2000-05-093916REPS1603902000-05-09—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Ministerial Arrangements1603914:01:0016039Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Treasurer will be absent from question time, due to budget commitments. The Minister for Finance and Administration will answer questions on his behalf. I also inform the House that the Minister for Family and Community Services is on leave for a short while, due to ill health. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs is acting for Senator Newman and will answer questions in the House in relation to the Family and Community Services portfolio, other than in relation to matters which are the responsibility of the Minister for Community Services.Questions Without Notice160391603914:02:0016039Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Reserve Bank and other commentators' identification of your political comments about interest rates in late January, which led to a US3c drop in the Australian dollar in one night. Have you seen a report that you said on 2UE at the time that any commentator, such as Alan Wood, who blamed your comments for the fall in the dollar were `stupid, ignorant and wrong'? Now that the Reserve Bank has expressed precisely this concern, who exactly is stupid, ignorant and wrong—the Reserve Bank, Alan Wood or you?16039Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrim Minister10—In answer to the Leader of the Opposition, the remarks that I made in January to which he made reference were totally justified then and remain the case. They were observations on the comments of spokesmen for various trading banks—one in particular—and I have no regrets about those remarks at all. As to the relationship between those remarks and subsequent movements in the level of the Australian dollar, what I find interesting is the following paragraph in the Reserve Bank's February analysis of the economy and financial markets. I quote directly from the report:The exchange rate was volatile ahead of the policy decisions of early February, initially dropping in late January by US3c overnight to a low of US62.2c.I emphasise this:The catalyst for this sharp fall ... I repeat:The catalyst for this sharp fall was the release of favourable CPI data in Australia which reduced market expectations and monetary policy tightening at the same time as data releases in the US pointed to the possibility that monetary tightening in that country might be greater than had been expected.There is no reference there to any comments by me or, indeed, by anybody else. I would also, by way of addendum, make the observation that I am very pleased to note that I lead a government whose Treasurer has never been so reckless as to boast, as a former Treasurer of this nation did in 1989 or 1990, that he had the Reserve Bank in his pocket.1603914:04:0016039Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister outline to the House the government's response to Indonesian President Wahid's proposal for a tripartite meeting involving him, the Prime Minister and Xanana Gusmao.16039Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Cook for his question. Yesterday, I wrote to the President of Indonesia and, amongst other things, said that his proposal for a tripartite meeting involving the President of Indonesia, the Prime Minister of Australia and Xanana Gusmao, the East Timorese leader, was one that we reacted to favourably, although I said to the President that I thought it appropriate that a bilateral meeting between the President and me take place before any three-way meeting.In the course of that letter, I expressed the respect of the Australian government and, I believe, the parliament of this country for the greater transparency that Dr Wahid has brought to the government of Indonesia, the steps that he has taken to restore democracy in that country, and the leadership he has given to the Republic of Indonesia in relation to economic matters. I also noted and welcomed the fact that he stated a desire to visit Australia. I said that in itself a visit by an Indonesian President, the first in 25 years, would be a very important event in the bilateral relationship between the two countries. I suggested that the officials of both Australia and Indonesia have further discussions about a projected date for the President's visit. I also inform the House that I spoke at length to Xanana Gusmao and Jose Ramos Horta at Kirribilli House on Saturday morning. They gave me an outline of the progress being made to establish the infrastructure of government in East Timor. I reiterated the ongoing support of the Australian government. We discussed relations between the emerging nation of East Timor, Indonesia and Australia. I emphasised to Mr Gusmao the importance, in our view, of the people of East Timor—notwithstanding the very tragic history of relations between their people and Indonesia—establishing close relations between that territory and the government and the people of Indonesia.I have said on earlier occasions that it was inevitable, given the action taken by Australia last year in relation to East Timor—correct action that won the support and respect of the world—that relations between Australia and Indonesia would be strained as a consequence and that the relationship in the future would not be what it was in the past but that that does not mean it will not be a very positive and mutually beneficial relationship, provided it is based upon mutual respect—a respect and understanding on the part of Australia of the history, culture and values of Indonesia and also a respect and understanding by the Indonesians of the history, culture and values of Australia. I believe that, over time, we will move towards a closer relationship, one that will inevitably be different but, nonetheless, one that is very soundly based.1604014:08:0016040Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—My question is to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Minister, do you recall your press release dated 15 January in which you said you had directed the ACCC not to approve any business initiatives on the GST that may increase prices by more than 10 per cent? Are you aware that, on Monday 1 May, Professor Fels, Chairman of the ACCC, said he had received no such direction from you or from any other member of the government? Do you intend to correct the public record, as required by the Prime Minister's ministerial code of conduct?16040Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—As stated in the question, I did put out a press release on 15 January 2000. The honourable member noted that I said in the first paragraph that I:...today directed the ACCC not to approve any business initiatives on the GST that may increase prices by more than 10%.I ask the members of the opposition to note the words `business initiatives' because those words were used as a direct response to suggestions by Qantas that its frequent flyer prices were approved by the ACCC. This suggested that the ACCC had entered into a public compliance agreement with Qantas. There was no formal direction, nor any suggestion of a formal direction, under section 29 of the Trade Practices Act, because public compliance agreements are an administrative tool used by the ACCC to ensure the effective implementation of the new taxation system.1604014:10:0016040Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House how rural and regional communities will benefit from the government's recently announced Stronger Families and Communities Strategy.16040Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question, and I acknowledge his very real interest in this matter. The Stronger Families and Communities Strategy will have a major emphasis on boosting the opportunities available to country people. The Prime Minister recently announced this new approach in Melbourne. Around half of the $240 million dedicated to this strategy will be spent in rural, regional and remote areas where the need is, arguably, the greatest. Indeed, it will focus on strengthening marriages and relationships, on the needs of families with young children by helping people to balance the demands of work and raising a family, and on building communities by promoting leadership and supporting volunteers. Included in the $240 million Stronger Families and Communities Strategy is a recognition of many of the challenges faced by rural families due to isolation, economic hardship and a lack of resources in communities. Particularly importantly, it will be very flexible. It will be able to be tailored to meet local needs. As was repeatedly put to me in relation to rural programs: no one size fits all. This strategy is highly flexible. There will be $40 million for a Stronger Families Fund for locally developed programs to help families with parenting during early childhood years. This sort of support can go to such outstanding programs as the Good Beginnings National Parenting Project. Good Beginnings involves home visits by trained volunteers and support for fathers support groups, personal health assistance and information sessions for new parents and Parenting from the Inside, support groups for parents in prison. It will also involve support for community building programs, the production of resource information, the creation of professional development learning packages and the facilitation of community development programs—for example, that which exists at Clarendon with their Clarendon Vale Connect Program.There is $47.3 million to provide practical skills and support for families and parents, including making family counselling more widely available in rural and regional areas. There is around $65 million to fund a new subsidy for in-home care, which will be of real benefit to families living in rural areas too far away to find child-care centres readily accessible. There is also the provision of $37 million to a leadership development program which will help to identify and support potential community leaders. As has been so frequently identified, including at last year's Regional Australia Summit, it is only through strong local leadership that disadvantaged communities will be able to meet their challenges and to secure a better future.Also included in the package is $15 million for a local solutions fund, which will make small grants to local groups seeking to initiate community projects such as the conversion of unused buildings into community activity centres. I commend the Minister for Family and Community Services, Jocelyn Newman, for the very hard work that she has put into developing this program. I believe it will be of real benefit right across the nation and in particular to those rural and regional communities that are looking to provide leadership and innovation at a time of great change. I think, too, that it underscores a real commitment on the part of this government to an investment in the bonds that underpin family and community life, a commitment never really achieved at all by the ALP during its 13 years in government.1604114:15:0016041Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. In your press release of 15 January, to which I referred in my previous question, do you recall saying:No prices will increase by more than 10 per cent as a result of the GST—that is our policy and that is the law.Isn't it the case that there is no provision in the Trade Practices Act, or any other legislation, which prevents prices from rising by more than 10 per cent following the introduction of the GST? To which law were you referring?16041Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—It is a three-step approach. Section 75AU of the Trade Practices Act deals with price exploitation in relation to the new tax system changes. It states that price exploitation occurs if the price is unreasonably high in regard to the new tax system changes. It also lists a number of other conditions. Section 75AV of the Trade Practices Act requires the ACCC to formulate guidelines on what constitutes price exploitation. Before 15 January this was implicit in the ACCC's guidelines in the net dollar margin rule. After 15 January, and in paragraph 2.20 of the new ACCC guidelines, there is a price rule which states, `The price rule is that no price should rise by more than 10 per cent as a result of the new tax system changes.' 1604214:17:0016042Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Is the minister aware of concerns about a public service training manual for negotiating workplace agreements? Would the minister inform the House of the origin of this document?16042Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I do know about this manual. I first heard about it in February. The issue was raised then in the Senate, I think it was, and the matter was put to Dr Shergold, the secretary of my department. He gave a full explanation and made the point that it was a document prepared for a training session on negotiations and that it contained, importantly, a disclaimer stating that the authors did not endorse any unethical tactics. The whole purpose of the document was to give people an idea of how to properly manage a negotiating practice. This was not good enough for the opposition, in particular the shadow minister, one of the frontbench on the other side which, I would have to say, as this episode reveals, must be the weakest frontbench on an opposition side since World War II. This is a classic case of having no idea about what you are doing and no idea of what to do, except to do what you are told by your union mates. This is the trouble you get into. Easter conjures up the thought of Easter eggs. You think of Easter eggs and look closely at the face of the shadow minister. If you look closely enough, you will see the egg still on his face. He and his mate at the Sydney Morning Herald decided they would reheat the story over Easter, and their story was that the government was promoting unethical tactics. And did they go to town on the story.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPWI4Mr REITH—I will come to you in a minute. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane!WI4Mr REITH—He said:This document is a sad reflection of the Howard government's attitude to Australian workers. As minister, he must accept ownership of this offensive management tool. Peter Reith's latest attack on workers was produced by his own department. Minister Reith should stop passing the buck to everyone else. The negotiation manual was produced by his department. It is a guide to unethical negotiation tactics.Mr Speaker, as we now know, this manual has been in operation and was in fact produced under the previous Labor government. One member of the frontbench on the other side challenged me to produce the document, we produced it, and we found that it was sourced back to early 1994. It was approved by a committee chaired by the CPSU, who said it was offensive. It was prepared as a training manual under the previous Labor government for an ILO training course in Vanuatu in 1995. It has been used in sessions of training, not just with management but with the CPSU, on 27 January 1994, 23 February 1994 and 17 March 1994, and that is just to confirm the accuracy of it. The fact is that you have got no idea what you are doing. You thought you would reheat an old story. It was false from the start, it was in fact prepared by the Labor Party, and you are not strong enough to stand up and apologise. Furthermore, this weak Leader of the Opposition ought to bring these people into line. You have gone on an attack—Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—Laurie Brereton is chuckling in the background. What a joke! Laurie, to use the words of your own colleague—if what Arch says is right—`It is a sad reflection on Laurie Brereton's attitude to Australian workers. Laurie Brereton must accept ownership of this offensive management tool. This is Laurie Brereton's latest attack on workers.'The fact is that they went out and attacked a whole lot of public servants, and the Leader of the Opposition ought to demand an apology from this weak shadow minister. He ought to go on the public record and see if he can wipe some of that egg off his face.1604314:22:0016043Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—Mr Speaker, my question is again to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Minister, are you aware that in a doorstop on 2 May Professor Fels said that compliance costs:... can be recovered but they can't be recovered by means of price rises in excess of 10 per cent. They can be recovered by other means at other times and so on, but not by putting up prices at the start by 10 per cent.Minister, does this mean that prices cannot be increased by more than 10 per cent on 1 July, but later can be increased by more than 10 per cent to permit companies to fully recover any compliance costs? Can business stagger increases in prices over time, or spread price increases over time so that prices may, in total, increase by more than 10 per cent?16043Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—Mr Speaker, I do not take gratis what the shadow Assistant Treasurer has said about Professor Fels. What I would like him to consider, as he has raised the issue of doorstops, is that the Labor Party launched one of the most vicious attacks on a public servant in a doorstop outside of this parliament, with the attack by the shadow Assistant Treasurer on the Commissioner of Taxation. The attack by Senator Conroy on the chairman of the ACCC was the most vicious—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Obviously I am raising it under the standing order relating to relevance. If the minister cannot answer the question, he should not be going on with all this nonsense.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The chair is having some difficulty finding the relevance of the minister's remarks to the specific question asked. I invite him to come back to the question.DK6Mr HOCKEY—Mr Speaker, the matter is comprehensively dealt with in the ACCC's pricing guidelines, which have been constructed after extensive consultation with the business community and consumer groups. I reiterate that attacking the chairman of the ACCC is no substitute for good policy.1604314:25:0016043Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House about the extent of the government's commitment to road funding, and is he aware of any alternative approaches on this issue?16043Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question and note that the member for Batman, as the spokesman opposite, may be groping a little closer towards a policy development framework in the area of transport. Maybe! He recently told the Australian Trucking Association:The opposition has been looking closely at the issue of road funding.That is about as far as it goes. To all intents and purposes, the policy is written on the flip side of the tax policy; it is on that blank sheet of paper. But he has drawn some interesting but ugly false conclusions.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—Tell us what you've done. That's what I want to hear. It won't take long.4K4Mr ANDERSON—I will in a moment. Mr Speaker, I have just been invited to tell them about what the government is doing, and I intend to do just that. I never hear the member for Paterson complaining about all the money that is being spent on the Pacific Highway, which would not be being spent if the Labor Party were in power. The conclusion that the member for Batman has drawn, and that he is now out there busily promoting, is that the government is using the GST as an excuse to push responsibility for road funding onto the states. The first point that ought to be noted is that I think it is entirely legitimate to say to the states that, with their increased revenue flow, they might have the flexibility to do a little more in the future. The second point—a very important point—is that the member for Batman ought to take a little history lesson. The history lesson is this: at a special Premiers Conference of 1990—I think we all remember who was in power then—it was agreed to untie federal funding allocations to the states. It was the ALP that decided it would get out of funding all roads bar the national highway grid. Thus my point indeed is that the Pacific Highway is happening under us—the road that the member for Cowper has pushed so enthusiastically for so long is now the biggest government sector funded infrastructure project happening since the Snowy Mountains scheme. It is happening under us, not the ALP— LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP4K4Mr ANDERSON—because it was the ALP that got out of the business of funding important roads, which we now describe as RONIs, and the Black Spot Program. Mr Speaker, the ALP has no policy prescriptions whatsoever. It has got no further than saying that it is looking closely at the issue of road funding.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP4K4Mr ANDERSON—The member for Batman says again that we are not doing much for state roads, yet we are funding new port and freight access roads between Melbourne and Geelong. We are funding new port and freight access roads in Brisbane, Adelaide and Cairns. We have already funded port roads at Devonport and Darwin. We have offered to contribute to a new road to the port of Gladstone, in the member for Hinkler's electorate, and he knows how important that is. So there we have it.Finally, Mr Ferguson also said to the Australian Trucking Association, on the issue of safety, that Labor is developing a comprehensive and innovative strategy for transport safety. This is the team that abandoned the Black Spot Program. These are the people who gave up a program that has saved hundreds of Australian lives, and which we have invested in very substantially. We put that program back in place. This year we will fix another 400 crash sites across Australia. In fact, since 1996 we have fixed no fewer than 1,500. We have been getting on with the job. The ALP still labours away, and the best it can do is to say that it is looking closely at the issue of road funding.1604414:29:0016044Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Minister, can prices be increased by more than 10 per cent to permit companies to fully recover GST compliance costs provided these increases are staggered over time?16044Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—Section 75AU of the Trade Practices Act is explicit about price exploitation. The ACCC chairman has said on numerous occasions that he cannot see an instance where a price should increase by more than 10 per cent as a result of the GST. Whatever construction the shadow Assistant Treasurer might want to place on words, the bottom line is that this government has put in place the most significant price monitoring regime ever undertaken in the transition to a new tax system and the words in section 75AU of the Trade Practices Act are explicit about price exploitation.1604414:31:0016044Washer, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, since the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group met in London last week, violence and the illegal occupation of farms continue in Zimbabwe. Would you inform the House of the Australian government's response to this ongoing violence in Zimbabwe and of any action being taken?16044Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—First, I thank the honourable member for his question and recognise that many members of this House on both sides have expressed very great concern about the current situation in Zimbabwe. I think it is fair to say that Australia comes to this issue from a position of real strength because there is no doubt that the Australian government of the day provided very significant assistance to help Zimbabwe achieve the constitutional government, the rule of law and a civil society sought for many years before 1980. It therefore is a matter of particular concern to the Australian government that the situation in Zimbabwe today is so serious. Farmers, farm workers and members of the opposition continue to be killed and assaulted. The latest estimate I have is that 19 people have been killed. New occupations of farms are occurring. There are currently over 700 farms which have encamped squatters. The Zimbabwean government is not enforcing the decisions of Zimbabwe's High Court, nor is it attempting to control the violence and restore the rule of law. Such developments are of real concern to the Australian government and, I think it is fair to say, to this House as a whole and, of course, to the broader Australian community. The government's views have been made very clear directly to Zimbabwean ministers through our High Commission in Harare. Indeed, this very day I spoke to the Zimbabwean High Commissioner here in Canberra once more expressing my concerns about recent developments. Last week I was in London for my first meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group prepared a strong chairman's statement, reflecting the deep concern of the Commonwealth about the situation in Zimbabwe, including—and I quote from the statement—`ongoing violence, loss of life, illegal occupations of property, failure to uphold the rule of law and political intimidation in the run-up to Zimbabwe's parliamentary election'. What was interesting about this statement was that it was a statement agreed to by not only Australia or the United Kingdom but also countries like Botswana, Nigeria—near neighbours of Zimbabwe—Malaysia, Bangladesh, Barbados and Canada. This issue is of very major concern to the international community. Let me make it clear that this problem in Zimbabwe should not be characterised just as a dispute between Zimbabwe and Britain. This is a matter of concern to the whole of the international community. We helped now President Mugabe and his people achieve the genuine independence that they have, and we expect that Zimbabwe today and the Zimbabwe government will uphold the rule of law and will ensure that there is a proper con-stitutional process in place. We will continue to make representations on this issue. The Secretary-General of the Com-monwealth is intending to visit Zimbabwe very soon and I know he will make rep-resentations. Finally, I have made it clear that Australia would be prepared to send observers to the elections in Zimbabwe which we expect to be held before the end of August. I think some members of this House may be willing to go. I think it would be appropriate to have a small number of members of parliament as part of that observer group. Overall, I think it is important that the Commonwealth has a team of observers there, including some from Australia. 1604514:35:0016045Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Minister, will you confirm that paragraph 2.31 of the ACCC's pricing guidelines states that costs associated with new and improved accounting, operational and management systems implemented in response to the new tax system should be treated as general business costs rather than new tax system compliance costs? Minister, are these general business costs included in your 10 per cent cap—yes or no?16045Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—The member for Werriwa will have to provide me with more information in relation to the costs he is alluding to. 1604514:36:0016045Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Could the minister inform the House of recent developments in Australia's trade relations with East Asia and how the government is moving to capture further export opportunities for Australia?16045Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the honourable member for Grey for his question and acknowledge that his particular electorate exports hundreds of millions of dollars worth of produce and products to East Asia. I can report to the House that Australia's trade relations with Asia are in excellent shape and that Australia is deeply engaged in extending our economic ties in East Asia, quite contrary to some of the media reports that you read these days. Last week the statistics that were released for March in the year 2000 indicated that exports to East Asia were up 27 per cent on the same month in 1999. This was the eighth consecutive month of year-on-year improvement that we have seen in our export effort into East Asia. In March exports to Japan, our largest trading partner, grew by 26 per cent and a significant proportion of that were products like tuna from the member for Grey's electorate. Over $100 million worth of that particular product is exported out of his electorate to Japan. But it was not just Japan. Korea, our third largest trading partner, was up 22 per cent on last year, China was up 40 per cent and South-East Asia was up 34 per cent on last year—all good strong figures and a strong indication as far as Australia's exports are concerned. Out of that South-East Asian figure, 50 per cent of that growth was in Singapore alone, and that has taken place in the last 12 months. At the beginning of 1999, our exports of chilled pork, for instance, were negligible to Singapore; now they are counted in the tens of millions of dollars, with some 2,000 tonnes per month, I think, of chilled Australian pork going into that Singaporean market. Of the 1.7 million Australian jobs that rely on exports, over 750,000 of those rely on exports to East Asia. It is a very, very important market to Australia's exporters. On the policy front our government is continuing to shape our regional trading environment with a range of initiatives, particularly at the bilateral level and at the regional level through groupings such as APEC. We are hosting the APEC ministerial meeting in the first week in June in Darwin and we will have trade ministers or ministers responsible for trade from all those East Asian economies participating in that meeting. APEC represents over 60 per cent of the world's economy and Australia is obviously engaged at the centre of that. This will provide an opportunity to rebuild the momentum which was lost last year in Seattle to the launch of a new round of the multilateral system. There are other initiatives along with the regional and the bilateral ones that we are working on. I instance the discussions that we are having with the ASEAN countries—between Australia and New Zealand and the ASEAN countries—in looking at the prospects of a free trade agreement. My predecessor the member for Farrer, Tim Fischer, represents our government on a task force that had its second meeting recently to discuss this initiative, and ministers from the ASEAN group and from Australia and New Zealand will be making a decision on this initiative at our meeting in October this year. It all points to the fact that we remain strongly engaged in the region and are looking at strengthening our trading ties within the region.Next week I will be leading a trade mission to China which already has over 60 businessmen and businesswomen committed to travelling with me into that all-important marketplace that is going to become vitally important for Australia's exporters as they move to become members of the WTO. This trade delegation will showcase the diverse base of Australian exports and the economic expertise that we have in Australia. The Chinese are already aware of that. We have a large business relationship with China, but the prospects of significant improvement are enormous.Whilst our government is undertaking all these initiatives, it is worth asking the question of what the Labor Party is doing. Like in all other policy areas, the Labor Party is bound hand and foot to the union movement in the area of trade policy when you see leaders of the union movement like Doug Cameron reasserting himself and his union and the influence that they have over policy in the Labor Party in talking up the linkage between labour standards and trade and wanting to inject poor labour standards into the centre of trade negotiations. Whilst Doug Cameron was here in Australia talking up those issues, the shadow spokesman was traipsing around Europe for five weeks talking to his social democrat mates over there and getting a few hints and, I understand, in one press release whilst he was over there was announcing Labor policy in Europe.Finally, it is important to note that underpinning our trade strategy for Australia's exporters is the government's good economic management of the Australian economy providing a sound base off which our exporters can launch themselves into the international marketplace. Tonight's budget will add to that sound base off which they work. The new taxation system that will be introduced on 1 July will see $3½ billion worth of costs removed from Australia's exporters and under the business tax review reforms exporters will become more competitive as they move to a 30 per cent taxation rate—all measures and all initiatives that were never undertaken by the Australian Labor Party. 1604714:43:0016047Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Will you confirm that you had a member of your personal staff put onto the books of your department on 19 August last year with a salary increase of nearly $17,000 and then had her reassigned back to your office on the very same day as a departmental liaison officer? Didn't this rort allow you to get around the limits on the number of political staff you can employ in your office under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act? Why should the department pick up the tab for one of your political advisers?16047Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—The opposition has made some spurious allegations in relation to this matter. In fact, Treasury, which has a Consumer Affairs Division within it, was to provide me with a departmental liaison officer. It went through a proper selection process and I understand had a number of nominees. One of the staff in my electorate office who in fact has a law degree and had experience that satisfied Treasury in relation to consumer affairs was awarded the job by Treasury and placed in my office.When it comes to the Labor Party setting down a precondition that the only people who can work in the Australian Public Service are in fact former public servants, then you start to get the sort of activity across the frontbench where only people with former union affiliations, where only staff who have formerly been employed by the union movement can work in the Australian Public Service. I find the action reprehensible and outrageous.1604714:45:0016047Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Would the minister advise the House of the impact of Premier Carr's recent unilateral decision to dramatically reduce the timber supply on the New South Wales South Coast, particularly in the electorates of Eden-Monaro and Gilmore? Will it be possible for the Commonwealth to sign a regional forest agreement for southern New South Wales under these circumstances?16047Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Forestry and Conservation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I thank the member for Gilmore for her continuing representations on behalf of many people, including, for instance, those in the adjoining shire of Eden-Monaro which she also chose quite properly to mention. That member never gives up representing the interests of workers in that region. Within the region mentioned by the member is included the Eurobodalla shire, which currently has an unemployment rate of approximately 22 per cent. We have just seen the Premier of New South Wales, contrary to all the scientific advice available to him from his own departmental officials and the advice available to the Commonwealth government through the appropriate activities of the regional forest agreement process, once again acting unilaterally in an area where previously his government had cut wood supply by 35 per cent. We see him stepping in, ignoring good advice and ignoring, as I understand it, even the views of some of his ministers. We see him sounding the death knell of the southern region and its wood supply and turning his back on probably loyal Labor voters who work in that industry either directly or indirectly. It leads us to another Labor Party myth. The first myth we had was the l-a-w tax cuts myth. The second one is the L-a-b-o-r myth. Labor is still being represented as a party which has something to do for, and some interest remaining in, the welfare of workers. When these actions are taken, quite clearly it is taken by the intelligentsia, which in the case of the Leader of the Opposition is more interested in the western suburbs of Perth than in the western suburbs of Sydney. We now see again the Premier of New South Wales acting in a determined fashion to kill the job opportunities of people living south of Sydney who are in a region well known as one where it is extremely difficult to get a job and, if you lose it, as one where it is even worse trying to get another. I am asked: can the Commonwealth government sign the proposals put forward by Premier Carr? We cannot. They are not consistent with scientific advice. They are not consistent with the rules of the National Forest Policy Statement written by the Labor government in 1992. And, what is more, it is very doubtful whether the remaining areas of forest that the Premier has identified for harvesting could even meet the reduced wood quotas of 42,000 cubic metres per annum that he has identified. In other words, it is a proposal to rape a section of the forest arguably to protect another bit. That is not sensible, and it has not been recommended. Finally, I want to know where the much touted members of the New South Wales Country Labor faction are. They get out there and announce themselves—old Harry, for example, and a few others. We remember Harry here. He is like the member for Bass: notable for his inactivity. The reality is that these people have not said a word to protect the industries of their own regions, despite being elected by the local people. It takes the member for Gilmore and the member for Eden-Monaro to come out and do something. I am still waiting for one communication—other than the one I have received from Mr O'Keefe, the member for Burke—from the Labor Party saying, `When are you going to do something to help working people get a job in the forest industry?' Constantly, the Premier of New South Wales makes it impossible for the Commonwealth to help.1604814:51:0016048Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Minister, why didn't you or your department undertake a detailed assessment of the financial impact on Employment National of directing it to hand back its Job Network 1 intensive assistance contracts? Why didn't you consult Employment National's board of management about this decision to remove 79,000 clients, valued at $8 million to $12 million? Minister, weren't you trying to cripple Employment National?16048Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—Firstly, the answer to the last part of the question is no. In fact, I cannot think of anything more ludicrous than to suggest that the government would set about deliberately to cripple one of its own government business enterprises.