2000-05-113916REPS1625102000-05-11—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.31 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous162511625109:30:0016251Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I move:That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving forthwith that the House calls on the Minister for Health and Aged Care to attend the House immediately and explain:(1) his culpability for radiologists becoming aware on 6 May 1998 of confidential official information regarding a budget measure on MRI machines which was subsequently announced on 12 May 1998;(2) his culpability for the surge in MRI orders between 6 and 12 May 1998, triggered by a disclosure of confidential official information;(3) his misleading denials in the House since February 1999 of any confidential official information having been disclosed prior to the 1998 budget in the face of a finding by the Auditor-General that on the balance of probabilities such a disclosure had in fact taken place; and(4) why, given his culpability for the disclosure and his misleading denials regarding disclosure in the House, he should not resign immediately on the basis that the Auditor-General's damning findings of :(a) inappropriate disclosure of confidential official information prior to the 1998 budget; and,(b) the grossly inadequate decision making process and negotiating practice employed by the minister and his department in the development of the 1998 MRI budget measure.This is a massive scandal and the minister is trying to cover it up.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, the government intends to take this matter after question time. Motion (by Mr Reith) put: That the member be not further heard.09:37:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 75Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.60Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Wilton, G.S.Zahra, C.J.Fahey, J.J.Sciacca, C.A.Schultz, A.Crosio, J.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?09:40:0016252Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I second the motion. This minister must go. He has released sensitive budget information.Motion (by Mr Reith) put:That the member be not further heard.09:42:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 75Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.62Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Wilton, G.S.Zahra, C.J.Fahey, J.J.Sciacca, C.A.Schultz, A.Crosio, J.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to.09:45:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 75Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Wilton, G.S.Zahra, C.J.75Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Crosio, J.A.Schultz, A.Sciacca, C.A.Fahey, J.J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bills16253R100516253Bill presented by Mr McGauran, for Mr Anderson, and read a first time.1625309:50:0016253McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 is the basis upon which Commonwealth financial assistance is provided to local government through the states and territories. This financial assistance has two components:general purpose funding (section 9 payments); andlocal roads funding (section 12 payments).Under this act local government is estimated to be entitled to around $1.32 billion in financial assistance grants for 2000-01. Each year, the Treasurer determines the escalation of local government assistance by having regard to movements in the level of the financial assistance grants and special revenue assistance paid to the states.Under the government's revised tax reform package, the Commonwealth retains responsibility for providing financial assistance grants to local government. It is necessary to amend the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 to remove the nexus with states' financial assistance grants, as these will be abolished from 1 July 2000 as a result of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations(the agreement). A key feature of the agreement is the payment of all GST revenue to the states.The amendment allows local government financial assistance grants to be maintained on a real per capita basis. The matters to which the Treasurer must currently have regard in making an adjustment to the escalation factor will be nullified by the reforms to Commonwealth-state financial relations and are therefore deleted. This will leave a general discretion as in the present act. However, under the amendments, the discretion can be used only if the Treasurer considers there are special circumstance to make the adjustment. In making a decision to adjust the factor, the matters the Treasurer is to have regard to are the objects of the act, set out in section 3, and any other matters he thinks relevant.Under clause 17 of the agreement, the states and territories agreed, inter alia, that local government would operate as if it were subject to the GST legislation.As undertaken in clause 18 of the agreement, the Commonwealth is legislating to require the states and the Northern Territory to withhold from the financial assistance grants, for any local government authority in breach of clause 17 of the agreement, a sum representing the amount of any unpaid voluntary or notional GST payments. Amounts withheld by the states and the Northern Territory are to be paid to the Commonwealth.The amendment bill will also clarify the roles of the minister and Statistician relating to calculation of projected population figures used in estimating state entitlements. The Statistician will prepare the estimates on the basis of assumptions specified by the minister, after consulting the Statistician. The Statistician requested this amendment.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills16254R106316254Bill presented by Mr Slipper, for Mr Costello, and read a first time.1625409:54:0016254Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The package of bills introduced today provides legislation to give effect to the government's announcement of 5 October 1999 in relation to sales tax exemption for industrial safety equipment. Certain goods such as masks, respirators, shields, goggles, visors, helmets and machine guards are exempt from sales tax as items of industrial safety equipment. The kind of equipment intended to be exempt as industrial safety equipment has always been narrow. However, two decisions of the Federal Court have held that the scope of the exemption was broadened when the sales tax law was streamlined from 1993.As a result of these decisions, it is possible that a wide range of goods could now qualify for sales tax exemption as industrial safety equipment. Most of this equipment is only used to a minor extent by persons engaged in industrial operations. The equipment is mainly used outside industrial operations and does not have a primary purpose of protecting persons engaged in industrial operations.The government announced on 5 October 1999 that the sales tax law would be amended so that, to qualify for sales tax exemption, goods would need to be of a kind that were mainly used to protect persons engaged in industrial operations. Refund claims lodged on or after 5 October 1999 which do not meet this criteria would be denied. The government was concerned that refunds should not result in windfall gains for retailers who have passed the cost of the sales tax on to their customers. Accordingly, refund claims lodged before 5 October 1999 that meet the requirements of the existing exemption would only be paid where it can be shown that the benefit of the credit has passed to the end consumer.The package of bills introduced today will achieve the government's decision by modifying the sales tax law from commencement of the streamlined sales tax law in 1993 to ensure that the law reflects the intention of parliament at that time, and thus will prevent significant risk to the sales tax revenue. Liability and appeal rights of taxpayers will be adjusted to achieve the date of effect of 5 October 1999. Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the bill and the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill and present the explanatory memorandum to this bill, the Sales Tax (Excise) (Industrial Safety Equipment) Bill 2000, the Sales Tax (General) (Industrial Safety Equipment) Bill 2000 and the Sales Tax (Industrial Safety Equipment) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2000.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills16255R106416255Bill presented by Mr Slipper, for Mr Costello, and read a first time.1625509:58:0016255Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill is part of a package of four bills that provide legislation to give effect to the government's announcement of 5 October 1999 in relation to the sales tax exemption for industrial safety equipment. Three modification bills are necessary because of the constitutional requirement that a law imposing taxation shall deal with only one subject of taxation and that laws imposing excise or customs duties deal only with those duties.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills16255R106216255Bill presented by Mr Slipper, for Mr Costello, and read a first time.1625509:59:0016255Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill is part of a package of four bills that provide legislation to give effect to the government's announcement of 5 October 1999 in relation to the sales tax exemption for industrial safety equipment. Three modification bills are necessary because of the constitutional requirement that a law imposing taxation shall deal with only one subject of taxation and that laws imposing excise or customs duties deal only with those duties.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills16255R106516255Bill presented by Mr Slipper, for Mr Costello, and read a first time.1625510:00:0016255Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill is part of a package of four bills that provide legislation to give effect to the government's announcement of 5 October 1999 in relation to the sales tax exemption for industrial safety equipment. Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.Bill (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills16255R100816255Consideration resumed from 10 May.Senate's requested amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 25 to 29), omit paragraph (b) of step 2, substitute:(b) the employer is a government body and the duties of the employment of one or more employees are as described in paragraph 57A(2)(b) (which is about duties of employment being exclusively performed in or in connection with certain hospitals); or (c) the employer is a public hospital described in subsection 57A(3) (which is about public hospitals other than hospitals connected with the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory); or(d) the employer is a hospital described in subsection 57A(4) (which is about hospitals carried on by non-profit societies and associations);(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 3), after "(a)", insert ", (c) or (d)".(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (lines 8 to 14), omit step 3, substitute:Step 3. If step 2 does not apply in respect of one or more employees of the employer:(a) reduce the individual grossed-up non-exempt amount for each such employee for the year of tax beginning on 1 April 2000 to zero; and(b) reduce the individual grossed-up non-exempt amount for each such employee for a later year of tax by $30,000, but not below zero.(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (lines 2 to 4), omit "involved the provision of goods or services where, on their acquisition by the person who provided them, that person was entitled to input tax credits", substitute "are GST-creditable benefits (see section 149A)".(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (line 29) to page 8 (line 2), omit "involved the provision of goods or services where, on their acquisition by the person who provided them, that person was entitled to input tax credits", substitute "are GST-creditable benefits (see section 149A)".