the law, they should limit the amount of fringe benefit incorporated in salaries.That does not support the argument that members of the opposition are putting forward that we need yet another inquiry. It is self-evident that people working in benevolent institutions could see a problem. Particular examples have been drawn to my attention where gross overdoing of fringe benefits in the remuneration of certain practitioners associated with the hospital field made it imperative that the government introduce this legislation. After considerable consultation and discussion—this matter has been around for some time—the government has put a limit of $17,000 on the grossed-up taxable value of the fringe benefit for those employed by a benevolent institution and $25,000 for other classes of employee. Interestingly enough, the Ralph review put up a rather sensible but controversial view that the benefits should be paid for by the employee—something that has been argued for years—but that was not accepted by the government.We have, I think, a very sensible suggestion before the House that the fringe benefits be limited to $17,000 and to $25,000 for other category employees. However, I draw to the attention of the House a representation that I received in Corangamite, at the local level, from Barwon Health, which is a combination of a benevolent institution in the old Geelong Hospital and other activities now incorporated in Barwon Health which could not be described as benevolent institution type activities. Within the one organisation, there will be a difference between those categories of employees who receive the capping of $17,000 and other employees who receive $25,000. I draw the government's attention to that anomaly and I will be making representations on behalf of my constituents. Moving on to the remote area allowance: again the government has seen the merit of trying to sort out the historic difficulty. As the member for Kalgoorlie quite rightly put to the House in his earlier speech, the unintended consequences of FBT in remote and regional Australia have quite a dramatic impact on miners in Western Australia and in Queensland. The practice of fly in, fly out developed as a result of the provisions of the FBT and other taxation measures. As a result, you had some of those rural communities being depleted and people congregating in capital cities. The very thing that all governments have been trying to do is to get people out into regional Australia and keep them there and keep the prosperity in some of those mining towns rather than concentrating it in our capital cities. The provision of an exemption for housing in remote areas is going to be very helpful. I note the definition—in which the government has been very generous—that remote areas are categorised as an area that is 40 kilometres from a town of 14,000 people or 100 kilometres from a town of 130,000 people. The reality of that is that it creates a lot of areas in the comparatively well-populated state of Victoria that can be considered to be remote and receive the housing exemption. The government has been generous to rural and regional Australia, yet again, to sensibly get this exemption. In my assessment, people who live in fairly difficult and arduous conditions in mining towns—shearers and rural workers—do get some benefit of rural accommodation but it is very much part of their work and they are committed to live on the job. On that basis, I think the government has provided a very sensible exemption for these personnel.Likewise, the exemption for meals for shearers is sensible. Again, these are very hardworking Australians, who probably work the hardest of any Australians over an eight-hour period and who have a large consumption of food. To say that the provision of meals for shearers is a fringe benefit is stretching one's imagination, let alone the bookkeeping required to allocate what would be a commercial benefit and what would be a personal benefit. So I commend that important exemption—only a small one but significant in terms of symbolic support for shearers and for the wool industry, which is having a very tough time at the moment. It will save a lot of bookwork, and a lot of argument about what is desirable and what is not desirable. It is interesting to look at the figures relating to what it might cost the government and what has been forgone in terms of revenue. As a result of the capping of the FBT concessions the government will raise $170 million in the next financial year. The remote area housing exemption is going to cost the government only $345 million a year. That seems a very small amount for the bookwork and the compliance provisions. The meals exemption for primary producers is a mere $1 million a year. So the capping-up provisions, which fill a loophole, are a sensible measure. They will help make things more equitable between taxpayers. The revenue, which I always look at very carefully to see what the government is either gaining or losing, indicates that this legislation is sensible. It needs the support of both the Labor opposition, who have a long-term commitment to the fringe benefits tax as a concept and as a principle, and the Australian Democrats in the Senate. This matter has had extensive consultation. Any sensible person can see that there is a rort being activated in the charitable area and that there are some very extreme examples. Hopefully, the Democrats will agree with the legislation when it comes before the Senate to try and yet again tidy up the fringe benefits legislation so that it is equitable across the board between all classes of taxpayers—the employers and all classes of employees—and so that nobody is discriminated against for their job classification in the Australian work force. I commend the legislation. I commend the speakers on the government side for the way they have put their case. I challenge the opposition to provide clearer evidence of why they would be opposed to the legislation and why yet again, in the normal Labor Party manner, they want another inquiry into something which is fairly self-evident on most of the evidence that I see. 12:33:0014876Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Firstly I would like to express my absolute disgust that the government is once again seeking to gag debate on an important piece of legislation such as the one we are discussing today in this House, A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits) Bill 2000. We are all being forced to reduce the amount of time we can speak on this matter. There are many other speakers on this side of the House who would like to contribute to the debate. But, unfortunately, this government is seeking to ram the legislation through without proper debate. The member for Corangamite has said that it is self-evident that this legislation is needed, that it is imperative and that there has been adequate consultation and discussion. If there has been adequate consultation and discussion and if everyone in the community is satisfied with it, why am I getting so many phone calls telling me that charitable organisations are very dissatisfied with this legislation? Whilst there is this level of angst within the community I believe that it is absolutely essential that there be an independent inquiry into this fringe benefits tax on charitable organisations, public hospitals and the non-profit sector. The government talks all the time about its social coalition and how it is going to move to involve charitable organisations more in the welfare process. But it is looking at making it harder for them to operate. The changes to the fringe benefits tax have the capability of attacking the very viability of these organisations. It needs to be looked at in the whole taxation environment. Just to name a few organisations that have expressed their concern, the Wesley Central Mission believes that they are going to have to cut back services to children and to older Australians in isolated areas because of this legislation. It needs to be looked at and discussed. The Spastic Centre of New South Wales said that they are going to have to cut services to hundreds of disadvantaged families. Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, as you well know because, like me, you are involved in the inquiry, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs is currently conducting an inquiry into indigenous health. The National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, NACCHO, represents over 100 Aboriginal communities throughout Australia and assists with the Aboriginal medical services, providing support and helping them maintain their viability. These organisations' very viability is under threat by this fringe benefits tax. As we all know, Aboriginal people suffer by far the worst health status of any group in Australia. The life expectancy for Aboriginal people is 15 to 20 years below that of any Australian and the infant mortality rate is two to four times greater. As I said, NACCHO has serious concerns regarding the potential impact of the proposed capping on the concessional fringe benefit treatment of Aboriginal health services. This will create serious problems for Aboriginal health services because the salary package offered is really important when staff are recruited for these remote areas of Australia. They have to pay for that through their fixed budgets. NACCHO see this, if it is actually implemented, as going to the very viability of their being able to maintain services. NACCHO have asked to be made exempt because of the high needs in Aboriginal communities, the unique role of the Aboriginal community controlled health sector, the need to maintain an adequate and viable skilled work force in these sectors and for administrative simplicity and transparency of exemption compared with compensation. The previous speaker said in relation to the wool industry how important it is that the meals of shearers should be exempted. That has been included. But isn't it really important that Aboriginal medical centres be exempt for the people living in those areas? Isn't it really important for their health and wellbeing that they be exempt? This needs to be looked at and decided upon during an inquiry looking at all the issues. As well as that, there is the area of disability. Many of the disability organisations just survive from day to day—as it is, this legislation will have a negative effect. Unless we have a full inquiry that looks at this and couples it with the impact of the GST, we will not know whether or not this is good legislation. As always, the government are seeking to ram through legislation, stifle community debate and prevent proper scrutiny of legislation. If it is so good, the government should be prepared to have an inquiry to fully examine the legislation and its impact.12:39:0014877Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I rise to participate in the A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits) Bill 2000 debate this afternoon. This is a subject in which I have had great interest for some time. The aspect of the legislation to which I want to refer is the FBT arrangements as they relate to not-for-profit bodies. You will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that midway through last year I widely distributed a paper entitled `The Impact of the Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) reforms on Public Benevolent Institutions (PBI) Aboriginal Organisations in Remote Regional Australia'. I did so because of the concern that I had about the potential impact of the government's proposals on these organisations.I think it is important that we understand what these PBI organisations do. A public benevolent institution, for the purposes of Taxation Determination 93/11, is a public benevolent institution which:(a) has as its main or principal object the relief of poverty, sickness, suffering, distress, misfortune, destitution or helplessness; (b) is carried on without the purpose of private gain for particular persons; (c) is established for the benefit of a section or class of the public; (d) provides relief without discrimination to every member of that section of the public which the organisation aims to benefit; and (e) gives directly to those in need. This is under section 57A of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986. I do not believe that the government properly understand the impact of their proposed changes to the fringe benefits tax arrangements for these organisations. I know a lot has been said and I have heard previous speakers talk about charitable organisations, including, no doubt, church based health organisations. But these organisations are not part of that large welfare network; they are not part of that charitable network of the Catholic, Anglican or Uniting churches. These organisations are, by and large, community based organisations which work for and on behalf of their communities. They include such organisations as land councils, health organisations to which the previous member referred, Aboriginal legal aid services and a whole range of other organisations of that type. It is my very strong view that if the government proceed with their proposals as they currently have them, we will see a large number of organisations severely disadvantaged and their service arrangements diminished, and it is very likely that large numbers of them will cease to operate because they will no longer be viable. It is worth while making the observation as we go through that some of these organisations have been starved of funding in any event over a long period of time. What we need to comprehend is that the salary packaging arrangements which they have used have been important. Indeed, without them they would not be able to attract reasonably qualified staff. Therefore, to provide the services they wish to provide, they ultimately have been drawn to the attractions of the fringe benefits tax exemptions which have provided them with the capacity to employ and maintain staff with the appropriate skills to carry out their functions. They have been used as a means of offering more attractive salary packages.The proposal to cap the FBT exemption to the grossed-up level in the bill will have an impact on the scope and effectiveness of many of these organisations. By and large, in the context of Northern Australia, I am now referring to Aboriginal organisations. But it also applies, as I mentioned earlier, to church based organisations. The PBIs in remote Australia experience great difficulties in recruiting and retaining suitably qualified professional staff. Such staff are generally found in Australia's major cities. It has been argued that PBIs enjoy an advantage in labour markets over other organisations which do not qualify for FBT exemptions, because the cost to the organisation for a given level of after-tax remuneration of an employee is effectively lower than the cost non-exempt organisations pay. In the case of PBI employers in Central Australia, this advantage is more than offset by the sacrifices employees make by working in remote communities. Networks of family and friends and established career paths are left behind. The social infrastructure in such areas is less than that found in major Australian cities and FBT exemptions help compensate staff for these sacrifices without imposing additional costs on the organisations with which they work. In a submission to the Senate committee examining the new tax system, the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, NACCHO, stated:Considering that even with those packages some of our services in remote areas cannot attract doctors and people to them now, we believe that there will be an impact again even with just trying to retain staff. We have had dealings with our doctors and, with the so-called rural incentive programs that are put around and floated around, this will now take the edge off all those so-called doctor programs that are supposed to be benefiting our mob out there.Retaining staff has always been a problem in the Northern Territory. A labour market survey commissioned by the former Labor government at my direction in 1996 and finalised under the Howard government demonstrates very clearly that there are severe labour shortages throughout Northern Australia. This is particularly true for professional people. We are not just talking about health care workers; we are talking about legal workers, paralegal workers, social workers and teachers. You name it—there is a difficulty in attracting staff.The FBT exemption also provides a capacity to offset the high cost of living in many parts of remote Australia. This is a subject about which I have spoken on a number occasions in the House—indeed, twice over the last two days. A Northern Territory health survey in 1998 showed that a $100 basket of goods in a capital city would cost $146 in remote communities around Alice Springs; in other areas such as the Anangu Pitjantjatjara lands of South Australia, the cost would be even higher. The difference between the price of this basket of goods in the capital cities and north-east Arnhem Land was 104 per cent. People are being asked to pay more than twice the price for this same basket of goods and services. It has been stated that the cap proposed in this legislation is broadly equivalent to the taxable value of an average Australian car, plus some additional minor benefits. Due to the nature of the job, many employees in rural and remote Australia do not drive an average Australian car. They require four-wheel drive vehicles for purely access purposes. One needs to know—as I am sure the House needs to be informed—that there are many communities in Northern Australia that are currently inaccessible to road traffic. This highlights not only the isolation factor but also the great deal of repair and maintenance required when these roads are again passable—repair and maintenance which is not forthcoming because neither this government nor the Northern Territory government has been prepared to commit the funds necessary to bring them up to standard. This means, of course, that people who drive on these roads need vehicles which are appropriately kitted. The only appropriately kitted vehicles in most instances are four-wheel drive vehicles. This is an additional burden on not only the employees but also the organisations for whom they work.My office undertook a survey of a range of organisations around Central Australia and across Northern Australia about the potential impact these FBT proposals would have on these organisations. We discovered that many of them would have no option but to retrench staff which, as I said earlier, would only lead to a lessening of the services they provide to their clients. The impact of this could be devastating for Australia if Aboriginal communities are without doctors and nurses, and organisations are without senior managers or accountants or bookkeepers and the like. Some organisations may cease to operate. The case studies that I undertook to examine the impact on a number of these organisations point to the fact that some organisations would need top-up moneys of tens of thousands of dollars while others would need hundreds of thousands of dollars. If the government is not providing compensation packages—and there is no sign of that for these organisations—then it has no alternative but to rethink its fringe benefits tax arrangements. It is also worth pointing out that the funding for these PBIs—as I have already mentioned—does not always increase in line with IRC pay rises. This is certainly true of Aboriginal organisations. The Northern and Central Land Councils have effectively had their funding frozen at 1993-94 levels. These organisations provide a very important and, indeed, crucial service to large areas of Northern Australia and are subject to an act of this federal parliament. If the government is serious about providing services to people who live in rural and remote areas, it will address this issue. There is no sign that it has any intention of addressing it reasonably. We also know that ATSIC is under severe funding constraints. We know that there has been no indication by the government that, in the forthcoming budget, any more favourable treatment will be given to ATSIC or the organisations with which it works. Indeed, as late as this morning, the Treasurer made it very clear that there will be no funds available for these types of purposes. I say to the House, and to the government in particular, that it ought to rethink this exercise. This could have a dramatically negative impact on people across regional and remote Australia. Again I say to my friends in the National Party, who are not here but who are generally located in cockies corner, when they do come back into the House to contemplate what they are voting on, to contemplate this fact: the communities which they service will be potentially denied services as a result of the fringe benefits tax arrangements which this government is proposing to put in place.One element of the arrangements that I do applaud is the proposal to exempt housing in remote communities. That is a very important initiative and it is something that I have been demanding for some time. I do question the issue of the definition of `remote area housing' because, clearly, there are small communities around Northern Australia, although not many within 40 kilometres of an urban area of 14,000, I have to say, which do require access to this housing support. I hope that, once this is bedded down, we will see a dramatic improvement in the operation of many organisations. Again, this will impact upon these Aboriginal organisations and it is something that I support. But it is a factor that needs to be taken into account not only when contemplating private enterprise. The government service sector and those organisations that are community based find a great deal of difficulty in meeting the costs of accommodating people in these rural and remote communities. Many of them are without housing, and this will provide them with an incentive to get hold of housing in those communities. To that extent, I think it is a very important initiative.We have before us today an amendment that has been put forward by the shadow Treasurer that asks the government to put in place an independent inquiry into the impact of the tax system and proposed changes to the tax system on the charitable, non-profit and public health sectors so that the provisions of the bill can be properly assessed. I say to those people who are involved in those sectors that they need to apply pressure on this government and on the Australian Democrats to ensure that the sort of independent inquiry that we have been calling for in the Labor Party is carried out, so that we can properly examine the impact of these new taxation arrangements on these organisations.In conclusion, I note one very obvious thing about all of this is that the government does not have access to reasonable information. One thing an independent inquiry would do is to provide it with the capacity to acquire public data on the behaviour of non-profit bodies regarding the FBT, other than the ones it currently has in the aggregated data in Treasury tax expenditure statements. This information deficiency is one of the key issues that an independent inquiry would seek to address. This government has an obligation to make sure this inquiry takes place. This government has an obligation to make sure that these community based organisations, these PBIs and the people involved in the charitable, non-profit and public health sectors, are not penalised and that their clients are not penalised by an obdurate government that is not thinking. 12:54:0014880Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I rise to speak on the A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits) Bill 2000 andA New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Amendment Bill 2000, which basically propose four areas of change to the fringe benefits tax provisions. They are: to limit the current unlimited fringe benefits tax exemption for certain employers—namely, public benevolent institutions such as charities and public and private non-profit hospitals; to limit the rebate arrangements applying to other non-profit bodies; the provisions covering the GST's complex interaction with the FBT system, including a new, increased grossed-up formula; the new exemptions for remote area housing benefits and meals provided by primary producers to their employees; and, finally, the technical amendments to the way fringe benefits are treated in the calculation of liability under the Medicare levy surcharge.FBT is imposed on employers to facilitate compliance and administrative efficiency. There are roughly 67,000 FBT taxpayers, despite, probably, the millions of employees that derive some fringe benefit from this. FBT is levied at the maximum marginal rate and is applicable to the individual, plus the Medicare levy itself. Certain non-profit and charitable bodies obtain FBT exemptions or concessions by way of a rebate. The government claims that these concessions are being abused and it proposes in this bill to limit those concessions. The government has no evidence of this abuse. It is purely making an assumption and is basing this legislation on those assumptions without any evidence whatsoever. Also, despite the fact that FBT is legally levied on employers, it is most often actually borne, at least in some part, by employees in their salary packaging arrangements.This is why Labor has called, since 19 October 1999, for the issue of the impact of the taxation system, which includes the FBT on the non-profit sector, to be examined by an independent inquiry. A number of my colleagues have already spoken on this, but I think this is the key to what should be done by the government in relation to this matter. There are a number of key issues that come out of this debate, and I think one of the biggest ones is the limitation of the FBT exemption for non-profit bodies. The proposed limitation of the FBT concessions for charities, hospitals and other non-profit bodies is contentious to say the least, and grossly unfair at the other end.The government argues that the current provisions are being abused but, as I said earlier, there is no evidence of this. The non-profit sector disputes this claim outright. There is evidence, though, of widespread use of FBT exemptions by charities of up to about 30 per cent of salaries, and in some states extensive use in the public and not-for-profit hospital systems. The FBT is not limited to senior executives, although they are on very high salaries, as most people might think. It also includes a large number of people such as nurses, doctors and others who have a salary packaged up with some sort of FBT benefit. So it is not just the high income earners who will actually be affected by these changes; it will be ordinary Australians, such as nurses in hospitals, who will also be affected. The loss of FBT exemptions will have a serious implication for the continuing operations of charities and, particularly, hospitals.As I said earlier, there is no public data on the behaviour of non-profit bodies regarding FBT, other than some aggregate data in the Treasury tax expenditure statements. This information deficiency is one of the key issues that an independent inquiry could deal with if this government were to approve that mechanism. The key issue—that is, withdrawing the amount of tax assistance from the charitable, hospital and non-profit sectors—is that it will impact on service delivery directly. This will be in areas of vital community and public organisations. The government has never addressed how this reduction in the resources will be accommodated by the sector, and this bill is not accompanied by any offer of compensation to offset the inevitable rise in wages bills within these sectors. This mechanism is an attack on the services of these organisations. It is an attack on the services provided by hospitals to ordinary Australians. This will hurt them directly in their ability to provide services. So I think the government should sit up and listen and not just call for an inquiry, but actually accept and approve an inquiry on this issue.The government has also modified its original proposals in the bill. The original proposal treated all the FBT concessions in a similar fashion, imposing a $17,000 grossed-up exemption limit per employee. But this bill actually changes that and puts in a differential rate. It is going to set an exemption limit at $25,000 grossed up for each employee for charities and other bodies, but hospitals are going to face a limit of $17,000 grossed-up exemption per employee. The regime applied to hospitals will be harsher than that applied to charities. I cannot see any specific reason, nor has the government given any specific reason, as to why it has done that. There is absolutely no explanation. I ask the government why it is treating hospitals more harshly. Why is it putting more pressure on our already strained hospital system when this is obviously an area that the government should address very closely? Again it is an attack on the public hospitals, on nurses, on doctors.Worst of all is that as this government goes out and says it is a friend of the bush, this is an attack directly on the bush. This is an attack on those areas where the government says it wants to help people. It is talking about some sort of billion dollar package to help the bush. Why doesn't it start here with this legislation and treat hospitals and people in the bush the same as it is going to treat other bodies and charities? This is why the Labor Party is calling for, and will keep calling for, an inquiry into this bill on the taxation of charities and non-profit sectors, because there will be a huge impact, an impact they have not factored in or counted on in this legislation.Another area that I think will be disastrous is how the FBT provisions in this bill will interact with the GST itself. There will be some dramatic complications with the whole FBT regime. The reason is that employers obtain a credit for the GST they pay on providing their employees with fringe benefits. This credit has to be taken into account by the FBT system or the GST will provide a concession to employees obtaining fringe benefits relative to those employees who use their salary to purchase the same fringe benefits where they would face the GST themselves. So there is going to be a complication in how all of this is going to work with the GST in combination with the FBT.If that sounds like a bit of a mouthful, it is nothing compared to the complication of this whole so-called `simple' tax, because this is very far from being simple. This is a simple tax that this government told us would be easy to administer, a simple tax this government told us would have a great benefit to the community. But the reality is we have legislation about three phone books thick, with over 1,000 amendments and probably 1,000 more to come. The Treasurer said, I think last week, there would be no more amendments, no more changes and the very next day there was another amendment, another change, and I think we are going to see a lot more of those. This legislation, the GST, the ANTS package, weighs over five kilograms. People are supposed to go out there, small business proprietors who have been promised this simple new tax, are supposed to pick up this over five kilo package and somehow read through it and make sense of it when the government itself, government ministers, ministers actually responsible for administering this system, do not understand it themselves. They fumble with it. They talk about rounding up and rounding down and no more than 10 per cent. The reality is they do not have a clue. It is a mess. The whole system is a mess and it has not even begun. The system is yet to actually start. It does not actually start till July 1. So while the government goes out there and tells people this is a simple tax, a tax that will benefit small business—small business supposedly being the close friend of the coalition, or the coalition claiming that it is the friend of small business, as it claims it is the friend of the bush—the reality is it has imposed very complicated—not to put a pun on it, but very weighty—legislation on its so-called friends. This FBT complication is going to be no different. It is going to be another nightmare, another complication for small business that is trying to just get on with being able to earn a living and actually create jobs in this country. The regime appears reasonable on an initial cursory examination, if we look at it just on the surface, although there may well be some anomalies in some areas. If I can give an example of an anomaly, it might be the treatment of fringe benefits tax in relation to cars and their use and, as the member for the Northern Territory mentioned just a moment ago, the inequities that might be faced in relation to four-wheel drives in that part of Australia. Again this is something the government should examine closely and it should put in place an inquiry.There are also a number of other complications that will arise where fringe benefits are GST free or input taxed. Again the so-called simplicity of GST is being complicated even further by what is contained in this bill. This, I think, keeps going back to one thing: the government should approve an inquiry. Until it does that, this bill will not be one that is of a sound nature. The inquiry should examine the impact of the current and proposed taxation arrangements that will apply to the charitable and non-profit sectors and identify, possibly, the changes that will encourage the delivery of the community services they provide while ensuring accountability and transparency. This inquiry is important because of the bottom line effect it will have for charities. This is why we are calling it. We are calling it because this government needs to review all of this information. We actually need to have a debate on what this is going to do to the charitable sector. They deserve to know what the impact will be on them. But they are not being given that opportunity. There are quite a number of charitable organisations and not-for-profit organisations, including hospitals, that have made a number of submissions. I will mention those in a minute.Any inquiry should also look at the impact that the tax package will have on the sectors as they face significant increases in costs and reduction in their services. The Senate Community Affairs Committee did attempt to examine these issues but the government flatly refused to provide any detailed information on its taxation proposals or their impact on those charitable and not for profit sectors. This is the same flat refusal that this government gave those people who came to Parliament House to protest and to show their disenchantment with this government in relation to the GST being applied to caravan site fees, on rents. This government promised to all of Australia that it would not apply GST to rents.I think this is just an example of where the government is refusing to listen. It is refusing to actually have a debate on this vital issue. While those people turned up here to have their say, the Prime Minister refused to even acknowledge them or recognise they were here, while the Treasurer flatly said no. This is the same response we are getting in relation to this bill.There is obviously a growing amount of evidence that the GST will impose an intolerable compliance cost burden on a whole range of essential service providers. This will obviously lead to a reduction in service. I do not see how this government can go out there and say to these people, `You will still be able to deliver those much needed services with a reduced capability.' Where is the compensation package for those people? There is not one.Numerous organisations presented submissions to the Senate committee indicating their views about the proposed FBT changes and the results they would see in the reduction of services they would be able to deliver in the community. I will mention a couple of these. The Wesley Central Mission said that they would be forced to cut back services to children and older Australians isolated in their homes. Is this what this government wants? Is this what it is aiming to do? Is this the proposal it has put forward?The Spastic Centre of New South Wales indicated that they will have to cut services to hundreds of disadvantaged families, including many in rural and remote areas. Again, the government trots out its views on the bush all the time, claims it will spend $1 billion, but everywhere it turns, everywhere it puts something down on paper in this House, it attacks the bush. It goes out to the media and says, `We're going to spend $1 billion out in the bush.' That is poll driven. This poll driven government is trying to react to the amount of service cuts that it is imposing on the bush. The National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations noted in their submission that, as a result of the tax package, they would have difficulty retaining medical staff, again, in rural and remote communities. What is the message here? Keep cutting back the services in the bush. They will not be able to keep staff. Doctors will not want to go out there. Right now we have numerous committees, both on this side of politics and on the government side of politics, that are investigating the damage being done out in the bush in relation to services and people leaving the bush and going to the cities. Where are the incentives in this package to give people an option to go to the bush or, if they are already there, to actually stay in the rural communities, to stay in the regional and rural areas? There is none at all. This bill actually proposes to further cut back all the incentives, or some of the incentives at least, of those people who are either currently in the bush or who might be thinking about going to the bush.There is a broad range of charitable and non-profit organisations that have expressed concerns about the impact of the government's tax package on their ability to deliver services. I have mentioned a few but they also include organisations such as St Vincent de Paul, the Salvation Army, Melbourne City Mission, Catholic Health Australia, Uniting Community Services Australia and Anglicare Australia.I ask the government: if they are not listening to us and if they are not listening to the people who come to this place to put forward their views and tell the government about how they are hurting, why are they not listening to these organisations? What is wrong with listening to what these organisations have to say about their capacity to deliver services in the community? If they are not listening to those people, who are they listening to?Furthermore, the Ralph committee report has challenged the government's claimed savings from the package's proposed FBT measure. The committee concluded that it was not convinced that:... the proposal... will be sustainable in the longer term because of the eventual cost to revenue.So the proposal may not even be sustainable at all. Yet this government keeps trying to impose its policies and legislation which hurt the bush, hurt rural communities and cut back services. Given the systematic non-co-operation of the government, the growing disaster of the GST, evidence from across a whole range of charitable and non-profit sectors and the doubts thrown up by the Ralph committee, this is enough weight for this government to sit up and listen and actually put an inquiry in place. That was what we are really asking for. We are asking for a proper debate; we are asking for an inquiry.There are some limited measures in this bill which have merit and I acknowledge that, but this government needs to have this inquiry. Unfortunately, I think that this government is going to refuse to listen. There will not be an inquiry because the government is just not interested. Members opposite can laugh; they think this is funny. But those people in the bush will not think it is funny because you refuse to listen to the 160,000 people living in caravan parks around Australia. It is another broken promise. You said there would be no GST on rents. You went out there and told those people unequivocally, `No, there won't be any GST on rents' and yet those people, who are often disadvantaged, will have a GST on them. You have not listened to the people of Australia who have told you about the full impact that the GST is going to have on them. You have not listened to small business. You have hurt small business. You have not listened to consumers. You have not listened to the benefits to the community that putting GST on receipts will have. I do not believe this government will listen to the case for an inquiry. 13:14:0014884Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—In considering the cognate debate on these two bills, I wish to examine the implications of this bill for the charitable sector and draw some attention to the need for this government to more thoroughly think through their tax policy, particularly as the previous speaker, the honourable member for Oxley, Mr Ripoll, has mentioned, and their obstinate, defensive attitude towards referring this important and complex legislation to a committee for further inquiry. In my view, this shows the government's dogmatic determination to push through this legislation rather than a genuine concern for the charitable sector that it says it has.Despite this general observation, I would also like, as the previous speaker suggested, to indicate support for some of the elements of this bill, with the general reservations that I set out above. The first bill—A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits) Bill 2000—details, essentially, limits on the concessions to charities and public benevolent institutions. We on this side of the House have repeatedly called for a thorough independent inquiry into the impact of the tax package on the non-profit sector, including this part of the package. We have been calling for that since 1999.In fact, a number of my constituents—the very hard working and worthy charities in my electorate—have contacted my office on this very issue, expressing their frustration at the anticipated detrimental effect of this bill's provisions on the level of service they can provide to our community, particularly those in the `not-for-profit' sector.The critical issue for these people—some of whom are employees, others are employers or proprietors—is how the affected organisations will manage to attract appropriately skilled and qualified professionals and other staff to maintain the level of service expected from their organisations.The kind of salary packaging that attracts fringe benefits tax is widespread across all levels of staffing professionals in the charity sector. As the member for Jagajaga pointed out before, it is also extensively applied to staffing arrangements in public hospitals such as the Alfred Hospital in my electorate. Ironically, this is more so as a result of the aggressive push for these kinds of arrangements by the former Kennett state government—cut by the Kennett government, belted again by Costello and Howard. It is this aspect of the bill that I am mostly concerned about. I hope that either the government will see sense and refer the matter to an independent inquiry or a clearer picture will arise from a Senate inquiry of how the ill effects on the charities and non-profit sector can be offset.The positive aspects of this bill contain a few good things for ordinary taxpayers. In particular, remote area housing is to be made completely FBT free. This includes housing loans, residential fuel and other housing costs as well. However, what has not been addressed are transport costs, particularly in far remote regions where health workers drive long distances and a four-wheel drive is an absolute necessity. One wonders where the National Party is on this. What is it they say? Tigers in the bush, kittens in Canberra! The honourable member for Corangamite says that an inquiry is not required because he knows of cases where the system is abused by charities and the like. I would question that because there is simply insufficient evidence in my view to make that assessment as definitively as he and members of the government make it.As my colleague the member for Oxley pointed out, that is not based on empirical evidence from the department. I reiterate my call for an independent inquiry on the basis of the impact on service levels for charities in the non-profit community and health sector. I am sure the person representing the government would like to know that the Sacred Heart Mission, which is around the corner from my office, every day feeds some 600 people who do not have enough money to eat. The Sacred Heart Mission says the $25,000 cap on concessions would instantaneously cost the charity $30,000. A recent survey shows that CEOs in the charity sector are at the lower end of the scale as far as FBT is concerned. It is imperative that these organisations maintain their standards of service and do not slip into a situation where they become second rate operators providing a third rate service because of some shortsighted government policy. This matter should be referred to an inquiry and, if the government fails to take up the concerns of the charitable sector, I am afraid the Senate will do it for it. 13:20:0014885O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—The legislation before us proposes four basic changes to provisions relating to fringe benefits tax. It seeks to limit the currently unlimited FBT exemptions with specific relation to charities and non-profit organisations. It includes alterations to the provisions in relation to the way the GST interacts with FBT. It includes exemptions for remote area housing benefits and meals. It includes technical amendments to the method of FBT in relation to the calculation of liability under the Medicare levy surcharge.Since October last year, Labor has strongly argued that there should be an independent inquiry into the impact on the taxation system, including the FBT in the non-profit sector. This inquiry should look at possible changes that will encourage the delivery of the community services they provide while ensuring accountability and transparency. We need an independent inquiry because the government asserts the current FBT provisions are being abused. The tax system must be fair and everyone should make an appropriate contribution. Concessions are a form of tax expenditure and it is appropriate that clearly defined assistance be provided to charities and organisations providing a public benefit in some situations. However, as yet there is no data available to the public that assesses the behaviour of non-profit bodies and the application of the FBT. There is a small reference in the Treasury tax expenditure statement, but that does not leave us in a position to effectively monitor and respond to alleged abuses.As I mentioned earlier, this bill refers to exemptions for remote housing benefits. Remote housing is to be made fully tax free. Currently it is tax free for primary production employers and 50 per cent tax free for other employers. Remote area housing is defined as housing which is within 40 kilometres of urban areas of 14,000 population in 1981 or within 100 kilometres of an urban area with a population of 130,000 in 1981.Regional and remote health care organisations have used the exemption to good effect to attract and retain qualified staff to difficult to recruit areas. The towns in northern Tasmania have difficulty in attracting health staff, and salary packaging is an important mechanism used to make the remunerations competitive. Specific benefits, such as accommodation, travel for study purposes and subsidised professional development arrangements that are currently being used will now come into the capped benefit arrangements. In addition to this, the rural housing exemption included in this bill does not assist many of those in regional Tasmania. Essentially, the rules are that the accommodation concession applies only to towns with a population smaller than 14,000, towns which are more than 40 kilometres from a town with 14,000 people or 100 kilometres from a town of 130,000. These rules effectively limit this concession to the remotest locations. In Tasmania it means the accommodation concession will not be available in many places. These accommodation concessions are a significant benefit used to attract professional people to smaller towns. If one looks at the geography of northern Tasmania, one can immediately see how this rule discriminates against Tasmanians in regional areas. Devonport, Burnie and Launceston all have difficulties attracting doctors. Devonport is a town of 22,000 people and is not eligible. Burnie is a town of 19,000 people and is not eligible. Launceston is a town of 67,000 and is not eligible. This measure does not reflect the nature of many regional communities.I will briefly refer to the environment the charities find themselves in with the imposition of the GST to demonstrate the full implication of the legislation and further validate the need for a full independent inquiry. There is growing evidence that the GST will impose intolerable compliance burden costs. This Government talk of social coalition. It is almost as though they believe that talking about it will make them appear to care or perhaps even make it true. This is the same government whose policies are breaking the backs of families, not only in regional Australia but also in the cities and larger towns. In the Journal of Economic and Social Policy in 1997 Philip Mendes of Monash University quotes from an article in the Age of 28 August 1996: The Liberal Government's first budget brought down on 20th August 1996 imposed massive spending cuts on the poor and disadvantaged. They included a saving of $745 million of social security via cuts to payments for new migrants, cuts in rent assistance and changes to eligibility requirements; and savings of $460 million via the abolition of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program, and the introduction of nursing home fees. A further $1.5 billion was cut from labour market programs. According to ACOSS President Robert Fitzgerald, 30 per cent of the Government's spending cuts targeted people on low income.Community groups in my electorate inform me of an overwhelmingly high level of increased need from within the community. While this government is happy to let the charitable organisations pick up on the responsibility that it blatantly shirks, it continues to further hit the same organisations with a tax that is so unfair the arguments against it grow daily. For the first time in Australian history, charities will become tax collectors, but before they collect they must comply. These groups face significantly increased administration costs under the so-called tax reform. The cost of compliance includes contracting a specialised accountant to explain the complexities of the supposed simpler tax system, new accounting systems and equipment, and an increase in paperwork resulting in an increase in administration staff and training requirements. But what if an organisation turning over less than $100,000 decides not to register? The implications, apart from not being able to apply for GST inputs paid, are also very high. For example, charitable organisations, particularly in my electorate, often receive free advertising from their local newspaper for a fundraising event. Pre-GST the outcome of this is quite simple. They receive free promotion of their event and in return the local newspaper's logo is displayed as being a supporter of the event. But post-GST, the flow-on effect on the bottom line of that newspaper makes such a simple exchange complicated to a point where there is no incentive for companies to apply such support to charitable organisations. If the charity to which that newspaper is donating the advertising is not registered for the GST, the newspaper must still pay their portion of GST on that market value of the advertising. This additional cost absorbed by any business already generously donating goods or a service to a charity will more than likely reduce and destroy any real incentive to show support to such charity groups. However, in the next breath the Prime Minister demands that corporate Australia offer more assistance to the community sector through his social coalition policies.Terry McCarthy, Chairman of the Society of St Vincent De Paul's national public affairs committee, stated in an article in the Business Review Weekly of 3 September 1999 that the compliance burden will be so great that many charities might choose to cop the expense of GST and not claim GST credits, which will diminish their ability to serve their cause. In the same article Myles McGrego-Lowndes points out:... to its surprise, the tax office found the not for profit sector is the single biggest sector to be hit.He says:... the range of activities covered by many charities is far more extensive than for many corporations.So where does this leave us as a nation? If the demand for charitable organisations' services is increased as a result of a GST but these services' ability to maintain, yet alone increase, their services is diminished by the GST, where does it leave us? There is a very real fear, backed by submissions to the Senate committee, that the proposed changes will result in a significant reduction in the services they currently deliver. We are now living in a society that has taken about all it can from this government, this government that has shown no concern for real people living in real situations of crisis. If the attack then deepens and falls on the charity and community groups who have been picking up this government's slack over their policy decisions since 1996, then I fear we will see a total breakdown of the communities as we now recognise them. It was Martin Luther King who said, `Like Moses I am on the mountain top and I can see the promised land. I'm not going to be able to get there with you, but we will get there.' By `we' he was referring to society, a society that works together to build a nation. How can the policies of this government inspire and entice people to work together if their very policies push people further and further apart? We must build a strong active society, not tear it apart. This government's GST will tear it apart.13:28:0014887Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The Treasurer promised earlier this year that he would not be making any further changes to his tax laws. I refer in particular to an interview with Neil Mitchell on 3AW on 24 January, where he was asked: `Does that mean no more changes?' The Treasurer said: `Well, it does mean that we are not changing the legislation, that we've got it right. As you implement these things there have to be further rulings; they're just rulings as to how the Taxation Office applies the concept, but we're not changing the legislation.'The amendment bills before us today do change the legislation. So yet again we have another broken promise from the government —from the `never ever' man who said we would never ever have a GST, right through to the Treasurer who, as recently as January this year, said there would be no further legislative changes. Yet that is precisely what we have before us today.There is now some professional estimate of the size of the compliance burden of the GST. This was supplied unwittingly by probably the fiercest advocate for the GST, the National Farmers Federation. This report was prepared by Professor Binh Tran-Nam of ATAX from the University of New South Wales. It is called The implementation costs of the GST in Australia: A preliminary analysis. At page 9 of that report it says:As a result of its GST implementation, Australian business will incur additional one-off net costs of about $2.8 billion. This amount is very significant, representing about 10 per cent of the expected GST revenue of $27.2 billion in 2000-01.The regulation impact statement produced by the government in relation to the GST provides an estimate of the total compliance cost, the net compliance cost, of $385 million. Yet we have now an initial cost estimate from the University of New South Wales of $2.8 billion. The report goes on to say:Most of these costs will be ultimately passed on to the consumers. This will add further pressure to the one-off rise in the consumer price level as a result of the introduction of the GST. This additional inflationary pressure was not considered by the federal Treasury in its analysis of the GST-induced consumer price rise.Professor Binh Tran-Nam goes on to say:Most seriously, the high implementation costs of the GST cast doubts on the supposed welfare gains of the GST-based tax reform. Simplicity is, after all, an aspect of efficiency.Finally the report says:The estimated increase in tax operating costs is clearly much higher than the most optimistic cost-induced efficiency gains estimate.That estimate was provided by Mr Chris Murphy, the Prime Minister's preferred modeller, where he came up with a figure of $600 million after about seven to 10 years. I wonder what the National Farmers Federation and all the other advocates of the GST think now that even the most favourable estimate of the long term benefits of the GST of $600 million is being swamped by the compliance costs released by the University of New South Wales of $2.8 billion.One of the key issues in the legislation before us is limitation on FBT exemption for non-profit bodies. I refer now to the Treasurer's frequent, often repeated statements, that the GST legislation is a streamlined new tax system for a new century. Of course, the GST interacts with the FBT and that is why some of this legislation is before us today. So how streamlined is this new tax system when the government's own report says: `When is fringe benefits tax payable? Currently fringe benefits tax is generally payable in three instalments with a balancing payment subsequently'. So there are four in the year at present. Under the new proposals, FBT will be payable five times a year. How does this constitute a streamlining of the existing taxation arrangements? The legislation before us today obviously impacts on charities, but when we are asked to have a look at government documentation, The new tax system, information for senators and members, we go to the section entitled, `The new tax system, what's in it for charities and non-profit organisations?' Well, there it is. That is what is in it for charities and non-profit organisations—two miserable dot points. The first one says:Charities that have registered for an ABN can apply to the Commissioner of Taxation to be endorsed as a deductible gift recipient or an income tax exempt entity.In other words, if they do not register, they will lose their income tax exempt status. So this is supposed to be a big benefit of the new tax system. It is basically saying that if you do not register you are going to get hit and that is supposed to be a benefit. The second dot point says:Only genuine charities will be able to access imputation credits from trust donations to restore their funding position and claim income tax exemption.The same point. This is a penalty if people do not register; it is not a benefit if they do. If you want to have a bit of a look at the interaction between the FBT and the GST as related to this legislation, here is the concise analysis of the interaction of those prepared by Ray Regan. It is entitled The GST's effect on FBT and salary packaging. That is anything but a streamlined new taxation system for a new century. We must ask, therefore, how the GST will affect charities. All charities and non-profit organisations with an annual turnover of more than $100,000 will be required to register for GST. It must be done by 31 May if the charity is to retain its tax deductible status as a gift recipient or an income tax exempt charity. This status will be withdrawn if registration does not occur. So you will have enormous compliance burdens on charities, enormous cost burdens on charities. So it will increase their compliance costs, it will impose a cash flow penalty on charities, it will adversely affect many fundraising activities and reduce the profitability of commercial operations undertaken by charities.I want to give an example because non-commercial activities of charities will be GST free if the payment received for them is less than 50 per cent of the GST inclusive market value or less than 75 per cent of the cost of supply. So let us have a look at a couple of examples. The first is in relation to supplies of less than 50 per cent of market value. The government's own document uses this example. A charity sells donated baby bootees for $2. The GST inclusive market value of the bootees is $6 if sold by a business. Since the bootees are sold for less than 50 per cent of the market value, the sale is GST free. What happens if the bootees were sold for $4? If they were donated bootees and they were sold for $4 instead of $2, they would be subject to the GST. So charities have to work this out all the time. Another example: supplies for less than 75 per cent of the cost of the supply. In this example, a charity sells a newsletter for $1.50. The cost of producing the newsletter is $3. Since the newsletter is sold for less than 75 per cent of the cost of the supply, the sale is GST free. What happens if the newsletter sold for $2.50 instead of $1.50? Then the sale of the newsletter will incur the GST. This is a nightmare for charities. That is why we want an inquiry. Accommodation provided by charities for more than 75 per cent of the market value or the cost of supply will be subject to the GST. Donated second-hand goods will be GST free where supplied by a charity and provided they retain their original character. But if we look at the example of the sale of industrial cleaning rags that have been made from recycled clothing by a charity, then that will be subject to the GST. Donations in the form of a payment in cash or in kind that are made unconditionally are not subject to the GST. However, where a grant is paid to a charity or non-profit organisation for a specific purpose or with any conditions, GST will be payable. So we have to work out whether there are actual or implied conditions in these donations, because if there are conditions it will be subject to the GST. Instead of doing the work that they are equipped to do, trained to do and dedicated to do, the management and staff of charitable organisations will be trying to tread their way through this nightmare working out whether there is a condition on the donation, working out whether a donated product is being sold for 75 per cent of cost or more or less, or 50 per cent of market value. It is an absolute nightmare. I could go on and on and on as to how the GST will affect fundraising activities of charities. It will adversely affect those fundraising activities. It is a nightmare of a tax and that is precisely why Labor has moved the second reading amendment—so that we will get, if the government is sensible about it, an independent inquiry so that we can have a proper look at the interaction of the FBT with the GST and how the FBT and the GST will affect charities. We know it is going to be a bad effect, but we need to know the detail and we need to know the scope for improvement because there's plenty of scope for improvement in this legislation and that inquiry should proceed. 