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson has asked her question.HQ5Mr FAHEY—In relation to the other part of the question in respect of the ongoing contracts that Employment National had, the government did obtain an analysis from the senior management through the then board and from independent analysts, and it was very clear that if we had proceeded to accept and execute those contracts and proceed with it we would have exposed the company to potential losses of between $10 million and $14 million. If the honourable member, before putting out a press release last week on this issue, had bothered to read the answers to the questions on notice given to the honourable member for Melbourne, then that might have been clear to her.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—I did.HQ5Mr FAHEY—She says she did. Clearly she did not, because she proceeded to make a statement and to ask that question. I can only allow others to deduce just what her capacity is to understand some of these issues. Employment National was part of the Job Network 1 process. It contributed significantly to its success. Job Network 2 will in fact deliver even greater success to unemployed workers throughout Australia.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—How much money—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Dickson is defying the chair.HQ5Mr FAHEY—There was a competitive tendering process and through that competitive tendering process a number of contracts were allocated. Sadly, Employment National did not succeed. In fact, from having something like $286 million worth of work, it was awarded tenders of something around $40 million. It agreed to the specifications and the criteria for those tenders. It assured me that it had undertaken competitive tenders. The outcome of a very specific and very well-run tender process turned out to be otherwise. The government, of course, then took appropriate steps: (1) to protect as best we could the employees of Employment National and (2) to ensure that there was to be the minimum of impact on the budget in respect of maintaining that company. But the government did decide to keep that company going. It did indicate that it will stand behind it and it is certainly very proud of the success that we have had in the Job Network programs. For those job seekers in Australia who need support, this government has ensured that they have got better support than they ever did when Labor had responsibility for these areas. 1604914:54:0016049Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister inform the House of his announcement last week on the funding for new research to prevent and cure diabetes?16049Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her question and for her interest. Diabetes affects some 700,000 to 800,000 Australians. The overwhelming majority have what is called type 2 diabetes, which affects adults later in life and can be treated with medication, diet and exercise. Around 100,000 Australians need insulin to control their diabetes. The majority of these people contract it in childhood, and it is called type 1 diabetes. Currently there are some 7,000 Australian children with type 1 diabetes and about 400 children a year newly develop type 1 diabetes. For the last six months the Commonwealth has been in negotiation with the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International about the possibility of Australia being a focus of JDFI's major international research effort to find a vaccine for juvenile diabetes. Some years ago this would have been thought to be an impossible dream, but with further understanding in receptor chemistry and the nature of rotavirus in involvement in developing diabetes there is a real possibility that Australia could actually develop a vaccine for diabetes. JDFI are a major research funder around the world, this year putting some $US85 million into research projects. They stated to me that they thought Australia was finally serious about biomedical science and they were prepared to look to us, and so together we were able to announce some $32.5 million of funding for immunological research to try and develop a vaccine for diabetes. JDFI have done an extraordinarily good job in this. They are the leaders in the world in funding biomedical research from the non-government sector. It is incredibly heartening to see such a worthwhile project addressing a very substantial community need while also displaying the vision of developing Australia's science and technology based growth.1604914:57:0016049Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service. Has the minister seen reports that the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources had expressed surprise that two imported sports cars had been included on a list of cars available to be leased by senior public servants as part of their remuneration package? Has the minister amended Advice No. 2000/3, APS Vehicles Policy: Revised Executive Vehicle Scheme to remove the imported sports cars from the list of eligible vehicles or will the minister continue to put the privileges of public servants ahead of the jobs of Australian car workers?16049Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for his question. There has been a longstanding arrangement whereby Australian made vehicles should be leased by the Australian Public Service where these vehicles are available. As there is not a full range of vehicles made locally—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call and he will be heard in silence.BT4Dr KEMP—Imported vehicles which have an engine capacity below that of the smallest Australian made vehicle are available under the Executive Vehicle Scheme guidelines. These guidelines were revised in April to reflect changes in the range of Australian made vehicles and to provide further preference towards the domestic motor vehicle industry. The revised guidelines provide that only those imported vehicles produced by manufacturers eligible for registration as a motor vehicle or automotive component producer under the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme Administration Act 1999—that is, Holden, Ford, Toyota, Mitsubishi and Nissan—are available under the EVS. This is subject to the imported vehicle having an engine capacity of 2,000 cubic centimetres or less, which is about 10 per cent less than that of any Australian made passenger motor vehicle. Prior to these recent changes, Mr Speaker, any imported vehicle with an engine capacity of 1,500 cubic centimetres or less was available under the EVS. So the guidelines have been changed in a way which is particularly positive for Australian manufacturers. Under the guidelines, agency heads are responsible for developing and administering vehicle policy in their agency, subject to the requirement of the guidelines. While the list of eligible vehicles includes a range of different cars, I would expect agency heads to be sensitive to the perceptions of the public when approving certain cars, particularly sports cars, as well as to the practicality of such vehicles for work related purposes.1605015:00:0016050Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Minister, could you inform the House of the ceremonies and the attendance at Gallipoli on Anzac Day this year?16050Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Petrie for her question. I was pleased to see reports this year of record attendances at the Anzac Day commemorative services around Australia, not only in our capital cities but also in our many country towns and provincial cities. In response to the increased interest from Australians of all ages in attending the dawn service at the Gallipoli Peninsula, this government made a commitment to establish a new site on the Gallipoli Peninsula for the conduct of those dawn services. I am very pleased to be able to report to the House that this year saw the first dawn service conducted at that new Anzac commemorative site. It was, I believe, a very solemn and a very fitting service to honour the 8,700 young Australians who never returned and never saw their families again. I had the privilege to join our Australian Prime Minister and the New Zealand Prime Minister, who jointly opened, during the dawn service, the new Anzac commemorative site, which has been constructed on the shoreline of North Beach, on the Gallipoli Peninsula. The Leader of the Opposition was invited by the government to attend, and I do thank him for his attendance at that dawn service and, in fact, at the services throughout the day. Mr Speaker, I also want to place on the record the government's appreciation to the Turkish government and the local officials in the area for their cooperation in allowing us to establish this new site. It obviously means a great deal to all Australians to be able to attend a dawn service at Gallipoli because, as we witnessed on the day at Gallipoli, young Australians particularly are seeking out the birthplace of the Anzac legend. In their own private way they are probably trying to relate to the events of 85 years ago and are wanting to know more about how it has established our own Australian national identity.This year's service at the Gallipoli Peninsula, the 85th anniversary of the landing at Gallipoli, saw a record crowd in attendance. The crowds have been estimated at anywhere up to 15,000 people and I know the official count of buses that were bringing people in exceeded 270. The crowd was made up of Australians and New Zealanders, dominated by young people; but there were people of all ages there in a pilgrimage to the Anzac commemorative site. I also want to mention of the conduct of young Australians of all ages and from all walks of life as they walked around the Gallipoli Peninsula through the war graves the day before and also during the morning of the services. I think they were there, in their own quiet way, as great ambassadors for Australia. They represented us extremely well and, I must say, I felt extremely proud of the younger generations of Australians who had made that pilgrimage to be there on Anzac Day. I think we can all take great heart that Anzac Day as a national day of commemoration, and the Anzac legend and spirit, are seen by young Australians as their possession forever. The new site will cater for Anzac Day dawn services for generations to come and I think all of us who had the privilege of being there, including our Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, will confirm that it is a magnificent site and one that will serve this country for generations to come. 1605115:04:0016051Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, is it a fact that permanent residential park tenants were charged a $2 entry fee to attend an information session last Saturday with the member for Fadden, David Jull, about how the GST will affect their site fees? Which government members were present at the meeting? Isn't it enough that these people's rents will be rising by as much as $18 a fortnight with the introduction of the GST?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler is now entering into debate.16051Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I frankly do not know. I will find out. I thank—84GMPZD4Mr HOWARD—I do not know and, as you know, I do not automatically accept everything that comes from the other side. But I will check and if there is anything that I can usefully inform the honourable member for Grayndler of regarding the matter I certainly will, and I will make that known to other honourable members.Mr Speaker, while I am on my feet, I have been informed by a reliable source that that was question 1,003 asked by the opposition since the return of the coalition government in October of the year before last. If my quick mathematics serve me well, it has taken us only—R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The Prime Minister might think that these battlers are a joke—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. He has asked his question and I will rule on his point of order. The member for Grayndler has raised a point of order on relevance. The Prime Minister was commenting on the number of questions asked. I was not sure whether he was going to refer to the number of questions asked relative to caravan park tenants or what his proposal was, but I invite him to conclude his answer.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The point I was making was simply that on the rate of progress of previous governments we really would not have any more questions for the rest of the government's term.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek leave to table the invitation to the meeting for the member for Fadden.Leave not granted.1605115:07:0016051Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of support for the government's New Apprenticeships system? What other comments is the minister aware of in relation to the government's skills policy and what is his response to these comments?16051Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for Hindmarsh for her question. Honourable members will be aware of the tremendous popularity amongst employers of the government's New Apprenticeships system. Indeed, the number of young people on apprenticeships and traineeships has virtually doubled since this government came to office, and that is a measure of how industry has welcomed the government's reforms. Recently I hosted the inaugural National Industry Skills Forum, which is a Commonwealth initiative designed to work with industry partners to expand skills training in three traditional trade areas. It is quite clear that, for Australia to be internationally competitive, business has got to have access to high levels of skills in the trade areas. At that industry forum, the government received some remarkable endorsements from Australia's major industry bodies, and I know members of the House will want to hear these endorsements.David Buckingham, the Chief Executive of the Business Council of Australia, said that the review of skilling in the traditional trades had revealed `strong industry support for the overall thrust of the training reform agenda, including the greater flexibilities and choices provided by it.' Bob Herbert, Chief Executive of AIG, said that there were some very sound fundamentals in our current system. He went on to say that he believed very strongly that the most important ingredients are flexibility and choice. These are certainly offered within this national framework. Mark Paterson, Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said that the review had highlighted very strong business support for the trading reforms across the full agenda. So here we have the three major industry bodies in Australia representing large and small business giving their overwhelming endorsement to the government's training reforms. These reforms are a massive advance over the trading policies of the previous government. We know that the Labor Party has absolutely no policy in this area—no skills policy. We are beginning to see the usual annual distortions of government policy coming from the opposition in the lead-up to the budget. The member for Dobell, pathetically copied by the member for Dickson, put out a press release saying that this government had cut $240 million out of TAFE. Of course, this is absolutely wrong; it is one of many, many distortions—untruths—that the opposition is beginning to crank out, trying to distort the government's policies. The truth is that the government has maintained funding for TAFE in real terms and, indeed, through greater efficiencies, has managed to provide 160,000 additional places in TAFE over the last three years of the ANTA agreement. This contrasts with the opposition, which is full of distortions and untruths as we approach the budget, with a government that is moving ahead constructively with the policy process. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was minister for education, had the training area ripped away from him by Paul Keating, who walked right over him and put into place the government—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I set it up!BT4Dr KEMP—Paul Keating did.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I did it with John Fahey.BT4Dr KEMP—Paul Keating did. You did not do anything. You did not take any initiative, because you have no interest in the area. You have never had any interest in the area. As your biography says—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. Before I recognise the member for Cowan, as occupier of the chair I would like to make the observation to the minister that he has an obligation to address his remarks through the chair and that any reference to `you' is unparliamentary in that context.83REdwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That was my point of order because I believe that the minister was indeed reflecting on the chair.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the member for Cowan and I have made the point.BT4Dr KEMP—The Leader of the Opposition made it clear when he was Minister for Education and Training that there was no portfolio in which he thought there was so little to do.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I negotiated ANTA with the minister for finance in the minister for finance's house.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition knows that was not a valid point of order.BT4Dr KEMP—We have the weakest frontbench that Australia has seen for decades, and it is this government, as you will see tonight in the budget, that is going to be leading Australia into the future with firm and confident policies. ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions to the Speaker160521605215:13:0016052Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—Mr Speaker, I ask you a question without notice and I refer to section 125 of the Constitution, which states that `The Parliament shall sit at Melbourne until it meet at the seat of Government' and provides that that `shall be in the State of New South Wales, and be distant not less than one hundred miles from Sydney'. I refer further to section 52, which says that parliament does, in effect, have the right to make provisions with regard to the seat of government of the Commonwealth. Since I last raised this matter, and given that this is the 99th anniversary of the first sitting of this parliament, can you update the House with regard to preparations for the centenary sitting of this parliament. Is there now a green light with regard to the legal complications, and has the red light over there now changed to amber? 16053SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I would like formally to respond to the member for Farrer whose question is, as usual, topical for 9 May. The member for Farrer is right that today marks the 99th anniversary of the formation of the federal parliament. He is also right that there were some concerns about section 125 of the Constitution. The Presiding Officers have sought advice on this, and the advice has concluded that section 125 does not prevent the parliament from sitting outside of Canberra on those occasions when it is necessary or appropriate for the parliament to sit elsewhere. The Centenary of Federation was seen to be such an occasion. I can also confirm that plans to allow both houses to sit jointly and separately on 9 and 10 May 2001 in Melbourne are proceeding. Such a sitting will commemorate the opening of the first federal parliament in the Royal Exhibition Building on 9 May 1901 and the first sitting of both houses in Parliament House in Melbourne on 10 May.The House may be interested to know that, as far as the President of the Senate and I are aware, the formal resolution of both houses of the Victorian parliament inviting the houses of the Commonwealth parliament to meet in Melbourne next year is to be considered by the Victorian parliament tomorrow. After this has occurred, the President of the Senate and I intend to report the invitation to both houses with a view to consideration of a joint motion to accept the Victorian invitation for a sitting in Melbourne on 9 and 10 May 2001.Personal Explanations1605315:17:0016053Mr JULL,MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?MH4Mr JULL,MPMr JULL—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.MH4Mr JULL,MPMr JULL—On page 37 of the 7 May 2000 edition of the Sydney Sunday Telegraph there appeared a story entitled `MP's fee for GST speech', apparently based on a press release issued on 5 May by the member for Grayndler, headed `Government charges residents to hear what they will pay for GST'. We also had a question on this matter in question time today. The Sunday Telegraph article stated:Caravan park residents were charged $2 a head to hear a Liberal party MP explain GST charges on their rent yesterday. David Jull, the member for Fadden in Queensland, charged the fee to cover hall hire at a community meeting on the Gold Coast.It went on to say:Opposition housing spokesman Anthony Albanese described the $2 fee as `outrageous'..... .... ....A flier advertising the speech said Mr Jull ... charged the entry fee to cover hall hire.The facts are these: some weeks ago, I was approached by Mr Ted Cameron, of Settlers Village at Coombabah in my electorate, asking if I would address residents on the operations of the new tax system. I had previously undertaken such an event at a nearby residential facility. I agreed and a time was set for 10 a.m. on Saturday last at the village. Last week, my office was advised that the venue had been changed and asked if I would agree to attending the meeting at the Albert Waterways Hall. I agreed. I did not issue any flyer advertising the meeting or publicly advertise the meeting in any form, as my understanding was that it was a meeting of the residents of Settlers Village. On my arrival at the hall I was advised that the hall had been double booked, and the meeting in fact was held outside on the lawn. At the conclusion of the meeting, those in attendance were urged to join a residents association, for which I understand the fee was $2. The substance of the article and indeed the press release and the question in the House today from the member for Grayndler were wrong on all counts.15:19:0016054Mr ALBANESE,MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?R36Mr ALBANESE,MPMr ALBANESE—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.R36Mr ALBANESE,MPMr ALBANESE—I wish to make a personal explanation in response to the member for Fadden's comments just then, which have misrepresented the statements I have made. The pamphlet says `$2 entry fee per person will be charged to cover hall hire'. That is why I sought to get it tabled in the House, and I again seek leave to table this leaflet.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler has made the point.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—Are you going to grant leave?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—When the member for Brisbane seeks to ask a question like that, he may discover that he first has an obligation to either join the Speakers Panel or be elected to the position of chair.Leave not granted.15:21:0016054Mr ZAHRA,MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?84HMr ZAHRA,MPMr ZAHRA—Horrendously, again.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.84HMr ZAHRA,MPMr ZAHRA—In question time today, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation again suggested that no member of the opposition apart from the member for Burke had had communication with him or made representations on behalf of timber workers. I made almost exactly this point at the last sitting of the parliament and offered to table letters which I had sent to the minister on 1 June and 21 September of last year on behalf of timber workers. I again offer to table those documents and the minister's responses.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan will resume his seat. The chair has exercised a good deal of leniency to the member for McMillan, as he will be aware, because it would be difficult to determine that he had in fact been personally misrepresented in that he is not the only member so affected. I have allowed him to make the point on the Hansard record. He has sought leave to table certain documents.Leave not granted.Auditor-General's Reports160541605410000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report Nos 40 and 41 of 1999-2000 entitled No. 40—Performance audit—Tactical fighter operations—Department of Defence, and No. 41—Performance audit—Commonwealth emergency management arrangements.Ordered that the reports be printed.Documents1605416054Reith, 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.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers:Investigation into the Specification of Heavy Trucks and Consequent Effects on the Truck Dynamics and Drivers: Final Report.Quarterly Report of the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency for the period 1 October to 31 December 1999.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance160541605410000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wills proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The government's implementation of the GST, and its implications for the management of the Australian Taxation Office, the ACCC and the Australian Customs Service. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:24:0016055Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I have here a letter from the Australian Taxation Office to a business which had responded to the government's multimillion dollar taxpayer funded GST and ABN advertising campaign—much of it simply political propaganda—by registering for the GST. It then proceeded, at considerable expense, to print a new letterhead and advise everyone of its GST registration number, including completing numerous government questionnaires. The letter, from Michael Carmody, states:Dear Taxpayer,Recently, we sent you a GST notification advising you of your GST registration number.We have since detected an error in the GST number shown on your notice ...Could you please discard your previous GST advice, replace it with the advice sent with this letter and use the number on the new advice.We apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused you and thank you for your cooperation in this matter.How many other companies have been subject to the same mistake? What compensation is the tax office or the government going to give them for losses caused by this stuff-up? Unfortunately, these episodes are all too symptomatic of this government's continuing to botch the implementation of the GST; they indicate all too clearly that the government has given the tax office mission impossible in terms of staffing and resources, mission impossible in terms of time lines for the GST's introduction and, most seriously, mission impossible in terms of the complexity of the new tax which was going to simplify our taxation system.Today there is industrial action in the tax office. Labor does not welcome or encourage that but we need not be surprised by it. Tax office staff are working very long hours to implement this hideously complex tax, staff are constantly leaving because they can get much better money working for the big five accounting firms and elsewhere, and the government is expecting the tax office to implement the new tax system and continue to do its previous work without anywhere near adequate additional resources. For example, an email leaked to me last week from Stuart Hamilton, the Assistant Deputy Commissioner of the Large Business and International Business Line of the Australian Taxation Office, indicates that the staff available to carry out audit activity on large companies will decline from 865 full-time positions to 446 in the coming year. Mr Hamilton says, with masterful understatement:As you might expect, this decline will have some very significant implications for our ability to staff front line activities and to achieve the volume of work undertaken in 1999/00.Mr Hamilton gives as a reason for this staff cut `the need to adequately support tax reform'—that is, these cuts come about because of the GST. Now bear in mind that the Large Business and International Business Line of the Taxation Office plays an absolutely critical role in any serious attempt to combat big end of town tax avoidance. One tax office staff member, in an email responding to Mr Hamilton's, says:Management incompetencies reach new lows! Provide service to and compliance scrutiny of the big end of town with 516 people! Now we know the real reason why the Large Case Program was reduced from 600 to 100! Not enough staff!With staff morale that low, we need not be surprised that there is industrial action. I can remember the dying days of the Fraser Liberal government being marked by revelation after revelation of tax avoidance by the great and powerful. Can't you just feel history starting to repeat itself? Staff cuts in the sections of the tax office supposed to be cracking down on tax avoidance. And the private rulings affair. While the tax office wrestles with the GST, smart operators like Mr Chikarovski's Remuneration Planning Corporation get in there and get favourable private rulings that they can drive a tax avoidance truck through.The tax office itself told the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Workplace Relations that the promoters of the employee benefit arrangements were claiming $1.5 billion in deductible contributions using these private rulings. I repeat: $1.5 billion. And now we have the strong stench of cover-up of the private rulings affair. Taxation Commissioner Carmody has justified his failure to inform Treasurer Costello about the police investigation into the tax office which led to the arrest of the former head of the Strategic Intelligence Unit, Mr Nick Petroulias, until the warrants were issued, by saying that that was normal in a police investigation. We know that the Tax Ombudsman, Mr Ron McLeod, and his special tax adviser, Ms Catherine McPherson, were kept informed of the progress of the police investigation during 1995. If it was appropriate for Commissioner Carmody to inform the Tax Ombudsman in 1999, prior to being reappointed by the Treasurer for another seven years, why was it not appropriate to inform the Treasurer? Last week, there came to light a memo from Mr Carmody indicating his direct, hands-on role in the appointment of Mr Petroulias to head up the Strategic Intelligence Unit—a memo which indicated that Mr Petroulias would report directly to Mr Carmody. The significance of this is that the government have been putting it about that Mr Carmody was not involved in the appointment or promotion of Mr Petroulias—the implication being that whatever happens ultimately to Mr Petroulias has no implications for Mr Carmody. But this piece of political spin has been unmasked and the stench of cover-up is great. The air can be cleared only by a parliamentary inquiry.The GST's debilitating impact on the tax office has appeared in other guises as well. On 1 July last year, it took over responsibility from Customs for detecting fuel substitution rackets, and immediately dropped the ball. Companies such as Liberty Oil and ApCo in Geelong had been writing to no fewer than four ministers, the Assistant Treasurer—of course, he is hopeless—the Customs minister, the Attorney-General and the Treasurer himself, screaming about fuel substitution rackets. But all those ministers sat on their hands while tens of millions of dollars in excise revenue was lost. Defending this scandal, Commissioner Carmody said in a press release in March this year: ... the specific issue of the use of imported toluene as a fuel substitute was only raised with us this year.Yesterday in a Senate committee, tax office staff, in order to defend this nonsense, were reduced to claiming that toluene and toluol were two different things. This is just untrue. Clearly, the tax office fumbled the ball on fuel substitution, and it did so because it was preoccupied with the GST.Meanwhile, ordinary citizens and small businesses are having a devil of a time trying to get straight answers out of the tax office. Whether it is the churches facing the nightmare of submitting separate ABNs for each of their congregations—no matter how small they are or how modest their financial transactions—or whether it is the second-hand book stores being told they will have to individually price books that they have historically purchased as house lots and so on, or whether it is the second-hand car dealers having to price or value each component of a car purchased from a wrecker for their business—something they have never had to do—all over Australia businesses and community organisations find that the government and the tax office cannot give them a straight answer to their questions.Mr Les Wheaton, who is sadly closing down the family store that has operated for 97 years in Miram in mid-western Victoria—it survived two world wars and the Depression, but it could not survive the GST—said it all:The government can't answer your questions on what you have to do.What about the ACCC? What a meal it is making of implementing the GST pricing guidelines. But, like the tax office, it has been put in an impossible position by the government. Let me turn again to the press release from the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation this year headed: `Hockey directs ACCC on GST'. The article states:The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, Joe Hockey, today directed the ACCC not to approve any business initiatives on the GST that may increase prices by more than 10 per cent. No prices will increase by more than 10 % as a result of the GST—that is our policy and that is the law.But what did we learn in the Senate last week as a result of the incisive questioning by Senator Conroy of ACCC chairman, Professor Fels? First we learnt that no directive had been issued. Professor Fels said he had received no such direction from Minister Hockey or any other members of the government. Minister Hockey has had months since January to correct the parliamentary record about this matter, as the Prime Minister's ministerial code of conduct requires him to do. Perhaps that might be a bit harsh—the Prime Minister does not take any notice of his code of conduct and the minister might not be under that obligation either. Then we learnt it was not the law either. There is no provision in the Trade Practices Act or any other legislation that prevents prices from rising by more than 10 per cent following the introduction of the GST. Then we learnt that the ACCC is allowing compliance costs to be passed on, provided you do not do it on 1 July. Professor Fels on 2 May says that compliance costs: . . . can be recovered but they can't be recovered by means of price rises in excess of 10%. They can be recovered by other means at other times and so on, but not by putting up prices at the start by 10 per cent.We can all see what is going on here. Prices can be put up by more than 10 per cent, providing businesses stagger their increases in prices over time. What about the ACCC pricing guideline at paragraph 2.31? It states that costs associated with new and improved accounting, operational and management systems implemented in response to the A New Tax System changes should be treated as general business costs rather than A New Tax System compliance costs. What an enormous loophole. You can increase your prices by more than 10 per cent, provided you tell the ACCC that it was caused by general business cost increases rather than GST based ones.Once again, we see this government in Basil Fawlty mode. Basil used to say, `Don't mention the war!' This government says, `Don't mention the GST!' And now the search for backdoor ways of increasing prices is on in earnest. Does anyone seriously doubt that Telstra's recent announcement of a $5 charge for late payment of phone accounts is anything other than designed to bring in revenue which will help?849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—An incentive.