2000-03-153915REPS1470102000-03-15—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills14701R99314701Debate resumed from 14 March, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which MrKelvin Thomson moved by way of amendment:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:(1) expresses its concern with the fundamental unfairness of the Government's approach to taxation generally and the fundamental unfairness of a goods and services tax, including the heavy compliance burden on small business, and in particular the Government's decision to tax health items including, for the first time in fifty years, taxing tampons and sanitary pads; and(2) calls on the Treasurer to amend the GST legislation or the Minister for Health to honour the Government's pre-election promise that health products would be GST-free by including tampons and sanitary pads in the Minister's determination”.09:31:0014701Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—I continue my remarks on Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2000, the debate having been adjourned yesterday. I thought we had an extraordinary level of interest in this debate, but maybe that is not so. Yesterday I addressed the amendment moved by the member for Wills and seconded by the member for Jagajaga dealing with the question of GST on tampons and sanitary products. I move now in the time remaining to me to discuss the aspect of the bill which deals with employee share ownership schemes. The bill contains a proposed modi-fication to the way in which the public offer price is determined for determining the market value of shares that are required under an employee share scheme. When there is a public offer made in relation to a listed public company then, under the system that this bill proposes, there would be a way of deter-mining a share price which would equal the public offer price. This would eliminate the problem of artificial discounts which are currently contained in the legislation whereby, because of the current system, it can appear as if an employee got an additional benefit because of an artificially discounted price being counted for tax purposes. This is part of a scheme of arrangements relating to employee share ownership which forms part of our tax legislation. This scheme of arrangements is contained in division 13A. The general provision is that if a taxpayer gets a discount in relation to the provision of a share the value of that discount is taxable. The scheme then goes on to provide two exemptions for employee share ownership plans. Those two exemptions are to allow the assessability of taxation to be deferred under certain circumstances and to allow the first $1,000 of discounts of the value accruing to the employee shareholder to be exempted from taxation. Obviously, under the current scheme in the taxation legislation there is a series of fairly rigorous conditions as to who qualifies for that concessional tax treatment. In the broad sense, to qualify for that concessional tax treatment, the employee share ownership scheme must be a broadly based one, so it cannot simply be the offering of shares to a very limited class of employ-ees. Indeed the scheme must be broadly available to 75 per cent of employees. In addition, to qualify for that kind of tax treatment, there needs to be a genuine employer-employee relationship. Then if you qualify under that scheme you get the benefit of the concessional tax treatment. One benefit can be the deferral of the assessibility of taxation to be paid on the discounts. Whilst there is a very complex definition of when the taxation would be paid, in the broad a continuing employee under that provision of the tax legislation can defer payment of the tax for ten years. Alternatively a taxpayer, an employee, who has benefited under an employee share ownership scheme can elect to pay the tax and can benefit from an exemption of the first $1,000 of benefits that the employee has received because of the discount available on the shares. Looking at that concessional tax treatment for broadly based employee share ownership schemes, we would say that, as a matter of public policy, that is a valid scheme of arrangements in that there is a public policy good to be garnered by encouraging employ-ee share ownership. Obviously, it creates a community of purpose between the employer and the employee. If the employee has shares in the business then that focuses the employee's mind on the profitability of the business and on its long-term performance in the same way in which one would hope that the employer's mind is so focused. So, driven by that public policy, it has been seen as appropriate over the years to give some con-cessional taxation arrangements to employee share ownership schemes. As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education, and Workplace Relations, I have been participating in a major public inquiry into the question of employee share ownership. The Hansard is available on the web site. We have had a number of employers and trade unions come along and speak about the productivity and other benefits of employee share ownership schemes. Having said that, it seems to me that we need to balance that public policy good with some words of caution about the level of Commonwealth or government investment in supporting employee share ownership schemes. Obviously when one is creating a concessional taxation regime that is revenue forgone and it is, if you like, a Commonwealth government investment in supporting that scheme of arrangements. The words of caution, I guess, that I would sound in relation to employee share ownership schemes is that they are a benefit that is really available only to a section of the work force, and that is the section of the work force that is employed by public listed or unlisted companies, that is, companies in which there is a market for shares. There are not employee share ownership schemes in a broad sense for the many hundreds of thousands of employees who are engaged by small business.So already we have a Commonwealth government investment in the sense of tax revenue forgone for a scheme that benefits a section of the work force but not all of the work force, and we need to be mindful of that. We also need to be mindful, particularly given the National Textiles and Braybrook examples, of encouraging, through the taxation system, the investment of employ-ees' discretionary moneys—their savings—into the same company for which they work. Obviously that increases their exposure in terms of corporate failure. They could lose not only their entitlements but also their discretionary savings because they have invested through various share ownership arrangements in the very company for which they work. I do not want to overstate that, but it seems to me that imbalance in the public policy arrangements in the way in which we facilitate employee share ownership schemes is a matter which needs to be noted. Having said that, the amendment in this legislation, which deals with the assessment of price, is one which we support.09:39:0014702Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—In speaking to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2000 I refer particularly to the second reading amendment moved by the member for Wills and seconded by the member for Jagajaga. I will concentrate on the government's decision to tax particular health items. The GST is no longer just a cradle to grave tax; it is now a tax that goes from conception to birth. As many people realise, this is of particular interest to me at this time. The only thing that does not seem to be taxed is the part in the middle, the enjoyable part—the actual conception phase of birth. GST will not be applied to condoms, the pill or indeed Viagra because these items are available on prescription and condoms have been made exempt by the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Everything else to do with this whole process, everything else that seems to fall into the prerogative of women, will be taxed. That is what I want to concentrate on in my speech this morning. The amendment reads: ... expresses its concern with the fundamental unfairness of the Government's approach to taxation generally and the fundamental unfairness of a goods and services tax, including the heavy compliance burden on small business, and in particular the Government's decision to tax health items including, for the first time in fifty years, taxing tampons and sanitary pads;I spoke about tampons when we discussed the appropriation bills on Monday. My office, like many, has been inundated by women and men—which is quite interesting—furious at the government's refusal to lift the GST on sanitary products. As the member for Jagajaga pointed out, 70 per cent of Australians have indicated that they believe the tax should be removed from these items. Using sanitary products is not a lifestyle choice, as all women in this place will attest, but rather an absolute necessity and, indeed, a health necessity. None of the women I have spoken to see this as getting special treatment. It is something that they must do, not just for themselves but for the broader community, for health purposes. It is both a matter of money for many women struggling to make ends meet and a matter of principle. As many have pointed out, the minister has the power, under section 36.47 of the GST legislation, to declare all these goods exempt, without needing further legislation. Indeed, 1,000 amendments have already been moved by the Treasurer in respect of this tax and it has not even been introduced. I am waiting to see what further amendments we will have to deal with once the GST has been introduced and we actually come to grips with the issue on the ground. Here we have this absolute anomaly that Australian women are going to be taxed very heavily. This tax is not just a tax mess; it is also proving to be a tax on women in particular. I quote from an article written by Anne Summers which I think sums up quite a deal of this issue. It is entitled `When PMT meets GST' and states:The taxing of tampons under the GST will cause the Federal Government serious electoral pain ...I think they are already feeling this. It continues:I hope for their sakes that the Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, and the Health Minister, Dr Michael Wooldridge, are not faint-hearted sorts of chaps, because they have in front of them the formidable task of trying to explain to the women of Australia why penile clamps (to treat male incontinence) will be exempt from the GST whereas, for the first time ever, tampons and other sanitary products are about to be taxed.Summers, in the article, goes on to mention working for the Prime Minister at the time, Paul Keating, in 1992 when they looked into this issue. She said that a lot of people had the misconception that there was a luxury tax on tampons and sanitary items. People still believe there is a luxury tax on them. They found out that, of course, there was not. They had a meeting, and the article continues:`Let's get rid of it,' they concluded.One of the women ministers was lined up to make the running on the issue; press announcements were planned. We were all feeling pretty pleased with ourselves. There was only one problem.It turned out there was no tax, luxury or otherwise, on tampons—or any of the other products women need to use each month. Nor had there ever been. But the belief that there is such a tax is one of the most pervasive and persistent urban myths in this country, and one which refuses to go away.It is so widespread that in 1986 the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation even issued a press release confirming the no-tax status of these products, hoping no doubt to kill the myth once and for all. It did not work.Even today, the myth of the luxury tax lives on as the news spreads that sanitary products will be subject to the GST.Some women on the various online chat groups that have been discussing this over recent days have enthused that the price of these products will fall as the GST replaces the `luxury tax'. These women are in for a rude shock on July 1.I think most of them have already woken up to the fact that these products are going up and not down. The article continues:Women who feel ripped off can take comfort from the fact that two separate prices surveillance inquiries into tampon prices concurred with them.There is a belief that tampons and sanitary items are already too expensive. The PSA has inquired into this extensively and has concurred that the price is too high. A staggering amount is spent on the total female hygiene market, as it is called. It is worth roughly $202.1 million and is set to reap about $20 million in GST revenue. It is not a small item of revenue that we are looking at here. In 1994 the PSA said that about four million women would be affected by the pricing of tampons. That is now much higher by virtue of the fact that women are menstruating for longer in their total lifespan. Anne Summers concludes: In other words there are likely to be millions of women for whom the monthly GST bill will be as bad as PMT—and who will let the government know how they feel.And they have been in their thousands. I, like every member in this place, have been receiving hundreds of emails on this issue. I believe it is one issue that the Minister for Health and Aged Care should be looking at. As I said, he has the power under the GST legislation as it currently stands—under section 36.47—to remove it, as he has done for certain other areas. He has exempted condoms, sunscreen, folate pills and personal lubricants. So the enjoyment part of conceiving a baby can be exempted, but not everything else. In 1992 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruled that tampons were a therapeutic good. The President of the AMA, Dr Brand, has called for tampons to be GST free. The former head of the committee advising the government on GST implemen-tation, David Vos, has said that he has no objection to tampons being GST free and, most importantly, 70 per cent of Australians want it removed—both men and women. I believe that the minister should come forward now and remove this ridiculous tax from an area that will be a great impost on Australian women—and Australian women only. As I say, it is not a lifestyle choice to be using these things; it is a health issue. I call upon the minister to do something about it urgently.Another area that I want to speak on in respect of this legislation is, I believe, a health concern. I have been written to by one of my constituents about this, and several other members have also referred to it. It is about the issue of the GST being applied to food and veterinary bills for guide dogs. Currently, both these areas are wholesale sales tax exempt, but now the government will be imposing GST on this area. I think it is a disgrace. I have been written to by one of my constituents whose name is Jacqui. She writes:I would like you to lobby on behalf of all blind and vision-impaired Guide Dog users in regard to the likelihood of GST being applied to the Guide Dogs' food. Currently a guide dog user is sales-tax exempt in this category, as a Guide Dog is a mobility aid rather than a pet.It is interesting that part of the bill we are debating today is in respect of mobility and changes to the sales tax of vehicles made for disabled access. Here we are on the one hand recognising that people with a disability need to be exempt but saying on the other that other people with a visual disability are not. I think this is quite an anomaly. My constituent went on to say:Many Guide Dog users are limited in their income, and their ability to earn income, and the addition of a 10 per cent across the board GST becomes an unreasonable impost on their financial resources.She asked me if I could look into this matter. I have looked into this matter and I have been absolutely appalled to find that, yes, GST is now going to apply to these people when they are currently not liable for wholesale sales tax. On Monday I spoke about this issue in my speech on the second reading for the appropriations bill, and I think it is very worrying that the Australian Taxation Office has already handed down a ruling in respect of this saying that pet food for guide dogs and associated veterinary expenses will be subject to GST. It appears that this cost will be imposed on these people. These people are often limited income earners. If they are pensioners, they will be getting a whole $20 a fortnight increase within four months time. Somehow that is supposed to offset feeding and maintaining a guide dog. A guide dog is a vision impaired person's link to freedom of movement and hence the need for tax exemption. The fact that vision impaired people will have their guide dog's food taxed by the GST is tantamount to taxing their disability. Most guide dog users are on a fixed income, such as a pension, and will receive the measly four per cent increase in entitlements being doled out to compensate for the GST. Guide dogs are not known for their small appetites, and the quality of their food must be high in order for them to undertake their important role. It is my fear that many visually impaired people on low incomes will be forced to skimp on the quality of food and the regularity of veterinary examinations to meet the added burden of the new tax. This is just another example of the harsh and unequal application of the GST. Again, I call upon the relevant minister to review this immediately. The final issue I want to speak on this morning is something that, again, I believe is a gross anomaly in this terrible tax, and that is in respect of lactation aids. It seems to me that it is highly ludicrous that formula is going to be GST free because it is baby food but other items for lactation purposes, such as a breast pump to give baby mother's milk, are not going to be GST free. I hold up one that I personally use myself to feed my baby when I am in Canberra. Bottles are not going to be GST free, nor are other items of necessity like bra nursing pads. These items for me to feed my baby will not be GST free, but formula—which has the same purpose—to feed a baby will be. I think it is an absolute disgrace and an anomaly that has caused genuine concern across the airwaves. Indeed, I read an article recently that said the health minister was looking at considering this issue, and I urge him to revisit this, to look into this issue of great concern to many women out there and, under his powers under the legislation, to remove the tax on these items, in particular, on breast pumps.Mechanical breast pumps can be bought for $1,500. This is not a small cost. Most women do not actually purchase these pumps; they hire them through a wonderful association known as the Nursing Mothers Association of Australia which has put out some wonderful information on this issue. The Nursing Mothers Association will be up for a huge impost on purchasing these items, which are then hired by women such as me. The hiring cost is anywhere between $10 and $20 a week, and the actual pump that you must use and the kit to go with the hired breast pump is $41.95. So we are looking at an item that costs money that is not small change to a lot of people. Indeed, on top of the GST for these things, people will actually be slugged another 10 per cent for service, because the hiring of a breast pump is a service in itself.I would like to turn to why this is most definitely a health issue. Breastfeeding is recognised as being one of the most natural and best forms of preventive medicine and is promoted internationally as the preferred method of feeding for infants up to the ages of four months to six months. The Breastfeeding Review, journal, Vol. 7, No. 1 states:Current levels are close to the national goals and target recommendation of 90% of women breastfeeding on discharge from hospital, but the prevalence of women breastfeeding at three and six months falls short of the national target of 80% of women breastfeeding at these times.The Nursing Mothers Association of Australia wrote to the federal Treasurer in 1999 seeking an explanation for how these lactation products would be taxed. The federal Treasurer stated that `exemptions would be restricted to health-related products which would not include lactation aids'. It seems highly curious that the federal Treasurer is saying that these aids are not health related products while at the same the Australian government has committed $2 million to the National Breastfeeding Strategy. The underlying part of that strategy recognises the health benefits to babies of being breastfed.I would like to say from the outset that I am not condemning women who do not breastfeed, because it is not actually an easy thing to do. There are lots of problems involved in doing it. A lot of babies do not accept it and a lot of women do not have enough supply, so I certainly would not want to be condemning or saying anything else. But women such as me who have chosen to breastfeed and who have been lucky enough to do it, often cannot be there to breastfeed their baby—as in the case of my job—so expressing milk, putting it into bags and into the freezer and then having husbands give a bottle to the baby is something we need to do. It is also something that a lot of women on lower wages who return to the work force fairly early on need to do. The government in one breath is providing $2 million to support breastfeeding but at the same time is taxing women who are in that lower income area who need to be able to do it and return to the work force at the same time. If formula is going to be exempt, I know what women will turn to. A baby is not a cheap item—trust me on that. As my husband keeps telling me: it was a great idea to halve our income and triple our expenses! And here we are putting on a GST and incurring a greater cost for a lot of women.The Nursing Mothers Association puts out some wonderful information. They say:Protection, promotion and support of breast-feeding is a fundamental preventative health measure, globally recognised as capable of saving millions of lives and billions of dollars. For this reason the Australian government has always endorsed international initiatives to protect, promote and support breastfeeding.... ... ...In 1990, at the World Summit for Children, numerous heads of state set as a nutritional goal for the year 2000, “Empowerment of all women to exclusively breastfeed their children for four to six months and to continue breastfeeding while giving appropriate complementary food well into the second year.”So, Australia has adopted these guidelines. They also say:In 1982 Australia was the first country to adopt Dietary Guidelines which included “Promote breastfeeding.” “Encourage and support breastfeeding” is now the eighth point of the Australian Dietary Guidelines 1992, and the first point on the Australian Dietary Guidelines for Children and Adolescents, which were endorsed by the NHMRC in June 1995.So Australia has set targets. The goals are to have `90 per cent of babies up to two months of age breastfed following discharge; babies up to three months of age 60 per cent fully breastfed and 80 per cent partially breastfed; and babies up to six months 50 per cent fully breastfed and 80 per cent partially breastfed'. So on one hand we are saying that this is a health issue, but on the other hand the tax system is saying that lactation aids are not a health issue. As I said at the outset, this tax is a disgrace overall. It seems that it is now a heavier impost upon women and children, and I call upon the minister to use his powers under the current legislation to exempt such products, to treat the women of Australia fairly and to ensure that children in our society get a better start so that women are not turning to formula if they cannot afford any more to purchase or hire breast pumps. I conclude by stating that this tax is a tax mess as well as a tax adventure; it is certainly a heavy burden on women.09:57:0014706Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am pleased to speak in this debate, and in particular to speak in support of the amendment that has been moved by my colleague the member for Wills and seconded by my colleague the member for Jagajaga. That amendment goes to the very heart of the unfairness of the application of this GST. It goes to the heart of it because, in a number of ways, the government made commitments prior to the last election about what would be GST free and what would not be. One of the categories they said would be GST free was, of course, health products.The amendment being debated today by this House calls on the Treasurer to amend the GST legislation or the Minister for Health and Aged Care to honour the government's pre-election promise that health products be GST free by including tampons and sanitary pads in the minister's determination. This debate shows that there has been considerable progress. My colleague the member for Chisholm is representative of the progress that has occurred in this parliament with her outstanding contribution to the debate. Some 50 years ago there were no women sitting in this House—or, if there were, there were only one or two at a time. At the last three elections we have seen that rate increase considerably. Jeannette McHugh, my predecessor as the member for Grayndler, was in fact the first ALP women to be elected from New South Wales to the House of Representatives. That was only in 1983, not that long ago. But it seems that the decision makers, the men in positions of power, in this place still do not understand the fact that, for us to be a truly representative parliament and for government to do its job properly, they have to govern for all Australians, not just for men. It is only men who could have classified tampons and sanitary products as not being a health issue. The minister himself exposed that situation. When asked about it by the ABC, his comment was, `If I was a bloke I'd like shaving cream to be exempt, but I'm not expecting it to be. I wasn't aware that menstruation was an illness.' How offensive is that? How ignorant is it? Apart from the minor fact that shaving cream is exempt, which has been pointed out before, it really shows how out of touch this minister is with the electorate. All of us in this parliament have received perhaps more representation on this issue than any other specific issue relating to the GST. I will read into the Hansard just a couple of those which have come to us. One was from Joanne Gould, who said:I urge you to please listen to the women of Australia on this subject and grant an exemption to GST on feminine sanitary hygiene products. Far from this being a Barbie Doll issue, or comparable to soap and shaving cream, we have no choice in how or when or even whether we use these products.Another one from Sandra Schultz, who wrote:I am writing to implore you on behalf of 50 per cent of the population to abandon plans to impose the GST on sanitary items. These could hardly be classed as luxury items, and it is disgusting that tax is going to be added to these products.So, whilst we have progress on the one hand, with representatives in this chamber such as the member for Chisholm—who gave birth to the beautiful and charming Madeleine last year and who enlivens this place and enriches us all by having Madeleine around the corridor where I reside and around this House—it still appears that we have such a long way to go.This GST will also apply to a number of other health products. It will apply to spectacle frames, vitamins, cough mixtures, over-the-counter medicines, baby bottles and cleaning solutions. It will also apply to dermatology products, as my colleague the member for Bruce has pointed out and has campaigned very strongly on. So the argument that health products are GST free is simply not the case. With regard to tampons and sanitary products, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruled in 1992 that tampons were a therapeutic good. On this issue, which all members of this House have been lobbied about, there has been support not only from communities but also from radical organisations such as the AMA. David Brand has called for tampons to be GST free. The Minister for Health and Aged Care should simply stop defending an unfair, discriminatory tax.This bill itself is about amending the GST legislation. On the one hand, the government says it cannot change the GST, and it is determined not to budge an inch no matter how just the case, but on the other hand we have seen thousands of technical amendments to the GST legislation. Hardly a day goes past without an amendment to the GST legislation being moved in the House of Representatives or in the Senate. That is why this bill is called Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2000. The way that the government is going, we will probably be up to No. 55 before the end of the financial year. The government is stubborn, and it is out of touch. I ask the government to give real consideration to carrying this amendment moved by the member for Wills, and to fixing what is a growing source of anger. This issue will not go away because, for every woman in Australia, there is a monthly reminder of what this government has done in imposing a GST on their menstrual cycle. That is an outrageous proposition for any government in the year 2000. It does not just concern women; it concerns men such as me, and others who believe that an injustice and an inequity towards any individual or any section of society on the basis of gender is unfair and must be opposed. Many of the representations that I have had on this issue are in fact from families and from men. It is not just women who are concerned. Pass the amendment, and that specific aspect of the GST debate will be over. It is typical of this government's intransigence. On a whole range of issues which could be fixed up easily, the government has shown that it is unprepared to listen to rational argument. It said that health products would be GST free; they are not. It said that education would be GST free; it is not. They said that rent would be GST free; it is not. Yesterday I was very pleased to meet with permanent residents of caravan parks who came to Canberra to lobby the government to remove the GST on their site fees, which are their rent. They came and met with the leader of the Labor Party, Kim Beazley. They met with our caucus committee, and they met with many members and senators, but they did not meet with a single member of the government. The residents wrote to the Prime Minister; he did not bother to respond. They wrote to the Treasurer; he said no, he was too busy. The government whip was given an invitation to fax out to all government members and senators; not one came. Individual members of the House of Representatives who have large caravan park populations were personally invited; none came. They are not interested in listening on this issue.When I asked the Prime Minister a question in question time yesterday, he responded by saying that there would be no change to the current situation—no change in spite of the fact that this is an unfair tax on the most vulnerable people in our community. That stands in stark contrast to the dishonesty of this government. Prior to the last election, the member for Lyne told his whole electorate through a pamphlet that there would be no GST on caravan park permanent residents. Yesterday the Prime Minister ruled out a change but at least acknowledged that GST applies. Earlier in this debate, on Monday evening, the member for Mitchell made an extraordinary speech on this bill. He said:Long-term stayers in caravan parks are going to be treated in exactly the same way as any long-term renter anywhere else.He did not say it just once; he went on. The Hansard records me saying, `Rubbish, that is wrong.' The member for Mitchell said, `You can argue as much as you like, but there is no GST on the rent they will pay.' He went on:The fact is that long-term stayers in caravan parks will not be paying a goods and services tax. There is no goods and services tax charged on their rent.It is an extraordinary situation when you can come into this place and say, `Black is white'. What is even more extraordinary is that when the government had to choose their speakers for the matter of public importance yesterday, guess who they chose? The member for Mitchell was the government's lead speaker in the MPI debate yesterday on the imposition of a GST on permanent residents of caravan parks. If there isn't one, why was he participating in the debate? Why was there a debate? Why was there a question of the Prime Minister? Why did people spend five hours travelling to Canberra in a bus? It really is quite extraordinary that we have lies and dishonesty coming from members of the government when, from 1 July, all these issues will become self-evident. There is no point saying it is not true. They will know because their rents will go up. They have already been notified.5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis—They have already started, some of them.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—As my colleague has pointed out, many rents have already gone up. It is an extraordinary position. The debate yesterday was interesting because the member for Mitchell had changed his position a little bit, just a day later, as the government's lead speaker on the MPI. He said:There is a choice. It is one of the choices owners of long-term caravan parks have. A concession offered by the government to no other section of the rental market, to no other owner of any rental property and to no other people staying in rental accommodation is the capacity to put a goods and services tax on half the value of the rent.That is one day later, so sometime between Monday night and Tuesday afternoon the tax came on. That was okay, because he said: I believe it gives the owner of the property and the residents of the property a choice that no other section of the market has.5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis—Aren't they lucky?R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—Aren't they lucky? They have a choice. Pay the tax or become homeless: that is the choice. The choice is solely in the hands of the caravan park owners. The government were very brave yesterday; they got out the marginal seats, Mitchell and Curtin, to debate this issue, instead of those members who actually live in electorates which do have large numbers of caravan parks with permanent residents, such as Richmond, with 6,649, Dawson with 5,796, Cowper with 4,471, Leichhardt with 5,639, Lyne with 3,421, Kalgoorlie with 14,509, Kennedy with 7,148 and Capricornia with 3,894. The member for Capricornia is doing the right thing and campaigning on this issue, but the members on the other side say in their electorates that they are opposed to it. The member for Gilmore has said that it is a stuff-up and it is a discriminatory tax. The member for Richmond has said that it was being reconsidered by the government and hopefully he would get back to his constituents with a positive answer soon. They all have one message in their electorates but when they come to Canberra they are silent and do not participate in the debate. Whom did they get to participate in the debate? The member for Curtin. She has four residents of caravan parks in her electorate and the member for Mitchell has 300. It really does expose the fact that this government is just not going to be prepared to listen to rational argument when it comes to the GST, and that is because the GST is an ideological obsession with this government and with this particular Prime Minister.I will now come back to the amendment. I note that this is a fundamental inequity. I also note that a majority of Australians voted against the GST at the last election. But that minority of Australians who did vote for the GST were told health products, education and rent would be GST free. None of that is true. I would urge the government to vote for this amendment. It is a good amendment. It is a sound amendment. It is an amendment about equity for all Australians, and I think it should be carried unanimously by this House.10:15:0014709Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2000 and on the amendment to the second reading motion moved by this side of the House, as referred to by the previous speaker. In this debate I particularly want to address the GST on sanitary products. It is an issue of enormous concern. The government says that the new tax system is for the national good, that there may be some winners and some losers on some of the detail but that the sacrifice that we make—should we see any of this as a sacrifice—is really in the national interest. I am here today to tell the government that the women I know in my electorate are not at all happy with this particular sacrifice. Being the last speaker on this issue from this side of the House, so much has already been said, and I do not want to repeat it, but other colleagues have mentioned the issues relating to feeding products for nursing mothers. These are all terribly important issues and are examples of this unfair, very stupid, tax imposition—something that the government seems hell-bent on keeping. There has been no wholesale sales tax on tampons and pads for more than 45 years. For more than 45 years these products have been tax free, and rightly so. I said to a group of women I was speaking to recently in my constituency, `Why should we in fact be surprised that the Prime Minister sees nothing wrong with imposing taxes on this? He tends to look at most things from a 1940s, 1950s and 1960s perspective, so it is probably reasonable to understand why he thinks we should reverse the tax position on an issue like this.' It is absolutely within the power of the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Wooldridge, to add these items to the list of those exempted from the GST. It would be a very simple and easy thing for him to do.The previous speaker made reference to another item on which there is going to be a GST imposed, and that was spectacle frames. This is just a side issue to illustrate some of the stupidity of this. If you—as I did in the last two weeks—get new lenses prescribed, you can get those GST free after July but you cannot get the frames in which to put them without paying the GST. I would defy anybody to make a choice as a consumer to try to avoid the GST by wearing only the lenses and not the frames. There is just so much inconsistency in the illogical approach to so many aspects of this fantastic new tax system that we are having forced down our throats. I have also, with some lament, noticed in some of the press that some members opposite—I have a particular one in mind—have found it somewhat offensive when they have seen some forms of the demonstrations by women around the country through their cities and their communities in relation to the GST on women's sanitary products, particularly tampons. All I can say is that nothing could be more offensive to women—and far more so than the feelings that that particular member may be experiencing—than to believe that this government feels justified in imposing a GST on these products. As other speakers have said, menstruation may not be an illness in the medical definition used by the minister but I do not understand why shaving for men is a medical problem either. Shaving cream will not incur the GST, but products related to women's menstruation will. There is something really strange about the approach by this government.If there has ever been an issue that has emerged out of the community with great energy and great enthusiasm in terms of wishing to respond, it is this issue. I have seen many things in my four or so years in this place, but the reaction from the community on this issue has been enormous. And I do not overstate it at all when I say that the email system in my office almost reached meltdown at one point because of the number of contacts we were receiving from people from everywhere—men, women, families, groups, community representatives—on this issue. A gentleman called Harry—I will not read out his surname, but I have it in front of me—who lives in Kambah in my electorate sent an email on behalf of him and his wife. He said:I am dismayed (annoyed, irritated, stunned ... the superlatives are endless) at the attitude of the Federal Government, and the comments of Dr Woolridge in particular, regarding feminine hygiene products. These items, which are far too expensive anyway, must surely be considered as health care products and, therefore, GST exempt. To use the words of Dr Woolridge (in relation to condoms), they must be health care products because they `prevent disease'.Harry has asked me as his parliamentarian to lobby the government on behalf of him and others in the community, and I can tell Harry of Kambah that it is my pleasure to do that and I am grateful for his acknowledgment and his representation. I also received an email from a woman named Kerry, which said:I find it absurd that sunscreen, condoms, personal lubricants for men and women, and incontinence pads are all to be GST free, on the basis that if one didn't use them, one would suffer a `disability', yet menstruation products will not. I think that women not using tampons or pads would cause more than a `disability' ... it would cause a furore, and enormous health risks to all Australians.I also received an email from Helen from the ANU in Canberra. Amongst her comments, I would like to read this particular part:It no longer matters what time of the month it is if you wish to go swimming or participate in any number of other sporting activities where the wearing of a pad is not effective. In other words, tampons—a modern invention—have been of enormous assistance to women in many ways. Why on earth place a tax on them?There has been a range of emails, phone calls and letters. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know about you, but as a female representative of the community here in this place I can no longer go to a community dinner—Rotary dinners, Lions dinners, dinners celebrating Australia Day—without this issue coming up. You sit down to a meal with a group of people from the community, and what is the topic of the discussion? The GST on tampons and sanitary pads. It is just extraordinary. I do not know that the government really understands—and I have to say this to excuse its otherwise inactive attitude to this—the depth of feeling, anger and frustration that people are feeling. That was epitomised the best by the day the door to my electorate office flew open and an 83-year-old woman—she told us who she was and how old she was—burst in. She had been to the bank over the road because it was pension day. She was fairly frail but she was down doing her business at the bank, saw my office, went straight across the road, came in and just went so mad at the government. Unfortunately, I was not there at the time that she came in, but she said to my staff, `You have simply got to tell Annette Ellis to do something about this. I am an 83-year-old woman obviously not requiring these products anymore. I only wish they had been an invention when I was of the age that I began to need them. I have daughters, grand-daughters, sisters and nieces and I can tell you that, from my point of view, this is one of the worst decisions affecting women that a government could take. It is an insult.' She went through the whole raft of objections that she had. If an 83-year-old woman can come into my office and say that, I think that really illustrates how far the reaction in the community has gone on this issue.The government's accusation throughout this debate, that the anti-GST on tampons movement was somehow a tampon industry promotion, almost left me speechless when I first heard it. If ever we needed a wonderful example of a government completely blocking its ears with cotton wool and not wishing at all to hear any message from the community, this is it. I cannot think of a better example. Fifty per cent of the community are women. But it is not only the women: as I said, Harry from Kambah cares about this issue as well. There are enormous feelings of resentment, of frustration and of a lack of acknowledgment of a woman as she is. The role of childbearing—the whole thing—is being assaulted. Almost our very existence as women is being assaulted by the fact that this government believes that shaving cream can be a comparative in tax terms to products affecting women's menstruation. It is so ridiculous that you would have to laugh at it.The reality is that, if this government does not hear this message and the members on the other side of this House come in at the end of this debate and decide to vote against this amendment, it will be on their heads at the ballot boxes next time there is an election, because this will not go away. As the member for Grayndler rightly said, and as many other people have said, a great number of women in this country have a monthly reminder of the government's attitude to their health and wellbeing. It is a nonsense to suggest that this is not a health issue. And it is a nonsense to believe that the minister does not agree with that. If he does not agree with that, then he should not be the minister for health, quite frankly. If he cannot understand the requirement to remove this tax, I believe he should re-examine his view of the world in terms of health care. In finishing, I again thank the people in the community who have made their views on this issue very clear to me. I implore the members opposite to use their heads to think very carefully about this vote. We are giving them a way of getting out of this—the amendment is very sensible; it allows the exemption to occur—and we on this side of the House will not hesitate at all to remind the people out there in the community of exactly how their members voted on this particular amendment.10:26:0014711Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I would like to thank all the participants in this debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2000 for their contributions, their wide-ranging speeches, some of which would lead people listening to this debate to be unaware of the fact that this legislation covers three very specific measures. Of course, one of the reasons we have wide-ranging debate on taxation matters is that often in the title of the legislation the words `and for related purposes' are added which does give honourable members the opportunity to traverse a range of matters relating to taxation. This bill contains three measures, all of which are good news for taxpayers. The sales tax measure ensures that the extra cost of making a car suitable for use by the disabled will not be subject to sales tax. This amendment will apply to dealings on or after 26 June 1998, being the date the New South Wales government announced the release of 400 additional wheelchair accessible taxi licences. The amendment will therefore assist to ensure that the transportation needs of disabled participants at the Sydney Paralympic Games this year are met.The employee share schemes measure recognises that the market value of shares and unlisted rights to acquire shares, under an employee share scheme offered in association with a secondary or subsequent public offer of shares, is more equitably reflected in the public offer price of the shares. The final measure relates to the closely held trust divisions. These provisions require trustees to give details of the ultimate beneficiaries to whom their income is distributed where the distributions are made through a chain of trusts. This bill will maintain the integrity nature of these provisions whilst easing the compliance burden on trustees. They are the three matters which are specifically covered in this bill. It will not be a surprise to the opposition that the government wholeheartedly rejects the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wills, who has sought to focus, as has much of the debate from the Labor side, on the issue of tampons and sanitary pads.Maybe it would assist honourable members representing the Labor Party if they had listened to the Sunday program on television a couple of weeks ago when the New Zealand Labour Prime Minister, Helen Clark, pointed out that the GST is there to stay and that GST-free items should be kept to a minimum.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—Half of New Zealand lives in Australia!0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The honourable member opposite said that there are many New Zealanders in Australia, and many of them are making a very strong and worthwhile contribution to our national economy and to our national society. In my area of the Sunshine Coast, there is a very strong New Zealand community, and I very much welcome their support. Ms Clark said: It is a very well accepted tax ... and no one seriously thinks it would ever be changed. The tax was applied to everything that moved. It is true to say that once you start differentiating between classes of goods, you get into anomalies that can get a bit hard to explain. So we simply apply it to everything.That was the Sunday program on 27 February. I would also like to draw the attention of honourable members to an interview with Professor Judith Whitworth, a leading health academic, who was a member of an independent committee. On radio, she said she was quite comfortable with the decision to apply GST to tampons:The Committee felt there were no compelling reasons to exempt tampons. They are a personal hygiene product rather than a product used to treat an illness or a disease or a disability.She went on to say:I don't think ... that there's a lot of logic to continue to exempt product after product.It ought to be recognised that, if you select individual items and you seek to make a case for their exemption, you could exempt product after product. But the nature of a GST is that it is a broadly based tax across a wide range of items. It has also been calculated by newspapers that any increase in the cost of tampons as a result of tax reform would amount to about $4 per annum—that is what the newspapers are saying. I believe that the point of view being put by the opposition in this matter could be summed up as much ado about nothing. What they are really doing is playing on the heartstrings and being hypocritical, because for 13 years the Labor Party presided over a dismal, failed tax system which simply has not been accepted by this country and by the Australian people as we enter the 21st century. The honourable member for Wills, in a fairly wide-ranging contribution, sought to con-centrate on matters other than the items spec-ifically relating to this bill. He referred to what he said was the GST's application to guide dogs, food and veterinary services. I want to place on record that the government is acting to assist charities through the GST sys-tem and in preparing for the GST system. The GST legislation contains a number of con-cessions for charities. For instance, non-com--mercial activities are GST free, so where a guide dog is provided for less than 75 per cent of the cost it will be GST free and the charity providing the guide dog will get input tax credits. To assist charities to prepare for the GST, the ATO has provided seminars and an information booklet and has established the Charities Consultative Committee. In ad-dition, charities will benefit from the funds provided to the GST Start-Up Assistance Office to assist with implementation.The honourable member for Jagajaga, who is back in the chamber, claimed that the government has broken a promise that health is GST free. The government has ensured that the supply of a medical service is GST free. A medical service is defined as a service that is supplied by, or on behalf of, a medical prac-titioner or approved pathology practitioner, and that is generally accepted in the med--ical profession as being necessary for the ap--propriate treatment of the recipient of the su-pply. The GST legislation also lists other GST-free health services, including nursing, oc-c-upational therapy, paramedical services, psychology and social work. Many drugs and med-icines will also be GST free. It ought to be seen that, in relation to this particular mat-ter, the Labor Party is playing to the gallery and is not prepared to stand up and be counted.The honourable member for Lowe levelled the incredible accusation that the government did not put taxation policy out before the 1996 campaign. The last election was in October 1998. The Labor Party had a policy, but we had a policy for complete and meaningful tax reform. We pointed out that if we were elected to government we would bring in a new tax system which would see dramatic reductions in personal income tax, and compensation for retirees and pensioners. It would also see the abolition of a range of other taxes, including Labor's wholesale sales tax. What we said was: if you vote for us, you will get a new tax system. And the legislation which we have brought into the parliament is legislation which seeks to implement the mandate of the Australian people which was given to us in the October 1998 election. We are certainly not going to apologise for standing up and being counted and carrying out our election promises—unlike the sad and sorry record of our predecessors.The honourable member for Rankin started to talk about milk given to the cat and tax avoidance, and I believe that was certainly a red herring. Milk that is for human con--sumption is GST free; the actual use of the milk is not relevant. Feeding cats and dogs with meat and milk that is fit for human con----sumption does not amount to tax avoidance. I think that any reasonable person would accept that that is an appropriate situation.The government is particularly pleased with this legislation which is currently before the chamber. It is regrettable that in bill after bill we have had to confront a redebate of the essence of our new tax system which was voted for so strongly by the Australian people. This legislation contains three measures, all of which are good news for taxpayers. The sales tax measure ensures that the extra cost of making a car suitable for use by the disabled will not be subject to sales tax, and I have outlined the circumstances in which this occurs. The other two measures relate to the em--ployee share schemes measure and to closely held trusts. I commend the legislation to the chamber. Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Kelvin Thomson's amendment) stand part of the question.10:41:00The House divided.(Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins) 73Abbott, A.J.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.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.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.64Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.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.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.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Kelly, J.M.Hatton, M.J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.14715Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Bills14715R99814715Debate resumed from 16 February, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.10:47:0014715O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The Primary Industries (Excise) Levies (GST Consequential Amendments) Bill 2000 is a bill to exclude the GST from the base for calculating the levy on deer velvet and goat fibre. I give notice of my intention to move the following second reading amendment:That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:`whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House expresses its concern at the adverse impact the GST will have on the small business and farm sectors, particularly the compliance burden'.Under existing legislation, the amount collected as levies from deer velvet and goat fibre producers would increase because these levies are calculated as a percentage of the price received for the product, and that price would include the GST were this legislation not to come into effect. The majority of primary industry levies are not affected by this measure because they are calculated on the basis of quantity or weight and not on price. Of course, if this legislation was not passed by this House, it would have the unintended consequence of ramping up the levies that are paid by producers in these two industries. Section 975 of the ANTS Act 1999 defines price as `an amount which includes the GST'. Under this bill, the price for levy purposes is to exclude net GST so that the amount paid by producers is not increased.These two industries are very important to the rural sector. They are not large industries, but people who operate in them are innovative and the products that they produce are quite valuable. The levies that are raised in rural industries have a very important role in maintaining research and development and in some cases the promotional efforts of many rural industries. These two industries are no exception. They are involved in the export trade and there is very important research being done into both industries and their output. It is important to reflect on what is happening in research and development, not only across the Australian economy but also in agriculture. As many farmers and people who earn their living in the downstream processing of agricultural products would know, the cutting edge for agriculture in the new millennium is going to come off the back of its research and development effort.The record and performance of the Howard government in education and training and in research and development is very disappointing—it is a very poor record indeed. Agriculture and other industries throughout the length and breadth of the Australian economy are suffering because of the benign neglect by this government of very important areas of activity in education and training and research and development. The two industries which we are debating today fall into this category. They are innovative industries with considerable potential. That potential will be realised in an economic sense only if the levies raised are put to good purpose and, if we go to the overall economy, the research and development effort in agriculture as well as in other industries is maintained. Let me reflect on the record of the Howard government in this particular area. Over the period this government has been in office, we have seen a sustained attack on the research and development capacity of the nation and on its educational and training capacity as well. We have seen over $2 billion cut from labour market programs that were aimed at skilling the Australian work force, making that work force more flexible and encouraging those units of labour who have not been able to gain employment to gain employment and work productively in the economy. We have seen $3 billion cut from education. It is one of the crowning indictments of this government that this policy has been pursued. It is disturbing that the government members opposite are proud of it. They are proud of the fact that we have had a $3 billion cut to the education budget in this nation. EM6Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr Stone—That is not true.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, who sits at the table, says that it is not so, but you have only to go to question time to hear the Treasurer gloating about the fact that he has a balanced budget and that he intends to maintain it. We all know that that balanced budget and the billions of dollars that are going to be wasted on the introduction of the GST come off the back of these very cuts to education and training that the coalition have been responsible for since they came to power.I was at a dinner last night for the Prime Minister of Ireland. We hear much about the unique Irish economic experiment in the European Community. Ireland has had spectacular economic growth, and we can lay that growth at the feet of many initiatives. But one of the central features of the Irish economic system and what you would call the modern economic miracle in Ireland has been the emphasis the Irish nation has put on education. That is not a focus that is shared in Australia under the policies of this government. We have seen a $2 billion reduction in innovation incentives that are being used to modernise Australian industry, and that is a tragedy. A lot of these programs—not only in agriculture but elsewhere in the Australian economy—are designed to give us a cutting edge in an economic sense in a very competitive global environment.A stocktake of the nation in these areas makes very depressing reading. I want to canvass some of the very poor statistics that Australia now has to own as an industrialised nation wanting to compete in very competitive global markets, and agriculture is no exception to that. For example, Commonwealth funding to universities fell as a percentage of GDP from 0.94 per cent in 1996 to 0.82 per cent just two years later. Most modern economies, most modern agricultural systems, have not seen this sort of drop in funding to universities. We know that universities play a very critical role—SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—This is a levy bill!WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—The honourable member for Mitchell was obviously not here when I foreshadowed a second reading amendment. If the honourable member wants to contest that fact, I will be quite happy to debate the issues. I know the honourable member knows very little about the agricultural sector. I know he is absolutely ignorant of the fact, but he might like to know that levies are raised in the deer and goat industries for research and development. I am referring here to the importance of research and development not only to these two particular industries but to agriculture as a whole. If that is not relevant, the honourable member for Mitchell can contest the fact and I will be quite happy to debate it. The statistics for Commonwealth spending on science and innovation as a percentage of GDP show that it is down from 0.71 per cent to 0.64 per cent, again, in two years. The very basis of Australian agriculture—its cutting edge—lies in science and in innovation. We know this sector is very innovative; it has the capacity to develop new products and processes and to grow substantially. We know that that innovation comes off the back of investment in science. We see overall in the Australian economy a very disturbing statistic, and that applies to agriculture as well. The bill we are debating here today refers to research and development. If we look at the statistics on business expenditure on research and development—and rural businesses are no exception to this—it rose steadily from 0.33 per cent of GDP in 1985 to 0.85 in 1996. You do not have to be an Einstein to work out those particular years: they occurred under a Labor government. But, if we now look at the last two years, it has fallen two years in a row to 0.71 per cent today. We have to remember that this occurred when there has been an OECD average of 1.2 per cent of GDP spent on research and development. The core of Australian agricultural performance lies in research and development. The statistics for the nation speak for themselves, and that is repeated in agriculture as well. Commonwealth spending on labour market programs is down from 0.4 per cent of GDP in 1996 to 0.32 per cent just two years later. Whither knowledge, agriculture? In the face of those statistics, one really wonders where this government is going and whether it has any focus at all on the real, substantial things that need to be done to encourage investment in industries such as the deer industry and the goat industry in Australia. With these industries we are dealing with what the government euphemistically calls the `unintended consequences' of its own legislation. Certainly the opposition does not want to see these industries taxed unnecessarily. We do not want to see the levy burden on producers in the deer industry or the goat industry increased. So we are not going to oppose the legislation that is before us today. But it is instructive to understand that the bill we are debating today is a consequence of the government's GST legislation. The government had a long period to get this legislation right. In this instance it got it wrong. If this legislation is not passed, we are going to see an increasing burden on some primary producers which should not be there. If we look at the application of the GST to the deer industry, to the goat industry, to beef, to wool and to horticulture, the commitment that was given by the government was that this was going to be a simple new taxation system. The farmers these days are not getting into the ute and loading it up with hay to go out and feed the cows. They are telling their sons and daughters, `Go out and clear the ute. I have to go in and see my accountant and bring back a copy of the new tax system.' This new `simplified' tax system which deer and goat producers now have to contend with is extraordinary. The GST legislation and the explanatory memoranda are thousands of pages long. They are thicker than three telephone books. They weigh in at 5.1 kilograms. We are already up to 1,026 amendments. The amendments we are debating here today will be added to that list. This is legislation that farmers are expected to come to terms with. The complexity of this legislation is breathtaking. Farmers are having real difficulty in getting the answers they need to unravel this complexity. I am interested in what the accounting giant Arthur Andersen said in its submission to the GST inquiry:The draft legislation as proposed is very complex and at times uses vague and imprecise language. One thing that farmers do not like is vague and imprecise language. This is what Arthur Andersen had to say: There are 67 pages of basic rules, which require a 28 page dictionary to apply, but these are impacted by 30 pages of exemptions and 144 pages of special rules which are made even more difficult by extensive cross-referencing to other acts. Indeed, the draft legislation is far more complex than we were led to believe. Try telling the farmers of Australia that this legislation is designed to make their lives a lot simpler. Tell that to the goat and deer producers in this country and they will laugh you off their properties. The government is having real difficulty in getting industry, including farmers, to sign up for the administration of this new GST package. The Institute of Chartered Accountants had this to say about the compliance burden. They were reflecting on their own profession—deer farmers and goat farmers are going to be required to go to their accountants to get the sort of expert advice to ensure that they are not disadvantaged by this legislation:There is a huge strain on the accounting profession resulting from the massive number of companies seeking advice on GST tax reform. They are concerned that the demand for their services far outweighs the supply. We are importing accountants into this country to cope with the deadlines that the government has on this legislation. Out in the bush, farmers are finding it extremely difficult, given the demands on their properties and the demands on their accountants, to get the sort of advice that is necessary if they are going to effectively cope with the changes that are being proposed in this legislation. I referred to the complexity of the act itself and the difficulty that farmers and other small businesses are going to have in coping with this legislation and the ANTS package. But it is not a simple act. It is very complex. The honourable member for Rankin, in a debate only last night, took us through the stupidity of this package as it applies to cow's milk and goat's milk. I urge people to read that analysis by the member for Rankin. It was quite a humorous account. But it is not so funny when farmers are called on to implement this, what you would call, pretty dopey piece of legislation. One of the impacts of the GST not only on deer farmers and goat producers but on all producers in the rural sector will be the cost of compliance. Like other small businesses throughout the length and breadth of Australia, they are going to have to outlay significant amounts of money to gear up for the introduction of this tax. Farm business are no different from any other small business and the demands on them are going to be the same. The farmers of Australia are going to become tax collectors for the Treasurer. The Treasurer is foisting what we now know as Costello's curse on the sector and they are going to have to comply. In complying they will be up for thousands of dollars. That will be the cost of implementing the GST in their industries. The purpose of the legislation before us today is to make sure that the burden is not increased in terms of the levies they will pay. But I point out that there are some burdens that goat producers and deer producers, as well as other primary producers, will not be able to avoid—that is, those relating to the costs associated with compliance.The government is claiming massive benefits to farmers as exporters of produce. We know that 80 per cent of agricultural output is exported. The agriculture sector depends very heavily on access to overseas markets, but there are many primary producers throughout the length and breadth of this country who produce goods for a domestic market. They are not exporters and the government does not seem to have recognised them.One thing the government never talks about is the impact of these measures on the costs to goat producers and deer producers, as well as others in the rural sector. The government's initial estimate was that the introduction of the GST would add only 1.9 per cent to the pricing structures of the nation. The government later revised that to around three per cent. In the private sector, the general rule of thumb is that inflation, under this government, with the introduction of the GST, will be ramped up by about five to six per cent. That will impact on the smaller rural industries like the deer and goat industries. But there are far more insidious developments in the pipeline. I want to allude to these because the impact of the GST on the inflation rate and on farm costs will be substantial.Labor took 13 years of hard slog on the economic policy front to break the back of inflation in Australia. We were left double digit inflation by the present Prime Minister. We were left with double digit unemployment, double digit inflation and double digit interest rates, and many other negative economic parameters. That is something the coalition does not want to hear. The great architects of inflation in this country are the Liberal and National parties. It took us 13 years to exorcise it. We know the coalition does not like looking at and confronting the facts, but these are the facts. It took us 13 years to cut the Liberal inflation cancer out of the Australian economy and we got it down to under two per cent. So what is the coalition going to do now? It is going to introduce a policy initiative, a taxation reform, that will ramp up the inflation rate in the region of five to six per cent. If that is not dopey economic policy I do not know what is. But it does not end there. In the economic pipeline are some things that might seem to be advantageous to the rural sector but, at the end of the day, they will impact heavily on inflation, in addition to the GST. I refer here to the devaluation of the Australian dollar and the weakening of the currency. Farmers know that there are some short-term benefits in this. Of course, a devalued dollar feeds into increased income for many farmers under certain contractual arrangements and circumstances. But there is a more insidious influence and that is the way in which a low dollar feeds into the inflation rate of this country. At a time when we are going to have a significant injection of income into the income stream of the nation through measures that have been put in place by this government, at a time when we can expect, if the current growth continues, a significant pressure on demand, we will have the introduction of a GST which will feed in around five percentage points to the inflation rate. Underlying that is going to be a movement in the Australian currency which will also impact on the inflation rate.What this adds up to for farmers is an inflation rate well in excess of five and six per cent which will feed into farm costs in a substantial way. This government rarely talks about the impact that its GST will have on inflation and, through that, farm costs. We can see that there are several influences on the inflation rate and also on interest rates. One thing we do know is that, where we have this underlying pressure on the inflation rate, we have a corresponding pressure on the level of interest rates. I read in the Financial Review only today that the Governor of the Reserve Bank is concerned about this problem. Comment by Alan Mitchell, under the headline `Macfarlane spurred by inflation concern', says that the Reserve Bank governor is concerned about a surge in inflation in the latter half of the year. As we know, there are forces abroad that will put pressure on not only the inflation rate but also interest rates. We have seen interest rates in the United States increasing steadily and action taken by their Central Bank to curb inflationary pressures. We have seen that increase in interest rates already and there are more projected by the end of the year.We are going to see a rise in domestic demand and, under certain economic conditions, this could lead to increasing pressure on prices and, through that, interest rates. Of course, we have the domestic inflation pressures that are a direct result of the economic policies of this government putting pressure on inflation and, through that, pressure on interest rates. There are two things that farmers fear more than anything else: inflation and interest rates. I know what the honourable members opposite are going to say, `Oh, yes, when you were in government, you had double digit interest rates.' Well, so did you. You presided over double digit interest rates that affected the rural sector. You presided over a double digit inflation rate that affected the rural sector. And, as for the sons and daughters of farmers getting jobs in their own communities or anywhere in the Australian economy, you presided over double digit unemployment.These are things that the honourable members opposite do not like to entertain or countenance. Here we have two industries—two very small but growing and important industries. They are export focused; they are growing, and they need to be encouraged. But in the piece of legislation we are debating today, there are a set of propositions to rectify the mistakes of government in implementing this new tax package. This is a very complex piece of legislation and underlying it is very bad news for farmers and the rural sector. I can say to the honourable member for Mitchell that they are waiting out there with baseball bats for you. On election night, we are going to sit back and we are going to watch seats fall that the coalition, especially the National Party, never thought would fall, because of this government's betrayal of farmers, not only in this particular package but in a whole lot of policy areas. When the chickens come home to roost—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! Before I advise the honourable member for Corio that his time has expired, I am fully conscious that he foreshadowed that he would move an amendment. I am reliably informed that the member has not yet done so. I will now give him the opportunity to move his amendment. WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—In concluding my remarks, I move: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House expresses its concern at the adverse impact the GST will have on the small business and farm sectors, particularly the compliance burden”.