(6) Schedule 1, item 7, page 9 (lines 13 to 16), omit "involved the provision of goods or services where, on their acquisition by the person who provided them, that person was entitled to input tax credits,", substitute "are GST-creditable benefits (see section 149A),".(7) Schedule 1, item 7, page 9 (lines 23 to 25), omit "involved the provision of goods or services where, on their acquisition by the person who provided them, that person was entitled to input tax credits,", substitute "are GST-creditable benefits (see section 149A),".(8) Schedule 1, item 7, page 10 (lines 4 to 12), omit step 1, substitute:Step 1. Identify, in respect of each of the employer's employees, the fringe benefits that are not taken into account under step 1 of the method statement in subsection (3), and work out under Division 3 for each of those employees the individual fringe benefits amount for the year of tax in relation to those fringe benefits.(9) Schedule 1, item 7, page 10 (lines 15 to 23), omit step 3, substitute:Step 3. Identify, in respect of each of the employer's employees, the excluded fringe benefits for the year of tax that are not taken into account under step 3 of the method statement in subsection (3), and add up the taxable values of all those excluded fringe benefits.(10) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 9), after item 10, insert:10A Paragraph 57A(2)(b)Repeal the paragraph, substitute:(b) the duties of the employment of the employee are exclusively performed in, or in connection with:(i) a public hospital that is a public benevolent institution; or(ii) a public hospital that is not a hospital of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory and is not established by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or(iii) a hospital carried on by a society that is a non-profit society for the purposes of section 65J or by an association that is a non-profit association for the purposes of section 65J;10B At the end of section 57AAdd:(3) A benefit provided in respect of the employment of an employee is an exempt benefit if the employer of the employee is a public hospital other than a hospital:(a) of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or(b) established by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.(4) A benefit provided in respect of the employment of an employee is an exempt benefit if the employer of the employee is a hospital carried on by:(a) a society that is a non-profit society for the purposes of section 65J; or(b) an association that is a non-profit association for the purposes of section 65J.Note: Subsection 65J(5) explains:(a) which societies are non-profit societies for the purposes of section 65J; and (b) which associations are non-profit associations for the purposes of section 65J.Note: The heading to section 57A is altered by adding at the end "and some hospitals".(11) Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 36), after item 14, insert:14A Paragraphs 65J(1)(c) and (d)Repeal the paragraphs.(12) Schedule 1, item 16, page 16 (lines 9 to 27), omit steps 2, 3, 4 and 5, substitute:Step 2. Reduce the individual grossed-up non-rebatable amount for each employee of the employer:(a) to zero for the year of tax beginning on 1 April 2000; and(b) by $30,000, but not below zero, for a later year of tax.Note: Paragraph (a) means the employer's aggregate non-rebatable amount for the year of tax beginning on 1 April 2000 will be nil.Step 3. Add up the results of step 2 for all the employer's employees.Step 4. Multiply the sum from step 3 by the FBT rate. The result is the employer's aggregate non-rebatable amount for the year of tax.(13) Schedule 1, item 16, page 18 (lines 6 to 8), omit "involved the provision of goods or services where, on their acquisition by the person who provided them, that person was entitled to input tax credits", substitute "are GST-creditable benefits (see section 149A)".(14) Schedule 1, item 16, page 19 (lines 2 to 4), omit "involved the provision of goods or services where, on their acquisition by the person who provided them, that person was entitled to input tax credits", substitute "are GST-creditable benefits (see section 149A)".(15) Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 9), after item 16, insert:16A Subsection 65J(4)Repeal the subsection.(16) Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 17), after item 17, insert:17A Subsection 135Q(1) (note)Omit ", and government bodies employing persons to work in hospitals that are public benevolent institutions", substitute "and employers of employees connected with certain hospitals".(17) Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 25), after item 19, insert:19A Subsection 136(1)Insert:GST-creditable benefit has the meaning given by section 149A.(18) Schedule 1, page 20 (after line 5), after item 21, insert:21A After section 149Insert:149A What is a GST-creditable benefit?(1) A benefit provided in respect of the employment of an employee is a GST-creditable benefit if either of the following is or was entitled to an input tax credit under Division 111 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 because of the provision of the benefit:(a) the person who provided the benefit;(b) a person who is or was a member of the same GST group (as defined in that Act) as the person who provided the benefit.(2) A benefit provided in respect of the employment of an employee is also a GST-creditable benefit if:(a) the benefit consists of:(i) a thing (as defined in the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999); or(ii) an interest in such a thing; or(iii) a right over such a thing; or(iv) a personal right to call for or be granted any interest in or right over such a thing; or(v) a licence to use such a thing; or(vi) any other contractual right exercisable over or in relation to such a thing; and(b) the thing was acquired (within the meaning of that Act) or imported (within the meaning of that Act) and either of the following is or was entitled to an input tax credit under that Act because of the acquisition or importation:(i) the person who provided the benefit;(ii) a person who is or was a member of the same GST group (as defined in that Act) as the person who provided the benefit.(19) Schedule 1, page 20 (after line 5), after item 21, insert:21AA After subsection 140(1)Insert:(1A) However, this Act operates in relation to a housing benefit provided in respect of the employment of an employee of an employer described in subsection (1B) or in respect of the employment of an employee described in subsection (1C) or (1D) as if: (a) a reference in this Act (except in paragraph (1)(a), this paragraph and subsection 140(4)) to an eligible urban area were a reference to an eligible urban area that is an urban centre with a census population of not less than 130,000; and(b) subparagraph (1)(b)(i) were omitted.(1B) Subsection (1A) applies in relation to each of the following employers:(a) an employer that is a public hospital that is a public benevolent institution;(b) an employer that is a public hospital other than a hospital:(i) of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; and(ii) established by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory;(c) a hospital carried on by:(i) a society that is a non-profit society for the purposes of section 65J; or(ii) an association that is a non-profit association for the purposes of section 65J;(d) an employer that is a charitable institution.(1C) Subsection (1A) also applies in relation to an employee:(a) whose employer is a government body; and(b) whose duties of employment are exclusively performed in, or in connection with:(i) a public hospital that is a public benevolent institution; or(ii) a public hospital that is not a hospital of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory and is not established by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or(iii) a hospital carried on by a society that is a non-profit society for the purposes of section 65J or by an association that is a non-profit association for the purposes of section 65J.(1D) Subsection (1A) also applies in relation to an employee:(a) whose employer is a government body; and(b) whose duties of employment are performed in a police service.10:02:0016258Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move: That the requested amendments be made. The Senate requests for amendments 1, 2, 10, 15, 11 and 16 provide for the consistent fringe benefits tax treatment of public and non-profit hospitals by replacing the rebate which is currently available to non-government public hospitals and non-profit hospitals with the FBT exemption which is available to public hospitals which are public benevolent institutions. The Senate requests for amendments 3 and 12 increase the level of benefits eligible for concessional FBT treatment from $25,000 to $30,000 where the employer is a public benevolent institution that is not a hospital or where the employer is a rebatable employer. The amendments also effectively delay the application of the measure for these employers until 1 April 2001. Senate request for amendment 19 broadens the concept of remote area to ensure that a greater number of housing benefits qualify for the remote area housing exemption when provided to employees of public and non-profit hospitals, charities and police services in regional areas. Senate requests for amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 and 14 restructure the new FBT gross-up provisions so that the current tests for classifying fringe benefits are subsumed by a single term, `GST creditable benefit'. Senate requests for amendments 8 and 9 simplify the calculation of an employer's type 2 aggregate fringe benefits amount so that it applies to all fringe benefits which are not included in the employer's type 1 aggregate fringe benefits amount. Senate requests for amendments 17 and 18 add the meaning of the term `GST creditable benefit' to the FBT definition section and explains what is meant by `GST creditable benefit'. A New Tax System Fringe Benefits Tax Bill 2000, together with the Senate's requests for amendments, implements the second phase of the government's tax reform package for fringe benefits. In summary, the bill will provide consistent FBT treatment between public and non-profit hospitals. Those hospitals which are currently eligible for a 48 per cent rebate will have the rebate replaced by the exemption provided to public hospitals that are public benevolent institutions. With effect from 1 April 2000, the bill will cap certain fringe benefits eligible for concessional treatment to $17,000 grossed-up taxable value for employees of public and private not-for-profit hospitals. With effect from 1 April 2001, the bill will cap certain fringe benefits eligible for concessional treatment to $30,000 grossed-up taxable value for employees of all public benevolent institutions that are not hospitals or where the employer is a rebatable employer. These caps do not place a limit on the use of other FBT exempt benefits such as superannuation, minor benefits less than $100, laptop computers, work related mobile phones and other miscellaneous benefits. Further, the concessional methods of valuing certain benefits will also increase the total value of benefits that can be provided without breaching the cap. The bill will also extend the application of the current FBT exemption for remote area housing benefits for primary producers to all employers. In addition, the bill gives an exemption from FBT for housing benefits provided by public and non-profit hospitals, charities and police services in a place which is at least 100 kilometres from a town of 130,000 or more people. This enhances the delivery of health, charitable and police services to communities in regional Australia. The bill will also allow an FBT exemption to primary producers in remote areas for most meals provided to their employees. Finally, the bill introduces a new FBT gross-up formula to help neutralise the tax treatment between fringe benefits and cash salary following the introduction of the goods and services tax, ensuring that the GST law interacts properly with the FBT law. I commend the Senate's requested amendments to the House. 