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Yes, an incentive that will help offset the impact of the GST on Telstra's operations and help reduce the up-front price impact of the GST on Telstra—a piece of trick accounting that will no doubt please the government. Just today the Business Coalition for Tax Reform was complaining about the conduct of the ACCC. Given that, together with government and the Democrats, they have inflicted the debacle of the GST on this nation, there is a temptation to allow them to stew in their own juice. But they do have a point. For example, when the GST was first announced, the Prime Minister said that business, particularly small and medium sized firms, would enjoy significant cash flow benefits stemming from the requirement for business to remit GST collections on a three-monthly basis. But, more recently, Dr Cousins, the ACCC commissioner with special responsibility for the GST, said that this benefit and other cash flow benefits must be offset against compliance costs so that prices only increase by a net additional compliance cost. If business is now to be required to pass on the cash flow benefits arising from the GST to consumers, it is certainly entitled to feel that it was misled by the Prime Minister.In my letter concerning the MPI I mentioned the Customs Service as well. I did so because it has recently been reported that there is an area where Customs will not be fully automated for the GST by 1 July and that, where importers are owed refunds for overpaid duty and GST on imported goods, Customs will implement manual processing of these application. How extraordinary—manual processing of GST applications! But, back to Minister Hockey, in January he told PricewaterhouseCoopers:...any lawyer or accountant who couldn't make a `bucket of money' out of the Government's new GST and business tax reforms `should go back to their hobby farms'. You really have to wonder, Minister—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Who said that?UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—you, Minister—whether your handling of the ACCC's role in monitoring price increases has been your very own personal contribution towards fulfilling this prophecy. Also back in January—you had a big January—you told Ray Hadley on the John Laws program:I mean Ray, we are cactus at the next election if people are worse off with the introduction of the GST...And if you're not better off, then I'm going to lose my job.Well, Minister, how green was your cactus?15:39:0016058Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—That was very humorous, Mr Deputy Speaker, but, unfortunately, it masked some of the facts. What the shadow Assistant Treasurer failed to mention when he was talking about the cost of compliance, and what the member for Werriwa failed to address in his question during question time in relation to the cost of compliance, is the provision in paragraph 2.28 of the ACCC guidelines, which states:No price may increase by more than 10 per cent as a result of the New Tax System changes, including the effect of any net compliance costs.It goes on to say in paragraph 2.29:Additional compliance costs are likely to be partly or wholly offset by benefits to businesses, for example:savings and not having to deal with the existing tax regime;—I might add, that is the one that the Labor Party is defending. It goes on—additional assistance provided by the Government including, where appropriate, immediate write-off of new plant for taxation purposes; cash flow benefits obtained by businesses from monies collected in advance of payment of GST liability.Under those circumstances, what the government has clearly stated in its legislation, and what the ACCC has adopted in its guidelines, is the fact that business cannot go out and have a spending spree to buy new capital equipment and various other forms of business service when they are essentially unrelated to the introduction of the new taxation system. They cannot pass those directly on to consumers as part of the price changes as a result of the new tax system. So what is the opposition going on about? The ACCC's guidelines are a first when it comes to price monitoring in Australia. The Labor Party had a sea of assistant treasurers and, in fact, a sea of treasurers. I have all their press releases here and, at the appropriate moment, I will be happy to table them, which state, `We're going to do this in relation to price monitoring; we're going to do that in relation to price monitoring.' In fact, after 13 years, it took Ralph Willis until the second last day of the entire term of the Labor Party in government, two days before the election in 1996, to state that he was going to do something about price monitoring in relation to bank fees and charges. But he was going to do something in the 14th year—the 14th year that the Labor Party never had.So, in an unctuous way, the Labor Party comes into this House, conveniently ignoring their history in relation to price monitoring, and lectures us about what is good and what is not good in relation to price monitoring and the GST. I say to the Labor Party: `For the first time, run the hypocrite rule over what you're saying and you will find that you have absolutely no grounds upon which to stand when it comes to price monitoring.' I say to the Labor Party: `Run the hypocrite rule across all your policies and all the direction, or lack of direction, displayed by the Leader of the Opposition and you will find that the Australian people recognise that what you say and what you do are two different things.' You have Senator Conroy running around the Senate talking about price caps and price control on the one hand and on the other hand saying that we are being too tough on business, and, then, for some odd reason—because it is not a natural component—on a third hand he says, `Well, we think that the government isn't being tough enough in protecting consumers.' I say to the opposition: `Show us what you were prepared to do to protect consumers.' You had this extraordinary interview on AM this morning— 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I did not! The chair did not!DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Mr Deputy Speaker, it would have been better listening if you had been interviewed on AM but we had the unfortunate situation where we were all listening to Senator Conroy on AM this morning. Senator Conroy said that, on the one hand, the government is being too hard on business and that Dick Warburton is absolutely right: we are being too tough. And the interviewer responded and said, `But business wanted a GST.' And Senator Conroy said, `Absolutely! Business is to blame; their actions are outrageous. Business has got to learn to cope with the new tax system changes.' So there you have it: on the one hand and on the other hand. That is the story of the Labor Party when it comes to price monitoring. On the one hand it talks about price monitoring and says it is important to protect consumers. In fact, we have in the Senate a trade practices bill—in relation to misleading and deceptive conduct and in relation to the GST—which Senator Conroy has said repeatedly the Labor Party is going to support. But on the other hand the Labor Party says, `You are being too tough on business.' I say this to the Labor Party: take off the shroud of hypocrisy, look at yourselves for a moment, and ask yourselves what you have ever done in relation to the protection of consumers. What has the Labor Party ever done to put in place a regime that ensures that consumers are not detrimentally affected by taxation change? When did the Labor Party ever talk about compliance costs in relation to fringe benefits tax? Do we remember that on this side? Did the Labor Party care about compliance costs and consumers when capital gains tax was introduced by the Labor Party? Did the Labor Party care about compliance costs and unfair burdens on consumers when it increased wholesale sales tax from 10 per cent to 12 per cent, from 20 per cent to 22 per cent, and from 30 per cent to 32 per cent? When did the Labor Party ever care about the cost to consumers of its tax increases and how they would affect the price of goods in Australia? It never did. Not once. There were no price monitoring, no dealing with compliance, no guidelines for businesses, and no financial assistance through the taxation office to assist in the transition. The Labor Party never once—never on a single occasion—took a step forward to protect the interests of consumers in relation to taxation changes. It would introduce the taxation changes as of midnight the previous night, and business had to cop it and consumers had to cop it. Keating would go out and say, `That is in the interests of Australia,' with the net result that Australian families were worse off and Australian businesses—particularly small businesses—were worse off. Recall for just one minute the effect on the Australian economy of the Labor Party's inflation in the 1980s, of high interest rates under the Labor Party, and of high unemployment. At the same time, the Labor Party was slugging business with fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax and then jacking up wholesale sales tax—only after it had promised, in l-a-w law that it would give the Australian population significant tax cuts. The Labor Party lied to the Australian people, jacked up wholesale sales tax and told business it had to cop it sweet.Do you know what, Mr Deputy Speaker? During all of that, whilst we were critical at every point about what the Labor Party was trying to do through the implementation process, we never once launched the sort of baseless attack that Senator Conroy launched a few weeks ago on Professor Fels of the ACCC. The irony is that the ACCC Chairman was appointed by the Labor Party; the irony is that the ACCC was actually created by the Labor Party. It was the Labor Party that put the `consumer' in the ACCC, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—the same Labor Party that is lambasting this side of the House for putting in place laws that protect consumers' interests. It is pretty simple. People like the member for Wills come into this House and launch baseless attacks on individuals who do not have the opportunity to defend themselves in this House. The way the member for Wills came into this House and referred to the Commissioner of the Australian Taxation Office was absolutely reprehensible. Only last week, Senator Conroy stepped outside the parliament and tore into Professor Fels, the Chairman of the ACCC. On a previous occasion, Senator Conroy said this about the ACCC: ... the ACCC is a body that has had many successes in making sure consumers are protected.He said that in 1998. He went on to say:The ACCC are there to catch the rip-offs. That is their job. Allan Fels runs around this country all the time making sure people are not getting ripped off. That is the role of the ACCC.Then last week, when it was convenient, when it was politically expedient, Senator Conroy said:Professor Fels is engaged in a huge exercise of propaganda to protect the Government, and try and con business and the Australian public that there is a price cap ...He said that Professor Fels is running a political propaganda exercise to protect the government—the same Professor Fels who was appointed by the Labor Party, the same Professor Fels who was praised by a number of Labor members of the House, the same Professor Fels who is protecting consumers during the transition to the new taxation system.When you have not got any policies, it is easy to be critical of individuals. When the Labor Party has got nothing to defend, it is so easy for it to get up in this House, or even to stand outside of this House, and try to tear down the reputations of good, diligent, hard-working, honest individuals who are making a contribution to Australia. It is easy for the Labor Party to come into this House and ask 100 questions about compliance costs and 100 questions about consumer protection when they have done absolutely nothing—zero, nought, nothing—to protect con-sumers' interests. It is easy because the Labor Party has no leadership and it has no policies. It is easy because the Labor Party has a history of coming into this House and saying one thing and then going out and doing another thing to the Australian people.The Labor Party has a history of hypocrisy. At every point the Labor Party has been hypocritical in its treatment of taxation change, in its treatment of consumers and in its treatment of small business and in its treatment of large business. The Labor Party has at all points put its own interests ahead of everyone else. Don't even look at its rhetoric; have a look at its record. It drove the economy into the `recession that we had to have'. It jacked up interest rates—it had the Reserve Bank in the back pocket. That is the sort of Labor government that Australians will have the chance to elect at some time in the future. That is the sort of Labor Party that the Australian people are going to run the rule over and ask: has it changed? When you see what has been said in this House today and on previous occasions, you can only make one conclusion—that the tiger has not changed its spots. The Labor Party is still the party of hypocrisy. It has not changed the way it deals with Australian people, it treats with indifference the interests of Australian consumers and Australian small business, and in particular it will continue to treat with indifference the interests of the broader Australian community. On this side of the House, we are putting consumers first; on that side of the House they are engaging in grubby, sleazy tactics that have no place in Australian politics.15:54:0016060Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Fancy this minister talking about hypocrisy! Fancy this minister coming to the table to talk about hypocrisy—the same minister who on 15 January put out a press release to tell the Australian consumers that he had personally directed the ACCC to put a price cap on GST practices.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—That's a lie!10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! Withdraw that, Minister. You will withdraw that!DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—I withdraw.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—We then found out in Senate estimates that there had been no directive, no letter, no attempt to put a price cap on the GST, yet this minister has the hide to come in here and talk about hypocrisy. He has more front than Mark Foy's, and he has more hide than Jessie the elephant to come into this place and tell us about hypocrisy when he stands condemned as the most hypocritical and incompetent minister on those benches. He also wanted to give us a bit of a history lesson about consumer protection in this country. If he actually read his history books—and in this he is no more accurate than in his directives to the ACCC—he would find out that the two most significant pieces of consumer legislation in this country's history were passed by the Australian Labor Party. Until 1973 and the enactment of the Trade Practices Act, consumers in this nation had nothing. Consumers were condemned to open slather by the Menzies, Gorton and McMahon governments. Consumers had nothing until a Labor government did something in 1973. Of course, there was no further improvement in the consumer laws of this country again until a Labor government introduced the ACCC in legislation in 1995. The minister is no more accurate on the history of consumer protection than he was in his press release on 15 January.Out of this debate and the whole shambles, the minister has put this question to the parliament: when is a direction to the ACCC not a direction? It is when it is given by the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. He has been caught red-handed misleading the Australian people—caught red-handed misleading Australian consumers. The parliament needs to recall the context. It did not just drop from the sky, and it did not come off the beaches of the lower North Shore. This was a deliberate attempt by the minister to cover up his own incompetence in January.The press release on 15 January came about only because of his flip-flopping on the question of the rounding up of the GST. This minister, who was the Acting Treasurer, said on 12 January that tollway operators would be prosecuted if they rounded up the number of coins that you throw in at the tollgates. This is the minister who said he would use all his power to ensure that these tollway companies could not round up the GST. On 14 January, he said the opposite then he got a call from the Prime Minister saying that rounding up has its limits—that no prices will increase by more than 10 per cent as a result of the GST. So the minister had clearly contradicted himself within the space of two days and was hugely embarrassed. He faced huge public embarrassment on 15 January. He then decided to cover his tracks. He tried to cover up this whole exercise by issuing a press release ostensibly about Qantas. But everyone knew what he was really trying to say—that is, that prices would not increase by more than 10 per cent. To cover his own tracks, he issued this press release, saying that he personally had directed the ACCC. We then found out in Senate estimates that no such thing had happened. He was a minister trying to save his bacon, but in practice he was misleading the Australian people. His whole integrity was on the line. Quite frankly, this junior minister panicked. He panicked at the level of public embarrassment about the rounding up question, and that forced him into a misleading press release on 15 January. Of course, he has been thoroughly exposed in the Senate estimates process.I once heard Paul Keating say something that was very true about the other side of politics and that was, `Never trust a Liberal, but in particular never trust a fat Liberal because it is a sure sign he has been sitting on his backside for too long.' This is a minister who does sit on his backside. Instead of writing press releases, he should have been writing that directive to the ACCC. Instead of being big on rhetoric, he should have been big on action and done something to give Australian consumers a decent piece of protection from the 10 per cent price increases. If this parliament were handing out awards for laziness, we would be giving this minister a PhD. He would have a PhD in laziness, a slothful attitude and total ministerial incompetence. It is part of a long running pattern of incompetence from this minister. In his ministerial debut, he told us on 27 November that the Indonesian currency was the ringgit, when in fact that currency is the rupiah, so thank goodness he was not in charge of cleaning up the mess of the Asian crisis. He did not know which country was which, or which currency came from which particular nation. So that was his ministerial debut on 27 November 1998—to turn upside down the currency patterns and facts in Asia.I noticed another piece of ministerial genius. On 31 January 2000 the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation introduced a scholarship for Australian students studying financial regulation—and do you know what he named it? He named it after Sir Otto Neimeyer, who came out here from Britain during the Great Depression. Imagine these poor students rolling up on university graduation day to get their Sir Otto Neimeyer scholarship. It would be like giving a young cricketer a Douglas Jardine cricket scholarship or giving a young footballer an Alex Murphy scholarship or giving a young politician a Ramsey McDonald political scholarship. Where do the Liberal Party get these people? Introducing a financial scholarship named after Sir Otto Neimeyer! You could not be more out of touch with the aspirations of young Australians and a decent standard of ministerial commonsense. The incompetence from this minister has been astounding, and it reflects long-running incompetence on the implementation of the GST. In truth, everything it has touched on the GST has turned to stone. It has not taken a single trick on the implementation of this new tax. It has been fiasco after fiasco, incompetence laid on top of ministerial incompetence. And it goes to the heart of the government's chief claim to office. This is the sort of Liberal Party that echoes the ghost of Menzies. Their chief claim to office is to say, `We're the only ones who can handle the money; you can only trust the Liberal Party to handle the money.' The Australian public are now seeing how well they handle the money with the chaos of the GST and the incompetence in introducing taxation reform in this country. The government is exposing itself as unfit to handle the public purse of this nation. It is exposing itself as incompetent and unable to handle the money, and the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation is a serial offender in that regard. The pattern of incompetence on the GST is absolutely apparent. Electorally, of course, it is a dead cat; so the government is rushing to implement this tax change as fast as possible. I suppose if this were a British parliament and it had a five-year term, it would not be implementing anything until the year 2001. But it knows it is such an electoral dead cat, such a dead item for the Australian people, that it is rushing the implementation of this substantial tax change. And who is paying the penalty for that? The penalty is being paid by Australian consumers who are being ripped off. The government has not given the directive to the ACCC, and Australian consumers are at the will of businesses that might exploit this particular tax change. The other group that is paying the penalty is the small business sector. It is absolutely amazing to think that we have major tax changes coming in and companies changing their accounting systems without draft tax rulings available from the Australian Taxation Office. This mob could not run a chook raffle! How do you implement tax systems and tax changes without draft tax rulings from the ATO? We have small business people attending seminars and not getting clear advice. This is a government that runs tax policy on the basis of chaos theory—throw the cards up in the air, see where they fall and hope for the best—and small business is paying the ultimate price. As mentioned by the member for Wills, small business is going out backwards. A firm in Victoria that had weathered two world wars, the Great Depression and everything else that had been thrown at it could not weather the GST and have gone out the back door—closed down, end of business.On top of that, we have more than a million businesses in this country yet to register for an ABN, and they only have until 31 May to get their application in so they can qualify for 1 July. So it is 22 days and ticking and more than a million small businesses, undoubtedly in a state of confusion and panic, wondering if they can comply with an ABN or be punished under the government's tax rules. There is fear and confusion on every front. It is a poor environment for people to undertake business in this country: GST chaos, rising interest rates, deterioration in the Commonwealth's budgetary position, uncertainty at every turn. And the government's answer is to roll out the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation who stands condemned as Sloppy Joe—sloppy in his administration, sloppy in his directives to the ACCC, sloppy in his understanding of these tax changes and very sloppy indeed in giving an honest account to this House of Representatives. 16:04:0016063Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—This MPI has been proposed today by the member for Wills, who shares the same surname as I do. We have shared some time abroad. I have known two members for Wills since I was elected to this place. The first former member, Mr Cleary, is difficult to describe. You might perhaps think of David Suzuki in a steroid rage to get some idea of what he was like from time to time here in the chamber. He had some views that were profoundly opposed to private enterprise generally. The time I have spent privately with the current member for Wills on these overseas trips has been pleasant. I have found him to be a straightforward sort of fellow. But I must say that once back in Canberra he takes on another sort of appearance. The sorts of things he says remind you not of that hale fellow you would have a drink with in Manila or Tokyo but almost of someone resembling a minor terrorist in the way he goes about attacking some of our public officials and, indeed, in his attempts from time to time here—I think by some sort of agreement with those in the industrial wing of the Labor movement—to sabotage the implementation of a very important tax reform. That is what really lies behind this MPI. There is a deliberate campaign to inflict as much damage as possible on one of the four vital organs of Australia's civilised society. If you think of the four real pillars of a civilised country, you have the parliament, which debates and passes laws; you have the courts, where people seek justice; you have the defence forces, which seek to ensure the nation's security; and, finally, you have the Taxation Office, not on its own a particularly popular institution but a very important one for ensuring that our society remains stable. When the system that the tax office is asked to administer is inefficient, complicated, leads to a lot of litigation and is gradually raising less and less revenue from growing sectors of the economy, it is necessary to reform it, and that is what this government has done. I might say it is not the first time it has been attempted. Cast your minds back to the early eighties, when a Labor Treasurer tried to introduce a consumption tax for the very reasons that this government has done so. By coincidence, it was another member for Wills who sabotaged that effort. It was indeed Prime Minister Hawke, who together with his colleagues, his mates in the trade union movement, knocked it off late one night. So there you have an example of the trade union movement seeking to injure the national interest by conspiracy with their parliamentary wing for political gain. If they are willing to do it to the tax office, then you have to ask yourself what they will do next when they have a disagreement about a policy. Would they sabotage Australia's defence forces and put in peril the security of Australians to achieve a political aim? Perhaps they do so to create the false impression that there is some sort of turmoil about the government's policy, all for a political aim. That is what they are doing with the tax office. This is the industrial wing and the parliamentary wing of the Labor Party acting in concert. That is the nature of this party that occupies the opposition benches: it is a creature of the trade union movement. And we know about their internal processes, don't we? Their elections are secretive, corrupt and often involve violence. This has been exposed particularly in unions in the communications sector around Sydney in the last few years, and all credit to Paul Sheehan for so exposing.There is nothing wrong with trade unions per se. Indeed, the member for Wills and I share a good friend who is the secretary of a trade union, the same union that the member for Wills is a member of himself—the Australian Workers Union. Our friend, like the many others who hold that position, is a thoroughly decent person. There is nothing wrong with serving in office in a properly run trade union and seeking legitimate industrial objectives under the laws of this nation, but there is something very profoundly wrong with conspiring to injure the national interest by disrupting the operations of the Taxation Office. That is what they are about: this is quite clearly sabotage by a party that not only is unwilling to repeal the tax about which it complains so bitterly but even is arguing the case that the existing system is somehow okay—it is not broken. We remember, in the debates when we were introducing the bills in the last year or two, some of the examples of the existing wholesale sales tax system. I remember the member for Boothby, in an edifying speech, describing items in the schedules of the wholesale sales tax: spats, jabots—very tory those, aren't they, but, no, part of Labor's tax system. There were other things: player piano rolls—this is a list of the increases in these tax rates that were so fraudulently perpetrated upon the Australian people for which no compensation was given back in 1993—and `Australian produced food for birds kept as domestic pets'. I assume that, if one keeps a bird not as a domestic pet but perhaps as some sort of decoration, this would not be subject to—dear, oh dear!—21 per cent tax. That is on birdseed. That is appalling. This is the tax system that is supposedly not broken. `Refrigeration agents for use other than in fruit growing industry for preserving, ripening or storing fruit': presumably, if you buy refrigeration agents and they are just simply to keep yourself cool in the summer, you do not pay 21 per cent tax on them. These are examples of the system which the opposition claim is so good that they make a great fuss and try to sabotage the implementation of the GST, acting in concert with their colleagues there, abusing power as they are so prone to do. The Labor Party's abuses of power are very well known both in olden times and in recent times: Centenary House, spy flights over Tasmania—do you recall them?—the Marshall Islands, sports rorts, and the list goes on and on. Even if you go back to the early seventies, we had elements of the Whitlam government trying to borrow money from Iraq to fund the national budget. Indeed, these days you have only to trip down to the Opera House and see what the Labor Party's own in-house playwright, David Williamson, says about the party. I tell you what: he has nailed you fellows to the wall and I have not heard any of you complaining about what he says in that play.To get back to some more basic things, this policy is about ensuring that we have a stable revenue base for the future so that Australia's hospitals, police and, indirectly, our greatest and most vital national need—that is, the bill for defending this country, which is only going to grow in the future—are properly provided for. As part of that, we have an enormous sum of tax cuts being delivered back to middle and low income earners and a reasonable attempt at price monitoring as part of the introduction—something that no other country that has introduced this tax has tried. This is the sort of thing that the Labor Party will pick at like a pack of hungry chooks. Today they are trying to get into Minister Hockey about the regime of price exploitation and section 75 of the Trade Practices Act. The nexus there which they conveniently ignore in all these questions concerns price rises over 10 per cent as a result of the GST, and it is well covered in this legislation and it was well debated when it went through this House. But really the best price monitors of all are the forces of competition, market forces. You have only to go back to the largest scale competition reforms, those done under Fred Hilmer. This was a Labor Party initiative and it is to be congratulated on that. It is something that we supported at the time. The forces of competition were good enough for the Labor Party then, so why are they suddenly not good enough now? Of course, they will be good enough. People have a brain in their heads, they can see they are being ripped off, they shop around and they choose the best value. That is how the market works and may it ever flourish. I cannot see why they are here complaining about it later on. As for roll-back, suddenly the Labor Party have gone about the implementation of the GST as their chief item of complaint rather than having this notion of roll-back. One minute they were going to surf into office, wax up the board—like Midget Farrelly—and roll back all that sort of thing. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Bills16065Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills:Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill 2000Census Information Legislation Amendment Bill 2000Health Insurance Amendment (Diagnostic Imaging Services) Bill 2000Primary Industries (Excise) Levies (GST Consequential Amendments) Bill 2000Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Amendment Bill 2000Albury-Wodonga Development Amendment Bill 2000Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation Amendment (Funding and Wool Tax) Bill 2000Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 2000Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Amendment Bill 2000Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 2000Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2000Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Amendment Bill 2000Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2000A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill (No. 1) 2000A New Tax System (Family Assistance and Related Measures) Bill 2000Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2000Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2000Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2000Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1999-2000Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1999-2000Appropriation (Dr Carmen Lawrence's Legal Costs) Bill 1999-2000Miscellaneous1606510000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Thursday, 11 May 2000, at 9.40 a.m., as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Committees16065160651606516065Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members' business on Monday, 29 May 2000. The report will be printed in today's Hansard, and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 29 May 2000Pursuant to standing order 331, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 29 May 2000. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: Report of the delegation to the 45th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, Trinidad and Tobago—September 1999The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 10 minutes.Speech time limits— Each Member—10 minutes [proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins]2 TREATIES—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Report 32—Six treaties tabled on 7 March 2000The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 20 minutes.Speech time limits— Each Member speaking —5 minutes [proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1 Dr SOUTHCOTT to move— That the House:(1) recognises that one quarter of all wholesale sales tax revenue is raised from cars and component parts;(2) recalls the submissions made to the Industry Commission's Inquiry into Assistance for the Automotive Industry which called for the introduction of a broad based consumption tax;(3) welcomes the abolition of the 22% wholesale sales tax on cars and the introduction of a 10% GST;(4) recognises that a 10% GST will increase the affordability of motor vehicles and will improve the international competitiveness of the automotive industry; and(5) supports the $12 billion in income tax cuts which will increase households' disposable income.Time allotted—Until 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits— Mover of motion—10 minutes First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes Other Members—5 minutes each [proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 5 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.2 Ms Hoareto move— That this House:(1) supports Reconciliation Week and the reconciliation process;(2) congratulates Evelyn Scott and the members of the Council for Reconciliation for their work and commitment to the reconciliation process; and(3) further commits the House to continue to foster true reconciliation between Australians.Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits— Mover of motion—10 minutes First Government Member speaking—10 minutes Other Members—5 minutes each [proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3 Mr St clairto move— That the House:(1) notes the crucial importance of international trade to the ongoing growth of the Australian economy, particularly in rural areas;(2) commends the Government for the ongoing development of bilateral trade with more and more countries;(3) urges the Government to continue its efforts to use sanitary and phytosanitary protocols to gain increased access of Australian agricultural and horticultural products to Korea, Taiwan and China; and(4) commends Australian agricultural producers for their ongoing efforts to secure such market opportunities. (Notice given 13 April 2000.)Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits— Mover of motion—10 minutes First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes Other Members—5 minutes each [proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Committees16066160661606616:15:0016066Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—I ask leave of the House to make a statement relating to the recommendations of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on the draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office.Leave granted.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—In accordance with provisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951, the committee is required to make recommendations to both houses of parliament and to the Prime Minister on the draft budget estimates of the Australian National Audit Office. The committee, having considered the draft budget estimates for 2000-01 submitted by the Auditor-General, is able to advise the parliament that it is satisfied that the estimates are sufficient to enable the Auditor-General to properly exercise his functions and powers under the Auditor-General Act 1997. The estimates specifically refer to the provision of assurance audit services, performance audit services and information services. The 2000-01 ANAO budget submission is based on a detailed review of the internal and external factors likely to impact on the ANAO's service delivery and cost of outputs. The net impact of these factors and other underlying budget assumptions is a four per cent increase in employee expenses and an overall increase of 7.8 per cent in the net cost of services in the 2001 financial year. The total budget allocation being sought for 2000-01 is $50.1 million. The net budget outlay is estimated at $39.3 million after taking account of estimated audit fees of $10.8 million. The draft estimates indicate a rise in net budget outlays in respect of the ANAO of $4.5 million over the next four years. This is primarily because the cost associated with attracting and retaining skilled resources, either on a staff or on a contract basis, will rise significantly over this period. Revenues from audit fees are expected to remain relatively stable.The ANAO recognises that the ongoing management and funding of accumulated employee entitlements is an important issue and intends undertaking further analysis to assist in determining both the time and cost involved in reducing the current level of accumulation and the appropriate level of investment required to meet future obligations. The ongoing issue of the management of leave arrangements will be dealt with in the context of the negotiations relating to the next certified agreement. The Auditor-General told the committee that in the present difficult market conditions the ANAO had maintained an ongoing recruitment program. The greatest challenge currently faced by the Audit Office was to meet the tighter deadlines for audited financial statements imposed under the Charter of Budget Honesty legislation. The ANAO will make greater use of private sector resources as necessary to meet deadlines.With respect to the ANAO's ability to deliver planned audits listed on the forward performance audit program, the Auditor-General told the committee that requests for additional audits from members of parliament could not readily be delivered without some adjustment to the level of resources set aside for performance audits. Any adjustments to the existing program would be subject to consideration by the committee, given its role in providing advice to the Auditor-General on audit priorities. During this financial year, the committee continued to refine the process by which it fulfils its responsibilities as the audit committee of the parliament. With respect to requests for ad hoc audits, it was agreed that the Auditor-General will inform the committee of any request and indicate the extent of its impact on the overall audit program. By means of this process, the committee is kept fully informed of the adequacy of resources available to the Auditor-General—a vital element in maintaining effective parliamentary scrutiny of the executive government. I ask leave of the House to present a copy of my statement.Leave granted. OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—I present my statement.Bills16067R98016067Debate resumed from 13 April, on motion by Mr Slipper: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:Whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House expresses its concern with:(1) the delay in the government's bringing this legislation before the parliament;(2) problems which have come to light recently in relation to the administration of the Australian Taxation Office; (3) the government's misleading claims for its taxation proposals;(4) the problems that exist in the implementation of the various new taxation arrangements;(5) the reluctance of the government to effectively tackle tax avoidance in Australia;(6) the Australian Taxation Office's role in the implementation of the new taxation arrangements; and(7) the underlying unfairness and complexity of the new taxation arrangements16:20:0016068Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—When I was interrupted in the debate on Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 11) 1999 during the last parliamentary sittings, I was speaking particularly to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wills and I was referring in this House to the inequitable situation that charities will be facing because of the introduction of the GST. It is not surprising that in this movable feast that is the government's approach to its revolution in the tax system we would see in the intervening two-week period some further evidence that there is to be a clearly negative impact on charities and, consequently, on the people who are forced to be users of charities because of the introduction of this iniquitous tax. I also could not help but note last weekend a very interesting piece in the Weekend Australian written by George Megalogenis on the Australian business number—another bureaucratic nightmare. I noted some of his comments about events in the preceding week and the introduction of the goods and services tax on 1 July this year. In the article, there was some relevance to what I had been talking about—that is, the effect of the GST on charities. I would like to quote a couple of paragraphs from that article because, interestingly, it was talking about the previous week and some of the difficulties that the bureaucracy was having in getting it right. In this case, it was about the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the Australian business number. George Megalogenis said:The departmental faux pas coincided with the worst week yet for the GST since its rebirth last May, when the Prime Minister compromised with Australian Democrats leader Meg Lees. It was the week Peter Costello announced another jumble of amendments, despite earlier assurances that the legislation would not be changed because `we've got it right'. It was the week Allan Fels admitted that the 10 per cent cap on price rises being imposed by his ACCC was a guideline, not a rule of law. It was the week Taxation Commissioner Michael Carmody figured out that priests should not be forced to get ABNs. And it was the week Carmody had to assure taxpayers that industrial action by some of his staff won't slow down work on the remaining ABNs.The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and their GST deputies Fels and Carmody look suspiciously like four men trying to contain a bursting dam with their pinkies.I think that says something about the general impression that people in the community have about the way in which this GST is unravelling and in fact is every bit the nightmare which Labor has said it would be. I was specifically talking in the last parliamentary sitting about the effect on charities. At that time, I remind the House, I was talking about the way in which organisations like the Smith Family, and particularly the Smith Family in Wollongong, would be affected by the GST. Therefore, it was not surprising to me when I saw at least one state government having to respond because of what they perceive to be the negative impact of the GST on charities. In this case I am talking about the Queensland state government. An article that appeared in the Courier-Mail of today's date began:Community organisations and welfare groups will receive a 10 percent bonus in their State Government grants to compensate for the effects of the goods and services tax. Treasurer David Hamill said yesterday the funding boost, expected to cost the Government $14 million a year, would be introduced with an extensive advertising campaign urging community groups to obtain an Australian Business Number and register for the GST.Why that was necessary was explained in this article. It was the Queensland Minister for Families, Youth and Community Care, Anna Bligh, who took up the cudgels on behalf of those charities and charitable organisations in Queensland that were going to be affected by the GST. She described the GST as `a tax on welfare and a tax on charities' but suggested that the bonus would help thousands of organisations remain on an even footing. She went on to say that she agreed that some smaller charities were struggling with the introduction of the new system because Australian charities had traditionally been exempt from tax. I would remind the House that it was the Courier-Mail in December of last year that revealed that charities were being asked to sign contracts allowing them to share $20 million in government funding set aside to help organisations train their staff in GST compliance, if they agreed to `favourably acknowledge' the government's assistance. We all remember that when this was exposed you were only going to get some benefit from the Commonwealth government to put in place training programs for the GST for those people less able to look after themselves in this respect—and we are talking about charitable organisations—if you were prepared to favourably acknowledge the government. Talk about strings attached to any funding that was to be directed to those organisations! These are organisations which this government has made a great play on, suggesting that they must take a greater role in delivering a lot of the community service benefits to the community, because this government has made an art form of smashing the delivery agencies that have traditionally been in place to look after the less fortunate in the community. It is an area where it is trying to pass the buck. It has said to big business that big business has to be prepared to go out into the community and put more into those less fortunate and to look after them—again an abrogation of the responsibility of the federal government. But on this particular occasion it is talking about charities like the Smith Family, the Salvation Army, Care Force and all those out there in the community that I know are required to do a sensational job in Wollongong and the Illawarra more generally. What I said last time, and I certainly do not resile from it, is that one would hope—although I certainly would not hold my breath for tonight's budget to make an announcement about this—that certainly before 1 July the government would have a rethink on charities. As George Megalogenis said in the article I quoted from, the government did give a couple of concessions to charities. I think we are talking about housie nights and so on not being required to have ABNs and so on. That is fine as far as it goes, but when you take into account the impost on organisations like the Smith Family as to their obligations in terms of accountancy standards and practices it is incredible to think that this government should be so hard-hearted as not to give some concessions to those organisations. What I said last time I reiterate tonight. In the case of the Smith Family, I was talking about a very worthwhile initiative that they were advancing in New South Wales, and I think even Australia-wide, to increase funding to provide opportunities for disadvantaged children to stay at school longer or to go into tertiary education. These are kids who otherwise would not be able to stay at school. These are kids who could not possibly get a university education because this government has increased the HECS fees whilst lowering the threshold level at which the repayment has to come in. So here we have an organisation like the Smith Family going out to business and going out to the community saying, `There are less fortunate people there. Help us to raise money so that we can send these people from disadvantaged families to university, keep them in high school or keep them in primary schools.' But at the same time we are now finding that the costs imposed on families to assist in the process of kids being at school are going to be increased by the 10 per cent GST. As I said last time, the list goes on and on as to the sorts of equipment and clothing which kids have to have to be at school which are not subject at the moment to the wholesale sales tax and never were but which will now be subject to the 10 per cent GST. And the families are not going to be able to claim that back. There are no input costs associated with families in sending kids to school. There are no input costs involved with buying school uniforms, socks and shoes. There are no input costs associated with the kids having to go on excursions or go to the tuck shop at school. But there is going to be a 10 per cent GST on all that now. So how is that fair and how does that fit into the family policy? Charities like the Smith Family are going to fund well-meaning programs such as the education one that I helped launch in Wollongong recently. How are they going to cope with that? They are simply going to have 10 per cent less to give to those needy people in the community to help them get a start in life. We hear much from this Prime Minister and much from this government about their pro-family stance. We hear about this money that is supposed to be being cobbled together to be announced in tonight's budget about the bush and special assistance for the bush. What about the rest of Australia as well? What about those people in urban areas in the western suburbs of Sydney, in the Illawarra, in Newcastle and in the north-western suburbs of Melbourne? What about those disadvantaged families who come from urban environments who would like to also share in some of those benefits to get them over the rough time that is about to come, this wave that is about to swamp them—the GST?As we have pointed out on this side of the House, there are many examples of where wholesale sales tax does not apply to a whole variety of goods and services which are now going to have a 10 per cent GST imposed on them. When you start to talk about the services component of this as well, I can just imagine how this is going to impact on charities. I reiterate what I said the last time I spoke in this House on this matter: I appeal to the Treasurer that, if it is not in tonight's budget, he still has some time to look at this issue and to give some clear and concise concessions to those people in the charitable sector so that they can deliver the much needed service they provide in the broad community. If the government is not prepared to carry on its responsibility as it should and is expecting organisations like the Smith Family to do it, give them the wherewithal. Do not take it away. Do not impose this tax burden on them. Do not impose all the costs associated with it which will reduce in real terms the amount of money they can give to people as assistance. Treasurer, it is not too late and we look forward to you acting positively. (Time expired)16:31:0016070Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 11) 1999 is an omnibus taxation bill covering four different subject areas: the integrity measures concerning the alienation of Australian real property by non-residents; the income tax deduction for gifts and extension of period of deductibility for certain donations; income tax exemptions termination for non-resident sportspersons, clubs and associations; and a capital gains tax technical amendment and correction of errors. The provisions contained in this bill are designed to amend the International Tax Agreement 1953 to overcome shortcomings in the double taxation agreement revealed in the Federal Court decision in the Commissioner of Taxation v. Lamesa. In this case, a US business acquired an Australian mining company through interposed identities. A US limited partnership was created and it acquired an Australian subsidy.A Netherlands company, Lamesa, was interposed between the US partnership and the Australian company. The Federal Court held that no Australian tax was payable on a profit earned by a non-resident for selling his interest in an Australian real property asset. The Netherlands subsidy, Lamesa, enabled the owners to use the Australia-Netherlands double taxation agreement to avoid paying this tax. The Bills Digest advises:Double taxation agreements generally provide that if a non-resident business operates in Australia through a permanent establishment, the business profits of the permanent establishment will be taxable in Australia. The term `permanent establishment' is defined in each double taxation agreement as a place of business and includes a branch of a non-resident company. If a non-resident company operates in Australia but does not have a permanent establishment in Australia, the business profits are taxable in the country of residence. Double taxation agreements generally provide, as an exclusion to the business profits article, that the profits from the alienation of real property are taxable in the country in which the real property is located.The reason the court held that no tax was payable on that occasion was that the interest was not held directly but rather through a chain of interposed companies. Rather than selling the interest in the mine, one of the interposed companies was sold. Thus, technically, the non-resident was not selling Australian real property but simply an interposed company. This ruling prevented Australia from being able to collect the tax that it was allowed to collect under the double taxation agreements. However, the profits acquired by Lamesa as a result of this sale were in excess of $204 million and represented a considerable income loss for the Australian government and a windfall for the owner, as the Netherlands government never exercised its right to tax such profits. This bill, therefore, includes a new provision which will act as an interim measure, ensuring that the holding of Australian real property through a chain of companies or other entities will not prevent tax from being paid to the Australian government on the sale of that property. It is interim in the sense that, once a specific provision has been negotiated in the double taxation agreement, the provision no longer applies. The Lamesa Holdings case decision poses a significant threat to the Australian revenue base. This type of structure could be used to avoid tax on all Australian real property.Rather than acting quickly, the Treasurer waited many months and finally issued a press release on 27 April 1998, many months after the decision, which announced an intention to legislate to overcome the Lamesa decision. Labor supports the decision to close this loophole; however, the handling of this issue leaves a lot to be desired. Legislation was not introduced until almost 20 months after the announcement and has had such a low priority that it is only being debated in the House now after being introduced over four months ago. This means that the legislation is very retrospective. If passed in its proposed form it will operate at least two years retrospectively. A lack of priority could mean it will not pass until June this year, around 26 months after the original announcement. Labor supports the measure for the shoring up of the Australian tax base concerning gains made through non-residents. However, we are very concerned about the severe retrospectivity of this proposal.I might add that this is quite a complex piece of legislation, and I think all members in this House are indebted to the Information and Research Services of the Department of the Parliamentary Library for the details they have given us concerning this piece of legislation. I might also mention that this legislation also grants an extension of time for the deductibility of certain donations for income tax purposes. The bill proposes to extend the period for which donations will be tax deductible for the St Patrick's Cathedral Parramatta Rebuilding Fund, the Australian National Korean War Memorial Trust Fund and the Shrine of Remembrance Restoration and Development Trust. Labor has supported the provision of tax deductible status for these funds and will support these amendments lengthening the period of deductibility. I have particular interest in the restoration of St Patrick's Cathedral, Parramatta because of its historical significance not only to Greater Western Sydney but also to Australia. The then New South Wales government gave the present site to the church in 1827, and it became the first church dedicated to St Patrick in the colony. However, this generous gift from His Majesty's then New South Wales government seems to have been challenged by others in the colony. When a Sir Maurice O'Connell returned to Sydney in 1838, he found Patrick's Church on land he said belonged to his father-in-law. He claimed the church land, and the matter was the subject of a court case which ran from 1839 to 1841. The court decided in the church's favour. It is said that the church had the Attorney-General of the time, John Hubert Plunkett—a descendant of St Oliver Plunkett—on their side. So there may have been some divine intervention there.There have been several false starts and additions to St Patrick's over the years, including the addition of a steeple in the 1880s to house a peal of bells that was lost in the wreck of the Dunbar, a ship which mistook The Gap for the Sydney Heads—a serious navigational error even for that time—in August 1857 and went down, leaving only one survivor. In 1936 St Patrick's was partially rebuilt to satisfy the needs of the Parramatta parish. When in 1986 the diocese of Parramatta was established, St Patrick's became the cathedral. On 19 February 1996, St Patrick's Cathedral was destroyed by fire. The church authorities have sought financial assistance from both the federal and the state government for the restoration of the cathedral, without success. The church applied for federal government assistance under the Federation Fund scheme, and I would have thought that, due to the historic nature of the building, some assistance would have been granted. The church community in the diocese of Parramatta, while being disappointed by the lack of government assistance, have put this behind them and are now going it alone to restore the cathedral. The restoration and extension program is to cost $9.5 million. With some $6.2 million in hand from insurance money, interest, donations and initial fundraising, some $3.3 million has still to be raised. So the extension of time for the deduction of donations for taxation purposes contained in this legislation is most welcome. I would now like to move on to the amendment to the second reading moved by the honourable member for Wills. To start with, I would like to refer to point 3 in the amend-ment, `the Government's misleading claims for its taxation proposals'. The Labor Party has asked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and advertising reg-ulators to investigate false and misleading claims in the government's $80 million or $90 million—or is it $360 million?—GST ad--vertising campaign. The government fal-sely claims that a typical family will be $40 to $50 better off as a result of the tax system changes. This $40 to $50 figure is before the impact of the GST. An independent analysis of the net impact of the tax system changes has shown that many families will not benefit to the extent claimed by the government. Just a few examples will suffice: all single income couples without children; all single income couples with one child between the ages of five and 12 and with income below $55,000; all single income couples with two children and earning less than $30,000; single income couples with three children, one of whom is under five, and an income less than $30,000; all single self-funded retirees; and all self-funded retired couples earning less than $90,000.These are just some examples of low income families who will not benefit to the extent claimed in the government's advertisement. The facts are that, if the goods and services tax is included, most single income families with one child and all dual income families with one child who earn below $70,000 a year will get less than the amount stated in the government's misleading advertisement. The Labor Party has also raised the issue that the government is falsely claiming in the John and Wendy advertisement that it provides additional assistance for the cost of raising children. I understand that that advertisement is now not showing. However, due to changes to family assistance arrangements, families like John and Wendy can actually be substantially worse off, even before allowing for the impact of GST.It is vitally important that, if the general public is to have any confidence in the government's decision making processes, the ACCC fully investigate these claims. Governments must be subject to the same standard as private industry and the general public. It is unfair for fines of up to $10 million to be imposed on the private sector for misleading and deceptive conduct in respect of the GST when the federal government's own conduct is both misleading and is deceiving the Australian people. This government should set an example to the private sector. If the ACCC and industry bodies do not subject the government to its own standards, it will further undermine the government's credibility in the minds of the general public and reinforce the already accepted view that the Howard government cannot be trusted. I am fascinated by the various ways in which the government are now trying to tie the ALP to the government's tax policies. It is incredible that, in their desperation to deflect any of our criticism about the GST, they now keep saying that we accept it. We accept that they are the government and that they have the numbers and, with the help of the Democrats, have foisted upon all Australians a new and unwanted tax imposition. They criticise us for daring to acknowledge the difficulties in wiping off the GST and for our view that we will, as far as possible, roll back the absolutely unacceptable facets of it. Of course, the whole tax is unacceptable. But by the next election it will have been established into the operating fabric of our nation. We are not business wreckers. After all the traumas that business have endured in trying to come to terms with the implementation of this terrible tax, would we in the ALP want to heap more horrors on them? Of course we would not, and it ill behoves the government to use their appalling tax imposition to try to line us up as supporters of their tax debacle. There are still so many flaws in the system that, if the government were being really honest with the people, they would defer the implementation by another year and try to clean up the mess they have created. Look at what they have had to do in relation to the GST on petrol. They have had to find another half a billion dollars to subsidise country and regional users. They have now announced their method of doing this, by introduction of further legislation. But it still remains just as confusing and unfair as it was before the introduction of these particular bills. Do the government really think that the pur-chasers of petrol in places such as Canberra, where they can pay 91c a litre and up-wards, will not insist on being part of the subsidy? Do the government really think that the purchasers of petrol in Dundas or Dee Why or Doonside, where they will be paying in--creased petrol prices, will not insist on being part of the subsidy? Do the government really think that the patrons of the bowling clubs, RSL, country women's associations, child-care centres, kindergartens and other service groups are going to be conned by the gov--ernment into believing the GST is now the ALP's fault? There appears to be an unbe--lievable element of wishful thinking flowing through all of the government's com--ments—that somehow the Australian people are simply going to be so relieved that they will ignore the glaring inconsistencies and unfairness that are obvious to all of us.When Prime Minister Howard invited us to join him on his great new tax adventure, he told us that there was a change of mood in the community and that people now understood the issue of the GST. This of course is not quite right and, due to the vigorous activities of the ALP, the public is now better informed about the GST and does recognise some of the dreadful pitfalls and inequities. The Prime Minister has made an appalling blunder in his assessment of the Australian people. He thought that he could thrust the GST upon them and they would accept that, because he said it was good, it must be good. The people are getting to understand the GST and they are not amused. Regional Australians know that they will be hammered on the petrol issue and, to try to save some government MPs in country areas, the government have finally introduced a petrol subsidy. We wait with bated breath. What will the government produce to try to buy the safety of their city MPs?Every day something new emerges about the peculiarities of the GST. We have seen early impositions of the tax on insurance policy payments, funeral payments and other items. We have seen continuing spiral increases in the cost of the public education program, now up to over $300 million. We have seen iced buns with and without the GST. Nobody is sure which is correct. We have seen the issue of price ticketing dodged by the government, because they certainly do not want the public to know exactly how much GST they are paying in their grocery bills. The whole introduction of this `never ever' GST tax has been surrounded by complexities, confusion and government stuff-ups. It is not too late to pull out of it for a year. This is important, when we hear on a daily basis the difficulties business is having and the confusion out there as to whether prices can increase more than 10 per cent. It is vitally important that people have more time to consider this dreadful tax.But I do not believe the government will withdraw this tax. They possibly believe that the criticism will die down before the next election and that the voters will never remember when they go to mark their ballot papers. We remind the government that we will fight to ensure that voters do remember. Right up until they enter the polling booth, they will be reminded and reminded again about the `never ever' GST. There are quite a number of items in the amendment, some seven in total. Once again I appeal to the government to give some further consideration to withdrawing this legislation to give the general public and business more time to consider it. Each day in the daily press we see evidence of confusion, amongst business in particular. On Monday of this week, an article in the Sydney Morning Herald headed `ABN errors claimed as GST nears' reported:The Tax Office has been issuing Australian business numbers (ABNs) without properly checking applicants' details and in some cases issuing two numbers to the one person in its haste to meet the GST start date, tax experts have warned.The article continues:While businesses have been slow to register—only 250,000 of the 1.7 million expected to register had applied for an ABN by March—there have not been enough staff to do the work, according to the Community and Public Sector Union.This quite clearly indicates that many businesses still have not come to grips with the GST and certainly need more time. In another article in the Sydney Morning Herald the same day there is further concern that:The vast majority of businesses are unable to calculate what their prices will be under the GST according to accountants and tax experts.Businesses are writing to their suppliers to establish what their costs will be so as to calculate their prices under the GST, but no-one can provide an answer, according to accounting firm Hayes Knight.I will wind up on that. I indicate my strong support for the amendment moved by the member for Wills. (Time expired)16:52:0016074Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—The debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 11) 1999 has been a substantial one, lasting over a couple of days, with a large number of members from both sides of the parliament participating. I would like to thank all participants for their contributions. Those on this side of the House made a more positive and thought-provoking contribution to the work of the House than did those opposite. However, I bring the attention of the House back to the substance of the bill currently under consideration. This bill makes amend-ments to the income tax law to give effect to a number of measures. Most importantly, the bill amends the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to clarify the meaning of certain terms used in Australia's tax treaties. This will ensure the maintenance of Australia's taxing rights over profits from the alienation of real property situated in Australia.The honourable member for Holt, in his contribution, suggested that the provision might well be ineffective because a unilateral amendment, according to him, might be regarded by the courts as constituting the overriding of a treaty. He queried whether a series of bilateral treaty amendments would be necessary instead. I am advised that the proposed amendment will simply ensure that the existing provisions in the alienation of property article of our double taxation agreements are rendered fully effective in achieving their intended purpose of addressing alienations of Australian real property. It will prevent easy avoidance of the intent of the article by, for example, insertion of one or more corporations to take advantage of the separate legal personality of corporations. The legislation will clearly and effectively express this position under our domestic law.To have taken an approach of rene-gotiating all of the affected double tax agreements, which number more than 30, rather than legislating would have involved major delays and costs and any countries not agreeing would have been placed in an advantaged position. Should any of our double tax agreement partners request bilateral treaty renegotiations on the issue, Australia has offered to negotiate an amendment to relevant double taxation agreements as to the same effect as the legislation but with the legislation operating in the meantime as provided for in the bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would understand that this strikes a balance between the bilateral character of the double tax agreement relationship and the need to act quickly to confirm what we regard as the allocation of taxing rights intended under the double tax agreements. The honourable member for Wills is never tardy in seeking to criticise the government and he is mostly wrong, as I am quite certain you would agree, Mr Deputy Speaker. He queried whether the government had responded to the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee reports on this provision. I am advised that the Assistant Treasurer has responded in detail, noting the reasons for the time taken to introduce the legislation in parliament, largely because of the consultations required with affected treaty partners. The response also dealt with other