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is the amendment seconded?ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Before I call the next speaker, I wish to make a comment on the way the House appears to be going in speaking to bills. Relevance has always been raised in question time in regard to minister's answers, but the debate on this particular bill so far has unfortunately been very wide ranging indeed. I think all members of this place should be aware that there is an obligation to be relevant to the content of the bills before them at any time. This particular bill is quite specific. It concerns deer velvet and goat fibre. I am not going to be prescriptive on subsequent speakers because the debate has been wide ranging so far, but I think it is in the interests of the House that we should all be aware that there is an obligation on members to speak to the bills. Where the long title does give some opportunity for spreading the debate, that is acceptable, but I think we should all be aware that it is not appropriate to go totally wide of the mark.11:19:0014720Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—So much for this being a very complex bill, as the previous speaker suggested. It is two half-pages. My friend, if you regard that—and I am sure you would agree—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I am your friend, indeed, but you will address your remarks through the chair.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that both you and the member for Corio would feel that a bill that is comprised of two half-pages could hardly be called a complex measure.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—This is a complex bill!SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—The distraction I will ignore. That distraction is exactly what the Deputy Speaker spoke about. We are not debating that whole measure. We are debating two pages, my friend. If you are not prepared to confine your remarks to the matter before the House, then you are incompetent. You are incompetent like the Leader of the Opposition. You are ruling out line by line, measure by measure, every option you have to reform the tax system. You are here every day with amendments for every piece of legislation and taking every opportunity to have a go at the government's tax reform.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Mitchell might confine his remarks to the bill as well.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—The amendment that has been moved is absolutely consistent with the amendments moved to all other measures that have come before the House this week. The opposition endeavours to divert the substance of the debate to an attack on the government's tax reform system. I think that is inappropriate. This is a two half-page measure that you should be prepared to deal with and to debate. You have not spent the time to understand what the legislation does. You do not understand primary industry levies or how they work. I am sure the whole opposition does not understand the way in which the goods and services tax applies, nor do you understand agricultural industries and nor do you understand whether they are government imposed levies or whether they are industry imposed levies—that is, decisions made by the industry across the nation. In this instance, we are dealing with just two industries and it is a simple measure. We need not spend long on it. We need not have tirades about the problems that you see in the goods and services tax. I say again: you are ruling out line by line, measure by measure, every option there is to change the tax system. How would the Labor Party propose to deal with a broad based consumer tax as it applied to levies in primary industry? I have not heard one argument about how you would cope with that. All we hear about is doom and gloom for primary industry, for the farmers and the increases they are going to have. I do not know, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that you, and many members of the government, have equipped yourself to understand the benefits to farmers in the proposed tax changes. Whether the levies are industry imposed or government imposed, they have to be looked at as far as the goods and services tax is concerned. One only has to refer to the schedule of the bill to understand precisely what is implied by this measure. There is a very simple example given on deer velvet and goat hair for these measures, because they are important export products. In fact, in my own electorate I have a very significant producer of goat hair, a producer of cashmere. That gentleman will be here to see me today or tomorrow, in fact, and is looking forward to a display of cashmere at the parliament. So much for not understanding what the government does. Government members do understand what this legislation is about. We understand the significance of all sections of primary production, and we understand the advantages that are going to flow to primary industry from the changes in the whole of the tax regime.The examples given in the schedule to the bill work this way: if, for instance, a producer of deer velvet were to sell his velvet for, say, $5,000, currently the five per cent industry levy that would apply to that deer velvet—all producers of deer velvet have decided amongst themselves that they need to impose a levy for research and development, as has been said, but also for promotion of the product—would produce a $250 levy from the producer of the deer velvet to their association. After 1 July things change because of the goods and services tax. What the government has done is simple and easily understood—because it is two half pages of legislation—nothing could be simpler. Anybody can read it, but evidently not the opposition. After 1 July, of course, the price of that $5,000 worth of deer velvet will grow to a sale price of $5,500. Growers have said, and rightly so, that, if we put a levy on the $5,500, we are putting a levy across the tax as well. So we would be asking growers to pay a grower levy on the 10 per cent goods and services tax. That is completely inappropriate, and the government has seen that problem. If the legislation were unchanged, that $5,000 that previously produced a $250 levy would produce a $275 levy. So that would be a $25 difference. It is a levy on the GST, and so the government has said that, for the sake of the goat hair and deer velvet industries, what it will encourage, what it will accept and what this legislation requires is that the levy be struck on the GST-free product. So the $5,500 sale price, which is the price of the product plus the goods and services tax, will be counted as being $5,000. It will be GST free for the purpose of the levy, and the levy will remain at $250.Nothing could be easier, yet we received a great tirade today, an endeavour to frighten people about the changes that are coming. But we have such inconsistent views in the opposition. What will you do with this thing? It is going to come in on 1 July. These are the changes that the government has proposed. This is a sensible change to industry levies. On 1 July, I wonder what the opposition will do. Will they continue to oppose the goods and services tax, or are they going to roll over, like the member for Lilley? He said that he will oppose it up until 30 June but that at one minute past midnight on 1 July he will accept it. I wonder what will be the attitude of the opposition towards our primary producers. They do not like being fooled around with in the way that you are doing. They do not like games being played with them. They like people to be able to make a commitment, say what they are going to do and go ahead and do it. That is precisely what the government has said it will do with these levies. I would like to stray slightly from the topic to deal with levies on other primary producers. I have had guidance from the tax office and from Treasury about whether or not the nursery industry imposed levy will be taxable. The Treasurer has made determinations on all levies, whether they be government imposed or industry imposed. Very few require specific legislation, but the government has seen the need in this instance to provide support to the deer velvet and goat hair industries. It has proposed that the levy, for industry purposes, be raised on GST-free prices for deer velvet and for goat hair. That is a simple piece of legislation. It is practical. Farmers can see, when they are doing their bookkeeping on a monthly—or three-monthly—basis just how they can apply the levy and send off their cheque or the deductions made by the industry itself; I do not know quite what the selling processes are of those industries. If they sell centrally the seller will deduct the levy. If they sell as individuals the growers themselves will forward the levy.It is a very simple process, and one that does not need a whole tirade about the so-called evils of the goods and services tax. The goods and services tax will allow changes that will be beneficial to farmers. It will bring down their costs. Exporters will be able to have a fairer go and be more competitive in international markets. Fuel costs will change and fall as well. This is beneficial to all primary producers, no matter what industry in Australia they are in, including the deer farmers and the goat farmers.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before I call the honourable member for Rankin, I must say I have a sneaking suspicion that he may have brought into the House a glass of milk, which by his actions I think he acknowledges. If the member for Rankin consults House of Representatives Practice, he will find it is out of order to introduce into the chamber, or to consume in the chamber, refreshments. I know that the dairy industry would argue very strongly that milk is refreshing and is therefore a refreshment. It is in order—it has happened on many occasions and will happen again—that members can display an object to expand and elucidate on what they are saying. This has happened in the past with Mr Barry Jones when he was a minister. The member for Hughes has demonstrated something that was not easily described in words, and I have personally displayed photographs. However, I think everybody in Australia understands what a glass of milk is, and therefore it is not necessary to display a glass of milk to demonstrate what the member wants to speak about. I say to the member for Rankin that he would be well advised not to introduce refreshments into the chamber and not to conceal them. It is not really in order to display something that it is not necessary to display, such as a glass of milk.11:31:0014722Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—As the previous speaker said, the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies (GST Consequential Amendments) Bill 2000 does run to two pages but, because it is an amendment bill, it is necessitated by this document, which is a copy of the GST legislation. The GST legislation is anything but a simple piece of legislation. The Treasurer has often said that the GST legislation is a `streamlined new tax system for a new century that replaces the 1930s Botswana style wholesale sales tax'. This `streamlined new tax system for a new century' runs to hundreds of pages. It is thicker than three telephone books. It weighs more than 5.1 kilograms, and it already contains 1,026 amendments. The legislation on deer velvet and goat fibre that we are addressing here today is a consequential amendment bill which, if it is possible, complicates the GST legislation that much further.In making my remarks, I wish to speak both to the primary legislation before us and to the second reading amendment that has been proposed by the opposition. Just to remind members of parliament, that second reading amendment reads:`whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House expresses its concern at the adverse impact the GST will have on the small business and farm sectors, particularly the compliance burden'. We are talking about the burden that the GST legislation will impose on rural producers and other small businesses in Australia. Many of the small businesses in Australia are farms, as you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate, and I think illuminating, for us to have a debate about the impact of the GST on the paperwork burden on farms and the diversion of farming activity into account keeping, because the compliance costs are going to be very great indeed.I draw the attention of the House to the original Regulation Impact Statement for the introduction of a goods and services tax. It is now quite astonishing, with the benefit of just a few months, to read over that document, no doubt produced by Treasury. It has in it some quite remarkable statements. For example, on page 4, it says:The administrative burden for smaller firms with reasonable accounting practices will be minimal ...So the government is claiming that the administrative burden of the GST on small businesses, including on farming businesses—and that includes those which produce deer velvet and goat fibre—will be minimal. I will have something to say about that, because independent analysis shows that it is absolutely untrue.In relation to implementation costs for business, the impact statement goes on to say:However, these costs will be marginal in the case of well-managed businesses ...I am sure that most farmers in Australia and most small businesses would consider that they are managing their businesses well, and yet the Treasurer is saying that the impact of the implementation costs of the GST will be marginal. The document goes on to say:The Government's proposal for most goods and services to be taxed at 10 per cent will simplify tax accounting arrangements for many businesses and increase the transparency of the tax to all consumers.It is well known that Labor, on at least two occasions, has moved an amendment to the legislation, calling for the government to require retailers to show the GST on dockets—that is, to fulfil the government's com-mitment that, by removing hidden taxes, they will be introducing a transparent tax. But, no, the government says, `We're not going to do that. We do not want businesses to show the GST on dockets.' Why not? Because it would be embarrassing for the government. It would be informative for consumers but em-barrassing for the government, and that is why they do not want it shown.The never-ever man, the Prime Minister, who said he would never ever introduce a GST, might reflect on this: if you never never show, you will never never know. Our argument is that the GST must be shown, otherwise you will never ever know whether you are paying the GST or not. This is a perfectly reasonable argument. It is an argument that has been picked up by Coles Myer and by a number of other retailers. On behalf of the consumers of Australia, we would like other major retailers such as Woolworths and Big W to show the GST on dockets so that people know whether they are paying GST and, if so, how much.The impact statement released by the government a few months ago, before this legislation was introduced, says:The government estimates that recurrent gross compliance costs of the GST are $1195 per firm. However, recurrent net compliance costs are much lower at $130 per firm. They seriously want the small business community of Australia to believe that the compliance cost for small businesses is $130. Well, wait—there's more. Over the page the document says:As the compliance cost estimates are an average figure, small businesses are likely to have even smaller compliance costs.The government is saying the compliance costs for business, including deer velvet producers, are going to be less than $130 per firm. How credible is that estimate? And the total for the whole economy, estimated by the government, is $210 million. The government and Treasury must be the only people who believe that, because if we go to some independent and more reputable estimates, we find that the compliance costs are going to be much greater than less than $130 per firm. SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. You rightly reminded me on a number of occasions that this is a levy bill dealing with the raising of a levy and the GST on two industries alone. The bill is related just to that narrow point. Could I draw your attention to the fact that the honourable member's speech has nothing to do with the two industries.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the honourable member for Mitchell. I am very much aware of what is contained in the point of order. At the start of my time in this chair I did point out to the House that it had been a very wide-ranging debate, and I encouraged members to stick to the subject of the bill. I might say that I so encouraged the member for Mitchell as well, but he too transgressed. So I think, in the interests of consistency and being even-handed, I have to allow the member for Rankin to go more widely than he should. I again remind the House that while it has been a wide-ranging debate, members do have an obligation to speak to the contents of the bill.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—The member opposite should appreciate that I am being entirely relevant to the second reading amendment, of which he is obviously unaware. For his benefit, I will read, yet again, the second reading amendment:whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House expresses its concern at the adverse impact the GST will have on the small business and farm sectors, particularly the compliance burden.The compliance burden on small business is precisely what I am referring to. The Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry estimates the GST start-up costs for small businesses at $3,500 and 80 working hours. International accounting firm Ernst and Young has conducted a study which estimates that small businesses face costs of between $9,750 and $19,428 to comply with the GST. I invite the House to compare that with the estimate released by the Treasury of less than $130 per small business. Here we have a reputable study by an international accounting firm, Ernst and Young, saying it is not $130, it is between $9,750 and $19,428. Arthur Andersen—again, a reputable firm and a very large one—said to the Senate GST inquiry:We are deeply concerned that the Government's proposed $500 million compliance assistance package is grossly inadequate, equating to approximately $300 each for the estimated 1.6 million taxpayers who will register for GST.What is small business getting for this? If they are lucky, they may get a $200 voucher to cover compliance costs ranging between $9,750 and $19,428. It is a scandal, it is an insult to the small business community of this nation, and it is an insult to the farming community of this nation—including the producers of deer velvet and goat fibre.There has been a continuing saga in relation to the number of businesses that will be required to register for the GST. The estimates change on an almost daily basis. In the same impact statement, the government estimated the number of businesses that would need to register for the GST at 1.4 million in the first year. That was just a few months ago. Subsequently, another impact statement was released, and that was after the deal was done between the Democrats and the government which exempted some food items. Therefore, a new estimate needed to be provided on the number of businesses that would be required to register for the GST. Surprisingly, the estimate is the same: 1.4 million. That was beyond the middle of last year, yet in response to a question asked of the Treasurer by the shadow Treasurer in relation to the number of businesses, on 23 November last year, the Treasurer said:The figure for the number of GST registrations estimated for the first year of operation has been revised to 1,500,000 registrations and the number is expected to grow by about 300,000 in the following year.So we went from 1,400,000 to 1,500,000 in a matter of months, but the pace of revision accelerated. In an article in the Australian Financial Review on 26 November last year, Mr Matthews of the Taxation Office said: Of the 2 million businesses expected to register for the GST, less than 5,000 taxpayers would be affected by the wine equalisation tax and luxury car tax.So the estimate went very rapidly from 1.5 million businesses to two million businesses. An article in the weekend edition of the Australian Financial Review of 26-27 February this year stated:The Tax Commissioner, Mr Michael Carmody, on Tuesday revealed that about 85 per cent of the estimated 2.5 million eligible businesses had not registered for the GST.So over a period of a few months, the official estimate of the number of businesses that would be required to register for the GST has gone up from 1.4 million to 2.5 million. That is another 1.1 million businesses. So we are in this mad scramble to get GST registrations, under threat from the Treasurer that if you have not registered by 1 July and you have not applied by 31 May then you are operating in the black economy and will be hit with a withholding tax of 48.5 per cent. So much for estimates for the compliance burden of the GST of $130. It is quite clear that there will be an incredible burden on small business, and an even greater burden on those small businesses who have to join the massive queues to apply for GST registration with the tax office. There will be a massive burden for those if they do not get registered by 1 July because they will be considered to be tax cheats and will be hit by a 48½ per cent withholding tax.This is supposed to be a streamlined new tax system for a new century. Nothing could be further from the truth. I will refer to some examples of the complexity of this legislation. In a major speech before this legislation was introduced, the tax commissioner said to the National Convention of the Taxation Institute of Australia on 24 March last year in Tasmania:Non-compliance is inevitable. In the UK, fish and chip shops selling both fresh and cooked fish typically report that 30% of their sales are cooked fish (taxable) and 70% are fresh (tax-free). Anecdotal reports indicate the reverse is closer to the truth. 70% cooked and taxable and 30% fresh and tax-free.He went on to say:I also imagine that fish and chip shop owners don't particularly like the VATman standing in the business all day to observe the true picture—but that is the only viable type of compliance check where distinctions on food are made. The reality is, of course, that ensuring practical compliance by businesses in these circumstances is impossible.The primary industries legislation to which we are speaking deals with producers of goat fibre. Producers of goat fibre are also likely to be producers of goat milk. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the complexity of the arrangements for the application of the GST to goat's milk and cow's milk. At present, milk has no wholesale sales tax. I think that is a fairly simple tax treatment. But, in moving from this tax treatment to the GST, some milk will have the GST imposed and some will not. It all depends on whether it is processed or unprocessed, plain or flavoured or from a cow or a goat. Unprocessed cow's milk sold by a farmer is subject to the GST but, for reasons best known to themselves, the government have decreed that unprocessed goat's milk is GST free. So unprocessed cow's milk attracts the GST and unprocessed goat's milk is GST free—and this is the simplified, streamlined new tax system for a new century! Processed cow's milk is GST free except if it is flavoured; in which case it attracts the GST. If the milk is used to make cream, the cream will be GST free. But, if the milk is used to make ice-cream, the ice-cream will be subject to the GST. And I have no idea what the GST treatment would be if goat's milk is used to make cheese.The A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 is the major piece of legislation to which this is a consequential amendment bill. At section 38-4 the act defines food. It says, `What is the meaning of food?'—a little bit like `What is the meaning of life?' It says:(1) Food means any of these, or any combination of any of these: (a) food for human consumption (whether or not requiring processing or treatment); (b) ingredients for food for human consumption; (c) *beverages...`Beverages' relates to beverages for human consumption. And then it goes on with other definitions. So, if beverages are purchased, including milk, for human consumption, under the legislation they are GST free. But, if that milk is not purchased for human consumption but is in fact purchased for my cat, then presumably the GST applies, because milk must be purchased with the intention of being for human consumption.If I go into a supermarket and buy some milk for my cat and the VATman is standing there—just as the taxation commissioner warned that the VATman will be in the fish and shop, he will be in the supermarket too—and he stops me in the aisle after I have grabbed my litre of milk and he asks, `What is your intention when purchasing this milk, Mr Emerson?'—K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Where is the milk?83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—The milk is just here, but I will not drink the milk because I have been asked not to—and this particular milk is designed for the cat. If I say to the VATman that I have purchased the milk for my own use but, in fact, I have purchased the milk to give to my cat, then I have committed an act of tax avoidance. Therefore I would be subject to section 165.55 of the GST legislation which states:For the purposes of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may: (a) treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and (b) treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as: (i) having happened at a particular time; and (ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity; If my cat drinks this milk I am a tax avoider and the VATman will get me. (Time expired)11:51:0014726St Clair, Stuart, MPMr ST CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—What an enlightening discussion that was from the member for Rankin. Maybe in his suburb of Brisbane he could put a cow in his backyard and use the milk from that. I rise to support the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies (GST Consequential Amendments) Bill 2000. Primary producers will be the winners under the indirect tax and associated reforms of the A New Tax System package. The tax system package will support stronger sustainable growth, higher productivity, more jobs and rising living standards. The reforms will achieve a tax system that is fairer, more internationally competitive, more effective and less complex. This is the type of reform that the Labor opposition is against and we have certainly had a wide ranging debate on this particular bill. The main elements of the new tax system package include the removal of the wholesale sales tax and the introduction of a 10 per cent GST that will reduce business costs for rural industries—and, having been a member of rural industries and having been living in a rural area, I understand that. This is because the wholesale sales tax is embedded in the prices of inputs used for farmers. Furthermore, combining the effect of the GST-free treatment for exports and the reduction in business input costs will improve the international competitiveness and profitability of rural industries as about 80 per cent of primary production is exported.The bill before the House is to amend the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999. If enacted, the bill will exclude the goods and services tax from the base for calculating the deer velvet and goat fibre levies. This bill is to prevent the unintentional increase of the two primary industry levies arising from the introduction of the GST and to clarify the meanings of the terms `price' and `amount paid' in the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999. Following the introduction of the GST, some primary industry levies that are calculated on the basis of `price' or `amount paid' would rise because the base for the calculations of the levies would include GST. The deer velvet levy and the goat fibre levy require amendment to ensure that the amount of levy does not unintentionally increase as the base increases.The following hypothetical situation demonstrates the rationale behind these important amendments. A deer producer sells $5,000 worth of deer velvet. Currently the five per cent levy on that sale would total $250. After 1 July this year the producer sells the same amount of deer velvet for $5,500, assuming of course that there is no adjustment to the cost base and profit margin, and remits $500 in GST to the Australian Taxation Office. If the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 were not changed, the levy on the sale would be $275, as it would be calculated at the rate of five per cent on the $5,500. The same principle will be extended to 12 other levies through amendments to the appropriate regulations. These amendments have a precedent in the A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Act (No. 2) 1999, which amended the Wool Tax Administration Act 1964. The wool tax is also calculated as a percentage of the sale price of wool and the amendments passed by parliament have excluded the GST from the base for calculating this tax. The bill provides a similar intent for the deer velvet and goat fibre levies. It is important to look at the other benefits of the new tax system for farmers. While we are on that subject, I note the fact that the Labor Party voted against a reduction in the excise on diesel of 23c a litre for road transport. It also voted against a reduction of 36c a litre in the excise on diesel used in rail transport. That also reminds me of the fact that, in the lead-up to the 1993 election, the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, said, `What I am promising is not to put up tax.' I would like to give honourable members of the House an example of what happened between 1993 and 1996. Petrol excise increased three times—300 per cent. Fringe benefits tax increased three times.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—Is that 300 per cent for petrol? Are you sure that is 300 per cent?84BSt Clair, Stuart, MPMr ST CLAIR—The Medicare levy—for the member for Paterson because I am sure he is vitally interested—went from 1.4 per cent to 1.5 per cent. Company tax increased from 33 per cent to 36 per cent, as I am sure the shadow minister for small business, who is sitting at the table, would be more than aware. Sales tax, that iniquitous tax that the Labor Party had in, on passenger cars increased from 16 per cent to 21 per cent.NV5Forrest, John, MPMr Forrest—What?84BSt Clair, Stuart, MPMr ST CLAIR—From 16 per cent—for the member for Mallee—to 21 per cent. Departure tax—and we must remember that it was Paul Keating who said in 1993 there would be no increase in tax—increased from $20 to $25 and sales tax on wine and cider increased in three stages. The Anderson-Howard government's new tax system will reduce the cost to farmers by nearly a billion dollars a year. This means that farmers will have an extra billion dollars a year to spend in regional and rural Australia. This government has delivered to the people of Australia $12 billion in personal income tax cuts. Let me give you an example of what that really means to the average working people. Take a single income family with two children—a daughter aged seven and a son aged three—where the father works full time and has an income of $40,000 a year. In addition to his tax cuts of $27.27 a week, the family is better off by a further $20.30 a week through increased family package benefits. This means a total benefit to that family of $47.57 per week.Let me give you another example, because I know the member for Paterson would really like to hear this one. This is an example of a two-income family with three children—one aged two, one aged six and the other 11. Both parents work full time and have a combined annual income of $50,000 a year. In addition to tax cuts of $27.18 per week, the family also gains a further $8.06 a week through increased family package benefits, and that makes a total of $35.24 a week. It is substantial.More than 80 per cent of all Australians earn less than $50,000 a year. Depending on their income, their tax rate could be up to 43 cents in the dollar under the current tax system. Under the new tax system, these taxpayers will pay no more than 30 cents in the dollar. It was 43 cents—it will be down to 30 cents in the dollar. These workers will be able to earn more income without paying higher taxes; therefore, effort will be rewarded. Primary producers also benefit from these personal income tax cuts. Seventy per cent of primary producers are currently taxed at the marginal rate of 20 per cent. They will benefit from the increase in the tax-free threshold from $5,400 to $6,000 and a reduction in the marginal tax rate to 17 per cent. Rural families will benefit from the abolition of the assets test on family allowance. Youth allowance will be extended to cover dependent students of up to 25 years of age, and rate of assistance for those aged 18 years and over will be increased to $50 per fortnight. Pensioners will also receive an increase in their allowances and benefits. Their allowances and their benefits will increase by four per cent on 1 July 2000—a two per cent real increase. This increase will be paid on top of the existing requirement to maintain pensions at no less than 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings and will be indexed to maintain its real value.However, the biggest benefit to farmers that could come from the new tax system is to reduce the burden on the transport industry. Remember, the Labor Party voted against the truckies receiving a 23c a litre reduction in excise on diesel. Every 1c a litre reduction in the excise saves the industry about $115 million in this nation. Without doubt, this will lead to huge savings for farmers.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—Tell us what is happening with petrol prices.84BSt Clair, Stuart, MPMr ST CLAIR—It is interesting that the member for Hunter interjects, thinking of all the trucks that operate in his electorate, that go in and out towards the city. The member for Hunter, together with his Labor Party colleagues, voted against the reduction of 23c a litre in the excise on diesel. The decrease in costs for farmers is certainly going to be welcomed in my area of New England, particularly by those who move the stock and the products for the farms. These cuts to costs apply to both the on-road users and the rail industry. For on-road users, the diesel grants will reduce the cost of transport for all vehicles over 4½ tonnes in gross vehicle mass that operate within or service regional Australia. What a pity it was not over 1 tonne! The Labor Party could have supported that and we would have seen a 23c a litre reduction in the excise for diesel for all the one-tonne and above utes that operate in regional and rural areas. The diesel fuel grants, together with the GST input tax credits, will reduce the cost of diesel by around that 23c—it may even be a touch more.The excise for rail will fall, as I mentioned, from 36c a litre to zero after the full rebate of excise. Keep in mind that the Labor Party voted against the reduction of 36c per litre in the excise for rail. We have been able to achieve the result of falling transport costs for bulk commodities such as wheat, cotton, livestock and fertilisers. The NFF has estimated that the grains industry alone will save around $30 million annually as a result of the reduction in rail costs.I would like to reflect again on what the Labor Party has done to taxes in this country. The period from 1983 to 1996 is an extraordinary period, especially when viewed in the middle of these sorts of debates, at a time when this government is reducing personal income tax, increasing pensions and reducing the cost of fuel. The federal Labor Party between 1983 and 1996 increased the total tax revenue for this nation from $41 billion to over $119 billion. It increased its spending—the Labor Party is renowned for increasing its spending—from $49 billion to $124 billion. The member for Paterson will be vitally interested to know that it increased the fuel excise tax revenue—this is a good one—by 655 per cent. And what we have done is to reduce the excise on diesel by 23c a litre.It actually cut road funding by 46 per cent in real terms. It increased sales tax revenue by 306 per cent. It allowed rural debt—this is a good one, Madam Deputy Speaker, particularly for us in the country—to increase from $7 billion to $17 billion. It failed to get youth unemployment below 20 per cent since August 1990. It allowed 10,000 farmers to quit their land. It allowed an average inflation rate of 5.2 per cent. I was interested to hear the member for Rankin talking about milk and his passion for milk and its availability. Did you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Labor Party introduced sales tax on food products? It actually introduced sales tax on food products, including flavoured milk, chocolate and health food bars. Most importantly, the Labor Party government introduced a sales tax on fruit juices. It is amazing. I get back to the bill because I know everyone is vitally interested, although it is well and truly a broad-ranging discussion that is being held today. This bill is important, as it will prevent an unnecessary increase for deer velvet and goat fibre producers. This bill is of technical nature designed to correct an unintended consequence of the definitions listed in A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act. It is very important. The bill is of a technical nature and is designed to correct an unintended consequence of the definitions of the act applying to other Commonwealth acts. These producers will also receive the full benefits of the new tax system package which I have spoken about.I do not want to hold the debate up. In closing, I just want to mention a couple of other things that I think it is important to know. In 1989 home loan interest rates were 17 per cent. Who was in government at the time? The Labor Party was in government in 1989, and they allowed interest rates for houses to go to 17 per cent.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—It was isolated to Australia, was it?84BSt Clair, Stuart, MPMr ST CLAIR—But what is more important, particularly for the member for Hunter, because he is the shadow minister for small business, was the interest rate on small bus-iness loans in 1989. What were small bus-iness loans at in 1989? They were up to 25 per cent. The good thing about being part of the government is seeing these sorts of things de-livered. It is great, because we are actually de-l-ivering. I want to remind the House, and those who listen to these broadcasts or read these matters in Hansard, that before the 1993 election Labor promised those l-a-w law tax cuts. Remember the ones: the l-a-w law tax cuts, with Paul Keating saying they were enshrined in law. They were never delivered. The one thing about this government is that it delivers. It delivers income tax cuts, it delivers a reduction in excise on fuel and it increases pensions by four per cent. What we are doing is to provide a system that rewards effort. I commend the bill to the House.12:11:0014729Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I think this debate on the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies (GST Consequential Amend-ments) Bill 2000 has been described as wide ranging, and there is no doubt it is. I just had a look through the ministerial list to see who is the minister for propaganda. I cannot see one there, but he is obviously active behind the scenes, because that speech came directly from his department. Let me just say that today is not about goat fibre and deer velvet. Today is about an unintended consequence by the Treasurer, and the whole of the resources of this parliament have to be devoted to debating the issue. It is an unintended consequence of the GST legislation that goes to talking about deer velvet and goat fibre, but did I hear the member for New England really talk about those industries? Not one jot. Did he talk about the other 12 areas of primary industry that are going to be affected by this legislation and that now can be simply amended? No, he did not talk about that. He got straight on to the old issues that those opposite like to get out there and brainwash the people on. How many times have we heard the Treasurer come into this House and describe the new tax system as a simple tax system? How many times has he described it as a single tax to replace a number of taxes? And how many times has he told the people of Australia that there will not be a tax on a tax? What we are debating today is really a tax on a tax. It is a tax on a levy, and it was merely an unintended consequence by the Treasurer, but we have to debate it and pass legislation so that there will not be a tax on the levy, which is really a tax.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—He should do the same on petrol. UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—Exactly. He should do the same on a number of things. We have been reminded many times by the Treasurer that Australia is not Botswana or Swaziland. This is Australia on the brink of a new millennium, and we are debating this issue because our consummately confident Treasurer got it wrong again. It was an unintended consequence. And we are advised that another 12 primary industry levies could similarly increase as a result of the GST. However, as a result of this legislation, which we will support, they can now be altered by regulation and they will not need legislation. But today is not about deer velvet and it is not about goat fibre; it is about a government that has raced headlong into tax reform without doing its homework. This tax, which we were promised would be simple, is turning out to be a nightmare in rural Australia. Only today we have seen reported in the newspapers that 40,000 business people in Australia have been refused an Australian business number. I wonder whether the minister at the table, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, could tell me how many of those small businesses would be in the primary industry sector. I dare say many of them will be. He knows that many of them will be and that many primary producers out there will not go past the $50,000 threshold. He knows that they will not get an ABN, that they will not be able to claim back their GST inputs and that they will be paying tax at the 48.3 per cent marginal rate. He knows that as well as I do. The minister also knows that, come 1 July, there will be a new form of chaos in every saleyard around this country.I attend sales regularly. I like to think that some of my cattle do pretty well. I pride myself on the quality of my cattle. People on the other side think it is strange that someone in the Labor Party might also be a farmer, but I am very proud of that. I can read and I can count and, as a result of that, I talk to many primary producers. I tell you what: wait until 1 July. Go to the very first cattle or sheep sale in your area after 1 July and watch how many people are sitting on their hands, not daring to send cattle or sheep for sale. They will not do it because they know that different sorts of producers are going to be treated differentially. They may have the exact same product. They can send along a pen of heifers, but because they do not have an ABN, because they have not reached the $50,000 threshold, there will be no GST on their cattle. On the other hand, a large producer might have a pen of virtually identical cattle right next door, but because they will be attracting a GST, when they go under the hammer, how are they going to be treated? Small producers' cattle, no GST; large producers', GST.The minister will say, `Okay, the purchaser can apply to get the GST back through GST inputs.' I know a few buyers who would have an account in excess of $1 million a month. One million dollars a month at 10 per cent GST is $100,000. At current market rates, that is a lot of steers, that is a lot of money tied up, a lot of money being held on behalf of the government, money which is not producing a cent for the dealer. Let us talk about how this money is going to be collected. Stock and station agents are very generous people. I have a good relationship with a few of them. They are going to have to collect that money free, gratis, for nothing. Firstly, they are going to have to determine which cattle are eligible to charge the GST on and it will have to be added on. Then it will have to be collected from the purchaser and passed on to the Australian Taxation Office. How much compensation do they get for that? Nothing. If they get it wrong, what will happen? I dare say there will be something hidden in the legislation that will tell us the penalty for that.We are not talking about an insignificant amount of money. At the regional sales in Maitland, particularly a Saturday sale where store cattle are sold, total sales could be in the order of a couple of million dollars. On a Monday at the fats it could be the same. So we are talking about $200,000 in GST—all the responsibility of the stock and station agents to pass on to the tax office for that fabulous payment of nothing. And you wonder why rural Australia is having a nightmare about the GST. It is all very well for the member for New England to come in here and talk about the reduction in diesel excise. The thing is we do not know whether it is going to be passed on. The minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in particular have been holding out reduced transportation costs to people in rural Australia. They know that already that has been blown out of the water because the price of crude oil has gone to $32 a barrel, the Australian dollar has dipped and people are now paying prices for fuel which they did not dream would be possible. The reduction of the excise is going to bring it down only to the price they were paying two or three years ago and you cannot guarantee that one cent in saving from a transport company will be passed on to the consumer. These are the issues that the government refuses to stand and debate—the real issues. We often hear from the Treasurer about Swaziland and Botswana. They do not have this system. I cannot imagine a stock and station agent in Swaziland or Botswana, but if I could go and make contact with a few of them and I described our proposed tax system to them, telling them how simple it was supposed to be and how it was one tax replacing a number of taxes, I bet they would say, `Please, whatever you do, don't bring it here. Don't let us have that system. Please don't. We don't pay tax on our cattle sales now.' Essentially, as I said, this debate is about deer velvet and goat fibre. Maybe the minister, when he is summing up, can tell us which components of the beast after slaughter will attract GST and which will not. I believe the hide is GST liable, the hooves and the offal are GST liable, but the carcass is not. If the carcass is boned out, then the bones are GST liable, and so it moves on. A simple tax! I think not.If we go over to the fruit industry, what do we find? We find that good, wholesome fruit is GST free. But once it starts to spoil? Go to any of your local produce markets and see what the agents do with the spoiled fruit. They sell it off to other sorts of producers to turn into pig food and so on. Guess what? As soon as it gets a spot on it or starts to go rotten, it is GST liable. While it is in perfect condition, there is no GST, but once it starts to off and is no longer there for human consumption it is GST liable.GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss—Rubbish!UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—Yes, rubbish is GST liable too. If you can make money out of rubbish by converting it into something else, you will pay GST on rubbish too. We have heard this described as a nightmare on main street. The minister at the table, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, knows that out in rural Australia this is a nightmare in the long paddock, it is a nightmare in the saleyards, it is a nightmare in the shearing sheds—it is a nightmare in every facet of rural life. And every time our Treasurer introduces a piece of legislation such as this `unintended consequence', another ghost appears in that nightmare. How many more before 1 July? How many other unintended consequences will the Treasurer come in here with and use all the resources of this House to change the legislation that he continues to describe as a simplified tax system—a simplified tax system that is going to drive more people out of the rural industry than any single issue since the Second World War? The minister knows that. He presided over the dairy legislation last week that alone is going to see 600 dairy farmers in my state of New South Wales disappear. It is probably going to see the dairy industry in my immediate area simply vanish. Even if people want to stay in it, the local government and the state planning laws will not allow them to enlarge their farm so that they can be big enough to be competitive. What has the minister done about replacing that? Nothing. He has done nothing about replacing that industry and replacing those workers and replacing those people and ensuring that the country towns that are dotted around coastal New South Wales continue to flourish. He knows that with the passing of that industry goes the passing of services—the banks, the small shops and the postal services that will no longer be viable. He knows that that industry was vital to many areas and that the $1.7 billion he put on the table before the debate about deregulation really started was only a bribe to make them go. I previously spoke about the reduction in diesel excise. This is the sort of thing that the minister and the Deputy Prime Minister keep coming into this house and batting us over the head with. I put it to you, Minister, that last year an abattoir at Aberdeen closed, essentially because Australian Meat Holdings, which is a wholly American owned company—GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss—Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a bill about deer velvet and goats. How can these comments by the honourable member for Paterson be relevant to the subject under discussion? He has ranged on to the dairy industry, and now he has got on to abattoirs and diesel tax. I do not think that has anything to do with the matters before the House.10000Kelly, De-Anne (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—Other Speakers have allowed a wide-ranging debate on both sides of the House. The point of order is overruled.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Minister, if you have a look at what we are debating—the second reading amendment—the second reading amendment says:whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House expresses its concern at the adverse impact the GST will have on the small business and farm sectors, particularly the compliance burden.With respect to the abattoir that closed, that does not mean the beef producers of the Hunter Valley have stopped producing beef. It does mean, however, that there is an added burden because producers that formerly sent their stock directly to the Aberdeen abattoir are now paying around $80 a head to send them to Dinmore. That is a burden they did not previously have.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—That's in Queensland, isn't it?UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—That is in Queensland; it is up in Ipswich. It is a burden they did not previously have. I do not care how much you reduce the diesel excise, they will still be behind the eight ball and there will still be a negative effect on those producers caused by the legislation passed by this government. You can come in here and champion rural Australia all you like. I live in rural Australia; I know that Madam Deputy Speaker lives in rural Australia. I know of the concern in rural Australia over this legislation, over the GST, over fuel prices, over the lack of Telstra services, over the lack of health services, over the lack of education services and over the cuts that have been made over four years by this government. This farcical piece of legislation does nothing to assist that. I contacted the Parliamentary Library today and I asked them if they could tell me the increase in GDP in Botswana and Swaziland last year.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr Kemp—The member for Botswana!UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—You keep knocking Botswana. I hope that we get a delegation one day from Swaziland. I bet the Treasurer will not want to meet them. But it is interesting to note that the GDP in Botswana increased last year by 6.9 per cent. It is also interesting to note that GDP in Swaziland increased by about the same as Australia's, that is, 3.7 per cent. Let the Treasurer keep getting up and batting us over the head with the fact that Swaziland and Botswana continue to have a wholesale sales tax. By the way, it was a wholesale sales tax exactly like the one the minister at the table put on milk last week—the 11c a litre that was not a consumption tax. It was a wholesale sales tax. It was put on there to provide this federal government with the amount of money that it needs to buy out the dairy farmers for the compensation package. It was a wholesale sales tax. So we have the Treasurer saying that we have a single tax to replace all taxes. We have this special piece of legislation today because he made an error. He is not in here debating it. He gets his underlings to come in here and debate it. It does not matter how much the minister postulates. He knows how badly this tax is being received in rural Australia. 10000Kelly, De-Anne (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Corio has moved as an amendment that all words after `that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 12:31:0014733Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that history of this debate. It may draw the attention of the House to the fact that this bill, the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies (GST Consequential Amendments) Bill 2000, is actually about deer velvet and goat fibre levies. Debate has certainly ranged over a wide range of subjects. The honourable member for Paterson, who has quickly scurried from the table, rather than hear the facts in response to his tirade of abuse, is desperately attempting to scaremonger about the new tax system—a new tax system which he knows will deliver $1 billion of savings to farmers and therefore provide significant benefits to his own constituents as well as to other people in rural and regional Australia. He raised a number of specific issues which have nothing whatever to do with this bill, but to which I feel I must respond. His suggestion that somehow or other this government was bribing the states into dairy deregulation is clearly a nonsense. The dairy deregulation is legislation being introduced by the various states, including his own state Labor government in New South Wales. It is Richard Amery who will be introducing the legislation to deregulate dairying in that state, not the federal government. It will be the other Labor state agriculture ministers around Australia who will be introducing the legislation to deregulate. The federal government has responded to the self-evident fact that deregulation will significantly reduce dairy incomes and will create considerable pain and hardship, for both dairy farmers and their communities. So the levy has been introduced to help fund some assistance to enable dairy farmers and their industry to adjust to the different circumstances. He also made some comments and endeavoured to suggest that there was going to be great confusion in saleyards on 1 July when the GST is introduced. Farm organisations, auctioneers and buyers have been working very cooperatively on putting in place what will, I think, develop into a common system which will apply to cattle auctions around Australia. The legislation enables auctions to occur either GST inclusively or exclusively. But there seems to be a unanimity within the cattle industry that auctions should occur GST exclusive, with the GST being added after the knock-down. So there will be no confusion about whether one or two of the vendors happen to not have an ABN number or the like. The auction will occur in exactly the same way and all cattle will be treated equally in the saleyards. In relation to an alleged cost burden for auctioneers and agents, in administering the tax system there will be some costs associated with administering the new GST but they will be significantly offset by savings and getting rid of other taxes. In addition, the honourable member referred to a cash flow of $200,000 that he said would have to be remitted by a particular agent. That agent has the benefit of using that $200,000 while he waits for the day when it must be remitted to the government. So there will be significant cash flow advantages to auctioneers and agents. They get to keep the interest that is earned on that money. So the benefits to agents and auctioneers will be significant through the cash flow effects of the GST. Of course, auctioneers and agents trading profitably get the benefit of the income tax cuts and the other benefits that the new tax system provides. So those extraneous issues, which were raised in the debate as a smokescreen to cover the opposition's complete lack of effective response to the need for tax reform in Australia, are empty issues. The opposition have used a comparatively insignificant piece of legislation as a forum to rerun all of their tired old arguments about the GST and to defend the economies of Botswana and Swaziland rather than address the real issues of the need for tax reform in this country. This bill before the House is not a GST bill but a bill about amending the base on which levy payments for two primary industry excise levies are calculated. It is necessary to ensure that the GST does not result in higher levies being paid than was originally intended. It is not a mistake or an accident or anything else, as has been suggested by opposition speakers on the bill. It is a fact that these levies are in place and the way to calculate them needs to be adjusted in accordance with the new tax system arrangements. It is important for deer velvet and goat fibre producers. Whilst this bill will directly affect those two levies, a further 12 primary industry excise levies and national residue survey levies will be amended under the same principle that is being legislated in this bill through changes to the regulations. These levies are not included in the bill, as the relevant schedules in the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 and the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998 used the term `value', which is defined in the GST act as an amount exclusive of GST. However, with the regulations for these levies defining value as sale price, each individual regulation will be amended to indicate that the sale price is net of any GST. Amendments to the wool tax, passed by parliament under the A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill (No. 2) 1999, provided a precedent for this bill. The wool tax is also calculated as a percentage of the sale price and the amendments passed by parliament last year excluded the GST from calculating this tax. This bill achieves a similar outcome for the deer velvet and goat fibre levies. The bill will assist the deer velvet and goat fibre industries by maintaining their levies at the same level after 1 July 2000 as would have occurred prior to that date. Whilst the opposition has moved an amendment not closely related to this legislation, which we will obviously oppose, I welcome its support for the substance of the legislation and commend the bill to all members of the House.