10:07:0016259Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—This issue of fringe benefits tax has come back to the House after being the subject of some considerable community debate and some considerable debate in the Senate. Members will be aware that the Labor Party have taken the view that there should have been an inquiry into this fringe benefits issue as it affects the charitable sector. We wanted to establish the costs, the benefits, the current practice and the impact of what the government was proposing with its various measures on the charitable sector, on hospitals and the like. That has not happened. As a result, we feel that we are dealing with legislation without having proper and appropriate information. That is a matter of concern to us. That is just the way it has evolved. The government and the Democrats have come to an agreement or an arrangement. Obviously, the government wanted to get on with its legislation and the Democrats, like the Labor Party, were seeking to protect the not-for-profit sector from what would have been very adverse effects of the original proposition, that is, the original legislation. The Labor Party accepted, after hearing evidence during the GST inquiry, that there would be serious and adverse effects for the not-for-profit and charitable sector as a result of the government's original proposition and that the government needed to change their policy and look at ways of protecting the charitable sector from these adverse impacts.We are pleased that the government have taken note of the very strong community campaign conducted by the charities concerning these issues. One of the key things coming out of this is that we will have a delay until next year in the implementation of the government's proposals. That is important. We had the most unsatisfactory situation where the not-for-profit sector simply did not know what was going to occur. This would have made for a complete shambles for a whole range of people who had been salary packaged both in the public system and in the not-for-profit system. They were going to have those whole salary arrangements renegotiated in a very short time, without proper information. That would have been very stressful for a lot of people and organisations, and I suspect it would have made for difficult industrial relations. So the delay is important in enabling these things to occur in a more measured way. The Labor Party acknowledge that the amendments moved by the government and the Democrats have produced a better outcome for the not-for-profit sector. As I say, we welcome the government's response to a very strong community campaign about these things. I want to note that Labor shares some of the concerns raised in the Senate about how arrangements concerning public hospitals will work in practice, given that the arrangements for the fringe benefits tax concession's use in public hospitals has varied from state to state and from hospital to hospital. We need to understand just how the compensation package is going to be administered. We, on this side of the House, want to ensure that it gets through to the intended recipients and that it is used for the purposes identified—that is, to allow them to continue to employ high-quality staff and to compete with other providers.I also note that as part of the arrangements between the government and the Democrats it is understood that there will be two inquiries held. The first deals with the question of indigenous health organisations and the impact on them. I am pleased, as other members would be, that that issue has been identified and that it is to be the subject of an inquiry. The second proposed inquiry concerns the definition of charities. I reiterate the point that the Labor opposition would have preferred a broader inquiry into the impact of fringe benefits tax on the charitable sector. Nevertheless, the definition of charity and not-for-profit organisations and the taxation treatment of them are important issues. There is no doubt that the government have gradually drawn the charitable and not-for-profit sector into the taxation net. I do not think that there is any doubt that that has had some adverse consequences for them. I have had quite a lot of representations from charitable and not-for-profit organisations in my own electorate. (Extension of time granted) Many of the charitable and not-for-profit organisations are very disappointed, even astonished, to find that there are those in the government who take the view that there should be a level playing field between their activities and those of private companies, that they are to be expected to compete on the same basis and that any taxation advantages they have enjoyed over the years ought to be withdrawn from them.Clearly, many of these organisations perform a very important role providing services to some of the most needy and disadvantaged people in our community, and to strip them of taxation benefits and advantages makes it more difficult for them to provide those services. There needs to be a debate about those issues. On the other hand, it has always been my view that a charity should be just that and not something in the realm of bogus charities; nor should it be something masquerading as a charity while providing benefits for other organisations. In recent times, we have had a discussion in this place about the Greenfields Foundation and whether that is a legitimate charity or a Liberal Party front. There is clearly a need to have a proper definition of charity that ensures that it is not in any way abused. The Labor Party does not intend to oppose any of the amendments or arrangements entered into between the government and the Democrats.I would like to make two more points before concluding. One is that we welcome the recognition of the special circumstances for police housing in the fringe benefits tax reporting legislation. This is overdue. I think the original situation should never have occurred. We note with concern that the government's new rules still impose fringe benefits reporting requirements on some benefits which are in fact necessary for police to undertake their proper duties. This is a counterproductive approach for law and order in our community, especially in regional Australia. The final point I make is that the fringe benefits tax changes to charities come at the same time as charities are being expected to deal with the introduction of the goods and services tax. I have, and I expect every member of the House will have, received representations from various charitable and not-for-profit organisations about the way in which the goods and services tax will impact on them and their capacity to do the things they have done in the past. I remain very concerned about the impact that the goods and services tax will have on this sector and that it will make it much harder for them to attract volunteers to carry out their work, that it has been made immeasurably more onerous and complex as a result of the government's so-called simplification of the tax system and that this government has dealt charities a very harsh blow indeed with its goods and services tax legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees16261162611626110:16:0016261Mr SLIPPER,MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: HMAS Albatross stage 2 redevelopment, Nowra, NSW.The Department of Defence proposes to develop further the Royal Australian Navy air base by implementing a second stage of construction. This will provide purpose-built facilities and services that will improve the operational reliability and organisational functionality of this base. These works are a continuation of the major redevelopment of HMAS Albatross which, under the Defence stage 1 project, was agreed to by parliament in April 1998.The stage 1 works include an integrated squadron complex with HS816 Sea Hawk helicopters and HS805 Sea Sprite helicopter squadrons, an air traffic control complex, an airfield lighting system, aircraft shelters, an explosive ordnance storage complex and training and photographic centres. The design, documentation and construction of these facilities are currently progressing, with completion planned for October this year. The second stage of the proposed works will provide for the upgrade of existing arrestor gear, a helicopter corrosion control facility, flight deck procedural training simulators, a visiting military aircraft hardstand, perimeter security fencing, a helicopter underwater escape training simulator, a gymnasium, extension of taxiway Bravo and the demolition and relocation of buildings and engineering services. There is no proposal for future works at this time. As the conditions of the remaining old facilities begin to exceed economic repair, work proposals may be expected.The Department of Defence is currently constructing a new facility at HMAS Albatross to provide for the relocation from Sydney of 170 Defence personnel in the Naval Aviation Logistics Management Squadron to Nowra, New South Wales. The facility will provide a new 2,280 square-metre facility on the base. The estimated outturn cost of the stage 2 proposal is $41 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, it is anticipated that construction will start in mid-2000 and will be completed by December 2001. In its report the Public Works Committee has recommended that this project proceed. The Department of Defence agrees with the recommendations of the committee and, on behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for its support. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills16261R104816261Debate resumed from 12 April, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.10:19:0016261O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2000 that we are debating here today repeals a sunset clause in the legislation that imposes a levy on transactions involving sheep, lambs and goats. This levy raises some $16 million annually and is used in marketing, promotion and research and development to improve animal health in the sheepmeats industry as well as in other industries that are the subject of this legislation. The sunset clause would prevent the Commonwealth collecting these levies beyond 30 June 2000. It was inserted in the legislation following a report by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee in 1997, which investigated the Live-stock Transactions Levy Bill. The Senate found at that time, and reported, that there was considerable division between wool and sheepmeat producers about the value of this levy, and it recommended a sunset clause to ensure that the matter, over time, remained under review. That review has taken place and a report submitted to the government by the Sheepmeat Council. It is on the basis of that report, I understand, that the government has bought this particular amendment to the House today. The report recommends that the current levy arrangements be continued beyond the sunset clause period of 30 June 2000. That recommendation has not been opposed by the Wool Council. The opposition will not be opposing the bill's passage through the House or the Senate. We think it is particularly important that these levy funds are raised and that they are devoted in a comprehensive and wise way to the marketing and promotion of sheepmeat products and, of course, to the output of the goat industry. It is also important that research and development be continued because there is considerable potential for growth in the industries that are covered by this legislation. Of course, the animal health issue is very important to all livestock industries. A part of these levy proceeds will be devoted to that particular task in these industries.The sheepmeats industry in Australia has gone