issues raised by the committee and indicated why the provision renders effective existing taxation rights over the alienation of Australian real property and does not trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties but rather operates in a manner that is fair to taxpayers generally as well as to those directly affected.The member for Wills asked why the government has taken so long to introduce the legislation. It is a fact that the proposed legislation has been delayed for a number of reasons, most notably the federal election in 1998, and the amount of time taken, as I said a moment ago, for consultation to take place. The Australian Commissioner of Taxation had to consult and discuss the proposals with representatives of the affected double taxation agreement partners. This delay was justified in awaiting and fully evaluating the responses of treaty partners. The proposed legislation was also the topic of numerous meetings at international forums at which Australian Taxation Office delegates attended and explained the position of Australia. The feedback from these consultations and meetings was factored into the form of the legislation, as was our experience of developments in the OECD and UN forums.The honourable member for Greenway seemed to forget that in 1998 there was an election. This government, unlike our predecessors, announced what we intended to do. We laid forward the details of Australia's new tax system. We sought a mandate from the Australian people. It is pretty clear, when you look at the fact that there are more people on this side of the House than there are on the other side of the House, that the Australian people gave to the coalition government a mandate to bring about real and meaningful tax reform. The member for Cunningham spoke about how certain people were disadvantaged—or he claimed that they were disadvantaged. In fact, the member for Wills has moved an amendment to the motion that the bill be read a second time.I want to place on the record some of the facts about the new tax system. It is, unquestionably, the biggest single reform of the Australian taxation system since Federation. The benefits include personal income tax cuts totalling $12 billion. As a result, 80 per cent of Australians will have a marginal tax rate no higher than 30 cents in the dollar. These are the largest income tax cuts in Australia's history. This means that those people who will have to pay the GST will have more money in their pocket because of tax cuts. If they are in the paid work force or are paying income tax they will pay less tax. Also, there are compensatory arrangements for pensioners and those on benefits, and there are certain benefits for independent retirees. People generally in the community will have more money in their pocket to pay the goods and services tax.As I said a moment ago, there will also be a substantial increase in pensions, benefits and family assistance. There will be major reductions in business costs, particularly for exports. There will be a significant reduction in transport costs for rural and regional Australia. There will be the abolition of a range of complex, inefficient and distorting taxes, most notably Labor's wholesale sales tax. There will be reform of the Commonwealth-state financial relations and all GST revenue will be paid to the states and territories, providing a more realistic basis for the future provision of essential services such as schools, public hospitals, police and roads. There will also be streamlined business registration and reporting and there will be a fairer tax system that will bring those currently operating in the cash economy into the tax net. You have to look at the totality of tax reform. You have to look at the many benefits that will flow through to the Australian community. You have to appreciate—and the member for Greenway I hope now does appreciate—that the Australian people voted for this reform. We are implementing our mandate, unlike the former Keating government which promised one thing before an election and tore those promises up after the election. I refer the member for Greenway to the infamous l-a-w tax cuts.Madam Deputy Speaker, it will not be any surprise to you or to the opposition or, indeed, to members on both sides of the chamber that, as a government, we do reject the pious second reading amendment. I have explained the reason that the legislation has taken some time to come before the parliament. We reject the other items included in the amendment moved by the member for Wills, and we will certainly be voting it down in any vote on that amendment coming before the parliament, at the conclusion of this summing-up.The bill extends the period of gift deductibility to the Shrine of Remembrance Restoration and Development Trust, St Patrick's Cathedral Parramatta Rebuilding Fund and the Australian National Korean War Memorial Trust. I thank the member for Greenway for the very interesting historical snippets he shared with us during his contribution in relation to St Patrick's Cathedral at Parramatta. The member for Parramatta, who is a very worthy representative for that area, recognised the extension of tax deductibility to St Patrick's Cathedral Parramatta Rebuilding Fund for another two years. He said that it is great news for the Catholic community of Parramatta. He pointed out that the diocese contains 46 parishes and 74 schools with 43,000 pupils. I believe it is great news not only for the Catholic community of Parramatta but also for the wider Australian community.The bill also makes a number of minor technical amendments to ensure that the rewriting of the capital gains tax legislation in the 1997 Tax Act is consistent with the capital gains tax legislation in the 1936 Tax Act. Finally, the bill removes some anomalous sporting exemptions in order to ensure that all non-resident sports people and sporting clubs or associations are taxed consistently in Australia. I commend the bill to the House.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.16076Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Bills16076R89016076Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist on amendments Nos 8, 11 to 14, 17 and 18 made by the Senate to which the House has insisted on disagreeing to, and that the Senate has made amendments in place of its amendments Nos 8, 11 to 13 and 17.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 2 (line 24), omit “and 13”, substitute “, 13 and 14”.(2) Schedule 3, page 16 (after line 7), after item 2, insert:2A Application of item 2Despite the amendment made by item 2, a taxpayer who was entitled to a franking credit or a franking rebate in respect of a dividend paid, or a distribution made, before the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent continues to be entitled to the franking credit or franking rebate.(3) Heading to Schedule 4, page 18 (line 2), after “bribes”, insert “to foreign public officials”.(4) Schedule 4, item 1, page 18 (line 7), after “bribes”, insert “to foreign public officials”.(5) Page 21 (after line 10), after Schedule 4, insert:Schedule 4A—Non-deductibility of bribes to public officials Income Tax Assessment Act 19971 Section 12-5 (before table item headed “buildings”)Insert: bribes to public officials. . . . . . . .26-532 After section 26-52Insert:26-53 Bribes to public officials(1) You cannot deduct under this Act a loss or outgoing you incur that is a *bribe to a public official.(2) An amount is a bribe to a public official to the extent that:(a) you incur the amount in, or in connection with:(i) providing a benefit to another person; or(ii) causing a benefit to be provided to another person; or(iii) offering to provide, or promising to provide, a benefit to another person; or (iv) causing an offer of the provision of a benefit, or a promise of the provision of a benefit, to be made to another person; and(b) the benefit is not legitimately due to the other person (see subsection (3)); and(c) you incur the amount with the intention of influencing a *public official (who may or may not be the other person) in the exercise of the official's duties as a foreign public official in order to:(i) obtain or retain business; or(ii) obtain or retain an advantage in the conduct of business that is not legitimately due to you, or another person, as the recipient, or intended recipient, of the advantage in the conduct of business (see subsection (4)).The benefit may be any advantage and is not limited to property.Benefit not legitimately due(3) In working out if a benefit is not legitimately due to another person in a particular situation, disregard the following:(a) the fact that the benefit may be customary, or perceived to be customary, in the situation;(b) the value of the benefit;(c) any official tolerance of the benefit.Advantage in the conduct of business that is not legitimately due(4) In working out if an advantage in the conduct of business is not legitimately due in a particular situation, disregard the following:(a) the fact that the advantage may be customary, or perceived to be customary, in the situation;(b) the value of the advantage;(c) any official tolerance of the advantage.Duties of public official(5) The duties of a *public official are any authorities, duties, functions or powers that:(a) are conferred on the official; or(b) the official holds himself or herself out as having.3 At the end of section 110-25Add:(10) Expenditure does not form part of the cost base to the extent that it is a *bribe to a public official.4 Subsection 995-1(1)Insert:bribe to a public official has the meaning given by section 26-53.5 Subsection 995-1(1)Insert:local governing body has the same meaning as in section 74A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.public official means an employee or official of an *Australian Government Agency or of a local governing body.6 Application The amendments made by this Schedule apply to losses, outgoings or expenditure incurred in the 1999-2000 income year or a later income year.(6) Schedule 5, page 22 (before line 5), before item 1, insert:1A At the end of subsection 25-5(1)Add: ; or (d) obtaining a valuation in accordance with section 30-212.(7) Schedule 5, page 24 (before line 4), before item 11, insert:10A At the end of section 30-205Add:(2) However, this section does not apply if, apart from the operation of subsection 118-60(2), an amount would have been included in your assessable income in respect of the gift you made.(8) Schedule 5, page 24 (after line 12), after item 11, insert: 11A After section 30-220Insert:30-222 How much you can deduct for certain gifts of land(1) This section contains the rules for working out how much you can deduct for a gift of property that you made to a recipient covered by item 1 or 2 of the table in section 30-15 if:(a) the property is land or an interest in land; and(b) the recipient is:(i) an *environmental organisation or a fund, authority or institution covered by the table in subsection 30-55(2); or(ii) a public fund established and maintained under a will or instrument of trust solely for the purpose of providing money, property or benefits to an entity mentioned in subparagraph (i).(2) If you sell land that you own to an entity mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) for less than its market value, you can deduct the difference between the market value of the property on the day you made the sale and the actual sale price.(3) If you give land that you own to an entity mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) but you retain the right to live on that land for the remainder of your life, you can deduct the market value of the property subject to your life interest.30-223 How much you can deduct for land affected by a conservation covenant(1) This section contains the rules for working out how much you can deduct if the value of land is decreased by a conservation covenant.(2) If you enter into a conservation covenant in respect of land you own and the market value is decreased because of the covenant, you can deduct the difference in the market value of the land before and after you entered into the covenant.(3) In this section, conservation covenant means any approved form of agreement relating to the management, use and development of an area of land that is registered or noted on the land title and requires the landholder and all subsequent landholders:(a) to maintain native vegetation and undertake any other actions required to conserve the biodiversity values of that land; or(b) to maintain buildings or structures or other items of cultural significance that are registered on a recognised Commonwealth, State or Territory heritage register;and includes, but is not limited to, an agreement under the following provisions:(c) sections 304 to 311 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;(d) sections 69B and 69C of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW);(e) sections 41 to 44 of the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997 (NSW);(f) section 51 of the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld); (g) section 3A of the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972;(h) sections 69 to 72 of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 (Vic);(i) section 23 of the Native Vegetation Act 1991 (SA);(j) section 30B of the Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 (WA);(k) section 29 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (WA);(l) sections 37A to 37H of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970 (Tas).(9) Schedule 5, item 14, page 24 (line 21), omit “$1,500”, substitute “$100”.(10) Schedule 5, item 14, page 24 (line 23), omit “$1,500”, substitute “$100”.(11) Schedule 5, item 16, page 25 (line 5), omit “cultural”.(12) Schedule 5, item 16, page 25 (line 10), omit “cultural”.(13) Schedule 5, item 16, page 25 (line 20), after “section 30-15”, insert “or by section 30-222 or 30-223”.(14) Schedule 5, page 26 (after line 20), after item 16, insert:16A After Subdivision 30-FInsert:Subdivision 30-FA—Restrictions on prescribed private fundsGuide to Subdivision 30-FA30-310 What this Subdivision is aboutThis Subdivision prevents certain private funds from being, or continuing to be, *prescribed private funds.Table of sectionsOperative provisions30-312 Restrictions on prescribed private funds Operative provisions30-312 Restrictions on prescribed private funds(1) A private fund which makes, or has ever made, a gift or contribution or provides, or has ever provided, a benefit of any other kind (including a loan) to a political party that is registered under Part XI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, or an associated entity within the meaning of that Act, is incapable of being a *prescribed private fund.(2) If a *prescribed private fund makes a gift or contribution or provides a benefit of any other kind (including a loan) to a political party that is registered under Part XI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, or an associated entity within the meaning of that Act, the fund ceases to be a *prescribed private fund by force of this subsection and is deemed never to have been a *prescribed private fund.16B Subsection 30-315(2) (after table item 88)Insert: 88APrescribed private fundsSection 30-312(15) Schedule 5, page 26 (before line 27), before item 19, insert:18A After subsection 70-90(1)Insert:(1A) If the disposal is the giving of a gift of property by you for which a valuation under section 30-212 is obtained, you may choose that the market value is replaced with the value of the property as determined under the valuation. You can only make this choice if the valuation was made no more than 90 days before or after the disposal.18B Section 70-95Omit “market value”, substitute “amount”.(16) Schedule 5, page 27 (before line 3), before item 20, insert:19A Section 116-25 (table item A1, at the end of the column headed “Special rules:”)Add: If the disposal is a gift for which a Section 30-212 valuation is obtained: See section 116-10019B At the end of Division 116Add:116-100 Gifts of property(1) If CGT event A1 is the giving of a gift of property by you for which a valuation under section 30-212 is obtained, you may choose that the *capital proceeds from the event are replaced with the value of the property as determined under the valuation.(2) You can only make this choice if the valuation was made no more than 90 days before or after the CGT event.(17) Schedule 5, item 21, page 27 (line 14), after “section”, insert “, or under section 30-222 or 30-223,”.(18) Schedule 5, item 24, page 28 (line 14), at the end of the definition of prescribed private fund, add “or a fund to which Subdivision 30-FA applies”.17:05:0016079Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move: That the amendments be agreed to. These amendments concern the philanthropy provisions of the bill. The philanthropy measures were first announced by the government in March 1999, following the Prime Minister's roundtable on business and community partnerships and the work of the taxation working group chaired by David Gonski. The Australian community and business sectors have applauded these changes. The measures are aimed at increasing business and private support of approved community activities through creating new tax incentives for donations.The amendments represent an extension of these initiatives in the areas of environment and Australian heritage. Amendments (2), (4) and (5) allow the apportionment of deductions for certain gifts to environmental and heritage organisations for a period of up to five years. These organisations will now be treated like cultural organisations. The bill already allows donations to cultural organisations to be apportioned over five years. Amendments (1) and (3) merely update the guide material in the legislation. The government obviously would have preferred the position as it was put in this House originally to have been accepted by the Senate. However, we are happy with what the Senate has produced and we are prepared to recommend that these amendments be agreed to by the House. I commend them to the chamber. 17:07:0016080Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—This bill and these amendments are before the House for the third time; therefore, we have had a pretty considerable discussion in relation to these issues so I do not particularly want to canvass each of the points that have been made regarding this legislation and the amendments that have been the subject of dispute. But just to recap the basic points: there are amendments that are the subject of dispute between the House and the Senate because the parties in the Senate, including the Labor Party, have taken issue with some of the government's propositions on environmental philanthropy and the question of tax deductibility for contributions to funds describing themselves as charitable when in fact they are engaging in providing monies or other benefits to political parties. So we have had a debate in the Senate essentially around those two issues.Unfortunately, the Australian Democrats, who had previously supported Labor concerning this matter, have decided to support the government. We think that is a matter of great regret. Firstly, in relation to the issue of environmental philanthropy, we moved amendments in that area because we felt that was an appropriate place to deal with measures that go to the issue of environmental philanthropy. We saw the extraordinary step of the Australian environment minister, Senator Hill, writing to environment groups to try to get them to lobby the Australian Democrats against their own amendments. This was not our view. We felt this was a good policy. It was a policy supported by the CSIRO and we certainly would have hoped that the Senate would have stuck to its guns and insisted on those amendments. Unfortunately, that is not the case.Having said that, the question of rorting of the philanthropic provisions of this legislation is something that is a matter of considerable concern to us. We are concerned to ensure that tax deductibility is denied for contributions to private funds where those funds provide money to political parties. These amendments are very important because they address the somewhat shadowy area of Liberal Party fundraising. The history of this issue in the Senate is that Senator Faulkner sought to get from Senator Kemp a commitment that would have ensured this rort was not available. Senator Faulkner sought a commitment that the Greenfields Foundation would not be a prescribed fund for the purposes of the act, but he could not get that from Senator Kemp. He sought a commitment that the Treasurer would declare in writing that a fund like the Greenfields Foundation would not be a prescribed fund for the purposes of the act. He could not get that commitment either. He sought a commitment that we could have a separate regulation for the Greenfields Foundation so that, if it were regulated under the Income Tax Assessment Act, it could be disallowed by the Senate. Again, no such commitment was forthcoming.So, when the Assistant Treasurer is unable or unwilling to give those commitments, you have to ask why. We expressed the concern that the government wanted to put in the fix through the Greenfields Foundation to launder donations under the guise of donations to charities. You have to understand that the issue we have been looking at here is whether Greenfields should be given a break. You have to remember just how the Greenfields Foundation came to be set up: basically, the Liberal Party were broke but Ron Walker thought up the idea of giving them some of his own money—presumably it was his own money—an amount of some $4.6 million. So they set up the Greenfields Foundation. But they did not give the money; they lent the money to the Liberal Party with virtually no interest payable. (Extension of time granted) The intention of this was so that they could avoid disclosure. You have to ask why the Liberal Party sought to hide a donation from Ron Walker of $4.6 million. The answer to this is quite simple: it is because Mr Walker and Mr Williams were doing very nicely out of the Kennett government in terms of the operation of Crown Casino in Victoria and the changes made by the Kennett government to the terms of the licence of the Crown Casino where the government put a cap on the number of poker machines that would be in competition with them, and they were able to lift their bid for the original casino licence to match that which Sheraton had put in. These things apparently happened by osmosis. Given those concerns we have about the background to the establishment of the Greenfields Foundation, we believe that the Senate should have persisted with this amendment because it would have knocked off one of the great rorts of Australian politics; in fact, it is the case that the Liberal Party have opposed every tightening of the disclosure laws, from 1983 right through to the present. They have never supported them; they have always opposed them. They have always wanted to get some grubby money together and hide the source, and we are concerned that they will be able to do this using this associated entity, Greenfields, to raise the money and, lo and behold, they get a tax break in the process! We think that is a disgrace and we are opposing it here.We know that there have been some donations to charities from the Greenfields Foundation, but the problem is that well in excess of $4½ million has been loaned by the Greenfields Foundation to the Liberal Party as a so-called charitable trust. It might have given $80,000 in donations to registered charities, but its real operation is about supporting the activities of the Liberal Party. What the Liberal Party is really on about is trying to ensure that the identity of those responsible for providing money to the Greenfields Foundation is not disclosed. It is a mechanism established for the sole purpose of exploiting a loophole in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. It is a breach of the spirit and intent of the act in relation to disclosure of political donations.I will conclude by again expressing my disappointment that the Australian Democrats have folded and have not seen fit to support this position. They were prepared to support the amendments on previous occasions in the Senate. I suspect that some Australian Democrat senators with finer feelings continue to support it but that they have been overruled by others. Senator Bartlet, in support of their new position, said that Mr Slipper—referring to the parliamentary secretary—was quite openly happy to say that the government has no intention of using the Greenfields Foundation for this purpose. I have to assure the Australian Democrats that a statement made in here by the parliamentary secretary does not constitute a legal guarantee. Senator Bartlett said:There is no doubt that the Greenfields Foundation has operated in a way that is highly dubious, to put it politely.Given that background, it is appropriate that we have some legal framework to prevent rorting of this kind. On that basis, we have put forward the amendments that we have. We believe they are important amendments and regret that neither the government nor the Democrats have seen fit to support them.17:16:0016081Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—The issues covered by the member for Wills have been canvassed in earlier debates in this place. I just want to place on record again that the government rejects absolutely the position taken by the opposition in this matter. We have placed our approach clearly on the parliamentary record. In the interests of time, I will not regurgitate what I said before—in the way the member for Wills seems to every time he gets the call—but the fact is that the government completely, totally and absolutely rejects the approach and allegations made by the honourable member for Wills.17:17:0016081Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—This legislation and the Senate amendments represent a missed opportunity. This should have been a chance for the parliament to introduce a proper model of corporate philanthropy. Instead we have the Prime Minister's feeble attempt at a social coalition. This legislation encourages passive corporate giving—where companies write a cheque on the 25th floor and send it away to a charity. They have no face-to-face or social contact with the people who need the assistance. It is a strange social coalition with no social component. This legislation puts a large amount of public money into tax concessions to encourage passive giving and passive charity in this country. There is a better way than a model which encourages corporations to write cheques and support charities financially but not directly. The better model is a hands-on approach where companies would be supported with government concessions if they directly involve themselves with projects in poor suburbs. There are many examples in the United States where companies are heavily involved in face-to-face, hands-on projects supporting needy communities with housing redevelopment, community services, skills programs, and work in schools and homes. It has emerged that this is a far more effective model of corporate philanthropy, and it is a far more effective social coalition. Passive charity is not the answer. People do not necessarily need the handout; they need the hand-up and they need the hands-on approach that comes from direct corporate involvement. This would have been a superior model for the government to introduce. They should have adopted the examples and the lessons of the United States. Instead of tax concessions there should have been a model of tendering, where companies that want to involve themselves in this way would submit projects and ideas to the government. The government would have a chance to assess them on merit and reward the companies that get their hands dirty—the companies that have face-to-face contact and involvement with needy communities. It is a great misapprehension and misconception of public policy to think that a majority of charitable money goes to the poor. In fact, research here and overseas has shown that the majority of charitable money goes into middle-class causes and causes in which the giver has a direct personal involvement or interest. Only a small fraction of corporate giving reaches poor communities, and that is another reason to have a different model of corporate philanthropy. Better results can be achieved with face-to-face contact. Building skills, social trust and social capital with an embedded involvement by companies in poor neighbourhoods is by far the best approach.I reject the Prime Minister's notion of a social coalition, when all he can produce in this legislation is arms-length, passive giving. There is nothing social about this coalition at all. The rich people making the donations do not get to meet the poor people. There is nothing social in that and there is nothing that is building a more cohesive society. I would argue that there can be enormous gains for corporations with a hands-on, face-to-face approach. Companies in the United States which can send their managers into poor communities to solve problems and rectify the problems of poverty find that it involves the sort of lateral thinking and problem solving skills that they can carry back to the corporation. So there is something in it for the corporation. They can use it as a training program for their middle and senior managers. If they can solve problems in poor areas, they will have the skills and thinking needed to be more effective managers in their own corporations. In the United States, governments have tried to lever that sort of effort through tax concessions and a tendering scheme. We should be following that model in this country. The Prime Minister's social coalition is harking back to the 19th century and the poor laws in Britain, where rich people gave their money but never went to meet the poor. It is an inferior model and there is a better way. We have very much missed an opportunity with this legislation and the Senate amendments now before the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills16082R101516082Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 33 (line 11), omit “At any time when”, substitute “Subject to subsection (1A), at any time when”.(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 33 (after line 19), after subsection (1), insert:(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply if an applicant has commenced an application under this Act before the commencement of a prosecution for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or a Territory.(1B) Where subsection (1A) applies, the Crown may apply to the court for a permanent stay of proceedings in the hearing and determination of the application and the court may grant such a stay if the court determines that: (a) the matters that are the subject of the application are more appropriately dealt with in the criminal justice process; and(b) a stay of proceedings will not substantially prejudice the applicant.(3) Schedule 2, item 10, page 36 (line 4), omit “At any time when”, substitute “Subject to subsection (2A), at any time when”.(4) Schedule 2, item 10, page 36 (after line 19), after subsection (2), insert:(2A) Subsection (2) does not apply where a person has applied for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, or an injunction, against an officer or officers of the Commonwealth in relation to a related criminal justice process decision before the commencement of a prosecution for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or a Territory.(2B) Where subsection (2A) applies, the Crown may apply to the court for a permanent stay of the proceedings referred to in that subsection and the court may grant such a stay if the court determines that:(a) the matters that are the subject of the proceedings are more appropriately dealt with in the criminal justice process; and(b) a stay of proceedings will not substantially prejudice the person.(5) Schedule 2, item 10, page 36 (line 20), omit “Subsections (1) and (2)”, substitute “Subsections (1), (2), (2A) and (2B)”.(6) Schedule 2, item 13, page 37 (line 32), omit “At any time when”, substitute “Subject to subsection (1CA), at any time when”.(7) Schedule 2, item 13, page 38 (after line 16), after subsection (1C), insert:(1CA) Subsection (1C) does not apply where a person has applied for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, or an injunction, against an officer or officers of the Commonwealth in relation to a related criminal justice process decision before the commencement of a prosecution for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or a Territory.(1CB) Where subsection (1CA) applies, the Crown may apply to the court for a permanent stay of the proceedings referred to in that subsection, and the court may grant such a stay if the court determines that:(a) the matters the subject of the proceedings are more appropriately dealt with in the criminal justice process; and(b) a stay of proceedings will not substantially prejudice the person.(8) Schedule 2, item 13, page 38 (line 17), omit “Subsections (1B) and (1C)”, substitute “Subsections (1B), (1C), (1CA) and (1CB)”.(9) Schedule 2, item 16, page 40 (line 29) to page 41 (line 8), omit subitem (3), substitute:(3) The amendments of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, the Corporations Act 1989 and the Judiciary Act 1903 made by Part 1 of this Schedule also apply in relation to:(a) a decision made before the commencement to prosecute a person for an offence, unless that decision is the subject of an application that is before a court at 13 April 2000; or(b) a related criminal justice process decision made before the commencement in relation to an offence, unless the decision is the subject of an application that is before a court at 13 April 2000.17:23:0016083Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to indicate to the House that the government proposes that amendments Nos 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 be agreed to. In relation to Senate amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 7, I understand that the opposition will be moving amendments to those Senate amendments. The government will not be opposing the opposition amendments to the Senate amendments. I suggest, therefore, that it may suit the convenience of the House to first consider amendments Nos 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9, and when those amendments have been disposed of, consider amendments Nos 2, 4 and 7. I move:That Senate amendments 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 be agreed to.Schedule 2 to the bill was amended during debate in the Senate. Schedule 2 was designed to be an important and highly effective initiative in the strategy of the government to reform the criminal justice process, particularly in relation to complex white-collar crime. Schedule 2 would have gone a long way in preventing collateral proceedings in the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act or under the Judiciary Act being used by wealthy defendants to prolong and delay criminal proceedings, sometimes to the point where successful prosecution becomes impossible. The average defendant does not have the resources to abuse the system in such a way. Schedule 2 in its original form was designed to ensure that we did not have one law for the rich and another for the poor. With great reluctance the government accepts amendments Nos 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 made in the Senate. We believe that they are misguided, and in their effect they are discriminatory, but we have to bow to the reality of the numbers in the other place. Amendments Nos 1 and 2 amend proposed section 9A of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. Amendments Nos 3, 4 and 5 amend section 51AA of the Corporations Act 1989. Amendments Nos 6, 7 and 8 amend section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903. The amendments to each of these acts are to similar effect. In simple terms, they reinstate the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to continue to finality proceedings for judicial review of decisions made in the criminal justice system that were started prior to the commencement of the relevant prosecution. Secondly, they provide for the Crown to apply for a permanent stay of such proceedings, which may be granted only if the Federal Court determines that the proceedings are more appropriately dealt with in the criminal justice process and that the stay will not substantially prejudice the defendant.Amendment No. 9 is different. It reinstates the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to continue to deal with any relevant application that was before the court at 13 April 2000, the day on which amendment No. 9 was agreed to in the Senate. The government's plan, of course, was for the new regime to apply not only to all future decisions but also to review proceedings that are currently before the court. These amendments, while preserving some of the original approach of the government, mean that well-resourced defendants may continue to exploit Commonwealth administrative review processes to avoid conviction. Ordinary defendants, on the other hand, will be tried on the merits of the case in the criminal justice system. They will enjoy all necessary protection of their rights within that system, but, unlike their wealthier counterparts, they will not be able to use the Federal Court to frustrate the criminal justice process.Under the Senate amendments, as long as a well-advised and well-resourced suspect in an investigation commences his or her administrative challenges before charges are laid, a range of delaying tactics will remain available. Adjournment after adjournment, applications for interim orders, multiple appeals against decision after decision and finally a possible appeal to the High Court, a three- or four-year delay in the criminal trial will still be easy for the person who has enough money to play the system.Although the effectiveness of schedule 2 has been seriously undermined by the Senate amendments, the government will not indulge in futile gestures by rejecting those amendments again in this chamber. We have put our case. Labor and the Democrats have ignored it, regrettably. We are left with a result that is marginally better than the current regime but falls far short of the original scheme proposed by the government. The government will of course monitor the practical effects of these amendments. In the event that they unnecessarily complicate the important work of the DPP or other law enforcement agencies, the government will move to take necessary and appropriate action to rectify the situation. Moreover, if the provisions are to work as effectively as possible in the circumstances, minor technical amendments are required. As the Senate amendments now stand, the Director of Public Prosecutions would be precluded from taking advantage of the application for permanent stay provisions, which I note will have the chief effect of providing a further avenue of appeal for defendants looking for means to delay prosecutions. If the DPP is to be able to make permanent stay applications where the relevant criminal proceedings are taking place in magistrates or local courts, references to the Crown as the applicant for a permanent stay in amendments 2, 4 and 7 must be replaced with references to the prosecutor. That is because the Crown would not usually be a party to criminal proceedings in those courts where the informant or complainant is an officer or an agency such as the police, the Australian Taxation Office or the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. I thank the House. 