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.14734Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Truss) read a third time.Bills14734R100014734Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Dr Wooldridge:That the bill be now read a second time.12:40:0014734Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The Health Legislation Amendment (Gap Cover Schemes) Bill 2000 amends the National Health Act 1953 to allow a new type of arrangement between health insurers and doctors which is intended to eliminate, or at least make known, gap costs for privately insured patients. These schemes are to be known as `gap cover schemes' and will require the approval of the minister. Under current arrangements, the Medicare rebate covers 75 per cent of the schedule fee for private in-hospital medical expenses while private health insurance covers the remaining 25 per cent. Where doctors charge more than the schedule fee, the gap is the difference between the fee and the sum of the Medicare benefit and the health insurance benefit. Current legislation allows health funds to cover the gap by paying more than the 25 per cent ceiling where a purchaser-provider agreement exists with the medical provider or hospital concerned.This bill has been actively sought by the Australian Medical Association as their preferred option for expanding the availability of `known gap' health insurance policies. The impetus for the bill came from the amendment moved by Senator Harradine to the private health insurance rebate legislation. All health funds are required to offer at least one no-gap or known-gap scheme by 1 July 2000 if they are to retain eligibility for the 30 per cent rebate direct payment option. The major funds have already developed no-gap products under the existing legislation to meet this requirement. These products have had reasonable success in the market and are attracting a growing number of doctors. However, the AMA have the perception that the existing arrangements infringe on the doctor-patient relationship and has opposed the expansion of the existing gap cover schemes. The opposition has consistently said that its view is that gap charges remain a major disincentive for people to take out private health insurance. Gap charges are an unacceptable burden to many people coming on top of their health insurance premiums and negating the benefit of having insurance in the first place. The opposition supports measures that will widen the availability of gap-free policies, but this must not come at the expense of starting a new round of medical fee inflation. The opposition's concerns about this bill are as follows: the proposals may inhibit the no-gap schemes already in existence; the new schemes may allow a rise in medical fees which will flow through to higher health insurance premiums; rising medical fees in the private sector will put pressure on public hospitals to give large pay rises to retain specialists, feeding an upward spiral in health costs across the board; the increased costs paid for by the funds will not be offset by reductions in the gap payments paid by consumers, resulting in a higher overall cost to patients; the proposed form of `informed financial consent' may not be effective in ensuring all patients are aware in advance of any gap charges the doctor proposes to make; the lack of definition of important terms in the legislation means that different organisations have very different interpretations about how they see the legislation working; the principal criteria of the scheme are contained in regulations which have only recently been provided to major players—just last Thursday—and they were unable to provide opinions on the regulations to the opposition.As I have said over the last 12 months, substantial progress has been made by the major funds, including AXA, Medibank Private and MBF, with no-gap schemes operating under the existing legislation. It is still early days and the impact of these schemes, which now account for about 16 per cent of all private medical cover in hospital claims, has yet to be properly studied. I am concerned that many of these deals are being done at significantly higher prices and the effect is being masked by the flush of money into health funds from the 30 per cent rebate. At present, the great bulk of purchaser-provider arrangements are for no-gap products. However, the new arrangements appear likely to favour known-gap arrangements over no-gap schemes because they make it much easier for the provider to add a fee above the amount paid as a benefit by Medicare and the private health fund. Rather than reduce the problem of gap payments, this could make them more entrenched and perhaps make them more widespread than they are currently.The most important concern is that the new schemes do not allow for a new round of inflation in doctors' fees that pushes up both the gap paid by patients and the health insurance premiums. If a minority of doctors are able to extract high returns from the funds and increase their personal incomes, this will flow through and put enormous pressure not just on private health insurance premiums but also on the public system. If the government allows the insurance arrangements to be inflationary, that will destabilise not only the health insurance funds but also the public hospitals. There need to be fair and consistent remuneration policies across the health sector to ensure doctors are appropriately rewarded for their skills and lengthy training. But if these policies allow some incomes to escalate far in excess of the rest then we will have serious problems with delivering health services. To understand how this might impact on patients, it is worth putting on the record some facts about the current gap payments met by private health insurance funds. In the December 1999 quarter figures produced by the Private Health Insurance Administration Council, there were some 2.75 million claims made for medical benefits for in-hospital treatment. The average fee was $91.35 and the funds spent just over $63 million paying out the 25 per cent of the schedule fee not met by Medicare. About 16 per cent of these claims were made under a purchaser-provider agreement which allowed the funds to pay out the gap charge, and that averaged a further $13 a claim. Thus the funds were able to pay the full bill by negotiating seriously with providers to eliminate the gap charged to the patient. Under this bill, this cap on payments may be removed. If all payments increase by the same proportion as the existing purchaser-provider agreements, then the payouts by the funds would increase by around $37 million. The extent of the increases in premiums that this would force is unknown, but indications from the industry are that there are already some upward pressures on prices. An even greater danger is that the average above schedule fee payout under the new arrangements might be much larger than what has been seen so far. Part of the AMA's opposition to the existing gap products is that the funds have tried to keep rebates down to around 20 per cent above the schedule fee while the AMA has been pushing for its own schedule of prices to be used, which are much higher. There are no limits stipulated in this bill and the proposed regulations simply provide that the criteria include that `the scheme does not have an inflationary effect'. There is no definition of how the inflationary impact is to be measured. There is no sanction provided should the scheme result in higher fees, and no definition of the starting point against which inflation will be measured. The regulations do provide that the minister can revoke a scheme, but there is no linkage between annual reporting on the performance of the scheme and compliance with the criteria for continued approval.The third problem is that there is no benefit for the patient if they pay higher premiums to support larger benefits paid out by the fund if that does not result in an offsetting reduction in the gap fees charged. If the doctor simply increases his or her total fee and continues to charge a similar sized known gap on top of the improved benefit from the fund, the patient is left worse off. This is exactly what happened in the recent experience with the obstetric gap payments. An increase in the Medicare rebate for complex births had no impact on reducing the gap payment. Obstetricians simply increased their fees by the same amount because of their view that the market could bear a large gap fee. Proof of this is available from the Health Insurance Commission. The average patient contribution per service paid by obstetric patients, as recorded in table B5 of their quarterly Medicare statistics, has climbed remorselessly. An agreed cornerstone of the new arrangements for known-gap schemes is that there should be informed financial consent—in other words, wherever practical, the patient should be informed in advance of the gap fee that they will incur in either dollar terms or as a percentage of the total fee. There is no definition of informed financial consent in the legislation and no obligation on doctors to provide patients with a proper statement of their expected bill. However, the doctors' representatives argue that they are firm believers in informed financial consent and agree that the logic is that it should apply to all patients and not just those dealing with their doctors under gap cover schemes. There is nothing new about professionals having rules to ensure that they properly inform their clients about the fees they might be expected to incur. Such requirements already apply to lawyers under existing New South Wales legislation. A magistrate's decision in South Australia set a precedent by determining that an above schedule fee was not enforceable if the patient had not been informed in advance. The magistrate accepted that a debt was unenforceable if the patient had a legitimate expectation that the amount to be charged was the schedule fee and that the doctor had taken no steps to advise the patient otherwise. Such a provision would need to be restricted to the reasonably foreseeable charges for normal treatment, as emergency situations would arise in a minority of cases and there would be the potential for a decision to be made to operate while the patient was not in a fit condition to consider the financial aspects of his or her treatment. There is also the complication that a patient may receive bills from a number of providers—for example, a surgeon, a radiologist, an anaesthetist and so on—each of whom may have their own separate gap fees. The effort made by some funds to provide simplified billing has been a definite improvement for consumers who hate the practice of receiving multiple bills spread over time from various providers, but the regulations do not require simplified billing to be part of any scheme. They only say that it should be available where appropriate. In order to have informed financial consent, it is also necessary to have simplified advice of the expected fees in advance of an operation. Doctors will need to coordinate themselves as a team providing a service so that the lead doctor can provide advice about the total cost of the procedure by being able to advise of the additional costs charged by each of the other providers involved. If they are unable to coordinate in this way, then there will only be informed financial consent if each provider separately deals with the patient to convey their charges.I just want to comment on a couple of other particular issues that need to be addressed by the minister; firstly, in relation to trade practices implications. I was alarmed to discover that the explanatory memorandum for this bill is in breach of the Trade Practices Act. The explanatory memorandum is meant to be an accurate explanation to parliament of the operation of a bill. In this case, it suggests that gap cover schemes might be negotiated on an industry-wide basis or with reference to a particular hospital, groups of hospitals or to particular craft groups. This is obviously anticompetitive, and the minister should have realised that. This matter was raised with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which advised that the statement was wrong. Competing doctors will not be allowed to negotiate as a group, as this would reduce competitive pressures in the industry. Section 73BDD states that the minister's approval of a scheme does not limit the application of the Trade Practices Act. But the government has already given doctors the impression that joint negotiating will be possible. The opposition will support the expansion of the range of no gap products, but only if it is convinced that the new schemes will comply with the trade practices law and—and this is the most important thing—will help to hold down costs to consumers.The issue of reform of the reinsurance pool was highlighted in last year's debate about Lifetime Health Cover and is a critical one for the industry. Under current arrangements, there are disincentives for funds to become more efficient. Some funds are literally paid to be inefficient by the payments they receive to equalise risk under the reinsurance arrangements. The minister promised to complete this reform by the July commencement of Lifetime Health Cover. He has apparently quietly shelved this, and I understand that there will now be no changes. I call on him today to explain his actions and to indicate when he will complete consideration of this reform.Another area I want to touch on is the serious flow-on costs to the government because of the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate if it fails to control inflation of premiums as a result of these gap products. Every time the funds agree to cover costs of the schedule fee, the government will be picking up 30 per cent of the costs without any ability to put a brake on the upward spiral. The government, and this is truly ridiculous, will then be subsidising funds to pay some doctors higher fees than the government has said is appropriate. Already we have witnessed the amazing $500 million blow-out in costs compared with the estimates made just one year ago. The health insurance sector will be receiving $2,200 million a year in government support by the year 2002. This represents a huge ongoing expenditure for a marginal change in the level of membership. The proportion of people with health insurance is lower today than it was when the coalition came to power in 1996. To understand the extent to which the health insurance industry has been subsidised, it is instructive to compare the support given to other industries. The total of current tax concessions and direct assistance provided to the entire primary industries sector is only $685 million a year. The entire manufacturing sector gets $1,471 million, or about two-thirds of the cost of the health rebate. This bill also amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to allow the automatic assignment of a contributor's Medicare benefit to a registered organisation or other body to enable simplified billing and payment arrangements to be built into the gap cover scheme. I am concerned that this is another way in which bulk-billing could be undermined, coming on top of electronic transfer payments being introduced in general practice and elsewhere.What does all this mean for the poor patient? If what I have said so far seems complicated and just a variety of legal technicalities, wait a few minutes while I try to explain how it is going to pan out for the actual interchange between the doctor and the patient. Let us consider the case of a patient who sees his or her doctor to discuss an in-hospital private medical procedure that is needed. It would seem that, if this bill is passed in its current form, the doctor would have seven options for what he or she could say to the patient about costs. Firstly, the doctor might say, `I am a bulk-billing doctor.' This would mean no bill to either public or private patients, and I am pleased to say that over 81 per cent of medical services continue to be bulk-billed. Secondly, the doctor can say, `I charge the Medicare schedule fee.' This means that uninsured patients would pay 25 per cent of the schedule fee while a privately insured patient would get a full refund. Thirdly, the situation that uninsured patients dread to hear, the doctor can advise that they charge above the schedule fee. An uninsured patient has to pay the gap between the doctor's fee and 75 per cent of the schedule fee. As all of us have heard, this can run into hundreds of dollars, particularly for serious operations.The next category is the one that is causing a great deal of anxiety in the community and which has led to the pressure for introduction of this legislation. There is a significant group of doctors who charge above the schedule fee and who have chosen not to participate in one of the existing no gap schemes. Each insured patient having this discussion about what they might pay will need to advise their doctor of the type of health insurance product they have and hope that the doctor they are seeing has an agreement with their fund for no gaps. The next option is that the doctor advises that he or she is in a known gap scheme with the patient's health insurer and is able to give a quote for the known gap as a dollar amount. This will be relatively straightforward, and the patient will know what they are up for before the treatment commences. If they are dissatisfied with the amount they are told, they will be free to seek an alternative quote from another specialist. Lastly, we come to the case of a doctor in a known gap scheme with the patient's health insurer but who, for whatever reason, chooses to use the option of quoting his or her prices as a percentage. The bill and the regulations do not explain how this option will work, and the government might like to reconsider whether this option will create more grievances in the marketplace than it is worth.How the percentage is calculated might need to be spelt out much more clearly. Patients would need to get a clear statement of how a known gap expressed as a percentage translates into the actual gap costs they will have to pay in dollars. For example, if the total fee was 160 per cent of the schedule fee, the Medicare rebate would cover 75 per cent, the health insurance fund would cover the gap up to, say, 120 per cent—that is another 55 per cent of the schedule fee—and the known gap left for the patient to pay could be expressed as any one of three options: 40 per cent of the schedule fee, 25 per cent of the total fee or 66 per cent of the total gap payment. I imagine anybody listening would be completely in the dark as to what that would mean they would actually have to pay. Anyone who has been able to follow this explanation will understand the sheer confusion that all of these options are likely to create both for doctors and their patients. Anyone who manages to follow the intricacies of gap fee charging will be qualified then to go on to higher learning with the application of the GST in a chemist shop.The health insurance system is being burdened with an increasingly bureaucratic and alienating range of conditions that I am afraid will frustrate doctors and patients alike. The fact is that there will be a multitude of schemes run by different funds, with different arrangements for each doctor. And this is very important: individual doctors will not be bound to consistently use any particular method. They can give quotes to patients under any of the above options. Both the existing and the proposed gap schemes allow the doctor not to charge a patient on a gap-free basis, even if they are a member of a relevant fund's arrangement.It is important to point out that fortunately these options do not apply to out of hospital medical costs—that is, procedures in a doctor's rooms—where Medicare meets 85 per cent of the schedule fee and health insurance funds are unable to pay benefits. Here a patient is either bulk-billed or pays a gap fee covering the difference—and, as a result, gap fees have been kept down. This point may well be lost on typical health fund members who do not appreciate that the government has oversold what it is doing about gaps. Any effort to extend these arrangements to permit health insurance funds to insure out of hospital medical costs would be highly inflationary—and, for this reason, up until now, it has been illegal under the Medicare legislation. If the government is thinking of changing this basic principle of Medicare, it would be a breach of the commitment that the coalition to date has given, which has been to not dismantle Medicare.To summarise, it is my view that the government has so far failed to make out a case that the proposed additional option for gap insurance cover will achieve the goals that they set out without causing unacceptable inflation in health costs. If the legislation is not subject to careful scrutiny and the intent of the regulations clarified, then the schemes are doomed to fail. We are not opposed to working on the development of options in addition to those that already exist, firstly, as long as the new options are acceptable to all the players but, secondly and most importantly, those new options will need to be responsible, non-inflationary and clear to consumers in the way that they will work.The trade-off that the doctors have agreed to is that there must be new rules for informed financial consent so that patients will no longer be unclear about what costs they will incur through treatment as a private patient. The cost of choosing to go private should be known to consumers up-front and not come as a surprise to those patients who find out, in some circumstances at the moment, long after their treatment. The days of nasty surprises in the shape of unexpected additional bills, sometimes from doctors that the patient has never met, should be over.We do want to achieve a good outcome through the passage of workable legislation to broaden the range of gap-free products on the market. But the current draft does not assure this outcome and, therefore, the opposition will be seeking support in the Senate for the establishment of a legislation committee inquiry into this bill and the policy implications of the national health amendment regulations 2000. Issues the Senate committee should examine and report on would include: the practicality of the proposed gap cover schemes and the likely acceptance of these schemes by medical providers; the effectiveness of measures proposed to cover gaps without inflation of health insurance premiums or total costs to patients; the flow-on impact of increased costs on public hospitals; the best method to measure inflation, and the process for revocation of schemes which fail to meet this criteria; the definition of `informed financial consent' and `known gaps'; the form of disclosure of costs to patients and the enforceability of bills when there has been no disclosure; the impact of the schemes on existing medical purchaser-provider agreements; the effectiveness of the reporting and review mechanisms; and the need for any additional consumer safeguards. The opposition will develop amendments to be moved in the Senate to meet these concerns—particularly about how to make sure that this bill is not a green light to put up medical fees. 13:05:0014740May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—I rise today to support the Health Legislation Amendment (Gap Cover Schemes) Bill 2000. This important bill represents a significant further step in the Howard government's push to fix both the public and private sectors of Australia's health system.It is a matter of public record that this government inherited a health system that, after 13 years of neglect by the Labor government, was in crisis. Labor constantly talked about social visions, as it still does, but it repeatedly failed to deliver when in office. During Labor's 13 years in government, the private health system was almost irretrievably run down. In 1983, nearly 65 per cent of Australians were covered by private health insurance; by September 1995, that figure had plummeted to just 34.5 per cent and was falling by two per cent each year. That was a disastrous legacy—not just for our private health system, but because it put enormous pressure on the public health system.This was clearly reflected in the growing and unsustainable health budget under Labor. In 1996, the Medicare benefits schedule bill was $6.2 billion—more than the budget of Western Australia. What is worse is that it was expected to grow by a massive 40 per cent in the next four years. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme was $2.7 billion—larger than the budget of Tasmania, and it was expected to rise by over 50 per cent. How did Labor handle the situation? What was its solution? It turned to the standard Labor fall back of raising taxes, increasing the Medicare levy in the 1995 budget. But this extra tax achieved nothing for better quality care and hospital services for Australians because it was offset by the continuing free-fall of private health insurance and the pressure this placed on the public system.But what astounds many of us on this side of the House is that Labor do not seem to have learnt by their mistakes. They are always on the ready to try and play the class warfare card when it comes to the private health system; they are always ready to play it off against the public health system when, in fact, a stronger private health system will mean a much stronger public health system. But that does not sit with the philosophical position of Labor. They have adopted the least constructive, the most irresponsible and negative position of any opposition this country has ever seen. Their policy is to actually stand for nothing but to say and do anything if they think it means they can scare people into voting for them. Their duplicity is highlighted by the fact that the Leader of the Opposition claims that the government's 30 per cent private health insurance rebate is a gross failure and a waste of money. But what would Labor do if they were elected? They would keep it. The opposition leader has admitted this fact and, in doing so, he unravels his own ridiculous argument. The clear evidence is that the 30 per cent private rebate is working. Membership has increased since the rebate was introduced; it increased by 0.2 per cent in each of the March and June quarters in 1999, by 0.4 per cent in the September quarter and a further 0.3 per cent in the December quarter. While these are not enormous increases, we are finally heading in the right direction. The Howard government has succeeded in stemming the flow of people leaving private health funds. In fact, this is the first time that membership has increased in three consecutive quarters since quarterly membership records were kept. While Labor will characteristically belittle this achievement, it is the first step in reversing the trend they created and helping to ensure a stronger private health system.This legislation, as I said at the outset, is another important step. The measures in this bill will make private health insurance more appealing by providing the health insurance industry with another avenue to offer known and no gap health insurance policies to their customers. Importantly, these measures will allow for gap cover schemes to be provided without the need for contracts. It also safeguards consumer interests with all gap schemes requiring ministerial approval before they can become operative. The minister will also have the power to revoke schemes that are not delivering better outcomes to patients.This legislation also provides for simplified billing and payment arrangements for health fund members. Gap cover is the most obvious and commonsense way to make health cover more appealing for Australians. This legislation will provide even greater flexibility and allow for practitioners and providers to work together more cooperatively to develop schemes that will benefit their patients and customers. Clearly, gap cover schemes have been, and will continue to be, welcomed by all consumers. As the Minister for Health and Aged Care pointed out in his second reading speech on this bill, the number of people being covered by gap products has gone up by around 25 per cent since the December quarter of last year. I have no doubt that this figure will soar as Australians become more aware of these products. As more people join or rejoin the ranks of private insurance by virtue of both the 30 per cent rebate and the new Lifetime Health Cover rating, they will be expecting a great deal more of their health cover than perhaps they did in the past.I want to go back to the fundamental reason we have to ensure a thriving private health sector in this country; quite simply, it is to ensure the future of our public health system. Each year private health insurance contributes around $3 billion in hospital benefits and the private sector cares for roughly a third of all hospital patients. Because it has such a major role in funding Australia's hospitals, it stands to reason that any fall in the proportion of people covered by private health insurance has significant implications for the whole of the Australian health care system. And this really begs the question: how could Labor just stand by for 13 years and let the proportion of Australians covered by private insurance almost halve? Yet at the same time, it was pouring more and more money into a system that was actually delivering a poorer standard of care for all Australians.I think New South Wales Labor Premier Bob Carr hit the nail on the head when he said in February 1997, `As fast as we hurled money at the hospitals, there was a further abandonment of private health cover and a further rise in demand on the public health system.' Federal Labor will never admit the connection. They will never concede that a strong private health sector is crucial for a better public health system. The simple truth is that when people who can afford private health insurance take it out, they are also helping to provide a better standard of health care for people on very low incomes who perhaps may not be able to afford private health cover. The fact is that private health cover is more affordable for all Australians because of this government's policies: the 30 per cent rebate, the surcharge for high income earners and the Lifetime Health Cover rating. These all contribute to keeping premiums lower. While premiums have increased, it must be remembered that this is the flow-on effect of membership having been allowed to run down to such a low level under the previous government. In fact, during Labor's 13 years, the cost of private health cover increased by an average of 10 per cent each year. If we can increase private health fund membership and significantly address the issue of skewed age profile, as we are with the Lifetime Health Cover policy, we can reduce the pressure on premiums in the future.As I said earlier, this legislation is a further step in our ongoing effort to repair the damage to Australia's health care system under Labor and to deliver better health services to all Australians. The government remains totally committed to Medicare and bulkbilling. We have significantly increased funding to the states, particularly Queensland, under the new Australian health care agreements finalised in 1998. In fact, under the agreement Labor had in place, Queensland would have received $4.3 billion; under our agreement, Queens-land will receive $5.5 billion in the same time frame. We have also tackled several health issues, which Labor had relegated to the too-hard basket. The Immunise Australia Program has achieved remarkable results and helped protect our children from preventable illnesses by boosting immunisation levels in the community—which Labor let fall to Third World levels.The Howard government's Tough on Drugs strategy is a comprehensive approach to the drug problem with law enforcement, education and treatment and rehabilitation programs all receiving a boost. I know that every Australian parent worries to some extent about the incidence of drugs in the community. And many of my local parents have said to me that one of the most fundamental things that the government can do is to help reduce the risk of our kids falling victim to drugs. Tough on Drugs is a very genuine and significant initiative which has a great deal of community support.The coalition has also launched the largest and toughest anti-smoking campaign ever in Australia's history. I am pleased that recently we have also launched a tough new campaign which targets teenage binge drinking. With one in five young people saying that they drank more than 10 standard drinks the last time that they had alcohol, binge drinking is one of the most significant threats to the health of our young people.The Howard government has also funded more programs to tackle the problem of youth suicide and prevent this tragic loss of life. We have funded a number of special programs to improve health services for people living in rural areas and to encourage doctors back to the bush. And there is the huge `staying at home' boost which is an enormous boost to carers. The list of innovative, important and commonsense health programs that the coalition government has launched is long and comprehensive. It would take me all day to run through each and every program, but the point I want to make is that, as well as addressing the fundamentals of encouraging private health insurance and providing more funding for hospitals, the Howard government is taking a more dynamic approach to Australia's health system. We are tackling the hard issues that Labor ignored and let slide for so long. We are putting more focus on preventative medicine and en-courag-ing good health. We all understand that prevention is easier than cure, and the fact is that it makes good economic sense as well.Importantly, we are encouraging Australians who can do so to take more responsibility for their health care. Labor has always worked on the premise that the state should take responsibility for individuals. We believe that wherever possible people ought to be empowered to make their own decisions and to take responsibility for their own lives. Private health insurance encourages decision making, independence and a more proactive approach. In my view this is a healthy approach which re-engages the community in decision making and gives individuals a more constructive role. Governments should not be something that just `happens' to people. They should be working with communities and individuals to give them more say. Labor has always adopted the approach that they know what is best for Australia, but the legacy they left in the health system, in their economic mismanagement, in their empty social policy, clearly proved otherwise. This legislation is a great example of how the Howard government is allowing more flexibility and encouraging a health system that meets the needs and wishes of the Australian people, rather than dictating them. Gap health cover is a commonsense policy which Labor put in the `too hard' basket for so many years, just as they did with taxation policy. The coalition has had the guts to tackle the things Labor shied away from, and Australia will be all the better for it, especially in the long term. I am pleased to support this bill, and commend it to the House.13:18:0014743Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—I want to speak about the Health Legislation Amendment (Gap Cover Schemes) Bill 2000 because I think it is absolutely critical that we inject a sense of reality into some of this debate. I am not sure what data the previous speaker looked at in relation to some of these matters, but clearly it is not data that is on the public record because there has been lots of very careful investigation of these matters from a variety of points of view. This legislation is related to the earlier introduction of the rebate for private health insurance and in fact was a requirement as part of the legislation being passed through the Senate. Lots of promises were held out for that 30 per cent rebate. First of all, it was only going to cost approximately $1.2 billion a year—only that! It represents a huge increase in expenditure on private health insurance. And, by the way, most of that money would be coming directly out of the public system. So, every dollar going into private health insurance support was coming out of the public hospitals that 70 per cent of the community use as opposed to roughly 30 per cent of the mainly wealthy—not exclusively, but mainly wealthy—who have private health insurance. But even that estimate was way below what actually occurred. The costs to date per annum for the private health insurance rebate, to increase the percentage of the privately insured population from 31 to 33 per cent, is $2.2 billion per annum—a blow-out of some $800 million. So, far from containing costs, it has blown them out. It is reasonable to ask where those additional costs will come from. Out of the public hospitals again, perhaps? It was said it was going to increase private health insurance very dramatically. Instead we have seen something slightly over two per cent for that expenditure. When you work it out, that is roughly $5,500 per annum for each new policy holder. You could actually pay for private health insurance for people. So it has not increased the numbers very much, and it has done so at great cost to the taxpayer.It was also said it would shift people from the public to the private sector. We hear this argument over and over again, that what this rebate will do, what gap cover will do, is induce more people to take up private health insurance and induce them to use the private rather than the public hospital system. The evidence to date, and there is very little on this question, shows that that is not happening. Pressure continues on the public hospital system. They are having to do more with less. The private hospital system is taking up more elective surgeries, more of the things that people can wait for, and the public hospitals that deal with emergencies are being squeezed. So there has not been any substantial shift in the pattern of public and private hospital use. I might say that one of the things that offends me deeply, as someone who believes that we should work together to provide for the general good rather than selfishly for our own individual benefit all the time, is the corrosive effects of the advertising about private health insurance. The message that it is giving the community is that public health is no good, that public hospitals are poor performers, that the only way you can be safe is to have private health insurance and to use the private system. I ask the government: how do they think that makes the 70 per cent of people feel who do not have private health insurance, particularly those who cannot afford it, when they are told that the public system, funded by the taxpayers, is a second cousin, a poor relation? I will tell you what it does: it increases the sense of exclusion and inequality and unfairness. I might ask: why is the government spending so much advertising private health insurance? Why not a bit for the public system? And, while they are it, why not inject some of those funds back into our public hospitals. As I said, while we have seen increases in funds to private health insurance on a scale never before seen in Australia, we have also seen very significant cuts to public hospital expenditure. And they are splitting at the seams, there is no doubt about it—despite the very best efforts of a great many good people.This legislation was essentially introduced as a bribe to the Senate to pass the original legislation because lots of people said, `Well, if you have a 30 per cent rebate on a figure of an unknown size'—because it is 30 per cent of whatever the health funds charge, and it will get bigger and bigger—'there will need to be some restriction on what doctors can charge.' While in government, we introduced the capacity for doctors to enter into agreements with health funds—contracts, if you like—for a set fee. Now the doctors do not like those no-gap contracts, but they have been increasing. What doctors prefer is known-gap—if that makes any sense—policies. I think it is worth pointing out in this context that there has been a steady escalation of medical services costs over the last 10, 15 or 20 years. The incomes of doctors have grown faster than the rest of the community. At a time when most people's wages are static or growing very slowly, that is not true of the medical profession. A good deal of the increase in their incomes comes from Medicare and from private health insurance and out of consumers' pockets. The gaps have been increasing indeed, not reducing. I well know—because I have had many discussions with them—of the medical profession's resistance to entering into price agreements with the funds. Legislation currently provides for it, and there are quite a few of these no-gap policies. They prefer the known-gap options which will still leave them free to charge whatever they want. So this legislation is actually crazy because what it does is give the doctors a blank cheque to charge whatever they like and get a portion of it paid for by this additional insurance premium. No-gap policies are already available within existing legislation, and I think it is likely that they will be overtaken by these known-gap policies. And I think the government needs to be reminded that its own report from the Industry Commission on private health insurance was not supportive of this unlimited gap insurance. But we all know that it has been part of the Liberal Party policy for the last decade or so and that they are not likely to change their views despite any amount of evidence or argument. One of the things I find most extraordinary about this legislation is that it actually ends up providing, through the regulations, for seven options for the advice a doctor can give a patient about the charges that can be made. There are seven options—and these are supposed to make it simpler for the citizens of Australia to understand what gaps they are facing. But when you actually look at these options and, if you like, speak about them in a way the doctors might, I think it would be a very unusual citizen, let alone an ill person visiting a doctor or awaiting an operation, who could fully understand what they were being told. This is not to insult the intelligence of Australians but simply to say this is very complicated. In fact, it sort of has the resonance of a GST complexity about it. The seven options go roughly like this. The doctor might say to you, `I am a bulk-billing doctor,' which means that you get no bill if you are either a public or a private patient. Or the doctor might say, `I charge the schedule fee,' which means that uninsured patients pay 25 per cent of the schedule and insured patients get the full refund. Or the doctor might say, `I charge above the schedule fee.' The uninsured patient will pay the gap between the total doctor's fee and 75 per cent of the schedule fee. The fourth option is this: `I charge above the schedule fee and I am not a participant in a gap scheme with your health insurer,' which means the insured patient pays the gap between the total doctor's fee and the schedule fee. Option 5: `I am in a no-gap scheme with your health insurer.' The patient gets a full refund of the gap. Or, somewhat differently, `I am in a known-gap'—and you will have to be listening closely to hear the difference—'scheme with your health insurer, and the known gap in your case will be $10 or $15,' whatever it happens to be. So the patient will have to pay however many dollars the doctor says is the known gap. Or he or she might say, `I am in a known-gap scheme with your health insurer, and the known gap in your case will be X per cent of the schedule fee,' which might be $5 or $10 or whatever, and the patient then has to pay that fee.If members opposite think that that is simplifying the system, I have another answer to that question. What is already happening at the moment is that doctors, to avoid being caught, are actually saying to patients before they go to surgery, for example, `I want you to understand that my fee is $100, $200 or $300, but you will only get a rebate for half of that amount.' I know of recent cases where doctors have done that while people have been in the process of being prepared for surgery. In one case an anaesthetist, standing over the patient, about to knock them out for the operation, asked them whether they objected to this known gap. I can see there will be lots more cases like that once this legislation comes in. As I said, doctors are not obliged to consistently adopt the same approach, so you might go to the doctor on one occasion when he will tell you that it is a known-gap price that he will charge but on another occasion he might bulk-bill you. So this will be utterly confusing for patients. This legislation is not to assist the people of Australia, let me tell you; it is to assist the medical practitioners in this country who I think are a group who do not particularly need assistance.The issues that I have lots of concern about in this legislation are many, but one of them is the possibility that it will inhibit the no-gap schemes that are already in existence. The major funds have made quite a lot of progress with no-gap schemes under the existing legislation. The funds, too, share the concern that these new options under this legislation could undermine the existing arrangements. In other words, doctors might say, `I don't want to be in that no-gap scheme because I will have to charge precisely what I am contracted to with the health fund. I want a known-gap scheme where I can leave open the option of increasing my charges.' There is plenty of evidence around in public statements that doctors are hostile to any scheme that puts the brakes on their ability to charge what they like. They are always raising the spectre of what they call `US-style managed care' which they say interferes with the relationship between the doctor and the patient. What they are really worried about in most cases is interference with the relationship that surrounds the charging of fees. Only five per cent of Medicare Private's purchaser-provider agreements are for these so-called known-gap products—there are some out there already—whereas 95 per cent are for no-gap products. Believe me, the latter are the ones that suit consumers. They are obviously far more satisfactory for the consumer and for the funds alike. At the moment, they account for a quite substantial 15 per cent of all the benefits that are being paid by Medicare Private. We are likely to see an erosion of that improvement. I think this is indicated in the attitude of doctors who describe these no-gap schemes—these contracts between doctors and health funds—as `the highway to hell'. Well, they are not for consumers; they are far preferable to alternatives.It is also likely to have an inflationary impact on medical fees, especially the known-gap product, because there is no brake on charges and it will flow through to premiums, 30 per cent of which will have to be paid by the taxpayer. We can expect a new round of inflation in doctor's fees and charges, increases in the gap and the premiums and a pressure particularly on small funds which cannot absorb some of these costs. The legislation, the scheme, is said to provide for no inflationary effect. But inflation is not defined. That is very important, because there are quite a wide range of indices of inflation in medical and health services. We do not even know what the inflation measure will be. Nor have they set a baseline. From what date are we talking about? If it is inflationary, what is the sanction? What is the penalty? There is nothing provided in this legislation. So it is not clear what will happen if a particular scheme does result in higher fees and premiums. Knowing this government, it will just shrug its shoulders and move on.We have recent experience on this front, particularly with obstetrics where the benefit was increased substantially. There was no benefit to the patient from the higher Medicare rebate. The doctors increased their fees by pretty much the same amount. That is the second time that has happened with obstetrics. The taxpayer pays an additional $8.4 million for this rebate for complex childbirth procedures. It was claimed by the government and by doctors that it would eliminate the gap—that extra money that mothers were paying when their babies were born. At that time, 54 per cent of obstetricians charged above the schedule fee and the average gap was around $300. A very short time after the injection of the additional $8.4 million, the gap is $218 and about the same percentage of doctors charge above the schedule fee. That extra went via the patients' pockets straight into the incomes of medical practitioners, with no net benefit to either the government or the consumer. With this legislation, we can expect to see more leapfrogging of that kind, especially since there are no penalties at all if the schemes are inflationary.It is worth looking at the general question of the gap and medical expenses. Medicare statistics show that the average gap in 1998 grew by 6.5 per cent. That is three times the inflation rate. In my own state of Western Australia, it was 8.3 per cent. That means that extra money the doctors are getting is growing exponentially, way above the inflation rate and way above the increases in wages. Doctors are reaping pretty rich rewards at a time when most Australians' wages and salaries are static. Market research conducted by the private health funds themselves, the AMA and private hospitals shows, not surprisingly, substantial consumer scepticism about private health and gaps in particular. Some people in these surveys described private health care as `cancer of the wallet'. I think that is why there has been so much advertising by the government. The gaps, in particular, are seen as `a farce', `a joke' and `an insult', to quote from some of the people that were interviewed. This legislation will not change any of that. The research concluded that, for many, the gap destroyed the credibility of private health insurance and, furthermore, on the other side, that they were pretty satisfied with Medicare and bulk-billing. There is going to be a big cost to revenue if premiums increase or more people take out private health insurance as a result of this so-called known-gap initiative. The taxpayer is being asked to fund 30 per cent of an unknown figure. As I have pointed out, those figures are already blowing out. It was an additional $800 million last year alone. We are up to $2.2 billion already. If the premiums go up, the taxpayer will be funding 30 per cent of whatever that figure might be, and the government quite clearly does not have a clue what it might be. There is nothing in this legislation to indicate that they have. My real concern is that this will result in another blow-out and further pressure on funds and the public system.Part of this bill is supposed to be about informed financial consent. I read out to you the seven very confusing options that consumers will be confronted with. We all agree with the principle that there should be informed financial consent and simplified billing—that the patient should be informed in advance of either the dollar or the percentage gap. But this legislation is not going to help. There is no definition of informed consent in the bill or about precisely how that information will be provided and when. As I say, if someone is lying on the trolley waiting to be prepped for surgery, that is hardly the moment to seek informed consent. There is no mechanism for ensuring that doctors do indeed provide the information. As many people will know, on a lot of occasions, particularly surrounding surgery, there are a number of bills and you do not get to see a lot of the doctors, for instance those doing tests. How will that information be provided and when? This legislation is very short on the necessary detail. But, in my view, the most worrying element is that it provides open slather with these known-gap products and it is inevitable that premiums will rise. History suggests that that is likely. Economic behaviour suggests it is inevitable. Yet the government is trying to tell us this will not be inflationary and it will not cost the taxpayers more. Having seen some of their previous assurances about increases in private health insurance taking the pressure off the public system and so on, I have to say that I do not believe a word of it.13:36:0014747Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—It is always a low-water mark in debate when you hear the absolute hatred of freedom of choice of those opposite. It is a dreadful development in this debate to suggest that Australians should conform to one all-encompassing socialistic medical scheme in the form of Medicare without having the opportunity to take up the cudgels of self-support. The member for Fremantle was health minister for several years in the previous government, presiding over a decline in the number of people who participated in private health insurance in this country and at the same time presiding over an increase in health costs to this nation. It is very sad to see her come in here today to try and misconstrue the government's intentions that are before the House. During the 13 years of the previous government, as health costs rose and kept rising, we saw doctors, patients, insurance companies and government ending up in separate corners of the whole health debate. We never saw initiatives such as have been presented by this government to try and bring everyone together in some sort of cogent way to tackle spiralling health costs and declining membership of private health insurance funds, and to make sure that patients are well aware of the costs involved in whatever medical procedures they were about to undertake.On this side of the chamber we have a government that in its four short years in office has prided itself on, and has had a continual theme of, not only promising before an election but also doing what it promised it would do immediately after the election. The matters before us here today are part and parcel of that. We are presenting initiatives to the people of Australia to try and deal with what so many people in my own electorate aspire to. They want to have an understanding of the big ticket health costs of procedures involving operations well before they agree to undertake those procedures. We are also giving them the option to insure against the gap—the difference between what they get as a rebate from the system as it currently stands and what the doctors themselves set as a charge. This is an important, milestone piece of legislation. The member for Fremantle talked a lot about gap—known gap and no gap. When it comes to keeping our word with those in Australia who support our ongoing aspirations in this area, while there certainly is a known credibility gap on the other side there is no gap on this side of the House. In their time in office, those opposite did a couple of things as far as health insurance was concerned. They introduced the Medicare levy and then they proceeded to increase the Medicare levy. I do not believe that workers of Australia, the people who make a contribution to the Medicare levy, were ever compensated in any way, shape or form through the rest of the tax system. It just became another one of those additional taxes that typified the Hawke-Keating era in Australia.Private health insurance has nothing to do with any sort of any sort of class or—given the debate so far—classless warfare that might be suggested by the members of the Australian Labor Party. The key thing about private health insurance is that it is a matter of freedom of choice. It is also a matter of dignity. It is a matter for those who are able to afford private health insurance, happily a growing number of people in Australia, to be able to in fact subsidise the public system. I do not think any taxpayer in this nation begrudges the fact that the federal government directs funds towards meeting the cost of public health. The Medicare levy is only a relatively small percentage of the total cost of maintaining the health system in this country—somewhere between 10 and 20 per cent, certainly not a significant part of the cost of the health budget in this nation. We pay the Medicare levy because it is prescribed in law that we must. But those of us who contribute to private health insurance are not doing so just out of some sort of snobbery or because we want to be able to pick and choose the doctor that we have got or the hospital that we go to. There is also a great element of dignity associated with the payment of private health insurance premiums. We are saying very clearly that because of our circumstances we can afford to pay this extra. We are one less person or set of persons in the queue at the public hospital. We are in fact assisting those who cannot afford private health insurance to know with some certainty that they can gain attendance in a public institution.To paraphrase my recollection of the words of former senator Graham Richardson, there is some ideological hatred of private health insurance from those opposite, but it is very misplaced hatred. There is no sense to the hatred that comes from those opposite about private health insurance and initiatives that this government has brought forward to make private health insurance more attractive. The people who are hurt most of all by pumping up the public system as being better than or more important than the private system are the battlers of Australia, the aged pensioners, the unemployed and the low income earners—the ones who may for whatever reason in their circumstances not be able or not choose to take up private health insurance and take advantage of the government's rebates and other initiatives. It is ironic and almost oxymoronic to see those opposite talking down private health insurance and the initiatives of this government. Those who are hit most of all are the people who those opposite pretend to represent. Private subscribers subsidise the system just as those who send their children to non-government schools subsidise the education system for the rest of us in society.I have had a few criticisms over the years about a couple of the funds. I have been a subscriber to Medical Benefits Fund for a long time and I, up until the last four years, have had some second thoughts about that organisation. I am happy to put on the record my joy in seeing that Medical Benefits Fund, from what I can see, are actually playing their role of going around and putting the pressure on doctors and hospitals to be up-front and honest about the amount of money they are going to charge people for procedures and hospital accommodation. Isn't that good news? It means that people in my electorate are going to be able to go to a private hospital choosing a doctor that they wish to have and knowing up-front exactly what the cost involved is going to be. That is empowerment of the people. Isn't that a hallmark of this coalition government? I would also recommend to people that they obtain a very simple brochure entitled Medical fees: know your rights, which is another thing that is worth seeing. All too often I have had people come into my electorate office and say to me, `I did not realise that I was going to be paying this much. There is so much uncertainty in the system as it currently stands. I do not know what the cost of my operation is going to be.' They perhaps do not even appreciate that it is their right, and the government is encouraging them to take up their right, to ask the doctor what the cost of the operation is going to be and to ask the hospital what the cost of the accommodation is going to be. This is an important consumer issue. I also know that doctors can be put under pressure to lower their price or to vary their price, depending on the particular client involved. In full knowledge of a client's circumstances, many doctors will adjust what is their stated price. That is another important factor that is encouraged by the matters that are before us today. What we are doing, very simply, is asking doctors, hospitals and health insurers to reach agreement on the new no-gap products. The one important caveat for us all to remember is: as long as the benefit is clearly demonstrated to go to the patient and also involves informed financial consent and simplified billing. We are empowering the average Australian and encouraging those who are not in private health insurance to find another reason to be part of private health insurance in this country to help take some of the pressure off the public system.Yesterday in this place we had a discussion about employee entitlements and unions. I made a suggestion in that debate, which is also relevant to this debate, that those who want to get some sort of collectivism going as far as the logic of being involved in a union is concerned should offer some benefits. I suspect that MBF, HCF, Medibank Private and other organisations have taken up the pressure from this government, and in particular from this Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Michael Wooldridge, the member for Casey, who will go down in history as the very best health minister this nation has ever had. They have taken up those initiatives and that pressure and have begun to try to do things to encourage people back into private health insurance. If you want people to join your association or your union or your health fund, you actually have to provide some identifiable benefit. You actually have to give them a reason to join and a reason to participate. A lot of these health funds have been doing just that, and I am pleased about that. But one of the problems they have had is that there has not been sufficient government legislation to back their efforts in some cases and to enforce new efforts in other cases.These arrangements before us may involve service delivery systems that are not even contractually based. We do not even have to have the extra complication of some sort of written deal. But we are conscious of the rapidly expanding range of no-gap health products that are already available across the market and are encouraging more. We are now providing another option for this industry and, in particular, for the people of Australia. This measure will lead to reduced gaps for patients, not more money for doctors, and it is another consistent step in this coalition government's comprehensive strategy to introduce simplified billing for patients with private health cover.The government's initiatives to date have been first rate, and we are seeing people re-entering private health insurance arrangements in droves. That is a great contrast to what we saw in the 13 years of decline in that sector and the 13 years of added pressure on the public purse, taking up the cudgel as people were encouraged out of private health insurance by the policy initiatives, or perhaps lack of them, of those opposite. We have seen substantial success also in our strategy to reduce and eliminate gaps, with the number of no-gap private admissions now at more than 10 per cent and rising rapidly. So more Australians are already getting benefits because of this government's initiative and drive in this particular area and this government's keeping faith with the electorate in this particular area. That is good news. Twelve months ago virtually no admissions into private hospitals were on the basis of no gap, and already we have seen that 10 per cent improvement. Isn't that terrific? Given the growing success of the existing legislation, we expect that many doctors will stick with the present arrangements, but the amendments will add more flexibility to the industry. It is now up to funds, hospitals and doctors to work together to come up with arrangements and to present them back to the government, to the Health Insurance Commission and to the Department of Health and Aged Care so that the minister himself can oversee this to make sure that the intentions that are contained within this legislation here today are fulfilled in reality. This is an important step forward and a keeping of faith with the people of Australia. It is certainly supporting my proposition that, as far as credibility is concerned, there is no gap on this side and a real known gap on the other side. The government's system of Lifetime Health Cover is something that I would encourage all people in Australia to take up—the carrot and stick approach that we have adopted. Lifetime Health Cover commences on 1 July 2000, following the successful passage of government legislation in both chambers in September last year. This is a new system of private health insurance which rewards membership loyalty and early joining.I cannot quantify to the House how many people have come and spoken to me and said, `I have been a member of whatever fund for 30, 40 or 50 years and I do not feel that I am getting any benefit out of that loyalty and that longtime contribution to the national good by being a member of a private health fund.' As a result of this government's Lifetime Health Cover initiative, we are going to give tangible benefits to those who have maintained their membership and will continue to maintain it. That those who do not join a fund before 1 July 2000 are going to find themselves paying a higher premium as a result of joining after 1 July 2000 is a direct incentive to people to join private health funds. People taking out hospital cover early in their lives will pay lower premiums than those who take it out later in life. Lifetime Health Cover will increase the stability of the industry by encouraging younger and healthier people to take out private health insurance. Of course, it will continue to help contain the rising costs of health insurance premiums while maintaining the objectives of community rating. It ensures that everyone pays a contribution and that it is a fair and equal contribution, whether you live in Thargomindah, in Toowoomba, in Toowong, in Annerley, in Mount Gravatt or wherever. As well, it is worth recording the success of the 30 per cent rebate, because that has immediately improved the entire affordability of health insurance for all members of registered health funds who are also eligible for Medicare. The response to the rebate has been very positive. Private health insurance membership has increased since the rebate was introduced. Membership has increased by a small amount, on looking at it, but when one considers that there has been a huge decline chronicled for many years and mapped from the beginning of the Hawke-Keating years and through the first couple of years of this government, we have turned the corner. We are now seeing increases in membership by 0.2 of a percentage point in each of the March and June quarters in 1999, by 0.4 per cent in the September 1999 quarter and a further 0.3 per cent in the December 1999 quarter. I believe that we are all optimistic that we will see this trend continue and that we will start to be very confident that more and more people will take up the challenge of being part of a private health insurance scheme, providing themselves with dignity and certainty and also assisting those in our community who are poorer and unable to be part of those schemes, giving them the dignity and certainty of knowing that their place in the queue at a public hospital will not be taken by those who can afford to make a contribution themselves to an alternative method. This is the first time that membership in private health funds has increased in three successive quarters since the Private Health Insurance Administration Council commenced publishing quarterly membership records a decade ago. That is a hallmark of success for this government. It is a practical measure that has brought people into the system. It has demanded of private hospital providers, of doctors and of the Health Insurance Commission itself that people be kept in focus in all of that. Let me quantify it just a little bit more. Let me take it away from the hard, cold, Canberra style percentages that we often hear in debates in this place and say to the chamber that 300,000 new members have joined private health funds during that time. Invariably, so many of those are younger Australians who are appreciating what their parents did 30 years ago in trying to provide private health insurance and certainty for their families. This is a new generation of Australians who understand the importance of playing their part in providing for themselves and who are subsidising the health system in some way.The matters before the House will continue this welcome trend. They will continue to provide a signal to those who want to provide for themselves that this government is going to back them all the way. It will continue to keep faith with people in Australia that this government, unlike those opposite, promises something before an election and always delivers immediately after the election. This is a government that has prided itself on making sure that promises made by politicians are not broken and that we can restore the standing of those who serve in this place, with the people of Australia in mind, in the minds of average Australians. I commend the bill to the House.13:56:0014751Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—Despite the rhetoric expressed by members of the government, the community knows that it was the Labor Party that transformed the health industry in this nation. We did so because health care needs to be accessed by all people in the community; it must not just be the preserve of the wealthy. We also did it because we recognised that public health could be operated efficiently. The most disturbing issue is that this government has all but gutted the public health options of Australians. This was done not because of the failure of the health care system; it was done because of the ideological position of the minister and the government. Our task today is to examine the rationale of the Health Legislation Amendment (Gap Cover Schemes) Bill 2000. In doing so, it is necessary to pay particular attention to the overall state of the health industry. Suffice to say that, if the many calls into my office have been any indication, the community view the health system as being in a state of decay because it has been neglected by this minister. He would stray down the American path and, if he thought that he could get away with it, he would destroy Medicare. In the face of all the evidence, he refuses to believe that public hospitals provide the best hedge against inflated health prices. He does not concede that public health provides access to everyone in the community, irrespective of income.There are two things that I wish to examine today: firstly, the impact of the bill and, secondly, why members on this side of the House are very wary of any measures introduced by this minister. The health insurance gap cover scheme bill does three significant things. Firstly, it enables gap cover schemes to be developed with the minister's consent. In other words, signatories can charge more than a prescribed fee if the scheme has been approved by the minister. Secondly, on a positive note, it allows for simplified billing arrangements to be developed. Thirdly, it includes in regulations rather than in the act matters pursuant to the scheme, but practically devolves the legislative model. It delegates greater responsibility to the department. It is a fine example of the minister avoiding his responsibilities. This bill avoids the real, critical issue facing the minister and the community—that of the decline in standards and access by the public to the Australian health system. The other point of some note is that the effects of this bill are potentially inflationary and may create problems for established no-gap policies. My concerns can be summarised as follows: there could be an inflationary component to the bill, it might have an impact on the current schemes and patients need to be made fully aware of the financial consent component of the bill. Let me briefly examine these issues. I understand that currently the Medicare rebate covers around 75 per cent of the schedule fee imposed, while private health insurance covers the remaining portion. This difference, of course, is the gap. The current legislation permits the health insurance organisations to cover this difference where an agreement exists with a health care provider such as a hospital. The bill might create inflationary pressures in this environment because new schemes do not allow for the new round of medical charges. This in reality means that the gap itself might increase. As we know, the 30 per cent subsidy has allowed larger insurance companies to absorb the cost, whereas the smaller companies have had problems even doing this. Therefore, a condition exists whereby the competitive pressures may indeed lead to a reduction in the number of providers in the market. In the long term, we do not want to reduce consumer options. Nor do the regulations attached to the bill adequately qualify inflationary effects, although this is mentioned in the legislation. This is not appropriate policy—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Questions Without Notice147521475214:00:0014752Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Minister, given the opposition in the Senate, and in your own ranks, to the full sale of Telstra, will you give a commitment that the full sale of Telstra will not be factored into this year's budget?14752Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The Labor Party in government were known on numerous occasions to factor in all sorts of weird and wonderful ideas. This government operates on its policy and operates on factual information. You should wait about two months, when you can have a good look at the budget and see what is in it.1475214:01:0014752Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—My question without notice is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, would you please outline to the House the benefits to Australian families of government policies?14752Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for La Trobe for his question. As always, the member for La Trobe expresses the concerns of the average Australian. The average Australian is interested in benefits for their family, and there are many benefits of government policy for Australian families. The first and most important benefit is that we have provided Australian families with more jobs. We have provided them with more than 650,000 jobs over the last four years. Not only have we got more people into work but the people we have got into work are earning more money.I would not be the least bit surprised if the Treasurer were asked about the national accounts later today. Maybe the shadow Treasurer will give the bloke a break and ask him a question. As the national accounts reveal, one of the things that is underpinning the continuing strength of the Australian economy is the rise in disposable incomes of Australian families—there are more people in work and there have been real wage rises. Under the coalition, real wages have grown at an annual rate of 2.3 per cent. Under 13 years of Labor, the average annual increase in real wages was barely anything—it was 0.3 per cent—so there has, by comparison, been a massive rise in real wages under this government. But it does not stop there. We also have the benefits of lower interest rates—$266 a month the average Australian family is better off as a result of lower interest rates. Despite the attempts of the Labor Party to stop the income tax cuts coming in on 1 July, and despite the unwillingness of the Leader of the Opposition to rule out an increase in income tax on Australian families if he were ever to become Prime Minister of Australia, I have more good news for Australian families. On 1 July, Australian families will enjoy the largest personal income tax cuts in Australia's history. Australian families will share in a cut in income tax worth $12 billion. But that is not the end of it. In addition to the personal income tax cuts, there is $2.5 billion of increased family benefits. The average family will receive a tax cut of $47 a week after factoring in the goods and services tax. The situation will be that 80 per cent of Australian taxpayers will be on a top marginal rate of no more than 30 per cent—in other words, 80 per cent of Australian taxpayers will know that no matter how much harder they work, and no matter how much more income they earn, the rate they pay on that marginal dollar can never be more than 30 cents. That is a truly historic reform, which says to the great bulk of Australian taxpayers: you can lift your incomes quite dramatically, but you do not go into a higher tax bracket. That will restore a massive amount of incentive.I say to the member for La Trobe: you are quite right to ask me about the application of government policies for Australian families. It has been our determination over the last four years to act in the interests of all Australian families. I am proud to say to the House that, of all of the things this government has achieved, there are none more significant than the enormous benefits we have delivered to average families throughout the length and breadth of our nation.1475314:06:0014753Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall the government's 1998 election commitment that the full sale of Telstra would not proceed without an independent inquiry to assess service levels to customers in metropolitan, rural and remote areas? Isn't it a fact that the government promised that this inquiry would be presented to the parliament as legislation; specifically, that the performance criteria for Telstra, for assessment by the inquiry, would be detailed in that legislation? Prime Minister, do you propose to honour this commitment by giving the House an assurance today that the details of your inquiry—in particular, its terms of reference, composition and the performance criteria for Telstra—will be presented to the parliament as legislation for consideration and debate?14753Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I do, I do, I do. I thank the honourable member for Perth. I do remember very clearly saying that—a long time ago. I certainly do remember that commitment, and let me calmly say, for the benefit of the parliament and particularly for the benefit of those members—all of whom sit behind me—who are interested in service levels for regional Australia: the government's policy has always been that the sale of the rest of Telstra is conditional on there being this transparent public inquiry and that transparent public inquiry reporting that there has been adequate delivery according to set criteria of service levels. I will need to check with my office and with the minister, but my recollection—and I cannot at this stage, for obvious reasons, put it stronger than that without checking—is as follows: we presented a bill to the parliament seeking sanction for the full sale of Telstra. It contained a provision for the establishment of this inquiry. That bill in that form was rejected in the Senate, including with the votes of the Australian Labor Party. As a consequence of that, we went back to the Senate and secured the passage of a bill to sell up to another 16-odd per cent, again in the teeth of opposition from the Australian Labor Party—these people who always say one thing in opposition and do the completely opposite thing when they are in government. It remains the case that our policy is that the rest of Telstra will be sold subject to that public inquiry, and there will be an announcement made about that inquiry. The appropriate nature of this question from the member for Perth grows on me every minute, because there is going to be an announcement made by the relevant minister within the next few days about the terms of reference of the inquiry and the personnel to be on that inquiry. As I said, I will check my recollection because I do not pretend to carry all of these things around in my head—but that is my recollection. Our position is very clear. We are not hypocrites on the issue of privatisation, unlike those who sit opposite. We all remember those ringing commitments that were made to the Australian people by the Leader of the Opposition when he was a minister in the Hawke and Keating governments about how they would not privatise the Commonwealth Bank. I remember being rung up by him when I was in opposition and being asked for opposition support to get a privatisation proposal through the Senate. They were begging for the support of the Liberal and National parties for a privatisation proposal. It is even better than that, though, from a point of view of demonstrating the charge of hypocrisy, particularly against the Leader of the Opposition. Ever since Telstra made the announcement last week, the Leader of the Opposition has been in front of every microphone that will come to a stop in front of him. He has been talking into every single microphone in Australia saying, `This is outrageous. There are going to be jobs lost if Telstra is allowed to do what it wants to do.' I might remind the Leader of the Opposition of a speech he made to parliament on 4 June 1992. He was waxing eloquent about his role in economic reform in Australia. CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—He was being prolix.