through rather difficult times in the past couple of years but I am pleased to note in the Outlook 2000 report on the industry that prices are expected to increase in the short term. Over the medium term, the real saleyard lamb price is projected to increase by around five per cent. This is primarily due to the strong demand that will be exerted for the product in one of our more substantial markets, the United States of America. Because of this strong demand, overall demand for lamb will grow faster than the supply and, over that short- and medium-term outlook, there are projected to be increases in price. The sheepmeats industry is a very important industry to rural Australia. Lamb exports are expected to be in the region of 95,000 tonnes in 2000-01, and that also represents an increase of about five per cent. The strong international demand for product from this industry will be generated from a couple of sources. There is declining lamb production in the EC. Also, in New Zealand production is expected to be reduced as many farmers move into other areas of agricultural production—dairying and farm forestry, for example. These particular situations, combined with the strong demand that is expected to continue in the United States, will provide some reasonably strong demand over time for producers in this industry.Of course, we know the recent history of the United States as far as this industry is concerned. One can only put a very large question mark beside the trading policies of the United States. We had some very strong statements by the President of the United States before the last WTO round about the importance of liberalising trade, and particularly agricultural trade. When it came to the crunch, in an industry which in the United States is not a very large industry, the United States did not put into action what it was quick to put into words. The result of that is well known to producers: they suffered constraints on their access to this very important market. This issue of market access is absolutely important, not only in this particular market, but in dairying and beef as well. Australian producers produce in excess of domestic demand and they rely very heavily for their incomes on the commodity prices that they receive in the international marketplace, and it is very important for them that those marketplaces are opened up, that they do have fair and reasonable access to them so that they can continue their long-term planning on-farm and their long-term planning to expand in particular markets. The rise in lamb and mutton consumption in the United States is a direct result of the good work that was done by the Australian industry in promoting the product. Of course American producers benefited greatly from the efforts of Australian producers in encouraging further development of that market. Yet in the grand sweep of trading arrangements it was our producers that were penalised for the good work that they had done. The good work that they were able to do in the American market was a direct result of the output of the research and development effort and the marketing and promotion effort which are the subject of this legislation which we are debating here today.I will now turn my comments to the other part of this industry. The wool industry is one of the great traditional industries in the rural sector. I wish to make a few comments in the context of this debate about this industry. It is very pleasing to see the lift in demand that has occurred in recent times. The Eastern Market indicator is up to around 740c, I understand, and there is strong demand being exerted in the international marketplace for the product. There is a stronger demand from wool processors in all of the major regions, with significant demand being generated again in China and Western Europe. That is a very positive sign for the Australian industry. We still have a stockpile of wool—and it is not for me to go back over the history of that particular saga. Suffice to say that, if the original timetable that had been put in place had been adhered to and the industry adjustment made around that particular original decision, and the government had not been spooked by political considerations into tampering with that timetable, that stockpile would not be in existence and, of course, we would not have the rather divisive debate we are seeing in the wool industry today about what ought to be done with it.I would like to comment on the recent controversy that occurred around the proposed appointment of Victorian ex-Premier Jeff Kennett to head the new wool body, AWS. I was surprised—along with, I guess, many members opposite and certainly many ministers in the cabinet—that the wool industry came up with this particular nomination. Maybe it had a little to do with internal politics in the wool industry that, from the various sections of the industry, there was no common agreement on someone to head this body coming out of one of the particular sections of the industry, so the industry turned its nomination to the Victorian ex-Premier. We were not happy with that particular nomination. As far as the opposition were concerned, we thought it was ill-advised and we understood the position that the minister found himself in. Having made a commitment to the industry that the government would remove itself from the affairs of the wool industry, he found himself in the situation where the industry itself had put forward a nomination which was really not acceptable, as it turned out, to the government or to the opposition. Nor, as I understand it, was it acceptable to large sections of the wool industry, but they were not prepared to publicly state that.We knew very well that, when this particular appointment was put to the cabinet, it would have some deep opposition from the Treasurer and others, whose animosity to the Victorian ex-Premier is well known. But I hope that, at the end of the day, those particular considerations did not play the primary part in the eventual decision that was made. I hope that the eventual decision was made on the basis of the skills and qualities required of the person to lead this very important organisation at this stage in the history of this industry. I do believe that, at the end of the day, the government made the right decision on this appointment. Given the political pressures internally and externally upon it—on one of those rare occasions that I do give kudos to the minister—I think on this occasion the minister and the government made the right decision. The industry is going through a very important period of structural change. I think, as we look at this particular industry, members opposite as well as members on this side of the House who have had an acquaintance with this industry over a long period of time want to see the wool industry re-establish itself as a pre-eminent industry in Australian agriculture. We all want that to happen. This particular industry has been done to death as far as reports go. Over the last decade we have had three major reports into the industry: the Vines report in 1991, the Garnaut report in 1993 and the McLachlan report last year. So we have had enough reports on the industry. If the industry is serious about grasping its own destiny and if it is serious about restoring its economic position, then it must take the window of opportunity that has been presented to it by the McLachlan report, because it does offer some real hope for significant change in the industry. I will briefly go to the report, as I think it is worth canvassing some of the objectives and observations that were made in that particular report. I will canvass only three of them. The McLachlan report made a very strong statement about the need for there to be a fundamental cultural and attitudinal shift among wool growers. When we come down to the nitty-gritty of structural change and further reform, it is very important for wool growers to appreciate the need for change and the need to refocus and redirect their energies into particular areas that are going to ensure the long-term survival of their industry and of as many producers as possible in it. That report also said that the wool industry would depend for its future survival on substantial innovation—innovation on farm, innovation in the processing sector and innovation in the transport and handling tasks—and that this concept was critical to achieving the sorts of efficiencies that were necessary along the production chain to ensure that the wool industry was able over time to contain and perhaps reduce its costs and to compete against intense competition that was coming in the international marketplace, primarily from synthetic and other natural fibres.The report also made an interesting comment and recommendation about government intervention. It said that government intervention in the commercial marketplace should only be in response to a demonstrated market failure. This particular point of view has been grasped by many in the industry who have long regarded the activities of government in their industry as not working towards the long-term interests of producers. It is fair to say that some of the decisions that have been taken in the past by governments of all political persuasions have not worked over time to the advantage of the industry. Of course there are some great challenges that face the industry in the cyclical demand that occurs for its products and in the deep structural changes taking place that affect the consumption of those products. I am referring here to changes in household expenditure on clothing and other items. There is also increased competition for the consumer dollar, and consumer attitudes towards the particular products need to be encouraged in a more positive way. I think the key issues for the industry in the future are going to be its ability to innovate on farm and off farm, certainly in the processing chain; its ability to contain its production costs over time—because the fibre does face significant competition from other fibres including artificially produced fibres—and of course the quality assurance of wool products. This is something that farmers themselves have to address because, as I recall, the McLachlan report indicated that significant losses were occurring because not enough attention was being paid to the quality of the wool coming off farm. It put those in the region of $100 million, if my memory serves me well. That is a significant leakage of income because of quality factors. We also need an efficient market intelligence system to ensure that the production responses of producers are in tune with the demands of the marketplace and that we are able to get this industry back to the position that it occupied some time ago.This is an important piece of legislation because it continues with the framework for the collection of a levy in the sheepmeats area, the lamb producing area and goat production. These areas do offer producers opportunities to diversify and to specialise. Producers can do that only off the back of real research and development and the real development of their marketplace, and of course that is encouraged and funded by the levy that we are debating here today. We in the opposition feel that due process has been undertaken in this regard. When the particular sunset clause was put in the legislation, it was put there for a purpose: to promote a review. That review has been undertaken; there has been consultation with all elements of the industry. We are satisfied that adequate consultation has taken place. As an opposition, we are convinced of the importance of this particular levy and of the $16 million that it raises for the industries that are the subject of the bill. The opposition will support the passage of the legislation through the House and the Senate.10:42:0016264St Clair, Stuart, MPMr ST CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I rise in the House to give support to the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2000. I commend the