17:29:0016085McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—We are pleased that the government has accepted these amendments which we say are really based on a matter of fairness. It is granted that these sorts of cases—where there will be administrative challenges taken to a criminal prosecution or, rather, the investigative process leading up to that stage—will, in all likelihood and on the basis of experience, relate to substantial corporate crime and even drug related crime. Therefore, the opposition supports the concept of not allowing criminal proceedings to be thwarted by technical administrative challenges in the Federal Court. However, we are still operating in this country in the environment where people are entitled to the presumption of innocence until they are convicted. The Jurisdiction of Courts Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 as originally framed by the government could operate to create substantial hardship where, for instance, there had been an administrative challenge commenced well prior to a prosecution and where, for instance, that administrative challenge had proceeded to the point where evidence had been presented, submissions had been presented and all that was left was for the judge hearing the administrative challenge to give reasons for their decision. That could have been a situation where quite considerable resources had been expended both on the part of the person who was the applicant in the case—who subsequently became the accused—and also the Commonwealth in testing these boundaries of administrative law. Arguably, to terminate a case by legislative act—by an act of this parliament—at that late point in the proceedings could be overly harsh. That is certainly arguable. The amendments passed by the Senate are designed to give the trial judge a discretion but one which is weighted in favour of the prosecutor; that is, the court will be required to stay the civil administrative action unless it is satisfied—the onus being on establishing this criterion—that it will substantially prejudice the applicant. So the onus is on the applicant to establish that they would be substantially prejudiced by the matters not being more conveniently dealt with in criminal proceedings.The fear and loathing that the government are trying to evoke from their pitch in the last speech is totally unjustified. Indeed, if they want to think through these consequences seriously, what is the greater risk to the delivery of justice? The greater risk, we submit, would be to face a constitutional challenge to this legislation where the parliament is purporting to intervene to terminate criminal proceedings. That automatically starts flashing red lights of constitutional challenge because it enters the area of the parliament purporting to interfere with the judicial process; that is, to legislatively cut off proceedings that are on foot. The amendments moved by the Senate are sensible and balanced and will still give priority to the criminal prosecution process. If the government did not seriously believe that, they would not be agreeing to these amendments. We support the amendments which the government has now accepted.Question resolved in the affirmative.17:34:0016085McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I move:That Senate amendments Nos 2, 4 and 7 be amended as follows:(1) Senate amendment (2) (proposed new subsection 9A(1B)) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977):Omit “the Crown”, substitute “the prosecutor”.(2) Senate amendment (4) (proposed new subsection 51AA(2B)) of the Corporations Act 1989):Omit “the Crown”, substitute “the prosecutor”.(3) Senate amendment (7) (proposed new subsection 39B(1CB) of the Judiciary Act 1903):Omit “the Crown”, substitute “the prosecutor”.These amendments are simple amendments. They replace in amendments Nos 2, 4 and 7 a reference to the Crown with the phrase `the prosecutor'. This change to our previous amendments has been necessitated by advice that we have received in good faith from the Attorney-General's office that the reference to the Crown is inappropriate. We accept that advice and accept that it has been provided to us in good faith. The reason that reference to the Crown is inappropriate is that in many prosecutions it will not be the Crown that is the prosecutor; rather the Crown would likely come into the fray only when there has actually been someone committed for trial. For that reason we accept the advice of the Crown law officers that the appropriate phrase is `the prosecutor'. Hence we seek to amend the amendments by deleting reference to the Crown and inserting in place the term `the prosecutor'. I should take this opportunity while there are a few minutes left—and I understand this will likely be the last contribution in this House on the bill—to say that we welcome the efforts that the Attorney-General has made and is continuing to make in seeking the reference of appropriate powers from the states to overcome constitutional complications which have arisen in respect of the application of a number of cross-vesting schemes which are covered by the Jurisdiction of Courts Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. We note, however, that the focus of the Attorney seems to be on the Corporations Law area. As this bill demonstrates, there are certainly many, many other areas where cooperative schemes between the federal government and the state governments are important. For instance, one which is highly topical is the power of the ACCC to implement the price exploitation codes. Last week's decision of the High Court of Australia in Hughes v. the Queen left entirely unanswered the questions—and, indeed, probably will cause some further problems on the horizon—in the area of these cooperative schemes, in particular the ability of Commonwealth officers to administer and enforce these schemes insofar as the powers exercised by the Commonwealth officers arise from state based legislation. So all these schemes that are covered in this legislation are still open to challenge.We indicate to the Attorney for the record—and I think it is appropriate that we do so—that if he cannot obtain appropriate references of power from the states to make these cooperative schemes effective to overcome the constitutional limitations we will lend our support to a referendum. I think it is fair to say that corporate Australia regards these matters as being of the utmost importance and, indeed, as having the potential to significantly impede economic development. It might be, for instance, that an appropriate amendment to our Constitution would be to insert a part specifically dealing with cooperative schemes. That could clarify the power of the Federal Court to deal with matters arising under these schemes and, indeed, clarify the power of Commonwealth officers to administer and enforce these schemes. In no way would that derogate from states' rights; indeed, it would give effect to the intention and desires of the states who have entered freely into these cooperative schemes. So we put that out there as a matter which we regard as having the utmost importance, as one suggestion of a way to address what is looking to be literally a situation where these important areas of our Constitution will seize up. We note, and we will support, the Attorney in his seeking appropriate references, but I anticipate that it will become necessary to do more. Our suggestion is on the record as an option which the Attorney might pursue.Question resolved in the affirmative. Amendments, as amended, agreed to. Sitting suspended from 5.40 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Bills16086R107616086Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.1608619:30:0016086Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.As we enter the new century, Australia's economic prospects are strong.We have done some hard yards and they are now starting to show results.We have weathered the Asian financial crisis. Our economy has grown, with strong and consistent growth in a way we have not seen for the last three decades. Today there are 650,000 more Australians in jobs than there were four years ago. Unemployment has fallen below 7 per cent—the lowest level in 10 years—and this year it will fall further. By June next year, unemployment is forecast to fall to 6¼ per cent.The Budget I present tonight is in surplus for the fourth year in a row, a cash surplus of $2.8 billion. This means the Government is acting responsibly. It is not spending money it doesn't have. It is not running up debts that would weigh down future generations. In fact it is not running up debts at all. In net terms this Government has not borrowed a single dollar since it was elected.When the Coalition Government was first elected four years ago in 1996 it was given a job to do—the job of fixing the financial mess caused by Labor's splurge which ran us $80 billion into debt over five years. We set out three goals—to get the budget to surplus, to halve the ratio of debt to the economy, and to do this without increasing taxes.We have met all these goals. By June next year, the end of the Budget period, we will have paid back $50 billion of Labor's $80 billion debt. We will have more than halved Labor debt. We will have secured a better financial future for the Nation.When the Government came to office, nearly $9 billion of taxpayers' money was needed to pay the interest bills on Labor's debt. Today net interest bills are around $6 billion—that means a saving to taxpayers of $3 billion year after year after year. Back in the Labor days in 1995-96, the Commonwealth spent about the same on interest payments as it did on schools and hospitals. It spent nearly as much on interest payments as it did on defence.But today we have different priorities. Paying off the debt and reducing our interest bills means that today we can spend on more important things. Spending on hospitals and schools has grown by $3.7 billion while interest payments have fallen by $3 billion. Today defence spending doubles the Government spending on its interest bills. It has always been Government policy to fix the financial mess so we can spend taxpayers' money on more important things, on higher priorities. This Budget targets our most important priorities with measures for better health and help for families. This is a Budget which secures their future. And this Budget cuts taxes.East Timor LevyThis time last year, we did not know that Australian troops would be required to lead a multinational force to restore order and save lives in East Timor. When the level of the engagement and the costs became known, the Government announced a one-off 12-month levy to cover the unexpected costs and keep the budget in surplus. The levy, to apply from 1 July next, phased in at 0.5 per cent after $50,000 of income and 1.0 per cent after $100,000 of income.Our forces performed magnificently. INTERFET was able to hand over smoothly to a new UN peacekeeping force. This meant a saving on the expected cost. And our economy has grown stronger than we expected back in November last year. We can now afford to maintain the Australian Defence Force role as part of the UN force and keep the Budget in surplus. Since the levy was announced as a one-off measure to keep the Budget in surplus and the Budget will now be in surplus without it, it would not be right to proceed with the levy. Tonight I announce there will be no East Timor levy as from 1 July. It will not be introduced—not for a day.Tax ReformLike the last four Budgets, this Budget contains:no increase in company tax—in fact, company tax will be cut from 36 to 34 per cent on 1 July.no increase in the rates of wholesale sales tax—in fact, wholesale sales tax will be abolished in 53 days.no increase in income tax—in fact, in 53 days the largest cuts in income tax ever will come into force in Australia.On 1 July every taxpayer will receive an income tax cut. 80 per cent of Australians—some now on top rates of 43 per cent—will pay a top rate of income tax no higher than 30 per cent. Families will have their benefits increased as part of the largest overhaul of family assistance—ever—and these changes will give families more disposable income to outweigh any price rises from Goods and Services Tax. On 1 July pensions will be increased 4 per cent. All pensions, aged pensions, service pensions, widow pensions and all allowances will increase 4 per cent. This is an advance to cover any price effect of GST. After 1 July pensions will be indexed to keep them 2 per cent higher than they would have been without tax reform.On 1 July we introduce a New Tax System, one of the largest structural changes to the Australian economy—probably the largest—since the Second World War. It reforms income tax, indirect tax, family assistance, business tax and Commonwealth-State financial relations.Every dollar raised by Goods and Services Tax is paid to the State and Territory Governments. It is the money that will provide the schools, the hospitals, the police, and the roads of the future. The days of State Governments relying on Financial Assistance Grants from the Commonwealth are now over. From 1 July they have revenue that grows in line with the economy. It will provide a secure base to fund their services. And from 1 July they must start to abolish narrow inefficient taxes which they no longer need to rely on. First to be abolished will be bed taxes, then after 12 months stamp duties on shares and Financial Institutions Duty will be abolished on 1 July 2001.Australia's outdated inefficient tax system has held back our economy. It has chained our exporters who have taxes built into the price of their products when the rest of the world lets their exporters sell on world markets tax free. Our tax system has chained the manufacturing industry with a disproportionate tax burden on goods. From 1 July the New Tax System will break these shackles on our exporters and manufacturers.The current tax system has chained business with high costs for transport. On 1 July diesel costs for heavy transport will fall 24 cents per litre and diesel costs for medium transport vehicles will fall by the same amount for transport outside the major urban areas.On 21 September last year cuts in capital gains tax came into effect. Individuals are now liable to pay capital gains tax on only 50 per cent of their gain if they hold the asset for at least 12 months. When a small business owner wants to retire, from 55, he or she can sell any active business asset held for 15 years free of any capital gains tax. This is part of building a business tax system that is efficient and competitive, that helps business get on and create jobs. By abolishing wholesale sales tax, by lowering capital gains tax, by lowering company tax rates we are building an internationally competitive business tax regime.Mr Speaker, the big changes—the hard yards of reform—are not easy. If reforming the tax system were easy it would have been done some time previously in the last 70 years. But the Government has taken the view that it should do the right thing—even though it may be the hard thing—where that is necessary for our country and our people to achieve their full opportunities.Reform is hard. Some have tried to use that to their advantage—to pretend that tax reform is not needed or pretend that while the rest of the world changes Australia can just stay the same. Of course that is false. And there are some who oppose reform while hoping that one day they can take the benefits of it. But you can't take the benefits if you won't do the hard work.The hard work of Budget repair has given us the opportunity to bring about some benefits in priority areas—families, health and improving services in regional Australia.Regional Health PackageThere are many problems faced by those in regional areas. Not all regions, but in many regions, where prices for rural products are low, times have been hard. Some people outside the cities feel left behind as the service sector and the new industries of the economy grow so strongly.The Government which claims it has a cure-all for all the problems of the regions is not being honest. In our view it is better to focus on particular problems and try to make a real difference—to make a big difference in a defined area—than to have ill-defined proposals across a large area—to promise a lot but deliver little. In this Budget, the Government has decided to focus on a particular problem—the lack of medical services in the regions of Australia. In the metropolitan areas there is an average of 1,000 people for each GP. Outside the cities it is 1,500 people for each GP. This is an area where we want to focus; this is an area where we want to make a real difference.Tonight I announce a major new four year Regional Health Package of $562 million. This Package will address a key concern of rural and regional communities—more doctors and better services.The number of GPs in rural and regional areas will be significantly boosted by increasing the number of training places for GPs and increasing the distribution of training places to rural areas. We will boost the number of GP registrars in rural and regional Australia by at least 75 in the next financial year, rising to 225 in 2002-03. Many of these registrars are likely to practise in rural and regional Australia after their training has ended.The Regional Health Package includes a longer-term strategy to increase the number of doctors in rural communities. We will encourage students from the country to study medicine and support medical graduates who go out to practise in rural areas. To enable more students from the country to become doctors, the number of Rural Medical Undergraduate Scholarships will be doubled.The Government will also create 100 new university places for medical students who are prepared to enter a bond to practise in rural areas for at least six years after they have qualified. The students will be paid a scholarship of $20,000 per annum for the period of their undergraduate training. During the bond they will only be able to practise in rural areas. The scholarships and additional places will cost $32 million over four years.People in rural areas have difficulty accessing specialist medical services. This Budget introduces financial incentives and pays travel costs to specialists to go out and deliver services to regional areas and it funds communities to employ practice nurses, psychologists, physiotherapists and podiatrists at an additional $49 million over four years.This Budget also provides for the establishment of nine new clinical schools and three new university departments of rural health to make sure that every Australian medical faculty has a regionally based clinical training facility and every Australian medical student has the opportunity to train in rural service delivery. Regional Health Services have proved a successful way to deliver a range of medical, community health, mental health and aged care services to smaller communities which could not support stand-alone services. The Government will build on these successful services with an additional 85 services over the next four years costing $69 million.Other Regional MeasuresIn addition to the Rural Health Package, this Budget contains a range of measures to strengthen the economic base of rural areas and improve the access of all Australians to important services.The Agriculture Advancing Australia (AAA) program has played a major role in improving the competitiveness and profitability of the farming sector since it was introduced by this Government in 1997. The Government will therefore continue and enhance it over the next four years. This $309 million program will give farmers skills training, encourage innovation, improve market access for our agricultural and food exports and enhance support to families in financial difficulty.In recognition of the high costs of education for people living in remote parts of Australia, the Government is increasing Assistance for Isolated Children. The Basic Boarding Allowance paid to children who cannot get to a government school on a daily basis will be increased by a further 10 per cent, which builds on the 20 per cent increase to this allowance announced in last year's budget. Improving the access and participation of students from rural and regional areas to quality education is a high priority. So the Government will modify the Youth Allowance family assets test to increase access to Youth Allowance. An income test will still apply but the assets test on farm and business assets will be relaxed. Youth Allowance has proven to be successful in encouraging young people's participation in education.EducationOur education and training system must focus on giving students skills so they have the opportunity to find meaningful jobs. This Government recognises the importance of education to ensuring our nation's future and our children's future. The apprenticeship system had been left to wither until this Government revived it in 1996. This Budget provides a very heavy investment in apprenticeships providing $2 billion over four years for the highly successful New Apprenticeships initiative.It continues the Government's heavy investment in schooling, both government and non-government. Outlays are projected to rise by nearly a third over the next four years—one of the fastest growing areas of the budget. This expenditure is aimed at lifting literacy and numeracy. It is aimed at improving the core elements of education. And this Government wants to make sure schools are accountable for that high level funding and children are being given the skills they need for the future.Stronger Families and CommunitiesA stamp of this Government has been its commitment to helping families.Before this Government came to office the Commonwealth spent the same amount paying interest bills on Labor's debt as it spent on family assistance. In this Budget spending on families doubles the spending on interest payments.From 1 July over 2 million families will benefit from increased family assistance. A single income family on $40,000 with two children, one under five, will receive tax cuts and increased family payments equal to $50.63 per week from 1 July.The assets test on family assistance will be abolished. The income threshold for family payments will be eased. As a family's earnings increase less of their family assistance will be clawed back. And most importantly the level of family assistance will increase.Families need help—and investing in families is the best way of helping children. That is why the Government has the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy. This Strategy funds initiatives to support parents and try to prevent family breakdown. The Strategy will seek to reduce problems such as family violence, and child learning problems, by prevention and early intervention.A major component of the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy is an additional $65 million over four years to assist families juggling work and family responsibilities. Families which will particularly benefit are those working outside standard business hours; families who have a sick child; and families who live in rural and regional Australia.The Budget also includes a package of Child Support measures. These are measures to encourage child support payers to maintain contact with their children after separation and to improve relationships after family breakdown.A Fair and Effective Welfare SystemThe Government is committed to maintaining a fair and effective social welfare system. The Government wants to make sure there is help for those who need it but also to make sure our welfare system does not become a trap preventing self-reliance and self-improvement. The Government has set up an independent review of the welfare system and a final report will be released later this year to give principles for the future reform of the welfare system.This process will build on the Government's considerable record—the work-for-the-dole initiatives and the concept of mutual obligation—the obligation of the community to the individual and the obligation of the individual, in return, to the community.Since coming to office, this Government has worked to improve compliance, cut down on fraud, put in place eligibility criteria and make sure welfare only goes to the truly disadvantaged. These efforts in total are now saving taxpayers $750 million per year. This Budget introduces further measures to ensure that assistance only goes to those genuinely entitled to it. In particular, we are introducing Preparing for Work Agreements to ensure those claiming unemployment payments understand their responsibilities and comply with the eligibility criteria. This is expected to deliver savings of $212 million over four years. The agreement will deliver a strong `up-front' message to all job seekers—they must meet their obligation to actively search for work and participate in a range of additional activities in return for receiving unemployment payments.The Government will also introduce measures to ensure those who hold their assets in private trusts and private companies are treated comparably to those who hold them directly. There will not be the advantage, as there is now, to have assets in trusts and companies so they are not fully taken into account for social security purposes. This is expected to deliver savings of around $300 million over the next four years by reducing benefits to those with access to substantial assets.Border IntegrityThe rapid increase in the number of unauthorised immigrants arriving in Australia has placed considerable pressures on the Budget. The Government announced a major package last year to detect, deter and prevent the entry of illegal immigrants into Australia, including increased coastal surveillance. In this Budget, an additional $49 million over four years is allocated to additional measures to control these arrivals. We will tackle this problem with a coordinated effort across all agencies to identify and combat people smuggling. We will do it by attacking people smuggling at its source.A long-term strategy focusing on future detention requirements for unauthorised arrivals and visa over-stayers is being introduced. The Government will build a new detention facility at Darwin to ensure appropriate detention capacity will be available in the future.Defending AustraliaThe Government places a high priority on maintaining a modern and capable defence force. We have maintained defence funding in real terms since coming to office and have achieved a shift in defence resources towards combat capability and readiness. In this budget there is a one-off increase of $100 million to address immediate priorities in defence force reserves and to improve information management systems and logistics.VeteransMr Speaker, it is time the nation gave our Veterans from Vietnam the recognition they deserve. This Budget carries through the government's commitment to Vietnam Veterans, with a $32 million package of measures to support them and their families through the illnesses to which they are especially susceptible. And the care of Veterans in their own homes under the Home and Community Care Programme will be transferred to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This will give them special care. It will also free up additional places in the general programme for other elderly citizens.The Budget also grants entitlement to full repatriation benefits to around 2,600 veterans for their service during the Malayan Emergency and other South-East Asian conflicts in the period 1955 to 1975.As we mark the Centenary of Federation, Australians will have the opportunity to remember with pride the role that our service men and women have played in shaping the nation and there is new funding for a commemorative program for those service men and women in this Budget.East TimorMr Speaker, during the Australian-led INTERFET operations from September 1999 to early this year, around 6,500 personnel from the Australian Defence Force helped to restore peace to East Timor. Over 2,000 Australian Defence Force personnel remain in East Timor as part of the UN peacekeeping effort, along with many other Australians performing important security and humanitarian tasks. We can be very proud of the outstanding efforts of these Australians. In 1999-2000 Australia will spend approximately $900 million as part of its commitment to East Timor. The bulk of this cost relates to the deployment of the Australian Defence Forces as the lead force in the INTERFET operation. While the expected cost of Australia's deployment in the next year has declined from previous estimates it is still substantial, at $831 million for the year. This Budget extends Australia's assistance to relieve the suffering of the people of East Timor and rebuild the country. It provides $150 million for humanitarian relief and reconstruction for East Timor over the next four years: $100 million of this is new funding. The focus of aid in East Timor has shifted from emergency relief to long term development, to restore basic services and to improve governance.Australia is also making an important contribution to East Timor's law and order. This Budget has allocated around $104 million over the next four years for an 80-strong police contingent.Economic OutlookMr Speaker, Australia is set to continue its strong economic performance in 2000-01 with solid growth, new jobs, and low ongoing inflation.Following three years of economic growth above 4 per cent, growth is expected to remain strong at around 3¾ per cent in 2000-01.While domestic demand is expected to grow at a more moderate pace than in recent years, net exports should make a bigger contribution to growth flowing from a strengthening world economy and the tourism associated with the Sydney Olympics.This shift in growth from domestic demand to exports will reduce the current account deficit, forecast to average 4¾ per cent of GDP in 2000-01, down from 5½ per cent of GDP in 1999-2000.The strong economic growth of recent years and moderate wage outcomes has reduced the unemployment rate to around the lowest levels in a decade. The unemployment rate is expected to fall further, to 6¼ per cent by the June quarter 2001. From there on we would be on the verge of the lowest unemployment rates in a quarter of a century.Leaving aside the one-off price-impact of changes in indirect taxes, inflationary pressures are expected to remain low. `On-going' inflation is forecast to be around 2½ per cent through the year to the June quarter 2001. The New Tax System is expected to add around 2¾ per cent to the CPI through the year to the June quarter 2001. Households will be more than compensated for these one-off price changes through income tax cuts and increases in payments. The changes to indirect tax arrangements are therefore not expected to have any significant impact on wage settlements or ongoing inflation.Concluding CommentsMr Speaker, this Budget lays a strong economic and social foundation to secure the future for Australia. We enter the new century with a budget in surplus and a debt reduction strategy better than any comparable country in the world.We have strong prospects, and if the economy continues to grow at current rates historically low unemployment is within our reach.We are about to accomplish the historic reform of Australia's failing tax system.This Budget brings together our economic and our social goals: lower taxes, more jobs, better health care, stronger families.I commend the Budget to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Beazley) adjourned.Miscellaneous1609216092Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I present for the information of honourable members the following papers in connection with the budget for 2000-01:Budget strategy and outlook 2000-01; Budget measures 2000-01;Federal financial relations 2000-01;Agency resourcing 2000-01.Ordered that the papers be printed.Ministerial Statements1609316093Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I present ministerial statements as listed in the document now being circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Details of the statements will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Bills16093R107516093Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced. Bill presented by Mr Fahey, and read a first time.1609320:02:0016093Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.It is with great pleasure that I introduce Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2000-2001 which, together with Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2000-2001, is one of the principal pieces of legislation underpinning the second budget of the second term of the coalition government. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2000-2001 provides revenues for agencies to meet expenses in relation to grants to the states under section 96 of the Constitution and for payments to the Northern Territory and to the Australian Capital Territory. Administered expenses and equity injections and loans to agencies, as well as administered capital funding and carryovers. Appropriations totalling $5,105,128.5 million are sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2000-2001. Details of the proposed appropriations are set out in schedule 2 to the bill, the main features of which were outlined in the budget speech delivered by my colleague the Treasurer earlier this evening. I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Tanner) adjourned.Bills16093R107416093Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.Bill presented by Mr Fahey, and read a first time.1609320:05:0016093Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2000-2001 is to appropriate the consolidated revenue fund for the expenses of the parliamentary departments for the year ending 30 June 2001. The total amount sought is $154.5 million. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill. I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Tanner) adjourned.20:07:0016093House adjourned at 8.07 p.m.Notices16093The following notices were given:XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran to present a bill for an act to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, and for other purposes.