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Treasurer tempts me. He says he was being prolix about his role in economic reform. The Leader of the Opposition said this:I will point out one of the fundamental elements of restructuring ... There is one essential accompaniment to restructuring. Almost invariably where there are changes to work practices, where industrial efficiencies are introduced, there will be redundancies. We cannot escape that. That is an inevitable consequence of structural change. We cannot run away from that. That was a fair statement. What is not fair, what is hypocritical, what is duplicitous and what represents the absolute policy bankruptcy of the Leader of the Opposition is that having had the responsibility of government, and knowing that to be a reality, he still pretends to the Australian people that you can have the sort of economic change that is occurring, particularly in the communications sector, without some job implications. I do not pretend to the Australian people, I do not try to walk both sides of the street, I do not try to be all things to all men on this issue. What I am trying to do is to point out—and I know those opposite do not like this because it reminds them of the sheer policy bankruptcy of the man who leads them—that it reminds the Australian people that, on this particular issue, he is playing fast and loose not only with the truth but with policy reality. The communications sector, which the national accounts figures released today demonstrate is one of the fastest, if not the fastest, growing areas of the Australian economy, is an area where the sort of changes contemplated are unavoidable. Nobody likes it. The good thing is that we have generated a climate where people who may be redundant in one part of that industry sector can get a job elsewhere. I would remind the parliament that when Mr Beazley made that statement in June of 1992, the unemployment rate in Australia was massively above what it is now, and the climate for people who are made redundant is infinitely better now than what it was. On this issue, as on so many, the Leader of the Opposition is without policy credibility. 5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Mr Speaker, to help the Prime Minister, I seek leave to table an extract from the coalition policy document `Better Communications', which includes the reference—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Perth will resume his seat. Leave is denied.1475514:14:0014755Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is directed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of the results of the December quarter national accounts which were released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics?14755Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Page for his question. The national accounts, which were released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the December quarter this year, show that Australia is a high growth, low inflation economy. The Australian economy continues to perform strongly by world standards, recording a solid one per cent growth in the December quarter and 4.3 per cent through the year. In terms of inflation, the consumption deflator increased by just 0.9 per cent through the year. What that shows is that the Australian economy has now grown at above four per cent for the last 11 consecutive quarters—a growth rate unrivalled in the last 30 years. The Australian economy has grown at or above four per cent for the last 11 consecutive quarters—a growth rate which is unrivalled in the last 30 years. There was nothing like it in the nineties, the eighties or indeed the seventies. That indicates the strength of the economy and the capacity to produce jobs. Last month we had 50,000 new jobs. When this government was elected in March 1996, unemployment was 8.6 per cent and now it is 6.7 per cent. At a growth rate of four per cent per annum, unemployment reduces at about half a percentage point per annum. If we were to keep the Australian economy growing at four per cent, you would expect the unemployment rate to reduce about half a per cent per annum for as long as that growth continued. Because the national accounts came out today, you might have expected that the shadow Treasurer would ask me a question about them. He did have a question but not to me, and its subject matter was not the national accounts. We are still waiting for the shadow Treasurer to make his first speech on macroeconomic policy. He is yet to make a speech on macroeconomic policy. His record of speeches on macroeconomic issues looks a bit like the Leader of the Opposition's tax policy—a blank sheet on both sides. He is still to ask his first question. He was auditioning before the News Ltd editors in Sydney last night—and modesty prevents me from telling him how he went—but he is yet to make his first speech on the economy. There would be a lot of Labor backbenchers who would not realise how unusual it is to have somebody in a position like this who has not had an economic thought for the period that he has held the office. The member for Werriwa said it before: change is hard. To actually support a policy—to be able to do more than cheapjack opportunist, populist sloganeering—you have to actually take a stand, you have to actually do something. The shadow Treasurer's contribution to tax policy, as I recall, was his big claim before the 1996 election that he was going to take the Toorak tractor off the road, which he decided after the election was a bad policy and he abandoned it immediately.ZD4Howard, John, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—What was he? Lucky that he didn't get elected. So the one policy that he had was the wrong one. The Labor Party is yet to make a statement on economic policy. It is the big reforms over the last four years—the changing of monetary policy, the balancing of the budget, the changes in relation to tax reform—that are setting Australia up for the growth opportunities that Australia deserves. We have seen unemployment fall by two percentage points under the policies of this government, and if we continue with economic reform they can fall further. They are the benefits for Australians from good policy. That is why the government's policy for economic reform should be supported in this parliament and should proceed. 1475614:18:0014756Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Deputy Prime Minister, do you recall that Telstra's recent announcement of a $2.1 billion half-year profit and 10,000 job cuts follows on Telstra's August 1999 announcement of a $1.9 billion half-year profit and the commencement of charging for 013 directory assistance services? Are you aware of reports today that Telstra's 013 services conducted out of regional call centres are to be outsourced, leading to the loss of hundreds of full-time jobs and over 1,000 casual jobs? Does the Deputy Prime Minis's personal guarantee, which he asserts prevents Telstra from pulling linesmen out of depots, apply to workers from Telstra regional call centres?14756Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I have not heard those allegations, and I am not going to accept them on face value here this afternoon. Neither am I going to be put in a position of defending Telstra's performance in rural and regional areas because, as we have claimed, we believe that they ought to lift their game. The member for Batman says that they are going to look after the interests of the bush and give it a voice because they are going to look after Telstra and Australia Post. They are the people who closed 270 post offices around Australia, the people who did away with analogue phones, the people who did nothing about a customer service guarantee—XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order on relevance. The question was whether the Deputy Prime Minister will stand by and apply the personal guarantee that he gave.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister was asked a question about the profit level of Telstra and job losses and a rural guarantee, and I deemed what he had said to date to be in order. 4K4Mr ANDERSON—Whilst the Labor Party makes these claims, to be fair and objective about this, the member for Calare, in good faith, asked me some questions about call centres last week, and I added to my answer. In that I actually quoted the CEO of Telstra, who made it quite plain that, in relation to call centres, there are a number of very good reasons why Telstra might very well locate more, not less, jobs in rural and regional Australia—to which I say, `Amen; you've got it right, and we would like to see some action on it.' Finally, the member for Dickson, in some extraordinary leap of faith, implies that I have given some personal guarantee. She misses the point. The guarantees that we have put in place are set in legislation. They are not mine; they are in legislation, which I would have thought was far more robust and of far more value to rural and regional Australia. I can only conclude by saying: (a) you have no credibility on this; and (b) you are plainly more interested in scaremongering than in addressing the real issue, which is services in rural and regional Australia.1475614:22:0014756Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer please provide details to the House of the factors influencing the current price of fuel in Australia?14756Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question and—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman! The Treasurer has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I am quite happy to talk to him about petrol prices because I believe he is a service station operator and he has taken a great interest in the industry. The price of petrol in Australia is governed by world oil prices and by retail and transport costs. Approximately 60 per cent of Australia's oil is imported but all of the oil, domestic and import, is set at a world price. The reason for that is that the oil price is in a global market and is set by global factors. The benchmark West Texas intermediate crude, which was at about an average of $12 per barrel in February 1999, went to $21 a barrel in August 1999, $27 in January this year and is now averaging around $30 in March, which is almost a tripling of the price of crude oil over the course of the year from February 1999. As a consequence of that, petrol prices have increased. 8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—What's it mean for your GST promise?CT4Mr COSTELLO—In relation to excise, because I hear a question from one of the Labor frontbenchers in relation to excise: excise on fuel is indexed. That was a system which was introduced by the Hawke government in 1983 and has never been opposed by any member of the Labor Party.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter!CT4Mr COSTELLO—To my knowledge, after 13 years of imposing it neither the member for Hunter nor his father ever voiced one day's objection to that system. But of course not only did the petrol excise go up as a consequence of indexation; petrol excises were also increased by the Labor Party as a matter of discretion.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson—When was that?CT4Mr COSTELLO—In 1983—1.87c per litre increase, discretionary; budget increase in 1986 of 3c; another budget increase in 1993 of 3c; another budget increase in 1994 of, I believe, one cent; and another one in 1995. So the Labor Party was legislating to increase the excises and, because they had indexation in place, those increases fitted into the CPI and indexed it up in addition. This government, unlike its predecessor, has never increased petrol excise as discretionary budget increases. In fact, this government has legislated, as part of its new tax package, to actually reduce excise, and it will be, on the costings in ANTS, reducing petrol excise to the order of $1.2 billion—although the actual reduction will be set closer to the time—with reductions in diesel of around $0.7 billion. So this government is the first government that has ever proposed reductions in petrol excise. The Labor Party not only put the excise up but also used that to feed into indexation. The consequence of that reduction in excise is that to the consumer the price will be equalised back with the goods and services tax, but to business and anybody who is entitled to an input tax credit it actually amounts to a 10 per cent cut in the price of petrol. So, for farmers and other people in business that are using cars in the course of their business, the consequence of that is that petrol will actually become 10 per cent cheaper.I have noticed that there has been some criticism of the indexation system. There were some stories today making the false claim—incidentally, in one of the Fairfax papers today—that the government was not reducing excise on petrol—it is, as I indicated before—and saying that indexation would drive up the price. I make this point: the indexation system, which has been in place since the Labor Party introduced it, has always worked off the consumer price index. Obviously, the best way to minimise the effect of indexation is to have a lower consumer price index.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Under the Australian Labor Party, the consumer price index increased by an average of 5.2 per cent per annum—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter!CT4Mr COSTELLO—whereas under this government it has been 1.1.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter is warned.CT4Mr COSTELLO—So, Mr Speaker, the member for Hunter should explain why they were discretionary increasing—that is, legislating to increase it in budgets but pushing it up 5.2 per cent on 5.2 per cent on 5.2 per cent per annum over the course of 13 years. Under this government, by doing it at 1.1 per cent, there has been of course an enormous benefit for petrol buyers. I make the point that I see that some of the lobbyists for some of the motoring organisations have a campaign against indexation, which I suppose is fair enough from their point of view. But the government has always indicated that it would keep the system of indexation. We do it for this reason: we index the excise on petrol because we index pensions and other benefits. The motoring organisations who complain about indexing in relation to petrol may well explain to their members, particularly pensioners, why, if they are against indexation, they think pensioners should not have increases in their pension in line with the CPI. Obviously, if you are going to have increases in pensions, family allowances and all other government benefits in response to price rises, the revenues that are going to pay for that should also move in line with price rises. That is the other half of the story that the lobbyists of the motoring organisations are not telling their members. They are not telling their pensioners that, if it were the case that the excise did not stay in proportion to the price of the product, the government would not be in the position to make sure the spending power of the pensions kept proportion with the cost rises that those pensioners have to pay and that people on family allowances and other benefits have to pay. On this side of the House, we think it is important that pensions keep pace with inflation. In fact, on this side of the House we think it is important that they go in front of inflation, which is why we are increasing pensions by four per cent on 1 July. Obviously, to pay for that you need a revenue base which grows in proportion to the economy. One of the ways that pensions will be funded in the future is with a goods and services tax which will grow in line with the economy. If we were not to broaden the base of the indirect taxes, we would not be in a position to pay those benefits. That is why the Labor Party in its opposition to GST has also been opposing increases in pensions and why it would have no basis to pay for increased family benefits if it were not to take the benefit of the tax reform from this government.1475814:30:0014758Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. I ask him: isn't it true that a couple signing a contract to build their first home now will have to pay GST on that part of the house built after 1 July? Isn't it also true that they will not qualify for one cent of the $7,000 First Home Owners Scheme?14758Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—What the government has done is introduce a First Home Owners Scheme for people who have not previously owned homes. The reason for that is that, if you own a current home and the price of housing goes up, you will get the benefit of that in relation to your house. If you are not in the market, you will not get it. So the government, as part of its policy, has decided to fund a First Home Owners Scheme. I am pleased to say that nobody has extolled the benefits of the First Home Owners Scheme more than the Labor Treasurer of Tasmania, Dr David Crean, who is putting out press releases boasting about the wonderful policy of the First Home Owners Scheme. I do thank Dr Crean for extolling the benefits of our policy which will protect first home owners.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, my point of order goes to relevance. And why is it that they are slugging them for the GST but not giving them access to the First Home Owners Scheme?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Has the Treasurer concluded his answer?CT4Mr COSTELLO—Yes.1475814:32:0014758Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, are you aware of media reports on the level of business confidence in Victoria? Would you inform the House why confidence is at the level it is?14758Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Kooyong for his question. All the Victorian members, with all the other members in the House, would be pleased to see the numbers that came out today on GDP.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPWI4Mr REITH—It is a great testament to the leadership—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter will excuse himself from the House under the provisions of standing order 304A.The member for Hunter then withdrew from the chamber.WI4Mr REITH—Today's GDP numbers give us confidence in the reform program that the government has put in place. I am sure I am one of many who want to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Treasurer on the work that they have done. As a Victorian, however, I am concerned to see developments in Victoria which show you what happens when you get a Labor government. This was very clear in the survey results that were out this week in the Melbourne Herald Sun under the title `Projects slump as confidence takes a dive'. This is directly attributable to the Labor government's actions—or inaction—in Victoria and, in particular, to the fact that they are under the thumb of the unions, as the Leader of the Opposition federally would be under the thumb of the unions if ever he were elected. As one of the principal operators in the building industry said in the Herald Sun this week: This is the worst it has been for about a decade. There is not a lot of big projects floating around. He went on to say: A client would have to have rocks in their head putting something out for tender now. That is what you get when you get a Labor government that is under the thumb of militant trade union leaders, as is happening in Victoria today. As Nicole Feeley, the head of a Victorian employers association, said in regard to a survey: Victoria cannot afford to slide. You lose six months now and it takes 12 months to recover. Or, as the CEO of the retailers association said: I have to question whether the confidence of six months ago is here.The reason for this deteriorating state of circumstances in Victoria is quite simple to see, and that is that we have had the election of a Labor government and, sadly, the unions are running amok. Martin Kingham, the head of the building workers in Victoria, said last year that, come the early part of this year, there would be industrial warfare, and the Labor Party failed to stand up to him and tell him that it was unacceptable to be putting Victorian jobs and investment at risk. The other interesting reflection on the federal opposition from what is going on at the state level is the state of confusion. If you listen to the Labor Party, my opposite number in the federal parliament says that I am the most interventionist minister of all time, yet the state minister is saying, `Where are you?'PE4Beazley, Kim, MPWI4Mr REITH—Exactly. Thank you for the interjection. One minute I am too interventionist, the next minute it is, `Where are you? You ought to be intervening.'ET4Bevis, Arch, MPWI4Mr REITH—And then the state leader, just like you—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—By any measure, the member for Brisbane has been granted a great deal of latitude by the chair. He will now show some restraint.WI4Mr REITH—Mr Speaker, you give him a lot more latitude than his union masters do, I can tell you that. The state Premier in Victoria says, `If only we had a system of arbitration, which I am going to set up, then we would be able to manage the building industry in Victoria.' Yet, when the matter was before the federal commission yesterday, the Victorians did not turn up. Why didn't they turn up? Because the union said, `We don't want arbitration because we would never get a 36-hour week if the matter went to arbitration.' It is hypocrisy upon hypocrisy. In the end the reality is, at the state level as it is at the federal level, that when it comes to policy you do what the unions tell you to do, and the people who suffer are the average people who want a job. The average worker who wants to get on and build Victoria is jeopardised and put at disadvantage by your close relationship with the unions. Australia is going well because this government acts in the national interest. If Labor were in power federally, you would get exactly the same as you have got with a weak state leader in Victoria. 1476014:38:0014760Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question again is to the Treasurer. I ask him whether he has seen the paper submitted to the national wage hearing today by the National Farmers Federation, which states:As a result of its GST implementation, Australian business will incur an additional one-off net cost of about $2.8 billion. Most of these costs will ultimately be 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 high implementation costs of the GST cast doubts on the supposed welfare gains of the GST based tax reform.Treasurer, if the National Farmers Federation do not believe you on the GST, why should ordinary Australians?14760Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Have I seen the NFF submission to the national wage case? No. I do not write the NFF submission, nor do they send it to me for checking. I have actually read the ACTU submission, which described Australia as a high growth, low inflation economy and said—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Well, I agree with the ACTU on the point. Presumably you would too. They are your masters.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer and the shadow Treasurer will resume their seats.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, my point goes to relevance.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will rule on the matter of relevance. The Treasurer has the call. The Treasurer's comment has to be deemed to be relevant. He was talking about submissions to the national wage hearings, and I invite him to continue.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have ruled on the matter of relevance. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—You have not heard it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—We do not need to go through this constant debate. I have the question written down. I was listening to the answer. I can rule whether it was relevant or not, as is consistent with the action taken by the chair for decades. I have, however, been prepared to listen to points of relevance at greater length than most previous occupiers of the chair. I have ruled that in this case the Treasurer is being relevant to the question asked, and I invite him to continue.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, can I address you on that point?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—You can raise a further point of order, of course, but not on the matter of relevance, which I have addressed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on your ruling in relation to what you have been prepared to hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. As you rightly said, it is not unusual for points of order on relevance to be raised in this place. They have, and I had been here at least as long as you, in that regard. But one thing I have seen from every Speaker, including you, on most occasions is that, as with a point of order on relevance or any other matter, the standing orders require specifically—it is not matter of silence; they require specifically—that the reasons for the point of order be heard. People do not stand in this place and say, `Standing order 32,' and sit down, or `Standing order 144,' and sit down. They say, `I raise the point of relevance for this reason,' and then you adjudicate on the remarks that they made. That is not a courtesy; that is in fact a standing order. The standing order permits the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to state why he raises the matter of relevance, and he should be heard.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—As I indicated to the House earlier, and as everyone in the House knows, it has been my practice in the chair to note the question. It is also my responsibility, not always properly discharged, to listen fully to the answer. The Treasurer was, in my estimation, being relevant to the question asked, and for that reason I ruled a point of order on relevance as in fact not relevant and I have called the Treasurer, and I call him again.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I was asked whether I had seen the National Farmers Federation submission to the national wage case, and I say that I have not. The question then included a long quote, including compliance costs, and finishes off with a somewhat rhetorical flourish about compensation for tax changes. I would have thought that this government has provided compensation, and not just compensation but benefits, arising from tax changes which are unrivalled in Australian history. When Labor was putting up wholesale sales taxes, there was no compensation. When Labor was putting up petrol excise, there was no compensation. What this government does is it introduces goods and services tax, abolishes wholesale sales tax, cuts income taxes by $12 billion, increases pensions in advance of inflation, guarantees to keep them in advance of the CPI, increases the level of family allowances, increases rent assistance by seven per cent, increases all allowances under the social security regime, cuts the company tax, halves capital gains tax and introduces a simplified taxation system. At the end of all of that, the Labor Party is so opposed to the goods and services tax that if they ever get elected they plan to keep it. When the Leader of the Opposition got up last night to speak to the Irish Prime Minister, I gave him a challenge. He should have said, `Taoiseach, you are wrong about goods and services tax. Europe is wrong, Germany is wrong, France is wrong and England is wrong. Taoiseach, what you need is a wholesale sales tax, thought up by the modern thinkers of the Australian Labor Party.' I said yesterday that it was an oxymoron to be a Labor thinker. DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that that was out of order.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I seek leave to table the paper submitted by the National Farmers Federation showing that they do not believe the Treasurer.CT4Costello, Peter, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will stop this cross-parliamentary exchange. Is leave granted?Leave not granted.1476114:45:0014761Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would the minister inform the House how the national literacy benchmarks assist parents and schoolchildren? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies on national literacy standards and what would these policies mean for the future of Australian education?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on the question of repetition of a question. I think this is the eighth time this question has been asked. Would you at least request of the minister that he get his answer right this time instead of being obliged to—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition makes the point that the question on national literacy benchmarks has been asked on a number of occasions. It was a point I noted as it was being asked. In this instance, I noted that the question was asked about its impact on parents and, for that reason, I could not deem it to be repetitious, but the point made by the Leader of the Opposition has been noted by the chair.14761Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The establishment of the national literacy standards, which all education systems are expected to meet, has been essential to deal with the massive literacy problem left by the Labor Party after 13 years in office. Members of this House will have noted that a number of the states are now releasing the results of these benchmark assessments and there was significant comment on these results in the press this morning. These standards are the key to the most important equity policy in Australian education today. If you do not support national standards, if you do not support the publication of results, you are simply not serious in addressing the literacy problem in this country. The Labor Party has not committed itself to the standards and has not committed itself to the publication of these benchmark results. There are two essential elements to the national benchmarks which define the national literacy standards. One is that they define the literacy levels which a child will need in order to successfully complete their education. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPBT4Dr KEMP—The Leader of the Opposition is not interested in empowering parents to act so as to cope with literacy problems faced by their child. When the Leader of the Opposition was in office, 30 per cent of young people in Australia could not read and write properly. What did the Leader of the Opposition do about it? Did he observe that there was a problem? No, he said, `I thought there was less capacity to achieve in that portfolio than in just about any I have had.' Thirty per cent of young people could not read and write properly and the Leader of the Opposition could not think of anything to do about it. He went to sleep for two years. What an extraordinary record we have here. We have a leader who did nothing in a key portfolio when he had the opportunity. At the last election, he brought out an education policy which was so bad that the shadow minister resigned. MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Mr Speaker, the standing orders prohibit ministers from repetition. Would you please ask this minister to wind up.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister is referring to national literacy standards, which is what the question was about. He has an obligation also to address parental involvement. BT4Dr KEMP—Mr Speaker, the very point I am making is that the Leader of the Opposition failed, when he was minister, to publish the results of literacy tests when they were available and thus deprived parents of—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPBT4Dr KEMP—One can understand their sensitivity on this point because the record is abysmal. When the Leader of the Opposition was the minister, when he was wanting to be defence minister but just happened to be education minister, he sat on the results of literacy tests year after year, in partnership with the Australian Education Union, and failed to publish the results of those tests so that parents could take appropriate action.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order as to relevance: the minister was asked what assistance he could provide parents in relation to literacy standards and what we have is the same diatribe which we have had every day.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister was addressing the question of national literacy standards and had not concluded his answer, so the chair could only presume that he was also addressing the question of parents.BT4Dr KEMP—Parents are entitled to information about the performance of their children. It has been that lack of information available to parents for such a long time that has allowed the literacy problem to persist in this country. It is only the national standards established by this government in conjunction with the states which have put parents in a position where they can go to schools and begin to ask, `Where is my child in relation to the national standard? What action are you taking to make sure my child is at the national standard?' I was asked whether there were any alternative policies and what the implications of these were. I am drawing a comparison with the lack of policy on the other side of the House. The Labor Party's consistent policy on this, in conjunction with the Australian Education Union, was to conceal the results of literacy tests from parents. And they have still not committed themselves to the publication of these results.Today we see the Australian Education Union in the media urging that the national benchmark be shunted to one side and saying that the unions and the Labor Party would put in place a new policy framework that would, once again, conceal information from parents. We have a disastrous record of disadvantaging and disempowering parents, which has led to the persistence of a long, serious literacy problem in this country. When the Leader of the Opposition put forward an alternative at the last election, he devoted four lines to the question of literacy, and the policy was so bad that his shadow minister resigned from it. When he attempt-ed, in the last fortnight, to set out some edu-ca-tional targets and goals for Aust-ralia, he tripped over himself, contradicted himself and contradicted his shadow minister—a move-ment from one bungle to another. There is no policy on the other side of the House. He is the Frank Spencer of education policy. Some mothers do `ave `em, and we are certainly not going to get anything better from that side. 1476314:54:0014763Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you agree with the Treasurer that draught beer will go up by eight per cent because of the GST? If so, why did you tell Alan Jones on 14 August 1998:Across the board there is virtually no change in relation to alcohol—a tiny CPI equivalent rise in relation to ordinary beer.Isn't draught beer ordinary beer? And why didn't you tell the truth to the Australian people about the GST's eight per cent hit on draught beer prices?14763Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As is my custom in these matters, I will check all of the sources quoted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is no secret—and the Treasurer and I have certainly been making this plain—that, because of the service component to draught beer, there will be a higher price rise for a glass of beer across the counter. We have never disguised that. My recollection is that, some weeks ago, I mentioned on the 7.30 Report a figure of seven per cent. CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—And I said it on Laws.ZD4Mr HOWARD—And the Treasurer said it on Laws. That is a double for you if ever there was one: the Prime Minister on the 7.30 Report and the Treasurer on Laws. As far as the election campaign is concerned, my recollection is that I was asked some questions about this. I made it clear, certainly in the context of the question I was asked on the Kempsey bottle shop—Mr O'Brien had a bundle of faxes in front of him and he asked me a number of questions—that there was 1.9 per cent on packaged beer. I will check all of the records.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on a point of relevance: the Kempsey bottle shop recollection was one month after this quote.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—No, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The answer was entirely relevant to the question asked. ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Treasurer and I have been making it very plain that there is a difference. The reason there is a difference is that there is a service component in draught beer served across the counter. We have had extensive discussions with the brewing industry about this. They wanted us to change it; they wanted us to give them a concession. We took the view that we were not able to do that. The price of a glass of beer across the counter will rise by a higher factor than packaged beer. Packaged beer will on average rise by around 1.9 per cent or two per cent. That was made clear in the document released by the Treasurer and me before the election campaign. I would point out to the public and to the House that drinkers, along with all other sections of the Australian community, will enjoy very significant tax cuts.1476314:58:0014763Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister inform the House how the government is working cooperatively with industry leaders to assist farmers and other small business operators prepare for the new tax system? What has been the public response to the government's seminars for farmers?14763Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I am very happy to inform the honourable member that there has been a remarkable response to the government's program of arranging seminars for farmers to explain the new tax system. Indeed, most of the seminars are heavily booked, and I have been pleased to announce in the last couple of days that we will provide for an additional 284 seminars across four states. Indeed, in your own state of New South Wales, we will be doubling the number of seminars to be conducted to 284. Across Australia there will be 1,578 seminars and workshops—that is just for farmers—to help explain the new tax system, providing around 75,000 places.These seminars are being organised by farm organisations on behalf of the government—farmers explaining to farmers how the new tax system will work in language and with illustrations and examples that are familiar to them and that they can readily understand. They are able to sweep away some of the nonsense and the scare tactics that we have been hearing from the other side, explain the way the new tax system will work and provide opportunities for farmers to understand both their obligations and the benefits of the system to them when it begins on 1 July. There will also be 23 seminars for fishing and 15 for forestry. These seminars are being held in almost every country town right across Australia. Farmers are keen to learn about the new system. They know that there is around $1 billion worth of tax savings for them and the removal of their costs. They know they will be paying less income tax. Three-quarters of all farmers will be paying 17 cents in the dollar or less. They are keen to learn about the abolition of the wholesale sales tax system, the cheaper rail freight, the lower transport costs and the improvements in Australia's export competitiveness. They want the facts because there has been so much scaremongering. We listened just before question time to the honourable member for Paterson advocating the ALP's roll-back policy—wanting to roll back these benefits to farmers so that they would not be able to benefit from the new system. He wanted to roll it all the way back to Swaziland and Botswana. He was lecturing the parliament about how Swaziland and Botswana had a better economy than anybody else's. CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Who was that?GT4Mr TRUSS—The honourable member for Paterson. That was his example of where he wants Australia to go. Fortunately, farmers have higher ambitions. They want the advantage of a modern tax system so they can compete effectively with other countries around the world where farmers have not had to endure Australia's archaic tax system as they attempt to fight on tough export markets. These new seminars will help ensure that farmers are well equipped for the new tax system when it begins on 1 July. 1476415:02:0014764Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. It follows up several of the answers she gave yesterday in parliament on matters related to Riverside Nursing Home. Minister, do you recall coming into the parliament on 16 February to announce that you had personally intervened to ensure that the Riverside Nursing Home was inspected that day and that you wanted to `be advised if there is an immediate or severe risk to individual residents'? That was on 16 February. Are you now saying that you did not follow up on this commitment given to the House on that day? Do you mean to tell us that you ignored the findings of the first serious risk report until 22 February? Do you mean to tell us that between the 16th, when you personally intervened, and the 22nd, you did not seek to inform yourself so as to ensure that the necessary immediate actions were being taken? Minister, what were you doing during this time?14764Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—I gave a very full and detailed answer yesterday. I would refer the member to that answer I gave yesterday. At all times the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency and the department and the delegate of the secretary, who have the legal responsibility under the act, acted entirely properly and expeditiously while observing due process in accord with legal service. I was appropriately advised and I was advised that appropriate action had been taken. 1476415:03:0014764Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Would the minister advise the House how the Howard government will inform Australians about the new tax system and how it will benefit families? Also, would the minister explain how many families will benefit from the introduction of the family tax payments and the creation of the Family Assistance Office? 14764Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I am pleased to inform the member for Pearce and indeed the House that today Senator Newman and I launched the public information campaign for families and those receiving income support. Beginning today, millions of Australians will start to receive information from us, through the letter box, through the weekend papers and through television campaigns, about the benefits of the new tax system. This mail-out will go, over the next two months, to 2.2 million Australians households who will benefit under these new changes—households right around the country, and even in Dubbo. I welcome the Mayor of Dubbo and his general manager here today. This very presentable, very informative 20-page booklet will explain why we are simplifying 12 payments into three payments, and the enhanced pay rates— UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—Has it got your picture in it? XJ6Mr ANTHONY—Yes. And the enhanced pay rates are even for the constituents in Paterson. More than 90 per cent of Australians with dependent children will be receiving increased payments from 1 July. As the Prime Minister has very accurately articulated today, this means substantial increases through personal income tax cuts. Eighty per cent of Australians will pay no more than 30 per cent tax. We have increases in pensions and allowances. We have increases in family payments, with more generous income test rules. We have increases in child-care assistance, particularly to low income families, and major benefits to older Australians and self-funded retirees through the increase in the bonus payments. Administering this will be the Family Assistance Office, which will help simplify payments in over 500 locations across the country. Even opposition members might want to avail themselves of this, because they need to be educated. They can ring 136150 and get the family assistance hotline, an office that will actually be open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.—not like the old days of the DSS where the office certainly was not open on Wednesday afternoons. What we are doing is being positive for families. It is about positive policies. We actually do have policies, unlike the opposition, who do not have policies. Well, they do have some policies—they have spatial economics, they have loopy policies—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Swan interjecting—XJ6Mr ANTHONY—And your policy, Wayne, of course, which is the family insecurity index, a made-up policy of 60 variables, with half of them wrong. Our policy is about assisting families, not scaring families. We are building on that great coalition tradition of building stronger families and stronger communities.1476515:08:0014765Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Minister, do you recall your press release of 1 March where you stated:... I used my ministerial powers to take action against the operator and intervene on behalf of the residents of the facility.That is Riverside Nursing Home. Minister, given that you used your ministerial power to take action against the operator, and that you used your ministerial power to order the urgent inspection in the first place, why didn't you use your ministerial power to get urgent advice about immediate serious risks to the health and safety of residents on the day the inspection was taken, not a week later?PE4Beazley, Kim, MP14765Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—I put down a very detailed answer on the record yesterday. I did hear the Leader of the Opposition complain about repetitious questions earlier today. Clearly, this is what he is about now. Very simply, I would refer the honourable member to the answer that I gave yesterday.1476515:09:0014765Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Minister, would you inform the House what progress has been made on expanding the successful Work for the Dole program? How is this program now being delivered and how will this help job seekers in my electorate of Moreton? Are there any alternative views on the benefits of Work for the Dole and what is the government's response to them?83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—Mr Speaker—849Sidebottom, Sid, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Rankin will resume his seat. He is still waiting for some measure of courtesy to be extended to him by the member for Braddon.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order under the standing order covering the asking of repetitious questions. This question has been asked before and we know exactly what answer we are going to get. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The question that was asked about the Work for the Dole scheme was about the scheme and its impact on the electors of Moreton. In that context it had not been asked earlier. That is why I allowed it to stand.83YHoare, Kelly, MP14766Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—I have more good news and more new news about the ever-changing, ever-expanding Work for the Dole program from the Howard government.83YHoare, Kelly, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The minister will resume his seat. I have persistently had to draw the attention of the member for Charlton to what ought to be the courtesies normally extended in this House. I will not do so again.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—The government is changing the way Work for the Dole is being administered. We are moving away from the one sponsor, one project, one contract model to a broken model under which community work coordinators around the country will work with more grassroots organisations to try to ensure we have an even wider range of Work for the Dole projects. Today the government announced the first instalment of projects under this new model—more than 300 new projects, involving nearly 6,000 job seekers, at a cost of about $12 million.Ihave been asked how Work for the Dole is helping job seekers in the electorate of Moreton. I am pleased to say that the very distinguished member for Moreton has received no fewer than 500 letters from his constituents in support of this magnificent program of the Howard government, including one letter from a participant, just one of 500, detailing how she has been helped by this program. Maleena Hardy says:Work for the dole made me more confident at interviews because as soon as I mentioned I was doing work for the dole I was going to at least five interviews a week and getting better at it.We are often told by members opposite that Work for the Dole is deficient because it does not involve credentialled training. But what it does do is give job seekers the right attitude to go on and seek credentialled training. Maleena Hardy writes:I got a full-time traineeship in office skills and administration. That meant I was studying and getting experience at the same time. I don't think I would have got this chance unless I had the experience I received from doing work for the dole at PA hospital.I have been asked about alternative views. Unfortunately, the Labor controlled Brisbane City Council took extravagant advantage of Working Nation programs but has failed to heed the advice of the former employment spokesman, the member for Batman, who said that all community groups should make the most of the Work for the Dole program. Councillor Jim Soorley has failed to heed the advice of his Labor colleague the member for Batman. He should take the advice—BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr Adams—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order under standing order 85. This minister gave exactly the same answer to a similar question yesterday. His answer is exactly the same, with the same terms. He is repeating the words he used yesterday.110000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister was asked a question about work for the dole schemes. He was asked about the impact in Moreton, and he was asked about any alternative proposals. I was listening closely to his answer. I have to accept the comment made by the member for Lyons that the information given at this stage is information that the House has heard before. That does not mean it is out of order, but it does need to be related to the question as asked. EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Speaking on behalf of the job seekers of Moreton, Maleena Hardy has some advice for Councillor Soorley. She says:I think the Lord Mayor and the Brisbane City Council should stop playing political games and help young people in our area gain the chance they need and deserve by being part of the work for the dole project.Councillor Soorley was man enough the other day to abandon his preference deal with One Nation.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'Keefe—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is taken under standing order 85. It directly says in the standing order that: The Speaker ... after having called the attention of the House ... to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition ... may direct the Member to discontinue his or her speech.I ask you to do that.Opposition members—Hear, hear!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will resume his seat. I have already ruled that the minister was asked a question in three parts, and he is responding. I ask him to come to his answer.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Councillor Soorley has been man enough over the last couple of days to abandon his disgraceful One Nation preference deal. He should be man enough to abandon bias and bigotry in this matter as well— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister's reference to the preference deal could have no relevance to Work for the Dole.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—and make use of Work for the Dole to help—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. Opposition members interjecting— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Bruce and the member for Braddon will exercise a good deal more restraint or they will be dealt with. 1476715:18:0014767Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—My question without notice is to the Minister for Aged Care. Minister, given your claim that you first saw a report on the Riverside Nursing Home on 22 February, which included reference to the deaths of three residents, why didn't you immediately have these deaths referred to the Victorian Coroner? On what date did you instruct your department to refer this matter to the Federal Police? Why did it take seven days for this matter to be reported to the Federal Police?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation! The question asked by the member for Greenway—which I must confess I had difficulty hearing in full—from my recollection repeated part of what had been asked in an earlier question and included a reference that had not been asked earlier. I did not get a chance to write it all down. I call the Minister for Aged Care.14767Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have some sympathy with the member for Rankin and the member for Lyons with regard to repetition—only it is on their own side of the House. I would simply say to the member who asked the question that, in fact, I gave a detailed response yesterday. I would refer him to that response.1476715:21:0014767Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs— Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta will resume his seat. The member for Prospect! The member for Melbourne is warned. I call the member for Parramatta.3K6Mr ROSS CAMERON—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. What are the political and financial constraints operating on the number of parents we can allow to permanently migrate to Australia? What would be the consequences of an immediate and significant increase in the size of the parent migration program?14767Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the member for Parramatta for his question. I note his concern and constructive interest in the aspirations that I know exist among some residents and citizens of Australia to have parents reunited with them. I note that members of the opposition from time to time have expressed some interest in this matter.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—What is the waiting time?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison is warned.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I notice the continuing interest of members of the Labor Party in this matter, but the problem with the Labor Party is to know exactly where they really do stand on the question. When I try to find whether they have a constructive view in relation to this issue, I find a lot of comments of the sort that I see from those who want to walk both sides of the street and those who want to be all things to all people. I notice that the shadow minister for immigration, the member for Bowman, when he was speaking on this matter back in July, accused the government— 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. The question raised related to the financial constraints on the government with regard to the parents. It is not the matter that the minister is now referring to with regard to somebody else's policies and what somebody else may have said about something else. It was about financial constraints and it is not relevant.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am listening to the answer.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—In relation to the point of order, Mr Speaker, the question specifically asked about the political and financial constraints.