13:39:0014889Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Today we are debating the A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits) Bill 2000. Interestingly, the minister at the table interjected a moment ago that we on this side introduced the FBT. The issue I want to raise in here today relates to the FBT and how it affects the Australian Defence Force because, quite frankly, it did not. Under the Labor Government, the FBT was never applied to the Australian Defence Force and the benefits that they received were always exempt. It is on that particular issue that I wish to spend a short time this afternoon.The simple fact is this: had it not been for the pressure that was brought to bear on this government by the opposition, by a number of different Defence Force retired organisations and by the Defence Force itself through a very effective letter writing campaign through Defence Force journals, perhaps the government may not have decided to change its original stance and introduce some changes on the FBT and how it would apply to the Australian Defence Force.When those changes were announced by the Minister for Defence and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, we welcomed them but we did say that they did not go far enough. We said that because, unfortunately, there is this view within the community that every worker is the same and, as a consequence, every worker should be treated the same. That is certainly a view which applies as far as this government is concerned. But it is not the case when one looks at the Australian Defence Force. Can honourable members tell me of another category of employees in Australia or anywhere else who are unable to access normal industrial laws and processes; who are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week; who are never paid overtime; who are subject to the Defence Force Discipline Act; who are compulsorily posted and who can be sent to war at any time? Tell me of another category of Australian workers that fits into that particular set of criteria. There are none.It was because of the recognition that there was a special class of employee—personnel in the Australian Defence Force—that Labor, when in government, never applied the fringe benefits tax to any of the allowances which the Australian Defence Force had access to. The proposal under the fringe benefits tax reporting regime was that those allowances paid for things like housing assistance, air-conditioning, removals related to postings and relocations, car parking, defence car parks, medical and dental costs, entertainment, food and drink, funerals and so on. All of those things were always exempt and the grossed up value was always exempt.The government did finally move on those issues and they are either not reportable any longer or exempt. It was only through the pressure that was brought to bear by the opposition and Defence Force associations that we saw those changes. But what the government has not done is taken it that step further. What the government has not done is exempt some of the other allowances and benefits which are paid to the Australian Defence Force personnel which make living and working in the Australian Defence Force bearable. The simple fact is that the separation rates of the Australian Defence Force at the present time are at an all-time high.The ability to retain people in the three services of the Australian Defence Force and the ability to recruit people for the Australian Defence Force is not good at present. There are a number of reasons why that might be the case. Certainly I think it has to be said that people perceive that economic conditions provide an opportunity in other employment. But I also have to say the sort of personnel that filed into Defence Force recruiting locations around Australia after our efforts in East Timor threw up some undesirables who we probably would not want in the Australian Defence Force and, as a consequence, they were not recruited. Nevertheless, there are substantial separations taking place at the moment. Why would that not be the case when we note that in terms of the application of fringe benefits tax, each of the different benefits that are given to ADF personnel has a value placed on it which is grossed up and therefore taxed as part of their taxable income to things like remote locality leave travel in Darwin. The simple fact is, whether it was under a Labor government or under the present government, there has been a tremendous effort made in ensuring that a large percentage of Australia's Defence Force is located north, for all very good reasons—some very strong defensive reasons and for regional security reasons. As a consequence, we find that remote locality leave travel in Darwin is still subject to the fringe benefits tax. We see also that discharge removals and travel, removal of non-service spouse and breakdown of marriage, removals in the same locality—that is, when they are buying a home—child-care reimbursement allowance, remote locality travel leave, which I have mentioned, reunion travel, defence home loans, home purchases and sales expense allowances and education assistance are all still subject to the FBT. What this government has missed are the reasons why these particular exemptions were given by the former government as far as it was perceived that, because of the employment conditions that applied to people in the ADF, there were peculiar circumstances. And because there were these peculiar circumstances of employment, there clearly needed to be some exemptions given in terms of FBT.At the end of the day, Australia's serving men and women—those people who are privates, corporals, sergeants and so on—do it because they are committed to the defence of this nation and because they love what they are doing. They are committed to Australia. They are not committed to the salary levels they get because those salary levels are not really competitive. But what they do get are benefits that go with being in remote locations, having to be posted every couple of years. When talking to people in the Australian Defence Force, many of these people will tell you time and again of the number of postings they have had in a five- or 10-year period. They have had anything up to 15, 16, sometimes 20, postings around Australia and all the disruption that goes with that in moving their families, changing schools and going through different education systems when they go across state and territory boundaries because we cannot line up a similar set of educational standards there. Yet each and every time this happens, these people are subject to the fringe benefits tax because they are given some benefits associated with that.We have said over a long period of time now that it is unreasonable to expect Australia's serving men and women to be subjected to this tax impost. We convinced this government there was a need for some change and we commended them at the time for the direction that they took. But they have not gone far enough. I would have liked to have seen in these bills before the parliament this afternoon a further commitment and a further consideration by the government. I would have loved to have seen Minister Moore and Minister Scott really sit down with people in the ADF and ask, `What are those concerns that you still have?' They would have been told about the grossing-up of fringe benefits and the taxation benefits that have negative impacts on them on the way through in a whole variety of other areas. That even raises the question: what impact is there likely to be on these serving men and women with the introduction of the GST? As other speakers on this side have said, there is an inexorable link between both the fringe benefits tax and the GST. Many of those people will continue to be disadvantaged. What will be the outcome of that? I suspect we will continue to see the number of separations in the Australian Defence Force go up. People will simply say it is not worth staying, having that commitment to the defence of Australia and learning skills in the ADF and the three services, yet the government is going to take any of those benefits because they will tax them and gross up the value on reportable amounts. The simple fact is that the reason why this FBT reporting regime should be changed is to give particular recognition to the conditions of employment that these people in the Australian Defence Force enjoy. We will continue on this side of the parliament to try to ensure that the government takes the necessary steps to remedy these continuing anomalies. In government we indicated that this was an issue which we would certainly revisit. I see no reason why we would not take the same sort of attitude that we adopted when we were in government in respect of these matters. The simple facts are these: the government has not gone far enough. They were forced into some of the backdowns but they have not gone all the way that is necessary and they were forced into it by the pressure that was brought on them by the opposition. Defence personnel are different. They are not normal employees. They are different and they need special consideration. As I said, there is a crisis in both recruitment and retention within the Australian Defence Force at present. It is something that I would have liked to have seen addressed in this legislation, instead of all the formulae that we are debating this morning. I see there are exceptions for remote area housing benefits, meals on working days and so on, and it applies to charities. But I have to say that, in terms of the defence of this nation, this government is letting down those men and women who give 100 per cent commitment to the service of their nation. It should have been looked at very closely in this legislation; it should have been applied. Once again it has not been. We will endeavour to keep the government honest in this matter.13:49:0014891Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I appreciate the comments of those people who have spoken in this debate. I am feeling very magnanimous. I would like to thank the opposition for its cooperation in ensuring the comparatively smooth passage of this bill through the House of Representatives to date.These bills are about ensuring greater equity in the taxation system for all Australians. The fringe benefits tax system, I remind everyone, particularly those people in the gallery, was introduced by the Labor Party in 1996. That system is being amended in this bill.Perhaps the term `fringe benefits' is a bit of a misnomer. These are in fact personal benefits that individuals receive directly from their employer, and typically Australians obtain such personal benefits from their after-tax income. So the capping measures that we are putting in place will ensure that a similar regime is imposed on these employees.Remember also that not all benefits fall within the consideration of a cap. Certain benefits like remote area housing, remote area meals, superannuation and other benefits of up to $100 are exempt from FBT and can be received by all employees without the imposition of the Labor Party's FBT.The proposed $17,000 and $25,000 caps will allow organisations such as charities and hospitals to retain some concessional FBT treatment while at the same time removing the scope for an open-ended overuse. Naturally enough, we are not going to accept the Labor Party's second reading amendment. I commend the bill to the House as it stands. The capping measures are fair and reasonable and I commend them to the House.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Crean's amendment) stand part of the question.13:56:00The House divided.[ (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 74Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.65Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Wilton, G.S.Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.14892Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey) read a third time.Bills14892R100914892Consideration resumed from 9 March, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.14892Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey) read a third time.Miscellaneous1489314:02:0014893SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I wish to advise the House that yesterday the Australian Greenhouse Office held a forum on energy and environmental management in Commonwealth operations. The inaugural Commonwealth energy and environmental awards were presented at the forum to those agencies that have excelled in carrying out best practice in improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I am pleased to advise the House that the parliament's facilities manager, the Joint House Department, has received the award for the best performance of an agency leading by example.The award cites the Joint House Department's efforts in maintaining Parliament House as a showcase for energy and environmental efficiency. The award recognises the skills and commitment of the Joint House Department's staff regarding energy conservation and greenhouse gas reduction over the past decade. In addition, the electricity supply contract just renegotiated by the Joint House Department includes the provision of 15 per cent green energy for the next two calendar years, further enhancing the parliament's greenhouse performance. I am sure the House will join me in commending the Joint House Department on this performance.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Ministerial Arrangements1489314893Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I desire to inform the House that the Minister for Health and Aged Care will be a little late arriving at question time today. He has been delayed returning from performing the honours at a very important function in Sydney. In the event that there are any questions in that area, the Minister for Aged Care will answer them.Questions Without Notice148931489314:04:0014893McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain why cabinet appointed a new head of the Australian Electoral Commission, when the evaluation panel assessed him as `not recommended for the position'? Can the Prime Minister confirm that this applicant was evaluated at an earlier time as `not recommended for the position of deputy commissioner to the AEC', yet despite this he still got the job? In appointing this individual to the vital position of Australian Electoral Commissioner, what extra insights did cabinet have available to it that were not available to the evaluation panel—that is, the Secretary to the Department of Finance and Administration, Dr Boxall; the Public Service Commissioner, Ms Williams; and, Mr Ian Dixon?14893Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I can inform the Manager of Opposition Business that appropriate procedures are always followed with cabinet appointments under my government.1489314:06:0014893Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Will the minister advise the House of benefits that will flow to families and small businesses in my electorate of Ballarat, and in rural and regional Australia more generally, as a result of the government's tax reform measures? What alternative proposals exist to roll back these beneficial measures?14893Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Having just visited and spent some time in his seat and having had the opportunity to talk not only to the Whip but also to people in his electorate, I am aware that, as in many rural and regional seats, average household incomes are quite low. Indeed, Mr Speaker, you would be aware of that in your own seat. As I look at the front bench, I can identify no fewer than four members of my own party whose seats see amongst the lowest average household income levels in the country—mine included, despite the fact that it includes two of the country's most productive agricultural regions. For that reason, we have a very real interest in the positive impact that tax reform can have in rural and regional areas. In fact, in the 1996 census, a large number of families in rural and regional Australia were found to be on incomes below $500 a week. On Access figures, families with children, on an income of about $500 a week, get between $30 and $40 a week extra disposable income as a result of tax cuts and social security benefit changes. There are other aspects, though, to underline the importance of tax reform in rural and regional areas. Perhaps a little surprisingly, the proportion of people in rural areas who are in business for themselves is far higher than it is in the city. For those businesses, as has been constantly reiterated to us and is now recognised by us, capital gains tax is a major issue. It is a very significant issue indeed. The capital gains tax has been halved. As the Treasurer said yesterday, farmers with active assets can sell those assets on retirement without attracting any capital gains tax. That is a major reform and a very welcome one. It is something about which there would be absolute dismay if rural people thought it would be subject to roll-back. There is another big differentiating factor in country Australia, and that is the cost of transport. The reduction in the diesel fuel excise under the grants scheme for vehicles of 4.5 tonne gross operating in regional Australia comes to 23c a litre. That is a massive reduction in transport costs. This effective reduction in excise on diesel takes the level of taxation on fuel used for transportation in this country back to the levels of 1988. I cannot think of any other government decision—certainly not by those opposite—that has ever seen a reduction in a tax impost that takes you back to the levels of 12 years ago.We know that Labor will not get rid of the GST. We know that for all their criticisms of it they intend to keep it. It will remain should they ever find their way back into government. The Labor Party is making all sorts of claims about roll-back, and that roll-back has the potential to do a lot of damage to the benefits of tax reform in regional areas. If we get a roll-back of the GST, we will get a roll-back to the bad tax policies of old: Labor income tax cuts that do not happen; Labor's increases in wholesale sales tax, which were promised not to be necessary; capital gains tax introduced by Labor and never reformed by them. But then there is their record on fuel. When the Hawke government was elected in 1983, excise per litre was 6.155c a litre. It jumped by 1c in 1983 and another 2c by August of 1983 and then again in February 1984. Within a year there had been a 50 per cent increase in fuel taxes on ordinary motorists and the transport industry. Labor doubled it by March 1986—in just three years—and trebled it by the end of 1986. By the end of the 1980s, excise was running at 24c a litre. When the present Leader of the Opposition took over as finance minister, Labor's excise was over 29c. But then, of course, there was the infamous 3c a litre increase in the 1993 budget. Not to be outdone, the new finance minister—the present Leader of the Opposition—added another 5c. So, at the time of the 1996 election, fuel excise—unleaded and diesel—was 34.1c a litre. That comes to a very significant figure. In 13 years of Labor—and this reflects their tax policy when it comes to fuel—a 550 per cent increase in fuel excise.1489414:11:0014894Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—My question is to the Leader of the Opposition. Could the Leader of the Opposition advise the House why private members business notice No. 3 standing in his name should be brought on for urgent debate forthwith?14894Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—This is an urgent matter because, as we speak, charge sheets, such as I have here, are being addressed in courts in the Northern Territory with results that would have been seen as excessive at the beginning of last century, let alone at the beginning of this one. For example, receiving one bottle of spring water to the value of $1—28 days; unlawfully entering a takeaway shop and stealing food and beverages to the value of $18.50—14 days; stealing petrol to the value of $2—28 days; unlawfully interfering with a motor vehicle and stealing $1.10 worth of petrol—90 days; stealing four slices of bread and cordial to the value of $2.50—sentenced to 14 days. If in the Northern Territory you were charged, like Alan Bond, with misappropriating $1 billion worth of shareholders' funds, you might go to jail, but if you steal four slices of bread and cordial you will go to jail. It is an urgent matter, Mr Speaker, because this parliament has a duty to uphold its responsibilities under international conventions, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. When this was signed back in 1990 we did not have what is before us now. These events have occurred since. The fact that we may be embarrassed by our need to intervene in the affairs of a state or territory does not detract from our obligation to do so, as we have done twice in the last decade. There is a pattern of behaviour here which has seen this parliament—with members on both sides of the House participating—roll back positions in territories and states with which we disagreed. There was, for example, the debate in relation to the question of euthanasia, in which I participated in favour of a decision to overturn Northern Territory legislation. Both sides of the House intervened to uphold the rights of the homosexual community in Tasmania. If the rights of the homosexual community in Tasmania are worth protecting—and I do not dispute that—then the rights of Australian children are worth protecting as well. It is a matter of urgency because of the excessive, expensive failure that this proposal has become. It takes $344 a day to keep a kid in jail. You can multiply the $344 by 14 days, 28 days, 90 days or a year and you will find that it comes out to well in excess of $18 worth of food or $1 worth of water or $2 worth of petrol. It is urgent because mandatory sentencing is a cruel and cynical hoax on the victims of crime. Victims of crime are entitled to effective detention of the perpetrators, appropriate punishment of the perpetrators and compensation for loss associated with the crime. They are entitled to all of those things and they get none of them from mandatory sentencing. Ninety per cent of burglaries in Darwin go undetected, money is spent on incarcerating kids and not on police forces, not on detection of crime. Unlawful entry offences since this act has been in place have increased by 48 per cent in Darwin. Offences against property involving criminal damage have increased in Darwin by 35 per cent over the course of the last year. It is a litany of expensive failure that falls on all Australian taxpayers, given that 75 per cent of the resources that are available for the government of the Northern Territory are available to the government of the Northern Territory at the behest of the taxpayers elsewhere in this country. We have the right to act. We have the duty and obligation to act to deal with this problem.1489514:17:0014895Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of any arrangements entered into by the Commonwealth government which might affect the enactment of legislation pursuant to the UN Rights of the Child Convention?14895Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to that—PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition! The Pime Minister has the call and will be heard in silence, as you are aware.Honourable members interjecting— ZD4Mr HOWARD—The answer to the question is yes.Honourable members interjecting— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Both sides of the House know that that sort of behaviour is unacceptable, and no-one knows it better than the Leader of the Opposition, who has been here even longer than I.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—What about the Prime Minister?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman might just bear in mind the fact that at least while I am on my feet I am entitled to be heard without interjection. That is not a matter that refers to me as the member for Wakefield but obviously as the occupier of this chair.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The answer to the question is yes. What the Leader of the Opposition has just said is that the Commonwealth parliament should enact legislation, using the external affairs power of the Constitution, based on the argued obligations of Australia under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That is the argument advanced by the opposition. I am asked by the member for Eden-Monaro whether I am aware of any arrangements that might bear upon the enactment of such legislation. I am aware of an arrangement, an understanding, that was entered into between the then Western Australian government and the then Commonwealth government about the time of the enactment of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I have in my possession—and I will table it in a moment—a letter from the then Western Australian Attorney-General, Mr Joe Berinson, to the then Commonwealth Attorney-General, the Hon. Michael Duffy, dated 28 September 1990. It was headed `UN Convention on the Rights of the Child'. The material portion for the purpose of the answer reads as follows: The Western Australian Government is prepared to agree to early ratification of the Convention by Australia subject to: ... ... ...(ii) the State Government's understanding that there is no intention by the Commonwealth to use the external affairs power (on the basis of the Convention) to enact Commonwealth legislation to override state laws in this area.In other words, there had been an arrangement entered into between Berinson and Duffy. What they basically said was very simple and it is all of a piece with what the Leader of the Opposition does: you say one thing in opposition; you do the opposite in government. You walk both sides of the political street and you carry on as though you are a man of high principle.Honourable members interjecting— PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It goes to the relevance of the question asked. When that letter was written, there were no acts in place anywhere in the Commonwealth that involved mandatory sentences, not one.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition knows that he is advancing an argument. Before I recognise the Prime Minister, I would remind the House that the same courtesy as I expected to be extended to the Leader of the Opposition ought to be extended to the Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Let the parliament clearly understand that what is involved here is a massive example of the hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition, because the Leader of the Opposition was a senior member of the Hawke government when this letter was written by Mr Berinson. He was not only a senior member of the Hawke government but probably the most senior member of that government coming from the state of Western Australia. For all we know, he may have been involved directly in the negotiations to stitch up the deal between Joe Berinson and Michael Duffy. So let us have none of this.Honourable members interjecting—XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr Lawrence—Mr Speaker, on the question of relevance to the point that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition and then the Prime Minister: the allegation is made that the Commonwealth agreed to the position that was outlined by the Attorney-General. I think you will find, if you go through the correspondence—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Fremantle will resume her seat.Honourable members interjecting— ZD4Mr HOWARD—I table the letter—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister does not have the call, and I do not intend to give anyone the call until the House has come to order. The point raised by the member for Fremantle was not a matter of relevance. In fact, the Prime Minister's answer—Honourable members interjecting— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Fowler! PE4Beazley, Kim, MP110000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Leader of the Opposition! If it is the wish of the House that the chair be firmer with the rulings given, I will happily accommodate the House on both sides. The Prime Minister was being relevant to the question as asked, and I call him.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, I will table this letter. What I have read is the material part of the letter. I will read it again. It states:(ii) the State Government's understanding that there is no intention by the Commonwealth to use the external affairs power (on the basis of the Convention) to enact Commonwealth legislation to override state laws in this area.I table the letter.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition knows very well that the chair goes out of its way to accommodate him, but he cannot expect to address the House until he has been recognised. The Leader of the Opposition. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—It was pretty obvious, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition!PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I ask that the Prime Minister table the other document from which he was referring.ZD4Howard, John, MPPE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—No, you had another document in your hand, Prime Minister—underlined. You were reading it as you answered your question.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.Honourable members interjecting— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Is this the sort of standard that the member for Brisbane, the Manager of Opposition Business or the Minister for Foreign Affairs actually want projected to the Australian public? I think not. Is the Prime Minister quoting from a document—ZD4Mr HOWARD—I was quoting from the document I tabled.Opposition members interjecting— PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I want to see the other document that he was reading from when he answered his question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, do you want me to—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are failing to lead the parliament by example. For the third time, I remind the Leader of the Opposition of his obligation to wait for the call, and the Prime Minister knows that he cannot expect to be recognised unless he is at the dispatch box. The Prime Minister has indicated that the only document from which he was quoting is the one he has already tabled, and that is entirely in order.1489714:26:0014897Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—My question is to the member for Calare. Could the member for Calare advise the House why notice No. 2, private members business, standing in his name should be brought on for urgent debate forthwith?14897Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I thank the honourable member for Charlton for her obvious interest in this matter. I can inform the House that a bill is being drafted, and I hope that it will be presented for discussion in private members business on 10 April. Notice has been given of the bill, and it is interesting to note that I have included in the bill provisions that target only those Northern Territory laws which include children who are 17 as well as those regarded as juveniles in that state. There is the inclusion of that age because, according to international convention, those under 18 should be regarded as children.This bill constitutes an amendment to the Northern Territory Self-Government Act 1978. It involves clearly defined constitutional powers of this parliament and this government. It does not invoke any external powers to enable its application, and its philosophy is not substantially different to that behind the euthanasia legislation that this parliament passed several years ago. As I said, I expect to introduce the bill on 10 April and I hope this time frame enables members on all sides to ponder their position on this matter of high moral importance. I know there are those on the government side who would want to support this legislation, which differs very little from that which was attempted to be introduced by a member of the government side.I hope that we have a free and open debate on this matter because this is the chamber in which this matter should be debated—not that other place but here, with us as representatives. I realise that I run a certain risk out there in the community, in my electorate and elsewhere. Quite frankly, I am prepared to take that on board and to argue that this legislation is unconscionable and demands to be struck off the Northern Territory statute book. In fact, if we can get down the path to Western Australia, we should have a look at that, too. I urge the Prime Minister to reconsider his position because he has been duplicitous in this matter. There are people on that side who want to debate this issue. At least, let us bring on a debate. 1489814:30:0014898Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of what the government is doing to assist first home owners in my electorate of Deakin and throughout Australia in the transition to the new tax system? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies?14898Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Deakin for his question and for his interest in the situation with first home owners. I think he would be aware that, as part of the move to the new tax system, a First Home Owners Scheme will be introduced which will make available $7,000 for people who have not owned a home before which they can use to buy a home. Eligible first home buyers will receive $7,000 of assistance regardless of their income level, the area in which they are planning to buy and the value of their first home. An eligible applicant must be a natural person buying or building their first home in Australia which they intend to use as their principal place of residence.The First Home Owners Scheme has been warmly welcomed. I have here some clippings that I can table for the House. The Hobart Mercury on 1 December 1999 said it would boost Tassie property markets and that it was a $7,000 first home bonus. The Advocate in Tasmania said, `Funding first home easier' on 1 December 1999. I have here a clipping from the Examiner on 1 December 1999 on the first home owner assistance program. You can imagine that I was a bit surprised by a press release issued by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition yesterday saying:Peter Costello today displayed embarrassing ignorance about an enormous anomaly in the First Home Owners Scheme, his own GST compensation program. Mr Costello is unaware of unfair and discriminatory treatment, or he knows and he doesn't care. Either way, many of Australia's homebuyers are being short.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—I'm glad you got that into the Hansard.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Yes, I do read it into the Hansard because that was an attack on me from the Labor shadow Treasurer, the Hon. Simon Crean. I would like to also read into the Hansard a press release from the Labor Treasurer of Tasmania, the Hon. David Crean, released on 30 December 1999, which said `First home owners scheme launched'. Remember: the Hon. Simon Crean says that my GST compensation scheme is no good. This is what the Hon. David Crean says:The scheme is designed to provide potential first home builders or buyers with the information needed to make their first major purchase and to facilitate access—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Did Tim get to you on mandatory sentencing?CT4Mr COSTELLO—He always yells loudest when the talking gets best, Mr Speaker.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Can your brother get in to talk to you about mandatory sentencing?CT4Mr COSTELLO—People at home would not know that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is now yelling at the top of his voice to try to drown out the words, and the words are as follows from the Hon. David Crean:The scheme is designed to provide potential first home builders or buyers with the information needed to make their first major purchase and to facilitate access to—listen to this—the State Government's first home owners' grant, available from 1 July 2000. An increase in property turnover and building activity will have significant benefits for the Tasmanian economy ... Tasmania is said to be the biggest beneficiary. The $7,000 grant will provide an instant deposit.Here we have the Crean boys in the family business of Labor politics, with one of them up here complaining that my scheme is no good and the other in Tasmania extolling the benefits of his scheme, which happens to be the same thing.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—That's not on.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Hypocrisy has no bounds when it comes to the Labor Party—no bounds whatsoever.83SBurke, Anna, MPMs Burke—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order that goes to relevance. I believe the member was seeking an answer in respect of his seat of Deakin, which is in Melbourne. I would like the Treasurer to say how it is going to help the people of Blackburn. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Chisholm will resume her seat.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Which Crean is right? Is it Simon Crean, the man who will say or do anything and who attacks my compensation scheme, or is it David Crean, the Labor Treasurer of Tasmania, who thinks the scheme is so good he claims it as his own? I am afraid it is the Hon. David Crean, because they will do or say anything in opposition whereas in government they are forced to recognise reality. The great thing is that it took this government to do it. It took tax change to do it. It is a $7,000 First Home Owners Scheme. It is beneficial in Tasmania and it is beneficial in Deakin. 83SBurke, Anna, MPMs Burke—He finally gets to Deakin.CT4Mr COSTELLO—It is going to be beneficial in Chisholm, it is going to be beneficial in Dunkley, it is going to be beneficial in Forde, it is going to be beneficial for all of the first home owners in Australia—and, again, it took a coalition government to do it.1489914:36:0014899Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the National Party and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the resolution dated 28 February 2000 of the executive committee of the National Farmers Federation on the full sale of Telstra, which states: `NFF wants to see delivery of T2 promises, the terms of reference, and progress on the inquiry into service levels, and levels of service in rural and regional areas which are equivalent to those in urban Australia, before considering T3 further'? Do you agree with this resolution? Will you ensure that the performance criteria of the government's proposed Telstra inquiry includes a requirement for levels of service in rural and regional areas which are equivalent to those in urban Australia?14899Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I simply record that I had an extensive conversation with the current President of the NFF and the CEO last night about the arrangements that we have put in place and are progressing with, and they were entirely relaxed and happy with the government's position.1489914:37:0014899Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, would you agree that small business is the backbone of the economy, providing about half of the 600,000 jobs created since the coalition formed government in 1996 and with the introduction of the GST small business will expand further? Minister, would you inform the House of any policies that threaten to prevent small businesses taking full advantage of the government's new tax system?14899Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for McEwen for her question. She is absolutely right: the small business community has been a great generator of jobs under this government because as a government we go out of our way to encourage small business and as they grow and get bigger more jobs are created, and that is good for the community as a whole. There are alternative policies being promoted by some, particularly in the area of taxation. You can imagine that I was aghast to find that the member for Paterson is encouraging small business people in his electorate to go to a breakfast—in fact, it is a breakfast seminar—being run by the former ACTU president, now shadow Treasurer of the Labor Party, Mr Crean, on 24 March. I am surprised because in the electorate of the honourable member for Paterson he has got beef and dairy farming, chicken growers and the like, and what is interesting is that we know from independent research that those businesses and many others are the beneficiaries of the government's new tax package. In fact, for small grazing properties it is just under $2,000 a year, for medium grazing $5,500 and for cropping partnerships $18,000 a year in reduced costs, making their businesses more viable and giving them the chance to employ more people. At this seminar apparently they are going to launch some small business information for the small business community. You can imagine what that will be like, Mr Speaker. You don't need to imagine, because here I have from the member for Paterson information about the GST, which he is circulating at this very moment. It starts with an interesting cover sheet, which says: As you know, Labor is totally opposed to the GST.Then he says:You deserve to be informed.You deserve to be informed, all right. They are so opposed to the GST they are going to keep it. As they supply the information, the information they are not going to be handing out at this seminar is the extent of the changes that small businesses will have to undergo if the Labor Party are ever elected. It is absolutely ludicrous. The Labor Party are opposed to what they claim to be the complexity of the GST, but if ever they are elected the first thing they are going to do, after the GST has just been settled down and everybody has just got used it, is to change the GST. Just to add insult to injury, their policy is not only to make it more complex but also to put up income tax to pay for it. This is a breakfast at 20 bucks a head. I tell you what: that is not the price you will pay if you are in small business if Labor are ever elected. The real price will be the higher income tax and the higher capital gains tax. This is just a campaign of duplicity run by the Labor Party to deceive the very people in our economy who are creating jobs.1490014:42:0014900Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—Breakfast will be more after 1 July, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman knows that he is skating on very thin ice.LS4Mr MARTIN FERGUSON—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, do you recall telling the House on Tuesday:... foreign air carriers will have unrestricted access to regional international airports such as Rockhampton.Minister, isn't it a fact that your government reduced the airport fire category at Rockhampton in January this year and that as a result international passenger aircraft such as 767s and 747s cannot land there? Minister, haven't you misled the House and the people of Capricornia?14900Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—Apart from making the observation that it would appear that those on the other side of the House do not favour Rockhampton having an airport capable of taking 747s and 767s, I say in regard to the airport capacity that the runway, both in terms of its length and now the strengthening program that will be completed in a couple of months, will be capable of taking international flights. In terms of the particular issue that the member raised at the outset of his question, if there has been some technicality—Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—If there was some ruling, and I am certainly not going to take your word for it, I will investigate and have a look at it. I might add it would obviously have applied to the airport at a time when it was not capable of taking those big international flights anyway. I reiterate to this House that we have put $7 million into upgrading an airport that the people of Rockhampton want and support but you apparently do not, which will give it the capacity to take international flights, and we have a reformed aviation policy that allows unrestricted access to airports that are capable of taking those sorts of flights. That is a significant advance on your aviation policy.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—I would like to assist the minister. I seek leave to table the Civil Aviation Safety Authority safety regulation for providers of aerodrome rescue and firefighter services and the safety regulatory arrangements and standards, as the minister needs some assistance.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman has made his point.Leave not granted.1490014:45:0014900Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Has the minister seen reports of people working illegally in the building industry? Given that these people are taking jobs that should be going to Australians, would you inform the House what action the government has taken to prevent this from happening? 5T4Brereton, Laurie, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingsford-Smith is warned.14901Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Wentworth for his question. Of course this government is very concerned about people working illegally in Australia and has taken steps to address this issue at several levels. Members would know that I established a review of illegal workers in Australia. It was oversighted by a reference group chaired by the former member for Riverina-Darling, Mr Noel Hicks. It also included one of your former colleagues, Gary Johns, the former minister. The review has proposed a number of measures which include an enhanced employer awareness program to make employers' understanding of their responsibilities in checking work rights clear; upgrading of the information available to employers to enable them to check work rights; and provision of warnings and ultimately fines of up to $66,000 and two years jail for employers who consistently engage staff who have no work rights. I would like to compare this with the 13 years of Labor, when there were no sanctions against employers who persistently breached.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca—How many will you prosecute?0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I am interested that the member for Bowman asks how many have been prosecuted? He says you should be prosecuting people when there are no sanctions in place. That is what he is asserting. Yesterday, he had the audacity to put out a press release. And what did he say in it? He said:“To the best of my knowledge, since this Government has been in office not one person or corporation - not one - has been prosecuted by the Department of Immigration of knowingly employing illegal labour ...”There is no such offence in our law or known to our law. Thirteen years in office; no action in relation to these matters; and now the suggestion that people should be prosecuted for an offence that does not exist and is unknown.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr Martin—Four years and what have you done?0J4Mr RUDDOCK—The honourable member for Cunningham says, `Four years and what have you done?' Let us understand what has happened in that time. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—You have become a disgrace to your badge.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Around 3,000 people have had visas cancelled on the grounds of a non-bona fide visit, and many of them could have been working. If the opposition would care to read the report—and the report is available—they would find that 940 people had their visas cancelled specifically for breach of work rights. In addition—and these figures make very interesting reading—over the last year of Labor, 1995-96, there were 7,800 locations of overstayers. In 1998-99, under the coalition 13,472 overstayers were located. In terms of performance, you have seen an increase of 72 per cent and a large number of those people have been removed from Australia. So we have gone from a situation in which there were effectively no runs on the board to a situation where there are substantial runs on the board.To those members who I know are genuinely interested in it, I want to say that I am willing to work with and cooperate with them in relation to these measures. I have had the CFMEU come and talk to me and I would encourage them to continue talking to me. I would encourage them to do that rather than go to the press with stories about illegal workers in a situation in which not all the information is on the table. They gave us a list the other day of about 100 names of people they thought were unlawfully in Australia and working. We checked that list very carefully, and something like 40 per cent of them were permanent residents. They would have us going out there conducting raids in relation to these matters and, essentially, rousing up Australian permanent residents. They go off into the air and say there ought to be raids, and the very next day when we went to one of the sites in which it was alleged there were large numbers of people working unlawfully only three unlawfuls could be found. It is important that we work together and cooperate in relation to these measures. But you ought to give credit where credit is due and you ought to recognise that your own performance when you were in government was absolutely abysmal.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I did not wish to interrupt the minister but, as he commenced his answer, he was the subject of what I consider a most offensive interjection by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He referred to the minister's long-term membership of Amnesty International, which I believe has been well respected by both members of the House, and I ask him to withdraw. I believe it is appropriate that he also apologise.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, may I just add—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—To the point of order?ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Yes. The remark made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was clearly audible. The words he used, in reference to `What have you done in the four years?' were, `You have been a disgrace to your badge,' referring to the badge worn by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. And let me say that there is no person in this House who has done more to honour that badge than the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. I think the remark made by the deputy leader, even for his standard, is contemptible.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The statement made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was, in my terms, not unparliamentary, but I did consider it was uncharitable, at best. I invite the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the remark.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I have no intention of withdrawing the remark. It is not unparliamentary and I think it reflects our concern at the way he has been abusing question time.WI4Reith, Peter, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Under what standing order is it that you allow both those people to raise that matter over the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, yet take no action on the feral abuse by the Leader of the House of everybody on this side?Opposition members—Hear, hear!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have for some time in this chair, with the cooperation of the vast majority of members, gone about generally trying to raise the standard in the House. What was said by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was, as I have said, not unparliamentary. I consider it was unfortunate. It is not extraordinary for a point of order raised by the Leader of the House to be supported by someone else on the government side. That is why it was perfectly appropriate and not inconsistent to recognise the Prime Minister. That is the sort of action that I have witnessed from this chair as a backbencher over 17 years.1490214:56:0014902Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, are you aware of the comments of the member for Parramatta that people who choose to live in the bush get the benefits of incredibly cheap real estate and tranquillity, so they should not expect ordinary Australians to underwrite that choice and that, `If you seek to reweight the dice in favour of areas of poverty in regional Australia, you actually provide them with the incentives to stay poor'? Minister, are you aware of today's comments by the National Farmers Federation President, Ian Donges, that Mr Cameron's comments are `provocative and extreme' and Senator Winston Crane's comment that the member for Parramatta is a `spoilt brat'? Minister, who is right—the member for Parramatta, who has been described by Senator Crane as a `spoilt brat', or Senator Crane and Mr Donges?DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim Fischer—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I submit that the last part of that question is in fact asking for an opinion from the minister and, as such, should be ruled out of order.P10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Farrer makes real what is a difficult point for the chair. In fact, in a sense every question asks for an opinion. I will allow this question to stand. 14903Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—It has to be said that the member for Parramatta has focused on an issue that is of real concern to us in rural and regional Australia. I want to say one thing at the outset, which is that I find what is happening in much of rural and regional Australia quite gut wrenching because the adjustment processes are harsh and difficult. When it comes to country people taking a realistic view of the options before them and acting on them, I would suggest to everyone in the House that rural people have displayed very real courage and very real adaptability. We have lost 10½ per cent of our farmers in this country since 1985. They are facing great adjustment pressures. In my view, they are coping with enormous courage and resilience.I also make the observation that more broadly it is quite apparent that rural people are prepared to cope with realities, to move when that is required. I find that gut wrenching as well. I come from a seat that in geographical terms is currently the size of England, roughly, without Scotland and Wales. As a result of depopulation, something which I say quite unashamedly in this place I find utterly gut wrenching, my electorate is about to become the size of England with Scotland and Wales. That reflects very real pressures. But the underlying story that has to be told is one of resilience and courage—Mr O'Keefe interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Burke!4K4Mr ANDERSON—Isn't it revealing that all we can get is cheap interjections from the person who used to speak for agriculture in this place—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—Not one useful policy contribution. And you ripped the guts out of the bush with your first budget. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Corio!K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Why did you go to school in Parramatta? 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Werriwa!K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—That's how good the bush was!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Werriwa. Mr Latham interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will excuse himself from the chamber under the provisions of standing order 304A.The member for Werriwa then withdrew from the chamber.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Has the minister concluded his answer?4K4Mr ANDERSON—I conclude by making three brief points. The first is that I do accept that the member for Parramatta is concerned to see that people have job opportunities wherever they are, in fairness to him. I make the second point that it is very reflective of the ALP's commitment to policy that on this particular issue all they have tried to do is play politics at a personal level—personality politics. The third and final point that I make is that if there is one thing that is absolutely established beyond all doubt as I move around rural and regional Australia it is that they see you as completely irrelevant to the policy process. WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—Like in Victoria. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Corio. Mr O'Keefe interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Burke. 1490315:03:0014903Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Given the outstanding significance of my electorate in the area of exports, would the minister inform the House of the latest trends in Australia's export performance, particularly in the mining and minerals processing sectors? Is the minister aware of any threats to our export performance? 14903Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the honourable member for Kalgoorlie for his question. I am sure all members of the House would be aware that the figures released yesterday indicated that Australia enjoyed significant increases in exports of minerals and energy in the December quarter last year. They increased by 8.4 per cent to $10.2 billion compared with the September quarter. Of course, the member for Kalgoorlie, being a very good representative for Western Australia, would be aware that more than one-third of Australia's mining exports come from the great state of Western Australia. So these are very important figures that we are seeing released. The mining and resources export sector is growing very well. Our government wholeheartedly supports that and will strengthen their competitiveness with the implementation of the new taxation system, as they will be beneficiaries of part of the $3.5 billion worth of cost reductions on exporters as well as the abolition of diesel excise for the rail industry—the minerals and resources sector being large rail users. One other part of that sector that is going very well at the moment is the exports of alumina and aluminium. Alumina exports climbed 11 per cent and aluminium exports rose 10 per cent. Australia accounts for nearly 30 per cent of world alumina production, and over three-quarters of that production is exported. Whilst in Dubai recently on a trade mission with 60 business people from Australia, we had the opportunity of visiting Dubal, the Dubai aluminium company, which has just signed a contract over eight years to purchase $1.4 billion worth of alumina from the Alcoa refinery in Kwinana in Western Australia. Interestingly, that happens to be in the electorate of the Leader of the Opposition, in Western Australia. Whilst there, the management of that aluminium factory raised a concern with me, and that was continuity and consistency of supply. Last December there was an irresponsible strike by the rail unions in Western Australia that threatened to disrupt the supply of alumina to their factory and those very valuable exports to Australia. It is interesting to note that we have not seen a comment at all from the Leader of the Opposition with regard to these irresponsible strikes. Incidentally, I inform the House that those rail loco drivers, I am advised, were on strike again last night in Kwinana and Bunbury, threatening the very jobs of those people who work in that export industry in the electorate of the Leader of the Opposition. The Labor Party in Australia have always been closely associated with the union movement. They claimed whilst in government that that was a very cosy arrangement and that it should still be taking place. The shadow spokesman for trade, who I understand is travelling to Europe shortly to announce the Labor Party's trade policy, said recently in a press release that `Key governments in Britain, France, Italy and Germany are strongly influenced by their countries' union movements.' This government is not, but we know the Labor Party is. The challenge before the Leader of the Opposition at the moment is to deal with his union mates in Western Australia and not put the jobs of those workers in the Alcoa factory in Kwinana at risk. I got that first-hand from the Dubal factory in Dubai, to which we are selling $1.4 billion worth of alumina out of the electorate of the Leader of the Opposition. Those drivers were on strike again last night, threatening the existence of the jobs in that factory. The challenge that those workers in that factory want to put before the Leader of the Opposition is to have him intervene in this and get the railway workers back to work to guarantee those exports.1490415:07:0014904Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—My question is to the Deputy Leader of the National Party and the Minister for Trade. Do you recall writing the following letter in February last year:You should be rejoicing that petrol prices have fallen in Forster ... And there is no reason that these low prices should not continue.Minister, are you aware that since you wrote this letter petrol prices have gone up from 69.9c a litre to 93.9c a litre? Minister, aren't your comments on petrol prices as believable as your misleading and inaccurate view on permanent caravan park residents?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will respond to the first part of the question.14905Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—The first point is that I am not going to accept the validity of the letter. I will have a look in my files and see if it is there. I would not believe a word that the member for Paterson had to say, for the very first point. At that time, that may well have been the case because we were experiencing low petrol prices in our part of the world. Our government, the coalition government, has been working vigorously to address the issues within the petroleum industry in Australia and at streamlining that process. Let us just get a few facts on the record. The very first fact that we need to get on the record is that the party that the member for Paterson is a member of, the Australian Labor Party, is the party in government in this country that took fuel excise from 6c a litre to well over 35c or 36c a litre. That is one of the major points that need to be made. The Australian Labor Party, from the time they came into office until the time they went out of office, continually ratcheted up those fuel excises—ratcheted them up until they were up in the mid-30s. That is the first point to make.The second point to make is that when our government was trying to address the issues of petroleum pricing in Australia—fundamentally, the structural issues with regard to the petroleum industry—we were opposed at every point along that line. At every point the Labor Party in this House and in the Senate opposed the reforms that we were trying to make so far as Australia's petroleum industry was concerned.The third point to make is that we do not have control over international oil prices. Just to inform the House, on the recent visit to the Middle East that I referred to in my last answer, I took the opportunity whilst there of not only talking to my counterparts, the trade ministers, in those countries but also talking to those ministers responsible for the production of oil in those countries. I asked them how long they thought that the current international price of oil was going to stay as high as it is. They indicated to me that there is an OPEC meeting coming up on 27 March when this issue will be addressed. They will address the issue of oil production and oil prices. At the same time I asked for their indication of where they thought international oil prices should ultimately lie. The indication generally was between $21 and $24 a barrel. That is a market circumstance on a spot market across the world. But the member for Paterson's question indicates that we have responsibility for international oil prices. We don't. I will go back to the first point I made in answering this question. It was the Labor Party when in government that took fuel excise from around 6c a litre to over 34c a litre in this country. So the member for Paterson should look at his own backyard and at some of the current structure of oil pricing in Australia.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—I seek leave to table the letter that the minister was unsure he had written.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Is leave granted?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—No.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Leave is not granted.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—It's not a forgery.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks is warned.1490515:13:0014905Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the benefits for education under the new tax system? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies that threaten these benefits?14905Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Menzies for his question. Education is, of course, a big winner under the government's new tax system. All education activities related to the schools curriculum are GST free. After 1 July Labor's wholesale sales tax, the tax system that they favour as an alternative to the GST, will be completely abolished. As a result of the abolition of the wholesale sales tax, according to tax office estimates the cost of delivering education in Australia over four years will fall by close to $1 billion. That is the level of Labor's current impost on the cost of delivering education in Australia. The average family on $40,000 a year with two children will be over $47 a week better off after the effects of the GST, so education will become more affordable for Australian families. Australian families will be able to afford a better education for their children. Income support payments such as the youth allowance, Abstudy, Austudy and the Australian postgraduate awards will be increased by four per cent from 1 July, which means that students will have more money in their pockets. Students who work part time will benefit from income tax cuts and a $600 increase in the tax-free threshold, taking that up to $6,000. What a contrast this is with the education policies of the Labor Party and the lack of those policies in opposition. It is quite clear that Kim Beazley's roll-back is going to rip these benefits away from Australian students and Australian families, because he has no alternative under this roll-back policy—this infamous policy that he has put forward—but to increase income taxes. Increased income taxes are going to take money away from Australian families. They are going to take money away from Australian students. Labor does not believe in making education more affordable; it believes in making education less affordable. That is why the wholesale sales tax is already putting an almost $1 billion impost on education over four years. In conjunction with his mates in the Australian education union, arm in arm with Shazza, he wants to roll back not only the government's tax reforms and the benefits they bring to families but also the literacy benchmarks, the New Apprenticeships system and greater choice for parents. The Leader of the Opposition has never been interested in education, and his roll-back policy confirms once again that the opposition does not have the interests of education and of Australian parents and families at heart. 1490615:17:0014906Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Can you confirm that elderly people living in retirement villages who own their units will be forced to pay GST on maintenance fees and 24-hour emergency services, but those who rent will not? What is fair and simple about a tax that hits one person living in a retirement village but gives a GST concession to their next-door neighbour?14906Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I am very happy to answer questions about tax and the rules which apply—CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MP110000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for Burke will excuse himself once again from the House under 304A.The member for Burke then withdrew from the chamber.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I am very happy to answer questions on tax which are within the area of responsibility of Treasury. I make the point that in relation to retirement villages—that is, in relation to those people who own their homes and where they are purchasing services—those services are subject to GST. In relation to those people who rent their villas or units or whatever they may be, the maintenance fees which are charged are input taxed and are worked into the rent in exactly the same way as they would be in relation to residential rents. This question, of course, arises from an article in today's Herald Sun by Clinton Porteous. I would echo the words of Deputy Commissioner Rick Matthews who said:Residents of retirement villages were being treated the same as everyone else. Rents were input taxed but people who owned their own home had to pay GST to maintain their property. The treatment is equal.Those rules which apply generally apply in relation to retirement villages because they apply on the same basis of ownership or residential rents.1490615:19:0014906Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister inform the House of the need for a balanced health care system right through to rural doctor inducements and the John Flynn medical scholarship scheme. Minister, are you aware of any alternative plans to achieve this balance?14907Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I also thank him for his interest in this area. He can take great personal credit for and pride in the John Flynn scholarship scheme. Health is an area that requires balance across a broad area. Balance is often used between public and private and between city and rural. Nowhere could the difference between the opposition and the government be more stark than in this area where the opposition certainly have no understanding of what balance means between public and private sectors in health care. It is interesting to note that, since November 1998, we have had 29 separate press releases from the opposition about the 30 per cent rebate—every one of them carping, negative and opportunistic. In a press release on 13 March last year, the member for Jagajaga stated: Instead of propping up private health insurance the government should recognise that the public are very happy with Medicare. On 28 September last year, the member for Jagajaga said in the House:The Australian public are well aware of what they get from Medicare and they do not have the government's ideological commitment to private health insurance.So opposed are they to the 30 per cent rebate, they have decided to keep it in spite of the shadow minister going round and privately briefing journalists that the opposition was thinking of abolishing it. All the opposition has to do to understand how popular the 30 per cent rebate and Lifetime Health Cover are is to stand outside any Medicare Private, HBA or MBF office, or any other private health insurance company, at the moment and see how many people are joining up under Lifetime Health Cover. She could actually call Medibank Private's free call number 1800 188188 and talk to any of the 95 operators who have had to be put on to deal with the interest in Lifetime Health Cover. This number is going up to nearly 260 operators next month, just to deal with the extra interest and extra demand. We all know that the opposition does not support the balance of private and public. They sat by for more than a decade and watched private health insurance decline by two per cent a year. They sat idly by in 1991-92 and watched premiums go up by 17 per cent a year. The government's policy has always been that we should have a balanced, robust public health system complemented by a viable private system.The other area where this is obvious is in the balance between city and country. The single most significant thing we have done to get more doctors into country areas is to use what is called the provider number legislation—legislation the opposition fought tooth and nail against in 1996. In 1996 we had scaremongering that there would be 400 young doctors a year turned on to the scrap heap because of this legislation. Four years of graduation on, we should have 1,600 doctors, by the opposition's counting. When Ron Phillips did his review late last year, he could not find a single doctor anywhere in Australia who was without work because of the provider number legislation. This legislation is back in the House and the opposition is going to have to decide what it wants to do, because if the sunset clause is not repealed, it will mean that many doctors from country areas will flood into city areas and doctors who have come from overseas to work in a country area will not actually be bound to do what they undertook to do. It would be a disaster for rural Australia. But the opposition is going around privately, again—it does a lot of private briefings—saying, `We're going to be on the side of the young docs.' What that means is that you are going to sell out rural Australia. You have no direction and no ideas. You get into short-term interest groups, you cannot deliver anything and you will tag along with whatever is the easiest thing to do. Quite frankly, you are not strong enough to be unpopular.1490715:24:0014907Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Minister, are you aware of the comments of your representative in the Senate that having flies on the wounds of patients in nursing homes is impossible to prevent? Are you also aware that the provider of the Kensington Park Nursing Home, where maggots were found in a wound, has stated that: I can absolutely assure you that it does happen. Everyone knows it happens.Minister, is it acceptable under your aged care principles for nursing home providers to now accept that residents' wounds will become flyblown? Isn't it a fact that this nursing home has never been subjected to a surprise inspection or review audit by your Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency?14908Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—Firstly, I do not accept the opposition's version of what my colleague may have said, but I will say that Senator Herron is a well-respected surgeon with a distinguished medical career. With regard to Kensington Park, I note that the proprietor has put out a statement. The department has received no complaint concerning maggots with regard to that home. The issue became public yesterday and the proprietor identified himself to the department immediately. I can say that there is a spot check of that particular home under way as we speak.1490815:27:0014908Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General inform the House of the steps the Commonwealth is taking to limit its exposure with respect to the private legal costs of the member for Fremantle?14908Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the member for Sturt for his question. I advised the House last week that there is a real risk that the Commonwealth's exposure to the member for Fremantle's legal costs could exceed $750,000. Members are aware that this liability is due to the actions of advisers in the offices of then Prime Minister Keating and the member for Fremantle when she was the minister for health. I wrote to Gary Gray, one of the trustees of the Carmen Lawrence Defence Fund, making the reasonable request that the trustees of the fund take steps to pay the proceeds of the fund to the Commonwealth and thereby reduce the exposure of taxpayers to the costs of the member for Fremantle. Mr Gray has responded. He said that the trustees of the fund `do not have the power to pay these funds to the Commonwealth'. This is quite extraordinary when we see media reports that the fund is writing to contributors seeking their agreement to the balance of the fund being used for other purposes, presumably ALP purposes.Today I have again written to Mr Gray and have asked the trustees to take the only honourable and decent option open to them: to write to contributors and ask that they agree to the fund being used for what it was intended—payment of the legal costs of the member for Fremantle. If this does not occur, it will be another example of Labor protecting its own interests and thumbing its nose at ordinary taxpayers. What about the Leader of the Opposition? The Leader of the Opposition ought to do the honourable and decent thing and tell the trustees to do the honourable and decent thing.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions Without Notice149081490815:30:0014908Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNP10—I seek to add to an answer I gave to a question from the member for Batman in question time. The member for Batman sought to imply that the airport that is being progressively upgraded in Rockhampton would not be available for international services. I have advice to say that Airservices did indeed reduce the category of the airport from category 6 to category 5 on 31 January. This involves a reduction in manning by three, and there will be one less fire tender at the airport. Airservices have further advised that, when airlines develop firm plans to operate expanded services to Rockhampton, they will upgrade the level of the fire service accordingly.WF6Danby, Michael, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Melbourne Ports.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—It gives me the opportunity in relative silence to repeat the point. Airservices, at short notice, regularly upgrade the fire service at the airport during military exercises. It regularly happens. In conclusion, the opposition is always embarrassed when it is exposed. The member for Batman is, quite simply, dead wrong. When international airlines develop firm plans to use Rockhampton Airport, Airservices will supply the category of fire service that is necessary to support them. I will take steps to ensure that the people of Capricornia are informed of my commitment that international services be able to access the airport when it is required. It is quite obvious that those opposite are simply trying to engage in a bit of cheap political point scoring. Questions to the Speaker149091490915:32:0014909SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I refer to the question directed to me by the member for Charlton on 6 March and wish to advise the House that in accordance with the precedence established over the last two years, the Torres Strait Islander and Aboriginal flags will be flown at the entrance to the chamber during National Reconciliation Week, from 27 May to 3 June. They will be flown together with the two national flags, which will be positioned at either end of the display. Flying the flags in this manner accords with the correct flag protocol and with the precedence of recent years.1490915:33:0014909SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—On 6 March I advised the House that I had spoken to Professor Fels of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission about the application of the goods and services tax on seminars conducted by the Department of the House of Representatives. I also indicated that I had sent Professor Fels a copy of the statement I had made to the House earlier on 6 March. The Clerk has been in close consultation with the officers of the ACCC subsequently, and the commission has been offered access to departmental working papers relating to the seminar charges.As I indicated on 6 March, the current price of the seminars is heavily subsidised. The cost is based only on direct costs at the 1998 level and full cost recovery of those direct costs does not occur. The ACCC has recognised that the seminars are highly subsidised. It has also advised that price adjustments to reflect actual cost savings achieved should be anticipated wherever possible and should occur as frequently as is practical. Last year, the department set prices for two seminars scheduled after 1 July this year, acting on external advice. At that time, the seminar caterers had not been asked to factor in an estimated reduction in catering costs. This week, the caterers provided a quotation that was $1.50 per person less than the current charge—a decrease of 15 per cent.I also indicated to the House on 6 March that the department recognised that there would be cost savings across its activities with the introduction of the GST. Much of the savings will be in areas such as electricity and telephone charges that are not directly paid by the department but are met on its behalf by another parliamentary department. These costs are included quite appropriately in the accounts for the Department of the House of Representatives as services provided free of charge. They were specifically excluded from the calculations for a cost recovery charge in order to minimise the cost for seminar participants. However, the department has advised me that the expected benefits of savings across the parliament, not only those occurring to the Department of the House of Representatives, will be passed on to seminar participants.After taking into consideration overall benefits as indicated by the reduced catering costs, there will be a net increase of seven per cent in the charge for seminars after 1 July. Adopting the rounding down process in accordance with the department's practice, the GST-inclusive cost of the seminars from 1 July 2000 will therefore be $230 for a single registration. There will be similar reductions as previously applying for multiple registrations. As I indicated on 6 March, the department recognises that there will be cost savings across its activities with the introduction of the GST. I also indicated that these savings will continue to be examined and a review of pricing practices will subsequently occur. The Clerk has advised me that seminar charges will be further re-examined as part of this process. One final matter relates to the possibility raised by the member for Watson that people might be charged the wrong amount of money. I am advised that, at this stage, eight people have registered for the seminars scheduled after 1 July. The practice of the department is for seminar participants to be sent an invoice shortly before the time the seminar is held. The invoice will reflect the lower price. I intend to take no further action in relation to the matter. As I understand the situation, the ACCC similarly proposes no further action.4I4McLeay, Leo, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Chief Government Whip will find that when I in fact take the trouble to utter the words `Chief Government Whip' he will be heard. I call the Chief Government Whip; I'm sorry, I mean the Chief Opposition Whip.1491015:37:0014910McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I am glad you have sniffed the wind, Mr Speaker, because we will be over there soon. My question arises from your answer to the question I asked you a few weeks ago. Mr Speaker, could you advise the House whether the Department of the House of Representatives has registered for an Australian business number so that the department can receive the rebates? Has the budget of Department of the House of Representatives been reduced by the Department of Finance and Administration to reflect the alleged savings they think will be caused by the introduction of the GST?14910SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I can, of course, answer yes to the first question and the second question will be determined, I would have thought, by the budget.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—I think you have misunderstood my question.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am on my feet. I am about to make a statement to the House.4I4McLeay, Leo, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Chief Opposition Whip will excuse himself from the House under the provisions of 304A.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Of course. We should not ask questions which cannot be answered.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Chief Opposition Whip is named.Motion (by Mr Reith) put:That the member for Watson be suspended from the service of the House.15:43:00The House divided.[ (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 75Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.63Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Wilton, G.S.Question so resolved in the affirmative. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Watson is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours.The member for Watson then withdrew from the chamber.Auditor-General's Reports149111491110000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 34 of 1999-2000 entitled Performance audit—Construction of the National Museum of Australia and Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.Ordered that the report be printed.Documents1491114911Reith, Peter, 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.I present papers on the following subjects, being petitions which are not in accordance with the standing and sessional orders of the House:Calls on the members of parliament to consider and implement a minimum five year freeze on:Release into the environment of genetically engineered organism (GEOs)—corporations, microbes or animals—for research or commercial purposes;. Import of genetically engineered foods and GEOs;. Patents on living organisms.. The freeze to remain until safeguards are in effect—from the member for Berowra—26 PetitionersCalls on the Federal Government to use its jurisdiction to reject mandatory sentencing laws currently in place in Western Australia and the Northern Territory and restore the discretion of sentencing to magistrates—from the member for Flinders—55 Petitioners.Matters of Public Importance149111491110000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honorable member for Perth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The threat to communications services to rural and regional Australia arising from the government's pursuit of the full privatisation of Telstra. 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—7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Prospect.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—I am really sorry.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the member for Prospect.15:51:0014912Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—There is no greater threat to services in rural and regional Australia than John Howard's ideological obsession to flog off all of Telstra. Unfortunately, there is no weaker defender of rural and regional Australia than the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party of Australia. He is a weaker and less effective defender of rural and regional Australia and a weaker and less effective Leader of the National Party than Charles Blunt was. At least Charles Blunt could put his stamp on something. The Deputy Prime Minister cannot even put his stamp on the member for Parramatta. The Deputy Prime Minister could not even rebuke the member for Parramatta when he made absolutely outrageous comments about services in rural and regional Australia. Today we saw the member for Parramatta saying country people should not expect the same access to services as city dwellers. The member for Parramatta is reported as taking a swipe at farmers, saying they should not complain. He also said that people should be prepared to move to find work:If you find yourself unable to find a job in a regional centre ... you ought not to expect the rest of the country to underwrite your choice to stay there.In respect of communications, the member for Parramatta was asked on the Today show today:But why shouldn't country people ... why shouldn't they expect reasonable access to, say, a phone line to telecommunications, to those sorts of services?The member for Parramatta answered:Well, I think they do get, in terms of world standards, they do get reasonable access.And the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the National Party, could not even rebuke him. It is not enough that the Leader of the National Party has spent the last week and a half siding with the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and the Prime Minister over the full privatisation of Telstra, over Telstra getting a $2.1 billion profit and cutting adrift 10,000 workers and their families. It is not enough that he sides with the minister for communications; he will not even rebuke the member for Parramatta when he says that it is government policy to have a better service for people in the city than for people in the bush. He is too weak to even rebuke him. If John Howard gets away with his ideological obsession to flog off all of Telstra, Australia misses a big chance for the future. It misses a big chance for all of our people to share in a new information world, and the people who will suffer most will be the people from rural and regional Australia. We will have a digital divide—information rich in the city and information poor in the bush. The most galling aspect of the prospect of full privatisation is the cravenness of the National Party leadership—their craven inability to stand up to the Prime Minister and the minister for communications and the way they try to sidle away pretending that they are not being seen. But the deafening silence from the leadership of the National Party is being heard like a roar in regional Australia.Let us review John Howard's obsession with full privatisation. Just before his bush tour he decided to give the Federation speech, and he committed himself again to flogging off all of Telstra. You have got to read the fine print to see him reminding himself of the government's formal election commitment, which was not to flog off all of Telstra without a legislated inquiry with legislated terms of reference and legislated criteria for Telstra's performance. But shortly into his bush tour he suddenly discovered that the bush was not happy. So then we saw it: Howard's vow at Nyngan to end bush cuts. And what was Nyngan all about? The Nyngan declaration was that there would be no further diminution of Commonwealth services to rural and regional Australia without a red light flashing—without a red light flashing in my office and in every minister's office. What did we see soon after? A $2.1 billion profit and 10,000 jobs gone. And did the light flash? No, it did not. The National Party, too busy looking at steamy videos, had taken the globe out. The light did not flash. And what do we see? We see Telstra with a $2.1 billion profit, which brings in a $4 billion profit in a year, and at the same time we see that 10,000 jobs will go. And what have we heard from the government? We have heard from the minister for communications—not just sitting back silently but actually cheering the prospect of a $2.1 billion profit and 10,000 jobs gone. He cheered, popped the champagne cork and said he did not care. He said that he was not the minister for employment, so it did not matter. And what did we find in the course of the last week or so? We have seen statements and evidence from Dr Switkowski, the CEO of Telstra, and we have seen the ministers, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister respond to questions in this place. Telstra told the government, and the red light did not flash. Telstra told the government, and the government did not ask for details. Telstra told the government about the 10,000 jobs, and the government did not care and did not act.What did we then see? The assertion that the bulk of the 10,000 jobs would go from metropolitan areas. The Deputy Prime Minister stood in this place and sided with the minister for communications over the Leader of the National Party in the Senate, Senator Boswell, who had effectively asked how you could have a better service to rural and regional Australia when jobs would go. The Deputy Prime Minister refused to rebuke Senator Alston when he said that Bob Katter, the member for Kennedy, was a national disgrace for simply making the point that the further privatisation of Telstra would see a worse service to rural and regional Australia. We saw the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the National Party, siding with the minister for communication when he said, `You don't have to worry—less means more. Fewer jobs means better service. Less means more.' It defies credibility. It defies credulity. It beggars belief, and in the end the beggars will be rural and regional Australia.What did we find in this place? The Prime Minister, when asked by the Leader of the Opposition, made it crystal clear: yes, his Nyngan declaration about the reduction of Commonwealth services did apply to Telstra as currently constituted, but it would not apply to a fully privatised Telstra. That was a fatal admission. It was a fatal admission that the Prime Minister could not guarantee that under a fully privatised Telstra services to rural and regional Australia would not fall. And in the 21st century that does not mean just the old voice telephony services but the new information services for the new world and the new economy. So the Prime Minister has acknowledged in this place that if Telstra is fully privatised he cannot guarantee that there will not be a further decline in services to rural and regional Australia.Let us just recap our opposition to the partial privatisation of Telstra. In the course of the 1993, 1996 and 1998 election campaigns, we have opposed the privatisation, either partial or full, of Telstra. What was our public policy rationale for doing that? There are three main points: firstly, that Telstra was an important part of our national infrastructure and was better held in national hands than in private hands; secondly, that if you partially privatised Telstra you would place a commercial imperative on Telstra and the non-commercial, non-competitive and non-profit services would fall; and, thirdly, that it is better to make infrastructure commitments to rural and regional Australia by running off a long-term dividend stream rather than a one-off flog-off. Dealing with those, what have we seen? In the last year, we have seen a $4 billion profit by Telstra—$4 billion in one year. The government returned to the Commonwealth only $14 billion from the first one-third flog-off of Telstra. A three- to four-year profit stream from Telstra is bigger than the return the government secured for the people in the first one-third privatisation of Telstra. And when we get the final return from the sale of the second tranche of Telstra it will come in at about $40 billion—10 years worth of Telstra profit returns a greater amount than flogging off 49.9 per cent. On service levels, we have seen a formal report by the Australian Communications Authority investigating Telstra's decline of service levels and their breach of universal service obligations and customer service guarantees. The infrastructure is now more important. Either you say to rural and regional Australia, `We believe that you should have equitable and affordable access to the services of the new information economy,' or you do not. We know as a matter of objective fact, from anecdotal evidence and from the great crescendo of screams that come from rural and regional Australia that currently the government's model cannot even supply voice telephony services in a fair, affordable and equitable way. We do not want rural and regional Australia to be left behind in the new world. We do not want a digital rich in the metropolitan fringe coastal cities and a digital poor in rural, regional and remote Australia.When it comes to the Prime Minister's commitment to flogging off all of Telstra, having seen the partial privatisation of Telstra fail, he wants to return to the scene of the public policy crime and compound the felony. But he is actually caught by an election commitment which he is now seeking to wriggle out of. The government's formal election commitment in respect of selling Telstra was that the government would not sell more than 49.9 per cent of Telstra without first establishing an independent inquiry to assess Telstra's service levels to customers in metropolitan, rural and remote areas. The assessment was to occur against performance criteria which the government would specify in legislation. The government never specified that in the T2 legislation and the Prime Minister is now squirming, trying to avoid legislation in a proposed inquiry. When this inquiry is established, it will be a rig and a rort. The Prime Minister will seek to rig this inquiry. The Prime Minister will seek to rort this inquiry and to slide an inquiry result under the eyes of rural and regional Australia, pretending to them that service levels are in a fit state and that service levels will not further decline.In addition to the Prime Minister, today in question time we found the Leader of the National Party not even able to commit himself to the same standard that the National Farmers Federation committed themselves to in their resolution of 28 February. The NFF wants to see delivery of T2 promises, the terms of reference and progress on the inquiry into service levels, and levels of service in rural and regional areas which are equivalent to those in urban Australia before considering T3 further. He would not even commit himself to that. A weaker and more ineffective Leader of the National Party we have not seen. If the Prime Minister is allowed to fully privatise Telstra, the government will be responsible for selling the past. On this side, we want to secure the future for all Australians. Their public policy framework sells the past; ours secures the future for all Australians, irrespective of where they live.The Leader of the National Party, as I have indicated, has cravenly supported the minister for communications and the Prime Minister on this point. He has agreed with assertions by the minister for communications that, in respect of a $2.1 billion profit and 10,000 job losses, less means more. The job losses will come from the city and the services to the bush will improve. He has disavowed his Senate leader, Senator Boswell; he has disavowed the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Truss; and he has disavowed the member for Kennedy, Mr Katter. We find, on any number of occasions, the Leader of the National Party siding with the Liberal Party. Do not think that this has not been picked up out in the backblocks.In terms of a public policy, what is the choice that will confront the Australian community at the next election? The choice will be this: the government committing to the full privatisation of Telstra and the Labor party opposed to its further privatisation. In the meantime, the government has committed to privatising Telstra by stealth, through the back door, and the Labor party is opposed to it. The government wants the market to rule and for rural and regional Australia to suffer; our public policy regime wants an equitable chance for all Australians to have access to new information services in the new age. As I said, do not think that the Leader of the National Party's stance has not been noticed in rural and regional Australia. In the Friday, 10 March edition of the Northern Daily Leader, a periodical which I am sure the Leader of the National Party is only too familiar with because it is one of his local newspapers, the editorial refers to `our local Member, the Minister for Regional Services and ultimately the Leader of the federal National Party and Deputy Prime Minister'. What does the editorial in his own local paper say? It says:The Deputy Prime Minister has a responsibility to his party to say enough is enough ...If the Deputy Prime Minister does not put a line in the sand, the National Party should draw the line for him. The government and Prime Minister John Howard want to sell the past; Labor and Kim Beazley want to secure the future for all Australians. The National Party will not stand in the way. Only the election of a Labor government at the next election will secure that future to ensure that all Australians have affordable and equitable access to the new information services in the new economy.16:06:0014915McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—What a weak effort to finish off the parliamentary fortnight. What a lack of energy, commitment or belief in the honourable member's contribution. The number of Labor Party members who supported him numbered but 20 or so, and on our side, because it is a Labor debate, we hardly give it the credence it deserves. It is a Labor Party stunt. It is Labor Party confected anger and outrage. Who is on their tactics committee? I believe they should own up. It has been a jumble of issues for the parliamentary fortnight, with this sort of wrap-up on Telstra, but not a single new point was made today that was not made in an MPI late last week. Indeed, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, is still waiting for some questions. Over the fortnight during which Labor tried to have people believe it was such a burning issue, Senator Alston has had next to no questions. At last count it was one question. He has had one question in the Senate, as I understand it, from the opposition on Telstra issues. They will not even ask the minister for communications questions, given that they think this is such a burning issue.Why don't we pick up from where the honourable member left off when he gave an idle boast that only the election of the Labor Party to government could stop the privatisation of Telstra. Nobody in Australia who has got any memory is going to believe that. It is like the Commonwealth Bank, like Qantas and like all those other government businesses that the Labor Party gave promises on in writing. Indeed, who could ever forget the letter from the then Treasurer, Ralph Willis, in early 1993, a letter that was included in the Commonwealth Bank prospectus, that the Labor government on return to office would not privatise the Commonwealth Bank? That was junked a very short time later. So the Labor Party's hypocrisy on Telstra is as absolute as it is revealing. The Labor Party expects—or hopes, I believe, more accurately—that people will forget their deception over the years, but it is a faint hope by the Labor Party. People are not going to forget the Labor Party's sworn testimonies never to privatise. We have plenty of evidence that the Labor Party is as confused, as hypocritical and as misleading on privatisation today as they have been over the last 10 years. They are all over the shop. We have a number of members of the opposition who want to privatise parts of Telstra. We have got Senator Chris Schacht and Senator George Campbell in support of the privatisation of aspects of Telstra's business, which in Labor Party terms is always code for the beginning of the end. When they start stating their support for the privatisation of parts of Telstra—part of its mobile network, part of its directories, Big Pond and so on—you will quickly find that they will move to full privatisation. We have got Senator Kate Lundy on the record refusing to rule it out. As the Treasurer keeps reminding us, a Labor thinker is an oxymoron: how can there be a Labor thinker? It is an inherent contradiction of terms. However, the member for Werriwa and the member for Melbourne have both written books, supposedly on the issue of political and social policy, on various issues of great interest to them but, sadly, not to many others. They have touched on this issue and both claim that you cannot have large slabs of government capital tied up in business enterprises. Again, when you strip away the well-practised deceptions of the Labor Party, that is revealing for its intent to privatise Telstra. But we should not really just rely on shadow ministers, backbenchers and union heavies like Senator George Campbell. What we should really do is look at the words of the Leader of the Opposition himself. When he was Minister for Finance between 1993 and 1996, he was a champion and an advocate of privatisation.