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran to present a bill for an act to amend the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999, and for related purposes.HQ5Fahey, John, MPMr Fahey to present a bill for an act to amend the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, and for related purposes.AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr Nehl to move:That the House: (1) acknowledges the great need to help the Tibetan people cope with the devastating impact of Iodine Deficiency Disorders; and (2) applauds the AusAID program launched in Lhasa on 18 May 2000 which will transform the health profile of the Tibetan people. 8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon to present a bill for an act to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974. Answers to Questions in Writing16095The following answers to questions were circulated:16095(Question No. 1115)111516095Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 December 1999:(1) Is it a fact that, following the Battle of Long Tan on 18 August 1966, (a) Lt Col. Harry Smith, who commanded D Company 6 RAR during the battle, recommended the Military Cross be awarded to two of his platoon commanders, (b) these recommendations were not acted on, (c) mentioned in dispatches (MID) awards were provided to these platoon commanders rather than a Military Cross and (d) MID awards were also provided to soldiers who did a good job sorting mail in the Vung Tau Post Office.(2) On whose authority were Lt Col. Smith's recommendations ignored or altered.(3) Has the Government been requested by Lt Col. Smith or others to ensure that those who were recommended for higher awards as a result of their valour in the Battle of Long Tan receive the higher award; if so, what action has the Government taken.(4) Did the Battle Commander receive a Distinguished Service Cross with a citation that referred specifically to the Battle, even though he was not physically present at the Battle.(5) Did the Brigadier who was the Task Force Commander also receive a mention for personal direction of the Battle in his Distinguished Service Order.(6) What were the facts that lead to the findings that the (a) Battalion Commander was involved in the Battle and (b) Task Force Commander directed the Battle.(7) During the Battle, did the Battalion Commander send a message to the armoured relief force en route to the Battle, to return two vehicles to a Col Joy and Little Patty Task Force Concert to pick him up and to halt the relief column and wait for him at the river Suoi Da Bang.(8) If so, was that order countermanded by the A Company Commander who forced the Armoured Commander to proceed and relieve the situation at the Battle area.(9) Did the Battalion Commander finally arrive at the Battle site when the battle was over and after the last shot had been fired and was it only at this point that he actually took command of the scene.(10) Why have the platoon commanders who actually directed the battle activity under fire and great threat, received lesser awards of MID, whilst more senior officers who were not directly involved in the Battle, received higher awards.(11) What action will he take to ensure that Lt Col. Smith's original recommendations for Military Cross awards to be given to his Platoon Commanders is now acted on.16095Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member`s question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes.(b) No, the recommendations were reviewed by the Commander First Australian Task Force and Commander Australian Force - Vietnam and then the appropriate recommendations were onforwarded to Australia.(c) Yes.(d) Yes.(2) Commander First Australian Task Force and Commander Australian Force - Vietnam.(3) Yes, through the End of War List - Vietnam announced in February 1998.(4) I presume by `Battle Commander' you in fact are referring to the position of `Battalion Commander'. The Battalion Commander was Lieutenant Colonel Colin Townsend. Lieutenant Colonel Townsend did not receive a Distinguished Service Cross; he was recommended for, and received, a Distinguished Service Order.(5) Yes.(6) I do not know to which report you are referring giving the facts which led to the findings that the (a) Battalion Commander was involved in the Battle and (b) Task Force Commander directed the Battle.(7) (8) and (9) The information requested is available from the Australian War Memorial Series 95 War Diaries of the Units involved in the Battle of Long Tan. Note: Important communications and signals would be attached to these War Diaries. (10) Awards during the conflict were made in accordance with medal regulations and criteria in place at the time. As to the level of award this was entirely at the discretion of the recommending officer who would have taken into account the circumstances and the relevant criteria. Without consulting the recommending officers and asking them to explain their decisions no comment can be offered. Clearly it is not feasible to do this some 30 years after the event.(11) None. The Independent Panel for the End of War List, Vietnam recommended that the End of War List for Vietnam be closed. However, should any cases come to light which were documented at the time, but the nominations were rejected or downgraded in Australia at the time, these should be considered. This recommendation has been accepted by the Interdepartmental Committee on Defence Honours and Awards and, subsequently, the Government.16096(Question No. 1128)112816096Wilkie, Kim, MPMr Wilkie84GSwanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, 15 February 2000:(1) Has his attention been drawn to two incidents at Perth Airport, reported in the West Australian on 8 October 1999, involving the safety of international flights taking off and landing.(2) What measures is he taking to ensure that safety standards are being met at Perth Airport.(3) Will fully automatic systems be introduced on all runways at Perth Airport.(4) Will the 06/24 runway be extended; if so, (a) when and (b) what will be done to ensure that the residents near the airport will not be affected adversely by noise and operations.16096Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am aware of the article the honourable member is referring to. The incident involving the 747 striking the runway on 2 September 1999 was investigated by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), and a copy of the report into the occurrence has been provided to the Table Office.The second so-called incident involved a Qantas 767 diverting to Kalgoorlie on 7 October 1999. I am advised by the ATSB that it has a record of this incident but it was not assessed as a safety incident because the aircraft landed with sufficient fuel. The incident was accorded the lowest category ATSB has, category 6, and the report was filed. (2) In relation to the claims in the article that pilots experienced landing difficulties because of wind shear, Airservices has advised that Perth Airport is equipped with anemometers at the centre of the aerodrome and at the threshold of the main runways (Runways 03/06/21 and 24), as well one on top of the control tower (providing advice on wind direction and strength at approximately 200 feet above the landing area). Airservices' tower controllers advise pilots when the 200ft wind reading varies significantly from the wind on the aerodrome surface and additionally, the wind detected at the various runway thresholds is advised to pilots if readings vary significantly from the advice provided to pilots by the Automatic Terminal Information System. This advice from the controllers allows pilots to assess whether there are any wind shear problems.Airservices has advised Perth Airport has Instrument Landing System (ILS) approaches to two runways (21 and 24) which meets most normal requirements for the traffic levels and weather encountered at Perth. The other two runways (03 and 06) have non precision instrument approaches. However, these approaches have higher landing minima than the ILS approaches ie the cloud base and visibility requirements are significantly greater.(3) I am advised by Airservices that it is consulting the aviation industry about an ILS for Runway 03, with a view to reaching a position on the matter in the 2000/2001 financial year.(4) (a) The Perth Airport Master Plan indicates that by 2018 several improvements to the airfield will be necessary including additional runway capacity. A number of options have been canvassed in the Master Plan.Under the Airports Act 1996, a Major Development Plan (MDP) must be undertaken before any runway development at Perth Airport will be considered by the Commonwealth Government for approval.(b) In preparing an MDP the airport operator is required to assess the likely impact of the development on noise exposure levels and the environment and set out plans for dealing with these impacts. The operator must also make the MDP available for public comment before submitting it to the Minister. 16097(Question No. 1141)114116097Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 15 February 2000:(1) Further to his answer to question No. 1052 (Hansard, 17 February 2000, page P13746), how were members of the Rural Transaction Centres (RTC) Panel selected.(2) What payments, including travel allowances and sitting fees, are payable to members of the RTC Panel and what are the details of payments made to each Panel member to date.(3) If the Panel does not make recommendations to him, what type of advice does the RTC Panel provide to him.16097Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Suitable candidates were selected from a pool of nominations. The Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government wrote to appropriate candidates to canvass their interest in applying for a position on the RTC Advisory Panel. If a candidate agreed to have their name put forward the Department sent them a copy of the Bowen Committee Code of Conduct and a standard letter that sought their assurance that there would be no conflict of interest in them being on the RTC Advisory Panel, and that they had not been involved with tax evasion and avoidance schemes. Once a candidate returned these papers, satisfactorily completed, the Minister wrote to the Prime Minister seeking Cabinet approval for the appointment of Panel Members. The Prime Minister confirmed the appointments of the Panel members on 7 June 1999.(2) The RTC Advisory Panel members are paid sitting fees of $250 per day in accordance with Category 2, Section 2.5, Part 2, Remuneration Tribunal Determination 1999/03.The Panel members also receive travel allowance (TA) that consists of the following elements: accommodation; incidentals; car mileage; airfares; and ancillaries.The payment details to each Panel member prior to round 4 of the RTC programme are: Panel memberSitting feesTARussell Broadbent$1,000$3,023.39Carol Armstrong$500$4,309.90Ruth Robinson$750$4,124.85Noel Hicks$750$2,466.70Jane Bennett$500$1,482.30David Taylor$1,000$9,133.55John Stone$750$2,785.85Barry Moyle$750$5,390.79Andrew Hunter$1,250$2,887.88(3) The RTC Advisory Panel considers and advises the Minister on the suitability of applications for funding under the RTC programme. The Panel may also advise the Minister on matters relating to the implementation of the RTC programme.16097(Question No. 1143)114316097Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 15 February 2000:(1) In relation to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA's) 1999/00 - 2001/02 Corporate Plan, what is the basis of CASA's continuing concern about the level and mix of traffic at some airports without air traffic services. (2) At which busier locations does CASA believe the full provision of a control tower service cannot be justified.(3) What has caused the potential shortage of Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (LAMEs) and the deskilling of maintenance facilities through the replacement of LAMEs by appropriately supervised but unlicensed staff.(4) What action is CASA taking to guarantee the proper maintenance of the Australian air fleet through the training of LAMEs.16098Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has provided the following information -(1) With the growth in airline services to regional centres, the potential for traffic conflict problems at the busiest regional aerodromes without air traffic control tower services has increased. Such aerodromes are characterised as busy regional aerodromes, with high speed, high capacity Regular Public Transport (RPT) aircraft in the same airspace as slower general aviation aircraft. However, to address the concern noted in the 1999/2000 - 2000/20001 Corporate Plan, CASA proposes to introduce a new section of Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs), which will require aerodrome licence holders at designated special traffic mix aerodromes to provide a certified air/ground radio service as a condition of their licence. Under this proposal, detailed in a recently released Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), the radio service will provide operational information such as information on air traffic and on local weather conditions, which will assist pilots to arrange self-separation and to make correct operational decisions.(2) Under the present division of responsibilities, Airservices Australia (Airservices) has powers under the Airservices Regulations to decide whether an air traffic control service is to be provided. However, in conjunction with the amendments mentioned above, CASA is developing a new safety regulatory framework for the establishment and disestablishment of these services, and minimum safety standards for the provision of air traffic control and related services. CASA will release a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) Part 71 - Airspace, which will include criteria to be used in assessing locations for the provision of various levels of service. Under the proposed criteria, an aerodrome with less than 60,000 annual movements would not require assessment for a full air traffic control service, however it may require a Certified Air/Ground Radio Service, a Mandatory Broadcast Zone or Common Traffic Advisory Area. The draft regulation also requires that an aeronautical study be completed prior to changes in the levels of service, as well as consultation with stakeholders, a cost/benefit analysis, and a risk analysis. (3) The loss of Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (LAMEs) to industry may be due to a range of factors including: (a) the failure of industry to adjust to market values (b) crossover of LAMEs to other industries with higher wages and conditions, and (c) the cost of gaining appropriate qualifications. (4) CASA is proposing, after consultation with stakeholders, to introduce new regulations (Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Parts 66 and 147) relating to the mandatory formal training of all maintenance personnel to meet International Civil Aviation Organisation standards. As a result, all maintenance personnel in Australia will be required to perform mandatory formal training to a CASA approved national competency based standard. CASA will issue a license on satisfactory completion of training to a qualified aircraft maintenance engineer who passes a CASA oral examination that will test knowledge, and the capacity for supervision and coordination, and to make airworthiness determinations. This proposed formal training will enable civil qualifications such as a diploma or advanced diploma to be issued for the technical competencies gained. CASA believes that a qualification of this kind will become more attractive to maintenance personnel as it can be credited to other courses in further education, should personnel wish to further their knowledge and careers.16099(Question No. 1144)114416099Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 15 February 2000:(1) Further to his answer to question No. 1034 (Hansard, 17 February 2000, page P13742), what is the estimated cost of duplicating the 129 kilometres of the Hume Highway between Sydney and Albury that are not duplicated.(2) With respect to the Albury upgrade, what are the respective costs of the highway upgrade going through Albury as against bypassing Albury.16099Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) has informed my Department that the cost of duplicating the remaining 129km of the Hume Highway will be approximately $800m. This includes 14km of the Bookham bypass, construction of which is already underway. (2) The RTA's estimated cost of Stage 1 (from Wodonga to Ettamogah) of the Hume Highway upgrade at Albury is $180m. The cost of bypassing Albury is currently estimated at $335m.16099(Question No. 1145)114516099Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 15 February 2000:(1) Does the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act specify qualifying airports as those having a public building within a 25 Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) contour or a residence within a 30 ANEF contour; if so, does the Act apply to Adelaide Airport.(2) What monitoring of noise has his Department or Airservices Australia undertaken with respect to Adelaide Airport and does it reveal that certain residential areas in Adelaide may have greater exposure to aircraft noise than residents near Sydney Airport, due to their proximity to the airport.(3) Does Airservices Australia regard levels (a) above 25 ANEF as unacceptable for houses, schools and hospitals and (b) 20 to 25 ANEF as not acceptable for residential use; if so, will the Government allow the estimated 4000 Adelaide residences which fall into these ANEF contours assistance under the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act.(4) If not, on what basis does he justify not assisting residents affected by noise from Adelaide Airport while extending assistance to an extra 630 Sydney homes due to their apparent location within the 30 ANEF contour.(5) Does the Adelaide Airport Master Plan produced in November 1999 contain some ANEF estimates for the year 2020 suggesting 4203 residences will be affected by that date; if so, will the situation worsen.16099Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. The definition of a `qualifying airport' under Sub-section 6(4) of the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act 1995is as follows: “An airport is a “qualifying airport” at a particular time if:(a) at any time there is:(i) a public building within a 25-unit contour shown on an Australian Noise Exposure Forecast previously prepared for the area around that airport for a date after that time; or(ii) a residence within a 30-unit contour shown on an Australian Noise Exposure Forecast previously prepared for the area around that airport for a date after that time; and(b) the Commonwealth is funding at that time or has funded before that time, a noise amelioration program for the airport.”(2) Noise exposure around airports is determined by means of the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) system. Under that system the Australian Noise Exposure Index (ANEI) represents the measure of recent noise exposure. There is no recent ANEI in place for Adelaide Airport.However, Airservices Australia, through its aircraft Noise and Flight Path Monitoring System (NFPMS), regularly monitors aircraft noise at locations around both Adelaide and Sydney airports. The results of the noise monitoring are provided to the Adelaide Airport Environment Committee and the Sydney Airport Community Forum on a regular basis. I have asked that copies of recent reports for Adelaide and Sydney airports be provided direct to the office of the Honourable Member.(3) and (4)Airservices Australia has no role in the determination of land-use acceptability other than through assessing the technical accuracy of ANEF charts. The question of land use acceptability for building siting and construction purposes is covered by Australian Standard AS 2021-1994.The Sydney Airport Noise Amelioration Program was introduced in 1994 in association with the opening of the third runway and the subsequent substantial changes in aircraft noise exposure. Further changes to aircraft operating patterns have been implemented since that time. The Government is keeping the issue of a noise insulation program around Adelaide Airport under active review.(5) Yes. Whether the situation worsens will depend on the net effect of the growth in air traffic which actually occurs and the success of manufacturers in reducing the noise levels generated by future models of aircraft. The Master Plan also states that “these impacts may be alleviated to some degree by the use of noise reduction features in future models of aircraft”.16100(Question No. 1154)115416100Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 15 February 2000:(1) What are the names of the two eminent and independent specialists he referred to in his letter to me (reference CRL 99/9723 and Min 195211) dated 25 November 1999 in respect to the medical capacity of former Senator Colston's ability to stand trial.(2) Will he table the independent medical reports in Parliament.16100Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) As members are aware Ministers are bound by the Information Privacy Principles (IPPs) contained in the Privacy Act 1988 in relation to the affairs of an agency. Accordingly, I am unable to disclose personal information relating to the activities of the Director of Public Prosecutions unless one of the exceptions contained in the IPPs applies.(2) I consider that, as the independent medical reports contain very sensitive and personal information, there is insufficient public interest to justify the release of the information. 16100(Question No. 1161)116116100Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 15 February 2000:(1) How many applicants for Telstra 2 shares who did not receive their full requested allotment had not received a refund of their payment for those shares not made available, as at (a) 31 December 1999 and (b) 24 January 2000.(2) Of those who had not received their refund, for each date referred to in part (1), how many were owed more than (a) $5000 and (b) $20 000.(3) Will interest on those refunds be paid to the unsuccessful applicants; if so, (a) at what rate and (b) for what period.(4) How have these monies been dealt with by the Commonwealth in between their receipt and return.16100Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) approximately 1200. (b) approximately 800.(2) (1) (a) approx. 180.(2) (1) (b) approx. 20.(2) (a) approx 100.(2) (b) approx10. (3) Consistent with the approach used in previous public share offers conducted by the Commonwealth, and as set out in the Public Offer Document, interest will not be paid.(4) Telstra 2 application monies were held in an account established for that purpose with the Reserve Bank of Australia. Monies to be refunded were transferred to an account with the ANZ bank which was set up solely for the purpose of paying refunds, and payments were made from that account.16101(Question No. 1162)116216101McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan5I4FraserALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 15 February 2000:What has been the value of Australian exports of (a) pharmaceuticals, (b) medical equipment, (c) provision of medical services to overseas patients in Australia and Australian provision of medical services overseas, (d) tele-medicine and (e) health auxiliary services in (i) 1992-93, (ii) 1993-94, (iii) 1994-95, (iv) 1995-96, (v) 1996-97, (vi) 1997-98 and (vii) 1998-99.16101Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) (i) $410 million in 1992-93; (ii) $522 million in 1993-94; (iii) $600 million in 1994-95; (iv) $719 million in 1995-96; (v) $789 million in 1996-97; (vi) $880 million in 1997-98; (vii) $1,047 million in 1998-99.(b) (i) $194 million in 1992-93; (ii) $232 million in 1993-94; (iii) $277 million in 1994-95; (iv) $326 million in 1995-96; (v) $373 million in 1996-97; (vi) $450 million in 1997-98; (vii) $489 million in 1998-99.(c) In Australia's official statistics, the value of the provision of medical services to overseas patients in Australia is not available separately. It is included indistinguishably in statistics of expenditure on business and personal travel in Australia by overseas residents. The value of Australia's exports of health and medical services provided abroad was $2 million in 1992-93, $1 million in 1993-94, and $2 million in 1994-95. For years following 1994-95, the value of these services has been classified as confidential, as release of the data could disclose the activities of the individual businesses concerned. The value of tele-medicine services is included indistinguishably in official statistics on exports of health services. It is not available separately.The value of health auxiliary services is included indistinguishably in official statistics on exports of health services. It is not available separtely.16101(Question No. 1164)116416101McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 15 February 2000:(1) Has Mode 8 of the Long Term Operating Plan been introduced at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport; if not, when will it be introduced.(2) Has a safety case review been conducted in respect to the Mode; if so, (a) who conducted or is conducting the review, (b) what are the terms of reference for the review, (c) did the review reveal any complexities which are, or could become, a safety issue and (d) will those complexities be resolved or addressed prior to the introduction of Mode 8; if so, how.16101Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes, Airservices Australia has advised that it became available for use in December 1999.(2) (a) Airservices Australia advises that a Safety Case was prepared by Airservices Australia, in accordance with Airservices Australia's Safety Management Manual. Airservices safety cases are reviewed by the regulator the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.(b) Airservices Australia advises that the Safety Case was undertaken in accordance with the Airservices Safety Management Manual.(c) Airservices Australia advises that the Safety Case identified complexities associated with the management of taxiing aircraft and the crossing of active runways.(d) Airservices Australia advises that the existing traffic management techniques are sufficient to mitigate the identified complexities but the use of these techniques is expected to result in a lower capacity for Mode 8 than was previously predicted. In light of these complexities Airservices continues to review and monitor the use of Mode 8, including examination of human factors issues. 16102(Question No. 1168)116816102McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 15 February 2000:Has any Consumer Price Index (CPI) or Average Weekly Earning (AWE) increase been applied by the Commonwealth Government to Legal Aid funding since 30 June 1996; if not, is he able to say what additional funds would be required in both percentage and financial terms for each of the financial years since 30 June 1996 to factor in both CPI and AWE increases.16102Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Prior to 1 July 1997, funding for legal aid commissions was indexed by reference to movements in Average Weekly Earnings (AWE) and the Consumer Price Index(CPI).As a result of a review of indexation of Specific Purpose Payments (SPP's) by the Department of Finance and Administration it was decided that funding for legal aid commissions would be adjusted by a composite index of 60% Safety Net Adjustment (SNA) and 40% Treasury Measure of Underlying Inflation (TMUI) from 1 July 1997.From 1997-98 to 1999-2000, funding for the legal aid program was adjusted by the composite index as indicated above. The adjustments in each year were as follows:- 1997/98 - 1.3%; 1998/99 - 1.8%; 1999/00 - 1.9%.16102(Question No. 1170)117016102McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 15 February 2000:Do all veterans' appeals which have merit receive legal aid funding; if not, what criteria is applied in determining which veterans' appeals are funded.16102Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Assistance may be granted to war veterans or their dependants in connection with appeals from decisions of the Veterans' Review Board in respect of war-caused disability pension entitlement or assessment claims under Part II of The Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986.Such assistance is not subjected to the means test nor any contribution (except by way of costs recovered), but is subject to the merits test.There are three elements to the merits test:(i) a “reasonable prospect of success” test;(ii) the “ordinary prudent self funding litigant test”; and (iii) the test of “appropriate spending of limited public legal aid funds”.Legal Aid Commissions are expected to fund all cases that meet these requirements.16102(Question No. 1183)118316102Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 February 2000:(1) Further to his answer to question No. 391 (Hansard, 23 March 1999, page 4143), has a written guidance instructing Defence commanders not to send members under 18 years to an area of hostility except in unavoidable circumstances been issued; if so, on what date was that guidance issued and what was the text of the instruction.(2) If a written guidance has not been issued, what is the reason for the failure to do so.(3) Have personnel under 18 years been deployed to East Timor as part of the INTERFET force despite stated policy: if so how many personnel have been deployed by (a) Army, (b) the Navy and (c) the Air Force.16102Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes, a directive was issued on 28 July 1999; a copy of the directive has been forwarded separately to your office. (2) Written guidance has been given.(3) Yes.(a) 4.(b) 1.(c) 0.16103(Question No. 1212)121216103Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 6 March 2000:(1) Is he able to say on what date the board of Employment National (EN) decided to hand back its existing Job Network 1 Intensive Assistance contracts to the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, and for what reasons the Board made the decision.(2) Did he or his Department conduct an assessment with respect to the financial impact of this decision on EN's business, cash flow, and capital value; if so, what were its findings.(3) Did the Government provide EN with any payment or consideration for returning the contracts; if so, what were the details.(4) What was the estimated value of the returned contracts and how many EN clients are being transferred to existing providers as a result of the decision to return the contracts.(5) What impact has the decision to return the contracts had on EN's ability to retain its offices and staff resources.(6) To what extent are decisions to close EN offices and retrench staff related to this decision.(7) Before making this decision, was the EN Board, his office or his Department aware that Drake, another large provider, had decided to continue with its Job Network 1 Intensive Assistance contracts in spite of failing in the Job Network 2 tender round.(8) Was he informed of the decision to hand back contracts before it was taken; if so, (a) what advice was tendered by him to the EN Board and (b) did he instruct, direct or encourage the board to hand back the contracts; if so, what were the reasons for his decision to instruct the board to hand back the contracts.(9) Was the Minister for Employment Services involved in making the decision to hand back the contracts.(10) Was the General Manager of Employment National, Mr Rod Halstead, consulted or asked for his advice in regard to the decision to hand back the contracts.(11) Has his attention been drawn to Mr Halstead's statement in Senate estimates committee hearings that the decision to hand back contracts may have been made to assist other providers in the Job Network; if so, was one of the factors behind the handing back of contracts to provide a cash stream to and prop-up other Job network providers.16103Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am advised that the company executed the contract variation for Job Network 1 contracts on 24 December 1999. On 22 December 1999, I directed the Board to execute the contract variation. (2) Neither my department nor I conducted such a detailed assessment. It was my understanding, however, that there would be a net financial saving to Employment National by returning the Intensive Assistance contracts. EN's assessment of the impact on future profitability, outlined at Question 4. confirms this understanding.(3) Employment National was relieved of further obligations in respect of Intensive Assistance clients.(4) EN advises that:Assuming that:. Employment National's brand and image in the marketplace was not damaged. The Company's marketing activities and expenditure patterns were retained . The vacancy flow, volume and mix was sustained at the pre December 3 levels. The staff productivity ratios remained at pre December 3 levels. The Company retained the experienced and skilled staff required. The conversion ratios for 13 and 26 week were largely held at pre December 3 levels. Then, on the further assumption that the probability of gaining sustainable employment for persons in Intensive Assistance less than 6 months is greater those more than 6 months, the potential revenue from the transition contract would be in the order of $8 - 12 million.The cost of servicing this transition contract would be close to $22 million.Therefore, the direction to execute the contract variation released the company from potential losses of $10-14m over the next three years. EN advises that while retaining the Job Network 1 contracts may have produced some additional short term revenue, the economics of operating the contracts over the medium to long term would have exacerbated the company's financial position.EN advises that the total number of Intensive Assistance job seekers referred from EN to other providers at the closure of Job Network 1 on 27 February 2000 was of the order of 79,000.(5) I am advised by EN that the decision has allowed the company to close offices and release staff early. These offices would otherwise need to be maintained to service Intensive Assistance clients under Job Network 1 contracts, and staff may have missed out on opportunities to take up employment with other Job Network employment service providers.(6) See answer to question 5.(7) My Office and my Department were not aware of Drake's decision. I am advised that EN were also unaware of the decision.(8) See answer to Question 1.(a) None.(b) I directed the Board to execute the contract variation. This direction was issued to release the company from its obligations to service Intensive Assistance job seekers already on its books beyond 28 February 2000. Execution of the contract variation was an important part of facilitating the company's restructuring to focus on its core Job Matching business. A number of other providers who were not successful in winning ongoing Intensive Assistance business have done the same thing.(9) Not to my knowledge.(10) Mr Halstead was not consulted by me or my Department.(11) I am aware of Mr Halstead's statements in this regard. The reasons underpinning my direction are outlined in my answer to question 8(b).16104(Question No. 1213)121316104Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 March 2000:(1) What action has been taken by the Government to implement Australia Cycling—The National Strategy 1999-2004, to promote cycling and the safety of cyclists.(2) Did the Government give consideration to the strategy when preparing the National Road Safety Strategy; if so, what.(3) Were studies conducted on the impact of the new Australian Road Rule 119 on cyclists; if so are the studies available for public consultation; if so, where.(4) How many cyclists were injured or killed at roundabouts each year since 1995.16104Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Government has participated in implementing Australia Cycling—The National Strategy directly by:providing the secretariat for the Australian Bicycle Council (ABC) which was established in April 1999 and includes representatives of the three spheres of government, as well as representatives of industry and user groups; supporting the communications plan for Australia Cycling including through use of my department's web site which includes a complete copy of Australia Cycling and information about the ABC, including membership and the Terms of Reference, as well as links to member bodies web sites;developing guidelines for cycling data and indicators with funding through the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care; andsupporting infrastructure development by maintaining untied road funding to all State, Territory and Local Governments.and indirectly, through the actions of the ABC for which it provides a secretariat, by:developing and adopting Terms of Reference and operating arrangements for the ABC;completing a Memorandum of Understanding between Austroads Inc and the ABC;establishing working groups to progress implementation in areas ranging from local government policy to behaviour change programs;approaching relevant peak transport bodies seeking representation; anddeveloping a research project for funding by Austroads in 2000-2001.