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—To have some idea of the financial constraints you need to have some idea about the sorts of numbers that the Labor Party would have in mind. The question related to the political and financial constraints in relation to the number of parents who might be allowed to permanently enter Australia. What you have is the opposition spokesman, who is prepared to hold out, as he did in the newspaper El Globo, that, maybe, the Labor Party have in mind 10,000 annual places to be available under this category. He said that when he made reference to what happened when the Labor Party was in office.If you think about 10,000 people entering Australia under a program and you know the potential health costs that are associated for a person over 65 years of age are of the order of $6,000 per year—and that includes their hospital, pharmaceutical, dental and allied health and nursing home care—and when you know that such a person may live in Australia for up to 20 years, you can see it represents a cost to the Australian community for a lifetime of something of the order of $120,000 each. For the first two years after arrival a welfare bond cost was recoverable, and data shows that very few parents access special benefits in that time. But what it does show is that two years after arrival, and for up to 10 years after arrival, when costs are not recoverable, the special benefits are accessed in lieu of the age pension. At about $8,500 for a single person, based on eight years of use, it represents a total cost per person of $68,000. When you know that after 10 years residency they could also access an age pension, based on a life expectancy of 20 years after arrival it represents another $95,000 in lifetime costs. We did put forward last year a proposal that would have enabled some of those costs to be recouped by way of a bond. Something of the order of $280,000 worth of costs would be involved. We put forward such a proposal, and what did the opposition do?DT4Crean, Simon, MP0J4Mr RUDDOCK—You disallowed it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—That was the best possible deal that you could have got for parents. An up-front payment of about $16,000 was involved for a couple, of which $6,000 was refundable if they did not access the benefits. The fact is that, at $280,000 per single person—so you are talking about almost a half a million dollars in lifetime costs—they effectively would have been able to get that for $16,000 up front. When the Australian taxpayer understands that that is the nature of the figures involved and the commitment that would have been made, I think they would think that I probably had in mind a very poor deal for taxpayers. I suspect, given the lifetime costs involved, that today they would expect a much more significant up-front payment to be reasonable in meeting those costs. So if you are serious about meeting those aspirations for parents, with a reasonable idea of the costs involved maybe next time you will take a more constructive approach in relation to the issue.1476815:28:0014769Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Aged Care. Minister, do you recall telling the House on 13 March this year in relation to the deaths of residents in the Alchera Park nursing home last year: If the GPs consider the matter to be serious and related to the death of a resident, they should report it to the Queensland coroner.Minister, why didn't you take your own advice and refer the three deaths of Riverside residents, noted in the report of your own department, to the Victorian coroner?14769Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—Again we seem to be into repetitious questions, and that is precisely why I put down a detailed statement yesterday—so that we could have some facts and not opposition fantasy.Censure Motion147691476915:31:0014769Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—by leave—I move:That this House censures the Minister for Aged Care for:(1) placing at risk the safety, health and well-being of residents of nursing homes through her inaction, incompetence and inattention in the performance of her ministerial duties;(2) not actively overseeing the policing of nursing home standards—notwith-stand-ing the wide range of powers available under the Aged Care Act and subordinate legislation;(3) her misleading of the Australian public and Par liament about the nature of her personal intervention into the Riverside Nursing Home.I move this motion in a state of near despair about getting any accountability whatsoever from this minister. We have witnessed her flounder for 10 days so far in this parliament. She has floundered when answering the simplest questions about the most fundamental responsibilities in her portfolio, which just happens to deal with the most vulnerable people in our community—our frail aged in nursing homes: the heart of her portfolio.We have watched her bumble through answer after answer, contradicting herself day after day. We asked a series of questions about a report which she put down in this place the other day, a report which she should have had in her hands within two days of her first raising this matter in the parliament. It does not matter whether we ask her a question about Alchera or about Riverside. It does not matter whether we ask her to account for the days between report and action—days in which she was missing in action. It does not matter whether we ask her questions about serious matters such as her responsibility to report her knowledge of suspicious deaths forthwith to coroners for them to have an opportunity to adjudicate and to consider the matter. It is not as though they do not view it seriously: witness the actions of the Victorian Coroner's office off its own bat. Today, in a series of answers to four questions, all dealing with totally different matters—two of which referred to matters that were not covered yesterday in questions—the response we got from her was, `Refer back to my previous answers of yesterday.'This is a minister who has lost her capacity to present the defence of her conduct of her portfolio in this place—the focal point of accountability for ministers who also happen to be members of the House of Represen-tatives. She cannot answer questions on her portfolio. She has been given a formula by her staff, after her bumbling, to say nothing, `Refer back to previous answers,' irrespective of whether those answers have any relevance at all to the questions asked.I was asked this morning about whether or not we thought we would get any sense of accountability from this minister in question time today, and I was obliged to express a certain amount of pessimism in that regard. That pessimism has been more than amply justified by her performance today.I ask you to cast your minds back to the first occasion that this issue was raised. She roared into this House like a bolt from the blue, `I have a serious problem on my hands. I have done my first spot check. I have put a team into this nursing home'—she did not name it at that stage, but it happened to be Riverside Nursing Home—'and I am going to be advised “if there is an immediate or severe risk to individual residents”'. Was it the delegate who was going to advise? Was it the secretary to the department who was going to advise? Was it the Victorian state government which was going to advise? Was it her legal advisers who were going to advise? Was it the federal opposition who was going to advise? Was it any of those culprits? I expressed the view that I expected the minister to blame my dog, Allie, and I have been disappointed that she did not say it. My dog Allie ate her homework, as far as this minister is concerned. But Allie is innocent; Allie was not blamed today. But, as for the responsibility of the minister, read `all above-named culprits.' The minister comes into this place and says, `Load it on to me,' and then when we ask her for some basic accountability, what we get is, `Everyone else is to blame. Refer to my previous answers.' Ditto, ditto in answer to the questions she was asked.This minister walked into this chamber and announced that she had triggered a process which produced, two days later, to her departmental secretary a report that she did not read or herself act on for days. What did that report say? I will go through this report because I think it is important that people understand what this minister ignored, having taken it upon herself in this parliament to take responsibility for it. It says:At the time of the visits, some initial assessments had not been completed. The following significant deficiencies were identified: Residents' needs and preferences regarding complementary treatment and therapies are not acknowledged, and residents are not assisted to make informed choices. Pain management programs are not documented, regularly reviewed or acted upon by relevant members of the health care team. Assessments are not always carried out to determine the causes of pain. Residents' palliative care wishes are not identified. Details of funeral arrangements only are consistently identified. Individual palliative care programs are not developed. A dying resident was bathed in kerosene. Continence management is not consistent with contemporary practice and do not consider residents' individual preferences. Programs are not designed to promote and enhance the residents' quality of life Care plans do not identify specific needs/prob-lems/ strategies or detailed goals and/or expected outcomes.That may sound a little bland, but it is pretty horrific when you contemplate the detail of it. She was given the details of what this meant, and in the details she saw this—or would have seen this if she were exercising a modicum of responsibility as a minister:Reason for risk... ... ...... medication is not safely administeredEvidence of riskMedications were not signed off in 18 of the 30 medication charts audited. A resident's relative said that medications are often left by the residents' bedside. These residents are unable to administer their medications unassisted. Two staff members spoken to confirmed that this often occursAnd it goes on. On the question of nutrition and hydration, the report states:The team observed that carer did not have enough time to offer residents extra drinks between meal times. The team observed that residents were slumped in their chairs and appeared lethargic and this is an indicator of dehydration in the elderly.Then it goes to:poor maintenance of residents nails leads to skin tears. Toileting times are not adhered to. ... ... ...Data confirmed that 13 residents out of the 60 bathed—in the kerosene solution—suffered skin trauma as a result of this intervention. According to four staff members, the severity of blistering and burns ranged from mild to severe. Staff members spoken to were distressed and upset about the treatment given to residents.It goes on in relation to continence. Two residents' relatives spoken to confirm that when residents request to go to the toilet, they are consistently told by members of staff that they `have to wait till after lunch'...16 of the 17 current pressure sores have been acquired in the nursing home. Six staff members spoken to stated that they do not have time to turn the residents regularly as staff are `run off their feet'.And it goes on. The confluence of prolonged times in soiled continence aids and the lack of regular position changes particularly for immobile elderly residents has resulted in ongoing acquired wounds The risk of infection as a result of this has substantially increased.And then it goes on to another area: Documentation in 1 resident's progress notes shows that maggots were found in a pressure area on 15/1/2000. The wound chart clearly describes the infestation. There is a note in the progress notes `NO MENTION TO FAMILY PLEASE' ... ... ...A written signed statement from the RN division 1 supervising the kerosene baths on 16/1/2000 states that bathroom doors were left open, windows close to the bathrooms opened and fans positioned in corridors to blow the smell of kerosene away. A written statement from an RN division 2 states that staff were advised to have constant breaks when needed or at least every half hour, due to kerosene fumes.It goes on:Relatives indicated that they were concerned about the comfort of residents during the long period of hot weather. I could go on in huge detail on this, but I just want the House and the public to understand what this minister has neglected and what she failed to have herself informed about. The report further states:There is ongoing serious risk that residents' open wounds can become flyblown and infected with maggotsBecause of the lack of adequate freezer space, there is potential for food poisoning from spoilage of food.How they would have loved that industrial freezer that the Prime Minister has had put into Kirribilli.Residents are at serious risk of skin tears on their genitalia or buttocks due to the bare wire holding a commode seat on to the frame. Residents' dignity is severely compromised by the lack of a proper toilet door. Lack of effective ambient temperature control:Residents are at serious risk of dehydration due to the high temperatures as elderly people have a reduced thirst response and do not drink enough in hot weather.This minister put the report in train on the night of the 15th, received this response from the secretary of her department on the 18th, and she did nothing. The only times this minister has acted have been when she was braced—apart from that first night when she took upon herself the entire responsibility for it. Remember that. Apart from that night when she took on herself the entire responsibility for it, this minister has acted only subsequently, when there has been an effort by a journalist to get at her or when she has had to confront this parliament. I might say that there is still one missing report, and that is the report of the previous month. The minister has not released this, and I will lay you London to a brick that a great number of the things that I have mentioned here today were in that report too. That is why I suspect we do not have that report with us as we ought to. This minister has acted only when she has had the needle put into her by the opposition in this chamber or when she has had the needle put into her by the press. Otherwise nothing has occurred. The first time the minister was asked what happened to the outfit that perpetrated all these events—and remember this was the first time the minister was dragged out, kicking and screaming, to the public to explain herself, which is the first time she shouldered the responsibility herself—she considered that a sufficient response was to change the management. She thought that a sufficient response at that point in time was to change the management. The minister will try to claim that the act protects her or ties her hands—her act, I might say. But she will also find in her act that when there are circumstances of special risk—such as those identified here, using the language in the act, in this report—there is a capacity for the secretary and, through him, her, to be advised immediately so that she can act upon it. And of course she did not. You would have thought, after the minister had made a statement in this parliament off her own back—in this case, the only occasion on which she was not dragged in here—that this was a minister determined to maintain a grip on this, to use every part of the act and to ensure that at every point in time people would be doing the things that they ought to be doing to fix these problems. If you had thought that, you would have been a reasonable person, but you would have not known this minister. This is a minister for opening nights. This is a minister for the social whirl. This is a minister for the good times. She is not a minister fit to be in the parliament of Australia. She is not a minister fit to hold the office that she holds. This is a minister who must be drummed out of town. She will not be drummed out of town by the Prime Minister but, if she is still here at the time of the next election, every family who is concerned that their elderly parents get decent treatment when they are placed in a nursing home will have a magnificent opportunity to make a statement about the wretched Prime Minister who protects her and the wretched way she saves her political hide.There is a more serious matter. Incorporated within these reports there are still very clear-cut things. People have potentially—possibly, at least—suffered death as a direct result of the offences that I have described here. This government was warned about those possibilities, and what was the minister's response? Dithering along, she decided that perhaps a note might be quietly sent to the Australian Federal Police. This was her rhetoric—remember: `I have referred this matter to the police. I am seizing control.' The police did not even know that they had had a reference. Why not? Because they got a chitchat letter. It was, `There are a few issues here,' not, `There are a few issues here which might have to be referred to coroners.' No report went to the Australian Federal Police. This report did not go to the Federal Police on the 29th. What went was a dithering little letter. I have referred a few matters to the Federal Police in my time as a minister and have seen others refer a few matters to the Federal Police. When you refer matters to the Federal Police you do not send a chitchat letter. You set out your problems. You set out any available information you have to hand—like the report that deals with the things that I have just covered. That is what you hand to the coppers. If you want a bit of advice you give them a bit to go on. You do not send the Australian Federal Police a dithering little letter, because they will not respond to it—and, indeed, they did not. They did not respond until the minister was caught out in this parliament. Only when the minister was caught out in this parliament did an actual reference go to the police, and the police of course immediately replied to her that they had no jurisdiction.But there was somebody who had jurisdiction, Minister. The person who had jurisdiction was the Coroner in Victoria. He had jurisdiction. This claptrap that you go on with, that the only person capable of referring a matter to the Coroner is a doctor in the nursing home, is nonsense. Like any other citizen, when you become apprised of the possibility of a suspicious death, you have the capacity to refer it; indeed, you have the duty to refer it. You might have got away with that argument, Minister, if you were not having these reported to you. But, remember, Minister, you set this in train. You said, `I have put this inquiry in place. I have launched my minions, my Myrmidons, upon the battlements of the Riverside Nursing Home, and I will deal with it.' From that minute, you accepted personal responsibility for everything you found and for the proper handling of it. What you did from that point on was to ignore your responsibilities. The Victorian Coroner, who should have been alerted by you days previously and given time to work on evidence when it was fresh, given time to look at the circumstances when it was immediately there, took upon himself the obligation of ringing you and getting out of you reports which should have been placed in his hands days, if not weeks, before. Minister, you are not fit to hold this portfolio. This is your act which said that it gave you the powers to do the things that you needed to do to protect the interests of our senior citizens, our elderly, in nursing homes. You have failed to use your act. You have failed to observe the most basic elements of ministerial accountability in this place, and you should just nick off. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:51:0014773Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—We have heard a lot of bombast.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman! The same courtesy as was extended to the Leader of the Opposition will be extended to the Minister for Aged Care or I will take action.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—We have heard a lot of bombast from the Leader of the Opposition—the same sort of bombast that we heard last week when he moved a censure motion, followed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Then, it was so important to them that they forgot to vote on it. In other words, it is a political act; not one that is the slightest bit concerned with bringing up to standard our residential aged care facilities.Let us set the scene a little bit as to what we inherited from the Labor Party when we came into office and why it was that we needed to put in place the reforms that were put in place in 1997. I refer to a report from the Sunday Herald Sun of 3 July 1994. It was headed `Firetrap alarm on aged homes'. It said:Almost one in seven nursing homes in Australia is a firetrap, requiring urgent renovations, according to the report. It said that one in 10 nursing homes was in such bad condition that it did not meet proper safety standards—lacking fire doors, smoke detectors or fire hose mains.Who was the minister at the time? Should I remind you that it was Dr Carmen Lawrence. The report was commissioned from Professor Gregory, to look into the adequacy of residential aged care facilities, both nursing homes and hostels. And what did the Labor Party do about that report? Absolutely not a thing. Did they respond to it? Never. Did they take any action to improve standards? No. Did they ever have any legislation which required nursing homes and hostels to come up to standards? No. Did they ever have in legislation any provision that required when registered nurses were to be present? No. In other words, there was never a time in the Labor Party's legislation in all their time in office when they attempted to raise the standards of what had become known as an area where there were many problems to solve.When the last censure motion was moved, I said that the Labor Party had closed four homes under their scheme. I corrected that because in 13 years they closed only one. The fact of the matter is this: if the Labor Party were still in office today, you would never have heard about the Riverside Nursing Home, because there would have been no means of having it made aware. There would have been no means of it becoming known so that something could be done about it. The fact of the matter is that the Labor Party put up with those standards.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but the member for Denison has already been warned. He has the choice between apologising to the House or excusing himself from the House.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—I apologise for the interjection.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—At no stage did the Labor Party, when it was in office for 13 years, show that it had any concern for the residents who were the people who needed residential aged care. This government has established a system—and it is a very large turnaround—and it has established a new body called the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency. That agency is designed to be the method of accrediting every facility that receives Commonwealth funds—that is over 3,000 homes—so that only people who have reached an accredited standard will in fact be entitled to receive federal funding—a quite new concept. It is designed to see that there is continuing improvement, not just one-off improvement. As to what happened with this home at Riverside, it was quite clear that from 1988 it had a history. It was a home that would begin at standard, drop down, be brought up to standard and then drop down. So it went on until in November 1999 its standard was that there was no serious risk. I have explained to this House before how I became aware of the occurrence that occurred, and I will remind people of this incident, the horrendous bathing of elderly, frail Australians. Some with open wounds just taped up and some with catheters were placed in a bath containing 30 millilitres of kerosene to get rid of an alleged outbreak of scabies. As a result of that, the agency went in the very next morning after I found out about it and it did an inspection to ascertain what was the position. The agency reports properly—as it does in accordance with the act—to the delegate of the secretary, who has the responsibility for that, and that is precisely where that report went. The delegate then considered that report and imposed sanctions, which I announced. They entailed the revocation of approved provider status and the revocation of licences, suspended on the condition that the provider bring up the home to standard and put in place an administrator who was acceptable to the secretary so that, if possible, those residents could remain at Riverside and we could have it brought up to scratch.From that moment on we had our nurses going into that residential aged care facility. They went in their continually and regularly to ensure the residents' safety. But they were concerned that the approved provider had in fact not done any of the things that were required by the delegate when the first sanctions were imposed. Accordingly, the agency was instructed by the department to make a second inspection, which resulted in a second risk report. So we have three reports in all: the first risk report, the review audit report, which I tabled in this House, and the third report, which was released on the 6th of this month, when in fact the evacuation of residents began because it was no longer safe to leave them in that facility. If we had done what the Labor Party asked us to do a week ago, we would have left those residents in Riverside. They said it was not necessary to remove the residents. First of all we had `Why don't you use the powers?' and then we had `They shouldn't have been moved' after the powers were used. If we had done what they were demanding yesterday—that we should have immediately revoked the status of approved provider and removed the ownership of the licences—we would have had the residents still at Riverside and we could have been in court.The simple fact of the matter is that there is always due process to be followed and the Leader of the Opposition, for all his bombast, understands that due process must be followed. At all times this act sets out the process that must be followed, and that is the process that was followed. This act has been established along the lines of the DPP, where it is not the Attorney-General who makes a decision as to whether somebody is to be prosecuted. That was the old system and we moved away from that a long time ago when we established the office of the DPP. The DPP takes the evidence, makes a dispassionate analysis and in fact brings a prosecution if the analysis of that evidence warrants it. This act has been put in place to be in exactly the same circumstances. It is not a political decision; it is a decision of the delegate, who looks at the evidence that is supplied and makes a decision as to what ought to be done. That is precisely what was followed here. The act gives the provider 14 days to comply. But, in fact, the second lot of action was taken within that time frame because the department was sufficiently concerned by reports from the nurses whom we were sending in that there should be a second inspection and that the delegate should review the situation. That is precisely what happened. I also want to talk about the number of visits and the way in which they were used, because this is important to the whole accreditation system. The agency has been carrying out monitoring of the over 3,000 facilities that we have. It has conducted 1,250 visits as of the end of the calendar year—I think it is now up around 1,300—and that includes something like 900 support visits. In other words, when some facility is found not to have acceptable standards, then the agency works with that facility to bring it up to standard so that we have good, solid providers and good, solid facilities. I would like to let people know how successful many of the providers who have achieved accreditation status have found the whole process. When we had the last censure motion, I read out a letter that had been received from one particular home which said how appalled they were to find out that they were below standard and how they had worked to bring it up to standard. There are many such messages that have come in from all over Australia. I was recently in the area of the member for Newcastle. We were in a facility handing out the accreditation certificates and there was an expression not only of the management's support but of the residents' support, because they had been made part of the process and took great pride in the fact that they had achieved accreditation status.In addition to the accreditation process carried out by the agency, we also have a certification process, and this goes right back to that report that Carmen Lawrence commissioned and upon which the Labor Party did not act at all. We had 300 facilities that were not certifiable when we took over. That is now down to 53, and I can tell you that 17 of them belong to the Victorian government. I wrote to them and said: what are you going to do about bringing them up to standard by the accreditation date? The minister has written back to me and said, `We intend to work very hard to try and meet that.' But it was not until I wrote that letter that we saw put in place any attempt to bring those 17 homes up to scratch. The residential classification scale which we use is the way in which we pay the subsidy. We have monitors in the department who have carried out 1,500 visits around the 3,000 facilities and have inspected 14,000 care plans. For the first time, everybody has to have a care plan, and it is against that care plan that the subsidy is paid. Those monitors are to check that the care that is delineated in the care plan is in fact being delivered to the residents who are in need.Throughout the entire process of the plan being put into place, there is an enormous change of culture and attitude. First and foremost in our minds is the care of older Australians who need residential aged care and the circumstances in which they receive it. Part and parcel of this whole change has been the vast increase in the number of community aged care packages which enable older Australians to remain in their own homes. They do not want to be institutionalised; they want to have that care and independence in their own home. We have now put out 18,000 of those packages. I might add that the Labor Party left us 10,000 places short because they had cut funding. We have increased funding since we came into office by $1 billion. For all their bluster, the last figure that they spent was $2.5 billion, and under us it is $3.5 billion. By next year, we will have achieved the formula that was put in place by the Labor government but which they never achieved—in fact, they went backwards. So I can simply say to you that what we have seen evidenced is bombast, hypocrisy and a sheer disregard for people, and it will come back again and again. Perhaps today they will take their own motion sufficiently seriously to remember to vote on it and not simply say, `We did it as a political exercise.'16:06:0014776Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I second this censure motion against the Minister for Aged Care because for the next 18 months, unless she is sacked by that weak Prime Minister, this nation will have an aged care minister who for at least five days, from 17 February to 22 February, failed to act on a report that documented the systematic neglect and abuse of residents of the Riverside Nursing Home. How many more nursing homes are there like that around this country? We would not know if it was happening because, under this deregulated system, there is no such thing as spot checks. The serious issues that are being raised here today are not just about Riverside. They relate to the faith of all of the relatives of people in nursing homes right around this country—the 3,000 nursing homes. This case has put a huge question mark, a huge cloud, over the quality of care that is being given to so many vulnerable people in our community. So many of these nursing homes do a good job, but we now know that deregulation of the system has caused a crisis in funding and a crisis in care, putting pressure on so many vulnerable people in so many nursing homes. What did the minister do? As I said, on 17 February she received this report. It documented that a dying resident was vomiting and being bathed in kerosene, that residents' wounds had become maggot infested, that numerous residents were suffering from pus blisters and severe rashes and that tubes were placed in residents' bladders and they were exposed to a toxic kerosene solution. For five days the minister ignored that report. So for the next 18 months, unless she is sacked by the weak Prime Minister, we will have an aged care minister who, when she acted five days later, acted with a feather duster. What did she do? She asked the proprietor of the home, `Can you nominate an administrator of the home?' She took that decision in the face of all the evidence in this report. The Leader of the Opposition spoke at length on and quoted at length from the distressing and damning evidence in this report that makes every child in this country weep for what might actually happen to their parents and their grandparents if they are so unfortunate as to end up in one of these homes. It must be of concern to all Australians, not just those who have relatives in nursing homes. Welcome to John Howard's social coalition. The social coalition is headed by the compassionate face of Bronwyn Bishop. That is what the elderly of Australia get and that is what their families get. If there was one ounce of compassion in this minister, if there was one little bit of meaning to John Howard's social coalition, how on earth could she not have acted more strongly at that time, during that five-day period? She walks in and says, `I finally know something about this. We will let the owner nominate an administrator.' Despite all of that, this minister will remain the minister for the next 18 months unless she is sacked, having said on 16 February:I immediately had my department refer the matter to the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency for swift action. My concern is to be advised if there is an immediate risk to individual residents.We now know she was advised. That is what this report tells us. She was advised on 17 or 18 February and she did not act. There could be no greater dereliction of duty than that. There could be no more negligent act than that of the minister in the case of the Riverside Nursing Home. Having been advised on 17 February, she simply allowed the provider to retain control. But then it got a lot worse. We had examples of residents getting broken arms and not receiving treatment. This is when the minister was supposedly in control. We had a resident's wounds treated with cornflour paste during the period when she was supposed to be in control. We had people's bandages being washed and reused in a completely unacceptable way. This is during the time that she was supposed to be in control. So clearly the minister's claim that she was guarding the health and welfare of Riverside residents is a total deception. For the next 18 months, unless she is sacked, the people of Australia will have the minister who allowed the situation to continue and in fact allowed the situation to get worse. From 17 February, when she was first advised, to 6 March, when she finally closed the home, all those residents so affected went through 19 days of pain and distress. At each stage of the process, the only time she ever said anything publicly or pretended to take some action is when she was sprung in the media. She has been grossly negligent and incompetent. She has acted only at those stages when there was media publicity. That is the charge against the minister. The Prime Minister and his government claim to be compassionate conservatives, but the evidence before the House in this case proves that they are cut-throat conservatives. This crisis has been brought about by funding cuts and deregulation of the system, so anything goes in the winner-take-all society of this government, whose motto is, `Do only what you can do for yourself and forget everybody else.' That is the philosophy that underlies the funding cuts, that is the philosophy that underlies the deregulation of the system and that is the philosophy that underlies the Howard government. This so-called social coalition is just a smiley mask they bring out every now and then to try and cover up the consequences of the funding cuts across the board, not just in nursing homes but across the board across the whole social security system, the sorts of cuts that are causing so much pain and inequality in our community.What I really want to know—perhaps someone who has been here longer than me can enlighten me—is what the elderly of Australia ever did to John Howard to get him to impose Bronwyn Bishop as the Minister for Aged Care on the elderly of Australia. They voted for him overwhelmingly, but he still gave them Bronwyn Bishop as the Minister for Aged Care. I have been doing some reading on the minister. Her biographer, on page 53, says:On her side of politics the contempt for her is quite staggering. The reasons are mixed, but in essence what her colleagues have seen is undisguised ambition, Lone Ranger relentlessly pursuing her own goals whatever the cost to the party.And whatever the cost of the people of Australia and the aged. Condemned by her own biographer! But let us not put all the blame on the minister. She should be sacked, but let us get down to the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem is the leadership of the Prime Minister, or lack of it. This weak Prime Minister is as responsible as the Minister for Aged Care for the deregulation of the aged care industry in this country, where people who have worked all of their lives to make this country great get the privilege of being bathed in kerosene in the sauna of summer. Minister, that is what you are guilty of, because you did not act for the five days that you should have known, and when you finally acted you did nothing to stop the distress and pain for those poor people at the Riverside home. What we on this side of the House want to say today is that we have to fix this problem, not just at Riverside but right across the country. We have to reregulate this industry and take out the winner-take-all mentality where dollar values have completely replaced human values. What we want is some human values. Minister, what you have done is taken the care out of aged care—not because it is the fault of the nurses or anyone who works in a nursing home or of those good people who run nursing homes but because of your government's policies. And the Prime Minister and all those who sit opposite are as guilty as you. But the elderly of this country deserve some immediate relief, and you should be sacked. They at least deserve that, on the evidence that is before us today.In July last year, this minister was promising strong public action against shonky operators. On 31 August, the minister told the House that spot checks were taking place. They were not—another lie. We know that in 1998-99 there were something like 4,000 complaints and not one spot check during that whole time. Every time Labor has questioned this minister in the parliament, she responds like my old uncle's white crested cockatoo. We get up and ask a question for six months; she gets up and says, `Everything's fine'—the cockatoo used to say, `Pretty cocky, pretty cocky. Nothing's wrong, nothing's wrong'—preening her feathers in this House, month after month. Every time we ask the minister about the lack of spot checks, the crisis in funding and waiting lists, all we get is the response of the white crested cockatoo. What we have brought out in this House in the last month or three weeks is that that has been a lie because you have been damned by your own reports. We know from the material that you have tabled in this House that you are guilty of gross negligence. You have caused the suffering of very many Australians and you have caused unnecessary worry in the community. That is why you should be removed from your job. You are a politician who, for years, has made a reputation out of beating up public servants and condemning ministers for not taking direct and immediate control of their own actions and those of their subordinates. No-one in this House is suggesting that you should have illegally influenced the delegate to make the decision. What we are saying is that, if you accept one shred of the Westminster system—which you talk about all the time, including in your biography—your responsibility is very simply this: it was your job to make sure that your subordinates were doing their jobs; it was your job to make sure that the delegate was doing his job. Either the delegate was doing his job and you knew, in which case you have lied to the House, or, if you did not know, you are incompetent. Either way, you are damned. You, along with the whole of the government, are responsible for the Aged Care Act. That act does not in any way prevent you from being informed immediately of serious risk to the health, safety and wellbeing of nursing home residents.I still have enough faith in the public servants of this nation to believe that you would have been told, Minister. When that piece of paper surfaces, you will finally be gone, but surely you should go before, on the record that we have before you. The point is that you must have known and you did not act. That is not good enough in a system where your government and previous governments have removed essential controls. Spot checks are the only mechanism left in preventing what occurred at Riverside and at many other homes throughout this country, but we do not have them. We got the first spot check only when you were sprung in the media. That says so much to all of those people out there who have relatives in nursing homes and to all of those Australians who are so concerned about the quality of aged care in this country.Prior to the Howard government changes to the aged care regulations and laws, aged care facility owners were given specific funding for care. That money actually had to be spent on care. Your 1997 act abolished any degree of accountability. You have already admitted that, under the new deregulated system, residents are assessed by nursing home providers and that it is the provider who determines the degree of care, not the government. That is the structural problem, and it is all part of the funding cuts administered by this government.In September last year, when Labor moved amendments to try to increase your powers to protect the rights of residents, the government voted against those amendments. The advocates of the social coalition said, `It's not necessary to have tougher regulations.' So you refused to take on the extra powers when we moved amendments in the House. That is the crux of the current problem: too much power is left with nursing home owners and the government simply refuses to police those homes which do not look after their residents. Not only have you failed to police the industry, Minister; you have failed to regulate it. You have failed on all counts. You have failed because you have been incompetent, you have failed because you have been negligent and you have failed because you have not put in place an appropriate regulatory framework. That is why you should be sacked. It is time that you took responsibility and resigned. We used to have a bipartisan approach to aged care in this country. We all used to believe that those who worked all of their lives for the country were entitled to dignity and respect in old age. But the message you have been sending to the elderly of this country is that they are a burden, not worthy of government support or expenditure. When I talk to the elderly about this, they are so horrified that they say, `Oh well, if this is the way it is going, we will know what we do when the time comes.' That is what they say. The really shocking outcome of all of this is that you are sending a message to the elderly of Australia that they are not worthy of dignity and respect and that they are not worthy of this country's support in their old age. We on this side of the House say that they are. We will continue to move for a regulated system which respects that dignity and for a system which appropriately provides the funds which they need. The problem with this government is that it just does not ever believe in helping the weak or lending them a helping hand. (Time expired)16:21:0014779Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—This debate reflects the moral bankruptcy of the Labor Party. It shows how weak their leader is. It shows that they lack direction, they have no ideas, they are unable to deliver anything and they are unable to take a stand. They simply try to take short-term political advantage, no matter what the cost, at the expense of a long-term solution. It is terribly easy to defend the actions of the Minister for Aged Care, as I have watched her actions at close hand over the past several weeks. The simple fact is that, under the act, the minister does not have the individual power to close down a nursing home. That is the province of a delegate—in this case, the assistant secretary who is head of the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care in Victoria. For the minister to seek to intervene in that process and to seek to intervene in the delegate's decision would libel the delegate's decision to be overturned in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.This is simply proper process. It does not mean that nothing was happening—in fact, a very great deal was happening. It means that proper process was being followed, something that is quite incapable of being understood by a number of people on the other side. I will go through this process and what the minister did in a bit of detail. As someone who was shadow minister for aged care in 1994 and 1995, I will remind the member for Lilley and others of the system over which they presided, the system that we are trying to fix up. The very fact the some of these bad cases are bubbling to the surface is a mark of success because the bad operators are being forced out, they are being found, and we have a substantially better industry today than we had four years ago. The opposition should cringe at the thought of Bob Gregory's report that came out under their government and the net effect of their neglect, which I will detail later.To come back to the nursing home, the minister, on finding out that we had a problem at Riverside, worked through the night to see that everything that was properly in place under the law could be made so. It was inspected the next day and, from that time on, there was continuous monitoring, morning and afternoon, by qualified nursing staff brought in by the Department of Health and Aged Care. The act requires that the nursing home be given time to attempt to rectify itself. There is a very good reason for this. When you have a situation like this, which is uncommon, the paramount concern has to be the residents. Moving residents out of a facility which is their home is an incredibly distressing procedure whenever done. Had we attempted to move the residents on 22 February, we would first of all have been required to have an alternative facility available. One was not immediately available. Secondly, we would have had to have been convinced that moving them was a better option than attempting to remedy the situation by keeping them in the place. This is what is required under the act, and properly so. So an attempt at remedying was made—but with continuous monitoring by the Department of Health and Aged Care. The remedial action was not undertaken properly by the operator of the nursing home. When that happened, a second report was ordered, as required under the act. When that report was received on the Friday before the residents were evacuated, we physically put nursing home staff into the facility night and day, until the residents were finally fully evacuated on 7 March. Through their spoke-speople, the Labor Party were encouraging us at the time to get the people out of the nursing home sooner. On 28 February, Senator Evans said in a press release:The minister should explain to the residents and their relatives why she has not used her full powers under the act to revoke the licence ...On the next day, Senator Evans said: What does this provider have to do before the Minister revokes his right to operate?'Senator Evans said the minister's failure to revoke the right to operate sends a message to older Australians that this treatment is acceptable.The next day, 1 March, Senator Evans said in a press release: ... the residents of the Riverside Nursing Home remain in the care of the provider. On 3 March: The community has the right to know why the Minister is still refusing to exercise her full powers to revoke the provider's licence. The simple answer is that we are required to take the residents' care as our primary concern in making a decision, and it was done so because there was not an alternative facility and we had not exhausted all possibilities. We should look at the hypocrisy of this and the way the opposition have been prepared to make this unusual and isolated event a political circus. After having criticised us on four separate occasions for not removing the residents, what did they do once we had removed the residents? They criticised us for doing that. On 7 March, Senator Evans said that moving people 40 kilometres away from their families was not a solution. Where else did Senator Evans intend us to put the people? Has he nominated another single facility closer that they could have gone into? No. It is absolute humbug, absolute hypocrisy and absolute immorality to use a situation like this for cheap political purposes. On 7 March, Senator Jacinta Collins put this question to Senator Herron in the Senate:If this offer had been taken up, couldn't these 57 frail and elderly people have stayed in their home?That is exactly what we were attempting to do under the act. That is exactly what we were being criticised for doing before the residents' move and then afterwards being criticised for something completely opposite. So these residents were moved, after they had been settled, after the relatives had been talked with and after we had taken every possible opportunity to make this transfer as easy as possible. Even having done that, it was still extraordinary difficult. One thing that made it even more difficult was some of the media circus surrounding this. Very sadly, as a result of it, the Victorian Minister assisting the Minister for Health, Bronwyn Pike, had her office leak the details to the media of the proposed evacuation of the residents for base political purposes when her department had been contacted by my department seeking ambulance assistance in the transfer. This is outrageous, and people should look at this whole event in that light.We should try to reflect on the nursing home industry as a whole because many Australians might think this is common or normal. Sadly, for the very many decent and good operators, this has caused great anguish and distress. The simple fact is that Victoria's nursing homes are in dramatically better shape today than they were four years ago. Let me give you some idea of the legacy we inherited—the legacy I had to deal with day after day in opposition when I was shadow minister for aged care. Four years ago we had a shortfall of 10,000 places in the number of nursing home beds available in Australia. We had a nursing home sector desperately in need of capital funding, and I will talk more about that in a moment. We had an inflexible and over-regulated system that failed to recognise the individual care needs of residents. It failed to reward innovation. It could only be described as Stalinist. We had an out-of-date, unfair and inequitable capital funding system. The Labor mismanagement meant that aged care provision in Australia actually dropped between 1985 and 1991 from 100 places for every 1,000 people over 70 years of age to 93 places for every 1,000 people over 70 years of age—a seven per cent drop in aged care provision between 1985 and 1991. We had continuous inaction over nursing home capital funding—in fact, not only inaction; we had `mal' action. We had capital funding decisions made that worsened the situation. So we inherited an extraordinarily run-down nursing stock. Labor slashed capital funding for nursing homes by almost 70 per cent in its last term of office. Under Labor, nearly 10 per cent of all the residents in hostels, and that is some 70,000 residents, actually required a high level of care. But Labor did not require hostels to have any nursing staff. Labor's inequitable funding system that we inherited meant that a nursing home resident in Queensland received $6,500 a year less than a nursing home resident in Tasmania for no sensible reason whatsoever. We had to act to fix all of these problems, and it is impossible to fix them overnight. Comparisons between different periods are difficult because standards have changed. There are around 3,000 nursing homes in Australia. When we came to government four years ago, around 300 could not meet the standards. Ten per cent of nursing homes in Australia were substandard four years ago. Today, with 3,000 nursing homes, we have approximately 50 nursing homes that are substandard. So less than two per cent of all the nursing homes in Australia are at risk. So we have gone from 10 per cent to two per cent in four years—an extraordinary achieve-ment, an achievement that I have seen personally driven by this minister, who deserves praise and credit for taking this run-down area and being prepared to try to make the changes that were so long overdue. I mentioned nursing home capital because this is actually at the nub of a lot of the problems. In 1994, Professor Bob Gregory from the ANU released a report into the capital requirements of nursing homes. I remember it. I was sitting in the chair where the Leader of the Opposition is sitting now. I will not dob him in, but a senior Labor Party figure was sitting opposite me. After a debate in this House he leaned over to me and said: `I really thought the nursing home report was much worse than you painted.' Those opposite recognised the problem but they did not act on it. Let me tell you the nursing home capital requirements Bob Gregory found. He said: There was a substantial need for improvement in nursing home buildings. Because of the government's funding formula there is a complete lack of any incentive to maintain good quality nursing home stock. ... ... ...The present funding system is not providing sufficient funds and is not attracting applications necessary for the placement and upgrading of nursing homes. ... ... ...In the calculations the government uses to pay for its nursing homes there is no provision for replacement of those nursing homes. They are literally falling down. ... ... ...The government hasn't acted on the differences between states. ... ... ...It used to be the government would fund two-thirds of replacement cost and the industry one-third. In 1991 that was changed to one-third contribution by the government. The net effect is that replacement had not happened.So over 10 per cent of nursing homes did not meet fire standards four years ago—an extraordinary condemnation of the stewardship of Labor in this area. It is not an easy area. It is an area where there has needed to be a lot of work. That work is being done. Part of that is seen by the extra funding that has gone into nursing homes. Far from cuts, as the opposition continually talk about, nursing home funding has gone from $2.5 billion to $3.5 billion in just four years. As someone who sits on the government's Expenditure Review Committee, I can tell you how difficult it is to find that money. That is a commitment to older people in Australia. The Labor Party has made some quite extraordinary comments about the minister's actions—that she, as a minister, should somehow be writing to the Coroner, referring cases. As a former medical practitioner, I can tell you that that is none of her business. She is no more responsible for deaths in nursing homes than I am for a death in a hospital. The fact is that it is the general practitioner who signs the death certificate who should be making that decision. She acted quickly. She acted within the law. She acted in the best interests of the nursing home residents. I heard that the previous speaker say that we used to have a bipartisan policy on aged care. That is rubbish. We never supported the ramshackle system we inherited. We never supported a CAM acquittal process that was seven years behind—so even though people might have had to acquit care, it would not have been found out for seven years whether they had done it or not. We inherited a farce. We inherited a shambles. It is being fixed up. It is substantially better today than it was—and a lot of credit for that has to taken by Bronwyn Bishop.Question put:That the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to.16:40:00The House divided(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 67Adams, 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.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.Wilton, G.S.76Abbott, 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.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.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.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Personal Explanations1478316:46:0014783Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—Certainly, Mr Speaker, most grievously.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—During question time, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry deliberately misquoted from a speech I gave earlier today in which I stated that the GST treatment of cattle sales was so complex that even stock and station agents in Botswana and Swaziland would not want it.Documents1478314783Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Miscellaneous1478316:48:0014783SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Members will be aware that on Tuesdays and Wednesdays when the Parliamentary News Network broadcasts live the proceedings of the Senate, question time from this House is rebroadcast in the evenings. The rebroadcast on Wednesdays is at 8 p.m., but on Tuesdays it is at 11 p.m. The Tuesday rebroadcast is inconveniently late for many listeners. In addition, the listener gets a rather disjointed version of the parliamentary day as question time is rebroadcast following the adjourn-ment debate. The late hour results from the fact that on Tuesdays the House is broadcast live, following the Senate's rise. Because the Senate usually rises during this House's dinner break, there is not sufficient time for the replay of question time before proceedings in the House resume at 8 p.m. It is therefore held over until 11 p.m., when the House rises. The interval between the Senate's rising, usually at about 7.20 p.m. or a little earlier, and 8 p.m. is filled with general news. I propose that the time of the House question time rebroadcast on Tuesdays be changed from 11 p.m. to immediately after the Senate rises. This will generally mean that the live broadcast of the House on Tuesdays will commence around 8.10 p.m. to 8.20 p.m., instead of 8 p.m. I consider this change will be more convenient to the listening public. I should add that I had decided against asking for the views of members of the Joint Committee on Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings on this matter, as it is not of direct concern to the senators on that committee. In making my proposal known to the House in this way, I welcome any comments either from members of the House or from members of the listening public. Subject to any comments received, I would hope that the changed arrangements will commence on Tuesday 4 April.Privilege1478316:50:0014783SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—On 15 February 2000, Mr Kerr raised as a matter of privilege the possible interference with Mr Wayne Sievers as a witness before the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Mr Wayne Sievers was one of four officers proposed by the Australian Federal Police to brief the foreign affairs subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade at a private briefing held on 22 November 1999 in relation to its inquiry into the United Nations. At the briefing, Mr Sievers tabled a number of reports that he had made whilst in East Timor as part of the United Nations mission in East Timor, UNAMET. On 24 November 1999, an article appeared in the Canberra Times referring to Mr Sievers's briefing of the joint committee. There was reference in the article in general terms to the documents Mr Sievers had provided to the committee. On 9 January 2000, an article in the Sydney Age reported that Mr Sievers is under investigation for alleged unauthorised disclosures of information to the federal parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. The article went on to suggest that, following his appearance before the committee, the AFP had contacted Mr Sievers and asked him to make no further comment on his experience in Timor, and had placed him on stress leave pending possible disciplinary action.In response to the article, the chair of the committee wrote to the Commissioner of the AFP seeking the basis of any charges which might be considered in relation to Mr Sievers. The commissioner responded, stating that the concerns of the AFP only related to comments allegedly made by Mr Sievers directly to the media and not to his appearance before your committee. He attached a letter that had been sent to the newspaper, correcting the assertion to the article.In determining whether a matter should be given precedence to refer it to the Privileges Committee I have regard to (1) whether the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity, and (2) whether in my opinion a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made out. I am satisfied that Mr Kerr raised the matter at the earliest opportunity. In relation to the matter raised, allegations of improper interference with witnesses who have given or are to give evidence before committees have been viewed very seriously. If witnesses do not believe they are able freely to give evidence to committees then the capacity of committees to undertake inquiries is undermined.Given the direct denial of the AFP Commissioner that the issues being pursued with Mr Sievers do not relate to his involvement with the committee, I am not convinced that the AFP has improperly interfered with Mr Sievers as a witness and therefore a prima facie case has not been made out. However, as these are very serious matters, if further evidence comes to light I would be prepared to reconsider the matter. I table the relevant documents for the information of members. I will also make available the previous statement.Matters of Public Importance147841478410000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Lilley proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the Minister for Aged Care to ensure effective and adequate means of monitoring and enforcing standards of care in Australia's nursing homes.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—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley has indicated his willingness to withdraw the motion, and I thank him for his consideration.Bills14784R97414784Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith. Bill agreed to.14785Bill (on motion by Mr Reith)—by leave—read a third time.Bills14785R101614785Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.14785Bill (on motion by Mr Reith)—by leave—read a third time.Bills14785R101414785Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.14785Bill (on motion by Mr Reith)—by leave—read a third time.Bills14785R101314785Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.14785Bill (on motion by Mr Reith)—by leave—read a third time.Bills14785R23114785Bill returned from Main Committee without having been fully considered; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Parliamentary Zone147851478510000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a message from the Senate transmitting the following resolution agreed to by the Senate:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the proposal by the National Capital Authority for capital works within the Parliamentary Zone, being the reconstruction of the Old Parliament House gardens.Bills14785S22614785Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Motion (by Mr Williams) proposed:That the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.17:00:0014785Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I move:That all words after “that” be omitted, with a view to substituting the following words “that the second reading be moved forthwith”.Mr Speaker, there is some urgency about this matter. There is the certainty that, if this particular proposition is carried by this parliament, this bill will disappear into the archives as far as the operations of the House of Representatives are concerned. The matter is urgent and must be dealt with now.Motion (by Mr Williams) proposed:That the question be now put.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—That is absolutely outrageous.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—There is a question before the chair. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—It is in regard to the validity of that question that I want to raise the point of order. As I understand it, the Attorney-General moved that the question be now put, but there has not been a seconder to this amendment. Don't we need to hear that before he can move that the question be put?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am happy to hear the Leader of the Opposition, but I was going to comment on the point of order of the Manager of Opposition Business.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Then let him keep speaking, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has not been recognised. The Manager of Opposition Business makes the valid point that, currently before the chair, I have a motion and a proposal for the motion to be amended by the Leader of the Opposition. That has not as yet been seconded, so I do not have the question.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, the reason that we need to consider this now is that the matter has some urgency. Every day in the Northern Territory children are jailed on a routine basis for crimes such as stealing a bottle of water worth $1.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question before the chair is the motion that I proposed.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The question currently before the chair is the motion as moved by the Attorney-General. To this, the Leader of the Opposition has sought to move an amendment. At this stage, that amendment has not been seconded. That is my understanding of the situation currently, and that is why I had recognised the Leader of the Opposition.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Every day in the Northern Territory now, people—7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order I seek to raise is that, on the moving of the motion that the question be now put, the incomplete motion for the amendment made by the Leader of the Opposition simply lapses.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I was about to rule on the Attorney-General's observation, but I will hear the Leader of the Opposition.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—To that observation, it may have been possible under standing orders for the Attorney-General to move that the motion be put forthwith, but another question has been placed before the chair. That is the question of my amendment. It is necessary, therefore—this having been placed before the chair, and you having recognised it—that this matter be dealt with prior to any proposition that the motion be put. There is a form of words, but I am not going to advise the Attorney-General how to deal with this problem. The fact of the matter is that the problem has already been created for him, and he has not responded appropriately to it. Whilst I am on my feet, recognised by you in circumstances where I am moving a proposition before this chamber, I have a right to be heard out.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The situation, as I understand it, is that the Leader of the Opposition has moved a resolution, but the Leader of the Opposition's resolution has not been seconded.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—You didn't call for a seconder.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thought I was entitled to be heard at least in silence. The Leader of the Opposition's amendment has not been seconded. Therefore, under the standing orders, it does not have status of its own right, which allowed the Attorney-General to move that the motion be put.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I therefore take it I am still speaking on this.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—No, I am indicating to the Leader of the Opposition—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—You are accepting the motion that the motion be put?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am indicating to the Leader of the Opposition that, because the amendment before the chair has not been seconded, and has not been stated from the chair, it does not therefore have life as an amendment. For that reason, the motion that the motion be put—Debate interrupted.Dissent from Ruling1478717:05:0014787Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I move:That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.Mr Speaker, the reason I have moved that your motion be dissented from in relation to standing orders is this: it is possible for a minister in most circumstances to move at any point of time that the motion be put. That is true.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the House has as much right to the call as anyone else. As yet, he has not been recognised; that is perfectly right. That was not a matter of discourtesy on the part of the chair; it was a matter, as everyone would have been aware, that a comment was being made by the Clerk.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, my point of order is very simple: the standing orders require that, once a procedural motion that the motion be put is moved, it should be put without debate. On that basis, that motion should take precedence, and it is incumbent on you under the standing orders to put that motion. I should explain that it is not a matter of a ruling. The reality is that the standing orders require that.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Every standing order requires interpretation. There is no standing order that is so obvious to us all that it is capable of being interpreted without discussion in this place. You have given one interpretation of standing orders, the effect of which is to ensure that an amendment that I moved to a proposition before the House cannot be heard, and I am dissenting from that ruling. A dissent motion, in those circumstances, has precedence.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on standing order 93. I refer in particular to the submission from the Leader of the Opposition, which is that there is no matter which cannot be the subject of discussion. That would be a fine point except for the fact that the standing orders specifically state that there will be no discussion. That is the whole point of standing order 93. Therefore, taking the Leader of the Opposition's argument and then shining some light onto it through the operation of the standing orders, it is quite clear that the procedural motion does need to be put.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Mr Speaker, if I could draw your attention to another standing order, and that is standing order 100, `Objection to ruling of Speaker'. It states:If any objection is taken to any ruling of the Speaker, such objection must be taken at once, and a motion of dissent, to be submitted in writing—which I have just done—moved, which, if seconded, shall be proposed to the House, and debate thereon shall proceed forthwith.Mr Speaker, a ruling was required of you in the circumstances in which an effort by me to amend a proposition had an override attempted by the Attorney-General. I am dissenting from a ruling which you took at that point in time, and, according to standing order 100, it must have precedence.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The chair is in a situation where, while not wanting to thwart debate, we clearly have two standing orders that are relevant to the question before the chair. The question is that the question be now put, and there is a requirement for that to be put, under standing order 93, forthwith and without amendment or debate. If for no other reason than the `forthwith', I am required to put the question that the question be put. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I move a further dissent from that ruling.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I must point out to the Leader of the Opposition that it is simply not possible for the chair, no matter what I may wish to do, to recognise him, because without debate it is necessary for this matter to be put.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—It is possible for you to recognise, Mr Speaker, as you have, when I am in the circumstances where I am moving a dissent from your ruling. Ultimately they will succeed in their efforts to stop this thing coming on, but they are not going to be able to do it without dissent from your ruling being considered first. Standing order 100 is quite clear in that regard. I would submit to you, Mr Speaker, that it is entirely appropriate for us to be debating now a dissent to your ruling. This is the second dissent motion, because I am now moving a dissent to a further ruling by yourself on this matter. But that is fair enough. We can now proceed quite cheerfully. WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. However tenaciously the Leader of the Opposition wants to put his proposition that he is entitled to obtain precedence of another motion over the motion which is before the chair, namely that the motion be put, it does not matter how he puts it, by whatever form he attempts to put it. He cannot get around the standing orders any more than you are entitled to get around the standing orders, which is exactly the point that you have made. He can then sit down and, in a huff, say, `You did not take my point of order, so that is a ruling, so therefore I have another dissent.' We could have 50 dissents. The fact is that the standing orders are quite clear. The fact is that the opposition did not put up a seconder at the time. I understand why they did not do so, and I understood that at the time, but the fact is: that did not happen. The motion put by the Attorney-General therefore has precedence and should be put. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have not at this stage recognised the Leader of the Opposition because the chair finds itself in quite an invidious position. It is of course entirely inappropriate for the chair to be resisting a dissent, for obvious reasons. Equally, the chair has to deal with standing order 93, which indicates that when the motion before the chair is that the question be put, such a question shall be put forthwith, without amendment or debate. I propose to take that course of action. That does not deny to the Leader of the Opposition or to the Manager of Opposition Business the right to move dissent from my ruling, but I have no choice but to put that question first at this stage. For that reason, I propose to put the question.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I understand that the Manager of Opposition Business was not seeking to be discourteous, and, as he must appreciate, this is not an easy matter to resolve. I recognise him.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—My point of order relates to the fact that you have raised the fact that it is the word `forthwith' in standing order 93 that requires you to proceed in the way you are. Why don't the words `at once' in standing order 100 have equal effect?110000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The reason that the chair is currently fixed on standing order 93 is that the standing order outlines the obligation I have to put the question forthwith, without amendment or debate. I propose to put that question because I have no choice but to do so. If the Leader of the Opposition feels that in some ways he has been short-changed by the decision made by the chair or the forms of the House, then clearly there are avenues available for him to address it.