speech that we have just heard from the shadow minister for agriculture. I think he has hit the nail on the head. This bill will enable the extension of the current mechanisms for collecting levies for the sheep, lamb and goat industries. I have a keen interest in both the sheepmeat and the wool industries. My electorate of New England is situated in the heart of the fine-wool, superfine wool and prime lamb country of north-eastern New South Wales and the high country. Maybe even more heavily than the rest of Australia, the people of New England have relied on the production of quality sheep, both for meat and for wool, to provide us with the fundamental essential ingredients for the survival and really the prosperity of rural communities since the time of European settlement. Some examples of these essential ingredients obviously include employment, branch industries and cash flow as well as quality meat and wool products. I am pleased that this weekend in Armidale we have the unique experience of Wool Expo being held over a period of three days. In fact, our Minister for Trade, the member for Lyne, who is in the House today, is opening Wool Expo. It is a very significant exhibition of the future of wool, of where it is going, and, of course, it enables the display of the various products. The situation is changing. It has to change. As we are more than aware, New England, and regional Australia as a whole, is in the process of undergoing an immense period of change even as we speak today. Unfortunately, we can no longer expect to rely solely on the sheep industry or even the agricultural industry as a whole to sustain Australian regional and rural communities, large or small. We must encourage the development of new regional industry and businesses, working to remove as much as possible the impediments to doing business in the country. I am pleased to say that this government is doing just that. The Anderson-Howard government is bringing the plight of the nation's regional and rural areas to this place and encouraging business in country areas and in electorates like New England. There is no better example of this encouragement than those benefits for the country contained in the A New Tax System, which include a huge reduction in diesel fuel excise for heavy transport in the bush.This government is also encouraging the development of industry in the country through investment in regional telecommunications. The Networking the Nation initiative, coupled with continued investment in extended mobile telephone services for regional and rural areas, is making a huge impact on our regional communities. Both are obviously providing great opportunities for the sheepmeat industry, for the goat industry and for those out there that are growing wool to be able to communicate and become far more effective and efficient in the way that they do their business.I am here to talk about the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2000. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, this bill has been proposed to remove the sunset clause from the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999, which, without this amendment, would no longer contain a statutory basis for levies to be raised and then disbursed for the purpose of the marketing and promotion of the sheep, lamb and goat industries. The sunset clause to be removed was originally introduced through an amendment to the Live-stock Transactions Levy Bill 1997 so that a review of the effectiveness of the levy mechanism could take place over a defined period of time in consultation with the sheep, lamb and goat industries. Since then, the Live-stock Transactions Levy Act has been repealed and the sunset clause contained therein effectively replaced by clause 7, schedule 18 of the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999, which it is now proposed to repeal through the passing of this bill.The inclusion of the sunset clause came about originally as a consequence of a report dated 25 November 1997 by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the Live-stock Transactions Levy Bill 1997. In its report, the committee found that there was considerable division of opinion on the scheme of the transactions levy proposed in the Live-stock Transactions Levy Bill 1997, particularly between producers in the sheepmeat industry and those in the wool industry. The Live-stock Transactions Levy Bill 1997 was amended as a result, introducing the new sunset clause in order to prompt a review. As a result, the Sheepmeat Council of Australia embarked on a major review of the levy mechanism under schedule 18. It was inclusive, it was open and it was overseen by an independent committee which actively sought input from all levy payers and collection intermediaries. The Sheepmeat Council has provided the government with a report recommending that no change be made to the current levy regime and that these arrangements continue beyond 30 June 2000—the termination date specified in the sunset clause contained in clause 7, schedule 18 of the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999. I commend the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2000 to the House. As we know, it is a step forward and, for goodness sake, the bush certainly needs everything it can possibly get to help it progress. I look forward to monitoring the continuing system of levy collection for the sheep, lamb and goat industries in the future.10:49:0016266O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—In commenting on the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2000, I would like to pick up on a few of the comments made earlier in the discussion this morning by Mr O'Connor, the member for Corio and Labor's shadow minister for agriculture, and also to pick up on some observations made just then by the member for New England. The Live-stock Transactions Levy Act 1997 came into being following quite a vigorous debate during the last parliament. The levy it contained has had a couple of years of operation, and it is now moving into a further extension. By all reports, it seems to be operating in the manner in which it was intended and producing the results for which it was intended.But I cannot help but pick up on the comments made just then by the member for New England about the need to remove obstacles to business, particularly for farmers trying to do business in regional Australia. On top of the current sheepmeat transactions levy, farmers have to add the brand new levy imposed by the A New Tax System—this new, `simple' tax system. They also have to do the accounting for the GST and all the associated paraphernalia that goes with it. They are going to be doing much more work, rather than less, and all for a nil output. I want to go to that question of the nil output in a minute. Before doing so, I would like to trace back one aspect of my personal interest in the development of the export lamb meat industry. I had the great fortune to be a member of a delegation to the United States and Canada in about mid-1985. We met with politicians, Congressmen and Congresswomen, to discuss opening up opportunities for agricultural exports from Australia to the US and the global trade situation under what came to be known as the WTO. In fact, that round of meetings led to the signing of the Cairns agreement in Canada by the various participant countries.I have always thought it was very interesting that one of the issues we particularly pressed for was access to the US for Australian lamb meat, based on the premise that there was hardly any lamb meat at the time being consumed in the US and the barriers to it were therefore not even protecting anybody in the US; it was a market that was totally unexplored. Out of those meetings there came opportunities, and I thought it was quite an irony that in the recent breakdown of trade negotiations in Seattle the US President was in fact introducing a cap on Australian lamb meat imports into the US as part of the process of satisfying domestic political considerations. That in itself was a huge feather in the cap of our industry, having moved from basically no activity in the US market in 1985 to the point where the US President felt that Australian lamb meat was the example to be used to demonstrate the US government's support for its farmers in its domestic political considerations. None of that helps our industry, but it is interesting to see that it has grown so successfully once it began to focus on export. There are a lot of issues related to that and there are a lot of opportunities for export in the Australian meat processing industry which are still unexplored, but that is a discussion for another day.While Mr Vaile, the Minister for Trade, is at the table, I would like to mention to him in relation to lamb meat and other trade issues associated with it that I was a member of a small delegation that recently visited a number of Latin American countries, following up on his own trade visit which was intended to build interest in trade between Latin and South America and Australia. There will be a report coming down a little later this year which I think will press the government very strongly to do more to open up opportunities and maybe set out a strategy to do this. I want to draw particularly to the minister's attention one of the things that we came across at a meeting with people in Uruguay, that they are facing a major weather event and are clearly going to have difficulty filling their beef quota into the US. They are putting forward a proposal that Australia assist them in this matter, and I understand that we are having a look at this issue as a—how can I put this in gentle terms—three-way deal with Argentina, as it relates to sheepmeat as well. I suggest to the minister that the industry is likely to be defensive about giving anyone else access to quota which we have and are not filling. I would like to suggest that that is a pretty silly position for them to take. It is very short-sighted. There have been situations in the past where other Cairns Group partners have made available to us unfilled quota portions when they have not been able to fill their own quotas into this quite lucrative market. They have given a share to us. This is a situation where, as I see it, we have a Cairns Group partner in significant need and we have the opportunity to assist. We should take that opportunity. It would make a significant contribution to building that broader base of trade with the South and Latin American countries. I know the minister is fully aware of all the implications and all the shades of the discussion and the debate, but I strongly urge him to do what he can on that issue. I cannot pass up this opportunity to pick up on the comments made by the member for New England. I have to pick up on his observations about this great saving that is about to land on the deck of Australian primary producers in the form of reduced transport costs being delivered in the A New Tax System. It is interesting that Mr Vaile is at the table, because in the previous government he was the transport minister towards the end of the time and I remember him very publicly wandering around touting the benefit to the transport industry of this huge reduction in diesel fuel excise that is going to come about as of 1 July. I specifically remember him giving a quite correct figure; I am not debating the figure at all. He was saying that for the operation of a normal semitrailer, a dual-axle drive tri-axle trailer, a good sized semi, the savings in operation would be in the order of 15c to 20c per kilometre. I do not debate that one bit—I think he is about right—but then we come to the hoax, which is what does that actually mean to the farmer supplying the goods or the consumer buying the goods at the other end of the chain? First of all, there is a huge assumption of faith that the transport industry will pass on this saving in fuel costs to its customers, the wholesalers and the major producers, and that they in turn