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—Passionate.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—Passionate, even. Let me quote from his budget luncheon address to the Department of Finance on 13 May 1994 to corroborate and substantiate our allegation that he is a passionate privatiser. He said:And despite some critics suggesting asset sales amount to selling off the family jewels, they do not result in a loss of infrastructure but rather a transfer of ownership.There you have it: the Leader of the Opposition when in government realised that privatisation is an issue of services rather than ownership. And country people are pragmatic. They want the services and the service guarantees in a regulatory framework before they are concerned about ideological concerns of ownership. We have put in place a legislative framework which keeps the pressure on all of the carriers in a way that the Labor Party never did. They never had a customer service guarantee; they had only the most restrictive of universal service obligations possible, which we have now expanded. We hold Telstra accountable in financial terms to provide guaranteed service levels. At the same time correspondingly we have introduced a whole new competitive regime which has forced down dramatically the price of local calls, long distance calls, overseas calls and the corporate market. Instead of just the old Telecom and Optus under Labor, there are now 37 licensed carriers competing for business, moving into rural areas. At the same time there are more than 1,000 Internet service providers. That competition has a marked effect on Telstra, as well as holding Telstra and the other carrier giants to proper levels of service, otherwise they would lose customers. In the old days they could have a complete disregard for their customers, but now of course they will simply lose business or face financial penalties imposed by the government's legislation. Let us look further at the Leader of the Opposition's record of statements on privatisation. At that same address to the Department of Finance on 13 May 1994 he said this:Asset sales allow the government to maintain public services and benefits to the Australian people while maintaining the deficit reduction strategy without increased taxes.So what has happened since then to the Leader of the Opposition? Why does he repudiate those arguments now except for the most basic and crass of political motives? In the Hansard of 31 May 1994 he boasts about his government's record in regard to privatisation:... the government—the Labor government—has a proud record of successful privatisations, privatisations which have not only incorporated a substantial return to the taxpayer but have also incorporated a whole series of other objectives in terms of strengthening the companies concerned, giving them a very substantial ownership base and improving the efficiency of the enterprises.How neatly does he encapsulate all the arguments in favour of privatisation of government businesses. You can maintain the levels of service. You can at the same time inject new levels of service to improve it. You can also meet other government objectives such as retirement of debt and the redirection of government spending capital to other needy areas of the economy or the community. At a Press Club speech on 24 August 1994, having been known as the seller of the benefits and of the worth of privatisation, he adds yet another benefit to the many he has outlined in the preceding months. He says:Of course, another benefit of privatisation is that it contributes to the government budget, helping to reduce debt and providing funds for government programs. 2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Aren't you in the National Party?XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—The honourable member for Lilley interjects. You can always rely on one of the Glimmer Twins. Actually, the Glimmer Twins are together. We sort of thought there was a cooling between the two over the last few months. We do not see them together very often, but they are together at the moment interjecting. The member for Lilley's interjection was, `I thought you were in the National Party.' Like all Labor party members, he underestimates the intelligence of country people. They want the services. They want the legislative guarantees. They want the competition. Ownership is not the test for them. They are far more pragmatic, with a commonsense outlook and expectations of government and oppositions alike, than the member for Lilley gives them credit for. You will suffer sadly at the polls if that is your condescending and patronising approach to country people. Don't think that this scare campaign you are attempting to whip up is going to have the desired effect.P10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I am not attempting to whip anything up.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—Agreed, Mr Deputy Speaker. You would not. You bring a degree of honesty and integrity to your dealings with the electorate, unlike the members opposite. They think they are going to ride this wave on this mythical surfboard into government. Well, we have seen what has happened to the GST wave into government. Every time the Leader of the Opposition is asked to specify where the roll-back will occur, who will be the winners and who will be the losers, he avoids the question. He will not specify the details required to be credible in the eyes of the electorate, particularly not country people. You are not going to fool country people on this. They know your record on privatisation. They know the advocates within your ranks—the member for Werriwa, the member for Melbourne, Senator Campbell, Senator Schacht, Senator Lundy and the few other brave souls who will eventually throw off the bonds of frustration and let people have an insight into their thinking on privatisation as time goes by. You will not hold your ranks on this issue. There is a majority body within that Labor Party who wants privatisation of a number of Telstra businesses, the directories particularly. There is no question that the members of the Senate and House of Representatives I have mentioned want the directories sold off. So does the Leader of the Opposition. On 11 February this year, a few short weeks ago, in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Leader of the Opposition said:Telstra has to conduct its affairs as it sees fit.He is saying `complete hands off'. Let Telstra make the decisions as it wants, including reductions of staff wherever it may be. I repeat:Telstra has to conduct its affairs as it sees fit.In regard to proposals to float online services, he said this:... a matter they have to considerThe Leader of the Opposition was advocating complete hands off. He is not going to prevent Telstra—5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Read the two whole paragraphs.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—The Leader of the Opposition is in direct conflict with the member for Perth, because the member for Perth told Telstra in a semiprivate meeting recently—we will say no more, except we know what was said at that meeting—that they were never to sell off a single thing. The member for Perth is in direct conflict with the Leader of the Opposition. But the Leader of the Opposition is weak and he is not going to rein in the member for Perth—who is running telecommunications policy on behalf of the Labor Party; it is not the Leader of the Opposition.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPXH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—What policy? There is no policy. But to the extent that we are having a debate about the privatisation of Telstra, we see the Labor Party awash in various opinions. A majority can be discerned for the privatisation of different aspects of Telstra's business. But only the other day the member for Perth ruled that out. I would like to see the member for Perth able to prevail against the member for Melbourne, the member for Werriwa, Senator Campbell, Senator Schacht and Senator Lundy, combined! In a head-on conflict with any one of them he would bowl them over in policy terms, but together he will not prevail. We want to know from the member for Perth what he said to Telstra the other day. Why tell them something in private and not say it publicly? Is he totally and utterly opposed to any selling off of Telstra's businesses? 5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—You can read my press release.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—I will tell you one I have read. On Monday, 20 December 1999, he congratulated Telstra for their improved service levels. The member for Perth, who for the last fortnight has been saying that Telstra's services are collapsing and are going to collapse further, only a few weeks ago was congratulating Telstra for their improved services. As my time expires, I can only restate that that their policy deception, policy hypocrisy and policy inconsistency will not fool the Australian public, least of all the very discerning rural voters who deserve better than what the Labor Party is giving them.16:21:0014918Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The member for Gippsland and the minister talked about the Labor Party riding a wave into the next election. It is certainly not the bush that is surfing on the Net. There are difficulties in being able to surf the Net or use the Net for renewing the bush, because of this government's policies. As our shadow spokeman said, it is the threat to services in the bush because of privatisation that has been the heart of this debate. The government has failed to understand what completely privatising the whole of Telstra means in the bush. It is not just the job losses which will be terrible. It is also the ability to be able to link the bush to the rest of the world at a price that is within the reach of people—links with things like educational services, e-commerce, multimedia and retail services, which are very limited at the moment. This cannot happen without the communications infrastructure being provided. It is like the rail lines on which a multiple of different trains run. The rail lines need to be provided and maintained at the top level and really only a government overseen service can ensure that this will happen. The government should insist on the customer service guarantee that requires the telephone carriers to meet levels of service established for all customers regardless of location.These carriers should develop pricing, technical standards and levels of support for telecommunications that are independent of distance. The argument that the city subsidises the bush is wrong. In fact, if anything it is the other way around. There is no reason why calls between towns in the bush should be on STD rates, as happens now. Distance is no longer a cost component. For example, the cost of using the Sydney to Melbourne fibre link is roughly $100 per year per channel. If you break this down to per minute, it is minuscule. A call from Sydney to Melbourne is two halves of a local call with a length of fibre in between. It no longer involves exchanges and may be only one switch number, so really all the costs have gone. It may be a very slight increase between two country towns but it is so marginal that it is not even worth considering.Country people are very high users of long distance calls. Since the introduction of the Internet into many farms, this has grown enormously. They have had no choice but to pay STD charges as there are no exchanges inside their telephone zones. Now that distance is no longer a component of the cost, this is very unfair. The bush is providing the basis for Telstra's $2 billion profit. Tasmania should be one telephone zone with calls reduced to the price of local calls from wherever anyone in Tasmania phones. And then there is the lack of services. The complaints I get are ongoing. I will detail some of those complaints—the ones that the minister did not say anything about. They are very real. A pensioner from Mole Creek rang and said that they needed one of the Easycall add-on facilities, but was informed by Telstra that it was not available through small exchanges like Mole Creek and, more than likely, would never be available. That raises the question: why has this exchange never been upgraded? The answer is obvious: it is not part of the Internet network and all those people in Mole Creek will be highly disadvantaged. This is a town of about 500 people an hour and a bit from Launceston. That is not good enough. Beauty Point and other West Tamar residents have been told their calls are directed through Georgetown and therefore they are at STD rates. This is having a terrible effect on small business—only 40 kilometres from Launceston. That is not good enough. An east coast small business just outside Swansea told us of having no fax service for a week. On seeking some response from Telstra, we were advised that there had been only one technician trying to fix a major fault and he had no time to do the repair. Eventually, it was fixed three days later after a weekend loss to that tourist business, which has many overseas customers, of thousands of dollars worth of business. That is not good enough.Then there was a very serious situation at the hospital in Queenstown—I believe I asked a question on this matter some time ago—when all the phone systems failed over a weekend. There was no technician located in Queenstown and the depot had been closed. The nearest person for this job was located in Hobart and was not in a position to get to Queenstown until after the weekend. People could not phone in or out. Mobiles do not work very well down there, nor did the staff involved have access to them, except for one in the hospital. The only way people managed to contact the local hospital was through the local radio station, 7XS, which made sure that information was ferried backwards and forwards over the weekend. The ambulance was kept tuned to the station—expensive for the radio station and potentially very bad for a patient seeking emergency help, had it not been for this strange backup system which worked for this community. That is not good enough. For a pensioner on the east coast, it took over six weeks to gain the phone links which he so desperately needed. That is not a service; that is a trial for these people and it is not good enough.I could go on. I have an office full of complaints, and that is just my little patch being represented in this parliament—let alone the lack of services to the rest of the nation. This government has already let the bush down. The National Party has failed its constituency by not acting to ensure that services in the bush are delivered. If anyone is going to believe them now, I do not know who it will be. They have failed in their responsibility in making sure that the bush gets their fair share of the latest technology. There is so much secrecy about the programs that they could be delivering to people. They obviously want to use these programs for pork-barrelling rather than for genuine regional development. How many people in the bush know about the Business Entry Point initiative? What about the Trials in Innovative Government Electronic Regional Service Project? Where is the information about those trials? How successful were they and when is the full program going to start? Then there are the rural transaction centres. There were supposed to be hundreds set up by now, but as far as I can learn, the government has managed only 23.The report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services which came down this week identified a whole raft of recommendations to help people in regional areas—33 of them to do with communications and information technology. The committee visited people in a whole range of regions right around the country and the major issues causing barriers to trade and the difficulty of renewing the bush all related to communications. So it is not only the ALP raising these issues; it is the bush talking to us in this parliament. If Telstra is not going to play the game, then it is time to look at alternatives and it has to provide the infrastructure that is part of the customer service obligation. But it does not have to have the monopoly on other ways of delivering services. There needs to be some flexibility in how we deal with offering a whole range of services to people in country areas. Local loops, satellite delivery and the use of the technology still being developed must be part of the plan. The bush cannot be locked into one company's business plan. It must have a range of opportunities available at competitive prices. The bush knows how to pay for services. We have been paying through the nose for years. Now is the time to be more innovative. I doubt whether this government even knows what `innovative' means. Change and new ideas are frightening and this government gets spooked very easily, especially if someone else is putting new ideas forward. It will mean the government putting up some money to develop a long-term strategy and then forgetting about it. Only the privileged are allowed to benefit from this government.This government has failed rural and regional areas. It has failed dismally and it is not prepared to admit it. Even the Nationals know this government has failed but they are too lily-livered to admit it. It is their seats that are under threat. They would be well advised to find a little backbone to stand up to the cuts in the bush. When the Prime Minister's red light goes off again with another cut to Telstra in the bush I suggest he take some notice of the red light as it flashes around his office at the other end of this building. 16:31:0014920Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—In parliament I generally like to follow the member for Lyons because I generally respect his view and I share committee interests with him, but on this particular occasion I have to say that there was not the sort of fire I have come to expect from the member for Lyons. It was rather a drab effort. He was reading his speech and, although it was well put together, there was a lack of fire. I was expecting more fire. He has become known on this side of parliament as Grizzly Adams. I would have expected much more grizzling and a lot less humbug from the member for Lyons than we got on this occasion. His heart isn't in it.The government insists on a couple of things in relation to Telstra: the universal service order and the customer service guarantee. The universal service order and the customer service guarantee are legislative requirements that apply to telephone companies in Australia and guarantee a level of service to Australians that the Labor Party—if they ever aspired to it—could not have done any better.The member for Lyons spoke of STD phone costs as being two halves of a local call with a length of wire in between. If it were that simple—and it really is that simple—in the eyes of the Labor Party, why in the time they were in office did the costs of STD calls keep going up and up and up? Why was the trend always up when it came to STD phone calls? Why couldn't the Labor Party, with all its immense influence over the activities of Telecom, or whatever it was in the later years of Labor's administration, focus on getting those prices to start going down to help the people in the bush? The member for Lyons is an advocate for people in the bush. Why couldn't he get those prices to come down? Why couldn't his people do it? They absolutely could not. He knows in his guts that he cannot count on the Labor Party to do the sorts of things he really wants to see done in relation to Telstra. They have no guts—that is true—and he cannot count on them doing the things he would really like to see done in relation to bush communities. For heaven's sake; it was a bit of a weak effort criticising rural transaction centres. The member for Lyons would know that is the first thing that is going to go if Labor ever gets in again. There is no hope for getting rural transaction centres off the ground under—what will it be?—the `Beazley administration'—the measly Beazley administration. I am sure they couldn't fund something as important as rural transaction centres. That was the contribution from the member for Lyons. Ahead of him we had speaking, and working himself into a lather on behalf of rural communities, an ex-lawyer from Perth, someone who got his masters or something like that in London, a person who would have to be about as far out of touch with the bush as you could possibly get. This is the spokesman they bring forward to raise a matter of public importance in relation to bush services and their confected concerns about Telstra. I was reading this MPI because I am here to speak on it—'the threat to communication services', blah, blah, blah. Instead of that, I noticed when I was listening to the member for Perth—that inflated lawyer over there—that his contribution was more directed at the National Party. Opposition members interjecting—84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—You are criticising me for talking about what the previous speakers have said. In fact, when we started off this debate, supposedly talking about Telstra, what did we wind up talking about?—the National Party. A better form of words than what has gone on today would have been `the threat to Labor's self-indulgence posed by the continued rural support for the coalition government'.What we are seeing is a whole lot of manufactured concern, a whole lot of blah over there, when in reality the coalition government is doing a hell of a lot of good for rural areas by improving access to telephone services and reducing their cost. That is where I would like to start. What has happened to the cost of telephone services since the coalition got into office? What has happened to the cost of STD calls? What has happened to the cost of local calls? Where are they going? They are going down. Yet we get this confected concern over there that there is some problem in relation to Telstra and these issues. We have heard Ziggy Switkowski say that the level of Telstra services in the bush is not good enough, and the government agrees with him. The government says their services are not good enough. But what was the service they were providing before?—even less. That was the Labor result—even less. I would like to speak for a short while about the customer service guarantee because this is something people get under the coalition government that they never got under the hypocrites over there. They have under the coalition a consumer service guarantee, a guarantee which applies to the standard telephone service and sets out time frames within which new services must be connected, faults rectified and appointments made and kept. Was there any guarantee about those things under Labor? No. I remember years ago when Telstra was Telecom and I was trying to get a phone hooked up in Townsville. I have never encountered such an arrogant organisation in my life—people with a monopoly. They basically gave us two to the valley and said: `Your phone will get on if you are lucky, some day, some century. We will ring you up and tell you when your phone is going to be on', something like that. That is the sort of thing they were doing. Another element of the customer service guarantee is that in areas with existing telecommunications infrastructure a new phone service has to be installed within five days for urban communities, 10 days for major rural communities, 40 days for minor rural communities and 40 days for remote communities. I think we have actually reduced that figure out there. Were there any of those day limitations under Labor? Was there any guarantee of service under Labor? What was the guarantee you got under Labor? `Get stuffed' was the guarantee of service you got under Labor.Do we want to go back to the type of Telecom we saw under Labor, the type of Telecom they now say that they are harking back to?A quorum having been called and the bells being rung—84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am asking whether I can be granted an extension of time to continue this important matter of importance.10000Andrews, Kevin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)— I am afraid the standing orders do not allow that. (Quorum formed)84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—It is a crook situation when you cannot get a customer guarantee out of the Labor Party. Some of those people over there are trying to say that what we should do is nationalise Telstra. It is a ridiculous proposition. Is that the alternative that they want to present? If it is not that, then what is it? What is your policy if it is not nationalisation? (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! This discussion has concluded.Committees14922149221492214922Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER10000PON/A10 (Mr Nehl)—I present the amended report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members' business on Monday, 3 April 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, 3 April 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, 3 April 2000. The amended order of precedence and allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and Statements1 TREATIES—JOINT STANDING COM-MITTEE: Report 30—Treaties tabled on 8 and 9 December 1999 and 15 February 2000. The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 20 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNoticesMr Sawford to move—That this House acknowledges the historic links between public education and the development of democracy in Australia. (Notice given 6 March 2000.)The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 20 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Mr Georgiou to move—That this House recognises that:(1) the Parthenon marbles are part of a unique cultural treasure that is an intrinsic feature of the Parthenon in Greece;(2) the architectural and cultural integrity of the Parthenon continues to be compromised by the fact that the marbles cannot be viewed in close proximity to the Parthenon;(3) the Government of Greece has guaranteed the safe preservation of the Parthenon marbles should they be returned to Athens; and(4) every effort should be made by the United Kingdom to facilitate the return of these items of immense cultural value to the people of Greece. (Notice given 6 March 2000)Time allotted—private Members' business time remaining prior to 1.45 p.m.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.Mrs Irwin—To move—That this House: (1) notes the increase in deaths caused by heroin and the increase in the number of first-time users under 25;(2) notes the positive results in the use of Naltrexone in the treatment of heroin dependence for some addicts; and(3) regrets the recent decision by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to exclude Naltrexone from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme other than for the treatment of alcohol dependence. (Notice given 15 February 2000.)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.Mr Ross Cameron to move—That the House: (1) recognises the debt we owe to those entrepreneurial publishers who have built Australia's thriving, free and independent press which is the envy of the world;(2) upholds, to the greatest extent consistent with the laws of decency and libel, the unfettered right to freedom of speech and freedom of opinion upon which our vigorous democracy is built;(3) recognises, nonetheless, that the high concentration of media ownership, and the diversity of commercial interests among the few media players, creates potential for conflicts of interest in reporting of news, opinion and current affairs;(4) notes, in the interests of transparency, the decision of the Australian Broadcasting Authority to require current affairs radio programs to disclose the previously unnamed commercial sponsors of the broadcaster; and(5) resolves to find simple, enforceable means by which print journalists, radio broadcasters and television news and current affairs reporters, can declare their personal financial interests, and those of their employers, in the issues about which they provide media comment. (Notice given 9 March 2000.)Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limit—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.Bills14923R98314923Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.14923Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper)—by leave—read a third time.Committees149231492314923Order of the day returned from Main Committee with an unresolved question.Ordered that the matter be taken into consideration forthwith.Unresolved question—That further proceedings be conducted in the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Ordered that further consideration of the matter be set down as an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills14923R87514923Consideration resumed from 13 March.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 2 (line 8), omit “and 6”, substitute “, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11”.(2) Schedule 3, item 9, page 11 (after line 6), at the end of section 12, add:(4) An instrument granting an exemption or varying or revoking an exemption is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.(3) Schedule 4, item 2, page 15 (line 13), omit “2000”, substitute “2001”.(4) Schedule 4, item 4, page 15 (line 21), omit “2000”, substitute “2001”.(5) Schedule 4, item 7, page 15 (line 28), omit “2003”, substitute “2004”.(6) Schedule 4, item 8, page 15 (line 30), omit “7”, substitute “8”.(7) Schedule 4, item 9, page 16 (line 2), omit “7”, substitute “8”.(8) Schedule 4, item 10, page 16 (line 4), omit “7”, substitute “8”.(9) Schedule 4, item 11, page 16 (line 6), omit “7”, substitute “8”.(10) Schedule 9, item 5, page 21 (lines 19 to 21), omit the item.(11) Schedule 9, item 9, page 22 (lines 33 and 34), omit “, by a person directly or indirectly responsible for the administration of the fund”.(12) Schedule 9, item 9, page 23 (lines 3 and 4), omit “by a person directly or indirectly responsible for the administration of the fund,”. (13) Schedule 9, item 12, page 23 (after line 26), at the end of section 230A, add:(3) The Minister's written request to APRA made under subsection (1) for advice in relation to the application for assistance must be laid before each House of the Parliament as soon as practicable after the Minister has made a written determination under subsection 231(1).16:43:0014924Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.This bill continues the reform process initiated by the government in response to the recommendations of the Wallis report. During debate in the Senate, the government introduced an amendment extending the period originally contained in the Financial Corporations (Transfer of Assets and Liabilities) Act 1993 for foreign authorised deposit taking institutions to obtain a banking authority and effect the transfer from subsidiary to branch structure without incurring the associated tax liability. The government is happy that both the opposition and the Democrats supported this amendment. Further amendments to this bill were moved by the opposition and supported by the Democrats during the course of debate in the Senate. The first of these amendments related to the Reserve Bank of Australia's power to exempt a company registered under the Financial Corporations Act 1974 from providing statistical information.The opposition's amendment makes any instrument granting, revoking or varying such an exemption a disallowable instrument, requiring it to be tabled in parliament. While the government would prefer not to amend the bill in this respect, we do not oppose the amendment. The remainder of the amendments moved by the opposition relate to the provision of financial assistance to superannuation funds that suffer loss due to fraud or theft. In particular, the opposition objected to the government proposal in the bill that a causal link be established between the source of the fraud or theft which results in the loss and the nature of the investment as a superannuation investment. The government sought to make it clear that only losses arising due to fraud or theft by a person directly or indirectly responsible for the administration of the fund would be eligible for financial assistance. This was designed, as I said, to provide a causal link between the loss and the nature of superannuation, which is an investment administered on behalf of fund managers by third parties such as trustees, custodians and investment managers. Adding this clarification would have imposed a measure of discipline on those involved in the administration of superannuation and reinforced to them the need to exercise prudence and diligence in making investment decisions.The opposition's remaining amendment requires the tabling in both houses of parliament of the minister's request to APRA for advice, which the minister is required to seek before making a determination on whether to grant financial assistance. It is difficult to see what would be gained by such tabling. The government has some valid concerns that the publicity that might be generated by such tabling, even though it occurs after the minister's determination is made, could nevertheless prove unhelpful to the fund in question or to related funds. While the government considers that the opposition's amendments are generally misconceived and unnecessary, they do not detract from the integrity of the bill. The bill contains a number of important measures that further the process of financial sector reform—reform which continues to deliver benefits to consumers of financial services and to the community as a whole. The government is concerned to ensure that financial sector reform is not unduly delayed or frustrated and, in light of this, has decided to accept the opposition's amendments rather than delay the passage of this bill. I therefore commend the bill to the House.16:47:0014924Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The opposition welcomes the decision by the government to accept the amendments which were agreed to in the Senate. The Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1999 represents the third stage in the series of the Wallis reforms, which Labor has broadly supported. However, we did move amendments to this bill in the Senate—the same amendments I moved to the bill when it was in the House—which excised from the bill an attempt by the government to water down the provisions which protect the superannuation entitlements of employees. Let me come in turn to each of the amendments before us. Amendment 1 is simply a procedural amendment. Amendment 2 was moved by Labor and accepted by the Senate to improve transparency. Labor did not oppose the proposed provisions giving the Reserve Bank the power to exempt a corporation from complying with an information provision standard that it makes under the Financial Corporations Act 1974, but we do believe that these provisions should be subject to the scrutiny of parliament. We moved an amendment to make them a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. Government amendments 3 to 9 were moved in the Senate and not opposed by the opposition. Essentially, the amendments give foreign banks and other approved deposit-taking institutions until 30 June 2001 to obtain a banking authority. This is important if they are to be eligible for concessional tax treatment when transferring their assets and liabilities. The original bill gave the banks until 30 June 2000 to obtain a banking authority. That was an extension of the original five years that the Labor government gave foreign banks, which expired on 22 December 1998. It did emerge during the debate that KPMG, acting on behalf of the foreign banks, have approached the government seeking a further extension of the deadline—which is still some three months away—to give them more time to consider the review of business taxation outcomes before deciding whether or not to convert to branch status.For a group to be able to so easily approach the government to have a legislative deadline extended for a second time is of great concern to the opposition. We have the GST approaching; it is set to come in on 1 July this year. That is a deadline that hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of Australians are fearful of. You would have to ask the government: are they going to extend the GST start date so that Australians can have more time to consider the review of business tax outcomes? On amendments 9 to 12, Labor objects to provisions which attempt to water down the restoration of superannuation benefits in the event of theft or fraud. That is exactly what the government sought to do with this bill. It is not just the opposition claiming that the government's bill was cutting employee entitlements—indeed, the government's own explanatory memorandum said so. Item 5 of schedule 9 states:This amendment clarifies and limits the object of the financial assistance provisions in part 23 of the SI(S) Act. Financial assistance is available to superannuation funds under part 23 of the SI(S) Act where a fund has suffered a loss as a result of theft or fraud. The fund can apply to the Treasurer to have its lost moneys restituted via a levy of other superannuation funds in the industry. This bill, according to the government's own explanatory memorandum, limits the opportunity for funds to apply for financial assistance. We are used to the government cutting employee entitlements; however, after taking an absolute bath in the media for the way in which it handled the National Textiles case and other cases where companies have gone bust and workers have lost their entitlements, including superannuation entitlements, why on earth would the government persist with even more attempts to water down employee entitlements? Labor opposed this part of the bill and we received Senate support for our amendments. We believe that the provisions as they currently stand will provide the Treasurer with the flexibility he needs to make determinations for restitution but allow the Treasurer to fully restore employee entitlements if the need arises, which it has yet to do.Labor moved amendment No. 13, which the Senate agreed to. It is designed to provide more transparency to the decisions of the Treasurer. In a statement in response to the Wallis inquiry, the Treasurer indicated that he was accepting the Wallis recommendation that restitution to fund members should be limited to 80 per cent. That means that, for every $100 a fund member loses as a result of theft or fraud, the Treasurer would give them back only $80. In our view that is very unfair. While the government has not yet legislated to explicitly give effect to this measure, there could be an attempt to do it through the back door by the provision that requires the Treasurer to seek the advice of APRA prior to making a determination of financial restitution. Labor has successfully moved an amendment to simply require the Treasurer, after the fact, to table the request he makes of APRA before the parliament. (Extension of time granted) So, given that background, the arguments advanced by the government in the Senate about the consequences of this amendment are without substance. While I am on my feet concerning these issues, I would raise two related matters. These amendments go, again, to that issue of employee entitlements, and in particular the loss of superannuation moneys. I regret to say that this evening administrators are at a meeting in my own electorate of Wills involving a company called the Fabric Dye Works. There is the prospect that that company will be put into liquidation and that not only will 60 workers lose their jobs but also that accrued employee entitlements, including superannuation—I understand in some cases up to and exceeding two years—are now at risk. Clearly, I will be calling on the government to provide to those employees who are at risk of losing their entitlements the same kind of package that was provided to the workers at National Textiles. I can assure anyone who is interested that employment and other issues of social disadvantage run just as strongly in Coburg as they do in other locations where this sort of situation has befallen workers. I would urge the government, if it is indeed the case that this company goes into liquidation, to act in a way that protects the employees' accrued entitlements. I once again urge the government to consider the issue of quarterly superannuation payments, which would prevent liabilities building up in the way that they have in the Fabric Dye Works case and in a number of other cases.Another issue that I wanted to mention as well is that, when we were discussing this legislation in the House previously, it came in concert with a number of bills that relate to the supervisory levies for the supervision of the superannuation industry. The setting of those levies has been a matter of considerable concern to the players in the superannuation industry. The funds themselves—the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, the Investment and Financial Services Association and individual funds such as the construction and building industry superannuation fund—all expressed concern about the extent of the levies and the impact of the levies on them, pointing out that, if the Wallis reforms were going to be effective, presumably it would mean that the levies could be lowered, because every dollar that is taken out by way of levies on the funds is one dollar less for the retirement incomes of workers. So, that is a legitimate concern on their part, and I have raised it in the House before.At the time this legislation went through, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation had announced a review of current levy arrangements. The opposition accepted this in good faith and did not move any amendments at the time concerning that legislation, although we did put on the record our concern about the way in which the determination of levies issue was being handled. If I recall correctly, that review was scheduled to finish in about October or November of last year. To date, we have heard no word of it, so there has been considerable dissatisfaction within the superannuation industry about the way in which levies were handled in 1998 and again in 1999. There has been inadequate consultation with industry, and there is quite a suspicion on the part of those involved in superannuation that the levy structure was designed to advantage banks, to increase the profits of banks and to improve their bottom line, at the expense of those involved in the superannuation industry. So the fact that we have not yet seen anything coming back from this review of levy arrangements, gives rise to the suspicion that we could again see in the year 2000, as we have seen in the past two years, poor consultation on the part of the government concerning the setting of those regulatory levies. I did want to make that point while I was on my feet. As I have indicated, Labor will support the amendments that are now before the House. Many of them are propositions that we moved ourselves when this bill was here before. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills14927R75314927Consideration resumed from 17 February.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 18, page 15 (line 13), omit “Despite”, substitute “Subject to subsection (6) and despite”.(2) Clause 18, page 15 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add:(6) Subsection (5) does not apply during the period spanning the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games and the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games, from 27 August 2000 to and including 1 November 2000.(3) Clause 21, page 18 (line 8), omit paragraph (b), substitute:(b) an APS employee in the Department.(4) Clause 22, page 18 (lines 9 to 13), omit the clause, substitute:22 Appointments as authorised persons(1) The Secretary of the Department may appoint an APS employee in the Department, or an employee of Airservices Australia, to be an authorised person for the purposes of this Act.(2) The Secretary of the Department may appoint persons in a class of persons to be authorised persons for the purposes of this Act. The class must consist of persons who are APS employees in the Department or employees of Airservices Australia.(3) An appointment under this section must be in writing.16:57:0014927Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.The Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill 1999 puts into legislation an administrative curfew which has existed at Adelaide Airport to ensure that the residents of my electorate of Hindmarsh are not subjected to large noisy planes coming in during the night period. In the Senate, the government moved amendments related to the delegation of authority in clauses 21 and 22, which relate to the appointment of authorised person and allow the secretary to the department to appoint an APS employee from the department or an employee of Airservices Australia to be an authorised person for the purposes of this act. This amendment addresses the concerns raised by the Senate committee with regard to the scrutiny of bills.The other amendment was moved in the Senate by Senator O'Brien for the Labor Party and was accepted by the government. It is a result of a meeting of the Adelaide Consultative Committee, where they agreed to change the curfew hours during the Olympic Games to allow for the airlines to maintain their schedules into Adelaide. I personally was opposed to this. I was unable to attend the meeting but did not inform the consultative committee that I was opposed. It was regrettable that my state Labor colleagues did not turn up and also oppose it, because I suspect it is not actually the wish of the residents to have the curfew changed during this period. However, that was the decision of the consultative committee and that amendment has been moved and agreed to.At this stage I am aware that the shadow minister will address his remarks to the amendments but, before he gets in any negative remarks, can I say to the shadow minister that I appreciate the assistance that he has given in getting this bill through the parliament. Unlike the previous people who took over the shadow ministry he has been much more agreeable to helping this bill through the parliament, although I do appreciate that, had he not, there would have been a chance for me as the member to criticise the Labor Party for frustrating it. Even with that, I do express my appreciation to the shadow minister. I commend the amendments to the House.17:00:0014927Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I am pleased to indicate on behalf of the Labor opposition that we support the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill 1998, including the amendments before the House this afternoon. I suppose in recent times the member for Hindmarsh and I have been on a unity ticket not only on the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill but also on the question of mandatory sentencing. At least on this side of the House I have general support for our common view. The Labor Party negotiated amendments with the member for Hindmarsh to significantly improve the bill for residents. There was a real danger that the bill and the amendments put up by the member for Hindmarsh would have created an opportunity for open slather avoidance of the curfew—the very curfew that the bill is to enshrine in legislation. The Labor opposition has supported a legislated curfew for Adelaide Airport for a long time. The residents of Adelaide, and Hindmarsh in particular, have been waiting a long time for effective action on this matter from their federal member and, more importantly, from the government, despite the prodding of the federal member. See how kind I am to you today, the member for Hindmarsh!Relief from aircraft noise to enable residents a decent night's sleep is the least our parliament can guarantee to a community. Enshrining this relief in law is a protective act by this parliament to ensure that residents get a right to relief from aircraft noise. The member for Hindmarsh promised this bill before the 1993 election and finally introduced it into the House in 1998. It lapsed and was reintroduced last year. It has taken a very long time—too long, in fact—for this to be delivered for Hindmarsh residents. The community of Hindmarsh also shares that view, according to a survey conducted by local Labor Party candidate and resident of Hindmarsh, Mr Steve Georganas.The Labor opposition also has very strong evidence from the local community that they are not happy with just a curfew. The residents also want insulation for noise affected residents and public buildings. They want insulation of buildings and homes on the same terms that the residents of Sydney enjoy. For seven years, the member for Hindmarsh and, more particularly, the government have prevaricated with respect to these issues. The member for Hindmarsh stood in the House on 28 June 1999 and said:... insulation is an issue for Adelaide airport residents and deserves more than grandstanding. She then unfortunately voted against Labor amendments that would have fixed that issue for residents—I suppose again instructed by the party room, as has been the order of the day this week on other issues. The member also promised the House to:... work with the community and approach the minister on the community's behalf for appropriate action, including insulation for these homes ...My colleague Senator O'Brien said in the other chamber that these matters should be pursued, and he pursued them in the last estimates hearings. He tried to ascertain whether the member for Hindmarsh had yet approached the minister about insulation for Adelaide residents. Senator McDonald said:I am sorry, but we are not in a position to tell you what the government is considering across a range of policy issues at the moment.Clearly the minister was dodging the issue. I remind the government and the member for Hindmarsh that it is not just the ALP that wants this question answered; the residents of Hindmarsh need to know what the government is doing on this outstanding issue that concerns them as residents. I took it from the answers that the government is not considering a proposal for noise insulation for residents around Adelaide Airport. From that, the residents of Hindmarsh can only deduce that their federal member has either not approached the minister or has been knocked back. On 25 January 2000 the Minister for Transport and Regional Services announced insulation for a further 630 homes around Sydney airport. The master plan for Adelaide Airport shows that, by the year 2020, there will be 4,203 residents affected by noise above the 20 ANEF level. It is time for the member for Hindmarsh to deliver a solution to properly address the noise issue for constituents in the same way that Sydney residents have been treated. As we said during the last election, and we say it again, Labor will do something about noise insulation around the Adelaide Airport. Until we win government at the next election, I challenge the member for Hindmarsh to join with the ALP candidate, Mr Georganas, to push to deliver on the issue of noise abatement. The Labor Party support this legislation for a curfew at Adelaide Airport. Each time this bill has come before the House, that has been our position. I am pleased that the member for Hindmarsh and I could actually make some advances for local residents of Adelaide. I hope she joins with me in seeking to overcome the noise problem by getting the government to agree to some noise insulation. If it is good enough for Sydney, it is good enough for Adelaide and the residents of Hindmarsh. 17:05:0014929Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—I was not about to speak again on the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill 1998, but I feel I do need to address some of the remarks of the member for Batman. For one thing, he gets his facts wrong. Although I do not mind the politicising, it is really disturbing when the opposition cannot get its facts right. Firstly, the member for Batman said that I had promised this bill prior to the 1993 election. Let me tell the member for Batman that, prior to 1993, I was actually the member for Hawker and was not all that aware of the problems in Hindmarsh. It was not until I became a member after 1993 and found out about Labor's 92 years of neglect of this electorate that I realised something had to be done. For the information of the member for Batman, it was just prior to the 1996 election that I first mooted that we would need to get the curfew put into the legislation. I am glad that I did finally achieve that. I point out that this is far more than the ALP achieved for the seat in the 92 years that they held it.On the matter of insulation, I assure the member for Batman that I fully support the residents in their fight for insulation. I have indeed talked to the minister and his advisers on the subject of insulation, and I am confident that, if I continue to work at the rate I have been, I shall probably achieve insulation for the residents, as I have achieved a curfew bill in legislation.17:07:0014929Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5South AustraliaLP10—I have listened to the comments made by the member for Hindmarsh on the issue of noise abatement. I undertake to consult her about a joint private members bill from both sides of the House—moved by me and seconded by the member for Hindmarsh—to force this government to do something about noise in Adelaide on the same basis that it has done something about noise in Sydney. Let us have a unity ticket yet again.17:07:0014929Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—I appreciate the political manoeuvring and the sense of humour of the shadow minister. As he would be well aware, there is no such chance. I will work as I always do—with my minister, who has been extremely sympathetic to the residents in my electorate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills14929R95814929Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 14), after “any article”, insert “weighing 25 grams or more”.