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition must understand that the reason that I am not accommodating his dissent motion at this time is that I am unable to do so, not that I am unwilling to do so. I will hear the Leader of the Opposition and then put the question.17:15:0014788Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Speaker, it may have been possible for the government to gag the decision in that way if they had moved immediately the motion that the question be put— at the time the minister stood up and moved his motion.Government members interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Mr Speaker, it is true that he can move it at any time but, when he failed to move it at that point of time, allowing me to start the process of amending that proposition, he created a set of circumstances where you were obliged to give a ruling. Mr Speaker, because you were obliged to give a ruling in that set of circumstances, you created the circumstances whereby dissent from your ruling could be ruled on. It was in that environment that I moved dissent from your ruling. You were obliged to rule because of the circumstances in which the original gag motion was put and, having given a ruling, you created the situation whereby dissent from your ruling must be dealt with at once. Mr Speaker, we are in the situation now where the only appropriate motion for you to consider is the dissent from your ruling. There is no other point at which this dissent could be moved, unless you have a different view—that is, that a motion of dissent from your ruling can be taken after the particular proposition is voted on in this House, which would probably put you in all sorts of difficulties. The correct point at which you ought to consider the motion of dissent is at this point. You may have what you think is a clash of `forthwiths' and `at onces', but I would submit that in these circumstances my `at once' outweighs his `forthwith', and the most sensible way to dispose of this business is to deal with my motion first and then the other, because it would be extraordinarily difficult to deal with it the other way around.17:17:0014789Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—Mr Speaker, the logic of the Leader of the Opposition's position is that every time a Speaker requires a motion to be put in accordance with the standing orders it would be appropriate and possible for a member of the opposition or any other member to stand and move a motion of dissent. That would make a complete nonsense of the standing orders if every time you abided by the standing orders they could move a motion of dissent. Just as a matter of logic, it would render useless and futile the very standing order which is constraining your conduct and which, in the end—RH4Kerr, Duncan, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison might remember his status in the House. WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—While courtesy allows the Leader of the Opposition to present his point of view, the fact is that, if you can have a motion of dissent every time the Speaker is required to put the motion under standing order 93, there would be no point in having standing order 93.17:18:0014789Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—On page 489 of House of Representatives Practice it says:The motion cannot be moved when a Member is giving a notice of motion or is formally moving the terms of a motion allowed under the standing orders—so it cannot be moved—or if, when the same question has been negatived, the Chair is of the opinion that the further motion is an abuse of the orders or forms of the House ...I was on my feet moving a motion within the context of the meaning of that proposition. It may have been possible for the Leader of the House to move that I be no longer heard or to do a number of other things, but it was not possible for him to move closure while I was on my scrapers specifically moving a motion.Mr Speaker, in those circumstances, you effectively had to give a ruling. You had to give a ruling because the automaticity associated with the forthwith element of a closure no longer applied, because I was on my feet moving a motion in this place and I had been recognised by you to move that motion. In those circumstances, there is not the pure application of the closure motion before us. In those circumstances, what is before us is the fact that they have tried to close me down at a particular point of time. Mr Speaker, you have reached a conclusion about the legitimacy of that, but the conclusion that you have reached and the circumstances in which you have reached it do not obviate a motion of dissent from your ruling at this point.17:20:0014789Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—Mr Speaker, the reference which the Leader of the Opposition has just made to on page 489 of House of Representatives Practice is—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Menzies is entitled to be heard in silence and should be extended the same courtesy as everybody else. I will act with those who fail to recognise standing order 55.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—The reference which the Leader of the Opposition made to page 489 of House of Representatives Practice is a reference to a motion that a member be not further heard. The motion from the Attorney-General before you was a motion that the question be now put. I refer to page 490 of House of Representatives Practice, which says that the motion must be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate. 17:21:0014790McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—Mr Speaker, I refer to page 311 of House of Representatives Practice, which says:The principal means by which a question may be superseded is by way of amendment. Once an amendment is moved and the question on the amendment proposed to the House the original question is temporarily superseded. So what happened with the Leader of the Opposition's amendment is that the Attorney-General's original motion was superseded. So it is no longer before the House and it cannot now be put. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Before I recognise the Attorney-General or the member for Scullin—if they would both resume their seats—I will comment. This is going to get an air of the absurd about it unless I deal with some of the issues that have been raised. The member for Barton makes a valid point except that, for the motion in fact to have status, it needed to be stated from the chair. The chair is obviously being guided by House of Representatives Practice. It is inappropriate for the chair to be mounting its own defence but can I be forgiven for pointing out this statement which applies entirely to the question that the question be now put:The motion for the closure may also be moved while the member who has seconded an amendment is addressing the House. Once again, the closure applies to the original question as in both cases the question on the amendment has not yet been proposed from the chair.HH4Jenkins, Harry, MPMr Jenkins—Mr Speaker, you would understand that I rise on a point of order with great reluctance. First of all, I indicate that I am not a lawyer. I refer you to standing order 98—'Point of order'—which says:Any Member may at any time raise a point of order which shall, until disposed of, suspend the consideration and decision of every other question.I believe that is the standing order that applies in this case. Other matters that have been raised may have been raised in the debate of a dissent from your original ruling, but the problem that we confront is that, unless the dissent debate goes ahead, the matters about which you have ruled and on which there is dissent will have to be finalised and it would make it futile to have the dissent motion. I believe that the only avenue open to you by standing orders 98 through to 100 is to take the dissent motion—and to take it now.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have had some interesting suggestions as to what is the relevant issue. Can I suggest to you that the particular point of view that is relevant is on page 341, which deals with the motion that the question be now put. It provides that, once an amendment is moved and seconded, the question on the amendment must thereupon be proposed by the chair. At this point it has not been seconded. It says that, while a member is moving an amendment, the closure motion—that the question be now put—may not be moved. I understood that it had been moved and that the Leader of the Opposition was speaking to the motion.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison, you have been warned.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams—But a member speaking to a motion or amendment that he or she has moved may be interrupted by a closure motion, so that the moment that the Leader of the Opposition has moved his motion and starts speaking to it—as I understood he was doing—a closure motion is competent.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise to speak on that point of order. His comment does not actually assist the Attorney-General to get back to the point at which he wishes to be. That is an argument he could legitimately raise in the course of a debate about dissent from your ruling but it is not an argument that he can legitimately raise to prevent a dissent from your ruling being placed before the chamber.Mr Speaker, we are a chamber which proceeds by standing orders, and must do so. Those standing orders are there for the rights of all members of parliament, not just simply for the convenience of the government. One of the rights that are there for us is that, when you, Mr Speaker, find yourself at any point in time constrained to give a ruling, it is capable of being challenged in this way. You are obliged to give a ruling on this matter because something had occurred in this chamber beyond the original moving of the motion by the Attorney-General; namely, I was on my scrapers talking about a motion that I was moving. Therefore an interpretation was required by you of the circumstances in which you found yourself. You gave that interpretation. It did not go my way. The option that was available to me in any set of circumstances—and then to take precedence at once, as the standing order says—is my capacity or any other member of this parliament's capacity to move dissent from your ruling. All sorts of points can be made about whether or not I am reasonable and about moving dissent from your ruling, but what cannot happen is the capacity to dissent from a ruling in this place being obviated effectively by force majeure, and that is what is going on here. This is an overriding position because each step of the processes of this parliament in the end has to proceed on the basis of your interpretation of standing orders, and you cannot just simply brush it aside. That is quite evident from the select part of House of Representatives Practice that we moved in that regard, which gave us an absolute right of precedence as far as these sorts of motions are concerned.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition understands that it is not the wish of the chair to ever deny him the right to move dissent. That must be clearly understood. However, the chair is bound by standing order 93, which obliges me to put the question that the question be put forthwith without amendment or debate, and I propose to put that question. The question is that the question be now put.17:33:00The 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.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.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.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.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 affirmative.Question put:That the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.17:39:00The 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.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.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.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.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 affirmative.17:40:0014792Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving forthwith:That the order of the House that the second reading of the Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill be made an order of the day for the next sitting be rescinded so that the second reading can be moved forthwith.Mr Speaker, I believe that it is necessary to rescind the motion that we have just passed because, if we fail to rescind this motion—Motion (by Mr Hockey) put:That the member be not further heard.A division having been called and the bells being rung—4T4Melham, Daryl, MPAK6Gash, Joanna, MPMrs Gash—If you've got something to say, Daryl, come out and say it.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—You'd gag me.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Gilmore and the member for Banks!4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—I'm not going to take that crap.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks is warned! 17:44:00The 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.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.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.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.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 affirmative.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?17:47:0014793Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—Mr Speaker, I second the motion. Today we have seen a travesty of justice and democracy in this place in the failure of the government to debate—Motion (by Mr Hockey) put:That the member be not further heard.17:49:00The 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.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.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.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.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.In division—RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I note that the member for Parramatta appears to have moved from his seat, in defiance of the standing orders and procedures of this place, during a one-minute division. I ask you to rule on that fact.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—He was over there!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! I do not need the assistance of the member for Banks, who will be dealt with very sternly, or the member for McEwen, who seems to feel that she too has authority to advise the chair. I require only to ask the member for Parramatta whether in fact he has moved from his seat, which he occupied in the previous division.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I do not understand the standing orders to require me to be seated while the bells are ringing. I was seated here for the last division and I have returned to the place where I was seated.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the member for Paramatta.Question so resolved in the affirmative.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The question is that standing orders be suspended to enable the order of the day nominated by the Leader of the Opposition to be brought on.17:53:0014794McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to speak to that motion.Motion (by Mr Hockey) put:That the question be now put.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: how did he get the call before me?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I refer you once again to standing order 53, which obliges me to put a motion. Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—If the House will come to order, I will hear the Manager of Opposition Business.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I understand once the motion is moved the standing orders under which you operate. What I was contesting is that you gave the call to the minister over there while I was on my feet rather than to me when I wanted to speak to the motion before the chair. I should have received the call. If you think he jumped before me, that is an amazing piece of judgment on your part.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The position is that the question that the question be now put has precedence over all other questions, and I now propose to put it. The question is that the question be now put.17:55:00The 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.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.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.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.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 affirmative.Original question put:That the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to.17:57:00The 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.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.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.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.Question so resolved in the negative.Bills14796R100014796Debate resumed.18:02:0014796Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—Following on from my speech earlier, no mechanisms seem to be in place pertaining to what action could be taken against transgressors. What benefit would there be to consumers if the medical fraternity simply increased the fee schedule? My second concern goes to the matter of the impact on current schemes. As we have seen, some measure of success has been achieved by consumers in obtaining no-gap policies. As members following the debate are aware, the Labor Party has been pleased that many insurance companies have been implementing no-gap alternatives. Of course, only a minimal proportion of policies at this stage are of the no-gap variety. The development of these policies certainly should not be discouraged, and this is one of our principal concerns. I would like to see further examination of the potential effects of the bill on these schemes. I am led to believe that the medical profession has a vested interest in seeing the bill before this House passed. I do not want to see the public robbed of both public hospitals and any potential beneficial private option because of profit taking by this sector. We need more information regarding the detailed impact on current schemes. Finally, and importantly, whenever a patient enters the care of a hospital or anywhere in the medical profession where care is provided, it is reasonable to expect that the patient will know the cost of the procedures and what gap will need to be covered; therefore, they will be able to make an informed choice. This is called financial consent. This is not, however, defined in the legislation before us today. Unfortunately, in my reading of the bill, there is little or no reference to this commercial information. Also of some concern is that it is possible for a patient to be multi-billed—that is, to receive a series of individual bills from various sources related to separate treatments. Simplified billing arrangements are of paramount importance, and the current moves to continue this practice should be pursued. Given these complexities and that many of the questions need extensive examination, it would be appropriate if we moved to examine the bill in more detail at the consideration in detail stage. Not so long ago, the Sydney Morning Herald's Ross Gittins wrote a piece quoting Don Harding from the Melbourne Institute. Gittins made a number of salient points that we should consider in relation to this bill. They go to the heart of the strategy of this government and why members on this side of the House look with some trepidation on the introduction of this bill when there are limitless problems borne of neglect that need addressing. Perhaps the most salient of all of the points made was that we have had in this country for quite some time significant cost control over the public part of Australia's health system. For the two decades since the introduction of Medicare, we have managed to keep aggregate costs below those of other nations, as well as cover all of our population. Contrast this with private dominated marketplaces like the United States that do not cover all of the population and cannot control costs. In fact, prices increased by six times the Australian rate. The private American system gluttonises almost 15 per cent of GDP against our 8.5 per cent, and yet 40 million Americans have no health cover. We must never allow Australians to suffer as Americans do due to a lack of public health care.Since the introduction of Medicare, the government has effectively controlled the price of services. This can happen because three demands are rationed in price terms: the ban on gap insurance, the bulk-billing and the medical benefits schedule. My concerns are manifest: the reason is the litany of poor management of the most critical portfolio in government. To demonstrate this poor management, let us start with the last budget. It was not that long ago that this budget was being billed as a boost for health. However, our examination found that most of the new programs are small pilots; or, in the case of medical research, a substantive boost to funding comes only after six years. In the first year, the initiatives amount to an increase of $164 million. This was calculated to be less than one per cent of the health budget. Compare this with the reduction of $1.7 billion in the overall Medicare budget—the all-up cost of the private health insurance rebate—and that is 10 times the allocation for all the new initiatives in this year's budget. That the overall health budget increased was mostly to pay for the private health insurance rebate. Basically, the government had thrown away $1.7 billion a year.With that amount of money we could have reintroduced the Commonwealth Dental Program and fixed many of the problems in our public hospitals. However, we see nearly 10 per cent of the total health budget going as a direct subsidy to the private health insurance funds. Remember that the rebate was meant to produce 550,000 new members and to hold down premiums because of that increase. What actually happened? As of last year, membership increased by a miserable 60,000 people around Australia. Recently the premiums have jumped five per cent, or $110 a year for an average family.Let us look briefly at key issues mentioned in the budget. I remember that our criticism centred on three principal issues: firstly, radiology; secondly, pharmaceuticals; and, thirdly, general practice. Between them these represent about $7 billion a year in Commonwealth expenditure. Firstly, I turn to radiology. As we know, the agreement is now over one year old. It is a matter that has received much attention of late, and rightly so. Under this agreement the billion dollar radiology budget was to be kept to a seven per cent increase—not a very hard target in times of 1.9 per cent inflation. We are now informed through a Senate estimates committee that in the first year of this agreement there has been a $35 million budget blow-out and the agreement is heading towards $165 million. These specialists were expected to keep spending within the prescribed soft cap by restricting the use of CAT scans and ultrasounds. It is my understanding that expenditure increased by 13 per cent before the shadow minister's office was put into the picture of the abuses that have dogged the scheme. Secondly, for many in the House the mention of pharmaceuticals invokes horror stories of constituents who have not been able to find the appropriate medical treatment for their condition. In my electorate of Swan I have received many constituent tales of the elderly and the sick having to take generic drugs that have led to a less than adequate treatment for their ailments. Under the scheme, payments for the pharmaceutical scheme are to be given to doctors who stay below the average for prescribing in the three designated groups of pharmaceuticals—cardiovascular drugs, drugs for gastric disorders and antibiotics. In the budget, the reductions in pharmaceutical spending are supposed to be based on agreements with medical providers. Over the next four years, the government proposes to save $350 million on pharmaceutical spending.How this return to doctors is to be organised remains totally unclear to the opposition, the department and the doctors. The payments are apparently to be made to individual doctors, but nobody seems to know how this is to be measured, allocated or which doctors will get them. My understanding is that this conflicts with Senate estimates committee research that indicates that only 22 per cent, or $78 million, will be returned to doctors over the four years. The minister could not get the Australian Medical Association onside over this issue. The AMA had no doubts about the dangers. It has loudly condemned the pharmaceutical cuts in the budget. I remember that the AMA also indicated that it was not even invited to discuss the matter. Surely it is not very prudent to proceed without the agreement of the party on whom you are depending for the implementation of a more efficient system.We have, unfortunately, reached the position where a member of the community may prefer a particular drug but under this regime that is no longer an option. It simply means a government scheme to save money that prevents a doctor prescribing the correct drug for a particular patient. In relation to his migraine condition, Mr John Bartlett of Victoria Park recently informed me:I have been prescribed this generic drug. It doesn't work and I seem to have no alternative but to continue to suffer.The third agreement that I want to touch on underpins this year's health budget. The minister for health has been unable to reach agreement with the AMA and other GP groups over the new general practice agreement to put a cap—once again, a soft cap—on total spending on general practice. If the GPs do not reduce the growth in services, just as we have seen in radiology, and, as a result, the government reduces the amount paid to general practitioners, we all know who will be left holding the bill—the patients. The rapid growth in gap payments faced by patients has been reported in the press and from the contact that members of this House have with constituents. According to information from the health department, patient costs jumped by an average of $200 in the last two years for nine common surgical procedures. In practice, the agreements I have talked about today will push the costs from the Commonwealth onto individuals. The real thrust of the minister's negotiation seems to be to increase patient costs and push doctors away from bulk-billing—yet again, another attempt to undermine Medicare.There is another element of the health budget that needs to be considered in the light of the short-term strategy this government favours. Members on this side of the House have been quite concerned about the funds available for medical research. We saw the science and technology statement, released two days after the budget, highlight that expenditure on research will be $100 million less than it was in Labor's last year of government. Medical research, the driver of investment in better patient care, should be a thriving industry. Sadly, there have been cuts to the university sector plus the reduction of the tax concessions that applied to business research and development in the Howard government's horror budget of 1996. The science and technology budget papers reported that health and medical research expenditure in 1995-96 was almost $164 million. In 1998-99, the figure was $165 million. Research and development continues to plummet, with a further four per cent drop due to the reduction in business research and development tax concessions. Of course we have said on many occasions in this House that the Bureau of Statistics' figures show that business expenditure on science and technology continues to decline. Under this government, the percentage of the nation's wealth invested in research of all kinds has shrunk from 0.75 per cent of GDP to just 0.63 per cent. The build-up of funds for medical research will also be painfully slow. In the first year there is only an additional $21 million. Australia is a poor investor in medical research. Minister, be under no false illusions; every day in every electorate in this country people are concerned about both their ability to access care and their ability to have access to quality care. These are critical issues.I should like to mention the stories that we get in our electorate offices about dental care. I hold the government responsible for the pain and suffering of those elderly or less fortunate who, every night, go to bed with a mouth full of aspirin in order to sleep. This is a direct result of this government abolishing the Commonwealth dental program. Let us look at this area that the government likes to see as an increasing part of Australia's health system. This government wants to encourage private health insurance and to increase private sector activity. If we look at what has happened to the price of private health insurance over the period to 1995—the cost since the introduction of Medicare—we see that it has actually risen 2.8 percentage points a year faster than consumer prices generally. If we look more broadly at the price of dental services, which are not controlled by the government but covered by private health insurance, they have risen by about 40 per cent more than other consumer prices. If we look more specifically at the article that Don Harding published, he went into the question of what the impact on the cost of health care in Australia would be as a result of the latest decision by this government to pour $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money into private health insurance. He said that, in the short run, subsidies do reduce the price to consumers by about the amount of the subsidy, but that over time suppliers raise prices so as to capture a substantial part of the benefit. This is a widely observed phenomenon and there is no reason to assume that it will not occur in the case of private health insurance. He says, therefore, that it can be expected that much of the 30 per cent subsidy is likely to go to higher health insurance premiums and that, therefore, the subsidies will prove to be an expensive way to stem the rise in private health care costs.In summary, any alterations to platforms such as gap insurance or bulk billing need appropriate examination. There needs to be rigorous debate as to the most appropriate long-term strategy to contain costs and to provide unfettered access by the community. Policies that tamper with the successful policy model should be examined in detail in the appropriate forums of this House, namely in committee. To stop the sort of inappropriate policy we have seen so far, the Health Legislation Amendment (Gap Cover Schemes) Bill 2000 must be examined in broader detail and passed back to this House for further scrutiny and possibly amendment.18:17:0014800Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—Australia has always needed a strong private health sector to complement its public system. In fact, our public health system needs a viable private health system to survive. (Quorum formed) I am indebted to the member for Denison for taking up that time in securing an audience for the remainder of my speech. Private health insurance is therefore an essential component of the Australian health system. Australians do not want a totally public health care system. They do not want to have to depend on government funding for every aspect of the health care requirements unless they have to. Australians, who are in reality capable of taking responsibility for their own health care, ought to be encouraged to do so. A quorum having been called and the bells being rung—TK6Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr Southcott—Mr Deputy Speaker, if I could draw your attention to House of Representatives Practice, page 285, which does state that `a member having twice called attention to the state of the House within a short period of time—10000Hollis, Collin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—I thank the member for drawing my attention to that, but having sat in this chamber for 18 years I am well aware there have been many quorums called in that period.(Quorum formed)83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—We cannot afford a totally public health care system, nor should we demand it. The fundamental principle of Medicare was that it was never to meant to exclude the private health sector; it was a safety net. Its long-term viability was predicated on the basis of a strong and viable private health insurance component as part of the overall health landscape. Labor knows this. Private health insurance contributes between $3 billion and $4 billion in hospital benefits annually and the private sector cares for one-third of all hospital patients.This government is committed to achieving the highest quality health system we can and the policies that we are pursuing, which include this legislation before the House, are all designed to provide a more efficient, more productive and more equitable health care system. We aim for world-class standards. We recognise that the state of our health care system is under pressure and that it requires the careful attention, the experience and the understanding that the Minister for Health and Aged Care devotes to it. The balance between the private health care sector and the public health care sector requires constant redress; yet, for 13 long Labor years private health insurance was at best neglected and at worst undermined.The statistics are telling. As the member for McPherson pointed out earlier in this debate, in 1983 nearly 65 per cent of Australians were covered by some form of private health insurance. By March 1996, this proportion had plunged to below 34 per cent, down to around 30 per cent by December 1998. If left to continue unhindered, this phenomenon would have required the building of two large hospitals each and every year solely to cope with the increase in public demand for public health care, including for those who would otherwise be in a position to take responsibility for their own health care costs.In considering why this legislation dealing with gap cover schemes is essential, we need to put in perspective what the government has done to improve the health care system by making private health insurance more attractive to consumers. Since 1996, the government has introduced a number of measures to ensure that private health insurance is more affordable. The 30 per cent rebate introduced on 1 January 1999 returns to holders of private health insurance 30 per cent of the cost of their fund membership. Since the rebate's introduction, private health insurance membership has not only stabilised; it increased in each of the four quarters over 1999. In that single year, nearly 300,000 more Australians took out private cover. In reality, the government's incentives for private health insurance have meant that a million more people are insured than would have been the case if we had not acted to introduce incentives.For the first time in years, a growing number of Australians are covered by private health insurance. The states have benefited, the participation in all age groups has increased, the mix of the insured has improved, hospital and ancillary participation has increased and we have seen the lowest premium increases in years. At the annual premium review of March of this year, more than 50 per cent of all private health members received no increase in premiums for their hospital cover, keeping premiums at the same rate for the last two years in many instances. Another innovative approach, of course, to making private health cover more attractive is the Lifetime Health Cover system that rewards membership loyalty and early joining. Australians who take out private cover early in their lives will pay lower premiums than those taking out private cover later in life. I remind the House of the initiative whereby all Australians over 30 years of age have until 1 July this year to make a decision about joining a private health fund. Those who already have private health insurance, regardless of their age, will always pay the lowest premium applicable so long as they do not leave their private hospital cover for more than two years. This initiative is another step to increase participation by the general population in health insurance. This means a fairer overall health system for all Australians. So, the combination of the 30 per cent and the Lifetime Cover means an increased likelihood that there will continue to be a stable membership made up of younger members staying in the private health insurance system longer. This takes the pressure off the public system. This is absolutely essential when we consider the challenges that we as a nation face in health care due to our future age demographic.There are those who try to argue that the decline in private insurance membership is really the manifestation of the success of Medicare. But this argument supports the untenable notion that, if it is free, if whatever our financial circumstances are we need no longer take personal responsibility for our health care, then that attitude is okay even if it impacts adversely on those who really need the safety net of Medicare. I do not accept that Australians can afford to have that attitude, nor should they be encouraged to have that attitude. It certainly is not the attitude apparently shared by the more than two million Australians on incomes less than $35,000 per annum who are currently insured. A quorum having been called and the bells being rung—TK6Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr Southcott—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to point out the previous point of order, which is just that. There is an established precedent that says that points of order should be considered reasonably 15 minutes after the last quorum was called. 10000Hollis, Collin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—I take your point. I have actually checked, and I suggest you have a look at, I think it is page 284, where it says that it was set as a precedent. On the next page, I think it is 285, from memory, it quotes the one you quoted but it also says it just uses them as a an example. That ruling, even though it was in 1921 or 1922 was not upheld, and I do not think it has ever been used since.Government member—Be a path- breaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am bound by the rules of the House and the standing orders as is everyone else. I actually did check because I thought it would have been an interesting point to use sometime myself. But I found that it was absolutely wrong. So the quorum still stands. (Quorum formed)83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—Before being interrupted, I was about to mention the member for Fremantle's speech where she forgot, conveniently, to mention the two million low income earners with private health insurance when she referred to the wealthy as being those who had taken advantage of the rebate. What a nonsense. Those who argue against private health cover also ignore the fact that Australians do want choice. They value choice and they value the choice the mixed system of private and public health care can provide. They value the freedom to be able to choose their own doctor and hospital in many cases. The questions are: what are the legitimate expectations of Australians? How can these be delivered, at what cost, and to be borne by whom? We need to strike the balance between those who can and should take responsibility for their health care, and those who cannot. We need to strike a balance between the private and public sectors in order to meet the demands of our health system and to ensure that Australians have a level of choice as well as access to an excellent health care system.This is a system that encourages those who can look after their family's health needs through private cover, thereby freeing up resources for those who are less advantaged. The contrast with the motley record of the opposition is absolute. The member for Fremantle said that she is mortally offended by those who suggest the public health system is not up to scratch. I was reminded of an instance while reading the `interview we had to have' in the Weekend Australian. It may be painful to do so, but does anyone else recall the instance of senior Labor cabinet ministers, up to the level of and including the then Prime Minister of this country, boasting of their exclusive use of the public health system and their refusal to consider taking responsibility for their own health needs—sticking out their hands for the type of care that ought to be preserved for those who need it? They justified that personally rewarding position by appealing to social justice. It was not only mortally offensive to most Australians; it was sickening.This government recognises that there is still much to do to put our health system back on an even keel after the reckless Labor years. (Quorum formed) There is the persistent issue raised by families and older people in my electorate of Curtin and others in relation to the gap that can exist between the fees charged by doctors for in-hospital medical services and the cover provided by insurers and Medicare. The concerns held by many Australians about gaps in health insurance are a contributing factor to the perception that private health insurance does not offer value for money—and there was, in the past, foundation for that perception. The Hospital-Casemix protocol data revealed that in 1997-98 the average medical gap for an episode in a private hospital was $151, in a public hospital it was around $69, and of course, for some procedures the gap can be significantly higher. The Medicare rebate is intended to cover 75 per cent of the Medicare Benefit Schedule—the schedule fee—and the other 25 per cent is intended to be covered by the health funds. Costs above the fee—the gap—are usually met by the patient.This legislation represents an important reform to Australia's health care system by providing the health insurance industry with an additional means of offering known-gap or no-gap policies to their customers. The essential attractiveness of private health cover can only be enhanced. Not only will these measures make private health cover more attractive; they will relieve the pressure placed on the public hospital system. Under present arrangements, the gap can be covered in circumstances where the service is provided by certain medical professionals. Since these measures were first introduced, the number of no-gap or known-gap policies offered by insurers has grown steadily, and I understand that since last December's quarter their number has grown by about 25 per cent. The amendments made by this bill to the National Health Act and the Health Insurance Act allow for a third mechanism: gap cover schemes. These gap cover schemes are separate from the existing medical purchaser-provider agreements, practitioner agreements and hospital purchaser-provider agreements presently allowed for and are not intended to affect the operation of existing agreements. Gap cover schemes are voluntary arrangements between doctors, hospitals and health funds, tailored to meet individual needs and circumstances. Importantly, gap cover schemes will allow gaps to be covered without the need for formal contractual arrangements between particular practitioners and funds. By combining the benefit of the 30 per cent rebate, the Medicare surcharge and this legislation, the government has laid the foundations for a better, fairer health system. I move: That the debate be adjourned.Question put.18:41:00The House divided. [ (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr C. Hollis) 69Abbott, 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.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A.*Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.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. *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.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.64Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.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.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.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bills14803R99214804Debate resumed from 14 March, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Kelvin Thomson moved by way of amendment:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“the House is of the opinion that the Bill is a most inadequate measure and condemns the Government for its failure to introduce measures to adequately protect employee entitlements”.Motion (by Mr Hockey) put:That the question be now put. 18:51:00The House divided. [ (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr C. Hollis) 70Abbott, 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.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.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. *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.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.65Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.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.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.Wilton, G.S.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Kelvin Thomson's amendment)stand part of the question.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Kelvin Thomson's amendment)stand part of the question.18:56:00The House divided. [ (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr C. Hollis) 71Abbott, 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.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.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. *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.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.65Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.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.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.Wilton, G.S.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.14805Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.10000Hollis, Collin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—The question now is that the bill be agreed to.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr Adams—Mr Deputy Speaker—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order. It is proper for you to say that that is the question, but now you have to give the member for Lyons the opportunity to speak to that question.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The point is that I was actually speaking when the member for Lyons rose to his feet.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand your point up to that stage, as long as the member for Lyons gets the call now.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—You should not pre-empt what I was going to do. I was going to call him. I now call the member for Lyons.19:00:0014805Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—Since Reith got into bed with Patrick Stevedores—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Lyons will resume his seat.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—I rise on a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, you clearly called the vote without recognising the member for Lyons, and I urge you to proceed with the vote.Honourable members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! It would greatly assist the chair, especially those who do not occupy the chair all that often, if, when we are having divisions, we could maintain a little silence and then one could hear the various points that are being taken. As it is, I had called the member for Lyons. If you do not want the member for Lyons to speak, you have ways of stopping him speaking. The member for Lyons has the call.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—As I said, since Reith got into bed with Patrick Stevedores and taught—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Lyons will resume his seat. The minister may speak on a point of order.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—On a point of order: Mr Deputy Speaker, you clearly called for the vote in relation to that matter. The member for Lyons was not called. I urge you to go ahead with the vote, as you originally called.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—On a point of order: Mr Deputy Speaker, you have ruled on that matter. If the minister, who has got this wrong again, wants to challenge you on this, he has to move dissent from your ruling. He cannot keep raising the same point of order.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Lyons may continue.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—As I said, since Reith got into bed with Patrick Stevedores and taught—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Lyons will resume his seat. Motion (by Mr Hockey) put:That the member be not further heard.A division having been called and the bells being rung—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The division has been called off. The question, I believe, is that the bill be agreed to. The honourable member for Lyons has the call.19:04:0014806Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Corporations Law Amendment (Employee Entitlements) Bill 2000. It is very good to win a point in this game. I am very pleased that sensible heads prevailed and that we can debate this bill.As I said, since the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, got into bed with Patrick Stevedores and taught them how to rip-off working people, a lot of other corporates have learnt the tricks. We have gone down that road, with the Oakdales, the Merrywoods, the Cobar miners, the Braybrook workers and also National Textiles. This bill does not give enough protection to working people, and it will certainly take much more than this bill to have something in the statutes that will give protection to working people.This bill introduces a new offence to penalise persons who deliberately enter into agreements or transactions for the purpose of avoiding payments of employee entitlements. But it is always very difficult to prove in those sorts of situations that somebody has deliberately gone into something to avoid payment. The bill deems that a company incurs debt for the purpose of insolvent trading provisions when it enters into an uncommercial transaction, thereby extending the current duty on directors not to engage in insolvent trading. It also states that the bill, when passed, will operate from the assent of the Governor-General; therefore, the directors of National Textiles, of course, and other companies that have recently become insolvent will not be subject to the new offence provisions of this bill. It is very convenient for the many who have already gone that way but have managed to use the government to absolve them of their responsibilities. While looking like it has something solid on paper, I am concerned that the bill will do little to act as a serious deterrent to stop directors from failing to provide for employee entitlements.There are serious defects in this bill. The first deficiency can be found in the detailing of the new offence. This will assist only where it can be shown that a director had intended preventing recovery of the entitlements of employees or significantly reducing their entitlements that could be recovered. I believe it would be almost impossible to find evidence that someone had deliberately prevented or reduced the recovery of entitlements. It is a very subjective way of dealing with the problem. There are no means by which anyone really can test that. Secondly, there is no retrospectivity to the legislation, so those people who have already been hit before this legislation becomes law will miss out. There are a number of workers in Tasmania who were hoping to get some assistance to make claims for their own wages and other entitlements under some sort of protection from this bill. Many have worked for many years for one company in particular that I know of. The second part of the bill deals with orders of the court. I started off by saying that, since Mr Reith got into bed with Patrick Stevedores and they then had a company that did not have any money in the bank, the rest of corporate Australia, the ones that have got a little bit, have learned how to manipulate the system and are now closing up shop and taking the workers' entitlements with them. The government, running scared, has brought this bill into the parliament, but it is not going to solve the problem. It is not going to look after workers' entitlements and it will fail to do that. It is a very mean bill. (Time expired)19:09:0014807Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—It is a pity that the calling of quorums forced the government to truncate debate on this important bill, the Corporations Law Amendment (Employee Entitlements) Bill 2000. It is really bloody-mindedness on both sides that brings no credit to this place when there are members who want to contribute to the debate on this crucial piece of legislation that has been occupying the minds not only of people in this parliament but indeed of every worker in the rapidly casualising workplace out there who are insecure about not only their day-to-day job prospects but whether their entitlements might be there at the end of it all. I support the passage of this bill, not because I think it will solve the problem of ensuring that employees get their legal entitlements when their employers go belly up but because it is a small step in the right direction towards protecting those entitlements. I should say at the outset that the Labor Party should hang its head in shame for its failure to deal with this issue while in government. It is not as though businesses started going belly up in 1996. In 1999 over 7,000 companies became insolvent, owing employees between $140 million and $181 million, depending on which estimate you rely on. But I daresay that in many of the years of Labor's 13-year term, especially during the recession, that figure rose quite rapidly.The bill really only does two things: it prohibits an employer from entering into an arrangement with an intention to prevent the recovery of entitlements of employees of a company, or significantly reduce the amount of the entitlements of employees of a company that can be recovered; and it adds an extra duty to company directors so that they become personally liable for corporate debts arising from entering into uncommercial contracts when insolvent. There is a whole lot I was going to say on this, and I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but it strikes me, as it does many people out there, that the key to achieving any sort of fairness in this whole area is to make directors far more accountable for the situations that arise when a company does go belly up. I know we have been talking about all sorts of highly publicised cases. I notice that the minister's discussion paper examines the schemes in the United Kingdom, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland—it sounds like the Treasurer's GST list—Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and the United States, but not Botswana. These countries deal with the issue of employees' entitlements on insolvency through a range of measures, ranging from enhanced priority to compulsory insurance. I note that for some reason the discussion paper declined to include Canada among the cases studied. I would ask the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, who is at the table, to explain why that happened. It may just be a coincidence but, unlike those other countries, Canada has legislation which imposes personal liability on directors for non-payment of workers' entitlements. In Canada at the federal level, directors are liable for up to six months wages. We have seen the national headlines that covered issues like the Cobar, Woodlawn and Oakdale mines, National Textiles and Braybrook Manufacturing, but what about those thousands of smaller company crashes we never hear about? How about the story I heard the other day of Lithgow Motors, which went belly up in 1991, its 10 employees receiving no payout at all? The employees made claims for outstanding wages but found that they were fifth on the list for any sort of payment. They were advised by lawyers that, even though certain debts of the business were recovered for GIO, there were no dividends payable to unsecured creditors such as the employees. Nor were their solicitors able to obtain a copy of the account of the receiver. A year later the solicitors informed employees that, because there were no reporting requirements for a mortgagee in possession, it was not possible to obtain these amounts. Ten employees of this small company received no payment at all for wages due, holiday pay and other entitlements. The employee who spoke to me believes that the assets of the company were hidden and feels this is confirmed by the former owner suffering no apparent hiccup in his lifestyle, right down to the continued business ventures and luxury car he operates to this day. I see nothing in this bill that will enable the former employees of the defunct Lithgow Motors to recover their entitlements. This bill and the safety net proposals to follow are inadequate responses to a problem that is exacerbated by the already insecure climate of today's workplace—a workplace where a worker is more often regarded as a unit of cost rather than a valued and valuable contributor to the performance of the company, its shareholders and of course those well paid executives and directors whose bloated salaries depend on the output of the work force they are so ready to swindle.19:14:0014808Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I too would have liked to have spoken at greater length on this issue. The whole issue of employee entitlements is something that is very dear to the hearts of people on this side of the House. This bill, the Corporations Law Amendment (Employee Entitlements) Bill 2000, seeks to penalise directors who trade when the company is insolvent, who make incorrect managerial decisions relating to the directorship of their companies which then lead them to not being able to pay their workers' entitlements.This is not enough. It does not make the directors personally liable for the loss of their employees' entitlements. It does not make them forgo their millions of dollars, as the member for Calare just alluded to, to pay out their workers' entitlements when decisions that they have made have affected the insolvency of their company. The member for Calare mentioned a couple of smaller companies. He also referred to the very public companies going belly up, with the loss of employee entitlements, which have happened over the past few years. I would like to refer to those examples. They really tell the story of this government. The member for Lyons mentioned the fact that Minister Reith jumped into bed with Patrick Stevedores and taught the corporate world how to rearrange their corporate assets to allow for the attack on workers in their workplace. Last year, the copper mine at Cobar became insolvent—the first major one in my first term in this parliament—and the workers were left facing non-receipt of their correct entitlements. It was the strength and solidarity of the CFMEU which compelled the government to force the Australian Securities and Investment Commission to force the parent company, Ashanti, to come up with the dollars to pay their workers' entitlements. We had Sizzler restaurants going belly up all over the country. Because they were a fairly non-unionised work force, because they were young, casual workers and because their workplaces were fragmented, they did not have that kind of support behind them to be able to force the government to make some kind of decision and those workers—mainly young kids—walked away without any entitlements being paid.In the case of the Oakdale workers, once again they were supported and, in solidarity with their union, the CFMEU, they forced the government to pass some legislation, not for the government to bail out the company but to allow these workers to access their own money, to pay out their entitlements, even though they were all left without a job and their communities were suffering. Then we had the Braybrook Manufacturing workers, a bunch of women, mainly from non-English-speaking backgrounds in Victoria. Their company went belly up, I think, on 6 September. However, on 31 August last year the minister announced that he would put in place legislation to protect workers' entitlements. When he made that announcement, he could have said that that legislation would come into force from 31 August. If he had said that, then the Braybrook Manufacturing workers would have had some of their entitlements protected. But the minister did not do that; he put it in place from 1 January this year.Then we had the workers at National Textiles. Once again, it was a strongly unionised, organised workplace. The company went belly up and the workers were left without their entitlements. They formed the picket line up at Rutherford and it was only because the Prime Minister's brother was a director of National Textiles that the government put its hand into taxpayers' money and came up with the protection so that those workers could receive their entitlements. The examples go on and on. Linda workers down in Victoria face the same situation. (Time expired)19:19:0014809Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—In July 1999, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation indicated that he was intending to `move quickly' in relation to the matter which is presently before the House. From July to March might be quick in the minister's view, but given the urgency of the need for some action and given the very high profile corporate collapses that other speakers have referred to, it is really not adequate in terms of promptness in bringing matters before the House. The Corporations Law Amendment (Employee Entitlements) Bill 2000 is quite disappointing in a number of respects. It really shows that the government has not considered a number of quite important issues which ought to have been considered in the context of Corporations Law reform. For example, the legislation does not address the misuse of employee entitlements prior to insolvency and it does not propose a means by which employees, who become aware that proper provisioning is not being made for their entitlements or that their superannuation contributions are not being made, can commence preventive action.The government ought to have considered amending the Corporations Law to enable an application to be made to court for a related corporation to pay the debts of an insolvent corporation along the lines foreshadowed by the member for Brisbane in the Employment Security Bill which he introduced some time ago. The government should have considered, but obviously has not, amending the Corporations Law to remove barriers which employees currently face in bringing actions against directors under the insolvent trading provisions. There was a range of impediments—cost and complexity—but there is not time to develop them in this very limited debate. The public policy would certainly have benefited from some indication in this debate of the government's contemplation of initiatives in that respect. Obviously, the government has not considered making directors personally liable where they have not made proper provision, whether by way of a trust, insurance or some other means, for employees' entitlements.The bill is a pretty basic set of proposals which just do not go far enough. The government has introduced a new part 5.8A to the Corporations Law with the stated intention of protecting a company's employees from agreements entered into with the intention of defeating recovery of entitle-ments. The central provision here is intent. The burden of proving subjectively that a person intended to avoid recovery of employee entitlements may mean that successful actions for compensation will be extremely rare.An objective rather than a subjective test applies and is sufficient if the company incurs a debt while insolvent or becomes insolvent as a result of incurring a debt and there are reasonable grounds for suspecting it may or may not have become insolvent. No explanation is offered by the government in this debate as to why they are imposing a more onerous evidentiary burden in the sorts of cases that are being dealt with here than the objective test that they apply to other areas. Other jurisdictions impose liability on directors for non-payment without requiring proof of intent—the subjective test. For example, the Queensland Industrial Relations Act provides that directors may be liable for a failure to pay an employee's wages or a failure to contribute to occupational superannuation. Canada, I understand, has comparable legislation to that in Queensland.In addition, where a company enters into a deed of arrangement, there will be no scope for either the liquidator or employees to bring an action to recover compensation for a breach. Of course, a criminal prosecution can be brought by ASIC. However, we are seeing many press reports presently about ASIC's limited resources in relation to its capacity to deal with those sorts of areas of its responsibility. The bill does not alter the current priority arrangements on the list of creditors that are provided to employees. Even such well-known `left-wing' organisations as the Australian Institute of Company Directors have recently indicated that accrued benefits should have priority over other creditors. So it is not a particularly radical proposal, given that particular source. The legislation is inadequate in other respects as well. (Time expired)19:24:0014810Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I would like to take this opportunity to effectively summarise the amendments in the Corporations Law Amendment (Employee Entitlements) Bill 2000. Unfortunately, we have had a truncated debate. The opposition chose to make the House almost unworkable this afternoon, and we have had to bring on this debate and move it on. I would like to address specific issues raised particularly by members of the opposition about the provisions of the bill. The bill of itself is not designed to be a general safety net to ensure that all entitlements are paid. As the opposition has acknowledged, companies often fail through no fault of the directors. The government is taking other steps to provide a general safety net for all employees, and it is looking carefully at the insurance system to address these situations. The member for Wills raised the idea of ranking employee entitlements ahead of a floating charge. I am advised that is already the law and has been for a number of years.The bill is designed to address deliberate avoidance. Where deliberate avoidance is shown, there are means to secure a compensation not just from directors or from other companies in a group but from any person who is party to unacceptable transactions and arrangements. I think this addresses the issue raised by the member for Calare, who I note is not around to hear the end of the debate. It is therefore more widely and better targeted than those proposals put forward by the opposition to address this issue. Those proposals focused not on the objectionable conduct but on the more uncertain test of whether or not a company is part of a corporate group. The member for Wills also said that the bill does not provide for compensation for employees and that it just introduces an offence. That is not true. There are provisions for compensation actions in the bill itself. To facilitate actions during a liquidation by employees, they specifically provide that actions can be brought to the civil standard of proof, whether or not an offence is proven.Furthermore, in the existing Corporations Law, there are various avenues to obtain compensation where provisions are breached, including the new provision, and ASIC can take action under them. The member for Wills also claimed that the amendment to section 588G to expand insolvent trading would not work if no debt was incurred. It is precisely that issue that the bill addresses. It effectively deems an uncommercial transaction to be a debt for that purpose. Accordingly, if uncommercial transactions are entered into whilst the company is technically insolvent, as has been the case for a considerable period of time, the directors will be civilly and personally liable. All the compensatory remedies available for insolvent trading will continue to apply to the broadened notion of insolvent trading under the bill. It was finally suggested that we should not have an intent element in the offence provision so that it would be easier to prove a breach. The problem with that approach is that nearly all transactions involving the outlay of company funds can potentially impact on creditors, including employees. A prohibition against entering into any transaction arrangement that potentially affected employee entitlements is therefore unworkable. You would effectively be banning trading altogether, which would, of course, be a ludicrous outcome. It only makes sense to have such a blanket prohibition when the company is insolvent, and we already have an insolvent trading duty, which is strengthened under this bill. The new offence in the bill applies at all times, regardless of whether a company is insolvent or not.Finally, the Ministerial Council for Corporations, which I chair, carried forward the first two of the three proposals in July last year, which were addressed. That was when I put out the release. In relation to the third proposal, Minco was of the view that we should deal with all the issues at one time rather than have separate legislation. This legislation requires the approval and support of and consultation with all states and territories. Given that scenario, it is important that we address all the issues at one time so as not to create any uncertainty. I therefore commend the bill to the House.Bill agreed to.14811Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey)—by leave—read a third time.Adjournment1481110000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.1481119:30:0014811Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—Mr Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about the gravely important issue of child abuse in this country. In doing so, I wish to propose that a purple ribbon day be designated for the last sitting day of this session of parliament, in late June. Purple signifies compassion, and I am indebted to Jan Watson at Wyong, who has been very active over the last few years in seeking, in her area and beyond, to raise community awareness of the problem of child abuse.The purple ribbon project began in Australia on the Gold Coast in 1994 and was taken up by the Central Coast in 1997. Wyong Shire Council adopted the project, declaring that July would be recognised as purple ribbon month on an annual basis. The intention of the project is to establish nationally the month of July as purple ribbon month. Each year during July, people will be asked to wear a small purple ribbon as a silent protest against the extent of child abuse in the community. Of course, Mr Speaker, I would like to see the purpose of it also being to raise awareness of this problem in our community. As I have indicated, the colour purple was chosen as it is a spiritual colour signifying compassion.Mr Speaker, you would be aware that I have written to you on this matter. I fully understand the response that I will be getting, because we have discussed it over the phone with your staff, that there may be difficulties in terms of the precedent setting of, in some completely formal way, establishing a purple ribbon day leading into purple ribbon month. But you have indicated that there is nothing to stop members of parliament from wearing purple ribbons. Can I suggest that, on a voluntary basis, members of both sides of the House on that particular day may like to take the opportunity of the adjournment debate, which is taking up no extra time of the parliament, to talk about the problem of child abuse in this country, because it is vitally important that we do so. I would like to draw the attention of this House and, through it, the Australian people to the magnitude of the problem of child abuse in