(2) I assume the honourable member refers to the draft National Road Safety Strategy currently being developed—the existing strategy was adopted in 1992 and therefore predates Australia Cycling—The National Strategy. The draft Strategy is being developed jointly by the Commonwealth, States and Territory Governments. The Government is giving consideration to Australia Cyclingin formulating its input into the development process.The Australian Road Rules were studied by the Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS) prior to their adoption. FORS did not seek to oppose Rule 119 as it took the view that (a) the conflict which the Rule addresses warranted attention, and (b) had the alternative priority between the road users in conflict been prescribed, cyclists would have been exposed to a much greater and unacceptable risk.There was no formal FORS study conducted on the impact of Rule 119 on cyclists. I am not aware of whether any State or Territory authority conducted a study of the Road Rules.(4) Data held by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau indicates the following number of cyclists have been killed or hospitalised in crashes at roundabouts since 1995: FatalitiesHospitalised199503719960371997050Data for 1998 and 1999 is not yet available.16105(Question No. 1214)121416105Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 March 2000:(1) What is the status of the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport developed by the Disability Discrimination Act Transport Standards Taskforce and endorsed, with some modifications, by the Australian Transport Council in April 1999.(2) What steps have been taken by the Government to finalise the standards.(3) What action has been taken by the Government to implement the standards.(4) Which Departments or agencies are responsible for implementing the standards.(5) What is the timetable for implementing the standards.16106Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Transport and Regional Services is working with the Attorney-General's Department on amendments to the Draft Standards and the Disability Discrimination Act, following Australian Transport Council consideration and the preparation of an extensive Regulatory Impact Statement.This process will be finalised once the Government has considered the standards. This will enable the tabling of the Standards in Parliament.(2) Following the Regulation Impact Statement, the Commonwealth Government has undertaken extensive further consultation with State and Territory Governments, the disability community and providers of public transport to reach agreement on the final standards to be implemented.(3) The Commonwealth's role in implementation will be one of oversight and assistance to the public transport provision industry. The implementation of the Standards will primarily be the responsibility of State, Territory and Local Government, once they are reflected in complimentary jurisdictional disability discrimination legislation.(4) At the Commonwealth level the Department of Transport and Regional Services and the Attorney-General's Department have responsibility for the standards.(5) The draft Standards have a compliance timetable built into them which provides for staged implementation over an extended period. Initial implementation of the Standards is dependent upon the outcome of Government consideration of the Standards. This consideration is anticipated later this year.16106(Question No. 1223)122316106Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 7 March 2000:(1) Following the signing of the Eden Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) in August 1999, what level of funding, if any, has the Commonwealth formally approved towards proposed employment and industry development initiatives in (a) the Eden recovery mill, (b) the export of pulplogs from Bombala plantations, (c) commercial regrowth thinning, (d) sustainable sawlog production thinning and fertilising, (e) the regrowth timber resource industry, (f) Aboriginal community development and (g) training in environmental management.(2) What level of funding, if any, has been spent to date on each of the proposed employment and industry development initiatives referred to in part (1).16106Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Forestry and Conservation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) and (g) Nil.(2) Nil Commonwealth funding. However I believe New South Wales may have funded some employment and industry development initiatives in the Eden RFA area, and I would refer the honourable member to the New South Wales Minister for Forestry.For the honourable member's further information, this Government has implemented the Eden Regional Adjustment Package (ERAP) under which $3.6m will be provided to supplement private sector investment in long term employment generating projects in the Eden region. The package relates to any industry and has attracted a wide range of proposals from such industry sectors as:- Fishing and Fish Processing, Aquaculture, Forest and Forest Products, Tourism, Light Manufacturing.16106(Question No. 1224)122416106Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 7 March 2000:(1) Further to the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) of November 1997, what sum of Commonwealth funding has been provided to date for (a) program to protect conservation values on private land in support of the CAR reserve system, (b) implementation of new intensive forest management initiatives, (c) implementation of employment and industry development measures, (d) road infrastructure, (e) tourism infrastructure and (f) new reserve management.(2) What are the details of the intensive forest management initiatives that have been funded under the RFA. (3) What are the details of the employment and industry development measures that have been funded under the RFA.(4) What is the estimated sum, if any, of further Commonwealth funding for each of the categories of expenditure referred to in part (1) in (a) 1999-2000 and (b) 2000-01.16107Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Forestry and Conservation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) $11.5879m1(b) $52.275m(c) $11.93m(d) $5.5m(e) $2.75m(f) $0.93m.(2) Measures under the $57m intensive forest management initiative include:- the establishment of some 19,000 hectares of eucalypt, blackwood and acacia and other special species plantations; and- thinning of 8,000 hectares of eucalypt regrowth forest.(3) The measures funded under the $13m employment and industry development initiative are:(a) $10m for “in forest” investment including additional thinning, non-chemical pest management research for plantation establishment and the establishment of an additional 2,600 hectares of eucalypt plantations; and(b) $3m for a series of measures, including:- new processing technology to support the existing Helsham Industry Transition and Development Fund;- planning and implementation of long rotation supply of special species timbers;- resource enhancement on private land; and- implementation of new regulations on replacement of forest following harvesting and maintenance of native forest cover.(4a) Estimated further Commonwealth funding in 1999-2000(a): $3m1(b): $4.725m(c): $1.07m(d): $0.5m(e): $0.25m(f): $0.07m.(4b) Estimated further Commonwealth funding in 2000-2001(a): $8m1(b) to (f): Nil.1 Includes Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) funds allocated to Tasmania under the RFA for the protection of conservation values on private land (total NHT allocation of $20m). Payments are made on a case by case project approval basis in accordance with the NHT legislation, administered on the terms and conditions set out in the NHT Partnership Agreement with Tasmania.16107(Question No. 1225)122516107Roxon, Nicola, MPMs Roxon83KGellibrandALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 March 2000:(1) Is there anything to prevent the Commonwealth selling former defence land subject to conditions, restrictions or specifications that bind the buyer; if so what is the source of the limitation and is it governed by legislation, regulation, or policy.(2) If there is nothing to prevent the Commonwealth selling former defence land, are there limits to what conditions or specifications can be placed on the sale. (3) Has former defence land been sold subject to any conditions, specifications or restrictions; if so, what conditions have been applied to the sale of blocks of land since 1980, and on which blocks were the conditions attached.16108Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. However, the Commonwealth does not generally apply conditions, restrictions or specifications in selling former Defence land. There may be exemptions and specifically where the Defence is required to meet its obligations under Commonwealth legislation. As a result, the contract of sale may require the purchaser to accept conditions especially when they relate to heritage and/or environmental values of a property. Conditions relating to zoning, planning and development activities are the responsibility of the relevant State and local government authorities.(2) Any limits could only involve those areas where the Commonwealth has a direct interest, for example, those defined as having national environment and/or heritage significance. Once land passes out of Commonwealth ownership, it falls under State and local government legislation and responsibility for land planning appropriately rests at the State and local levels. (3) Information in respect to this portion of the honourable member's question is not readily available. To provide a complete response would require considerable time and resources and in the interest of efficient utilisation of departmental resources, I am not prepared to authorise the time and effort involved in obtaining the information.16108(Question No. 1233)123316108Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MossfieldMK6GreenwayALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 9 March 2000:(1) Has his attention been drawn to a new report called “Western Sydney Orbital Travel Time Survey” prepared by the NRMA in NSW in relation to the need for the proposed construction of the Western Sydney Orbital Road System.(2) Will the report be given full consideration when making decisions on the construction timetable for the Western Sydney Orbital Road System.(3) When will he announce a decision to commence construction of the Western Sydney Orbital Road System.16108Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes, I am aware of the report.(2) The Government is taking all factors into account in the consideration of the possible construction of the road, including the issues raised in the NRMA report.(3) The Government's decision on the Western Sydney Orbital will be announced when it has considered all the factors relevant to such a major project, including those relating to funding.16108(Question No. 1239)123916108McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 2000:Has the ATO's Problem Resolution Service/Compensation Remedies section in Perth been relocated; if so, (a) when did the section move, (b) what structure or process will be used now and (c) what safeguards are in place to ensure that case officers are not dealing with cases where they are part of the complaint.16108Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:There is no such section as the Problem Resolution Service/Compensation Remedies section in the ATO. The Problem Resolution Service (PRS) manages complaints raised by taxpayers, while compensation claims are dealt with by the business line in which the matter that led to the claim arose. Since its establishment in 1997, PRS has staff located at the ATO Northbridge office. Compensation matters may be examined by the relevant business lines in the ATO Perth offices.(a) Not applicable. (b) Not applicable.(c) When a compensation claim is received, it is allocated to and determined by a legally qualified officer who is independent from the case officer who dealt with the matter under the claim. This ensures that safeguards are in place to ensure the claim is not dealt with by the initial case officer.The complaints that PRS handles are likewise dealt with by an officer who is independent from the officer who originally handled the matter causing the complaint.16109(Question No. 1258)125816109Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 14 March 2000:(1) Has an environmental impact study (EIS) ever been carried out on the Salt Ash Weapons Range; if so, can the study be made available to the community.(2) If an EIS has not been carried out, why not, given that the area is subjected to many unnatural phenomena by being a weapons range.(3) Has his Department ever been requested by a parliamentary standing committee to conduct and EIS for RAAF operations from RAAF Base Williamtown; if so, has it been undertaken.16109Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) An environmental impact study (EIS) was prepared, under the provisions of Commonwealth Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, in May 1983 for the introduction of the F/A - 18 Hornet aircraft. As part of the formal assessment process, the draft EIS was submitted for public review and remains a public document. The EIS covers operations of the F/A - 18 Hornet aircraft at RAAF Base Williamtown and the Salt Ash Air Weapons Range.(2) Not applicable-see response to part (1).(3) The department has been unable to find evidence that this is the case.16109(Question No. 1264)126416109Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 March 2000: (1) Were Australian and New Zealand troops in Vietnam used as guinea pigs in tests of the anti-malarial drug Dapsone.(2) Were trial results embargoed for 50 years; if so, why.(3) Is he able to say whether the drug has any known side effects alone or when used in conjunction with other drugs or substances.(4) Is he also able to say whether the experimentation contravened the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki.(5) Did any breaches of the Declaration occur with Australian personnel in Timor.16109Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Dapsone has been used in the treatment of leprosy since the late 1930s, and also in combination with other drugs against malaria. As such, Dapsone was not an experimental drug. Dapsone was used by US Forces in Vietnam to combat malaria because of malarial parasite resistance to other drugs then available. A clinical trial was conducted in Australian Forces in Vietnam during 1968 to combat a significant outbreak of malaria, which had already claimed two Australian lives and many more US troops. This trial was not experimentation. The results of the trial were a significant drop in the numbers of malaria cases. As a result of the successful trial the chemoprophylaxis for all Australian Forces was changed to include Dapsone. The annual incidence of malaria overall dropped from 65.8/1000 in 1968 to 4.6/1000 in 1969.There is no evidence in the available medical files that New Zealand Forces were involved in the trial. (2) The trial results were not embargoed for fifty years. All Commonwealth records fall under the Archives Act 1983, which provides that records should be made publicly available after 30 years. All official records on this subject will be made progressively available after they enter the open period, that is, become 30 years old. Information on Dapsone is included on files held by the Australian War Memorial titled Herbicide series, Vietnam. These files were released early by the then Minister for Defence, the Hon Ian Sinclair, in 1982 due to the increased level of public concern about the use of herbicides in Vietnam. Two medical reports on the subject exist, one published by the Medical Journal of Australia in June 1973 and a study commissioned by the Department of Veterans' Affairs in 1990. Both of these reports are unclassified, in the public record and are able to be accessed by both veterans and researchers. (3) The main known adverse events resulting from the use of Dapsone are on the blood, although effects on the nervous system, gastrointestinal system and skin have been reported in patients on long term treatment. (4) There is no information in the available files on the issue of informed consent or whether the study was submitted for a formal ethics committee approval. As neither the drug nor the protocol was experimental, there would was no requirement for formal ethical evaluation and approval. (5) All clinical studies conducted in East Timor involving Australian Defence personnel have the approval of the Australian Defence Medical Ethics Committee (ADMEC). ADMEC was created in 1988 as a non-statutory body by CDF and the Secretary for Defence to ensure that Defence complied with the accepted guidelines for human experimentation (Declaration of Helsinki 1964 and the National Health and Medical Research Council Guidelines 1982).16110(Question No. 1268)126816110Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 15 March 2000:(1) How many unauthorised arrivals of persons have occurred in Australia by (a) boat and (b) air since 1 July 1999.(2) What are the nationalities of the arrivals.(3) How many persons of each nationality have applied under the refugee and humanitarian program.(4) What is the impact of illegal arrivals applying onshore for refugee and humanitarian visas on those seeking such access to Australia offshore through the authorised system of humanitarian protection.(5) What is the expected number of illegal arrivals applying onshore who might eventually be granted family reunion if granted refugee status.(6) What is the total number of cases and persons who have applied offshore, by nationality, under the refugee and humanitarian program.16110Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Since 1 July 1999, (to end February 2000), 3484 unauthorised persons arrived in Australia by boat; and(b) Since 1 July 1999, (to end February 2000), 1148 unauthorised persons arrived in Australia by air.(2) The nationalities of the unauthorised persons who arrived by boat and air, since 1 July 1999 (to end February 2000), are indicated on the charts (Table 1) below.Table 1Boat Arrivals 1 July 1999 - 29 February 20001 July 1999 - 29 Feb 2000% Boats61Afghans111932.1Algerian100.3Bahrain10.0Bangladeshi140.4EgyptianIndian60.2Indonesian90.3Iranian1353.9Iraqi194855.9Jordan10.0Kurdish220.6Kuwaiti150.4Myanmar10.0Pakistani90.3Palestinian90.3PNG--PRCH1353.9Singaporean--Sri Lankan210.6Stateless20.1Syrian50.1Turkish220.6OtherTOTAL3484100Air Arrivals 1 July 1999 - 29 February 2000Nationality1 July 1999-29 Feb 2000 %Afghans413.6Albanian40.3Algerian80.7American201.7Bangladeshi40.3British595.1Bulgarian10.1Cambodian10.1Canadian70.6Chiliean--Czech--Egyptian50.4Fijian121.0Filipino675.8French90.8Hong Kong60.5Indian524.5Indonesian252.2Iranian262.3Iraqi14812.9Irish70.6Italian131.1Japanese151.3Kampucian--Kenyan--Korean272.4Kuwaiti40.3Libyan--Macedonian--Malaysian1149.9Mongolian10.1Nepalese--Netherlander40.3New Zealander766.6Pakistani111.0Polish--Portugese--PRCH564.9Romanian30.3Russian20.2Samoan--Singaporean121.0Slovakian10.1Somali80.7South African121.0South Korean746.4Sri Lankan433.7Stateless90.8Sudanese--Taiwanese100.9Thai544.7Turkish151.3Unknown131.1Vietnamese30.3Yemenese20.2Yugoslavian10.1Zairain20.2Other615.3TOTAL1148100(3) The following is a breakdown of protection visa applications made by unauthorised arrivals in 1998-99 and 1999-2000 (to end February 2000). The analysis is by top ten nationalities and mode of arrival. 1998-99 LODGEMENTSAIRBOATSTOTAL UNAUTHORISED ARRIVALSNATIONALITYNo.NATIONALITYNo.NATIONALITYNo.Iraqi282Iraqi115Iraqi397Algerian81Turkish102Afghan141Iranian52Afghan91Turkish110Afghan50PRCH61Algerian89Kuwaiti29Bangladeshi16PRCH65Sri Lankan28Kurdish11Iranian53Turkish8Sri Lankan11Sri Lankan39Libyan4Algerian8Kuwaiti31PRCH4Pakistani5Bangladeshi18Russian4Indian3Kurdish11Yugoslavian4Others105Others4Others124Total651Total427Total10781999-00 LODGEMENTS at 29 February 2000AIRBOATSTOTAL UNAUTHORISED ARRIVALSNATIONALITYNo.NATIONALITYNo.NATIONALITYNo.Iraqi133Iraqi1023Iraqi1156Afghan36Afghan622Afghan658Sri Lankan27Iranian31Iranian47Iranian16Sri Lankan12Sri Lankan39Turkish13Bangladeshi12Turkish21Somali9Kuwaiti10Kuwaiti14Algerian6Turkish8Bangladeshi13Kuwaiti4Syrian3Somali9South Korean4Algerian7South Korean4Others48Others15Others64Total296Total1736Total2032(4) Within the total Humanitarian Program of 12,000 places, 2,000 places were notionally allocated for those found to be in need of protection in Australia and the balance for offshore applicants. Should there be a need for additional places onshore they come from the offshore component of the program. Conversely, if places were not required onshore they could be used in the offshore component.As a result of the recent increase in unauthorised arrivals by boat, our capacity to resettle people in need from overseas has been seriously limited. We now need to use more than 2,000 places for people who, in many instances, had effective protection in a country of first asylum, and chose to come to Australia because they could afford to do so.(5) In the current year to end February 2000, 2032 people who arrived unlawfully had lodged Protection Visa (PV) applications.If current approval rates continue, these 2032 PV applications lodged by unlawful arrivals in the first eight months of the year will translate into some 1584 visa grants, the majority of which will be Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs) without family reunion rights. Should these people subsequently apply for a PV and be found to need Australia's protection in 30 months time, they will then be able to access the permanent PV which confers family reunion rights. (6) The total number of cases and persons by country of birth who have applied offshore under the Humanitarian Program since 1 July 1999 (to end of February 2000) is indicated on Table 2 below. The data system currently in place only records nationality at the time of visa grant, therefore the table provided shows country of birth of the applicants.The total number of cases lodged since 1 July 1999 (to end of February 2000) is 17,587 based on an estimate of an average of 3.2 persons per case. HUMANITARIAN PROGRAM: APPLICATIONS IN THE PIPELINE BY COUNTRY OF BIRTH, AT 2 MARCH 2000COUNTRY OF BIRTHTOTAL PERSONSAFGHANISTAN7034ALBANIA23ALGERIA69ANGOLA26ANGUILLA1ARMENIA18AUSTRIA12AZERBAIJAN10BANGLADESH16BELARUS3BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINIA3314BOTSWANA1BULGARIA18BURMA (MYANMAR)1782BURUNDI26CAMBODIA11CAMEROON4CENTRAL AFRICA (SO STATED)6CHAD9CHILE8CHINA, PR62COLUMBIA49CONGO63COTE D'IVOIRE4CROATIA5294CUBA5CZECHOSLOVAKIA8DJIBOUTI25EAST TIMOR5EGYPT62EL SALVADOR183ENGLAND3ERITREA803ETHIOPIA1458ESTONIA1FED REP OF YUGOSLAVIA651FRANCE9GAMBIA2GUATEMALA2GEORGIA13GERMANY (SO STATED)41GHANA8GREECE4HONDURAS4HUNGARY3INDIA19INDONESIA8IRAN890IRAQ6824ISRAEL21JORDAN9KAMPUCHEA1KAZAKHSTAN7KENYA12KUWAIT103LEBANON65LIBERIA9LITHUANIA22MACEDONIA, FMR YUG REP65MALAYSIA9MALI1MAURITIUS2MEXICO8MOROCCO5NEPAL3NICARAGUA4NIGERIA13PAKISTAN137PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY12PAPUA NEW GUINEA1PERU23PHILIPPINES5POLAND8ROMANIA16RUSSIAN FED40RWANDA26SAUDI ARABIA2SIERRA LEONE371SLOVAKIA3SLOVENIA10SOMALIA3408SPAIN1SRI LANKA1112STH AFRICA4STH AMERICA (SO STATED)6STATELESS71SUDAN3528SYRIA64TANZANIA13TIBET (SO STATED)15TOGO6TUNISIA17TURKEY229UGANDA54UKRAINE45UNKNOWN54USA3USSR (SO STATED)107UZBEKISTAN1VIETNAMESE26WALES1YEMEN ARAB REP14YEMEN2YUGOSLAVIA (FORMER)17453ZAIRE135ZAMBIA3GRAND TOTAL (persons)56279TOTAL CASES - based on global 17587average of 3.2 persons per case16117(Question No. 1277)127716117Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 March 2000:(1) How many RAAF aircraft were used in the fly-overs during the Australian Grand Prix held in Melbourne from 9 to 12 March 2000.(2) What was the overall cost of this exercise.(3) What was the fuel cost for the exercise.(4) Did the exercise conform to F1-11 airforce standard operating procedures, particularly with regard to safety and civilian areas.(5) What has been the cost of the fly-overs over the years that Melbourne has had the Grand Prix.(6) Has his Department or office received complaints from the public regarding this practice in 2000.16117Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Ten aircraft - two F/A-18s, one F111 and Seven PC9s.(2) Approximately $178,000.(3) Approximately $17,150.(4) Yes.(5) Approximately $747,000.(6) Yes, two complaints.16117(Question No. 1278)127816117Quick, Harry, MPMr QuickAV5FranklinALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 16 March 2000:(1) What is the cost of ABC News Radio's rights to re-broadcast BBC World Service.(2) What are the contractual arrangements between ABC News Radio and the BBC.16117McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The ABC has advised that it has access to BBC World Service content for use on ABC Radio, which includes a range of news, current affairs and information programs. The ABC pays a blanket licence fee for the use of this content and makes it available to all domestic radio outlets, including NewsRadio. The cost of the total contract between the ABC and BBC World Service is commercial-in-confidence.(2) The ABC has advised that NewsRadio does not have any separate agreement with the BBC World Service. The contract between the ABC and BBC World Service entitles News Radio to broadcast news items, news bulletins, and other segments, provided they are accredited; and to rebroadcast the service for periods of time.16117(Question No. 1293)129316117Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 3 April 2000:(1) What was the commencement date of the Federation Guard, its establishment and cost over the two-year period.(2) How are the guards being replaced in their source units.16118Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Australia's Federation Guard was formed in January 2000.Its establishment is 159 - 50 members from each Service and a command/support group of 9. The net additional cost to establish and operate the Federation Guard for Australian tasking is estimated at $3 million. This includes one-off costs including computing support, issues of uniforms and ceremonial equipment. Prior to the establishment of the Federation Guard, the cost of mounting guards in Canberra alone was $1.4 million per annum.(2) The members of the Federation Guard were replaced in their source units through normal posting action.16118(Question No. 1460)146016118O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 13 April 2000:(1) Does the Minister administer legislation which relates to domestic violence.(2) If so, what is the definition applied by the Minister's Department to the term “domestic violence”.(3) Is the definition sourced from a policy document or statute.(4) Is there discretionary flexibility available to be exercised by the Department when applying the definition to individual circumstances; if so, are there internal departmental manuals outlining discretionary options.16118Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) - (4) N/A.16118(Question No. 1461)146116118O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 13 April 2000:(1) Does the Minister administer legislation which relates to domestic violence.(2) If so, what is the definition applied by the Minister's Department to the term “domestic violence”.(3) Is the definition sourced from a policy document or statute.(4) Is there discretionary flexibility available to be exercised by the Department when applying the definition to individual circumstances; if so, are there internal departmental manuals outlining discretionary options.16118Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) There is no portfolio legislation dealing with domestic violence.(2) n/a.(3) n/a.(4) n/a.16118(Question No. 682)68216118Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LindsayHK6HerbertLP10 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 3 June 1999:(1) How many resident/resident applications were granted funding by Legal Aid since 1 June 1998.(2) How many successful resident applications for legal funding were made by (a) men and (b) women since 1 June 1998.(3) How many men have applied for legal aid in Family Law matters since 1 June 1998.(4) How many men have applied for legal aid in Family Law matters since 1 June 1998 but were unsuccessful on (a) financial grounds or (b) merit. (5) Does Legal Aid treat a resident/resident application by a financially eligible father, who receives only fortnightly contact and lives in the same suburb as the mother with no history of domestic violence, as being not a substantial issue and therefore not eligible for funding on lack of merit.(6) Since the B and Bcase, how many resident/resident orders excluding consent orders, expressed (a) in raw numbers and (b) as a percentage, has the Family Court ordered in cases where the contact with both parents is at least 40 per cent.16119Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) This information is not available from the legal aid statistics collection.(2) From 1 June 1998 to 30 June 1999 (inclusive), 3299 men and 8988 women submitted legal aid applications involving residency matters that were approved.(3) From 1 June 1998 to 30 June 1999 (inclusive), 16540 applications for legal aid in Family Law matters were submitted by men. 6054 of those applications, for that same time period, were refused. (4) Details of the reasons for refusal of legal aid in Family Law matters are not kept because a refusal on one ground does not preclude exclusion on another. An application may be refused on means, but had it passed that stage, it may subsequently have been refused on merit or as a result of not falling within the Commonwealth guidelines. Information on reasons assistance is refused is therefore of very limited value.(5) Legal aid commissions assess the circumstances of each individual application for aid in accordance with the Commonwealth's priorities and guidelines. There is no provision in those guidelines for commissions to take a general approach to classes of applications.(6) This information is not available from the legal aid statistics collection and needs to be sought directly from the Family Court. I understand that the Family Court does not retain this information in the form in which the question is asked.16119(Question No. 930)93016119Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:(1) Did he receive a briefing from his Department or the Navy prior to issuing his media statement of 22 January 1999 about the HMAS Sydney harassment case; if so, on what date and in what form was the briefing provided.(2) Did he request and receive a briefing from the Chief of Navy at the conclusion of the investigation; if not, why not.(3) When and how did he first become aware that the outcome of the case was actually a management initiated early retirement.(4) Will he ensure that future serious allegations against senior Navy officers are investigated independently of the chain of command; if so, what are the details of the changed procedures.16119Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The former Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Don Chalmers AO, RAN, provided a written brief on issues relating to allegations concerning harassment onboard the HMAS SYDNEY dated 22 January 1999 to the Minister for Defence, with an information copy to me.(2) On 14 April 1999, the former Chief of Navy formally advised the Minister for Defence that, after consideration of this and an earlier incident, he had made a recommendation in the then Commanding Officer of HMAS SYDNEY's career records that the officer not be considered for further command appointments or promotion and advised that he had initiated the officer's early retirement using the Management Initiated Early Retirement provisions. A copy of this brief was also provided to me. The Director - General Defence Legal Office had also provided advice to the Minister for Defence on 18 March 1999 in relation to the release of a number of Investigating Officers' Reports concerning this matter.(3) See response to part (2).(4) An Inquiry into Military Justice Procedures in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) was conducted by the Defence Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. The report makes several recommendations for improving the ADF system of military discipline and administrative action. While the decision to investigate a matter remains a command decision, there is nevertheless a requirement that the inquiry be conducted independently of command chain influence in respect of the inquiry process, findings and recommendations. Comprehensive guidance for personnel conducting administrative investigations will soon be provided in the new Administrative Inquiries Manual to be issued by the ADF.16120(Question No. 957)95716120Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 30 September 1999:Since he has held the portfolio and prior to the 30 August referendum in East Timor, had he (a) met with or (b) spoken in 1999 on the telephone to (i) Lt General John Shelton, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, or (ii) William Cohen, the US Secretary of Defense; if so, (A) when and where was or were the meeting or meetings held, (B) when was or were the telephone call or calls made and (C) are there any notes, memoranda or other documentation concerning the (I) meeting or meetings or (II) telephone call or calls; if so, will he provide copies; if not, why not.16120Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The amended answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) (i) No.(ii) Yes.(b) (i) Yes.(ii) Yes.(A) I met with the representative of the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lieutenant General Anderson, on 5 May 1999 at a plenary session at the Pentagon in Washington. I also met with the US Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, on 5 May 1999 at the Pentagon in Washington.(B) The telephone calls were made in the time frame specified.(C) There are no notes or memorandum or other documentation available concerning the meetings or telephone calls. The meetings and telephone conversations discussed portfolio matters.16120(Question No. 969)96916120Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 October 1999:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 766 (Hansard, 21 September 1999, page 7690), how many of the reservists recruited in 1998-99 for the (a) Navy, (b) Army and (c) Air Force were personnel transferring to the Reserves from the permanent forces.(2) Since March 1996 has the Australian Defence Force conducted market research on (a) reservists and potential reservists and (b) employers, on the difficulties of combining reserve service with civilian employment; if so, who conducted the research and what were the main findings.(3) If the Government has not conducted recent market research, what information sources does it rely on in order to develop suitable recruitment and retention measures.16120Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Navy - General Reserve: 30Standby Reserve: 857(b) Army - Active Reserve: 307Inactive Reserve: 360Army Individual Emergency Force: 202(c) Air Force - Active Reserve: 265General Reserve: 1007NOTE 1: These transfer figures are in addition to the enlistment figures shown in the response to Question No. 766. NOTE 2: The Navy Standby Reserve, Army Inactive Reserve and the Air Force General Reserve consist of a pool of former permanent force or Active Reserve members who have indicated a willingness to make themselves available for service or call out. They do not have an annual training commitment. Members of the Army Individual Emergency Force are required to parade only once annually.(2) (a) Yes, for Army Reserve and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Reserve.(b) Yes, for Army Reserve.New Focus Research Pty Ltd conducted the market research for Army and presented its findings in May 1997 in a report titled, “Report on Research into the Army's Common Induction Training (CIT) Program”. The major finding of this report was that both employers and potential applicants had difficulty with the requirement for Active Reserve Recruits to fulfil an initial 45-day period of continuous training. The research for the RAAF was conducted by Wing Commander Sheldon Kimber and focused on the Ground Defence Reserve Group. The report found that incentives offered under the present Ground Defence Reserve Group conditions of service were inadequate. Market research has not been conducted for the Navy Reserve recruitment because of the small targets required.