(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (lines 22 to 28), omit subsections (2) and (3), substitute:(2) The Customs officer may remove the article to which this section applies from the normal course of carriage and give it to a second Customs officer, following the procedures (if any) that are prescribed for the purposes of this section.(2A) That second Customs officer may open the article if:(a) the second Customs officer performs duties at a higher classification than the first Customs officer; and(b) the second Customs officer reasonably believes that the article consists of, or contains, drugs or other chemical compounds that are being carried in contravention of a law of the Commonwealth relating to their importation into, or exportation from, Australia; and(c) the opening takes place in the presence of a third Customs officer.(3) Having opened the article, that second Customs officer may, in the presence of that third Customs officer, examine the article to check whether it consists of, or contains, such drugs or other chemical compounds.17:09:0014930Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move: That the amendments be agreed to.The Customs Legislation Amendment (Criminal Sanctions and Other Measures) Bill 1999, as passed by the Senate, requires procedures to be prescribed for Customs' opening and examination of international postal articles. The government considers that this provides a suitable regime for Customs officers to examine articles if they reasonably believe that the articles contain prohibited drugs or other chemical compounds. The government has, however, noted views expressed during debate in the House of Representatives that the opening of mail intrudes on a person's privacy. The government would like to reassure the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Australian community that they need have no concerns about unnecessary intrusion into people's privacy when Customs goes about its business of protecting the Australian border. In order to reinforce the security of the postal environment and to reduce the risk of potential corruption, the government has moved an amendment to the bill as presented to the Senate that will achieve three purposes. Australia Post would remain the sole authority to examine personal correspondence under 25 grams. Customs would have the power to open larger, international postal articles weighing 25 grams or more. A Customs officer who reasonably believed that a postal article contained drugs or other chemical compounds would have to pass the article to another Customs officer who performs duties at a higher classification. This more senior officer would verify the decision and the article would then be opened by this officer with a third Customs officer as a witness.Customs risk assessed 160 million postal articles imported through Australia Post last year. The low level of complaints about postal examinations shows that Customs treats its responsibilities very carefully. Drugs were found in 6,000 cases. There is a fine balance to be struck between the need to deter people from importing substances that are dangerous to our community and the obligation to protect the privacy of law-abiding citizens. The government considers that it has achieved a suitable balance through the compromises it has offered in relation to Customs opening international postal articles.17:11:0014930Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I am delighted that the government has come forward with the amendments which it places before the House now. I am very grateful that the government has expressed its concern about its responsiveness to the issues raised by the opposition in relation to the House of Representatives debate. My impression was, during the debate in the House, that both the parliamentary secretary and the Attorney-General, who spoke in relation to these matters, were displaying a mite of intransigence in relation to the opposition's very principled objection to the fact that a single undersupervised Customs officer would be entitled under the government's proposals to open the mail coming into this country of any citizen, in a way which we thought raised very significant civil liberties concerns. Fortunately, the Democrats happened to also share those concerns. I find it a remarkable coincidence that the government's enthusiastic reconsideration of the priority to be accorded to civil liberties coincided with a phone call from the Democrats saying that they would be supporting Labor's position in relation to this legislation. I thank my friends the Democrats in the Senate for having played some small part in the minister's getting of wisdom. Nonetheless, the wisdom has been got, and the government has put forward these amendments. They do not reflect precisely the safeguards that Labor proposed to include in the legislation, but they do the task and they do it well. It will mean that ordinary postal items—that is, items that weigh less than 25 grams, and that is the ordinary course of post that comes in—will not be able to be opened by Customs. If they suspect that an article contains some illicit substance, they have to take it to an Australia Post official who will open it for them, and that will occur in a way which means that there is always a second party present and the process is supervised. Because of the government's concerns regarding the inconvenience of that process in relation to the parcel post—where we concede that there are lesser issues of civil liberties as people usually do not express substantial personal communication in parcel post and larger quantities of drugs may be involved in parcel post—we have consented to the government's proposal that Customs need not take those particular items to Australia Post for opening but can open them themselves. But we are not going to allow—and the government now agrees that it is not going to allow—a single Customs officer to open those items. If, for example, a sniffer dog or an X-ray machine detects something that is believed to be suspicious, the person who finds that item has to take it to a superior Customs officer who then opens it in the presence of a third officer to make certain that there is a check on the kinds of possible abuses that we had averted to. Obviously, we alone in this parliament saw the necessity for these safeguards to be inserted. I am surprised that the government brought upon itself some odium for seeking to persist with quite an unprincipled approach to this matter for so long. I did express some surprise to the Attorney-General that he found himself in a position where he was defending the indefensible. I am glad that, whether or not prompted by the fact that the Democrats were going to agree with us, a change of heart has been obtained. Whatever motivates the souls of men in this place, a good outcome is what matters. I am pleased that for once the good guys get a win and that we can be confident that both the law enforcement objectives of this legislation and the civil liberties and privacy objectives of the people of Australia are adequately properly protected. It is one for the Labor Party, one down for the government—a good outcome all round.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous1493114931Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to a resolution extending until 7 June 2000 the time for presentation of the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund relating to the inquiry into the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Native Title Amendment Act 1998.Bills14931The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Dairy Adjustment Levy (Excise) Bill 2000Dairy Adjustment Levy (Customs) Bill 2000Dairy Adjustment Levy (General) Bill 2000Timor Gap Treaty (Transitional Arrangements) Bill 2000Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999Bills14931R99414931Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 17, page 7 (line 9), omit the definition of DAA Chairman , substitute:DAA Chair means the Chair of the DAA.Note: Section 18B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 deals with how chairs may be referred to.(2) Schedule 1, item 17, page 38 (line 26), omit “subclause (3)”, substitute “paragraph (3)(a), (b) or (e)”.(3) Schedule 1, item 17, page 38 (after line 26), after subclause (3), insert:(3A) Despite subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code, the defendant does not bear an evidential burden in relation to a matter in paragraph (3)(c) or (d) of this clause.(4) Schedule 1, item 17, page 47 (line 1), omit “Chairman”, substitute “Chair”.(5) Schedule 1, item 17, page 47 (line 11), omit “Chairman”, substitute “Chair”.(6) Schedule 1, item 17, page 47 (line 31), omit “Chairman”, substitute “Chair”.(7) Schedule 1, item 17, page 49 (line 4), omit “Chairman”, substitute “Chair”.(8) Schedule 1, item 17, page 52 (line 11), omit “Chairman”, substitute “Chair”.(9) Schedule 1, item 17, page 54 (line 16), omit “Chairman”, substitute “Chair”. (10) Schedule 1, item 17, page 59 (line 6), omit “(which deals with dairy adjustment levy).”, substitute “(which deals with dairy adjustment levy); and”.(11) Schedule 1, item 17, page 59 (after line 6), at the end of clause 78, add:(q) in making payments under the Dairy Regional Assistance Programme; and(r) in meeting the expenses of the Commonwealth incurred in relation to the administration of the Dairy Regional Assistance Programme.Note: For the Dairy Regional Assistance Programme, see clause 84A.(12) Schedule 1, item 17, page 60 (after line 19), after clause 84, insert:84A Dairy Regional Assistance Programme(1) For the purposes of this Part, the Dairy Regional Assistance Programme is a part of the Regional Assistance Programme, being the part known as the Dairy Regional Assistance Programme.(2) To avoid doubt, the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is responsible for administering the Dairy Regional Assistance Programme. This includes (but is not limited to) responsibility for determining:(a) the recipients of payments; and(b) the amounts of payments; and(c) the timing of payments; and(d) the terms and conditions of payments.(3) Payments under the Dairy Regional Assistance Programme may only be made during the 3-year period beginning on 1 July 2000.(4) The total amount paid out of the Dairy Structural Adjustment Fund:(a) in making payments under the Dairy Regional Assistance Programme; and(b) in meeting the expenses of the Commonwealth incurred in relation to the administration of the Dairy Regional Assistance Programme; must not exceed $45 million.(5) The total amount paid out of the Dairy Structural Adjustment Fund in a particular financial year:(a) in making payments under the Dairy Regional Assistance Programme; and(b) in meeting the expenses of the Commonwealth incurred in relation to the administration of the Dairy Regional Assistance Programme; must not exceed $15 million.(6) In this clause:Regional Assistance Programme means the Programme administered by the Commonwealth and known as the Regional Assistance Programme.(13) Schedule 1, item 18, page 99 (line 11), omit “Chairman”, substitute “Chair”.(14) Schedule 1, item 18, page 99 (line 16), omit “Chairman”, substitute “Chair”.(15) Schedule 1, item 18, page 99 (line 35), omit “Chairman”, substitute “Chair”.(16) Schedule 1, item 18, page 100 (line 1), omit “Chairman”, substitute “Chair”.(17) Schedule 1, item 18, page 100 (line 9), omit “Chairman's”, substitute “Chair's”.17:18:0014932Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.The amendments to the Dairy Industry Adjustment Bill 2000 provide for funding of up to $45 million for the delivery of a dairy regional assistance program. The cost of the program will be met from the levy proceeds collected through the dairy structural adjustment fund. There is also a technical amendment on a matter that has been brought to the government's attention since the bill passed through the House of Representatives. This amendment brings this bill into line with Australian criminal law policy in relation to dealing with confidential information. Deregulation of the domestic milk sector by state governments will have significant economic and social impacts on regional communities reliant on dairy farming. While the dairy structural adjustment package will provide significant benefits to producers and, as a flow-on consequence, to regions, this program is specifically targeted to assist regions. This program will assist dairy dependent communities and their members to adjust to the deregulation of the dairy industry.The Dairy Regional Assistance Program provides assistance of up to $15 million per year for three years beginning on 1 July 2000. The program will be established as a component of the Regional Assistance Program and administered by the Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business portfolio, the responsibility of my colleague Mr Reith. Funding for the program will be provided through the levy of 11c per litre on liquid milk products. This program represents a whole of government approach consistent with the government's rural and regional Australia policies. It will enable dairy communities at risk following deregulation to become self reliant by taking a proactive approach. It is expected that a number of positive outcomes can be achieved through this program for regional communities, such as business and community initiatives to create long-term employment as well as access to retraining and counselling services through the provision of community infrastructure and services. The largest number of the amendments relate to the use of the word `Chairman' and change of that word to `Chair' in a number of places throughout the legislation. I guess those amendments demonstrate that political correctness is alive and well in the Democrats and among some other people in the other place. Whilst the government is not enthusiastic about these sorts of amendments, bearing in mind the Latin derivative of the word `Chairman', we will not be opposing those particular amendments because the legislation is of great significance. I commend the amendments to the House. 17:21:0014933O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The opposition will not be opposing these amendments to the Dairy Industry Adjustment Bill 2000. We will be expediting the passage of these amendments. I note the contribution of the Democrats to this debate and the amendment that they have moved substituting `Chair' for `Chairman'. That is a fairly substantial contribution and I thank them for it. The second one relates to certain legal provisions and we will not be opposing that one.The third one relates to the creation of a dairy regional communities program worth $45 million—$15 million over three years. I would like to make some comments about this. We ought to look at the time clock: at the eleventh hour plus in this sitting with one of the most rigid deadlines on one of the most complex pieces of rural legislation, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry brings amendments into the House, expecting the opposition to just go along with them and pass them. I say this to you, Minister: if it were not for the fact that you are providing $45 million to the regions of Australia and that you are responding to the pressure that we put on you out in the community, we would be taking a different attitude to this sort of nonsense.For the public record, let us record what transpired in the development of policy that brings us to the eleventh hour passage of this legislation. This package was put to the government in April 1999. I had discussions with industry before and after that, and I made the point to them that, if you are going to get public acceptance of an 11c a litre levy over a period of eight years and you are expecting the consumers of Australia to buy this, you ought to have a very hard look at the provision of assistance to regional communities that are going to be adversely affected by dairy deregulation. I give credit to the industry because they took our suggestion on board and even presented it to the government, as I understand it, in the proposals that they put in April 1999, or in discussions before the tabling of those proposals. It is a matter of public record that at that time the government rejected all the entreaties from the opposition, from good regional and rural members, from the Democrats and from the industry itself, and they rejected the proposal. Labor continued to mount the public argument, and I pay tribute to the honourable member for McMillan, the honourable member for Braddon, the honourable member for Bass, the honourable member for Lyons and Senators O'Brien and Forshaw, who kept this issue alive in the dairy debate.When I had discussions with the industry and asked, `How's it going with the minister?' they said, `It's fallen off the back of the truck. The government won't accept what we're proposing, and we won't accept it either—we won't have the moneys come out of the moneys that are going to be raised.' Yet here we are today: the minister and the industry have accepted that these moneys are going to come out of the levies that are raised. It went to the Senate committee. An enormous amount of information was presented to the committee—on which we can presume are good government members, along with members of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats—and it presented a recommendation, recommendation 4, that this should be included in the package that the government was putting. As we know, the government rejected that recommendation—up until now, up until today. This provision does not have any basis in research; the only research done on the impacts has been done not by the government but by the Bega community. Let me also say that not one centavo of the government's money is in this—this is dairy farmers' money and consumers' money. (Time expired)17:26:0014934Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I understand that time is short in this debate on the Dairy Industry Adjustment Bill 2000, but let no-one be under any illusion as to why it is we have this $45 million for those struggling dairying communities. It has nothing to do with the National Party over there, who rolled over, or with their city lawyer mates in the Liberal Party, who told them they were not going to get a cent for those regional communities. It has everything to do with the people on this side: the member for Braddon, the member for Lyons, the member for Bass and the member for Paterson—people who are prepared to come into this place and fight for the rural communities which they represent. Have a look in the Hansard at what Ian Causley, the member for Page, had to say about this when the debate came up. Referring to the industry, he said: `What they ask for they receive from the federal government.' That is what the industry asked for, not what those rural communities asked for. Every last member in this debate said that they wanted some money for those rural communities that depend on the industry. We stood up for the rural communities—not the National Party. They cannot even stand up to the member for Parramatta. They are a hollow shell of what they used to be, and they stand condemned. This package is here because of our work. We stood up for the people in our communities—they did not.17:27:0014934O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—It is instructive to note that only a week after the legislation pertaining to this package was in the House the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has finally announced an increase in funding for the restructure, with only a little over a hundred days to go before the whole thing comes into place. It is essential that Tasmania receive its fair share of this $45 million. Tasmanian communities will be severely impacted by deregulation, especially if industry members use their share of the package to retire debt. It is appropriate that communities which rely heavily on the industry are compensated for the reduced income that will affect the communities. The government's action in investigating the impact of deregulation on communities mirrors its approach to everything else to do with deregulation—it has waited too late to act.17:28:0014934Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I welcome this initiative, but unfortunately it is very late. At last the communities that will be affected by dairy deregulation are going to receive some form of recognition—recognition that I heard from this side of the House in adjournment debate after adjournment debate last year and into this year, only to be laughed off and fobbed off by the government. I remember when I was speaking to this bill that the member for Blair kept saying, `There is nothing in this and the amendments except hot air.' Part of that hot air was $45 million, which is going to go to these communities. Minister, you are not prepared and you do not have a plan. This industry has to worry about itself, and I would like to acknowledge in the gallery today Mr Brendon Thompson of the TFGA in Tasmania, who at least set out to try to do the best thing by his community. One of the things that he talked about was getting compensation for communities. Minister, at least you have acted, but by God it is late. 17:29:0014934Mr Adams, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—It is late in the day and it is late in the week for this dairy bill and these amendments to be here. The government talk about regional Australia and about being a caring government: they did no thinking whatsoever about the dairy areas of this country. They brought in a bill that had been sorted out outside government circles. They gave no consideration to the impact that this is going to have on the dairy areas of Australia. There are going to be people thrown out of work from plants. There are going to be sharefarmers thrown off the land. There will be farmers who will have to leave they land. They do not care about that. They gave no consideration to it whatsoever. We raised restructuring, and now we have some money on the ground. Debate interrupted. Adjournment1493510000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 5.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.0V5Slipper, Peter, MP Mr Slipper—Mr Speaker, I require that the question be put forthwith without debate.Question resolved in the negativeBills14935R99414935Consideration resumed. 17:30:0014935Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—In view of the time I will not respond in detail to the tirades that came opposite. I am interested in this last-minute support for the dairy industry package from Labor.849Sidebottom, Sid, MP84HZahra, Christian, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will not tolerate that level of interjection as the member for Braddon knows, as does the member for McMillan. I expect them to hear the minister in silence.GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSS—Labor are now claiming they have great support for this package. They moved a great stack of amendments in this House and in the Senate to the legislation, but this was not amongst them. They are newly crowned converts to the idea of a regional communities package. I welcome their support. I think it is important that this legislation does receive the support of the House today so that the dairy industry can plan for its future with confidence. Can I conclude, as I did at the end of the second reading debate, by complimenting the dairy industry on the way in which they have worked constructively through a very, very difficult period. It will not be easy for the dairy industry in the years and the months ahead. There are going to be significant changes in their incomes. They can be assured of the government's concern about these issues. The addition of this package will help in that regard. I call also on the state governments, who are actually the ones deregulating their dairy industries, to recognise their responsibilities to their dairy communities and to ensure that they are cared for appropriately as they go through the difficult restructuring phase.Question resolved in the affirmative. Committees14935149351493514935Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—In accordance with standing order 329, on behalf of the Committee of Members' Interests, I present the Report on the Operations of the Committee for 1999, together with the minutes of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.149351493514935Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I present the 13th report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber.Report—by leave—adopted.149351493514935Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the 63rd General Report of the Committee.Ordered that the report be printed.149351493514935Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit I present the following reports entitled Report 373—Migrant Settlement Services, Fringe Benefits Tax and Green Corps—Review of Auditor-General's reports 1998-99, Second half, and Report 374—Review of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. Ordered that the reports be printed.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—by leave—I move:That the House take note of each report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned. Adjournment14936Motion (by Mr Brough) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.1493617:35:0014936Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—In question time today the Prime Minister produced a letter which, of course, if the Archives Act and other conventions of the government applied these days as they used to in the past, would never have been before the parliament or anyone else. We note these things and we will deal with that element at a later time. But in the course of question time he had part of a correspondence between the Attorney-General of Western Australia of the time, back in 1990, and the then Attorney-General of the Commonwealth. I, of course, have no recollection of any of the events of that period, although he suggested I should have. I have, however, consulted those who do. I am authorised, on behalf of the Attorney-General of the time, Mr Duffy, to make this statement with regard to what the Prime Minister had to say on that letter on mandatory sentencing and on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. He says this:I understand that the Prime Minister in Parliament today referred to a letter from the Western Australian Attorney-General to me dated 28 September 1990.The facts are these. The Australian Government signed the Convention on the 22 August 1990. As noted above, Mr Berinson's letter was dated 28 September 1990. I told Mr Berinson in response to his letter that he was too late and that in any case I would not agree.I am advised that when The Convention was ratified on 17 December 1990, it contained one reservation relating to Article 37(c) of the Convention which is concerned with the question of separate imprisonment of juveniles and adults. In short the understanding set out in Mr Berinson's letter in regard to the Commonwealth's use of the external affairs power was not accepted. I reject totally the assertion from the Prime Minister that there was a special deal for Western Australia.Somebody else who also has a recollection apparently of at least the correspondence of the time is one Amanda Davies, the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Human Rights Branch of the Attorney-General's Department Civil Justice Division, who was invited to answer a question from one Mr Gregory on 2 March this year. The question was: were there any consultations with, or objections by, states and territories to the age of majority in the CROC while it was being drafted or before Australia became a party? That, of course, is not related to the mandatory sentencing part, but the relevant part of the answer to that particular question is as follows:In consultations during the drafting process there were discussions about the implications of proposed articles of the Convention, including the age of majority. The Convention was ratified—That is, the whole convention—without objection from the states and territories.So the fig leaf which the Prime Minister sought to draw in front of him to excuse himself from not acting in regard to the states, though of course it is no excuse in regard to not acting on behalf of the Northern Territory, now falls away. There was no secret agreement, or anything resembling a secret agreement, with the government of Western Australia that meant that somehow or other there was an exemption being given to either the Commonwealth or the states, or they were taking on themselves an exemption, in regard to the full operation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I remind the House that that convention goes to things like ensuring that in all imprisonment or punishment arrangements associated with any juvenile offences there should be a capacity for them to be reviewed by a higher judicial authority. Of course, where a mandatory sentence has been applied there is no capacity to review it by a higher judicial authority. Elsewhere in that convention it also states that imprisonment as regards children should be regarded as a matter of last resort—not first resort as it is in the case of the Northern Territory legislation. So we have here a situation where the Prime Minister has no defence in past practice on this and he now has an opportunity to act, as he was prepared to act as an individual in relation to euthanasia, and collectively on behalf of his party in relation to homosexuality in Tasmania. If it was good enough, and it was right to do so, to protect the human rights of homosexuals in Tasmania, it is right to protect the position of children in this country now. Now that the Prime Minister can settle his mind about the status of that correspondence, he can change his mind.1493717:40:0014937Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—I find it very interesting that the Leader of the Opposition would come here tonight and suggest that we use a United Nations convention to override the Western Australian state laws. I would be amazed if the Western Australian government or the Western Australian people would agree with that notion. The Leader of the Opposition needs to get up in this parliament and say that he will not use the United Nations convention to override a duly elected state government.I rise to speak tonight on another matter that has been of great concern to the citizens of Victor Harbor and surrounding districts. Because Victor Harbor is one of South Australia's greatest tourist destinations, especially for the people of Adelaide, this matter also has implications for many people outside the district. It concerns a proposal put before the Victor Harbor Council to demolish one of its oldest buildings, known locally as Clifton Lodge. It is of enormous heritage value, and the proposal is to demolish it to make way for other developments, which have not been specified but could be for parking or specialty shops. This does not seem to be in the best interests of all concerned. Ephraim Weymouth is a very famous name in South Australia's history, especially when it comes to architecture. Apart from building Clifton Lodge in 1895, Ephraim Weymouth was also responsible for building the Victor Harbor Library in 1862, the Newland Congregational Church in 1868 and the entrance lodge for Mount Brecken in 1877. It could be said that Ephraim Weymouth was one of the founding fathers of the beautiful seaside town of Victor Harbor. In fact, in very recent times the building has been successfully used as a respite centre, and I believe that the local state parliament member, the Hon. Dean Brown, has come up with a proposal from the state government to purchase the building on behalf of the state and return it to use as a respite care centre. If that is the case, he and the state government should be congratulated on their commonsense approach and solution to this vexing problem. However, the developer who owns the property rejected that proposal, as is his legal right to do so. I am reliably informed that the Victor Harbor Council spent over $30,000 of ratepayers' money in 1997 to commission a heritage survey of their beautiful town, and they should be congratulated for this initiative. Unfortunately, in their next budget they did not allow for the cost of initiating the necessary amendments to their planning controls because of budget constraints and higher priorities. They have allowed for that necessary amendment this year, but unfortunately this will be too late for Clifton Lodge, and even the state heritage department could not do anything because Clifton Lodge is not on the register yet. Under the state planning laws, demolition of an unlisted building does not require consultation, and in fact nothing in this development needed consultation. So it is to the council's credit that they did go through a consultation process when there was no legal requirement to do so. Unfortunately, there are now a lot of people angry over this issue because the council was virtually forced to approve the demolition because of their legal advice that they could not hope to win an appeal by the developer if the council did not approve the proposal. It is a salutary lesson to all local government areas to ensure that their heritage areas are preserved for our future. Far too many of our historic buildings have been lost to development in the past and we must ensure that no more are lost in the future. Heritage is an important issue and we should be proud to preserve our past so that the present can prevail and the future can be enjoyed. 1493817:45:0014938Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I applaud the Leader of the Opposition on his stand against mandatory sentencing. The Leader of the Opposition, who will be our next Prime Minister, is taking an excellent stand. I feel that the member for Barker is incorrect in his statements. It is about the lives of the children of the Northern Territory.On Monday of this week, a light aircraft crashed close to Hoxton Park aerodrome, severely injuring its pilot. This is the third major accident at Hoxton Park in the last two years. In June 1998, the pilot and passenger in a Piper Tomahawk aircraft died following a midair collision as they entered the landing pattern at Hoxton Park. The wreckage of the aircraft crashed into a home in the suburb of Hinchinbrook in the Fowler electorate. Fortunately, the home was not occupied at the time, otherwise greater loss of life may have been suffered. In March last year, the pilot of a light aircraft died when a second aircraft landed on top of him as he prepared to take off from Hoxton Park.After investigating the 1998 collision, the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation recommended that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority make changes to landing procedures at Hoxton Park and require pilots to increase the number of radio broadcasts when approaching runways not controlled by a tower, as is the case at Hoxton Park. I point out that Hoxton Park is the busiest airport in Australia not controlled by a tower. With 115,000 movements per year, the single runway is close to its maximum capacity. Pilots landing at Hoxton Park depend on radio messages from other aircraft in the landing pattern to avoid collisions. I should add that 95 per cent of operations at Hoxton Park involve novice pilots undertaking flight training, including touch and go circuits and bumps practice.The forced landing on Monday of this week has reminded residents in the Hinchinbrook, Green Valley, Cecil Hills, Greenway Park and Hoxton Park areas of the ever present danger posed by the airport at Hoxton Park. There are no fewer than six schools within a kilometre of the airport, four of which are directly under the flight paths frequently used by training aircraft. With new land releases in the area, Hoxton Park airport is now surrounded on three sides by dense residential development. Further land releases will all but surround the existing airport in the near future. Power lines, radio masts and the hilly terrain around the airport add to the unsuitable nature of the location of Hoxton Park airport. Its 1,100 metre runway is restricted to aircraft of less than 1,350 kilograms, to meet these tight operating conditions.I have raised this issue today for two reasons. The first is to voice the concern of residents over the obvious safety issues with operations at Hoxton Park airport. There have been three serious accidents in less than two years at an airport with no control tower, a busy airport where 95 per cent of flights involve trainee pilots and which is surrounded by hazards to flying. The concern of residents is not that accidents might happen. They are happening. Their concern is that next time an aircraft will crash into their home or their child's school. With three serious accidents in less than two years, these are very real fears.My second reason for raising the issue is recent proposals to develop Bankstown airport as a centre for regional air services. Such a development would have an adverse impact on those parts of the Fowler electorate such as Lansvale and Warwick Farm, which border on Bankstown airport, not to mention many other difficulties with that proposal. But the proposal also affects Hoxton Park. I point out that the Federal Airports Corporation describes Hoxton Park as an overflow airport for Bankstown. As I stated earlier, Hoxton Park is already close to full capacity. This is a pressing issue affecting the Federal Airports Corporation with implications for the use of the sky of Sydney as a whole. It is time this government made a decision on Badgerys Creek. If we are going to have a government permanently in traction on airport issues, then we in Western Sydney and the Airports Corporation are without the means of making any decisions and planning for the future of this growing region. 1493917:50:0014939Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—Last month, it was my privilege to be present at the launch of the Sutherland Shire branch of the Advocates for Survivors of Child Abuse, otherwise known as ACSA. This local community group will work in Sutherland Shire to raise the level of public awareness of the terror of child abuse and to provide a strong support network for those people who now as adults are still dealing with the personal memories of their abuse as little children. I wish to commend to the House the unfailing courage and unselfish commitment of Jenni Walker and Miah Hards, who are the prime movers of ACSA in the shire and who are actively supporting those who daily deal with the pain and memories of a lost childhood.The number of children reported abused or neglected in Australia has virtually doubled, from 49,721 in 1991 to 98,568 in 1998. It is urgent that this trend be stopped, turned around and put into a steep nosedive. Child abuse is a serious social problem. No child is too young to be a victim. It has been consistently associated with youth suicide, misuse of illicit drugs and alcohol, homeless youth and juvenile crime. It devastates the innocent and can harm them for the rest of their lives. Sadly, the abused often become the abusers, and the problem grows exponentially. There are increasing reports that, child upon child, sexual abuse is on the increase. The increase in the number of divorces and broken marriages and relationships continues to place our children at an ever increasing risk of being abused. As a community, we are not doing enough to address what is still a hidden problem. There is an urgent need to break the barrier of silence.To help break this barrier of silence, I gladly join with my colleague on the other side of the House the member for Rankin, from Queensland, and draw to the parliament's attention the Purple Ribbon Project which began on the Gold Coast in 1994. This project was adopted by the Wyong Shire Council in New South Wales in 1997 and last year the Purple Ribbon Project was adopted by a number of other councils including the Blue Mountains City Council, Auburn Council and, I am proud to say, two councils within my electorate of Hughes—the Sutherland Shire Council and the council of the City of Wollongong.The intention of the project is to establish nationally the month of July as purple ribbon month. During July, people will be asked to wear a small purple ribbon as a powerful silent protest against the extent of child abuse in our Australian communities. In the three years the project has been running, public support has grown and, while the ribbons are free, the increasing number of donations and feedback received each year is evidence of the concern the public feel about this long hidden issue. Jan Watson is the facilitator of the Purple Ribbon Project and is the driving force behind this innovative primary prevention campaign, which is directed at the general population. Its objective is to raise awareness of child abuse in the local community. The prime message is that child abuse is not only a family problem but also a community problem. It seeks to spread information to the community on how to respond to a child and family's need in a proactive manner before crises occur. Because child abuse is a community problem, its solutions will come from the community. Recent research has shown that approximately one in three females and one in seven males are sexually abused in childhood. The majority of these offences occur within family circles where intimidation, fear and shame prevent disclosure. In order to stop this crime against our children, we must speak out and acknowledge the extent of child abuse and the devastating effects it has on the development of the human psyche.Another community organisation, Australians Against Child Abuse, runs the Birrell Centre for Children in Melbourne. This organisation points out in one of its publications that children cannot publicise the issue of child abuse or lobby for better social responses. Children cannot run counselling services. Children cannot improve the child protection system. Children cannot make better legislation or improve the court system. Children cannot educate professionals to identify abuse better. Children cannot pioneer prevention programs and children cannot conduct research. These are adult responsibilities. These are our responsibilities. This parliament has a primary role to play in the protection of all the children in Australia and we do not resile from that. Having said that, it is by raising the awareness of child abuse in our communities that we will begin to change the secret culture of child abuse. This can only happen by the full impact of a whole-of-community approach. That is why I join the member for Rankin and call upon all members of this parliament to help promote purple ribbon month in their electorates, to encourage their local governments and community organisations in their electorates to participate, and to fight to eliminate this evil from the Australian community so that all of our children can find delight in a real Australian childhood. After all, Aussie kids are our future.1494017:55:0014940Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—During the last two weeks I was distressed to hear the announcement of the closure of the Awaba underground coal mine in my electorate of Charlton. I understand the pit has gone into a stage of care and maintenance. Fortunately for the 35 workers at Awaba pit, the New South Wales government has found jobs for them in other state owned enterprises, with those wishing to retire accepting voluntary redundancies. It has also been suggested that the Teralba pit in Charlton will follow suit and even more jobs will be lost.I find it ludicrous that we in Australia are increasingly facing mine closures when we are the world's biggest coal exporter supplying 29 per cent of the global market. We currently export three-quarters of our total coal production. I believe that price reductions accepted for our exported coal are forcing our small mines to close. In light of the announcement that Awaba pit will close, I call on the multinational coal owners to reconsider their position in accepting further price reductions for the Japanese coal market. Over the next 12 months, each coal mine that exports to the influential Japanese market will be forced to accept a price reduction of five per cent, which follows a reduction of 18 per cent in the price of coking coal last year.Small mines like Awaba and Teralba in my electorate can simply not afford to compete. By accepting further price cuts in coking coal, the large multinationals such as Rio Tinto and BHP are unscrupulously forcing small operations to close, while maintaining and expanding their own market share. Last month, BHP led this price cut for export coal by setting a new benchmark low price for coal exports in return for an increase in market share with the Japanese, thus sending the industry into another cycle of mine closures and job losses. The past 12 months alone have seen 3,000 jobs lost from New South Wales coal mines, while the annual survey of the New South Wales coal industry found that three coal companies account for the bulk of the $178 million profit made by the state's coal industry.There is a history going back over 30 years in relation to the coal pricing issue. During the early 1990s, there was a strong push for the establishment of a regulatory body. To illustrate coal price negotiations between Australia and Japan, Michael Byrnes wrote in Australia and the Asia Game published in 1994:Japan's tactics (include) detailed planning cartel buying by .... linked steel mills and their electricity generating counterparts, amassing knowledge about the various coal industries, often by taking small shareholdings and a board seat, then playing first nations and then individual companies off against each other in a simple game of divide and conquer have steadily stacked the game so much Japan's way that Australia no longer even tries to change the rules.This situation has not changed over the past 10 years. Any belief that the market is setting the price for coal is a joke. There are two options to try to redress the imbalance in the international market and to fix up the pricing system within the industry. In 1994, my predecessor, the Hon. Bob Brown, moved a private member's motion calling for federal government intervention in Australia's coal trade. In that motion, Bob called on the federal government to set up a statutory body which would `oversee and coordinate negotiations between Australian coal exporters and overseas buyers in order to achieve better pricing outcomes'. Another option for the federal government is to direct the ACCC to investigate the anti-competitive effect of close relationships between mine investors and the ultimate consumers. Back in 1994, the CFMEU obtained legal advice that the Japanese steel mills purchasing arrangement was illegal under the Trade Practices Act and that the Japanese steel mills could be prosecuted. Under the current situation where there is a cartel on the buyers' side and a rabble on the sellers' side and no regulatory frame work, then prosecution or diplomatic action to stop the coordinated bargaining by Japanese steel mills would produce a genuinely competitive bargaining arrangement with better results.Tony Maher at the CFMEU Mining and Energy Division has said, `Our members, our families and our communities are paying a devastating price for the federal government's deregulation of the coal export industry which allows companies like BHP to engage in an annual war of savage price cutting without any regard for the industry, the work force or Australia. As coal mines close, the legacy of those closures can include the permanent sterilisation of large reserves of good quality coal, the abandonment of capital assets, serious losses to coal mining companies, losses to Australia's export earnings both current and future and serious disruption to coal mining families and communities.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 6.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted.Question resolved in the affirmative.18:00:0014941House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.Notices14941The following notices were given:QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr Sercombe to move:That this House:(1) expresses its concerns about the Vietnamese Government's continued detention, house arrest, and harassment of political dissidents and religious leaders;(2) further expresses its concern in respect to the restriction of freedom of speech, the press, assembly and association in Vietnam;(3) calls on the Australian Government to take concrete steps to monitor the human rights situation in Vietnam, including requesting the Vietnamese Government to allow Australian diplomats to visit those alleged to be prisoners of conscience and to do so on a regular basis;(4) calls on the Australian Government to make regular representations to relevant Vietnamese Ministers and officials in Vietnam and the Vietnamese Embassy in Canberra for the immediate release of all prisoners of conscience, and for accelerated progress in moves to wind back restrictions on democratic freedoms; and (5) calls on the Australian Government to provide the Parliament with regular reporting on its human rights representations to the Government of Vietnam, on the responses by Vietnam and the overall human rights situation in Vietnam.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis to present a bill for an act to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Corporations Law, in order to help protect the entitlements of employees. 