Australia. According to figures released by the Abused Child Trust, 70 per cent of prisoners were abused as children; 43 per cent of psychiatric patients have been victims of abuse; and, each year, 50,000 Australian children are abused. These are truly terrifying statistics because these children do not get the protection that they deserve. In my own state of Queensland, in the latest year for which statistics are available, 1997-98, it appears that there were 5,362 victims of child abuse. I will just break those down: 28 homicide and related offences, 2,844 acts intended to cause injury, 2,321 cases of sexual assault and related offences, and 169 cases of neglect of a person under care.Sadly, this is a very topical issue. On the front page of the Daily Telegraph today is the headline `Lost lives: 70 children who died despite warnings they were in danger'. The article says:Seventy at-risk children have died in NSW during the past three years despite being known to the Department of Community Services, a new report has revealed.On this revelation, it says:NSW Children's Commissioner Gillian Calvert said DOCS and the community at large must be `more vigilant' in recognising children at risk and reporting their parents.Community services minister Mrs Lo Po said that `authorities had been forced to accept the word of parents who had made hollow promises to give up their destructive habits'. She further said:I have had a gutful—and I think the community has as well—of watching parents who are unfit to be parents ...' (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—This is not the time for questions and answers to the Speaker, but I should indicate that the member for Rankin has very fairly portrayed both the support and the reservations of my office.1481219:35:0014812Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—When I first suggested that we ask the Prime Minister to come to my electorate of Gilmore, the question most asked of me was, `Why?' followed by, `I bet he doesn't want to come.' Regardless, we pushed on. After many months of waiting the call came: Prime Minister John Howard and his cabinet were coming to town. The logistics of such an event are just enormous, and I am so glad that Carol, Ruth and their teams were there to guide us. We had been lucky enough to have the Prime Minister visit on his own before and we thought we knew all about security measures. But, no, we did not know at all. To me it is a reflection of shame that the state police, the Federal Police and the other security people have to go to the lengths that they do. I have always tended to think that such measures are only necessary in other countries. However, the good thing was that most of the preparations were in place before people realised what was about to happen. For this I have to thank Shoalhaven City Council; the Mayor, Greg Watson, and his council; and especially the staff for their assistance in what was for them, I am sure, a day of total frustration. All were excellent and remained friendly, helpful and flexible in their approach at all times. I thank our police force for their unobtrusiveness on the day and for making sure all was kept low key to avoid any antagonism. The councillors had to agree to move their regular meeting to another week so that we could have the council chamber for the cabinet meeting. This they did without question. Marie from the mayor's office filled in all the forms and negotiated all the requirements—not an easy task to please some 20 ministers and 70 staff. Vicki from the general manager's office took all the calls and kept the onlookers informed, as it was still business as usual at council. Paul Sutton and his team got all those little fiddly jobs done and kept us calm by personally solving any problems that arose. Bob Hatchett and his team organised all the technology and the extra phone, fax, PA, lines, et cetera, that were required for the duration. Geoff over at the School of Arts made sure that the whole building was spick and span and even protected the last of the roses outside and coaxed them into continuing to blossom just a little longer for us. Never has the School of Arts looked so good. All the while Graham Napper, the general manager, just smiled and said, `Yes, of course, Jo.' I am not sure where he keeps that smile when he is sleeping, for I know we have brought him some nightmares.Captain Geoff Cole and his executive officer, Commander Mark Jerrett, were at HMAS Albatross to make sure that everything at the base ran smoothly and kept a weather eye on the `Red Baron' and the other planes. David, the driver from a local bus company, Premier Coaches, looked after the ministers' transport for the day. Superintendent Allan Crumpton's men and women unobtrusively ensured that we could move in and out of buildings without hindrance. Their calm demeanour ensured that no situation became unruly, yet everyone got their say—as is our right in a democracy.The council catering staff certainly accommodated everyone's needs for regular refreshment. We not only looked after the ministers and cabinet staff but also we jointly fed the press and all of the demonstrators too. Never let anyone find fault with Gilmore's and Shoalhaven's hospitality. Speaking of food, when we initially indicated that the Shoalhaven Rural Volunteer Fire Service was going to provide the lunch, I could tell from the exchanged glances that people were wondering just what might arrive on their plates. They need not have worried. Mary Reeves and her eager and enthusiastic team were determined to make their mark. It seems that these volunteers can produce anything and work with everything or nothing on tap. Lunch for 20 politicians—and 550-odd guests—in a hall with few facilities was a walk in the park. I think the major attraction for her team was the pyjama party in the hall the night before. Stories from that are still filtering out into the community. Shoalhaven's fire control officer, Superintendent Brian Parry, has every reason to be proud of his volunteers. They are wonderful every time. As people entered the School of Arts for the lunch, they were greeted by the Shoalhaven contingent of the Australia 2000 choir. Everyone was amazed at the talent of the choir and not at all surprised to hear that they will form part of the massed choir to sing at the Olympic Games later this year.Katie McNamara, Shoalhaven Primary School's most recent prime minister, welcomed the `other Prime Minister' on behalf of our young people. She thanked John Howard for helping to provide a campus of Wollongong University locally so that she and others do not have to move away when they reach 17 and want further education. Of course there were numerous volunteers helping my staff and they too are to be congratulated. Without them, we could not do what we do. Lastly, I thank my Prime Minister and his cabinet for mixing so freely with our community. Many had travelled long distances to attend and many had never before been to such a function. I was and I am very proud of our community and how welcome they made our guests. Regardless of political persuasion, people are saying how surprised they are at the difference between the real thing and the media's portrayal of our ministers. Indeed, someone said to me just yesterday, `Your John Howard seems a real decent bloke, and he's much taller than little Bobby Hawke.'1481319:40:0014813Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—Since the announcement of the successful tenders for the second round of the Job Network in December last year, the Minister for Employment Services has continually and repeatedly stressed the importance of the number of sites that the new Job Network provides, claiming that the total number of sites has increased by 700 from 1,400 to 2,100. Any sane person would take the minister's words to mean that there are now going to be literally hundreds of extra locations around the country from which the unemployed can seek assistance. Indeed, the minister has constantly repeated this claim in press releases and on several occasions in this place. For instance, last week he continually talked about the number of sites, saying that this was the most important aspect of the second round of Job Network. Situations have now arisen where, even if you believe that this is the crucial aspect of Job Network 2, no longer can we be confident that the number of sites where unemployed people will be able to access Job Network has necessarily increased by so great a figure. Last week I discovered that three of the so-called new sites in my electorate would be operating out of the same office. `One site, three providers' gets counted as three different sites—another example of the way in which the Howard government short-changes the unemployed. The interesting aspect about this is that, in the guff that the minister sends around in support of this new beaut Job Network system, he describes the location Epping as having gone from having a CES site to having two sites under Job Network 1 and to now having eight sites under Job Network 2 over the course of the Job Network. The irony is that the location which now houses three sites, as I have mentioned, is the old CES site. The minister came down last Friday and opened one of the service provider offices. He has also indicated—and he confirmed the strong rumour—that the Salvation Army, who are situated across the road, will shift their site to the same location. So we will have the four providers on the one site. This has been described by the minister as showing the way in which his Job Network 2 is so successful and will give the unemployed such great choices.Throughout the announcements about Job Network 2, the crucial aspect that has not been revealed by the minister is the number of unemployed people who will be able to be helped by Job Network 2. That is the thing that is crucial to the 5,000-odd people that are unemployed in the electorate of Scullin. They do not necessarily want to be browbeaten and told suddenly that, because there is an increased number of sites, it is a better system. At the end of the day, when the contractual requirements are fulfilled and the maximum number of unemployed people that each service can carry is reached, there will still be people who will be unable to access Job Network. These are the figures that the minister should come clean on. He should not only explain to us what is going to happen under Job Network 2 but also convert some of the propaganda that he has circulated about Job Network 1 into actual numbers. Mr Speaker, you will remember that the figures that have been circulated are percentage success figures.At the end of the day, what the minister has to realise when he comes into this place is that at the sharp end of these programs are real people. These are the people who really want to know what is in it for them. He crows from a piece of paper that he thinks that there are more sites. That is not going to give the number of people who saw no success out of Job Network 1 any sense of satisfaction. I think that the honourable minister really has to look at the way in which he projects and promotes Job Network 2 to understand that the people who are requiring assistance are not interested in the number of sites that they can attend; they are interested in a job as an outcome. Until we make that the crucial connection in the promotion of these schemes to help unemployed people, we are underrating the potential for any assistance that government can give. (Time expired)1481419:45:0014814Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10—I would like to share with the House this evening a most wonderful event that I attended last Saturday in my electorate in the very small town of Thornton. It was a very special day for the people of Thornton because they were celebrating the 130th anniversary of the Thornton Primary School. In 1870 a number of the residents of Thornton and others living in the Rubicon Valley approached the then Public Schools Office—as I believe it was known then—in Victoria. They advised that office that there were 70 children in the district and that they felt that that was a reasonable number of children to warrant the erection of a primary school. Until that time, some children were being educated by governesses and others were getting whatever education they could get at home. The Board of Education agreed to this proposal and erected a weatherboard building consisting of one room. One teacher came to the school, and a section was partitioned off in the corner of the room, which was in fact where the teacher slept. The 70 students varied in age from four to 16, and they were all accommodated in this one room. The fact that this school has succeeded over that period of 130 years is just incredible. It really has depended on tremendous community spirit, and last Saturday's most spectacular event was evidence of that fact. The start of the program saw four students, led by Holly Deacon, lower the old flag at the school and hoist a new flag, which I had just presented to the students. Those four students rep-resented five generations who had attended that school. It was a most moving day, and I want to place on the record the thanks that should go to Mr Greg Nippard, the school council president, and the many people who assisted him. Tonight, I also want to place on the record a ballad written by Leanne Scorah. It really sums up what the Rubicon Valley was like in the past, and the spirit and atmosphere that have come down through the century and that have been built into and still pervade the Thornton Primary School today. The ballad is simply called `Rubicon' and it begins with:When I came to Rubicon, many years agoI never thought I'd last a week, now that was sixty-one years agoI started off at Skinners Mill, wheelin' sawdust to a heap.Stackin' droppers onto bogie's, and learned to count in superfeetI became a foreman in the bush, with new mills on the goA pelton wheel to drive the bench, saw workers come and goHorse and bogie's on the track, movin' down the lineLife line of the forest, was the timber tramway lineMy Rose, she came to Rubicon, to make my hut a homeTo build with me a future, that we could call our ownHandwork in the evenings, picnics by the creekBushwalks on the weekends, bring back fond memories.The ballad goes on, but I will just recite the chorus as I realise that I am out of time. It reads:Rubicon, Oh Rubicon, your valleys and your treesYour glory stands above me, your waters running freeRubicon, Oh Rubicon, the power in you growsYour beauty it surrounds me, and your gentle breezes blow.Those words were written to honour Ern and Rose Le Brun who, like so many other people of the Rubicon district and the town of Thornton, were responsible for keeping the Thornton Primary School alive, providing a continuous education to the families and children of Thornton.1481519:50:0014815Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—Last week many in the House had the opportunity to pay tribute to our INTERFET forces and their commanding officer, Major General Cosgrove, for the superb service they carried out in East Timor, and it was right and proper that we did so. All in the House and in the wider Australian community were very impressed by the fantastic job our forces—members of the Army, Navy and Air Force—did during their sojourn in East Timor. Like most Australians, I watched as the East Timorese saga unfolded and the Australian military build-up occurred. The media, being what they are, obviously focused on the key players—the movers and shakers—as the time drew near for our troops to leave our shores. Too often in situations like this, we forget what a wonderful team our INTERFET force is and that it is made up of individuals—highly trained, highly skilled young Australian men and women. Tonight I want to place on record a simple tribute to one of these INTERFET members: an ordinary young Tasmanian who is a serviceman from my electorate. He has just returned from East Timor and is currently enjoying some well deserved R&R with his family. Mark Rankin is a young 20-year-old from Gagebrook, an outer suburb in Hobart. He and his parents, Barbara and Mal Rankin, live less than two kilometres from my electorate office. Mark is an air defence guard with 2AFDS RAAF, based at Amberley in Queensland, and served five months deployment with the RAAF in East Timor. Mark relished the chance to serve his country with the INTERFET forces and seized the invaluable opportunity to put into practice in a war zone what he had learned while being stationed at Amberley. I congratulate him and the many other Tasmanians who served with distinction in East Timor. They continue the proud tradition of Australian servicemen and servicewomen who readily answer the call to serve their nation, both at home and overseas.1481619:52:0014816Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—I came across an interesting article in yesterday's Australian by Robert Gottliebson. The article is headed `Spending $7bn on Badgerys Creek is plane silly'. I have to agree with a number of the comments that Mr Gottliebson made in this article. He talked firstly about the massive and excessive cost that this proposal would incur—$7 billion. As the EIS estimates, there is at least $5 billion for the airport itself and another $2 billion or $3 billion for associated infrastructure—a cost all up of at least $7 billion to $8 billion to taxpayers. Mr Gottliebson said:Once again a group of public servants will try to get Badgerys Creek passed, even though the project represents potentially the greatest waste of money contemplated in modern Australia.Added to that is the fact that world experience shows that, particularly in cities the size of Sydney, second airports rarely work. They are rarely viable. There are many examples: Mirabel in Montreal, Los Angeles, et cetera. Even after spending $8 billion, we could well end up with a non-viable, loss making Badgerys Creek airport. That loss would mean that, when the eventual privatisation of Sydney airport comes, there will be a further loss on the sale price—there will be a reduced sale price—that Sydney airport would bring.The second point that Robert Gottliebson makes in this article is that the need for a second airport is very doubtful. It has not been proven. He said in this article, and while you might not agree with everything he uses to prove the point, with appropriate management techniques you can make Mascot last another 25 years. He points out that Sydney airport has the capacity and is already licensed for 350,000 movements a year and that it is currently running only at about 282,000. The average number of passengers in a flight in and out of Mascot is around 75 people. World best practice is over 150 on each flight in and out of an international airport. One-third of the flights in and out of Mascot are on planes carrying 30 passengers or less.There are many better alternatives to building a second airport at Badgerys Creek. There are better management possibilities for better balancing the peaks and troughs of flight time arrivals and departures at Mascot. The introduction of new technologies such as a differential global positioning system, which will allow greater geographical spreading and sharing of aircraft noise, the movement of some of the lighter aircraft out to Bankstown, and thereby reducing the interval between departure and landing times of aircraft and the exclusion of some of the smaller curfew exempt aircraft from the movements cap by, for instance, utilising a stub runway are some of the many options that could be used before going down the path of wastefully spending $7 billion to $8 billion of taxpayers' money. Mr Gottliebson argues for moving some of the regionals out to Bankstown. Clearly there needs to be protection for regional airline users—there needs to be some protection for the bush. There needs to be some access for the bush to Mascot, but by moving some of the lighter aircraft—those carrying, say, 20 passengers or less—out to a special purpose-built facility at Bankstown with dedicated transport links to Sydney, we could guarantee access in peak timeslots and reduce the pressure on Mascot. We could provide discounted air fares and we could provide slot trading to enable savings for regional airlines that would bring benefits to many of the users from the bush. The savings are there. As the Sydney Morning Herald said in an article last year,The saga of the $5 billion Badgerys Creek airport plan is becoming increasingly bizarre. It is also becoming increasingly obvious that Badgerys Creek is not an appropriate site for a second Sydney airport. The article goes on to say:The Badgerys Creek option, therefore, merely moves some of the noise problems at Mascot to areas out of Sydney.There are better options. We need to be pursuing those better options before we go down the path of spending $7 billion to $8 billion of taxpayers' money on an airport that will not solve Sydney's problems and will not provide any guarantees to the bush but will duplicate those problems. (Time expired)1481719:57:0014817Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—Last week the member for Wentworth used this parliament in the most scandalous way to abuse my constituents, the residents and businesspeople of Kings Cross. The member for Wentworth called them `pimps and pushers and crims; killers, junkies, perverts, deros, standover men, whores, hoods and gangsters.' He is just wrong, and he insults the people of Kings Cross with this description. The overwhelming majority of residents of Kings Cross and its neighbouring suburbs are law-abiding citizens who love an inner city lifestyle. The Cross is a tourism magnet with some of the best large and small boutique hotels in Sydney. We have a great restaurant culture and a thriving local arts community run by the Kings Cross Artists Guild. We have an active chamber of commerce and residents groups that are constantly working to improve our area. We have our problems, like any other part of Sydney, but the residents and business people of the Cross are not helped by the sort of vilification that the member for Wentworth poured on them last week.1481719:58:0014817Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Tonight I speak on behalf of constituents of mine, Mr Paul and Mrs Annette Cahill, who have a son Paul, 10 years of age, who suffers from the terrible disease of cystic fibrosis. In his short life he has had over 30 admissions to hospital, many of these times in intensive care, and he has had a liver transplant and major bowel surgery. Mrs Cahill wrote to me recently, asking me to send a message to the Minister for Family and Community Services. The message to Senator Newman read:Senator Newman, you have been misinformed about Cystic Fibrosis. These children need care and attention far and above the care of a `normal child', yet our Federal Government feels this is not so. I am extending a personal invitation to Senator Jocelyn Newman to come and live at my house for one month and to take over the day to day care of my son and then let us see how her cost saving measures are well intentioned. Senator Newman, you can also move into Children's Hospital at Westmead and stay with a Cystic Fibrosis child and sit by their bed as they gasp for breath, fading away in front of your eyes, full of pain.Mr Speaker, I call on the members of the government side to reverse the evil decision made by Senator Newman and to listen to the heart-rending pleas made by families of cystic fibrosis sufferers. The quality of life of children afflicted by this tragic disease should be enhanced by allowing the family of sufferers to access the CDA. In conclusion, I would like to congratulate the member for Bradman for his strong stance in support of the victims of cystic fibrosis and their families.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted. EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—Mr Speaker, I require that the debate be extended.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The debate may continue until 8.10 p.m.1481820:00:0014818Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—Mr Speaker, I do not wish to detain the House for long, but I thought it was appropriate to respond briefly to some comments made earlier in the adjournment debate by the member for Scullin. The member for Scullin took me to task for `failing to state what the real numbers of employment outcomes, job network outcomes, are'. He said that I was dwelling exclusively—obsessively, he said—on site numbers and not on the overall performance of the Job Network.To satisfy the member for Scullin, let me give him some of those numbers that he seeks. In the first 22 months of operation, from 1 May 1998 to 25 February 2000, there were more than 494,000 placements of eligible clients into jobs through Job Network. Of total eligible placements, about 60 per cent have been into permanent jobs. In the last 12 months Job Network placed an average of nearly 6,000 eligible clients per week into jobs. For February 2000, on like-for-like basis, Job Network placed nearly 50 per cent more eligible job seekers than did the CES in February 1998. This is typical of the overall performance on a month by month basis of the Job Network vis-a-vis the old CES. From 1 May 1998 to 25 February 2000, 93,000 jobs seekers commenced Jobsearch training. In the same period there were around 26,000 job matching eligible placements for job seekers who received Jobsearch training.Almost 527,000 job seekers commenced intensive assistance from 1 May 1998 to 25 February 2000. The targeting of intensive assistance to job seekers most disadvantaged in the labour market has proven to be particularly effective, with nearly 70 per cent of total intensive assistance commencements being long-term unemployed. In this period Job Network members made over 165,000 job matching placements for long-term unemployed and other disadvantaged job seekers receiving intensive assistance, which is approximately 33 per cent of all eligible job matching placements under the Job Network. I should add that the Job Network's intensive assistance and job search training programs have a 43 per cent success rate of helping participants find paid employment or further educational study opportunities. This compares with an overall success rate of 34 per cent for Working Nation programs.The member for Scullin also said that despite the increase in site numbers, the actual quantum of employment services was not going to increase. I have here some figures prepared by my department. In 1999, some 308,000 job matching placements were made. In the first 12 months of Job Network 2, it is anticipated that 400,000 job matching placements will be made. In 1999, there were nearly 54,000 Jobsearch training com-mencements. In the first 12 months of Job Network 2, it is anticipated that there will be nearly 90,000 Jobsearch training com-mence-ments. In 1999, there were 254,000 intensive assistance commencements. It is anticipated that, in the first 12 months of Job Network 2, there will be 275,000 intensive assistance commencements.I am delighted that the member for Scullin noticed the fact that I did launch Job Network 2 in Victoria at Sarina Russo Job Access in Epping, in his electorate, the other day; and, yes, it is true that there will shortly be four Job Network members operating on the one large site. It is true that when we have four Job Network members operating out of the one building we do not get some benefits, but we do get other benefits. The shadow minister at the table, Mr Laurie Ferguson, is very familiar with Parramatta Road, which runs through his electorate. Parramatta Road, as we know, is the centre of the motor industry. If it had one big car yard, it would not be nearly as effective as it is with lots of big car yards. The fact is that with those four Job Network agencies—those four sites in the one building—we get competition plus choice, and that equals better service. And that is what the Job Network is all about: better service to jobseekers. In the old days under Labor, when unemployment reached 11.2 per cent, there were just 400 CES sites around the country. Today under the coalition, with unem-ployment at 6.7 per cent, we have nearly 2,100 Job Network sites around the country, and I think we deserve a little bit of credit. It is true that jobseekers want jobs rather than services. In the end, the services are missing the point unless jobs come from them, but the fact is that 600,000 new jobs have been created since the coalition came into government—that is 600,000 very grateful jobseekers. They are grateful but it seems members opposite, par--ticularly the member for Scullin, do not share their gratitude; but that is the sort of thing you expect, unfortunately, from people who are professional cynics and sceptics. 18:07:0014819House adjourned at 6.07 p.m.Notices14819The following notices were given:XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to social security and veterans' entitlements in relation to various matters.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey to present a bill for an act to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974 in connection with the implementation of A New Tax System, and for other purposes.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley to move:That this House:(1) recognising that the Howard Government's GST is a harsh and regressive tax, which imposes an unfair burden on low and middle income Australians and their families, and punitive compliance costs and competitive disadvantage on small business;(2) noting that its pending introduction is already feeding through into higher prices and higher interest rates, eroding or eliminating the value of any associated income tax cuts before they even arrive;(3) recognising how few parliamentary opportunities remain before the GST's introduction:(4) calls on the Howard Government to introduce a Bill to repeal the GST before it commences on 1 July 2000.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr Andren to present a bill for an act for the amendment of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 to prevent the mandatory sentencing of children.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley to present a bill for an act to implement Australia's human rights obligations to children under Articles 37(b) and 40(4) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.2000-03-15—————10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members148201482014820Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—On Friday, 3 March, the federal government committed $18.5 million in funding under the Roads of National Importance Program towards the cost of constructing the Gillman Highway in my electorate of Port Adelaide. The state government in South Australia will also contribute $18.5 million to this highway and have indicated their support for a privately built and operated bridge across the Port River. This will connect the Gillman Highway with Victoria Road, the main arterial road on the Le Fevre Peninsula leading to the Outer Harbour shipping terminals. It will result in significant savings, particularly for South Australia's booming export industries.The Gillman Highway and Port River Bridge are vital for the economic development of South Australia. This can be demonstrated by the fact that this is the first project funded by the federal government's Roads of National Importance Program which has gone to a Labor area. There is not the usual pork-barrelling of marginal seats which we have all become used to. This project is the final jigsaw piece of the transport network in the north and north-west of Adelaide and will build on the great work already completed by the previous Labor government. This includes the duplication of the national highway from Adelaide to Port Wakefield, the Montague Road realignment, the South Road interconnector and the Salisbury Highway extension with a bridge which spans over Highway 1.The final piece of the jigsaw may also help expedite the redevelopment of the Port Adelaide area as a thriving residential, cultural and commercial centre. What does concern me, though, is not the funding commitment of the Commonwealth nor the state government's good intention to complete this project. It is the incompetence of senior management in the South Australian government departments that concerns me. I would have to question whether the current senior officers of the Department of Industry and Trade, the Land Management Corporation, state Treasury and the Department of Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs have the capability to implement such a project without creating considerable delays of their own making. I hope I am wrong, yet the evidence so far suggests I will not be.Take, for example, the Gillman land capability study. I understand it is long overdue and is now reaching the fourth draft report. It has not yet been seen by the Minister for Industry and Trade, the minister responsible for initiating the report in the first place. Another example is the Lipson Street wharf development, a major riverfront residential development, which was seen as a litmus test for future success or otherwise of rejuvenating the Port Adelaide area. After all government agencies had agreed and signed off on the fine details, the project was held up for months as the developers could not get new deeds of title for the land division from the bureaucracy.Unless the state government acts now and streamlines the administrative processes within the bureaucracy in South Australia, the bridge and Gillman Highway could be delayed longer than potential developers of the Port Adelaide area are prepared to wait. Investors are already frustrated with their inability to negotiate with the Public Service in South Australia. Any more delays may just as well be a window of opportunity lost for another 10 years or so.1482114821May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—At the moment Australia is focused upon and looks forward with great anticipation to the Olympic Games in Sydney in just six months time. It is an exciting and historic time for us. It is the culmination of years of planning, preparation and training for so many athletes, trainers, organisers and sports fans. But it is important that we remember that, when the Olympics have come to a successful conclusion, we are in for another world-class display of athleticism, courage and competition when the Paralympic cauldron is lit on 18 October. Just as our athletes around the nation are building their training regimes to peak for the Olympics, so too are our paralympians doing so. I was delighted and proud to catch up last week with one of my local constituents who is training for the Paralympics. Reg Wilkinson is a very inspirational man. He is a successful businessman owning and operating Palm Beach Automotive Repairs. He and his wife Karen have four beautiful daughters. He is an amputee and a paracycling champion. Although Reg has only been training and competing professionally for less than six months, he won both the 4,000- and 1,000-metre track events in the paracycling division at the Queensland cycling championship in Townsville earlier this year.He is now training and fund raising for the opportunity to compete against the world in Sydney in October. I wish Reg well and urge McPherson residents to join me in supporting Reg's efforts to raise enough funds to be able to represent us at the Paralympics. We are huge sports fans on the Gold Coast, with our city playing host to a plethora of national and international sporting events. We are also a pretty generous bunch, so I hope we all get behind Reg. He is a truly inspirational man. I congratulate him on his success to date and wish him the best for October and the future.I also want to take this opportunity to say how pleased I am to be part of the Parliamentarians for the Paralympics. The aim of our group is to raise awareness and support within the Australian community for the Paralympic Games and to encourage attendance as spectators. I am very proud to be patron of the table tennis event at the Paralympics. I will take this opportunity to remind honourable members and others listening of the major fundraising event, Quilts 2000, taking place next month in Parliament House. The quilting fraternity of Australia has joined to create some historic quilts highlighting the Australian landscape and culture and promoting the Paralympics. These quilts are for sale and will be on display from Wednesday, 12 April in the Presiding Officers exhibition area here in Parliament House and ultimately will be displayed in the athletes village during both the Olympics and Paralympics. I urge everyone's support for Quilts 2000 and I encourage people from around the nation to lend their support and join in the excitement and inspiration that will be the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games from 18 to 29 October.1482114821Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—In the 1700s Edmund Burke said, `Your representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays you instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.' The Prime Minister has said that he is opposed to mandatory sentencing, yet instead of showing leadership on this issue he is prepared to allow a young man to die in jail for stealing a few pencils. Last week Alan Bond was released from jail where he spent about one day for every million dollars he stole from his shareholders, and this week the Prime Minister has confirmed he will not allow his party to have a conscience vote on whether to overturn mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Mandatory sentencing costs lives and so qualifies absolutely for the usual tests applied when deciding whether a conscience vote is called for. The real hypocrisy here lies in the fact that the Prime Minister was quite happy to intervene in the Northern Territory's laws on voluntary euthanasia. There was no states' rights argument impeding his interference then, yet when it comes to sending children to jail—or for that matter, sending adults to jail for minor crimes—it is a `hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil' approach. Mandatory sentencing of juveniles is contrary to our international obligations. It breaches article 37(b) and 37(c) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child by arbitrarily depriving children of their liberty, failing to use detention as a last resort, and failing to take the needs of the particular child into account. It is also in conflict with article 14(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 40(2)(v) of the Convention of the Rights of the Child which require that sentences should be reviewable by a higher appellate court. Mandatory sentencing is poor law. It does not distinguish serious crime from petty crime and so undermines completely judicial discretion. That is why so many senior judges have condemned it. Mandatory sentencing is poor economics also. According to the Northern Territory Department of Correctional Services annual report for 1997-98, it cost $56,669.90 to incarcerate a person for a year. How much more effective would that money be spent on childhood education, health care, housing or employment programs? If the Northern Territory government are really interested in addressing crime rates they could spend the millions of dollars given to them by the taxpayers of other states on positive not punitive measures.The United States has recently incarcerated its two millionth citizen. Most Americans in jail are jailed for drug related offences, yet the drug usage in the community continues to rise. In Australia we must now decide whether we are any better than the United States and whether we are prepared to allow children to die in jail for stealing pencils or biscuits.1482214822Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—In the short time I have available for me today, I would like to correct some dreadful and misleading information that has been peddled around the Redcliffe City Council elections. Currently, I have seen some brochures that say that a vote for the Boulton-led council is a vote for John Howard and the GST and that every resident will pay an additional $1,600 on their rates. Not only is that misleading; it is just plain wrong. One of the most important things that needs to be remembered in all of this is that local governments will be great beneficiaries of the goods and services tax. They will also be able to claim back embedded taxes on all the services they use. Communication services will be cheaper for them by about four per cent; repair services will be six per cent cheaper; business services 2.5 per cent cheaper; and a lot of their services, such as marketing and accounting, will also be cheaper. They can also claim back full input tax credits should their costs fall by about 2.5 per cent. There will also be no GST on water, sewerage or waste, and they will be able to deliver those services at a low cost.When I became the member for Petrie in 1996 the Redcliffe area was a very depressed area, and a lot of credit needs to be given to Mayor Boulton and his team for the subsequent turnaround. Many of my colleagues and friends wished me well. Redcliffe was called a number of things, including `Deadcliffe', which was not terribly complimentary. It was also called `Inala by the Sea', and as Inala is a very tough area of Brisbane, that certainly was not a complimentary name. But now we have people coming back to the city of Redcliffe. The mayor and the council have reduced the crime rate in the area; they have developed the foreshore; they have upgraded and built a new jetty; and they have a vision business advisory group that has produced its own ads encouraging people to visit the Redcliffe Peninsula. We have reintroduced the Sun Girls, and last week some 20,000 people came to a concert with Marcia Hines. There are export forums, new businesses are opening, and development is occurring on the Redcliffe Peninsula. People no longer say to me, `Gee, it is a tough area, I wish you well.' They are now saying, `Look, I would not mind coming down to Redcliffe and having lunch at one of those wonderful seafood restaurants.' What has been the reason for that? The area was depressed, no businesses were investing, it had a terrible attitude problem, and the residents themselves were depressed. I remember attending a forum in parliament for senior students where one of the students who attended the forum came from Redcliffe. I asked her what she was going to do after she finished school and she said to me, `I am looking forward to leaving Redcliffe.' Well, that is not the case any more.This council should be judged on its merits. It should be judged on the success that it has had over the last few years and not judged on things that are external. If it is judged on its merits, it deserves to be reinstated. I want to congratulate Councillor Boulton, his deputy Councillor Sutherland, and all of the councillors of Redcliffe City Council for the wonderful work that they put into the development of Redcliffe.1482314823Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—Firstly, I call on the federal government to immediately reject applications by Impulse and Virgin to use large passenger aircraft at Essendon Airport, including the 100-passenger 717s proposed by Impulse, and the 150-passenger 737s proposed by Virgin.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—What about Avalon?UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Indeed. It was alarming to read in the BRW in January that Impulse seriously proposes to use Essendon as a base for Boeing 717-200s. It is even more alarming that transport minister Anderson has still not replied to my letter to him of 12 January on this issue. I call on him to publicly rule out the reintroduction of large passenger jets to Essendon. I assure him and anybody else who is interested that if any attempt is made to do this there will be hundreds of people lying on the tarmac, just as hundreds of people attended protest rallies concerning this issue called by state member Judy Maddigan and myself earlier this year.Secondly, I call on the federal government, through the Airports Corporation, to re-examine the airport curfew and to ensure that residents can get a decent night's sleep. I have had a reply from the Essendon Airport general manager to a letter I wrote to him after receiving complaints from local residents that planes were landing and taking off at 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. In it he confirms that planes are indeed taking off at 3 a.m. in a regular freight operation. He also states that the majority of propeller driven aircraft are not subject to the curfew. This is just not good enough. If the justification for allowing planes to land or take off at that time is that they are quiet or meet the noise requirements, then why are they waking up Strathmore and Essendon residents? Clearly, the curfew is inadequate and ineffective, and it needs to be toughened up and properly enforced.Finally, I want to congratulate the state Labor government on not offering local residents as a sacrificial lamb in its bid to secure the Virgin headquarters for Melbourne. I heard the Liberal opposition leader in Victoria, Denis Napthine, saying on radio that this would not have happened under the previous Premier, Jeff Kennett. Apart from noting that he did not say that it would not have happened under him, my response is this: perhaps Jeff Kennett would have told Virgin, `Yes, you can fly 150-seat passenger aircraft out of Essendon.' He showed absolute contempt for the people of Niddrie over the quarry; he showed absolute contempt for the people of Werribee in relation to the toxic dump site; and he showed absolute contempt for the people of the north-western suburbs of Melbourne by imposing a toll on the Tullamarine Freeway. But we now have a state government which does not trample on local communities like that and, surely, after seven years we are entitled to a few years of a government which does not trample on local communities. I am proud to be a Labor representative when we have a state government that respects local communities, and I give Victoria's Acting Premier in January, John Thwaites, 10 out of 10 for the way he handled the Virgin issue. 1482414824Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—With the regular season of the Australian National Basketball League now at an end, the Townsville Crocodiles find themselves potentially just four games away from securing the championship title. The Townsville Crocs have had a remarkable year. They have finished the regular season in second place behind the Adelaide 36ers.The statistics speak for themselves: a 22 to 6 win-loss record throughout the season, equal to that of Adelaide and the Perth Wildcats. Two Crocs players, Sam Mackinnon and Robert Rose, are in the running for the NBL's Most Valuable Player award. Another Croc, Mike Kelly, has been nominated as Best Defensive Player. Townsville strong man Andrew Goodwin has been nominated for Most Improved Player and Ben Knight is in the running for the NBL's Best Sixth Man award. The Townsville Crocs go into the play-offs having won their last seven games on the trot, including strong victories over Melbourne and Adelaide. The basketball-mad community of Townsville and Thuringowa fans are behind them 100 per cent.I remember reflecting in this place on the Townsville Crocodiles when I made my first speech as the federal member for Herbert. In that year, the then Suns finished in the league at the bottom of the competition table, but that did not stop Townsville's legion of basketball fans turning out week after week, filling the entertainment centre with some 5,000 or 6,000 people in support of the Crocs. So breaking into the elite ranks of the game was always going to be a long haul, but this year it has been the coming of age for the Townsville Crocs. As one news story reported the other day:Townsville will go down in the books as the most potent, all-round offensive unit in NBL history after becoming the first team to finish the season atop the rankings in points scored per game, field goal percentage and three point percentage.Quite an achievement, don't you agree, Mr Deputy Speaker? The Townsville Crocs chairman, David Carmichael, the other day reflected perfectly the pride with which Townsville holds his team when he said:We're the second smallest city in the NBL but we've got one of the best teams. It's been a great effort for everyone involved with the club and we've got a great group of fans.In fact, we have got such a great group of fans that there is just not going to be enough room at the 5,257-seat Townsville entertainment centre for everyone who wants to see the Crocs win in the coming NBL play-offs. The last home season game against Adelaide was sold out many days in advance of the game itself. Yesterday they put 1,300 tickets on sale for the play-offs and they were sold out in three hours—a wonderful response of the Townsville community. I certainly wish the Crocs well and I reckon they have got the get-up-and-go to grab the championship title. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills14825R97414825Debate resumed from 8 December 1999, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.09:59:0014825O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—After the contribution by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Herbert, about the Townsville Crocs, I suppose it is appropriate that we go into a debate on fisheries. But let me say the Townsville Crocs must be a team with real bite in the competition. I actually had a meeting this morning with a representative of Recfish from Townsville, Mr Vern Veitch, and I will be visiting Townsville in coming months. Maybe the championship will be all over by the time I get there, but we certainly do wish the Crocs well.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr Lindsay—We will look after you with northern hospitality.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—I am sure you will. The Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999, amends the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 by introducing new measures for monitoring and control of foreign and domestic fishing operations. It also proposes some changes to the way in which the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, AFMA, operates. These measures are meant to complement the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Act 1999 and the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999, which both provide for combating illegal foreign fishing in the Australian fishing zone and the implementation of Australia's international obligations under the Fish Stocks Agreement. Those were two pieces of legislation on which the opposition supported the government. It was a Labor government that signed Australia up to those international obligations under the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, and we were pleased to see that the legislation gave effect to the intent of the Labor government at that time.For the benefit of the Main Committee I will run through some of the main provisions of this bill. One provision is to place observers on foreign fishing vessels operating in international waters, where such observers are authorised by a treaty or agreement to which Australia is a party. It is very important for the verification of the obligations of international fishers that we exercise our rights, under treaties or agreements to which we are a party, to place observers on foreign fishing vessels. We have a particular problem with illegal fishing inside the Australian fishing zone and the overfishing of straddling stocks outside the Australian fishing zone in international waters. This provision is very important to the monitoring task that Australia must undertake if it wants to protect fisheries which may be low volume fisheries by world standards but which are certainly high value fisheries in the Australian and international context.Another provision is to extend the definition of foreign fishing boats to include support vessels and vessels not originally designed for fishing but subsequently equipped to fish. This will allow the government to deny port access to such vessels. In the past, vessels have been converted and used as mother ships to support fishing activities that sometimes are illegal. We need to deny those vessels port access in Australia, to make it even more difficult for them to carry out their illegal activities, both within the zone and outside the zone.The legislation provides for an increase in the penalty for providing false or misleading information about fish taken, processed or carried under a fishing concession from $6,600 to $27,500. It also allows a court to tailor a period for which a fishing concession may be suspended following a breach of conditions. This would allow a court to suspend a fisher's concession for a period coinciding with the fishing season in which the person normally operates. The objective of these two provisions is to increase the penalty burden, be it financial or a denial to that fisher of access to the fishery for the period of the season. These are good, sensible amendments and we are supporting them. The legislation requires fishers to collect data on bycatch of both fish and non-fish species, including sea birds, and it requires AFMA to include in management plans provisions directed at minimising incidental catch. The provision relating to the collection of data on bycatch of both fish and non-fish species is an important one. This is a very contentious area of policy but it is very important, not only for the industry but also for government in its monitoring of the environmental consequences of fishing and in addressing the sustainability issues, that these provisions are put in place.Australian fisheries are well managed. Internationally speaking, we have a very good reputation for the way in which we manage our fisheries. That is not to say that, historically, things have not occurred which governments have not agreed with. The fishing industry has in the past had a reputation for activities that have put the sustainability of many of our fisheries in jeopardy.Gradually, with the regional fishing management plans being put in place, and increasing sensitivity within the industry that they need to address these sustainability issues if they are going to have a real future, understanding is coming through. The sorts of provisions in this legislation certainly assist the monitoring process and protect these fisheries in a sustainable way. It is not only the industry that relies on this particular resource but many coastal regions and towns are very dependent on the processing and value adding activities of the fishing industry. It is incumbent on government to make sure that the resource is sustainable and that illegal fishing activities that deplete the resource and affect the sustainability of the resource are addressed as well.This particular legislation also allows AFMA to manage and carry out adjustments, restructuring and exploratory and feasibility programs devised by other agencies or within the government, and it makes AFMA liable to pay fringe benefits tax. Those are more minor amendments to the legislation that we are discussing here today. I want to make some comment on this particular industry because it does offer Australia real potential not only for employment growth but also for export growth. We have seen production volumes increase in value from $1.6 billion in 1995-96 to $1.8 billion in 1998-99. Export value over that particular time has increased dramatically from $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion. That is a substantial industry and contributor to Australia's national exporting effort. Indeed, if we do protect the sustainability of this resource we can look forward to future discoveries as far as fisheries are concerned. If the management practices are put in place and the industry handles the sustainability issue carefully, we can look forward to sustained growth over time in both the volume of production and the value of that production. In 1998-99 the value of production of sectors within the fishing industry was as follows: rock lobsters $385 million; prawns $310 million; pearls $238 million; abalone $184 million and tuna $121 million. We are dealing here with very high value fish stocks. Because they are high value they are sought after and become the target for illegal fishers. The legislation that we are debating here today is an ongoing and evolving process of strengthening Australia's legislation in this area to protect this very valuable resource, not only to the national economy but to many coastal and regional economies as well. It is time that industry and government seriously addressed the sustainability issue. We have been making gains in that area over the last 10 to 15 years. In the legislation that has been brought down by the government and supported by the opposition on the floor of the parliament, there are measures to ensure that illegal activity, both within the Australian fishing zone and outside of it, in violation of regional agreements that have been struck, have appropriate penalties. We ought to have no hesitation at all in seizing vessels that we know are violating those regional agreements and illegally fishing in our zone or outside of it.Statistics on illegal boats caught operating in our zones show that 285 foreign vessels were apprehended in the Australian fishing zone between 1 March 1996 and 31 December 1999. A lot of those were what we call type II and type III fishing vessels. That refers to the different styles of Indonesian fishing boats that have been apprehended inside the Australian fishing zone. But the more ominous development is the `other' category. These are flags of convenience or Chinese Taipei flagged ships which are operating illegally outside our fishing zone. Over the period 1996-98, we have seen what you would call a significant increase in the number of ships of this category. From 1 March to 31 December 1996, three vessels were in violation of our fishing zone or fishing illegally. From 1 January 1996 to 31 December 1997, that number increased to 11. From 1 January 1998 to 31 December 1998, nine vessels were in that category. It is a very important issue to the industry. It is a very important economic issue at the end of the day when the activities of these illegal fishers threaten the sustainability of the fish resource and, in the long term, the sustainability of many coastal and regional communities.The opposition will not be opposing this legislation. We believe this is an area that requires some substantial tightening. The tightening of the legislation really provides an opportunity for Australia to insist on its legal international rights and clamp down on illegal fishing in our zone and in adjacent international waters.10:12:0014827Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—In rising to speak to the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999, I would like to echo some of the comments made by the previous speaker, the member for Corio, Mr O'Connor. Without a doubt, the fishing industry has been touched by the need to preserve stocks and manage its industry in an ecologically sustainable way. In my electorate of Petrie, fishing is one of the prime sources of employment. It has a thriving seafood industry in many aspects—from processing to the fishing vessels that go out into Moreton Bay—and a large number of operators who are only too aware of the need to preserve this very valuable commodity and industry for future generations.I do not know if many of you have visited the Redcliffe Peninsula, but it is probably one of the most scenically beautiful parts of the outer Brisbane area. The member for Forde has some scenic parts in her electorate, but I am blessed with 35 kilometres of peninsula. My office overlooks Moreton Bay, and I can see out over the sandy straits to Moreton Island. It is not a bad position to be in. It is wonderful to be able to walk down the streets of my electorate and look across to the breathtaking view of the bay and everything it has to offer. The bay is full of some wonderful things, and it would be remiss of me not to mention some of its wonderful products. We have, of course, our famous Moreton Bay bugs; we have mud crabs; we have brown, tiger and banana prawns; and we have whiting. They are just a few of the wonderful delicacies of the Redcliffe Peninsula.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MP9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—Yes, whiting is very good—and bream and a number of other fish species. There are far too many wonderful creatures in Moreton Bay for me to mention in this speech, but I do agree that we have some wonderful fish stocks in Queensland.Fishing is also a favourite recreational activity in Petrie with thousands of locals and day trippers casting a line every weekend. I recently took my son out fishing. I have never caught a fish in my life, but he was able, in the space of a couple of short hours, to catch 16 whiting, which gives him the wonderful record of being the only person in a fish family to have actually caught a fish and not sell the end product as we do.In terms of the industry, the demand for quality seafood is always increasing and will continue to increase even more so. It is therefore important that members of the industry and the government work their very hardest to protect these activities. Currently, the total gross value of production for the Australian fishing industry is some $2 billion, according to the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics.The amendments contained in this bill are designed to refine Australian fish management practices, and that is a very good thing indeed. Under the legislation, Australia's enforcement and management controls will be strengthened in terms of both foreign and domestic boats. One of the existing issues in fisheries management is the narrowness of the definition of a `foreign' fishing boat. I believe that in some cases foreign support boats have been fitted with fishing equipment, which means that, to all intents and purposes, those support vessels have had the ability to catch as many fish as the original vessel which was originally designed for fishing. This bill will allow for control over port access for these converted vessels as well as for foreign fishing boats. Since denial of port access is used to deter fishing that may affect agreed regional conservation measures, this is a very important management control.Additionally, these measures assist by reducing illegal foreign fishing in the Australian fishing zone. Most Australians are aware of the disputes that have involved southern bluefin tuna, where Japanese long-line boats have been catching tuna outside the agreed management areas. It is important to note the importance of international agreements, particularly when it comes to fish species. Australia is going to be one of the beneficiaries of an international fishing agreement which was ratified only recently by 30 countries. Twenty-five countries have already ratified the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, which will allow better management of migratory fish stocks and associated marine environments. At present, all countries have the right to fish the high seas, which puts regulation of such fishing beyond the power of any individual country. However, some of these fish stocks live within the national fishing boundaries and adjacent high seas—and I refer to a report that was just recently put out by Minister Truss in AgricultureFisheries and Forestry Australia which goes into some of the great developments in agriculture and fishing. But, most importantly for Australia, it means that some of these fish species such as orange roughy, tuna and billfish are distributed beyond the limits of the Australian fishing zone or migrate through it. The Australian government has looked at this in great detail. It has examined the environmental, economic, social and cultural effects of the agreement on different groups through a regulation impact statement and a national interest analysis.The government is also passing laws that will enable Australia to meet its obligations under the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, and it is important to note that our commercial and recreational fishing industries, environmental industry, the Australian community and regional economies will all stand to benefit from this. Ratifying this agreement will mean Australia will be able to sustain manageable fish stocks and will also control those associated independent species through regulating high seas fishing. Some compliance measures have been brought in—new management enforcement powers—and I will speak about those in a little while, but they deal with the problems that I have already mentioned of illegal, unregulated or unreported foreign fishing activities in our areas of interest. In this agreement, there is a common promotion of monitoring, data collection and sharing of international information, which will help in the decision making of the management of fish. It will also provide employment, food and income for future generations and will ensure that that sustainability will be maintained through fish stocks. So it is to be commended. The parties to that agreement need to be congratulated for their fine work and incredible efforts towards ensuring that this agreement was ratified, and I want to congratulate them on the great progress that they have made in that respect.One of the things which I spoke about earlier was the denial of port access, which has been a very important aspect, particularly with respect to tuna long-line boats. It will ensure that these boats will not be resupplied. The amendments in this bill allow the placement of observers on foreign boats outside the Australian fishing zone. The placement of observers will ensure that scientific research can be conducted in addition to the monitoring of compliance. It will mean that the amendments in the long run will contribute to the sustainability and management of the resource.Tough new deterrence measures are also included in this bill. There will be a penalty for providing false or misleading information about fish catches. The penalty will be raised from $6,600 to $27,500 on conviction. It is important that commercial operators provide accurate information to ensure that scientific assessment of fish stocks can be carried out correctly. In a move that further protects the Australian fisheries ecosystem, the amendments allow for data to be gathered on fishing bycatch that is caught incidentally during a fishing operation. By monitoring the bycatch, the Fisheries Management Authority will be able to develop systems for minimising waste and protecting the marine environment.