will pass on those savings either to the consumer buying the goods at one end or the farmer supplying the goods at the other. Seeing that we are talking about a sheep and livestock transactions levy, let us take an example right from the heart of my electorate, the abattoirs in the township of Kyneton, where my office is. It is a terrific industry which employs 500 or 600 people and buys a lot of livestock from local producers.Let us assume that the abattoir at Kyneton sends a semitrailer load of 20 tonnes of lamb meat down to Woolworths or Safeways supermarkets in Melbourne and that semitrailer is doing a trip of about 100 kilometres. At a saving of 20c per kilometre, the grand saving over the 100 kilometres is $20. That is good: I am sure the transport operator thinks that is fabulous. What is on the truck is 20 tonnes of lamb meat. That is 20,000 kilograms of lamb meat, and 20,000 kilograms spread across $20 is one-tenth of 1c per kilo. That is the effective saving involved. The question is: what farmer is going to be paid one-tenth of 1c more for the meat that went to the abattoirs and went on that truck, and what supermarket or butcher shop is ever going to discount the price of the meat to the consumer by one-tenth of 1c per kilo? Here unfolds the great hoax.I have lived the vast majority of my life in small country towns. Even now I live in a town of only 2,000 people. Most of my life I have lived in towns of 2,000 people or less. All my life I have heard the adage that the reason things cost more in the country is transport costs. That is fine. That is something that probably most people believe, but it is about to be exposed as a hoax. What has happened in the marketing of the GST and this tax system for the last decade—not just for the last two, three or five years but for the whole decade that the conservatives have been marketing their tax package—is that the conservatives have been promising country people that the big bonus would be the reduction in transport costs which would lead to an overall reduction in the cost of goods and would offset the GST being added to the goods. This is what people are actually expecting. As I heard the member for Calare say in a different debate yesterday, this is where the chickens are going to come home to roost. You have to live in the country to understand how significant this is. We all know of the forever ongoing debate about the difference between city and country petrol prices. Even today, most country people believe that that difference is predominantly because of transport costs. Yet in my state of Victoria the transport of fuel outside Melbourne ranges from 100 to 300 kilometres or 600 kilometres up to Mildura—the longest trip you ever get is about 600 kilometres—and the transport component is less than 1c per litre. Perhaps to Mildura it might be 1¼c per litre. Let us go back to Mr Vaile's original discussion about the savings in those transport costs. Even if it were 20c a kilometre in the operation of the transport and that led in itself to a reduction of about one-fifth of 1c per litre, who is going to see that in the reduction in the price of fuel? And on it goes. The point I am making is, whether it is sheepmeat or cattle meat producers, whether it is people in country towns who buy the goods, they all have been led to believe by the coalition—not just for a few days, not just for a year or so, not just since John Howard changed his mind about whether or not we would have a GST, but right back from the original development of this debate—that the big bonanza for country people would be the reduction in transport costs that would lead to a reduction in the prices they pay for goods in the shops. That is just not going to happen, and the chickens will come home to roost.In the discussion of the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2000, I want to reiterate a couple of the points I have made. First of all, this particular measure has been under review. The legislation is extending it for another two years. It seems to be operating okay in principle and, as Mr O'Connor pointed out, the opposition is happy to give passage to the legislation. It does raise the issue, though, that this is an industry which has quite substantial opportunity for export, as has been shown with the US example—which I talked about before you took the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl—and it has been fabulous to see the industry go from nothing to the point where the President of the United States decides that it is going to be the one he uses to prove that he is doing the right thing domestically by his farmers. That is a shame. Let us hope that, as soon as they get the US election process over with, we can get back to some more sensible development of these things. It is an industry that has a lot of potential for export. Not only does some of that potential lie in export meat processing in Australia but a number of our domestic processors have the ability and the skills to do this and have some niche markets in mind. I think the government should be exploring those.I will again ask the minister, as I did earlier in my contribution, to give some particular thought to that matter regarding the weather event in Uruguay, its ongoing effect on their industry and our opportunity to play a role, and I will conclude with the point that I made that the member for New England and everyone on the other side continues to present this view that country people are in for a transport bonanza. It is not correct to say that. I notice that the Treasurer, in the budget speech on Tuesday night, gave it one little passing mention. In all the media that has followed there has not been a single frontbencher on the government side, that I have heard anyway, who is any longer putting forward this argument about there being great savings for country people in the reduction of transport costs. That is because they have suddenly come to understand that it is not going to happen and they are ceasing to champion it. It is a great shame that people have been led to believe that this would happen and that, of course, the chickens will come home to roost. With those observations, I indicate that the opposition is happy to support this legislation. 11:08:0016269Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—It is certainly an honour to represent the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in wrapping up the debate on this bill. We obviously appreciate the support of the opposition in ensuring that this particular levy can continue beyond 30 June. All honourable members who have participated in this debate have identified and highlighted the importance of the ongoing nature of this particular levy to the lamb and goat industries. It is a procedural thing and a matter of great importance to the industry. The industry conducted a review into the best mechanism of raising the levy, and that review has been thorough and transparent. As the minister mentioned in his speech in the House, that review was precipitated by the inclusion of the sunset clause following concern among woolgrowing interests. All the issues have been addressed in the Sheepmeat Council report and the Wool Council had no objections. It must be gratifying for members of these industries to see prices in these industries doing reasonably well. I think the better than short-term past prices for the wool industry have been identified by a number of speakers that have participated in this debate.The issue of lamb exports to the US continues to be a major one in terms of my portfolio responsibilities as the Minister for Trade. Just to inform members who have alluded to that, we are taking action in the WTO on that matter. We are putting all the required resources into prosecuting the case on behalf of Australia's lamb industry. We believe the decision that the US administration made last year on the application of a quota and tariff on our exports of lamb to the US was unjustified and had no foundation in the articles of the GATT round. A dispute settlement panel has been established in Geneva and we are about to begin the case. As I said, the government is going to prosecute this case on behalf of Australia's lamb exporters right to the very limits to ensure that we represent their interests.That industry, no doubt with the support and assistance of what we are talking about here with regard to these levies, in terms of research and development and promotion, developed that market share in the US. It was not a market that had been established by the US industry. The US administration took their decision on prospective damage to the American lamb industry. There was no justification and no evidence that injury had been caused to the American lamb industry because, prior to the Australian industry's development of that market and their promotion of a good Aussie product, there was not much of a market. The evidence so far is that our exports continue to the US. We are fulfilling the quota amount. There is anecdotal evidence that there is some product going in above the quota that is carrying that excessive tariff, and US consumers are still prepared to buy it because it is a much better quality product.We believe we have a very strong case, and this is one instance that we need to highlight to the people of Australia who have questions in their minds about our participation in and membership of the WTO that the WTO confers not only responsibilities on member nations but also rights. We are exercising our rights on behalf of the Australian lamb industry in this case. It is vitally important that we continue to maintain a mechanism within this industry that can provide the resources to continue to develop markets like that. That is basically what this bill is about. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to wrap up on behalf of the minister for agriculture and to thank the opposition for their support. We need to have this enacted by 30 June, as all members have pointed out, to ensure the ongoing nature of this levy so that we can continue to see this industry grow, prosper and continue to provide vital export income for the Australian community, particularly for those communities that the previous speaker noted in rural and regional Australia that rely so heavily on this industry. I commend the bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time. 16270Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Vaile) read a third time.Bills16270R93516270Debate resumed from 9 December 1999, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.11:14:0016270Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I am tempted to begin this morning with, `As I was saying last century before I was interrupted', but I could not quite say that without apologies to the purists, who would rightly point out that the new century begins next year. Nevertheless, I commenced speaking on this bill in December last, and it feels like a century ago.