2000-03-16—————Mr Nehl took the chair at 9.50 a.m.Statements by Members149431494314943Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—There are many inconsistencies in the government's GST package and not all of them result from Mr Howard's deal with the Democrats. As we draw closer to 1 July, the number of inconsistencies is growing. The inconsistency I raise today is entirely of the government's own making and demonstrates its indifference to the fact that by its deliberate action it will increase the number of young Australians who will at some stage in their life experience skin cancer. The inconsistency is in the government's decision to continue the tax-free treatment of sunscreen but impose GST on sun protective clothing. This is of particular concern to me for two reasons.My electorate has 30 kilometres of Adelaide's finest beaches, including Aldinga, Christies Beach, Hallett Cove, Maslin Beach, Moana, O'Sullivan Beach, Port Noarlunga, Port Willunga, Seaford, Seaford Rise, Southport, Silversands and Sellicks. My constituents are, therefore, frequent beach goers and users of sun protective clothing. A significant Australian producer of sun protective clothing, Solarsuit, is based in my electorate. Solarsuit's sunsuits are made from Chloresist, a fabric developed to resist 98 per cent of UVA and UVB rays for at least one year's exposure to the sun and chlorine. The company began 10 years ago and has grown to supply hundreds of thousands of sunsuits throughout the world. Its products are endorsed by the Anti-Cancer Foundation of Australia and available in each of its 26 shops Australia-wide.Australia has the highest rate of skin cancer in the world. The Anti-Cancer Foundation predicts that at least half of Australia's population will be affected by skin cancer. Fortunately, skin cancer is preventable. Education campaigns by anti-cancer groups have succeeded in changing the community's attitudes to sun protection. That any government would act to discourage the use of preventative measures is astounding.My family visited the beach frequently this summer and my kids, like most kids at the beach, swam and played in their sunsuits. I have been advised by Solarsuit that 70 per cent of children between two and 12 wear sun protective swimwear. The reason for the popularity of sunsuits is that they offer greater protection than even the strongest sunscreen. Given the impact of skin cancer on the lives of so many Australians and the fact that skin cancer treatment costs about $300 million per year, sun protective clothing should be GST exempt, just like sunscreen. As vital and tax free as sunscreen is, it is not cheap. A large bottle of UPF 30+ sunscreen retails for about $15 to $20, whereas a child's neck to knee sunsuit costs only about $40 and lasts for a couple of years unless they are growing by a foot a year. Sun protective clothing makes financial sense for families on low incomes.I raised this anomaly with the Treasurer in a letter dated 28 September 1999. It has been 5½ months but the Treasurer is yet to respond. The letter makes it clear that the anomaly is of particular concern to Solarsuit, which is an employer of 27 workers in my electorate. That the Treasurer has not had the courtesy to respond in almost six months demonstrates the height of absolute arrogance and the fact that the Liberal Party is not the party of small business. (Time expired)1494314943Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—I rise this morning on the issue of the New South Wales government's white paper on water in our state. This is an extremely complex paper and many communities, certainly in my area, have not had the time or knowledge to thoroughly assess the white paper. I do not think that many of them are aware of the huge implications of the white paper for towns in my electorate. I have recently had the opportunity to discuss some of these issues with people who really do know what they are talking about, in Walgett, Narromine, Burke and Warren. It is important for the communities in this area to recognise that, whether they support, oppose or are ambivalent towards irrigation farmers, all of our towns are critically reliant on the production of this group of farmers. Whether we work on a farm, own a business in town or work in a business in town—or, indeed, send children to school in one of our towns—a very significant proportion of the wealth of our community is derived directly from the irrigation industry.Just two of the areas that raise concerns are the proposal to only give the water user a five-year licence and the suggestion that water licences that have been paid for with an expectation that they will be able to be used to produce an income may well be taken away, with no form of compensation whatsoever. It is something akin to someone in town buying a block of land to build their house, only to be told that the government has decided that there needs to be a park on that block of land and there is no recourse for compensation for the money spent buying it.As far as the five-year licensing is concerned, it is inconceivable that a financial institution would lend money to a producer to develop a farm when they cannot guarantee that they will be able to produce a product for any longer than five years. The vagaries of the climate in our area are enough of a handicap to predicting production without the uncertainty of a five-year licence limit.In New South Wales, it appears that the money that has been given to the states as competition payments has already been spent in the cost of running the Olympics and the pressure is on to meet the timetables for these buildings. The laws that need to be passed to allow these reforms to be met to gain access to the next tranche of competition payments appear to be the reason for such a hasty, headlong, poorly thought out dive into these laws.Separating access rights from usage rights seems like a good idea because it means that we will have a true value put on water. The worry I have is that, if Coles, Woolworths and Franklins dip into owning the water in an entire valley, they will be able to dominate the farmers as they never have before. They already set the prices they pay for the produce and are squeezing our farmers to produce for virtually nothing. If they also control the water, many of our towns might die. It is important that not only the irrigation communities but the bigger regional centres like Dubbo which rely on other successful and prosperous communities surrounding them for their business have reliable access to water and make proper use of it. They are conservation farmers and not abusers of the land. (Time expired)1494414944Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—This morning I want to draw the parliament's attention to the ongoing rise of the price of groceries. Since December, the Lilley Pricewatch team, which I coordinate, has found an almost $7 rise in the average price of a basket of 38 groceries. This $7 rise comes even before the GST is even implemented—and families are already feeling the pinch. This result simply confirms what many people have been telling me about what they are seeing happening to prices at the checkout.A constituent of mine wrote to me about how the rise in grocery prices was hurting her family. Leanne Noble of Boondall expressed it this way: The GST concerns me greatly as already our food and grocery bill has gone up by at least $20.00 to $30.00 per week over the past 6 weeks or so. Plus no one seems to know exactly what is included and what is not, all I know is we are already a lot worse off than we were. And that is before the GST is introduced. Trudy Bray, who lives in Camden in New South Wales, wrote to me in these terms: Late in 1998, we started noticing that our budgeted amount for groceries no longer covered what we needed. We cut back but it did no good and we had to increase the budgeted amount. By the end of last year the bill for largely the same list had risen by 30% over what it was in June of 1998.That is the public perception, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sadly, the government and the Treasurer are more concerned about the share market than they are about the supermarket. So far, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has taken little action regarding the consistent price rises on basic groceries and milk. How can consumers be assured that they will be protected after the GST is implemented? In December last year, I wrote to the federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, and the ACCC regarding milk price rises in Queensland and the impact they are having on families. I specifically requested the Treasurer, after the first price rise, to authorise the ACCC to investigate the massive rises on the price of milk in Queensland—to this day, I have received no response. The price of milk in Queensland has gone from $1.16 to $1.31 to $1.40-odd per litre, and we can get no action from the ACCC or the Treasurer. That is simply not good enough. There has been no formal information concerning how and when the investigation is to take place. When I raised the latest price rise—and there was a public furore—Professor Fels said that there would be an investigation, and that was the only time he made a statement about it. But he did not say what it was going to be into—the previous price rises or the price rises that may well come after the federal milk deregulation in June or July this year. For the sake of Queensland families, the federal Treasurer needs to stop twiddling his thumbs on this issue and get the ACCC out and investigating why the price of milk in Queensland has risen by over 20 per cent. But, more than that, we actually need a government which is going to be serious about policing the price rises for a basket of groceries, and its failure to do so is hurting the average family. As a result of what this government is doing with its new tax package, every time a family has an additional child, they go up a tax bracket. Families are already experiencing massive increases in the price of basic items, which is eroding their living standard. (Time expired)1494514945Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—I want to talk briefly about a matter that is causing concern to me and, I suspect, to most honourable members and throughout Australia: the reluctance of a number of our young people to get involved in science courses. (Time expired)Bills14945R98314945Debate resumed from 9 December 1999, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.10:00:0014945Mr Stephen Smith, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The opposition supports the passage of the Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Amendment Bill 1999. The bill proposes changes to the Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Act 1997. That act dictates the method by which sets of telephone numbers are allocated to carriage service providers—known as carriers—and how they are charged for that service. The numbers are allocated and administered by the Australian Communications Authority, the ACA, which in turn charges carriers for this service. Numbers are held by both primary and secondary carriers. Secondary carriers are resellers of carriage services and obtain their numbers directly from the primary carrier whose services are being resold. The act currently determines that, despite the numbers having been originally allocated to the primary carrier, the secondary carrier is still responsible for numbering charges on services that have been transferred to it from the primary carrier. The bill seeks to clarify aspects of that process and simplify the collection of numbering charges. The bill also provides a limited flexibility for the ACA in determining the date on which numbering charges will be imposed. That flexibility is provided to allow the ACA to determine a date in order to address exceptional circumstances which might arise. This is a simple bill which improves the administration of telecommunications and the relationship between carriers in our nation. It is a simple measure but one which will enhance the effectiveness of our telecommunications operations. On that basis, it is supported by the opposition.10:02:0014946Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—The telecommunications industry is rapidly advancing in new technology, services and efficiency. The deregulation of the telecommunications industry in 1997 has seen Australia move from one all-purpose carrier, Telstra, to 30-plus carriers, 100 service providers and more than 800 Internet providers. This is of significant benefit to users, though the introduction of new and improved services and lower prices have also played their part. It has also seen the proliferation of new telephone numbers and call centres assisting customers through the minutiae of the Australian telecommunications system.The Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Amendment Bill 1999 amends the Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Act 1997, which essentially taxes carriage services provided on a certain range of telephone numbers. In 1998-99 about $60 million in revenue was collected from numbering charges. The charges apply to certain numbers—for example, the 13, 1300 and 1800 numbers and some mobile services. I would like to make it very clear, lest there be any misunderstanding in the community, that these charges do not apply to the standard eight digit numbers that people use in their homes and businesses.The carriage service provider may hold a number as a result of being allocated the number by the Australian Communications Authority or through the transfer of a number as a result of a commercial resale arrangement. The number of transfers from primary providers, those who have been allocated numbers, to secondary providers—in other words, the resellers—makes the collection of the annual charge administratively complex. In 1997-98 the ACA had to deal with 102 carriage service providers, 83 of whom were secondary suppliers paying only six per cent of the total revenue, with most invoices being less than $120.The bill provides two minor amendments to enhance the act's operation and simplify the administration for service providers. Firstly, the act will be amended to explicitly define what are transfers of numbers for the purposes of the act. As a result, certain types of number movements would not result in the liability for charges being transferred. The liability remains with the primary service provider, which may collect the charges from the secondary providers. The ACA has advised that all the companies that transferred numbers in 1998-99—namely, Telstra, Optus, Vodafone and AAPT—support the proposal because it will simplify administration. The overall effect will be to reduce the number of invoices issued by the Australian Communications Authority.Secondly, the act will be amended to move the date on which the charges are imposed from 22 May to a date in April, as determined by the ACA. This will give the ACA some flexibility in setting the date and give it at least three additional weeks to undertake its tasks. Providers will also have six to 10 weeks notice of the charge date and will have a minimum of 30 days in which to pay their invoices. The amendments today reflect the government's aim to ensure that the administration of number charging arrangements is done in an efficient, effective and timely manner. It is heartening that a bill like this needs to be introduced. Significant numbers of telecommunications providers have entered the marketplace and this has necessitated the bill. Deregulation has benefited consumers because other carriers have created an increased focus on the efficiency, timeliness and competitiveness of which I spoke. During our time in government, untimed local calls have come down as low as 15c, STD charges have dropped by as much as 45 per cent and international charges have fallen by as much as 80 per cent. Telstra's monopoly-like grip on the $5 billion local call market is being challenged. Optus is charging 20c with cheap line rentals and, in recent months, we have seen AAPT, RSL Communications and Primus undercutting Telstra's untimed local call charges with offers between 15c and 17½c. Telstra has responded to this competition by reducing its standard call rate from 25c to 22c, and a 15c call within a local exchange area has been offered. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Chairman, Alan Fels, says that he thinks there will be further reductions in the near future. `This is not the end of local telephone call competition but the beginning,' Mr Fels said. And most welcome it will be for my constituents in regional and rural Australia.In addition to the local call market, we have also witnessed significant price competition in the mobile market, with cheaper pricing packages on offer from a range of existing and new entrants. I think it is now time to introduce a tender system for the universal service obligation. For those who are not adept in this field, this is a legal obligation that states that every Australian, wherever they live or work, should have reasonable access to a standard telephone line service. Currently, Telstra is the USO provider and therefore has to provide these services—namely, standard telephones, pay phones and digital data service. The USO works in practice by forcing all telecommunications carriers to contribute—based on their eligible revenue—to the cost of providing services to rural and remote areas. The government also provides a substantial subsidy, as honourable members will be aware.The National Party is absolutely committed to the best possible services for regional and rural Australia. We are determined to maintain the momentum that has occurred since the visit here by the Telstra executives last Thursday of focusing on service standards in the bush and, even beyond that, on a timely, efficient and cost- Honourable members will also be aware that the National Party has a very strong view on the 49.9 per cent private ownership of Telstra. It does not wish that percentage to go beyond that until a certain set of conditions apply. Those conditions include a rigorous and searching inquiry into Telstra's performance, which is a very important aspect. With respect to Telstra 2, the social bonus arose out of a resolution of a National Party central council meeting in Bundaberg two years ago this month. I might add that I was the mover of that motion. That mandated what the National Party saw as seven major areas that needed to be looked at in providing basic broadcast and telecommunications services to regional Australia. That was brought to Canberra by Senator Boswell and negotiated with the Prime Minister and Senator Alston. They came to a very amicable arrangement which was welcomed by National and Liberal country members alike—and, I am sure, by country Labor members, such as they are.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—How many?KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Few and far between. It provided $762 million worth of additional services to regional and rural Australia. It has since become known as the Bundaberg resolution. What I am about to say might, to some of my colleagues, seem to be heresy. There are some matters in addition to mandating that Telstra provide connections, reconnections, service and maintenance to all Australians, but particularly to those in isolated areas where telecommunications are part of their lifeblood. In these areas you cannot run up the street and pick up the payphone, and many areas do not have access to mobile telephony, so the phone line is a very important thing. I am not minimising the importance of that for one moment, but I think we have to look beyond that to the new horizon. The new horizon is a range of satellite-provided services, the like of which we have not seen anywhere in Australia, much less in the bush. It is an opportunity, for the first time since the introduction of very basic telecommunications—the old wind-up phones and the party lines—for regional and rural Australia to get on the front foot and have a service which is equal to, if not better than, that which exists in the capital cities. This week a number of companies have visited the parliament. Optus have been here. 83DMurphy, John, MPKV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—It is good to hear one of my Labor colleagues supporting this very important change in direction. Another company, the Farmwide and Heartland consortium, which have also been active in the parliament this week, have offered two models. One model, for example, offers 1.2 metre dishes, a number of phone lines, access to Austar or Optus pay television, free-to-air television and, in the next few years, interactivity with digital television. They would undertake to keep those calls at the same price as the USO price—22c or less. They would also undertake not to charge connection fees in excess of what Telstra is currently providing. They could provide data at 64 kilobytes. That is one offer. The Optus offer is that it would take over the USO. I have one problem with that: even if that were the case, there would still be a requirement for Telstra to maintain basic services to some areas. Whether there would have to be two levels of USO would need to be looked at by the government.Going to the Farmwide and Heartland proposals, theirs is that they would require a one-off payment from government of about $240 million and that they would put all Australia under a satellite umbrella, so to speak. They could provide up to four phone lines to each home, access to free-to-air television and pay television, access to high-speed data, and they are willing to match, or more than match, the current charges that Telstra is charging in the bush. For example, their maximum local call charge is 20c; their STD call connection is 15c; their maximum STD call per minute is 20c; their Internet connection cost is zero; and they use a more innovative form of Internet usage charge based on $5 for the first 25 megabytes and then 20c per megabyte thereafter. It is interesting stuff. I am not speaking today to favour any of those, but I would like them to start coming into the consciousness of members from both sides of the House.What we have to be careful of—and I am passionate about this—is that in focusing on copper cable and on the minutiae of the ownership of Telstra we may lose a great opportunity. Hand in hand with that, the DCRS technology of Telstra is not the greatest technology in the world. It has served us well, it is microwave technology, and for the people in remote areas it has been providing a very good service. I do not speak for the government; I speak just as a private member on this issue, but what we have to ask ourselves is whether we are going to allow regional and rural Australia to lock itself into that technology which will require a fairly high USO to back it, or are we going to look more innovatively into putting the whole of Australia, or certainly the whole of remote Australia, under a satellite umbrella? Within two years this technology will be at our doorstep, so to speak. Just to illustrate the point on how costs are coming down—although this is not germane to my current argument—just two years ago in this place I saw a demonstration by Iridium. They showed us the first satellite phone. It looked about the size of a stubby; it even looked like a stubby with the phone recessed into this rather bulky looking round thing that was mainly batteries and aerials. Within 15 months we saw one that was not much bigger than the mobile phones we are using today. The price had come down from $5,000 for the stubby style thing to $2,000. The cost of usage had come down from over $2 a minute to $1.40 a minute. And now we have seen one, smaller still, at $1,200, with a commensurate drop in the usage charge. If that can happen with mobile telephony, which of itself is a more expensive medium than the normal household phone, imagine what satellite technology can do to connecting those in the bush. I am not saying that Telstra's repairs, service, maintenance and connection are not important; in fact, I think they are very important. In fact, I would go so far as to say they are so important that we should even boost the service guarantee levels to make it less attractive for them to be indolent about it. I am not saying that the 49.9 per cent is not an important point for a lot of rural Australians, especially at national and at some rural levels. It is very important because it is the great dividing line that says that up to this point the government still has notional control and therefore we want to see Telstra perform. The National Party has said that we will not go beyond that point unless there is a rigorous and searching inquiry into Telstra and that that T2 social bonus is delivered. Beyond that—and I reiterate my original premise—it is vital that we do not just fixate on copper cable, that we do not fixate on the old microwave technology and have a huge USO around it to the exclusion of all others, and that we do not fixate on the minutiae of the ownership of Telstra. We must lift our sights over that horizon, and to get over that horizon we are going to need a satellite up there. We talked today at the start of this debate about the numbering charges, but they are just one small symbol of efficiency the government is giving to the telecommunications industry. I urge the government and I urge members of goodwill in all three major parties in this House of Representatives to lift their vision and let us make sure that the whole of Australia gets on the front foot; but, more particularly, that for those people in regional and rural Australia who have been told that they have to be efficient, that they have to get on the Internet, that they have to be able to interact with their agents and so forth overseas, they do not try to do this through antiquated technology but through the most modern technology.10:21:0014949Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I would like to start my speech on the Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Amendment Bill 1999 by supporting a lot of what the member for Hinkler has just said. These services are very important to Australia. But, of course, you know our position in the ALP: we do not want to see any further privatisation of Telstra. I understand the position of the National Party. As someone who was born and bred in a rural part of NSW, in a little country town called Dunedoo, I know how important telecommunications services are. To that extent, I just hope that the government does deliver those services to the bush, to areas like Dunedoo and to where the member for Hinkler comes from in Queensland, because it is terribly important for those people. In my speech I will go into some detail about the provisions. I know the points that the member for Hinkler was making here this morning for the benefit of his constituency, but I want to balance that by putting on record the ALP's complete opposition to any further privatisation of Telstra. The amendment bill before the parliament this morning was introduced into the House on 9 December last year. Principally, it proposes changes to the Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Act 1997. That act stipulates the method by which sets of telephone numbers are allocated to the carriage service providers and the methods for charging for the service. The purpose of the bill is to change the method for the collection of the annual numbering charge by the Australian Communications Authority. The ACA is responsible for administering and allocating the numbers and then charging the carriers for this service. The Telecommunciations (Numbering Charges) Act 1997, the principal act, imposes charges on the carriage service providers for the numbers they are allocated under part 22 of the Telecommunications Act 1997. The principal act also imposes an annual charge on providers for the numbers they hold after 1 July 1997. This bill is concerned with the collection of the annual charge. In 1999, carrier liability for the charge was assessed to be approximately $60 million. A carriage service provider may hold a number as a result of being allocated the number by the ACA or through a transfer of the number by way of a commercial resale arrangement. The numbers of transfers from primary providers—those who have been allocated numbers by the ACA—to secondary providers, the resellers, makes the collection of the annual charge administratively complex. The explanatory memorandum reports that in 1997-98 the ACA had to deal with 102 carriage service providers, of whom 83 were secondary suppliers who paid only six per cent of the total revenue, with most invoices being for less than $120. In some cases resellers are not aware of their liability or they dispute liability, resulting in increased collection costs.This bill inserts a more restrictive definition of the circumstances in which number charge liability may be transferred, with the intention of reducing the complexity of collecting the charge for the ACA. Numbers are held by both `primary' and `secondary' carriers. Secondary carriers are `resellers' of carriage services and obtain their numbers directly from the primary carrier whose services are being resold. The act currently determines that, despite the numbers having been originally allocated to the primary carrier, the secondary carrier is still responsible for numbering charges on services that have been transferred to it from the primary carrier. The bill seeks to clarify aspects of that process and simplify the collection of numbering charges. The bill, if enacted, would make a number of changes to the act, and for the benefit of the parliament I will go into some detail on the various sections which are subject to the amendments.The bill will alter the definition of the word `transferred' in section 5 of the Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Act 1997, which sets out the definitions of key terms used in the act. The word `transferred' is currently defined, in relation to a number, to mean transferred between carriage service providers in accordance with the ACA's `Telecommunications numbering plan 1997'.Proposed subsection 5A(1) of the bill provides that a number is transferred when it is ported from one carriage service provider who holds the number to another carriage service provider. The new definition is also designed to include, but not be limited to, rules for portability established in accordance with section 455(5)(d) of the Telecommunications Act 1997. For the purposes of this act, a carriage service provider who holds the number refers to a carriage service provider who, at the time of the port, holds both the number to be ported and the numbering charge liability of the number to be ported.Proposed subsection 5A(2) also provides that a number will also be taken to be transferred if there is a binding written agreement to that effect between the two carriage service providers that jointly provide the ACA with written notification of the agreement. The transfer will come into effect either on the day the ACA receives notification of the agreement or on a later day specified in the written notification. Proposed subsection 5A(3) provides that, if a number is ported while subject to a written agreement providing for its transfer at a particular time, the porting takes precedence. The number will be taken to have been transferred from the time at which it was ported, rather than the time specified in the written agreement. Proposed section 5A will permit a carriage service provider to move a number to another carriage service provider without necessarily moving the numbering charge liability attached to that number. Item 3 inserts additional words at the end of section 17(1)(b)(iii) of the act which will mean that only transfers of numbers from carriage service providers that hold the numbers for the purposes of the number charge count as transfers for the purposes of the act. This ensures that, should a number be ported or moved in some other fashion from a carriage service provider that did not hold the numbering charge liability, the number movement shall have no impact on the numbering charge liability.Item 4 repeals section 18 of the act and replaces it with a new section 18, which provides for the determination of the date upon which numbering charges are imposed. Proposed new section 18 of the act does three things: it provides for the ACA to determine the date on which numbering charges will be imposed, this date being a day in April and the ACA's determination of this date occurring before 16 February each financial year; it states that, if a carriage service provider holds an allocated number at the beginning of the day determined under section 18(2), a numbering charge will be imposed on the number; and it requires the ACA to publish its determination of the numbering charges date in the Gazette prior to the determined date.The new section will also provide limited flexibility to the ACA in determining the date on which numbering charges will be imposed. The flexibility is provided to allow the ACA to determine a date in order to address exceptional circumstances which might arise from a Y2K type problem. The opposition is very happy to support this amendment bill because it improves the relationships between the carriers and it certainly improves the efficiency of the numbering charges and the administration. We supportthe bill and commend it to the House.10:30:0014951Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am delighted to rise to speak on the Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Amendment Bill 1999. It is yet another one of the many sensible measures that this government has undertaken over the past four years in the vital new business area of telecommunications. Firstly, I turn to the member for Lowe's contribution and state that he has shown to the House a far greater understanding of the matter before us than the poor old member for Perth, who sort of blew in and blew out in a matter of 90 seconds, such was his interest in the matter. I congratulate the member for Lowe for proving his credentials in this area.I suggest also that the member for Hinkler should be roundly congratulated by all members of the House for his very commanding understanding of this area, and I think his speech today was, in fact, one of the landmark addresses. I believe that he has, given the urgency of the current debate, shown that he is prepared to nail very high on the mast his colours on this matter and he should be congratulated.The bill before us is all about trying to sort out matters in this incredibly emerging telecommunications environment, where we have dozens of providers of telecommunication carrier services and 800 or more people or organisations who are providing Internet services. The 1300, the 13, the 1800 and the mobile service numbers are all intersecting and crossing all those various service providers. This bill before us attempts to try to sort out some of the complications of this multifaceted telecommunications industry in a sound and practical way, so that the Australian Communications Authority will have a far more streamlined process than would have been the case had this matter not been dealt with. The bill understandably has the support of both sides of the House.This morning's Australian newspaper sets out, if you like, some of the environment in which we are currently operating in its story headed `Airwave sale nets bonanza', pointing out that this new business has provided an extra $1.3 billion to government revenue. That front page story underlines the sort of industry that we now have operating in this country, where we have a Hong Kong based company like Hutchison willing to spend more than $670 million, and One.Tel has `splurged'—in the Australian's words—$523 million to buy up licences in five major markets, Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth, Melbourne and Sydney, with Telstra and Vodafone also buying licences—paying a big something for what really seems like nothing—for access to the spectrum. That is, according to the Australian this morning, the biggest price ever paid anywhere in the world for spectrum. That in itself is a very big tick from this market in a worldwide sense for this government and its policies and the growth that we are experiencing in telecommunications in this country. This spectrum, while it may be especially used for mobile phones, is also going to be part of the new generation of telecommunications, for which this government is constantly revising legislation to ensure that more people have access to it at an affordable price. So it is not just about mobile phones. Of course when you contrast that to the previous government's stewardship in this area over 13 years, the one big hallmark failure of the Australian Labor Party would be their very narrow-minded decision to sign away analog telephone usage in this nation as part of a deal to get a little extra competition into the country. As a consequence, we have had tens of thousands of Australians tossing their analog telephones in the bin. The Telstra CDMA rollout has caused a number of problems in a few people's minds, but every bit of that pain can be simply put back straight onto the Australian Labor Party, because Telstra contractually were unable to run the analog system any more and CDMA, as an emerging technology, was something that had to be introduced.At the heart of all of this, though, is not just the telephone; it is not just simply being able to call someone. At the heart is everything to do with the computer industry and the IT&T industry. Information technology and telecommunications are tied hand in glove. The words of Lachlan Murdoch come to mind. In a conversation I had with him some years ago he said that the two big issues as far as he, as someone involved in the number one media company around the world, is concerned are content and access to means of distribution. That means broadcast distribution and access to the telephony systems. In fact the two major technologies that exist in this world by his estimation—and I suspect there is a lot to be said for his estimation—are the television and the mobile phone, because everything else plugs into them. So what we have before us today is yet another matter of trying to sort out some of the issues involved in that access and that distribution of content. We are dealing with new technology day in, day out. Again, I reward the member for Hinkler with my appreciation for his contribution today. He is quite right that telecommunications in this country are no longer just about copper wire. For many years Telstra, that 800-pound gorilla of telecommunications kicked sand in the face of anybody who dared to try to get access to its copper wire. Its big boast was that it had a copper wire pair going into every home and business in Australia. But of course we are now seeing, through this government's deliberate encouragement of competition in telecommunications, that the supplanting of copper wire is the means of technology used. Consumers are now benefiting from the types of services they are now getting and from the cost of the services they can now use. One.Tel charges 17½c for an untimed local call, and Telstra has responded by lowering the local call cost. This is all due to the fact that technology is supplanting the plain old copper wire. Of course out in rural and regional Australia, where there is a lot of angst and, quite frankly, a lot of hyperbole about the way Telstra should be the only means of trying to provide telecommunications, there is understandably a copper wire system that in too many cases strings from tree to tree, or from dead tree to dead tree. Just like the member for Hinkler, I am also rather excited about a couple of the contributions and suggestions that we have seen from some of the innovative companies in our nation. The Farmwide and Heartland Communications offer of taking on the availability of access to telecommunications in remote rural and regional Australia for a one-off $240 million charge paid for from the social bonus from the partial sale of Telstra and using satellite to provide the range of services that we in the city are awfully used to, is something that is definitely worth looking at. That particular proposal would see the end of the universal service obligation, and of course that in itself would provide a greater sense of efficiency in this entire sector. Likewise, the Cable and Wireless Optus submission, which is again using greatly underutilised satellite infrastructure that is floating around thousands of miles off the surface of the earth and is not used to the capacity that it could be, is also worth looking at. Cable and Wireless Optus have put a submission to the government saying, `We'll take over the USO. We'll take over where Telstra are currently demanding that they have complete control, and we can provide untimed local calls to customers in rural and remote areas who currently only receive pastoral rate calls.' Forty thousand customers in regional and remote areas would get access to an array of broadband, pay TV, free-to-air and telephony services all through one dish, and they will provide the dish. These are the sorts of innovative ideas this nation needs to not just simply play catch-up in rural and remote Australia but to put rural and remote Australia clearly on the map as the best region in the world as far as telecommunications are concerned.So 40,000 customers in rural and remote Australia—and probably a lot more people—are currently, understandably, feeling quite left behind. But as a direct result of this government's determination to provide them with Internet access at a fast rate, anything up to 64 kilobytes, all those sorts of things are being promised and offered from technology that exists at an affordable price now. Frankly, I find the confirmation by the member for Lowe of Labor's opposition to selling off any more of Telstra quite passe at best. I believe that, because the Australian Labor Party members are against the continuation of the government's privatisation of Telstra, they are therefore against the continuation of the government's liberation of the resources that we can use to provide the bush with the services they should have. Therefore, Labor want to hold the bush back. It is a very simple analogy.What is the government doing each time we have sold off a bit of Telstra? We repay debt. We liberate the budget from the burden of debt repayment, which means we can refocus our efforts in other ways. Also, we are putting deliberate amounts of money into improving the services that those who do not have good services would expect. At the same time, this government is continuing to legislate, just as it is doing in this bill before us today, that everybody plays by the same rules, that all telecommunications carriers—and there are over 30 of them, and 100 service providers and 800 ISPs—are playing by the same rules and regulations. Also, it is a very pathetic argument that unless it is badged `Telstra' it cannot be communications. It is a convenient argument for this 800-pound gorilla of the telecommunications industry as they attempt to try to cement market in the Australian industry. It is a very convenient argument because, if they get it in the lexicon and in the mind-set of everyone in Australia that `unless you see a Telstra badge on it then it is not worth having', we may jeopardise some of the great advantages we are currently seeing. We are getting lower call costs. We are getting a greater range of services. We are getting new technology being used to try to improve the services for people who desperately need that improvement in services, not because Telstra is doing it but because innovation through competition is doing it. I welcome all attempts by this government to bring Telstra to book. They currently have a range of fines which in a lot of cases do not work because Telstra, as large as they are, say, `We're better off copping the fine than doing the work.' So weeks and months go by before certain tasks are undertaken. But I know this government is setting in place the rules and the regulations that demand results and that Telstra is continuing to be put under great pressure. The great competitive advantage that Telstra has—the size of its network and its standing in the community—means that nothing any of us could say about Telstra would ever devalue its price as far as a saleable commodity is concerned. But I also understand that Telstra is running at something like 10 to 15 per cent behind world's best practice as far as efficiency is concerned. Back in the days when opposition leader Beazley was the minister responsible for telecommunications in this country, back in the days when he signed analog phone users away into the oblivion they have just suffered, we saw a drop of 17,500 workers from the old Telecom work force. A lot of those who went were hangovers from the old PMG days. Again we are seeing Telstra rightly saying, `If we are running 10 to 15 per cent behind world's best practice, we are going to have to look at using technology to create the greater efficiency that we need.' But what is particularly interesting is that when the 17,500 were axed by Beazley all those years ago there were something like 24,000 new jobs created in the entire industry. If you run that analogy today, given that technology is growing at an exponential rate, proportionately there will be an even greater number of jobs created as a result of any changes Telstra may bring to the size of its work force.We have an industry that is growing. We have an industry for which the world, according to today's paper, is giving us a big tick in this country. It is willing to invest $1.3 billion just to buy spectrum for tomorrow's use, not just for what we are doing today. We have an industry that is hiring more people. We have an industry that is growing new businesses all around this nation. We have an industry that is offering people in rural and remote areas greater possibilities as far as access to world's best telecommunications practices are concerned. We do not just need Telstra to keep doing those things that they were doing. I must say that Telstra is a fine old Australian institution. Telstra is something which is worth getting value for. Unlike those opposite, when they floated for sale things like the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas, Commonwealth Serum Laboratories—and we heard a question in the House yesterday in regard to the partial sale of Telstra being factored in to this year's budget, to prove my point further—we do not need to sell off things like Telstra to meet today's expenditure. We do not need to sell off the family car to pay for the groceries, as those opposite did over their 13 years in government. When we sell off worthwhile community infrastructure and assets like Telstra, we repay public debt—debt clocked up by those opposite. We naturally want the best price, and we will get the best price, because nothing can really devalue Telstra as it is such a dominant player in such a major and growing industry. Like the government, and like the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, who is at the table, I am concerned that people get results, that the service quality that people expect is guaranteed. That is why I have always been pleased to contribute to debates in this place and to endorse the government's efforts to ensure that it does not matter who owns the phone company as long as the phone service is the right service, that people are getting what they expect. The key point of my contribution today is that you do not need a Telstra badge on technology, you do not need a Telstra badge on the things that you expect to have in your home in order to get the best service. In fact, as long as there are the same rules for all, and as long as each of these many telecommunications service providers now working in Australia understands that they have to conform to the government's expectations or they will be severely fined or dealt with in other ways, then I think we are going to get a good result for consumers. It is important that telecommunications consumers come first. It is important that the people of Australia have a great sense of satisfaction that they are able to access the sorts of facilities that they want. But it is very important also that, when you sell off important assets such as Telstra, people feel very well satisfied that the results of that particular sale are turned into the right areas as far as this nation is concerned. This is an industry that is growing at an exponential rate. It is an industry that is difficult to legislate for because day in, day out technology is keeping ahead of all of us as legislators. It is an industry that does not need an opposition running an `opposition for opposition's sake' approach and using hoary old union chestnuts of keeping public ownership and public ownership is the only way to go. It is an industry that demands that the public ownership factor be taken off, that this shackle be taken off it. It is an industry that wants this government to continue its proactive and demanding role in this area which puts the consumers first and gets the best result for the industry, especially keeping an eye on those who do not have the sorts of services that they would like to have, all because Telstra has been holding them back.This is a very important debate because it strikes me that those opposite—and there are the odd one or two on the government side as well—are helping Telstra's cause in this `Telstra badge is best' analogy. What is happening as a direct result is that those who claim that they want good results for their constituents by trying to protect Telstra are in fact providing extra featherbedding for an organisation that needs the big shake-up, that needs the big hurry-up that new technology and new players are currently providing. I commend the bill to the House.10:49:0014955Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I notice that four of the five speakers listed on the speakers list for this debate are members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—And coherent contributors, too.83XGibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS—Yes, it is a very hardworking committee, and I enjoy working with them enormously. I would also like to thank the member for Moreton for his courageous speech. Whenever I hear government spokespersons singing the praises of Telstra's privatisation, I cannot help thinking that they are very courageous people because, when you come from Bendigo or any other part of regional Australia, to talk about privatisation of Telstra means that you will probably lose your seat immediately, instantly. The member for Moreton was painting this wonderful picture of the communications industry, and indeed a lot of what he said is right. It is a very exciting industry that moves very quickly, but there are major problems in regional Australia, as I am sure the minister at the table—the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, who represents the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts—would be aware of and would have heard of quite often.One of the major problems in my electorate of Bendigo was caused by the decision by Telstra to opt out of the paging service. This is causing major concern, especially for the Victorian State Emergency Service. For example, I received representations from people who are as far away as Rochester—which is not in my electorate—who have been trialing a new service in place of the Telstra service, and it does not work nearly as well. For example, they trialed the Orange service or the link service. The pagers were tested on 25 and 27 February. Tests were carried out at different locations, covering an area from Bendigo to Echuca. Of course, the main area of interest for these people was the Rochester area. As the results of the test revealed, five key locations within the Rochester township were not able to receive the signal. Specifically, the Rochester State Emergency Service's unit controller was not able to receive the service at all. That is quite dangerous for emergency services. That service is going to be phased out by, I think, the end of June. This is an example of Telstra pulling much needed services out of regional Australia and that, in my view, could be quite dangerous. One of the other areas of concern to me is that Telstra made much fanfare about its new charging rates—25c phone calls down to 22c. Telstra made a big announcement about that. On the surface it appears to be quite good, but it is actually a double-edged sword because the line rental will increase from $11.65 up to $13.85 as a result of that reduction. An increase of $2.20 erodes gains in the reduction of the local call rate. For example, 50 calls at 25c each equals $12.50; 50 calls at 22c each equals $11. You have a saving of $1.50, but you add the extra $2.20, which gives a net loss of 70c. So Telstra is clearly trying to get people to use the phone more often by offering them a cheaper call rate, but with a bit of a spike to make sure that people use the telephone even more.One of the other areas of concern to me is that there are quite a lot of areas in my electorate which still do not have a local call rate for Internet access. Indeed, Senator Lundy, the shadow minister, met with some people at Newbridge last year. Newbridge is about 25 to 30 kilometres from Bendigo. Bendigo is a major regional centre, with a population of 60,000 to 80,000, and yet 30 kilometres away there is no local call access to the Internet.It is great to see government spokespersons giving these courageous speeches about the privatisation of Telstra. I have to admire their courage because, if you talk about the privatisation of Telstra in Bendigo or in other parts of regional Australia, people just shake their heads. In Bendigo we have seen the loss of between 250 and 300 jobs as the government prepares Telstra for the full sale. That is about $12 million a year which has been taken out of that region's economy. It is very hard to replace those jobs, although it has been done with AAPT, and I have already spoken about that in the House before. I commend the government members for their courage. I am sure that, come the next federal election, Telstra will be a big issue and we will all be behind a Beazley-Labor government to ensure that Telstra remains connected to regional Australia's future.10:54:0014956McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—in reply—I wish to thank all members who contributed to this debate on the Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Amendment Bill 1999. The members for Hinkler and Moreton are invariably committed to participating in these debates. It does not matter if it is in the House or the Main Committee, they will participate and put their point of view. It is always innovative and, at times, courageous, as the member for Bendigo mentioned, but it is always thoughtful. Both of them again took a very pragmatic approach to the issues of telecommunications. They are not ideologically hamstrung, as is the member for Bendigo, who thinks that maintaining Telstra in public ownership is the solution to the array of problems he raised. He totally confuses the ownership of Telstra with the range of service and the efficiency of its delivery and, consequently, that you can separate the two. You need a regulatory legislative framework for Telstra to provide the types of services and you need funding to provide Internet access, the local call rate for Internet access and the like. That is what we have done under Networking the Nation, which I am afraid the member for Bendigo and his party have opposed completely.But of all the points—political, unfortunately, though they were—that the member for Bendigo made, he did raise a genuine concern that rural people have about Telstra closing down their radio paging service on 30 June. Some communities and emergency services have expressed concern about the loss of the paging service. I have sought advice from Telstra and they have advised that they will close their radio paging service in view of significant reductions in the size of the paging market as well as developments in mobile phone technology and associated messaging services which they believe have largely overtaken the paging market. They argue that new products and services now on offer through mobile phones provide better services and more features. Of course, the full service and the full provision of services of the network will continue to 30 June. Telstra further advised me that existing paging customers who want to switch to a Telstra Mobile Net service will receive free connection and two months free access to the memo messaging service. Telstra is negotiating with Link Communications to transfer customers in most parts of the country who wish to retain traditional paging services. The government, I assure the member for Bendigo, are very aware of community concern and we are in close contact with Telstra to monitor developments and make sure efforts are undertaken to ensure community concerns are met.I again thank members who have contributed to the debate on the Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Amendment Bill 1999, which makes minor administrative changes to improve the efficiency with which the Australian Communications Authority collects annual number charges.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill reported to the House without amendment.Committees149571495714957Debate resumed from 13 March, on motion by Mr Hawker:That the House take note of the report.10:59:0014957Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this report on the review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 1998-99. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration is a committee which I have the privilege to have served on in this parliament and also in the previous parliament. I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude particularly to the staff of the committee, in particular the secretary, Bev Forbes, and Tas Luttrell, who made a major contribution to putting the report together. The report highlights the fact that, whilst our differences within this place are often stressed in the media, some of the best work in the parliament is done through its committees. The deliberations of committees such as the one chaired so well by the member for Wannon and the outcomes we have from reports such as this make a valuable contribution to the parliament's analysis of directions for the Australian economy.Discussion of this report gives an opportunity to put a viewpoint as to the current economic direction in Australia. I want to make a contribution on one particular aspect of economic policy and, indeed, economic development that is occurring: globalisation. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration is currently undertaking an inquiry into international financial markets and the impact that globalisation is having, particularly on the ability of domestic governments to make policy decisions which will impact on the people in nation states. One of the concerns that I have about globalisation is the growing evidence of an expansion of income inequality occurring in advanced countries such as Australia and the United States—and, indeed, on a global scale, if you compare rich countries and poorer countries. To discuss wealth distribution in Australia in 2000 is perhaps to risk being branded old-fashioned. Paddy McGuinness has asked, `Why are the chattering classes so obsessed with the inequality of incomes?' The answer to that is that it matters to many more than the chattering classes. It is not just a case of growth and economic expansion; it is a matter of what happens to that growth in terms of whether the benefits of economic growth are shared fairly.Certainly, disparities in wealth distribution matter to workers such as those at National Textiles and Braybrook, who have struggled for their meagre entitlements at the same time as the failed chief executive of AMP can get a $13 million payout as reward for failing in his job. Income disparity certainly matters to rural and regional workers who are dismayed by the Treasurer's call for them to be paid even lower wages. It certainly matters also to those lower and middle income Australians who will pay a GST on the essentials of life while tax avoidance by the wealthy remains a growth industry.According to the last Business Review Weekly Rich 200 survey, in three years the total wealth of the rich 200 has jumped $21 billion, or nearly 60 per cent. The share of wealth for the top 10 per cent of people has risen from 43.5 per cent in 1983 to 48.6 per cent at the end of 1998. The 10 richest Australians were 15 times better off than they were in 1983. At the other end of the scale, a significant portion of Australians are wondering where the economic growth is. The Bureau of Statistics has estimated that the bottom half of Australians own just five per cent of the national wealth. One example is the alleged revolution in share ownership. Largely, that is a result of the privatisation—by governments of both persuasions, it must be said—of publicly owned assets.Privatisation of national institutions such as the Commonwealth Bank is something that I opposed and continue to oppose. Privatisation of Telstra, just up to 49 per cent of it, we have seen—as the member for Bendigo eloquently pointed out in this speech earlier today—has resulted and is continuing to result in a loss of services. But, as a result of that and as a result also of superannuation investment in shares, we have seen a growth in share ownership. But when you actually compare the reality with the rhetoric of the government, you get a very different picture. When the 1985 decision to introduce imputation credits for fully franked dividends occurred, Treasury estimated a cost of $250 million in the first year and $500 million thereafter. Those figures have proven to be absurdly low. In 1997-98, the figure was $3.8 billion for individuals, with an additional $1.77 billion for the trusts, such as those which most of the frontbench members of the government have.The regional dimension of inequality is evidenced by comparing suburbs in Sydney. Bellevue Hill's 5,625 residents shared more than $28 million in imputation credits, representing shares worth $1.43 billion, an average of $713,433. Compare that with Mount Druitt in Sydney's western suburbs: in Mount Druitt there were 24,577 taxpayers of whom only 831 owned shares. The total amount of shares owned was $26,640 and they received an average imputation credit of just $666. Class is alive and well in Australia in the year 2000.The tax office has estimated that 100 wealthy individuals continue to avoid about $800 million in tax. In recent years, one of Australia's five billionaires claimed a taxable income of $12,524—a weekly income of $241, this gentleman would have us believe, at a time when ordinary Australians are doing the right thing and paying their tax through the PAYE system. You have this sort of obscenity continuing to occur. And it might not be fashionable in this place to raise Kerry Packer and his case, but it is an outrage that Australia's richest individual is not prepared to make the appropriate financial contribution to society. The passive resentment I feel turns to anger when battlers struggling to pay their mortgage view traders cheering as interest rate increases are announced. The paper profit for these traders, like the growth in speculative derivatives, has an almost surreal element to it from the perspective of so many Australians, for whom an interest rate increase dramatically impacts on their supermarket purchases. Concentration of the benefits of growth is not just confined to income. At a time when there is growing generational unemployment in some suburbs and regions of about 25 per cent, the average working week has grown to more than 43 hours. While weekend papers highlight the happy sellers of inner Sydney properties achieving six figures above reserve prices, homelessness is growing rapidly. More than 100,000 Australians have a very different perspective of the trickle-down effect when they are sleeping in parks and struggling to gain shelter each night.It is not just groups or individuals traditionally associated with the left of politics who are concerned about this. In his The Crisis of Global Capitalism, billionaire international speculator George Soros criticised the system he has profited on by saying:Lasting relationships have been replaced by individual transactions. A transactional society undermines social values and loosens moral constraints. Social values express a concern for others. But a transactional economy is anything but a community.Globalisation does offer enormous potential opportunities, but the challenge for governments is to ensure that the benefits are not concentrated with the few. In my view, there is nothing inherently wrong with the growth in the number of millionaires, but it is very hard to be proud of this when, at the same time, there are increasing numbers of Australians living in poverty.11:10:0014959Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I always enjoy listening to the member for Grayndler, but I have to admit that today I was not quite sure what inquiry he was talking about. The hearings that I attended on 29 November and also in February dealt with the issues of the Reserve Bank report and the globalisation of international markets, and these issues are the subject of a current inquiry the House Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration is undertaking. To my knowledge, I was not aware that that inquiry had come to a conclusion or that a report had been presented. So it was quite interesting to listen to the member for Grayndler speaking about globalisation and not touching on aspects of monetary policy, financial systems stability, current account deficit, bank fees and credit charges. He did speak in depth about Kerry Packer, however, but I do not think taxation was one of the issues looked at in the Reserve Bank report. I was quite bemused to hear him speaking about globalisation and all of these other issues. At first I thought that maybe I was in the wrong place or had been put down to speak on the wrong report.I am happy to speak today on the Reserve Bank report and to add to some of the sentiments expressed earlier by the member for Grayndler. The report was tabled in the main chamber on Monday by the chairman of the committee, Mr David Hawker. On that day, the deputy chair and member for Isaacs, Greg Wilton, and the member for Burke spoke about the review of the Reserve Bank's annual report 1998-99 interim report. Firstly, though, I would like to congratulate the chairman for the professional, inclusive and bipartisan way in which he has managed the review. A number of speakers have commented on his fine work. The work of the committee secretariat can never be underestimated. We were supported by a really top-class team of Bev Forbes and Tas Luttrell. It was wonderful to have such dedicated people to assist with this inquiry.The report was followed yesterday by some very good news that the Australian economy continues to grow strongly with growth of one per cent in the December quarter and 4.3 per cent throughout the year. We should be proud that the government has maintained a very low inflation rate and that inflationary pressures will continue to remain low. The December quarter figures—and I have a press release here that was issued by the Treasurer yesterday—have to be commended, because they show yet again that the government has a commitment to sustained and strong economic growth in a low inflation environment. The Australian economy has reflected this strong growth in private consumption over recent quarters, reflecting the growth and household income and wealth. This means that there will be continuing levels of consumer confidence. Business investment did drop slightly, though, and it is felt that this was a consequence of a number of things, including the introduction of tax reform and immediate resources being directed to implementation issues. But business investment will continue to grow and respond well in the year 2000-01, generally reflecting what is a growing world economy. The removal of business imposts in Australia will also occur and increase business investments. It is also important to note that net exports will continue to grow and rises in export volumes are already offsetting increases in imports.There has been a improvement in economic conditions worldwide, and the current account deficit has also improved, as predicted in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. So in this environment where inflationary pressure remains at the minimum level there is some indication that the household consumption deflator fell by 0.1 per cent in the December quarter and increased by 0.9 per cent throughout the year. Wage pressures have been well controlled and the Australian economy has to be congratulated for weathering that turbulent Asian crisis.It is in the current context that I speak about the hearings with Reserve Bank Governor Macfarlane in Sydney in November last year and in February this year. It was good to see in its bi-annual report that the Reserve Bank offers opportunities for greater understanding behind the decisions made on monetary policy. In terms of growth, everything that was mentioned earlier by me was also highlighted at those hearings—that Australia continues to exceed growth rates of beyond four per cent and that inflation is low. The review of the Reserve Bank is based on the bank's semi-annual statements on the conduct of monetary policy and its annual reports. The bank is anticipating that this growth rate of four per cent will continue throughout 1999-2000. The government is well on target, and in fact is probably exceeding its target, and needs to be congratulated.The Governor also predicted the continuing growth of domestic demand ignited by strong household consumption. This was due to growing incomes, sustained high levels of confidence, low borrowing costs, wealth gains over a large range of assets, recovery in the household sector, and the prospect of increasing investment and spending over the next 12 months. Australia's growth prospects continue to strengthen and astound the world. We are now experiencing something like nine consecutive years of economic expansion. A CPI rate of inflation of 2.75 per cent is anticipated, with an underlying rate of inflation of approximately 2.25 per cent. The good news continues to grow. At the moment, employment figures show that the unemployment rate has dropped to 6.7 per cent, with 653,800 new jobs created. Much of this review of good news comes not only from Australian sources. For example, recently the International Monetary Fund's analysis of the Australian economy suggested that the economy has the potential to grow in the next four to six years at a rate of 3.2 per cent to 4.3 per cent. If the IMF's predicted growth rate is achieved it will further reduce current levels of unemployment. Unemployment is definitely going to go down a lot lower than it is, and that is great news. The IMF also said of Australia that productivity growth of the Australian economy has increased to rates not seen since the golden age of 1960, and that the unemployment figure for 1999 was at its lowest since June 1990. What that equates to in domestic terms is that full-time employment rose by 34,000 jobs and part-time employment was up by 25,100 jobs. That is fantastic. Teenage full-time employment has shown great improvement as well. It has gone up by 13,000 over the last 12 months. And there has been a three per cent seasonally adjusted employment growth over the last year. So, all in all, employment has risen in each of the last 33 months in trend terms. That is fantastic news.The Reserve Bank has confirmed this trend by reporting that employment growth has strengthened to an annual rate of 3.5 per cent in the December quarter, its strongest performance in four years. In the February Reserve Bank Bulletin it was noted that unemployment was just under seven per cent. As I said earlier, that was predicted in that quarter. It has gone even lower and is at its lowest level in a decade.I would like to turn briefly to a few other areas, one being the current account. The bank produced a current account figure of six per cent of GDP. This level was reached in the June quarter and should remain so for the current financial year. In summary, the Governor said that the bank is expecting that the current financial year will be a good one for the economy.With respect to interest rates, the Governor was asked about the reasoning behind the current increase in basic interest rates from 4.75 per cent to 5.5 per cent. The reason given was that Australia has an independent policy. International factors such as the change in world economic outlook and the effects of the Asian crisis had produced a weak performance in the world economy in 1998. But the world economy generally recovered strongly in 1999-2000 and is expected to be stronger. He also noted that, as a result of stronger world growth, interest rates had been pushed up in most industrial countries. Australia's tightening of rates was accompanied by similar occurrences in the USA, the UK and the European Central Bank, in Canada and in New Zealand.Household debt continues to increase. It is of some concern and will be monitored very closely. Another area touched on was bank fees and charges. The Reserve Bank Governor was questioned in depth about bank fees and charges. He drew a number of conclusions. He said that there had not been a systematic increase in fees charged and that in some cases larger loan fees seemed to have fallen. He mentioned that accounting service fees had fallen a little and the number of free fee transactions had increased. That has certainly been the case with a number of the banks, which have increased competition by offering, for example, 50 free transactions. There are a number of other examples of free transactions. Fees for transactions have increased for high-cost transactions. For example, cheques are still the most expensive method of doing business. They represent older technology, whereas the ATMs are being used more frequently. Fees for own-bank ATMs have been steady and fees for newer services have fallen. Total fees increased by 15 per cent in 1998. The increase, however, is in line with the increasing transaction levels and the per unit cost. One of the matters mentioned by the Governor was that it was unlikely that the increases in fees charged to small business had offset the benefits received when interest margins fell. That was an interesting point to note. An area of concern, though, as always, is that businesses have been paying the fees for some time and smaller businesses have been catching up with the level of some of the fees that have been paid by large businesses. The area of fees is still a sensitive one for households. That area was highlighted by the Reserve Bank Governor.All in all, banks are maintaining their profits, either by holding up their margins or by putting up their fees. He mentioned briefly that the offset in the reduction in margins has been very small—the increase in fees compared to the reduction in margins. Another area highlighted at the hearings was frequent flyer points and bonus card systems. The Reserve Bank Governor mentioned that frequent flyer points and loyalty programs were not free and that somewhere in the system somebody had to pay for those. He made the point—and I quote: Somewhere in the community some prices are reflecting that so that that value can be transferred across to the people who earn the bonus points. Yes, that is true. ... Is paying by credit card the most efficient way of paying, or is it simply being done because people get their points? In some cases, there are more efficient and cheaper ways of paying for the economy as a whole.There is some irrational behaviour occurring out there. I asked the Reserve Bank Governor about the reasoning behind an incident that I knew of, involving a woman buying a washing machine from a retail outlet where the washing machine was $100 dearer than elsewhere, so that she could obtain the frequent flyer points. He indicated to me that such behaviour was highly irrational but that it does occur. One of the benefits of these loyalty programs—as a former marketer—is the fact that all sorts of information is recorded as a result of the purchases people make. Their purchasing habits, such as the last time they purchased a stereo, et cetera, provide valuable marketing information, but the benefits to the consumer have yet to be shown. The most important thing that was highlighted was that frequent flyer and loyalty programs are not free and that somewhere in the system, in order to implement these programs and offset the increase in administrative costs, someone has to pay for them.I conclude by saying that the current economic growth will continue. We have much to be proud of at the moment. We have low inflation. Our unemployment rate is continuing to decline. I want to emphasise a comment made by the Reserve Bank Governor when he said that he is expecting the current financial year to be another good one for the Australian economy. So we have much to look forward to.Debate (on motion by Ms Worth) adjourned.1496214962Debate resumed from 13 March, on motion by Fran Bailey:That the House take note of the report.11:25:0014962Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I would like to commend the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services which is responsible for this report. It is an excellent report—badly needed. It is very appropriately worded, too—Time running out: shaping regional Australia's future. Time is running out in regional Australia but, more importantly, time is running out for the Howard government. You have only to look at the results in the Victorian state election last year, where people in regional Victoria voted overwhelmingly to elect the Bracks government because of the way that regional Victoria was treated by the then Liberal-National coalition. Regional Victorians showed they would no longer tolerate being fobbed off with second-class treatment by a government which was mesmerised by Melbourne and which concentrated all of the infrastructure and jobs in Melbourne. Regional and country voters voted for a new deal for the part of the state that was beyond the tram tracks and away from the casino culture.Since the election, there have been major initiatives foreshadowed and taken up by the Bracks government to put regional and country Victoria back on the map. There was the establishment of an infrastructure program through the regional infrastructure development fund, with some $170 million in capital funds for regional projects. The groundwork has been done to develop fast trains between Melbourne and regional centres like Bendigo and Ballarat— 84HZahra, Christian, MPMr Zahra—And the Latrobe Valley.83XGibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS—And the Latrobe Valley, of course. The honourable member for McMillan is a constant fighter for those in his electorate, and I am sure they are all very proud of him. The Bracks government is also boosting transport links. There is a commitment, in Bendigo's case, to completing the duplication of the Calder Highway by 2006, with the federal government playing a part also. I had to smile when I saw one of the recommendations in the report. It states:The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government assist regional development and the regeneration of skills and leadership in regional areas by relocating strategic Commonwealth departments essential to facilitating regional development to the regions, beginning with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Environment Australia.I could not agree more. That is a wonderful idea, but it is not original. The Cain Labor government in the state of Victoria had a policy to re-establish the then Department of Agriculture in Bendigo. I remember it well. Bendigo and Ballarat both competed fiercely for the rights to have that facility. If my memory is correct, Ballarat received the second prize, which was the big data centre. Of course, that is appropriate as Ballarat is Victoria's second greatest city. Bendigo was to receive the then Department of Agriculture. Indeed, the minister located to Bendigo to set up offices there. They purchased property to put a building on for the relocation. The state election came around. The then opposition were committed to retaining that wonderful idea of decentralisation—a big election promise. Both parties fought it out. The Kennett government were elected. What did they do? They scuttled the project, moved the minister back to Melbourne, sold the land and that was the end of that. So the coalition government has considerable form when it comes to making promises about relocating government departments. But it is a worthwhile idea; it is not a new idea. It was a great Labor idea of the 1980s. I am pleased to see that the committee have picked it up. I only hope that they can do it, not just for Bendigo but for areas like McMillan.One of the areas not mentioned in the book is the privatisation of Telstra. Again, if the government is going to be fair dinkum about regional development, Telstra is linked completely to that infrastructure. We in the Labor Party believe that we have to keep Telstra connected to regional Australia's future. The only way we can do that is to make sure that it remains in government ownership, so the people can have some control as to where the services go. We are seeing in my electorate of Bendigo the loss of 300-odd jobs from Telstra as the government prepares for privatisation. We have been fortunate enough to pick up another big call centre, which was announced last week, with some 600 new jobs. That is going to be a big help, but I cannot see the point in trying to establish Bendigo as the regional Australian call centre capital, mainly because of the infrastructure that was put there by Telstra, and now that infrastructure is being slowly stripped away. The 600 jobs are welcome, but it is nowhere near enough.I would like the Prime Minister and, indeed, the Treasurer to visit my electorate of Bendigo and I would take them up to a place called Korong Vale, a little town about 70 to 80 kilometres north of Bendigo. It was once a thriving rail town. To be fair, the Victorian state Labor government closed down its rail hub because of a change in the carriage of wheat, so both major parties have been guilty of this privatisation mania. But nowhere is it so evident as in Korong Vale.I do not know if honourable members remember the old western movies when the cowboys ride into the ghost town and there is tumbleweed blowing down the street. That is Korong Vale. There are only 1½ businesses open: the corner store is open for normal business hours and the hotel is open in the evenings only because the publican has a day job in Bendigo. They are the only two people employed there. You can buy a house there for $8,000 to $10,000. You cannot buy a litre of petrol in Korong Vale—you have got to drive to Wedderburn for it. Other areas in my electorate, like Dunolly and Wedderburn, are experiencing similar problems. They are mainly populated by elderly people, pensioners, people on benefits. As the infrastructure has been taken out of those areas, they just get poorer and poorer, with little hope for the future. I commend this report. It has some very worthwhile ideas in it, not the least that great Labor idea of decentralising government departments. I am looking forward to the government getting on with the job and implementing it, but I remind the House again: time is running out. It is a great title for the report: Time running out. Time is running out for the Howard government.11:33:0014964Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—I am certainly pleased to speak on the tabling of the report Time running out: shaping regional Australia's future, by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services. I was a member of the committee, along with the member for Braddon, who is here on the other side of the chamber, and a number of other excellent members who participated in quite an extensive inquiry over a 12-month period, receiving numerous submissions and conducting hearings and inspections throughout the country. It is a good report. There will be many aspects of it that I am sure people will not agree with and perhaps there is a number of recommendations that individual members of the committee probably do not totally agree with, but we worked very well together to come up with something that all of us could accept.There has been a number of reports over the years into aspects to do with regional Australia and infrastructure. One of the recurring issues that comes through time and time again, and which also came up in some study I did within the OECD recently, is that in areas outside the major cities that seem to have done well in the last couple of decades, one of the most common denominators in those regions is very strong local leadership and entrepreneurship. That does not necessarily have to come from the state, federal or local government members. That leadership, more often than not, comes from the community, through the chambers of commerce, individual entrepreneurs, et cetera. When you look around in a regional area where there is generally some backwardness, you will often find a glowing light, a particular town or region doing particularly well, and there you will find some excellent leadership that has been there for some time. That is why this inquiry report contains some recommendations dealing with leadership at that local level—for instance, leadership recognition and award programs, a centre for regional development best practice and a regional development fellowship fund for university placement of regional fellows. All these are about improving leadership at that local level.One of the other aspects I want to speak about—this is a very extensive report, so I am not going to speak on all of it here today—is planning and coordination. A significant recommendation reads:The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government establish a National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC), with expertise from the public and the private sectors, to facilitate the efficient and equitable provision of national infrastructure by both public and private sector stakeholders.This key recommendation is the basis for many of the other recommendations, and concerns an aspect that a number of groups in the community have been pushing for some time. The Institution of Engineers highlighted to me a couple of years ago, in private conversations, that such a council should be formed to look from a national perspective at identifying needs of national infrastructure and how that can be put together. Another aspect of planning and coordination that I would like to mention is dealt with in recommendation 11: the upgrading, the accelerated acquisition and the sharing of data, including land, geographic, economic and social data, to better facilitate base information needed for infrastructure planning. This is something dear to my heart, as I spent 25 years in surveying and mapping, constantly battling to get more money into the national mapping program for that base mapping. It may be very hard for people who have not worked in that area to understand the benefit of having decent and up-to-date base mapping—particularly now—in a form that can be used by a variety of people in both the public and private sectors. A recent incident has highlighted this.During the current debate about the southern New South Wales Regional Forest Agreement there have been problems for landowners potentially affected by proposals for reserve. I went to the state bureaucrats and said, `Show me within your system the land tenure for these people overlaid by the proposal that you have for reserves.' They could not do it. I am still to determine why they could not do it, because I think they should have that information, but it highlights that there are some inconsistencies between databases and so on at federal and state levels. If you are going to have any decent planning for the future, you really need to have that sort of information on tap. That is why that recommendation is there, and I would very strongly encourage the relevant government departments to look at that and see how they can respond actively to it.I will mention just a couple of other things, the first being transport. Two matters mentioned in the report are of particular relevance to my electorate of Eden-Monaro. One is the proposal, which I very strongly support, for a very high speed train between Sydney and Canberra. If Australia is to reconnect with many of the bush areas—and I think there is a disconnection—we need some of the technology for physical reconnection, and fast train technology has the capacity to do that, as shown in the reconnection of various regional towns in Europe to the major cities. Lille, in northern France, is an example: an area which has been depressed because of the closing down of traditional industries—in this particular case, coalmining and textile—has been able to re-establish itself in completely new respects because of the very fast train connection. This technology has a huge potential to allow people in rural and regional areas to gain access to major capital cities throughout Australia.The other transport matter I want to mention is the Eden port, which is mentioned in the report. Once again, I think strategic port upgrades in various parts of Australia can capitalise on new types of shipping and other trading activities. The Eden port is an example of that and we are currently awaiting a report by the Public Works Committee into the munitioning facility for Eden. The multipurpose wharf that would go with it would have potential, over and above the naval facility, for development right throughout the south-east of New South Wales, not just in my electorate of Eden-Monaro. It would be of great benefit to many parts of eastern, north-eastern and central Victoria as well.In conclusion, it is a good report. There has been in more recent hours—it is not even days—some comments about the city-country divide, particularly from one of my colleagues. I will not debate that issue with him now, other than to say that I think this report should be looked at very carefully. I think the comments that he has made raise the debate in some respects and that will probably be quite good, but there is a lot to work through with this report. I enjoyed working with the committee on it as well as with the secretariat, who did a great job. All members worked extremely well together and there is a lot of information for all members to take on board and certainly for government to work through as well. 11:42:0014966Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I rise to comment on Time running out: Shaping regional Australia's future, and I would like to thank the members for Barker, Eden-Monaro and Kennedy for their contributions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regiional Services. It was an excellent group, all from regional seats and with the best interests of regional Australia at heart. It is just terrific to be able to work in the parliament with people with that goodwill, expertise and enthusiasm. If the public were more aware of this side of what it means to be a member of the federal parliament, then they would have a different view of the value and worth of our job and the Commonwealth. It was a great learning experience for me and I do thank them for their goodwill, expertise and friendship.There were 92 recommendations in the report, some of them quite contentious for all parties involved. One of my recommendations—make it No. 93 if you like—would be that all parties read them carefully, take them on board and then, hopefully, positively influence regional policy. I do not care whether they are Liberal, Labor, or Callithumpian. I think regional Australia is certainly the flavour of the month; it should have been the flavour of the years. The title is provocative, but at the same time it might be quite accurate. I think we will all learn from that.I would like to expand a little more on some of the issues I mentioned in the adjournment debate as they relate to my electorate in particular. I agree with the member for Eden-Monaro about the importance of leadership and local skills in the development of regions and their communities.The most successful are those that have had from the ground up leadership. At the same time, the role of government in all this would be to help facilitate it with a bit of a hand-up, if you like, rather than the handout mentality. There are a number of excellent recommendations in here in terms of assisting communities and partnerships in developing leadership skills at the local level.It is great news to know that, after much parochialism, the nine councils in my electorate have got together and created the Cradle Coast Authority. Its charter is to act as a lobby for the region as a whole—we now represent 88,000 people, not a lot compared with many other regions but certainly very significant in Tasmania—and its structure is rather interesting. The directors will be nominated from the business, education and municipal communities, and a secretariat will be giving advice. This will be a proactive organisation funded and chartered by the councils but at the same time having that independent directorship. I think that is terrific, and I applaud those who brought it about. I am very pleased to see that it would fit in very much with the recommendations of the committee, and we look forward to the policies emerging from the parties supporting this type of organisation. I know my colleagues here can cite a number of similar examples.As we went throughout regional Australia and visited many centres, I was very pleased to see that the most active ones really did have regional organisations that were led from the ground up and that people felt they had ownership. They were generating their ideas, finances and so forth, and I thought that was terrific. Another area continually highlighted throughout the report—and I was pleased to be able to make some contribution here—is the whole question of education and its impact on regional development. I think it is worth stating in particular the disadvantage that regional areas suffer because of distance and remoteness. Distance, of course, does not mean many thousands of kilometres. We all come from regions where, unfortunately, our students have to travel. The communities themselves suffer for this, because education is a very important part of our social fabric—of its social capital and its human capital. But generally speaking, and particularly in the chamber, we hear the bottom-line economic stuff and you sometimes wonder what economies exist for. I thought they existed for people. One thing that comes out in this report is that people are important. People live in regional Australia, as they do in metropolitan Australia, and therefore we have to try our darnedest to make sure there is a bit of equity. That is what this report is all about, and I think we subscribe to that. It is very important that we do actually bring some practical result to educational values and access in regional areas. I would like to give you an example in my own electorate. We have a campus of the University of Tasmania in Braddon. It is a very nice campus, physically very nice indeed. It has one year of some faculties, and you can also do some postgraduate studies in primary sciences—which it is very good at—but basically you have to leave after one year. I am sure others in this chamber can also give similar examples.Like a lot of other areas in regional Australia, the retention rates in my area are very poor—in fact probably some of the poorest in Australia. The incentive to go on to years 11 and 12 and then further is very difficult, but if you can do only one year it makes it even more difficult. Let us follow the people from our regions who do go on to university, those who have the incentive and are encouraged to go on. What happens? They go to the metropolitan area, and they are up for an impost above and beyond those people who live in metropolitan Australia. It is a basic discrimination. I have estimated that living away from home imposes an extra impost of between $5,000 and $10,000. There is no alternative unless you are on youth allowance or the equivalent of Austudy or break your studies, take up a traineeship, get to your $14,000 and then access all these funds. It is not fair. It is as simple as that. This report labelled it a national disgrace. It did not get a lot of coverage, except in my electorate—by chance. It is a national disgrace.848Secker, Patrick, MP849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—I do not care whether it is Liberal, Labor or anything else, brother. What are we going to do about it? By assisting with living away from home, you can genuinely help people further their education. I think it is something we have to look at—I think it stinks, frankly, but we could not have that in a report—and I am sure that every member in this chamber would support that. As soon as you mention figures, of course, the bean counters go berserk and ask, `Do you know how much this would cost?' That is not my job. All I know is that people need assistance.In relation to telecommunications, we are constantly hearing about Telstra and its dividends, and they are very excellent dividends too, but in the same breath we hear about the loss of jobs. Somehow or other, people are able to equate these and get something positive out of it. I am a bit slow in economics—unlike some of my colleagues on the other side, the member for Barker in particular—but it is a basic fact that there should be equity of access to telecommunications. How we go about it we will debate and argue until the cows come home, but the point is it has to happen.I want to home right in on a major problem. I did a telecommunications black spot audit in my electorate. Here it is, and I am quite happy to share that with anyone in this House. In fact, members of a lot of regional seats could go away and do it. It actually worked and I was very pleased with it. There was nothing startling or sensational asked. I asked people basic questions about it. One of the things that comes out in regional Australia is that in a lot of instances they get shocking TV reception. The Commonwealth has just passed a terrific piece of legislation, and I do commend the government for having this in their Broadcasting Act. Basically, it said that, if you are in a remote area and you are getting poor television reception, once it is verified you will be given permission to receive satellite reception—a very simple, basic principle. There are some downsides to that. The first one is that you do not get local content, although I am sure some people in here would agree that that does not matter at all because of the ads and whatever else. The other downside is that to get satellite receiving equipment costs about $1,200 to $1,500, and I have seen some estimates of up to $2,000. Here we have people discriminated against because they cannot properly access terrestrial signals. They can then go through a means of satellite reception, and they are paying above and beyond their cousins in metropolitan Australia for it. It is as though they are living away from home. So how can we assist them? If you want to look at an economically responsible way of doing it, why can't we subsidise or discount the cost of the satellite dish, the decoder and the smart card? You could do that quite simply. The Australian Broadcasting Authority must verify the black spot status. That help could then be implemented either through the taxation system or through getting a direct government discount of 50 per cent, as they do now with the ISDN satellite service subsidy, to assist those people. One thing that is not very well known throughout Australia is that, if you are receiving relatively poor signals now on your terrestrial reception, when high density or standard digital television does come in you will get a black screen, a blank screen. It is like a flood in a valley and the only safe way is up. It strikes me that the satellite means is the way to do that. So, again, that is a problem that we will experience further down the track and more and more people will be forced into the satellite option.I know the government have a black spot program under way; they have a TV fund under way. That is terrific. They are using the Telstra funds. This should be budgeted online stuff, not some handout because they have sold off Telstra and said, `If you behave yourself you can have a bit more.' This is online budgeted stuff, and it should be. Granted, these programs are going ahead, but it will not assist small hinterland communities like my own. For example, if you want SBS you basically have to have a 10,000-person critical mass to access the funds. In Tassie, that is a lot of people. I would like a lot of people in Tassie. We are doing the best we can to get them, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the point is we do not qualify for that program. These are serious questions that we have to look at. Satellites are the means, and I think there is a way to assist people to access satellites. I think it is pretty fair. Let's face it, you can get sales tax exemptions for lots of things. Let's hope there will be a few more GST exemptions for things. But it is fair and it can be verified. It is little mentioned in the report, but it is there and I hope we can do something about it.In the last few minutes remaining to me, I would like to commend the committee on its recommendation that the Commonwealth government work with the Tasmanian government and the private sector in implementing the Bass Strait passenger equalisation scheme as soon as possible. We met with the National Sea Highway Committee in Longford, Tasmania. It was a beautiful day and a beautiful place. The member for Lyons entertained us that day and night—and we can remember it, which is very nice. Essentially, it means recognising Bass Strait as part of the national highway system, so that you work out assistance for transport in terms of a cost per kilometre, just as we do on the national highway system now. It basically means that all Australians will have equal rights and access to a truly national highway for the purposes of interstate transport, at an equal cost on a cents per kilometre basis regardless of destination. To achieve this would mean altering the Australian Land Transport Development Act so that, in the same way that vehicular ferries forming part of a `road' between mainland capitals and crossing bays and rivers can be declared part of the national highway, ferries to Tasmania could be included and the national highway would continue across to Tasmania. I notice that my good friend the member for Groom is smiling. He is also a member of the committee and made a very valuable contribution. 848Secker, Patrick, MP849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—We are great mates. He was absolutely taken by this concept when we were in Longford. It is a great concept and one that I think all parties should look at in terms of equity of access to Tasmania. The benefits not just to Tasmania but to Victoria and to the Commonwealth government are considerable. As one plank in a regional policy platform, it would do more for Tasmania than any other policy that I know of at the moment. I will be urging my colleagues and those on the other side, as well as the state government, to support this. It was a privilege to be part of the committee. (Time expired)11:57:0014969Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—I rise to speak to the motion to take note of the report of the House of Represtatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services with a great amount of pleasure. Let me say firstly that we should not be confused about the timing of this report. I do note, without criticism, the member for Bendigo's comments about the Victorian election. It should be recognised that this report was started well before the Victorian election; in fact, nearly 12 months before that election. All members of this committee should be congratulated for their foresight in recognising the problem of infrastructure in rural and regional areas. I certainly commend the contribution by one of the previous speakers, the member for Eden-Monaro—not only for his speech here today but for his expertise over the entire course of the inquiry, especially in those areas which he noted today, such as planning, where it is so important to get the right result. I also say the same for the member for Braddon, who ensured that we never forgot the educational needs of country areas. I note that today he raised the matter again. He certainly made a very important contribution on that topic. I also note that he talked about the Bass Strait highway proposal, which I have no problem agreeing with. In fact, we have the same problem with Kangaroo Island and Investigator Strait. We believe that it should be classed as the road to Kangaroo Island and incur the same facilities and costs as anyone else incurs on a national highway. I would like to commend the chair of the committee, the member for McEwen, who often gave us wise counsel and worked very hard over the entire period of this inquiry. Overall, it certainly was a pleasure to work together for the betterment of country areas. We worked together as a committee and did not concern ourselves with party politics but with what was right for country areas. We all represent country seats, so it was a pleasure to be part of such a committee. As the member for Braddon said, it is a pity that more people in Australia could not see the way in which we cooperated in this committee.With respect to services being lost in the bush, we often hear that we do not get the services in the bush that city people get, and that is certainly the case. We have lost some services over the years. The committee received a lot of evidence to suggest that many of those services were reduced by state governments—I might add, of all persuasions—and not the federal government. However, it seems that if we are to ensure that the needs of country people are met, the federal government will have to do it, because unfortunately the states either do not have the financial backing or do not have the will to do so.We did see some good news over the period of this inquiry, for example, when we visited the Renmark filtration plant in South Australia. This was a water scheme that was processed through a BOOT scheme and, in actual fact, it now gives better water to the rural areas that it services than the city water of Adelaide. That is something I often boast about. This was actually done by a state government, so they should be congratulated for that. Anecdotal evidence will even suggest—and it is often said with humour—that now that water filtration plant is up and running under the BOOT scheme, which is recommended in quite a few areas of this report, they can now actually wear white shirts. You can wash them in the water; and now you can actually see the bottom of the cisterns after you flush them, whereas previously you could not see it. So you have some very practical reasons for having those sorts of things. I will refer to some of the recommendations and comments throughout the report. One refers to the universal service obligations, which were brought in by the Howard coalition government. Box 5.1 of the report states:Following deregulation of the telecommunications industry, a Universal Service Obligation (USO) was designated requiring the telecommunications industry to ensure that `standard telephone services are reasonably accessible to all people in Australia on an equitable basis, wherever they reside or carry on business'.I thought that was a very important point to make. Recommendation 19 also states:The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government require telephone carriers to meet levels of service established under the Customer Service Guarantee for all customers, regardless of location.It is very important that rural areas have at least the same or similar access to the normal landline telephones and to mobile telephones as well. Another recommendation dealing with telecommunications was recommendation 20, which states:The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government require telephone carriers to develop pricing, technical standards and levels of support for telecommunications services that are independent of distance.Again, this backs up the thrust of this whole report that telephone services should be on an equitable basis, whether you live in Sydney or the Australian equivalent of Timbuktu. Recommendation 21 states:The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government fund alternative communications solutions for rural and regional Australia through the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund program. Digital broadband microwave link technology is an example of an alternative technology that could be considered.Mobile telephony is a very important issue in rural areas, and I do not suppose we will ever get exactly the same service that you do in cities, although who knows what is possible in the future with satellites and satellite phones. If the prices can come down on that, not only on the hardware but also on the user charges, I think we could get the same access, but there will probably be some need for subsidisation. On page 87, point 5.53 states: Mobile telephony outside of large regional centres is presently unreliable, inadequate, patchy or non-existent.I do not think any member of this chamber would suggest otherwise. It was the dominant feature of many submissions and information provided to the committee during regional visits. It certainly is a big issue out there. Provision of mobile telephony in regions is an economic issue. Major regional industries are not supported either in situ or during transportation of produce and that therefore reduces the competitiveness of regional business. Tourism, a growth area in many regions, is also impacted. Often you can go on a simple houseboat trip on the Murray River, for example, and your phones just simply will not work.849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—You can find that on the national highway.848Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER—That is true. I note that quite often, even in my own electorate, although I must admit that has been improving and I am very confident that, when the CDMA rollout occurs, we will have a far better service than we had with digital. Recommendation 22 is: ... the Commonwealth government monitor the competitive provision of mobile telephony to regional Australia and, if market stimulation of carrier roaming is not evident by August 2000—which is only a few months away—it should require roaming arrangements between all carriers.It is very important that we try and get those carriers to work together so that regional areas do get service. It also recommends, in recommendation 24:... the Commonwealth government adopt policies and mechanisms that require carriers to prioritise delivery of telecommunication services, so that areas already unserved are not further disadvantaged.Again, that is trying to ensure that we have better services in rural areas. Recommendation 28 is:... the Universal Service Obligations be extended to include internet access for all regional Australians, and that the delivery of the Universal Service Obligation be undertaken so as to ensure promotion of competition in the provision of telecommunications infrastructure in regional Australia.We must ensure that we have Internet access for as many Australians as possible. It is not only important for business; it is important for education and it is important for a normal way of life. I can see the time in the not very distant future when faxes will be almost obsolete and we will be using email, so the Internet is very important so that we can bring the world to the people, rather than having them have to travel so far to achieve the same sort of advice.Recommendation 33 is very important on a practical basis. It deals with the need for audits to actually work out what we really need. We can all get up here as politicians and have our ears bent by different people in different walks of life, so we do tend to respond to whoever happens to have spoken to us. But the committee recommends:... the Commonwealth government work with state, territory and local governments, communities and carriers, to determine the extent of existing telecommunication infrastructure in regions through audits, so that this infrastructure is considered in the development of regional telecommunication solutions.It is important that we have this audit so that we really do know where we are going. Recommendation 55 is in a different area—transport. That is very important to regional and rural areas. We rely on transport far more than any other part of Australia. The committee recommends:... three cents per litre of the excise collected from fuel sales be preserved for expenditure on transport infrastructure. Of this three cents, two cents per litre should be devoted to the construction and maintenance of regional roads.It should be noted that this is providing extra money, over and above what is already provided to governments in Australia—for example, at the moment $380 million is provided to local government. Here is a way that we can perhaps double that amount so that the regional and rural areas and the local councils have the much needed money to spend on their roads. I know from personal experience in 11 years in local government that it is a continuous issue out there because councils, many of them small in population but larger in road networks, simply do not have the money to maintain and improve the roads to a satisfactory level. The simple fact is that, as a government, we collect something like $12 billion a year in excise, yet only about $7 billion is actually returned to roads and transport. I believe there is a fair bit of leeway to enable us to ensure that more money is spent on roads in country areas, which are so important to us. If we cannot travel—for business, for pleasure, to get our kids to school or for whatever reason—we are certainly not as well looked after as city people. Paragraph 7.131 highlights a lack of planning, saying: The Australasian Railway Association cited Mt Gambier as an example of transport infrastructure provision that had occurred without integrated planning.As a result, we have got huge imposts on our roads from road transport, as I know from my experience as the member for Barker. I am pleased to say that the government did provide $100,000 for a road study for the south-east of South Australia. That road study, which has just been completed, shows a real need for future planning for roads in that area. It is very much an expanding area, with lots of heavy transport because of the timber industry, the grape industry—the vineyards—the wine tourism industry and the fish industry. At the moment, the roads certainly are not coping with the loads they have and the loads that are planned to come with the burgeoning blue gum industry in the south-east and the western areas of Victoria. It is very important that we have planning so that we have the proper road needs for our area. I note also a reference to the Alice Springs-Darwin railway line—again an initiative of our government.Unfortunately, time is getting away from me, but I must mention electricity. This is a very important area that we need to address. Paragraph 8.11, quoting from a submission, says:The availability of adequate power particularly 3-phase supply remains a major impediment to development ...I certainly see that and I am sure that other members of the committee saw it. (Time expired)12:12:0014972Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate on the motion to take note of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services. The report is entitled Time running out: shaping