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—I thought you just sold them to us to eat.9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—I am very passionate about fish, as the member opposite can see. Administratively, this bill will add to the efficiency of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority by allowing for minor misdemeanours to be dealt with through means other than prosecution. Lastly, I would like to mention some other amendments. The Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 will amend the present tax exemptions of the authority. In conjunction with other measures already taken by this government, this bill will ensure that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority has the tools to be able to continue to manage and sustain Australia's valuable marine resource. I know that a number of fishermen and operators in my electorate and in other areas may not always agree with the management authority; they may have differing views. But it is there to provide some sort of guidelines. I think that generally and overall, it does have the best interests of fish stocks, resources and sustainability in mind when it does that. These amendments complement other legislation that has been passed through this parliament in relation to the monitoring of foreign fisheries in Australian waters. The Fisheries Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) and the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 both deal with issues such as enforcement, forfeiture, detention and allowing the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to have greater control over vessels fishing in the Australian fishing zone. The task undertaken by the authority is quite considerable, as I have already mentioned. With Australia's fishing zone rated as the third largest fishing zone in the world, the problems will not diminish; they will only increase. It is important that Australia has the means to monitor compliance in its region by allowing the authority to manage both domestic and foreign fishing in the region. There is a greater possibility of Australia meeting its regional conservation management commitments. I have seen the flow-on effects in my own electorate of a successful commercial fishing industry and I support these amendments. I would also, in the context of speaking to this bill, like to mention some other areas in relation to fish management in order to ensure that they are not overlooked, because a lot goes into the management of these resources. One of the things I would like to mention is the great work that is being done at the moment by the Australian Institute of Marine Science. Regularly they put out a research plan of the areas in which they are working. They deal with a number of areas, particularly the ocean environment, marine diversity, marine living resources, ecologically sustainable development and technological innovation. I would like to highlight the ocean environment because I think we take for granted, when we see a lovely piece of fish on our dinner table, that it has got there because a fisherman has gone out and caught it. The technology and research that go into the industry are absolutely phenomenal, as marine resources must be sustained and managed.They are based in Townsville at the moment and I have to commend them on the fine work that they been doing. Their professionalism, their teamwork and their respect for their staff and the outcomes are very important. At the moment they also are looking at changes to refishing coral and algae communities, environmental impacts on the ecosystem, and natural versus human induced changes to marine communities. It is important to note the great work that the Australian Institute of Marine Science does in this area. I would like to comment also on the environmental work that is being done in my particular region dealing with fishing and its consequences. I think it is important—and everyone will agree—to have a healthy marine ecosystem sustaining present and future generations, and pleasure and nutritional needs, with commercial fishermen harvesting quality products for the public. I have to commend the work that is done by the 2020 Ecovision report that I received recently covering areas such as Bribie Island and Moreton Bay. I congratulate them on looking at things such as input controls, permanent closures and restrictions, natural forces, the depth of the water, the physical nature of the seabed, rocks, snags, tides, weather and algae type blooms. They have also done work with free will decisions—fishermen make decisions constantly about ecological sustainability of the marine system, usually without realising that they are doing that in their normal day-to-day activities—and species-specific harvesting and bycatch which is very important particularly in the Moreton Bay area where you have to look at mesh, crab and haul fisheries and ensure that those things are taken into account.I would like to conclude by saying that I fully support this bill. I have seen the first-hand effects and the flow-ons of a successful commercial fishing industry in my electorate and throughout Australia. I fully support the amendments that have been made in the good management and interest of the Australian fishing industry.10:27:0014831Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—May I thank honourable members who have contributed to this debate and particularly the member who has just spoken. She has always taken a very keen interest in fishing industry issues—I think it could be fair to say from the sea to the plate—and her knowledgeable contributions to fishing industry debates are very appreciated. This bill contains a collection of amendments to fisheries legislation. The amendments flow from the Australian Fisheries Management Authority's experience in administration of the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 and the Fisheries Management Act 1991. Fisheries management occurs in a dynamic environment and, as a result, there is a need to introduce new provisions to address the evolution of fisheries management. Also, there are requirements to refine various provisions including addressing anomalies which have been identified by AFMA since its establishment in 1992.Fisheries management is changing to have much more emphasis on ecosystem management and the need to reduce the impact of fishing on the marine environment. The Australian fishing industry is embracing ecosystem based management and, if not initiating, certainly working with Commonwealth agencies on appropriate gear technology and new fishing practices. Bycatch action plans are also being implemented across Commonwealth fisheries. This bill aids these current practical measures by requiring fisheries management plans to address incidental catches and the collections of bycatch data. The flexibility to manage high migratory species and straddling stocks is increasingly important in fisheries management regimes around the world. Several provisions in the bill relating to fishing by foreign fishing boats on the high seas adjacent to the Australian fishing zone are key elements of the legislation. The proposed measures provide agencies with the capacity to place observers on foreign fishing boats on the high seas to collect data. The bill also amends the definition of a foreign fishing boat for the purposes of port access regulation.Several fisheries have moved from management involving limits on numbers of boats and fishing equipment used to controls on outputs in the form of individual transferable quotas. Where ITQs can be implemented, they are a preferred approach, providing for reasons of economic efficiency and management flexibility. Amendments are proposed in two areas to embrace enforcement of quota management that relies on accurate reporting and recording of catches. Firstly, the types of offences for which a penalty infringement notice, an on-the-spot fine, can be issued is widened to allow an alternative to prosecution for minor transgressions. This may be a more efficient use of enforcement resources to secure compliance. Secondly, recognising that misreporting of catches is for the purpose of fishing without quota, it is proposed to increase the penalties for providing false and misleading information. The amendment increases fines from $6,600 to $27,500 so that this offence is comparable with unlicensed fishing by a domestic boat. If convicted, the amendments enable a court to order forfeiture of a boat and the equipment, catch or proceeds of sale of a catch.The fishing industry is an increasingly important contributor to economic growth. Recent figures show an eight per cent increase to over $2 billion in the gross value of Australian fisheries production, with exports valued at close to $1.6 billion. The proposed legislation is intended to strengthen enforcement provisions and contribute to better management of Australian fisheries, which will have benefits for the ongoing viability and sustainability of the Australian fishing industry and the marine environment that supports it.May I thank again members who have contributed to this debate. The fishing industry is one of Australia's major industries with significant potential also for the future. These amendments will help in its management and help guarantee its future prosperity. I commend the bill to the chamber. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills14832R1016BillsR490BillsR1013Bills14832Debate resumed from 8 March, on motion by Mr Anderson:That the bill be now read a second time.10:33:0014832Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I am pleased to say on behalf of the opposition that we support these three bills, the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Amendment Bill 2000, the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2000 and the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 2000. They form part of a system of nationally consistent road transport laws. The first bill, the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Amendment Bill 2000, updates the annual heavy vehicle registration charges for the ACT and provides a model for consistent national charges by amending the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1993. The 1993 act gave effect to the national charges in the ACT from 1 July 1995 and set the model, I am pleased to say, for other jurisdictions. The Victorian and Northern Territory governments referenced the charging regime in the 1993 act in their own legislation. Other states and the Commonwealth reproduced the system and level of charges in their own legislation. The act also makes some minor changes to definitional issues going to charging purposes.I now deal with the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2000. This bill implements the updated annual heavy vehicle registration charges for federally registered vehicles by amending the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985. That 1985 act applies the existing national charges to vehicles registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme. This scheme, as the House would understand, is administered under the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 by the states and territories on the Commonwealth's behalf. New charges for the federally registered vehicles are intended to come into effect on 1 July 2000, and states and territories, I am also pleased to note, are targeting this date. It ensures that federally registered vehicles continue to pay the same charges as state and territory registered vehicles, which I very firmly believe is appropriate. Finally, the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 2000 is part of implementing the new charges for federally registered heavy vehicles. It amends definitions in the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 referred to by the other act.Clearly, it is appropriate that the three bills be handled together. It is also pertinent to remind the House that the previous Labor government initiated a national approach to road transport reform in 1991. IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—Don't I know it!LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Road transport, as the member for the Northern Territory reminds me, was an issue of some contention, especially with respect to registrations for a long period. The road reform therefore got the teeth it needed with the intergovernmental heavy vehicles agreement 1991 and then the light vehicles agreement in 1992, and also through the formation in 1991 of the National Road Transport Commission and the valuable work that they do to drive reform and keep the industry informed and consulted.The Labor opposition retains a commitment to achieving a consistent national regulatory framework aimed at improving transport efficiency, improving road transport safety and reducing the compliance costs of regulation. The current charges were calculated by the NRTC back in 1992 and were put in place between 1995 and 1996 in the various jurisdictions. The updated charges contained in the bill are the first increases in charges since that date.It appears there is fairly consistent support for these changes across the states and the transport industry, which is pleasing. I think that is in no small part a result of the consultations undertaken by the NRTC and, importantly, an acknowledgment by the heavy vehicle industry of the impact of their vehicles and a preparedness to take responsibility for that damage. What we see in the road transport industry associations is some leadership on some of the hard issues—environment, accessible transport and road user charges. It is a pity, however, that the minister for transport is not reciprocating on the leadership front. In his second reading speech—A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 10.37 a.m. to 10.50 a.m.Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was referring to the fact that the minister raised the issue of the Diesel Fuel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme in his second reading speech. This grants scheme arose out of that dirty little deal with the Democrats on the tax package. I went into some detail late last year about the shortcomings of that scheme resulting from the lack of detail and thought about how it would operate in practice. I also referred to the lack of definition about where the metropolitan conurbation boundaries would begin and end. The minister, as usual, handballed these issues to someone else rather than make a decision—in this instance, to the Commissioner of Taxation. I would like to note that here we are, five months after the administration and compliance aspects for the scheme were tabled in the House, and almost 10 months after the government did the original dirty deal with the Democrats on this scheme, and the industry is still uncertain about how the scheme will operate and what the boundaries are.But that is only the start of the difficulties. The industry will also have to contend with the new role of the Taxation Office's dipstick police, as they are known around the industry. I want to inform the chamber that the industry are quite rightly aggrieved by the shoddy way the Minister for Transport and Regional Services has introduced the change in what they regard as his lack of integrity and principle in dealing with these issues which should come with the authority and responsibility of the office. He has no right to herald the scheme as a great benefit to the industry. Those who operate in industry know better. I therefore would argue that it is time that the minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anderson, showed more leadership and took responsibility for these concerns. In closing today, I want to touch on another issue, one which I think is exceptionally important and which also requires some leadership and action by the minister. I would firstly like to compliment the Australian Local Government Association and those associated with the organisation of the successful Moree National Roads Congress. I think that, like me, you would appreciate—as does the member for the Northern Territory, because of the nature of his electorate—that in some instances, unfortunately, our rural road network is on the verge of collapse because of neglect for a variety of reasons.But I do not separate the issue of the difficulties on the road front with a variety of other infrastructure requirements confronting Australia at the moment. I refer, for example, to the infrastructure report released late last year by the professional engineers, who not only raised the question of roads infrastructure but also referred, correctly, to the issue of bridges, questions of access to technology, the matter of the quality of water and sewerage and also the capacity for some local authorities to improve their sewerage works. It is for us, as a nation, to decide whether or not we actually should establish an independent infrastructure council free of government interference and the pork-barrelling that has occurred in recent times with respect to a number of grants that ought to be used for the public good rather than for election prospects, as was the case with the Natural Heritage Fund in the lead-up to the last election.I would clearly say that, from the Labor Party's point of view, we are actually prepared to debate and consider whether or not there ought to be an independent infrastructure council at arm's length to government to determine priorities and to consult with organisations such as the Australian Local Government Association on what our infrastructure requirements and priorities are. I think it is fair to say that politicians do not always get it right. Often they put aside the national good for short-term political means and pork-barrelling for the purposes of an immediate election in a marginal seat. I therefore think it is appropriate that we not only note but also have an open mind about the potential recommendations coming out of the Moree National Roads Congress. I hope these recommendations are taken seriously on both sides of the House. I welcome, for example, the establishment, by that important meeting of a range of local government associations around Australia, of a steering committee to be convened by the Australian Local Government Association to develop a network to consider all the options available for repair and replacement of rural and regional roads. I also note—and I think the parliament should note—that this committee will develop a register of strategically important local roads that need immediate action and examine the funding sources available to repair and replace them. More importantly, I am pleased to note that this communique, which was issued on 7 March this year at Moree, correctly accepts that not all these infrastructure requirements can be provided by government. The demand for improvements in our infrastructure is bigger than that which can be provided by government at the moment, be it the federal government or a combination of state, local and federal governments. It acknowledges that, in trying to come to terms with these immediate infrastructure requirements, we as a community have to debate and examine considerable alternative funding sources in the private sector to achieve the required infrastructure road investment.I compliment the Australian Local Government Association and all those in attendance. Rather than just pointing the finger at federal, state and local governments, they have accepted that it is a community issue and that leadership actually requires people to face up to their responsibilities, to try to develop alternative sources of funds and alternative mechanisms to come to terms with the infrastructure requirements of this huge nation. The committee will also therefore develop a mechanism to identify all regional transport infrastructure requirements as part of the work of that steering committee. It will develop the necessary data and statistical base to support this approach and in doing so, in a constructive way, seek to work with federal and state ministers to develop proposals to achieve the repair and replacement of Australia's strategically important local roads.I think we are starting to actually make progress when we get constructive communiques such as the one we received from the national Rural Roads Congress, which was held on 7 March 2000 in Moree. I told those responsible for organising this meeting, prior to it occurring, that I think it is accepted in Canberra—and also at a state and local government level all around Australia—that we have a huge problem and that, if they want to be taken seriously as players in this debate, they should not just point out the problem but actually try to put on the table some proposals for us to consider and debate in a proper, constructive way in a forum such as this. I firmly believe that the organisers—the Australian Local Government Association—and all those associated with them have taken on that challenge and brought forward a constructive, reasonable communique which actually challenges members of this House. I thank the ALGA for that and urge them to continue their meaningful discussions with a view to coming forward with even more constructive proposals as to how we should be able to make progress on the demanding issue of trying to improve rural and regional roads in the foreseeable future.With those comments, I merely reiterate what I said at the outset—that the Labor opposition supports the bills before the parliament. These bills build on work initiated by the Labor government in the early 1990s, and I am pleased to say that it has been continued by the Howard government since 1996.10:58:0014835St Clair, Stuart, MPMr ST CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10— I rise to support the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Amendment Bill 2000 and related bills. The purpose of the amendment bill is to amend the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1993 to implement updated nationally consistent heavy vehicle registration charges that have been agreed by the Australian Transport Council, comprising the Commonwealth, state and territory ministers responsible for transport. The amendment also updates definitions to align them with definitions in more recent national road transport legislation.The bill forms part of a system of nationally consistent road transport laws envisaged under the intergovernmental agreements on road transport, signed by heads of government in 1991—as the member for Batman mentioned, the heavy vehicles agreement and in 1992 the light vehicles agreement—which are scheduled to the National Road Transport Commission Act 1991.Nationally consistent heavy vehicle charges are, as we are aware, an essential component of the road transport law reform being put in place by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments and by the National Road Transport Commission under the intergovernmental heavy and light vehicles agreements. A major difference in charges between states and territories really has put a straightjacket on efficiency and competitiveness within the road transport industry—a vital sector of the economy—and it was one of the key issues that the government recognised needed to be fixed through a cooperative reform process.In accordance with the agreements, it is intended that the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Amendment Bill 2000 will amend the substantive law of the Australian Capital Territory in respect of heavy vehicle registration charging. Victoria and the Northern Territory intend to adopt the bill unchanged as the law in their respective jurisdictions. The remaining states and the Commonwealth will adopt the substance of the bill in their own legislation. This bill has been developed by the National Road Transport Commission through an extensive process beginning in 1998, in consultation with state and territory registration authorities and transport agencies, the Commonwealth, the transport industry and other interested parties. Road transport charges were last calculated in 1992 and put in place by the government and all states and territories in 1995 and 1996, pursuant to intergovernmental agreements. Since then the National Road Transport Commission estimates that costs of heavy vehicle road use have increased from an annualised $1.05 million to a current figure of $1,280 million, and the current charges underrecover these amounts. However, the National Road Transport Commission considers that two-thirds of heavy vehicle road costs are to be recovered through a nominal component of existing Commonwealth diesel excise. Registration charges will recover an estimated $424 million, up from $399 million from current charges, an increase of 5.5 per cent.It is important to note that the charges do not increase for over 80 per cent of the 335,000 heavy vehicles over 4½ tonnes. Where increases do occur, they are moderate and mostly for the heaviest vehicles that cause most road wear. It is also important to note that the industry broadly supports and accepts the updated charges. The updated charges are proposed to be implemented by all jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth for federally registered vehicles, from 1 July 2000. Some of the states may not meet this target. However, they will implement them as soon as possible after July 2000. The bill will allow the ACT government to recover an additional $115,000 from heavy vehicles in the Territory. However, the associated increases in charges represent a very small change in the costs of operating vehicles, typically less than one per cent of total operating costs flowing from the government's taxation reforms.In conclusion, I will take up the matter which the member for Batman raised. All of us, particularly in rural Australia, are very much aware of the state of our rural roads, both local and regional. I make the point that it is much easier to be able to put infrastructure funding and road funding in place when you are operating in a surplus than it is to try to bring funds to account when you are operating in a deficit. I mention that because I think it is important that we now look collectively with local, state and federal government at a way of putting infrastructure on to our roads to make sure that our road networks satisfy the requirements of communities at large. This amendment bill has widespread support and I commend it to the House.11:04:0014836Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—It is my pleasure to speak on the three bills that are before the House: the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Amendment Bill 2000, the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2000 and the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 2000. It is not my intention to go through the nature and purpose of these pieces of legislation because that has been done adequately by previous speakers. However, I want to concentrate on a couple of aspects of the discussion in relation to road transport. A number of people who have already contributed to this debate have talked about the heavy vehicle agreement of 1991 and the light vehicle agreement of 1992. I have intimate knowledge of these agreements because I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Communications in the early nineties. I can remember the difficult gestation and ultimate birth of these two agreements. The difficulty arose out of a great deal of contention within the road transport industry, particularly with heavy vehicles, in relation to applying national road user charges. Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, you may or may not be aware that there were elements within the coalition parties who opposed the proposals at the time—I am sure you are surprised at that; I am sure you would not have been opposing them at the time. The Northern Territory government, for example, was vociferous in its opposition, claiming that the world would all but end if we did not do this thing differently. Therefore, it is with some pleasure that I note that the changes initiated by the then Labor government, of which I was part, have been carried through by this current government with the agreement of all states and territories, and that is a sign to me of some maturing in the relationship between governments over this very difficult and vexed issue.It also says a lot about the role that the National Road Transport Commission has played in that process, and I want to commend those people involved for the valuable work they do in bringing these important issues about road transport to the government and ultimately to the parliament through the form of this legislation. But I want to concentrate on highlighting the issues which were touched on by my friend the member for Batman, the shadow minister in this area. He talked about the conference in Moree, the National Rural Roads Congress, and the importance of addressing the needs of regional infrastructure in terms of regional and remote Australia. I have not read the documents from that meeting but I have some concern that they do not properly comprehend the issues involved in remote Australia. I am one of the few people in this parliament who have any experience of living in these regions or who have involvement with the road transport industry in these regions.It may appear trite to say that the difficulties confronted by these transport operators and, indeed, the communities around northern Australia in particular are very different from the difficulties that confront their cousins who live in Sydney and Melbourne or along the eastern seaboard. They bear special consideration. You will be aware of the recent heavy rains and cyclones which have traversed the top of Australia and which have had implications right down through the centre. I was advised this morning—and I want to refer to one particular road—that the Tanami Road has been unable to have heavy transport on it for over a month and it is still impassable. This has important implications because the Tanami Road is a wealth producer. It not only links very important Aboriginal communities but it is also extremely important in the production of gold. You would be aware of the Granites and Tanami goldmines, both very important producers and contributors to the Northern Territory economy. Along with others in the region, they are ultimately very important to our national wealth.That road also provides access for travellers to and from remote Aboriginal communities such as Yuendumu, in particular, but also other communities beyond such as Papunya and a whole range of communities north-west of Alice Springs. The road between Alice Springs and the Granites is around 550 kilometres in length. Of those 550 kilometres, about 150 kilometres is bituminised. Under normal travel circumstances, without the floods, it takes approximately 12 hours for a heavy vehicle, a road train, transporting fuel from Alice Springs, to get to the Tanami, to the Granites goldmine. That is a significant amount of time, bearing in mind that 150 kilometres of this road are bituminised.I am informed this morning that the Granites goldmine has only three days of diesel left. It is quite possible that in the near future it will have to close, or at least shut down until it can get additional supplies. That will impose a tremendous cost on the people who run the goldmine, and also the community. What it highlights is the importance of roads as essential infrastructure to all of regional Australia. In particular, it highlights the way in which these roads are affected by climatic conditions. The reason I mention this particular road is that it provides a very good example. I am advised that the cost of running a road train across this road is roughly twice the cost of running a road train up and down the Stuart Highway. The prime movers of these road trains cost about $350,000 a piece. You do not have to be Einstein to work it out, but if you halve the life—double the cost—you will be up for an enormous amount of money on a continuing basis to provide transport in and out of these communities. I am aware of communities in the Northern Territory where road transport operators in the past have actually refused to carry goods because of the state of the roads.Whilst we are talking about uniform charges across roads across Australia, I think we need to comprehend that those people who live in regional and remote areas are not being well serviced in terms of infrastructure developments in those regions. The Granites is one example. It provides important economic gains to the Northern Territory economy. It is an important transport route for gold producing companies. It is an important transport link for tourist operators who travel between Alice Springs, Halls Creek and the Kimberley. It is therefore not just any old country road. The difficulty is that it is not being given the attention that it should be getting in terms of its use and its importance to the local economy.An observation which is perhaps worth making is that the Northern Territory government has committed itself to around $150 million of its own resources for the development of the Darwin to Alice Springs railway, a proposal which has my strong support. But it is worth noting that the Northern Territory government has not put significant amounts of money into these regional roads, although I must say that it has some difficulties in this area at present. As a result of the recent rains, it has had to contribute at least $5 million to the repair of roads which have been damaged in the southern part of the Northern Territory.I note the member for Grey is sitting in the chamber. He will understand this. There are many areas in the north-west of his electorate which will be weeks, if not months, without road access as a result of heavy rains. I know of communities in my own electorate, apart from the ones up and down the Tanami Road, that will be without access to road transport for at least six weeks to two months as a result of heavy rains. This imposes an enormous burden on the communities that these roads serve. It is an enormous burden which is beyond the comprehension of people in this chamber; an enormous burden which is beyond the comprehension of the policy makers and planners in this government; an enormous burden which is beyond the experience of all but a handful of members of the parliament; an enormous burden which should demonstrate to the people of Australia why it is so important to understand the nature and the needs of infrastructure for the bush.Road transport is important. Communications generally are important. If you cannot provide proper telecommunications and you cannot provide proper road transport links for these communities, then you are cutting off the lifeblood of these communities in terms of their ongoing existence and their ongoing participation in the economy and our community. It is my view, my very strong view, that we as a nation have to do far more in recognising the needs of regional and remote Australia, but particularly in this instance of remote Australia, and particularly in terms of infrastructure. I note the support which has been implicitly given by the shadow minister, the member for Batman, for an infrastructure council. But I question, I have to say, whether it is within the realms of the experience of those people who would be on that council to understand the nature of the infrastructure needs of people living in rural and remote Australia. In fact, without the input from people in the Northern Territory government and people involved in the Northern Territory road transport industry, I do not think they can have that experience; nor can they have that experience without input from the Northern Territory communities that are affected.What we need to comprehend, apart from the issues which I have raised, is the impact that is being felt in these regional communities, a long way from capital cities, of the current cost of diesel. The operating costs of cattle road trains, triple-bogie road trains, have increased by 30 per cent as a result of the change in the diesel fuel price from 64c a litre to around 85c a litre in the Northern Territory. If you increase the operating costs of a road train by 30 per cent, that has a significant impact upon the costs which are borne by the local community not only in terms of services they receive but also in terms of the cost to industry—in this case, in terms of the cattle industry, in getting their beasts to market.I am told this morning that this is the most urgent issue confronting the road transport industry in regional Australia. While I note that there is discussion, and I heard the contribution from the member for Batman who spoke about the proposed changes to diesel costs and made reference to dipstick police which we all comprehend, the bottom line is that people who live in regional and remote areas are confronted by huge fuel prices. Whether or not it is diesel or petrol, at the moment in the north-east of Arnhem Land you will be charged $1.30 a litre for unleaded fuel, and in Alice Springs you are paying $1.02 a litre.There would be a revolt if you were paying $1.30 a litre in Sydney or Melbourne. Motorists would be barricading petrol stations. Motorists would be confronting the Prime Minister and saying, `Bring down fuel prices.' Yet nothing is being done for these people living in regional and remote communities. This is an urgent issue which needs to be confronted by the government and addressed properly. At the moment it has not been, and I do not see any sign of it being done.Another issue which is of concern to the road transport industry in Northern Australia is the way in which the eastern seaboard road transport operators and governments deal with issues like safety and driver hours. I do not need to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we need to acknowledge these differences in attitude, in experience, in performance that confront us across the nation. Yet because of the way this nation is structured, because of the geography and demography of the place, because the bulk of the population lives up and down the eastern seaboard, the people with the swing, with the power in terms of making these determinations, are weighted on the eastern seaboard. So the considerations which people in remote Australia want to have taken into account in determining what is appropriate in terms of road safety and, in particular, road driving hours, are not properly taken into account. It is my very strong view that this needs to be done.If you look at the experience of the road transport industry and road train operators in Northern Australia, you will see that their safety record is second to none. Whilst there might well be legitimate arguments for the way in which you deal with driver fatigue, there also needs to be an understanding of the nature of the operations of these road transport companies in regional and remote Australia. There is a real issue about how these things might in fact compromise safety instead of assisting it. It is not my intention to traverse other issues about the road transport industry but I do want to make sure that what I am talking about here is understood. Governments—that is governments in the plural, of any political persuasion—need to understand the nature of remote Australia, the difficulties that the residents of those communities in remote Australia confront in terms of the transport infrastructure, the roads, they are provided with, the costs that are imposed upon them because of the nature of the road infrastructure and the costs they experience as a result of living in those communities. Until this nation comes to terms with those things we are not going to be able to properly address this nation's primary objective. That is to make sure that we all participate as equals: that there is some sort of equity in the development of policy and that we understand that the needs of these people are being properly addressed.When the Labor Party was defeated in 1996 there was a regional roads program operating in the Northern Territory at $15 million over three years. One of the first things done by the Howard government when it came into power in 1996 was to close off the program. That program was identified as improving the road infrastructure for regional communities, outside of the major metropolitan areas in the Northern Territory, yet it was cut—just abolished—by the Howard government. That has meant that the people I have been referring to here have suffered increased costs resulting from the failure to upgrade and maintain those roads properly. I commend the legislation to the House.11:22:0014840Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—The member for the Northern Territory has spoken about the attitude of companies on the eastern seaboard to driver hours and things like that. I remember years ago when the attitude in the Northern Territory to travelling any distance was that it was a `carton trip' to Katherine and `two cartons' to Alice Springs—that sort of thing. I must admit that attitudes up there have gone a long way since those days. Certainly they are very progressive on drink driving and those sorts of things these days.In Australia there are 11,737,923 vehicles, according to the motor vehicle census on 31 October 1998. That presents a massive administrative problem for the Commonwealth government and for all governments, and the proposed legislation goes to a very important part of the administrative structure that we need to ensure that our road network and the vehicles using that road network are dealt with in an efficient and effective manner. I have given the total figure for motor vehicle use in the whole of Australia; let us now look at trucks in particular. In Queensland we have 11,775 registered articulated trucks, 68,885 rigid trucks and 339,925 light commercial vehicles. The distance travelled in Australia every year by light commercial vehicles is 24,958 million kilometres; by rigid trucks it is 6,015 million kilometres every year; and by articulated trucks, 4,921 million kilometres. That is a total for Australia, for all vehicles, of 173,317 million kilometres travelled every year. That puts a massive burden on our road network and it is the responsibility of the government to bring down legislation that reflects the impact of those vehicles on our community in terms of the cost of running them and also of providing infrastructure to support them.The Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Amendment Bill 2000, the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2000 and the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 2000 implement updated, nationally consistent heavy vehicle registration charges that have been agreed by the Australian Transport Council, comprising the Commonwealth and state and territory ministers for transport. The legislation contains provisions that relate to revisions to definitions of classes of heavy vehicles for charging purposes and the levels of heavy vehicle registration charges to be levied from 2000 to 2001. The current national charges were calculated in 1992 and implemented nationally in 1995-96. They no longer reflect the road use costs of heavy vehicles. By way of background, I need to go back to 1992 and 1993. In 1993 the Commonwealth parliament passed the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1993 setting registration charges for the ACT, including Jervis Bay, from July 1995. Parliaments in other jurisdictions subsequently adopted the same charges, although some of them did not come into force for a number of years after that. Under previous arrangements, each state government had its own set of charges and regulations for heavy vehicles. That was changed at the Special Premiers Conference in 1991 and the Commonwealth and state governments agreed to set up a national approach to regulation of heavy vehicles. To that end, the National Road Transport Commission was established.I think everyone would agree that, when it comes to national road transport, it is important we deal with these things on a national level. The old system of having states administer their own sets of circumstances obviously led to all kinds of difficulties. The National Road Transport Commission takes into account, in relation to heavy vehicle charges, the following objectives: to achieve full cost recovery; to achieve a reasonable balance between administrative simplicity, efficiency and equity; to improve the link between pricing and investment decisions and minimise the incentive for people to `shop around' for lower registration charges; to adopt a common methodology based on the pay-as-you-go principle; and to minimise the incentive for operators to `shop around' among different states and territories for lower charges, as no doubt they certainly did under the previous state based operation.The National Road Transport Commission has had several issues to consider. It has the legal responsibility to regularly review the level of charges. It is required to apply the guidelines I referred to a minute ago and to assess whether charges are at the right levels. How are these charges calculated? There are two parts to national heavy vehicle charges: a fuel charge, which is part of the diesel excise, and a fixed annual registration charge. The charges are set to ensure that the road transport industry pays its way for the costs it causes—for maintenance and other problems relating to roads and bridges. This is done by recovering the share of road spending which can be reasonably allocated to heavy vehicles.Since 1992, when the first determination of charges was established, it is calculated that road spending has increased considerably—by 17 per cent for arterial roads—and costs attributed to heavy vehicles have increased by 25 per cent; the typical cost of roadwork has also increased by 10 per cent; and the use of roads by heavy vehicles has changed: there is less use by rigid trucks and more use by articulated trucks. I think any bystander, no matter what footpath they were standing on, would have noted the arrival of B-doubles and that type of transport. Articulated road transport types are certainly more popular and, I think, more cost-efficient for the people operating those trucks.Changes to the pattern of road spending and other factors mean that, at a total level, road spending related to heavy vehicles has increased by approximately 25 per cent, or $280 million, since 1992. This compares with a 10 per cent increase in the general cost of living during that time. Higher registration charges reflect trends such as increased road use by the heaviest vehicles; changes in the pattern of road expenditure; underrecovery of costs for heavy vehicles when it was assessed against that first determination, which I spoke about earlier; and some overrecovery of costs for lighter vehicles. The people with lighter vehicles are copping it in the neck and the people operating the increasing number of B-doubles on the road are basically getting away with a position that we would prefer not to see. There have been other initiatives during this time. I should refer in passing to a recent vote by the ministers on the Transport Council to allow the indexation of heavy vehicle registration charges based on increases in the consumer price index. Under that proposal, ministers would make an annual decision on whether to apply indexation. The proposal would not affect the update of charges from 2000 but would allow indexation from 1 July 2001. There are two zones that relate to these activities. The cost of providing roads certainly is not going backwards and it is appropriate that we face up to reality and focus our attention on growing expenditure on roads over time. However, there was insufficient support from ministers for indexation to apply nationally in all states. Ministers have agreed to reconsider the issue of indexation at the next ATC meeting.One of the things that people immediately fire up about when we talk about trucks using our roads is the alleged threat that they pose to road safety. It is timely in the context of this debate that we consider what is happening in relation to that view. In looking at the statistics on fatal crashes involving articulated trucks in the period from 1981 to 1998, it is interesting to see just what has happened. In every case, no matter which state you go to, the number of fatal crashes in that period involving articulated trucks has declined overall. For example, in New South Wales over that 1981 to 1998 period, the highest number of fatal crashes actually occurred in 1988, with 120. There was a peak also in Victoria in 1989 of 57. In Queensland, the number of fatal crashes involving articulated vehicles basically tapered down from 47 in 1981 and a peak of 53 in 1982 to 28 in 1998. That has been apparent to people who have followed concerns in the community about this issue over that time. It is good to see that happening, but we must remain vigilant and continue to promote improved road safety outcomes.The decline is also reflected in the number of fatalities. No matter which state you go to, the number of actual fatalities in that period involving articulated trucks declined overall, with peaks of 151 fatalities in New South Wales in 1988, 68 fatalities in Victoria in 1989 and 1990, 60 in Queensland in 1989 and 31 in South Australia in 1989. The most recent peak amongst all the states occurred in Western Australia, which recorded 26 fatalities in 1997.If we look at the impact of speed zones, we can see again that truck safety is improving overall. For example, in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland—where there were a number of crashes to talk about; the numbers tended to drop off in other states—the number of crashes in low-speed zones involving articulated trucks again tapered off. In New South Wales it went from 38 in 1990 down to 22 in 1998; in Victoria it went from 17 down to eight over that same period; and in Queensland it went from 12 down to seven over that period, with a peak of 15 in 1994. In high-speed zones, we have a good record to talk about and I will not dwell on that too much.One thing that is of concern is another statistic I dragged up in relation to hospitalisation. It seems that, while we do have improved safety in terms of deaths on our roads, there is concern about hospitalisation. If we take the period referred to here—and it may be a blip but I think it is something we should consider—the number of crashes between 1996-1997 and 1997-98 involving articulated trucks where hospitalisation occurred as a result rose by 27 per cent from 444 to 568. So I think that is something that needs to be looked at, and maybe some of the in-cabin elements of safety or whatever in these vehicles need to be looked at more carefully. We have seen the advent of airbags in cars, and there may well be initiatives that we need to look at again in relation to trucks. In the time available to me, I would like to talk a little about freight comparisons. When we look at the costs of running trucks along the roads and the impact that they have on them we also have to consider other freight comparisons. Doing the rounds at the moment is the comparison between trucks on the roads and trains on the tracks; there is a lot of talk about that. The Bureau of Transport Economics' working paper No. 40, `Competitive neutrality between road and rail', talks about what is happening. It says:Under the current road user charging system, trucks overall are undercharged for their use of the road system—We have heard that already— Moreover, larger, more heavily laden vehicles and those travelling longer distances are charged the least (per tonne kilometre) while smaller, less heavily laden vehicles and those travelling shorter distances cross-subsidise them.If both road and rail paid more competitively neutral charges, including charges for externalities, in a system designed to fully recover costs from users, both road and rail freight rates would fall by 5 per cent relative to current freight rates. With no shift in relative freight rates, and in the absence of other changes, the historical decline in rail's share of intercity freight transport is likely to continue.When we talk about the cost of running road transport this is something that we are going to have to address. Recently I was with members of the Harvest Trail Working Committee which has been looking into fruit picking, and we were staying at Gundagai where we were going to do some picking. We were in a caravan park adjacent to the Hume Highway, and it was very difficult to get a good night's sleep. I am not appealing just on behalf of fruit pickers, but when you hear the noise and observe the energy that is being generated by the trucks, and think about the impact that that has on the roads, you can just hear the dollars being burnt up while you are lying there awake at night. So it is important that we look at the issue of rail as an alternative.Of course, the classic issue being raised at the moment is the Melbourne to Darwin railway line, and I will speak briefly about the component of that line that goes from Melbourne to Brisbane. That railway line seeks to do for rail transport what the Newell Highway has done for truck transport. Everybody knows that the Newell really has been revolutionary in the way trucks can cover the distance between Brisbane and Melbourne. It means that freight that follows such a route does not have to go through the great snarl of traffic around Sydney, so of course there is a much cleaner processing of freight.The railway line proposal, which follows basically a similar kind of plan, is well thought out because it provides the same advantages in the saving of time which otherwise would be lost. It ensures a much cleaner flow of freight and a greater opportunity for people who are producers in the western areas of the state to access an efficient rail system. Of course, I think they will choose it above the road and, as a consequence, the cost that is being added to produce out of that area will be reduced significantly.The railway line proposal needs to be considered. It is something that would provide an advantage to people in my electorate of Blair, although we are not right out there in the western part of New South Wales—we are actually on the very end of the Melbourne to Brisbane component of this proposal. But just in that area alone there are many advantages that can flow. At present there is no doubt that people in the Lockyer Valley, out to Toowoomba, are in many respects being cut off from the economic advantages of their location in south-eastern Queensland by the fact that they do not have a decent rail network. In the time that it takes to hop onto an old diesel engine and travel from Toowoomba to Brisbane—because you can only get on an old diesel train to travel that distance—you could have travelled to Bundaberg by tilt train from Brisbane. It is incredible that, with respect to passenger services on a rail line that is not very long—in fact it equates roughly in length to the line between Brisbane and Gympie—we are missing out because we do not have the opportunity to have passenger services over that distance.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—Much better to go to Bundaberg.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—My colleague, I am sure, would like everyone to go to Bundaberg but, as I say, people in the Lockyer Valley and Toowoomba are missing out on access to this great powerhouse, the economic powerhouse that is south-east Queensland, because we do not have access to those sorts of rail services. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to commend the vision involved in that project. It is going to involve a lot of work for people to get it off the ground, but I think it will mean a lot, not just to me and to people in my electorate, but to people in electorates all over the south-east of Queensland. It is a way in which we can balance some of the incredible expenditure that is currently needed to support the road transport industry and make not only the rail network but also the road network more efficient, because trains carrying freight over a long distance will still need trucks to be available at the other end to be able to process that freight.11:42:0014844Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I represent an electorate which is bisected by the Pacific Highway. The national highway cuts across the corner of it and passes through the centre of the biggest city in the electorate, the city of Maitland, with 45,000 people. The recently completed Thunderbolts Way goes from New England down through Gloucester and on to Bucketts Way. So I could not let this piece of legislation pass without saying a few words about it. I recognise the statistics that have just been given by the previous speaker, the member for Blair, Mr Cameron Thompson. Those of us who live near highways do recognise that the nature of trucks is changing. I compliment most trucking companies, because there is no doubt that the trucks we see on the road today are in very good order; they are very high powered. Undoubtedly, the reason that there are fewer accidents is because of their very advanced mechanical nature—in particular, their ability to stop. Their braking systems are a tribute to modern engineering.What we are doing by building bigger trucks and having more trucks on the road is passing the buck. We are passing the buck to local government areas which, there is no doubt in my mind, are underfinanced to blazes. When I think of small shires in my electorate such as Dungog and Gloucester, which have large areas of arterial roads but which have a total budget in the order of $4 million, I know that they do not have the resources to maintain a road to a standard that is acceptable for use by these trucks. So while it is all right to come in here and talk about legislation that is going to provide uniform charges for trucking companies, I feel that while we are addressing the trucking industry we should be looking at the real cause of some of the problems. I particularly remember that in 1995—Madam Deputy Speaker Crosio, you would remember this, too—the Hon. Laurie Brereton, the then minister for transport, and the Hon. Michael Knight, the minister for road transport in New South Wales, went to Raymond Terrace and announced the upgrade of the Pacific Highway—a fantastic feat. I also recall the reaction of the opposition at the time; it said that $2 billion was not enough, that $4 billion was needed. We see now that the contribution by the government is down to $600 million. It is not enough money for that piece of infrastructure. It is a major piece of infrastructure that is not only making it safer for these trucks to travel on the roads; it is also making it safer for the people who live in the small towns and villages along that highway to travel on the roads. While we are addressing the truck issue, I think it behoves all of us to put pressure on every minister for transport, regardless of his politics, that if Australia is going to accept that trucks are the lifeblood of the transport industry—and industry will determine if they are going to take over from rail—to ensure that the road network is there to make transport safe. I would also point out quickly that some of the decisions taken by other ministers also affect the nature of transport. For example, last year an abattoir closed in the Hunter Valley at Aberdeen with a loss of 400 jobs. Essentially it closed because of industrial relations legislation. That tragedy is something else that we should not debate here, but it did not mean that the amount of cattle that were slaughtered at Aberdeen simply stopped being produced. The beef and cattle producers of the Hunter Valley are still there and they are still producing a top product. It just means that now well over 100 double-deckers of cattle are going from the Hunter Valley to Dinmore at Ipswich every week. That is the sort of result when a decision to close a meatworks is taken. That decision was made by Australian Meat Holdings because it wanted to improve its economic output. Where does the cost go? The cost comes back to the road users because the increase in transport cost is then passed on to the consumer. It is passed on to the council where those trucks travel. We need to broaden our spectrum considerably when we talk about road transport. We need to identify where the real costs are.I had a visit by the Deputy Prime Minister recently—he did not come to see me, I can assure you. He was introduced by the state National Party member but I thought I would go along for the ride. He came along to announce a total of $410,000 for the Bucketts Way to upgrade an intersection to remove an area where there had been a number of fatalities in the Gloucester area. That is a road that has been identified by the four local government areas that have ownership and jurisdiction of that road as needing $10 million over the next four years to upgrade it. It is a road that has eight to 10 timber bridges and they will not be replaced by the $10 million. I support road transport. I have a lot of people who make their living out of road transport in my electorate. They are hard workers and I know how productive they are and how necessary they are for our community, but we need a government that identifies the real problem with transport and that is building a road network that is suitable to take the vehicles.11:48:0014845Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I had to wait so long to speak on these bills and was shunted about so much that I thought that I was on a very rough truck there for a while, going backwards and forwards. But, like all good truckies, I got through and so I am here now to make my short contribution.Not surprisingly I support this legislation, the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Amendment Bill 2000, the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2000, and the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 2000, as indeed does the opposition support it. This is an ongoing process of trying to bring uniformity into transport throughout Australia. It has been going for some time. We have now got the interstate licences, registration and a whole host of things like that. It has been very interesting listening to what some of my colleagues have said and there has been latitude given in the wide ranging debate on the legislation. For instance, my friend and colleague the member for the Northern Territory was talking about fatigue in truck drivers. It was quite interesting. I am delighted that the chair of the Communications, Transport and the Arts Committee, the member for Hinkler, is with us. That committee has been carrying out an inquiry into fatigue in transport. Of course, I cannot reveal what will be in the report yet but I have a point to make. The honourable member for the Northern Territory talked about fatigue and how people could learn from the drivers in the Northern Territory and from the transport industry in the Northern Territory. We are always happy to learn, and it would help our learning process if the Northern Territory trucking industry or transport industry had bothered to put in a submission to our inquiry. We were quite surprised that we did not get any submissions from the Northern Territory because, as the member rightly identified, with the huge road trains there, their submissions would have been interesting.The member for Hinkler and I spoke in Queensland and we had a discussion there on logbooks. It was put to us how sometimes the rules are foolish. For example, you may have driven for a certain number of hours and therefore have to stop. But you may have a truckload of cattle and be only 100 kilometres from where your journey ends and so those cattle might have to stay there in hot weather and various things like that. There is an argument there about more flexibility. Most people who know anything about the transport industry accept that logbooks are a little bit of a joke, that it depends on how many logbooks you have in the truck at any one time. I am not sure that I would go the whole way with the honourable member for the Northern Territory, though, about fatigue. Anyone who has studied the issue of fatigue in transport knows it is not only the number of driving hours in the truck or the road conditions; it is also the type of rest, whether it is complete rest or else social activities and then jumping in a truck and driving. Yesterday, at one of our committee hearings—and I am not revealing committee secrets—there was a test conducted by a psychologist. One of the members of parliament who did that test was told he would have to have a four- or five-hour sleep before he would be allowed to drive to Darwin. I did not bother doing the test because I would have had to have had six or seven hours of sleep. KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—You would have chronic fatigue from this place.DH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—Yes, chronic fatigue syndrome. I might have a discussion with the honourable member for the Northern Territory, and it might be possible for our committee to go to the Northern Territory, or have someone come down here and talk to us about it. I do not think that because people drive these huge road trains that they should be exempted from the normal requirements. And it is not only those driving those road trains—and they do a very good job—but there are those people who try and pass them. Anyone who has ever tried to pass one of those road trains, or have one go past them, knows what a god-fearing exercise that is. And if the road train driver has been on the road for 18 or 20 hours, and maybe has taken certain stimulants to stay awake, then the god fearing nature of you passing him might become even more god-fearing.What always worries me is that when we start talking about any form of transport in this place we get into a competition between rail and road. Those who are advocating road see everything as fine with roads, and those who advocate rail argue that far too much money has gone into roads and that rail has suffered as a consequence. We never met the challenge in the party I belong to when we were in government, and the present government has not met the challenge. We want an integrated transport program for Australia. When I was in Britain last year I brought back a green paper outlining the integrated transport network in the United Kingdom. They are doing everything from cyclists through to cars, buses, trucks and trains. I have shown that report to the member for Hinkler. Interestingly, in this debate people are talking about transport and having an argument about road and rail, but no-one has mentioned shipping. The cheapest way to move cargo around Australia over long distances is by ship. We may well have to do something with our ports. Trucks are good to take it from one area to the other. However, at certain times, as everyone knows, it is appropriate to go by rail, it is appropriate to go by road, or it is appropriate to go by ship, but we are not constantly in competition one with the other. We have got to have an integrated transport policy, which we have not had.I was a little concerned when some of the speakers were saying that weight is always on the eastern states with regulations in the transport industry. Let us face reality: that is where most of the transport is. You drive from here to Sydney, as I do, and have a look at the number of trucks that are on the road. Once you come to the junction just outside Goulburn, it is almost bumper to bumper with trucks.I was talking about how we should have an integrated transport network. We have also got to have integrated transport planning, and that would cover the roads. The minister might care to check this out, but I believe that you can go over to Yass and there is a roundabout there that is not designed for trucks. It is on the highway and it is not designed for trucks! There is another place up in Sydney where you have got to back into a warehouse and you have got to back across two lines of transport. So we have to have an integrated approach not only to all the modes of transport but also covering the roads as well.It is a great pity that the member for New England is not here—and unfortunately, I could not be here for all his contribution—but a point I want to make is that what we have to have too are a few truck friendly towns. Everyone starts talking about how noisy trucks are and how they wake people up. At Guyra, they have put in a decent truck stop and they promote themselves as a truck friendly town. They want the trucks to come in there—it is not in the middle of the town, it is on the outskirts of the town. They have got all the facilities there where the truckies can go and have a shower, a decent meal, things like that. I hear that Nambucca Heads, which I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, is in your electorate—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—It certainly is. One of the jewels of Cowper.DH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—It is not a truck friendly town, Mr Deputy Speaker. They actually try and keep the trucks out of Nambucca Heads, and maybe it is because of roads and things like that. Contrast that with Guyra in the electorate of the honourable member for New England, which is a truck friendly town, where they try and encourage the truckies to come in there, spend their money—KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—Live there.DH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—Live there, as the honourable member for Hinkler says. Instead of having them all living in one place or another, they will have the people living there so that the journeys can start there and they can finish their journeys there.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—Get home in the same night.DH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—Indeed. Mr Deputy Speaker, you might have to do a little bit of work on that and make Nambucca Heads a little more truck friendly.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is a bypass.DH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—I support this legislation but, as I say, it is very much dealing with the trucking industry. I hope that one day I will see some government in this country take up the challenge of having an integrated transport policy covering all areas, be it shipping, be it roads, be it rail, even cycles and things like that. We can have this piecemeal legislation, and it is good, but until we have an integrated policy, quite frankly, we are not going to face up to the challenges and the realities of transporting goods around Australia. I commend the legislation. 11:59:0014848Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—On behalf of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, I am very pleased to sum up the debate on the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Amendment Bill 2000 and to thank those who have contributed to the discussions. The transport task in Australia is significant and will become even more significant as the economy grows in the years ahead.I note with interest the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Throsby, Mr Hollis, about an integrated transport plan, whether it be for Nambucca Heads or for Guyra or some other place, and his proposal obviously has some merit. It would be important, though, that such a plan not be an academic document. It would be possible to spend millions and millions of dollars preparing such a strategy, but if there were to be no commitment to actually implement such an integrated strategy and to deal with the practicalities of the many issues that are raised, then it would really just be a useless academic exercise. We have perhaps done a lot of plans in this country that gather dust and it is important that we actually have action plans that deliver positive outcomes.I thank the members who have contributed to the debate. Transport is an issue which touches us all, almost every day, and the full range of transport issues always evokes a lively debate in this House. This legislation deals with road transport and charges. The Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Amendment Bill 2000, the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2000 and the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 2000 ensure that ACT and federally registered heavy vehicles pay the same charges as all heavy vehicles across Australia, no matter where they are registered. The passage of the ACT bill will also ensure that other jurisdictions can pick up the national uniform charges and definitions, using this bill as a model.This is an important step forward in the national road transport law reforms being put in place by the Commonwealth and state and territory governments under the intergovernmental agreements. The new national charges reflect the increased road spending since the 1992 calculations, with the revenue increase flowing to the states and territories. The majority of vehicles will see no increase in registration charges, and heavier classes will be paying a more appropriate charge from 1 July. The increases in charges represent only a small change in the costs of operating vehicles and are small compared to the anticipated reductions in operating costs flowing from the government's taxation reforms. All members would be aware that the transport industry is one of the major beneficiaries of the government's new taxation system.I thank the NRTC, the state and territory ministers for transport and the road transport industry for their contribution and support. On behalf of Minister Anderson, I commend the bills to the Main Committee.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. Bills14849R101414849Consideration resumed from 8 March, on motion by Mr Anderson:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills14849R101314849Consideration resumed from 8 March, on motion by Mr Anderson:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills14849R23114849Debate resumed from 8 December 1999, on motion by Mr Anthony:That the bill be now read a second time.Motion (by Mr Neville) agreed to:That further proceedings on this bill be conducted in the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Main Committee adjourned at 12.05 p.m.