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr Martin—No, we do remember.83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—Thank you. I will continue. As I was reminding the House at that time, following the decision in Teoh's case in 1995, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Gareth Evans, and the then Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch—there are a couple of names from the past—issued a joint press release to clarify the position following the High Court decision in the Teoh case, or so they said. In light of the opposition's stand on this bill now, it is interesting to note what Labor were saying back then. The Evans-Lavarch press release stated that:... entering into an international treaty is not reason for raising any legitimate expectation that government decision-makers will act in accordance with the treaty if the relevant provisions of that treaty have not been enacted into domestic Australian law.The statement went on:It is not legitimate, for the purposes of applying Australian law, to expect that the provisions of a treaty not incorporated by legislation should be applied by decision-makers.The statement went on:Any expectation that may arise does not provide a ground of review of a decision.This is so, both for existing treaties and for future treaties that Australia may join.So the ALP position was clear. To put it beyond any doubt, the then Labor government indicated that they would legislate—to reinforce their statement—to ensure that we all knew where Australia stood in respect of the status of these unlegislated international obligations. The bill introduced by Labor in 1995 put in place that legislation, but it lapsed upon the calling of an election. Members will recall that a bill with the same content was introduced by this government in 1997. The only change to the 1997 bill and in the current bill is the date. The 1997 bill was passed by the House of Representatives but lapsed when parliament was prorogued in 1998. While the 1997 bill was supported by the opposition in the course of its passage through the House of Representatives, opposition members of a Senate committee which considered the bill recommended that it not be passed. But over the past five years now, members from both sides in this House have agreed that the High Court's decision gave treaties an effect in Australian law which they did not have prior to the decision in Teoh's case. Governments of different complexions have been of the view that this development is not consistent with the proper role of parliament in implementing treaties in Australian law. Both sides in this House have recognised that it is a long-standing principle that the provisions of a treaty to which Australia is a party do not form part of Australian law unless those provisions have been validly incorporated into our laws. As you will be well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, under our Constitution, the executive government has the power to make Australia a party to a treaty, but it is for the Australian parliament to implement treaty obligations by incorporating them into our laws.So, prior to Teoh's case, the terms of treaties to which Australia was a party had not been considered to create rights or obligations in Australian law in the absence of legislation. The High Court confirmed this and distinguished between a substantive rule of law and the doctrine of legitimate expectation on the basis that the doctrine gave rise only to a procedural right to have the treaty considered and not a legal right to enforce the terms of the treaty. Despite making this distinction, the court's decision did in fact give treaties an impact in Australian law that they did not have previously. The decision raised a fundamental question about the system of parliamentary law making in Australia. Put simply, it gave rise to uncertainty. The previous government was concerned that what it considered to be an inappropriate development not be permitted to occur, for it did not wish parliament to be bypassed to allow treaties to have a direct effect in Australian law. I refer to another utterance on this topic by Gareth Evans, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs and former member for Holt, in September 1995 in a speech he gave at the Australian National University. In relation to this High Court decision, he said that it was not an appropriate development and that the role of `changing Australian law' to conform with treaty obligations should remain with the democratically elected parliaments of this country. In fact, he said at some point that it was `just a plain bad decision'. I remind the member for Lowe, before he speaks, that many members opposite made similar statements and speeches in their support of the bill that they introduced, which was to the same effect as the current bill before the House. The foreshadowed amendments are either a delaying tactic or an act of opportunism by the opposition. Let us say it is both—but to what end? The about-face by the members opposite, now that they are in opposition, is rather shallow. It was their stated expressed concerns about the High Court decision that led them to introduce the Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill in the first place. And then they supported the bill when we first introduced it. Why they have done an about-face, why they have now sought to dream up spurious reasons for not supporting the bill without amendment, defies understanding. Nevertheless, an uncertainty exists, and where an uncertainty exists in this manner we must move to give certainty. There has been enough debate. I think this will be the 44th time this bill has been spoken about by someone in this parliament. So I think enough time has passed, and there has been more than enough posturing by the opposition. This bill ought to be supported by the opposition without amendment and be allowed to pass into law without further delay.11:21:0016271Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—On this glorious autumn day in the national capital, I would like to start by noting the observations of the member for Curtin. I am not to know what was in the minds of Michael Lavarch or Gareth Evans when they were sitting in this chamber in 1995, and I was not here in 1997. I note the comments of the member for Curtin that this bill has been, shall I say, the victim of `election interruptus'. Anyhow, we are here today in the year 2000 in the spirit of goodwill, and I am rising to support the bill.Today marks the high-water mark of maturity of Australian law making in this parliament, because the Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1999 implements the will of the broader mandate of the people. It is a day when we as Australians can finally say that we have accommodated our international obligations as signatories to international conventions and protocols while also accommodating and preserving our sovereignty as a nation. I join with my parliamentary colleagues, particularly the member for Curtin with whom I believe I enjoy a very good relationship as a fellow member of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. We have been debating another issue this morning, but I am not here to talk about that. I am here to talk about this bill.The purpose of this bill, as the member for Curtin also pointed out, is to overrule the High Court's common law position in the case of Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Teoh, a 1995 decision which has caused considerable problems with the application of laws ever since it was made. Teoh's case is the authority for the proposition that a legitimate expectation arises whenever Australia signs an international agreement, protocol or convention such that the government of Australia will act in accordance with the provisions of that agreement. Legitimate expectations are an administrative right which attaches to an administrative process. During an administrative process in Australia, a person's rights are preserved so that they may with confidence deal with the Australian government in the knowledge that the process will be applied probatively, uniformly and with disinterest in the outcome. The doctrine of procedural fairness incorporates the concept of legitimate expectations. This doctrine is fundamental to the good operation of the rule of law. This doctrine is founded on the positive law of natural justice and constitutes one of the very cornerstones of our Westminster democratic process. To deny procedural fairness, including the rule of law and legitimate expectations, is tantamount to the capricious, arbitrary and tyrannical approach to decision making that is witnessed in other countries that have no cultural understanding of the rule of law. Legitimate expectations, therefore, are a right that flows from some process. In Australia's endeavours to adhere even more closely to the rule of law, legitimate expectations have crept into the application of agreements signed by Australia. That is what Teoh's case was about: the application of legitimate expectations arising from Australia's signature to an agreement which, by virtue of the signing, became a relevant international instrument. It is worth quoting the dissenting judgment of Justice McHugh in Teoh's case, as His Honour's comments are directly on the point of this bill before the House today. Justice McHugh said:If the result of ratifying an international convention was to give rise to a legitimate expectation that the convention would be applied in Australia, the Executive government of the Commonwealth would have effectively amended the law of this country. It would follow that the convention would apply to every decision made by a federal official unless the official stated that he or she would not comply with the convention. If the expectation were held to apply to decisions made by State officials, it would mean that the Executive government's action in ratifying a convention had altered the duties of State government officials. The consequences for administrative decision-making in this country would be enormous. Junior counsel for the Minister informed the Court that Australia is party to about 900 treaties. Only a small percentage of them has been enacted into law. Administration decision-makers would have to ensure that their decision-making complied with every relevant convention, or inform a person affected that they would not be complying with those conventions.I remind the House that it was the Labor government which on 10 May 1995 issued the statement through the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Gareth Evans, and the then Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch, with the intention of restoring the position to what it was understood to be prior to Teoh's case. Adverting to the reference by Chief Justice Mason and Justice Deane to `statutory executive indications to the contrary', the ministers said:We now make such a clear and express statement. We state on behalf of the Government, that entering into an international treaty is not reason for raising any expectation that government decision-makers will act in accordance with the treaty if the relevant provisions of that treaty have not been enacted into domestic Australian law. It is not legitimate, for the purpose of applying Australian law, to expect that the provisions of a treaty not incorporated by legislation should be applied by decision makers. Any expectation that may arise does not provide a ground for review of a decision. This is so both for existing treaties and for future treaties that Australia may join.The present government has taken the same road. Today we are considering this bill, which removes that expectation from Australia's signing of an international instrument.Serious impediments have caused Australia much harm as a result of this legitimate expectation. Examples include impediments to the deportation of people convicted of serious crime, and use of treaties as a means of `backdoor legislation' for incorporating international instruments into Australian law. The incorporation of international instruments into Australian law has always been problematical. As Chief Justice Mason noted in Teoh's case, international instruments are not the same as statutes. They are not drafted with the same intent and cannot be placed side by side with statutes of this House and given a status equivalent to that of a statute. International instruments are couched in broad policy directives that leave it to the relevant signatory country to draft appropriate domestic legislation. This drafting may require a new act of parliament or amendment to more than one pre-existing act, or a combination thereof. Whatever the circumstances, the basic recognition of this bill is that the law in this country finally recognises that there must necessarily be a legal and administrative distinction between statute and international instrument. Examples of abuse of this blur in distinction are very obvious to many Australians. One example is that of Teoh's case itself—the use