regional Australia's future. I will begin by reading from the report a quote which I think is pretty right:Action is needed to ensure that many regional communities don't just survive but learn to thrive once again.Without action to stop the reduction of services still occurring throughout many areas and a new focus for investment in regional Australia, we face the danger of Australia being divided into `two nations' ...I am now going to read out a series of quotes which I think are very far from right—I think they are completely wrong and completely abhorrent. The first is this:The Grapes of Wrath was about the Oakies who recognised they had to get out of a dust bowl and go to California ...The next quote is this:It's up to people in the bush to create their own future—for those who can't, don't ask us to make the world spin slower.The next is this:If you choose to live 500 kilometres from a major metropolis, you are not going to have a five-star teaching hospital and a battery of specialist doctors, and you are not going to have the same level of access to the media, telecommunications and other services, and that's a fact of life. In the long run the solution is not to force ever greater service obligations on Telstra, but to introduce genuine competition.And there is more to come:If you make the choice to go out to a remote part of Australia you get certain benefits. If you want to live in my electorate of Parramatta ... you pay $300,000 for a four-bedroom house. Now you can buy that four-bedroom house in Walgett or Burke or Collarenebri for about $50,000. There are upsides and downsides.That is a series of quotes which I do not think are anywhere near right. And the last one from that gentleman is this: If you find yourself unable to find a job in a regional centre ... you ought not to expect the rest of the country to underwrite your choice to stay there.You would have thought that the next quote I am going to read out would be inconsistent with those first few, but apparently that is not the case:It's true that the great enclaves of poverty are in regional and remote areas.Any sensible person would have thought that the first five of those statements were inconsistent with the last. Apparently that is not the case, however, as far as this person's thoughts are concerned.I want to state clearly that I am not surprised to say that the person who made those comments is a Liberal. The person who made those comments is none other than the Liberal member for Parramatta. The mask has dropped and the Liberal Party stand exposed and naked in front of the world in regard to their true attitude towards rural and regional Australia. This person, the spoilt child of the establishment—WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MP84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—I am sorry, I missed that comment, but I think colleagues on the other side are probably agreeing with my comments. It is disappointing to hear these comments, even if they are from the Liberal member for Parramatta. I think most people would agree that he is churlish and brain dead at the best of times, moronic and often half-witted. This represents the worst type of middle class snobbery and it is a view which I could understand would be typical of that inner city suburban Liberal lawyer's viewpoint which has started to dominate, or which has always really dominated, as far as Liberal Party policy goes. I want to address some of the comments which the Liberal member for Parramatta has made. He states:If you make the choice to go out to a remote part of Australia you get certain benefits. If you want to live in my electorate of Parramatta ... you pay $300,000 for a four-bedroom house.We do not necessarily choose where we live. We live there because we are from there; we are proud to be from those areas. We did not come from inner-city Sydney or inner-city Melbourne and say, `I have a house here which is worth $500,000 or $600,000. I am going to choose to leave all of that and head out to the Latrobe Valley because I can buy a house there for $20,000 or $30,000.' That is not right; even though Ross Cameron, the Liberal member for Parramatta, believes it, it is not right. I think most people in the chamber representing, as they do, rural electorates, will find that type of attitude abhorrent. They should stand against, and voice their criticism of, the Liberal member for Parramatta and his views. Unchallenged, those views become the views of the Liberal Party. It is up to the Liberal Party and their coalition partner, the National Party, to come out and repudiate clearly those views—not to quietly mutter in corners that they disagree, but to come out and boldly state their vision for rural Australia. It has to be a better vision than that articulated by the Liberal member for Parramatta.The comments made by the Liberal member for Parramatta are typical of the Liberal Party in so many ways. They are ignorant of reality and, for those of you who have actually read the book The Grapes of Wrath, they are ignorant of literature. When the Liberal member for Parramatta makes the comment, `The Grapes of Wrath was about the Oakies who recognised they had to get out of a dust bowl and go to California,' he does not understand that The Grapes of Wrath is a tragedy. It is a book of untold horror of a group of people who have been forced out of the community in which they and their families live. They are forced to sell everything they have at bargain basement prices and they lose everything they have to the banks, the corporations and all of the conservative political interests which are driving them off the land. They go out in an old truck to try to find any sort of work elsewhere. That is what The Grapes of Wrath is all about. It is a tragedy and it has bitterness throughout. It seems to me that in making the reference that somehow this book is a case study to refer to in terms of what the government should do today, the Liberal member for Parramatta is revealing the real strategy behind the government's approach to rural and regional Australia. They want us all to become Okies: to get in our big old trucks, to load the beds on top, to load a couple of chooks on the back in a couple of cages, to get on the road and to start picking fruit somewhere for $12 a day. I think that is the real attitude which has been exposed by the Liberal Party in the comments made by the Liberal member for Parramatta. It is no surprise to me that the Liberal Party not only get it wrong as far as reality goes but also get it wrong as far as the truth in the literature goes. They have misquoted and misrepresented the ideas of Steinbeck in his book The Grapes of Wrath, and I am sure that Steinbeck would be appalled and would find abhorrent that there is a member of parliament going around using the horror, the terror and the tragedy of his book to try to advocate that people should leave regional areas and rural communities. That was never the intention of the book. The book was intended to expose the plight of those people in rural communities who were given a hard time by conservative political interests, big corporations and the banks all of those years ago.It is interesting to reflect on the fact that in the year 2000 we still have those same policies and attitudes coming from a federal government. We now have the attitude that maybe people should be encouraged to just get up and leave rural Australia, that maybe they should be forced to just become a travelling group of itinerant workers to be used from time to time to pick fruit or to do any other general labouring work whenever it is required. As far as the Liberal Party are concerned, we could just put them on a train every now and then and forget about them having any links to their community, forget about them having any rights to raise their kids in a place which has got a good school and forget about them having access to basic health services and rural telecommunications infrastructure—all those things.What the Liberal Party are on about is creating rural Australia in the image of the Okies of Steinbeck's novel. They want to see this group of itinerant workers used as labour around the place whenever Sydney or Melbourne—the two beacons as far as the Liberal Party are concerned; the only two places which exist as far as the Liberal Party are concerned—need some work done. Maybe they could get a very big truck, put all the Okies in it and then ship us back into Melbourne or Sydney whenever there is a construction project going or maybe they could move us around wherever they need us to go and do a bit of work.YK6Wilton, Greg, MPMr Wilton—TheBeverly Hillbillies.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—That is the only attitude which they have, and my colleague the honourable member for Isaacs points out that we in rural areas could become like The Beverly Hillbillies, loading all of our stuff on the back of the truck and driving out wherever the government directs that there is a bit of work to do. That is all they want from us; that is the only vision they have for us.When people ask me what we in the Labor Party are about, I unashamedly say, `We are about a rural renaissance where rural areas in Australia are given the opportunity to excel, to build on their natural strengths and advantages.' That is the vision which we in the Labor Party have for rural Australia. Unlike the Liberal Party, we do not have the view that we should become this itinerant group of workers, that we should drive around in big trucks wherever the work is going to be and not ask, as the Liberal member for Parramatta has suggested, for the world to slow down or to stop spinning quite so quickly. We are not intimidated by the changes happening in the world. We welcome the changes happening in the world, and we want to make them work for us, for rural Australia. That is the vision which we have. The only place in which the Liberal member for Parramatta thinks the world is spinning is Sydney—in the inner suburbs, in the affluent areas, in the places where you can buy a house for only $400,000 or $500,000. That is what he thinks civilisation is all about. That is what he thinks having any relationship with the world is all about. You can only have a relationship with the world, as far as the Liberal Party is concerned, if you live in Melbourne or Sydney. Mr Deputy Speaker, they are wrong; they are badly wrong. With the changes taking place in information technology and with the emergence of the new economy, you can interact with the world from anywhere. In fact, it is better in so many ways and it is far more cost effective and economically sensible to have those interactions not from Melbourne or Sydney but from parts of rural and regional Australia. I will read again, for the benefit of members in this chamber and anyone else who might read this from time to time, what the Liberal member for Parramatta had to say only a day or so ago:The Grapes of Wrath was about the Oakies who recognised they had to get out of a dust bowl and go to California... I have to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker: I do not consider myself to be an Okie; nor do I consider the Latrobe Valley to be a dust bowl. I am proud to come from the Latrobe Valley and we are far from being a dust bowl. Every rural member of this House should stand up to the likes of the Liberal member for Parramatta and his spiv mates in the Liberal Party and condemn what he has had to say about the areas that we represent. Where are you all? Where are you all standing up for your constituencies and condemning this sort of rubbish? `A dust bowl.' Is that what they think of Tasmania? Is that what they think of rural New South Wales? Is that what they think of Far North Queensland or Western Australia? Why aren't all the members of parliament who represent rural areas standing up and saying, `Ross Cameron, the Liberal member for Parramatta, you have got it wrong, sport. You have got it completely wrong.' Every last member of parliament in this place should be standing against that viewpoint. The mask has dropped and the Liberal Party stand exposed for all of the world to see. This is how they view regional Australia: as a dust bowl. They view all of those rural electors, all of those good, decent, hardworking rural people, as Okies. They should be ashamed of themselves. (Time expired)12:27:0014975Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—I came to this chamber hoping to support some of the issues that are very important to regional Tasmania promoted by my colleague the member for Braddon. I have always understood that this is a non-controversial chamber. It is a chamber where we as a parliament work together to ensure that the interests of the people we represent are put first. I have just had that belief absolutely shattered. And by whom? By a person so interested in regional issues that he is not even a member of the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services. He did not even take the time to travel, with the member for Braddon and other members of the Labor Party, the National Party, the Liberal Party, and even the Independent member, around regional Australia to get a first-hand look. He cannot even pronounce the names of the places. Let me give him a bit of a lesson: I was born in Boondooma. Does the member for McMillan know what Boondooma means? I doubt it. Does he have a heritage of regional Australia? The answer is no. He comes into this chamber, in an act of sheer political opportunism, to distract us away from one of the most important reports presented to this House in the short time that I have been a member of parliament. I congratulate the chairman of the committee, the member for McEwen, for her great guidance and leadership on producing the report. I congratulate all members of the committee for the time they spent, the time they gave up in their regional electorates, to go and see other people's regional electorates so that we could gain a greater insight into regional Australia. I suggest to the member for McMillan that, instead of following around the minister for forestry to get his picture in the paper, he actually takes a bit of time to join committees like this and learn a bit about a bipartisan approach to government. 84HZahra, Christian, MPMr Zahra—I wouldn't follow him around.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for McMillan has had his turn and should remain silent.WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—Hear, hear, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for McMillan should spend time with some of his own Labor colleagues. But just so that I can speak from—Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived. WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—The Prime Minister often refers to the Liberal Party as a broad church. One of our flock this morning did what any good local member will do: he promoted the issues in his electorate. We do not object to that in the Liberal Party. I know that parties like the Labor Party take the malcontents out the back and thump the living daylights out of them. I have actually seen physical scars as evidence of that. But we in the Liberal Party allow our colleagues to speak out. Let us talk about the Liberal Party in terms of its regional credentials. We have more regional representatives in this House than the Labor Party and the National Party put together. Sure, they are level pegging; so we have basically got twice as many. That gives us greater coverage in more states on regional affairs than the member for McMillan's party and the National Party put together. So let us not get dragged away with a bit of free speech. Don't you allow free speech in your party? We do. The Liberal Party is out there listening to and speaking with the people that it represents right across regional Australia in every state. This attempt by the Labor Party to promote a great divide is nothing short of political opportunism, destroying the confidence of people in the bush—people who have contributed much to this nation and who, hopefully, if some of the recommendations in this report are adopted, will play their part in the economic development of Australia in years to come. That is what this report is about. It is about ensuring that we as a nation develop as one; that the opportunities that are granted to all people in all walks of life in Australia are shared equally between the cities and the regions.My concern about the statement by the member for Parramatta this morning was that he did not understand that if he works with regional Australia, we will help his constituents in the seat of Parramatta, because as the nation grows as one and as the economic benefits that flow through that permeate through our community, then all of us are better off. Again, that is what this report is about. It is about promoting economic growth for all Australians. It is about removing the impediments to development in regional Australia so that we will be able to play our part in ensuring that this great nation is even greater. It is about identifying economic opportunities; it is about encouraging the private sector to join with government to make investments in infrastructure or commercial opportunities, to provide jobs and opportunities not only for people in regional Australia but for people like the member for McMillan, who wants to move out to the bush and buy a cheap house. This report is about promoting opportunities and advantages in regional Australia. It is about both sides of government getting together to ensure that the future of regional Australians is secure and is able to provide a benefit and an opportunity for our children. The report identifies some key areas. I am in total agreement with one of the previous speakers, the member for Braddon, including on the issue of the land bridge to Tasmania but, more importantly, on the issues that he raised regarding education, skills and leadership training for regional Australia. These issues are so important. I noted an article in the Courier Mail this week which made some criticism of all parties—and, to a degree, I accept it: there needs to be greater leadership in regional Australia; there needs to be greater training, greater skills and greater education. This government is working towards that. This government is looking to provide those opportunities for regional Australians to take their place in our nation. Another important issue raised in this report is telecommunications. Again, let me quickly dispel a myth. I want to dispel the myth that phone services in the bush are getting worse. Fifteen years ago, at Boondooma, I had a handle on the front of my phone. I wonder if the member for McMillan, who I notice has now left the chamber, ever had a handle on the front of his phone. I can assure him, in his absence, that in Boondooma they now have high-speed access to the Internet through an automatic telephone system and digital links.Telecommunications are improving in the bush, but not fast enough, and we are lagging a little in the opportunities that are being presented to some of our city cousins. But at the same time there are some technologies on the horizon which will tremendously improve not only the access to telecommunications but also the cost of telecommunications. I call on people to actually read through—rather than being distracted by the static—some of the excellent submissions that we received about some of the things that both the government and previous governments have done to improve not only Internet access but also telecommunications access.For instance, in a couple of weeks time—in fact, it may be next week: time flies when you are having fun—the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Richard Alston, is travelling to my electorate to launch a project which will give easier Internet access to southern regional Queensland. The federal government contribution to that is over $3 million. It is part of the RTIF and the social bonus packages that we have put out there, funded, of course, by the sale of the second tranche of Telstra. It is the sort of thing that is delivering better communications into regional Australia.This morning I am hosting a delegation from Toowoomba to talk to parliamentarians and ministers about another issue raised in this report—water. We currently have in the House a group from Vision 2000, an innovative and forward thinking group of people who are looking at ways of improving water availability in the Darling Downs region. It is the most fertile region in Australia, I have to say without a moment's hesitation, but one where the problem is always going to be water. That project has enormous potential to bring much needed water to the Darling Downs, about 100,000 megalitres annually; also—and this is the best part of the story—it is in fact waste water, sewage for want of a better word, currently being pumped into Moreton Bay. To remove that from the environment of Moreton Bay, a wonderful, pristine area which a number of my colleagues represent, and to have that water brought into a region and produce $150 million worth of wealth annually, is a project which has already impressed the Minister for Environment and Heritage this morning and, hopefully, it will impress the Minister for Transport and Regional Services this afternoon.This report also highlights other water projects and the need for water projects in regional Australia. The Vision 2000 project in some ways is the epitome of what we are really promoting in this report. It will encompass local government—the Brisbane City Council is suggesting that it will make a significant financial contribution—the state government, which is currently doing some of the prefeasibility study on the proposal, and the federal government through some leadership and some coordination. It is those three tiers of government working together which again we call on in this report because when governments work together—and both sides of government work together—we can achieve the sorts of things in Australia that regional Australia so desperately needs. To reiterate, this report is about not just the sustainability of regional Australia but also the development and improvement of the opportunities in regional Australia and all Australia. Congratulations are due to the member for McEwen and, in congratulating her and my fellow colleagues on the committee, I should also congratulate the secretariat headed by Ian Dundas. They did a job which was at times arduous—and at other times very pleasant. I have to say to the member for Braddon that he represents an area which is currently in great difficulty, an area of wonderful natural beauty and an area which I, as an Australian, would love to be part of addressing. The difficulties facing the residents of the electorate of Braddon, or of many other regional electorates in Australia, are issues of transportation isolation. With today's technology, whether we are talking about a high-speed ferry across Bass Strait or an inland railway from Adelaide to Darwin or from Melbourne to Darwin, while I know the member for McMillan thinks we are doing nothing—and he does not even know where regional Australia is—the federal government is in there working and supporting the pre-feasibility study. Whether it is those sorts of transport links or whether it is air transport links to some of the Bass Strait islands or to Kangaroo Island, these are the issues that bring Australia together. These are the issues that resolve the tyranny of distance. These are the issues which we as a government and we as a parliament should be working together to overcome.If you can drive from one end of Australia to the other—and I do mean starting in Tasmania—if you can put fruit or produce on a high-speed freight train and freight it up to Darwin and then use high-speed water transport to run it across to our markets, those are the sorts of things that will provide the opportunities for regional Australia. This report is not about subsidising regional Australia. This report is about identifying the impediments, working to find the opportunities and bringing Australia together. This report is about ensuring that we do not get sidetracked into the petty arguments and the petty jealousies that have kept Australia divided and have given us three rail gauges that I know about—and probably a couple more that I do not. This report is about bringing Australia together. In closing, I can only say how proud I am to represent regional Australia. I represent regional Australia with a passion, with a heritage and with the experience of years of representing not only the grain industry but the farming industry in Australia as a whole. I only look towards the opportunities for regional Australia—(Time expired)12:42:0014978Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services is to be commended for the comprehensive report entitled Time running out: shaping regional Australia's future. It has certainly made an impact and that impact will have far-reaching consequences, more so because the recommendations have generally had rare bipartisan support. The document is more than 380 pages long. That, of course, reflects the taking and hearing of submissions, public hearings, inspections and informal meetings throughout Australia. While very few of us have had the opportunity to read it in full, I will certainly be giving it close attention and I am sure that many ministers concerned about rural and regional development will be as well. Because I represent a regional and rural electorate, the recommendations in this report are of particular interest to me.It is very pleasing to those of us in the government, and I am sure in the broader community, that we have a booming economy. Yesterday the Treasurer, Mr Costello, predicted strong economic growth and low inflation, and that could be sustained for years to come. All of this followed on the December quarter national accounts data showing that the economy grew by 4.3 per cent in 1999. In fact, we have had 11 quarters of four per cent growth, unrivalled in the last 30 years. Of course, that is very heartening news. But as the standing committee's report makes clear, the benefits of this boom are not always reaching all areas of rural and regional Australia to the extent that they should. I can certainly speak for my own electorate, where low commodity prices in sugar, coal and a variety of horticultural produce are causing a good deal of difficulty for farmers, for the millers and for the businesses that depend on the farming sector. The report noted: There has been a contraction of population resulting in a loss of skills in many regional areas and governments have focussed largely on metropolitan areas. Regional Australia's contribution to the nation's development has been well out of proportion to its influence on national affairs and policies. There is a growing sense of alienation and concern in many areas of regional Australia that their contribution continues to go unrecognised and that they are falling behind in health, education and technology.I commend the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Recently he gave a major address to the Outlook 2000 Conference in which he said:There are those in Australia that face some very serious challenges, and that applies to much of rural and regional Australia in particular. That is not to say that there are no other sectors of the community that face particular challenges, although I would like to say in passing that I see no reason at all why the national focus on the huge adjustment pressures being visited upon so many of our primary industries need somehow fuel divisions between city and country, as some commentators have seemed to suggest recently.Mr Anderson continued:If we fail to meet the reasonable expectations of country people, we will see this nation wrenched by political undercurrents that threaten to destabilise and undermine the foundations on which our economic prosperity is based.I have not heard truer words about the predicament of those in country areas. It is certainly a refreshingly honest acknowledgment of the reality that faces us.The report by the standing committee made reference to water. Currently, our national water infrastructure has a replacement value of $90 billion, yet more than half of that, $50 billion, is in urban areas. Underlining the importance of water infrastructure in rural and regional areas, the committee noted a submission attachment from the Hell's Gates Development Council, outlining the benefits of the proposed Hells Gate dam on the Burdekin River, in the northern part of Australia. The council submitted that the dam would provide $740 million in increased agricultural production per year and generate 20,000 permanent jobs. I would also like to mention a water project in my electorate, the Elliott main channel, which would take water from the Burdekin dam down to Bowen, a battling little community. The dam and the Elliott main channel could open up 20,000 hectares of land—very productive land that at present is not being used at anywhere near its full capacity. It would obviously give opportunities for a huge number of jobs and an opportunity for those in Bowen who are unemployed at present, due to the closure of the meatworks, to once again play a productive part in northern Australia. The report states:Through submissions and its visits to regional areas, the committee saw a number of examples where investment in water infrastructure has resulted in improved economic and social conditions through support for new industries and investment in regions. While dams may not be economically viable when first built, their eventual contribution to regional development is very substantial.That is a very important point and I certainly agree. The committee cited the Fairbairn dam at Emerald, in Western Queensland, saying:The Emerald Irrigation Scheme was developed in the late 1960s and 1970s, involving construction of the Fairbairn Dam and weirs and channels for irrigation, industrial and urban use ... The benefits ... have included: population increase in Emerald from 2 000 in 1966 to 11 000 in 1999;25 000 hectares of irrigated farmland producing cotton, peanuts, horticulture, grain and beef;supply of domestic water to 6 towns and industrial water for coal mining;unemployment in the region steady at below 5 per cent; anddevelopment of supporting industries in the area including retail, health and welfare services, government agencies, education to tertiary level, sporting facilities and tourism development.Nobody could walk through the town of Emerald and not be impressed with the bustling activity, the air of prosperity and the general enthusiasm of the citizens there for the future of their area. In my earlier remarks I cited the communique issued after the Regional Australia summit and I turn to that again.Motion (by Mr Wilton) unresolved:That further proceedings be conducted in the House.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—As the question is unresolved, the report will be returned to the House for further consideration.Adjournment14980Motion (by Mr Wilton) proposed:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.1498012:50:0014980Mr Albanese, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise today to address the issue of mandatory sentencing. This is an issue which has been unable to be addressed in the main parliamentary chamber due to the intransigence of the government and the refusal to have a proper debate on the bill carried by the Senate this week. This is a tragic debate which we should not be having in the year 2000. The Northern Territory's Juvenile Justice Act provides that a 15- or 16-year-old youth found guilty of a property offence for the second time must be detained for 28 days. There are economic costs but, more importantly, human costs to this tragedy. The costs to society in economic terms are that it costs taxpayers about $170 a day to detain a person in the Northern Territory. For example, Jamie Warramurra was jailed for the theft of biscuits and cordial on Christmas Day—one year's detention for that, $62,000 for that year. Kevin Cook was jailed for one year for stealing a towel worth $15—another $62,000 of taxpayers' money. Margaret Wynbyne was detained for 14 days for stealing one can of beer—a cost to taxpayers of $2,400 for stealing the equivalent of $2.40. The Wurramarrba boy who died in custody was detained for stealing goods worth approximately $50—he was detained more than 1,200 kilometres from his family. He was isolated. David Anderson from the Northern Territory Attorney-General's Department stated that there have been only 113 juveniles convicted of a mandatory sentencing offence. That is 113 young Australians who have been jailed for minor offences who will now have a criminal record. According to the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission, the Northern Territory imprisoned more than twice as many people per head of population as any other Australian jurisdiction. A study by the North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service showed that 68 per cent of detainees sentenced under this system had a first language other than English. It showed that 63 per cent of detainees had an education level less than year 8 and 75 per cent of detainees were indigenous Australians. It is not hard to see where this is heading. Poverty and injustice are always companions. Overriding Territory laws is not without precedent. This parliament did it on the issue of voluntary euthanasia, led by the Prime Minister. Why is the government dragging the chain now? There are real humane alternatives. In New South Wales because of the Labor government we have judges and magistrates given the discretion as to imposing sentences, using guidelines handed down by the New South Wales Court of Appeal. These principles do not dictate the appropriate sentence but permit the judge or magistrate to consider all relevant facts. Mandatory sentencing was introduced in Australia before in 1883, but the laws were scrapped the following year because they were an abject failure. How can this parliament refuse to overturn these laws in the year 2000? This is inconsistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which Australia is a party to. It is inconsistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which Australia is also a party to, and it is inconsistent with common human decency to jail young people for stealing a biscuit, for stealing a texta or for stealing a towel. This is an outrageous law and it must be overturned. It is a populist stunt, nothing more and nothing less, which does not even achieve the objectives which it sets out. Quite frankly, the gutlessness of those people, such as the member for Hughes, who said that they were going to take action this week but did not have the guts to carry out their convictions, in spite of making themselves heroes in the press this week, just makes me feel embarrassed to sit in the same parliament as they do. (Time expired)1498112:55:0014981Mr Katter, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—I would like to return to what I was speaking about before the member for Dawson and I were so very rudely interrupted, and that is the presentation of the report by the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services on rural and regional Australia and its development. One of the most important aspects in this report is the recommendation that 2c a litre be set aside specifically for regional and rural road systems. That translates into $871 million a year. If you translate that onto the ground in a town like Julia Creek—and we had a resettle the inland meeting at Julia Creek and two of the councillors raised the issue—there are 330 kilometres of bitumen road in that shire on the two main state highways that intersect there. It is all bitumen, it has been there for over 25 years and it is all officially non-existent because roads last for only 25 years before they need to be replaced. None of it has been replaced, it is disintegrating at a very rapid rate and it will need a total rebuild rather than the sort of maintenance rebuild which can be done at this stage.If we remove the national competition policy guidelines from these councils and enable that work to be undertaken by the local councils, then this translates into $1.2 million a year for the Julia Creek shire, which is the McKinlay Shire, which will result in some 20-odd jobs and presumably 20 families moving back to Julia Creek, which has suffered a population loss of almost half its entire population over the last 20 or so years. Twenty families would be of incalculable value to the town of Julia Creek. The town of Julia Creek has lost its high school because, when we had the railway cutbacks foisted upon us by the ALP state government in Queensland and their national competition economic rationalist policies, the mid-west of North Queensland lost 600 or 700 jobs from the railways alone. Julia Creek, unfortunately, was one of the casualties. It lost its convent school—its little primary boarding school—and it also lost its high school.These are things that we could see returning to this area if in fact we could introduce this 2c a litre proposal. For those people who say it cannot be done, the late and great John McEwen—'Black Jack' to the media—was in fact spending, in terms of today's money, approximately $2 billion a year just on the beef roads scheme. We are talking here about state government roads, but that amount of money was for the beef roads scheme alone. The government of Australia is spending only about $1.2 billion or $1.3 billion on the entire road scheme for Australia. That $2 billion was in addition to that. That meant that a young person like me was able to make a very good living out of an insurance agency that I took up that nobody else wanted. It was the beef roads scheme that gave me the sort of inflow of business which enabled me to have a very successful business in that part of outback Western Queensland where jobs and opportunities in business were very hard to come by indeed. I wanted to stay home and live in Cloncurry, and that was about the only opportunity available to me. That opportunity was created by the great men who were in this place at that time. We can very easily reinstitute that greatness if we adopt this recommendation in the report. I pay a very fine tribute to all the committee members who put this report together.In addition, sometimes people say—and it is becoming a bit fashionable in the press to say it too—that we enjoy great subsidies in country areas. As to where all this economic rationalism came from, Mr Hilmer did a report on road transport in Australia and he pointed out that there was a $4,000 million a year subsidy provided to urban transportation systems. This committee heard evidence that that $4,000 million had blown out to $6,000 million a year in annual subsidies, and the tiny amount of money we are talking about here pales into insignificance when you compare the two amounts. (Time expired)1498213:01:0014982Ms Gerick, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—If the tyranny of distance applies to Australia, then that tyranny is at this moment being most sharply felt by the communities in the north-west of Australia. Presently in the north of Western Australia there are a number of areas devastated by floodwaters, effectively isolating these communities from the rest of the state. It is reported that the Fitzroy River is expected to peak at 16 metres later this week, with no indication that water levels will subside at any time soon. You need only to read the newspaper to see that the damage has been extensive. Homes, businesses, livestock and food crops have been destroyed. The damage is not isolated to these areas alone. In the long term, we all know that the impact of this natural disaster will have far-reaching consequences beyond the areas currently affected. Past experience has shown that when the demand for fresh produce exceeds ready supply, the flow-on effect of this to the communities is felt at the cash register. Provision of fresh food items such as bananas, which Carnarvon is well known for, will simply not be available, and it is expected that supply will be severely affected for up to 18 months. It has been reported that in Kununurra alone, residents are experiencing severe shortages of essential food items such as meat, milk and vegetables. It is not known how long this disruption will continue.How many transport workers are cut off from their families and have had their means of income severely reduced? The latest report is that at least 200 truck drivers are currently stranded because of raging floodwaters. It is reported that some drivers have been stranded for up to 16 days and have been forced to live off the produce on the backs of their trucks and from community handouts. They are being forced to live without adequate toilet facilities and are facing the real threat of mosquito-borne viruses. We are all aware that truck drivers provide a crucial service to the isolated communities in the north-west with the provision of essential goods. You name it—food, medical supplies, housing, fuel, beer, everything. Without truckies there can be no mining, agriculture, farming, or any other kind of industry in these remote areas. The wheels of their huge trucks might not be turning but drivers are still incurring the ongoing costs of running their businesses. It is estimated that in some cases drivers are still meeting costs of up to $2,000 per week for truck repayments and insurance alone. Without any means of income, one cannot imagine how much longer their businesses will survive. There is already confusion, concern and speculation about how the GST will affect the transport industry. This government's lack of concise information to the community about the full effects of the GST is concern enough for these battlers without the added pressure and concern brought about by this natural disaster. The Western Australian state government has indicated that assistance will be offered to the Carnarvon region for specific flood relief, and has also promised long-term action to reduce flooding. It is well known that the federal government collects 36c in every dollar from fuel excise. It is time for the government to return some of this income by way of emergency financial assistance to those truck drivers stranded by the unpredictable floodwaters. It is without question that our truckies are the backbone of the nation. Without them, the wheels of our community would not turn. It is this government's responsibility to step in now and provide much needed assistance to the drivers and their families. In times of crisis it is surely not unreasonable for these vital members of our community to expect and depend on the assistance of their state and federal governments.1498313:05:0014983Mr Katter, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—I want to return to the subject I was speaking about previously—the report entitled Time running out: shaping regional Australia's future. The subsidisation of city commuter transportation systems has now reached the level of $6 billion. Evidence was presented to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services to this effect. Let us talk about subsidies. The cities get $6 billion, and there is nothing that you can point to that can come remotely close to that sort of figure. In addition to that, I took the top 20 export items to give me some idea of where our export earnings were coming from, and 94 per cent of our export earnings were coming from the mining and agricultural sector.One of the great recommendations in this document—along with the 2c per litre, which is of such vital value and importance to us—was that we move departments into regional areas. When we say `regional areas' there seems to be some sort of an idea that we give something to a place like Townsville. Townsville, quite frankly, does not need a pest and weed research station. It means absolutely nothing to that community. Why you would put a research station for weeds and agricultural pests in Townsville, where there is no farming or agriculture whatsoever, is quite beyond the wildest stretch of my imagination. After 2¾ years of battling, we got the then Queensland government to site that research centre in Charters Towers. Thirty new jobs in Charters Towers means an awful lot to that community. In addition to that, every day of the week—whether it is at the P&C or the Lions Club or at church—those people interface with people who are coming to grips with the Acacia nilotica tree, rubber vine and Harrisia cactus problems. So they are socially interacting with the people who are going to pressure them to do the right thing and also the people who can provide them with information which is so vitally needed. It is unreal. One of the great reasons for poor government in Australia is that all of the agricultural industry departments are based in huge cities, completely away from the areas that they are supposed to interface with. The decision makers are remote in every sense of the word. They are not where they should be.An honourable member on the other side spoke earlier about the cost of education. We have gone from a situation where the government picked up the entire cost of secondary education in Queensland in the last year of the Bjelke-Petersen government. It was $6,000, and the whole $6,000 was paid by the state and federal governments. That figure has now decreased to $5,000, and the cost of boarding colleges in Charters Towers has moved up to $9,000. So we have a gap here now of $4,000 or $5,000, with transport and everything added. It is impossible for these people—unless they are rich or they get some special access to Aboriginal grants or something of that nature—to get an education. Moving on, the problems experienced by the sugar industry in the rural areas, which the member for Dawson and I represent, would not be problems if we had development banks. The late and great Black Jack McEwen introduced the primary industries bank, the AIDC bank. I think we would largely attribute to him the Commonwealth Development Bank, as we have known it over the last two or three decades. Government can secure money at a rate of five per cent interest at the present moment. There is no reason why they cannot pass that money on to people when the interest rate is 5½ per cent. I am not asking for it for my trawler men, who have been put under threat by the environment minister's incredibly unbelievable and callous actions of the present moment, because they have no security value. The sugar farmers, on the other hand, have wonderful security value for a loan. So it is very safe to lend them money. If they can be loaned money with a five per cent interest rate, they will survive. In fact, a lousy $10 million subsidy on top of that, which would go back to the taxpayers instead of to the banks, would reduce that interest rate to 2½ per cent. I think almost every single one of our sugar farmers would pull through. At the present moment it is very doubtful whether even two-thirds of them are going to survive the current situation. This is the first time in 80 years that that industry has been asked to face up to the cyclical downturn, which they have regularly, without a development bank in place. You subsidise our loans at two per cent. What use is that to us? We are paying 11 per cent at the present moment. You are going to die on nine per cent interest rates. (Time expired)1498413:10:0014984Mr Brereton, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—I rise this afternoon to speak briefly on last Monday evening's ABC Four Corners investigation of the Howard government's treatment of asylum seekers. It is my view that every member of this House should feel quite ashamed by the revelations contained in Monday evening's program. It was a very serious program, dealing with four very serious issues. It dealt with mandatory detention of asylum seekers, a system that locks up all illegal arrivals, and locks up their children too. It locks them up for an indefinite time while their claims are being processed. It dealt with the contracting out of the deportation procedures to the private sector, in this case to a company called Australasian Correctional Management which is a subsidiary of the American multinational, Wackenhut, which operates prisons on the east coast of Australia and, indeed, across the world. The program dealt with the forcible and repeated administration of sedatives to asylum seekers, and it also dealt with the housing of asylum seekers in prisons in circumstances where no crime had been committed or has even been alleged. It is with regret that I note the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs shows every sign of delighting in a draconian attitude of harshness and strictness in his approach to the often most tragic circumstances of these asylum seekers. This Four Corners expose on Monday night was deeply disturbing not only for the evidence presented of serious violations of human rights but also for its revelation of the immigration minister's belligerent defence of the appalling practices of his officials and the private sector contractors who now play such a key role in dealing with deportation cases. Australia unfortunately has an immigration minister who rarely, if ever, uses the terms `compassion' or `humanitarian concern' as part of his dialogue. Instead, it seems to me, there is always an eye to an appeal to the former supporters of Pauline Hanson and her One Nation party. The Four Corners program raises issues of fundamental human rights. Australia for our part is duty bound to speak up in defence of human rights and political freedoms overseas. That is our responsibility. But one has to observe that our ability to do so is irredeemably compromised when people fleeing from human rights abuse in their own countries are so often subjected to what can only be described as a form of institutionalised persecution here in Australia. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs clearly prides himself on his zealous defence of his system. What a pity he cannot be as zealous in defending basic human rights and their application to those who come here seeking to escape persecution. The Four Corners program is to be warmly congratulated for this most revealing look at Minister Ruddock's regime. It is a tragedy that the broader media have not paid more attention to this issue. I sincerely hope that this ABC program will prick the consciences of a great many people and encourage further investigative reporting.1498512:55:0014985Mrs Elson, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—The media in this country all too often paint a picture of regional Australia in downturn. While there are some areas that are doing it tough, others are clearly going from strength to strength, especially with the support of the Howard government. I want to share with this House this afternoon very positive good news stories about regional centres in my electorate of Forde. These are stories about the innovation and determination of local residents. I am pleased to say that the Howard government has given local residents their full backing, putting much needed funds into getting these projects off the ground. The first is the heritage tourist steam train from Bethania to Beaudesert. The railway line from Bethania to Beaudesert has not been operating for passengers for many years. In 1995, Queensland Rail disconnected freight services on this line. Since long before that, the local residents have been pushing for the line to be reopened to passenger services. This beautiful rural part of south-east Queensland has increasingly become a tourist destination, especially with the nationally recognised Country and Horse Festival in Beaudesert over the past few years. The shire is rapidly developing its tourist industry and recognising that this is a vital way of boosting local businesses and creating more jobs. The Beaudesert Shire Railway Support Group has put together a comprehensive plan to get a tourist steam train operating along this line.I am delighted that earlier this month, when the Treasurer was visiting Forde, we were able to announce that the project had been granted $76,500 in RAP funding from the Howard government to finally get the wheels moving along this track. I want to sincerely thank the local residents who have worked so extremely hard towards this goal and all the members of the railway support group, especially Jim Daynes, who put the submission together. The Treasurer commented how professional that submission was. I would also like to thank Jim for his tireless efforts in working within our community. This project has been greeted with much enthusiasm and optimism by local residents and there is enormous community support to help make this line a success.There was a double celebration when the Treasurer came to my electorate because he then visited the rural town of Boonah and announced that they also had received a grant, of $80,000, to develop the Boonah Economic Development Institute over the next two years. Last October the Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, opened the inaugural Boonah Economic Development Institute, a dynamic conference with delegates from all around Australia and New Zealand. It was a thrill to the townspeople to have so many people come and to have their town on display at that time. The conference delegates came together to share the ways that rural towns and regional centres can be revitalised. The institute is based on the very successful Nebraska rural institute concept. Last year's institute was an enormous success and showcased the can-do attitude of the Boonah community, which is a truly shining example for rural communities throughout Australia. With the institute, Boonah is not only creating a brand new industry but also helping rural communities around the nation in the process. I want to thank everyone involved in the institute—the Chamber of Commerce, the Boonah council, especially the mayor, John Brent, and also a very special lady in town who works on a number of projects in Boonah, and that is Wendy Creighton. This is a very dynamic and innovative project and I am delighted that my personal support has been backed by the Howard government's funding. These two projects are an example of how the Howard government is helping rural communities to help themselves. We want to support the revitalisation of our towns, but we know that it is not just about throwing money around. It is about backing local groups who know the areas best and are passionate about making projects work. It is a commonsense approach which is beginning to show results. I look forward to continuing to work with local communities throughout Forde to make these and other similar projects successful. I would also like to place on record the enormous amount of work that Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson does in rural Australia. I know he visits many towns. As I said, he has visited my area of Forde and he has promised to come back in the very near future. Our community groups within our rural areas are being innovative with our support and they do not want our bush people thinking that they are recipients of public money unnecessarily. They are equally appreciative of the confidence that we place in them. We do not actually tell them what to do. They show us what rural towns need and we are backing that support 100 per cent.Main Committee adjourned at 1.20 p.m.