of an international instrument to extract benefits from administrative law which otherwise the substantive law would not provide. Another example is that of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which resulted in amendment to child protection legislation in New South Wales and the issue of corporal discipline codes. I recall the abundant use of the relevant international instruments by the New South Wales government, with impunity, as they argued that the interests of the child should be a paramount consideration. This was with apparent disregard for the existing statutory and common law position of that jurisdiction.It should not be assumed that the Teoh principle only operates in the human rights area. If the principle were to stand, it would apply equally to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission as to the Immigration Review Panel. The AIRC is equally an administrative body, and the same argument is available—that the commission, in understanding its functions, should have regard to international treaties relating to, for instance, trade and investment. This includes the infamous Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the MAI.I am relieved that this legislation will soon be passed. Over the horizon and in the not too distant future we will see further attempts at international instruments such as the MAI. I can only shudder in horror at the application of Teoh's case precedent to the ratification of the MAI in Australia. If the MAI had been subject to legitimate expectations rights through this government's signature without ratification by domestic law there would have been devastating consequences to Australia's sovereignty. After all, that is what all the fighting was about in Seattle recently in respect of the World Trade Organisation and the violent protests which took place there. Further, the more recent unrest in London was directly related to this issue as well. It is sobering indeed that this government once before attempted to ratify the MAI under the Teoh case law. I cannot believe how close we came and how devastating it would have been for all Australians had that occurred. Anyone with a vested interest in nil impediment flow of capital assets across our borders would have used Teoh's case with impunity and destroyed what sovereignty we had left. I note that Teoh's case has been referred to in some 250 cases. There are 37 known cases involving serious crime, and the use of this case to deny deportations is now common practice. In the field of signing international instruments, the ongoing future signing of treaties, conventions and protocols requires the flexibility to accommodate Australia's obligations without comprising our sovereignty or becoming a slave to international community expectations. I am particularly perturbed by the recent trends of the infringements in our international borders. Abuse of our international obligations in FOR protection of refugees comes immediately to mind. Our ratified treaties in the relevant refugee convention and protocol have made Australia an open door for syndicated criminal activity in people-trafficking by boat or plane into Australia. Australia has a strong and proud history of honouring our international obligations when we sign treaties. To put it bluntly, we keep our word when we sign up on the dotted line. We do not, as a number of other countries do, sign treaties to gain some world trade or other financial advantage and then systematically ignore our obligations to ratify those treaties in our domestic law or otherwise simply ignore them. This practice is particularly the case in countries which have poor human rights records. If you peruse the list of signatures from those countries that sign such instruments, you would be shocked to see which countries are signatories to the relevant human rights international instruments. They sign and they simply ignore, violate or otherwise detach themselves from any responsibility. They do as they like when they like. They are immune to repeated international outcry. They hold international law in contempt either because they hold culturally relativist perspectives—that is, rules for some but not for others—or for religious or ideological reasons they refuse to recognise public international law at all. Australia is not one of those countries. We have seen in recent times the abuse of syndicated criminal activities designed to prostitute and abuse with utter contempt our bona fide obligations under public international law. Further, the world at large knows that Australia will live up to its reputation as a reliable and honourable country through ratification of those international instruments which it agrees to sign. We do not sign something and then deny our responsibilities. However, it is essential that a clear message be sent to both the Australian and international communities as to what expectations may arise from our act of signing a treaty. We have seen our honour abused beyond endurance in recent times, with our obligations under the refugee protocol and convention being violated with utter contempt. So now we are compelled to be probative, clear and unambiguous in this bill which, when proclaimed as an act of parliament, will clearly spell out the standing of the instrument until ratified in domestic law. In this way Australia maintains a delicate balance between administrative or procedural fairness and, in particular, legitimate expectations without compromising our sovereignty. We have been treated with contempt for too long. There are others outside our democracy who see our side playing fairly and they continue to resort to underhand gutter tactics in the deliberate abuse of our democratic processes, laughing as they may at our maintenance of democratic institutions such as the natural law and the rule of law until we are goaded into a direct conflict. Australia is not one to be goaded in such a way. Therefore, the proper remedy is the bill we have before the House this morning. In this bill we are able to maintain that delicate balance between faithfully honouring our international obligations without trammelling our sovereignty and allowing anyone who would seek to abuse our democratic processes to derive some unfair advantage over another person or against Australia itself. When one considers the amount of drug trafficking that is undertaken across Australia's borders, it is clear that every possible effort must be made to minimise, and if possible eliminate, at least the legal impediments to fighting this war. It may be said that the elimination of drugs is not fully achievable, but every government in this world has a duty—indeed an obligation—to eradicate drugs and to never cease the fight against drugs. Powers to deport are sadly compromised at the present time because of our existing administrative law. This must stop, and it will stop with this bill. Finally, I raise a number of smaller administrative matters. In regard to a number of amendments which have been tabled by the shadow Attorney-General, the Hon. Robert McClelland, and referred to a moment ago by the member for Curtin, I would hope that these amendments are supported by both sides of the House. I call upon the government to reinstate the education campaign, established by the previous Labor government, designed to ensure compliance with Australia's international legal obligations by decision makers. This bill ensures that Australia does not become a lackey to one-world government aspirations or accommodate backdoor legislation through the international instrument process. When one considers the procedure and protocol for ratification of international instruments, it is little wonder that this bill is necessary. There are practically no rights of review or challenge to the official process of ratification of international instruments. International instruments may be signed almost at the whim of the executive government of the day without public mandate and without community consultation. The first point at which the community holds any real sway is when the government of the day attempts to ratify a bill which is consistent with the government's obligations under the treaty to pass domestic legislation.It is for this reason that the bill has been drafted and is before us today. It is an open question whether a treaty so signed raises a legitimate expectation that the spirit of the treaty will be ratified in domestic legislation. To date, the bill focuses on the negative impact of a treaty which the public does not wish to see ratified by backdoor means to hold a status equivalent to a statute, as I referred to earlier. However, there may be circumstances in which the public may want a conventional protocol ratified, yet the government fails to do so. Some good examples of that are biodiversity, environmental and ecological conventions. Notwithstanding Australia's multiple signing of major international instruments of this kind, Australia has not had a good history of ratifying such instruments in domestic law. This has caused considerable frustration amongst those seeking to rely on such instruments to further their cause of environmental protection. Finally, I look forward to the operation of this new legislation, together with a responsible approach by all parties of this House to ratify treaties when our will has been exercised in agreeing to be a party to such treaties. 11:38:0016275Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—I am particularly interested in this bill, the Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1997, as I chair the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties where issues such as the Teoh case and the government's response to this difficulty come up almost every time we meet in a general and sometimes abstract sense. In that case, a court decision had it that, even where the terms of a treaty have not been incorporated into Australian law, a legitimate expectation arises that agencies of government will not act contrary to the terms of the treaty. The judgment made plain that this legitimate expectation can be set aside by a legislative indication to the contrary—hence, this bill going through.The language of the decision the court handed down is interesting because it uses the phrase `agencies will not act contrary to the terms of the treaty'. This is no surprise because what is not well understood about the treaty making process is that no legal obligation arises for the executive of a government taking part in the negotiations of a treaty. However, once the treaty is signed and before ratification, it is widely thought that it does not bind the country so we do not have to worry about it. That is not entirely so, because there is another treaty, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which gives the rules according to which treaties are to be interpreted. One of the basic articles of that treaty says that once a party has signed a treaty, and even before ratification, it is obliged not to act in a way contrary to the objectives of that treaty. In a sense, there is a hybrid obligation already arisen on a government once a treaty is signed.This rarely understood provision has led to an interesting decision being made this week by the government parties. It is a matter of public record that, henceforth, before a coalition government signs a treaty—that is, at the end of the negotiation process but before the treaty is signed—these treaties will be submitted to the government party room for scrutiny by the backbench. This is a profound change in practice and it gives members of the government parties a very valuable opportunity to comment, criticise, object to or, of course, support a proposed treaty before that obligation arises under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and well before the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties examines the text of the treaty before ratification.What Teoh was really all about was a bizarre attempt by the judiciary, or one aspect of it, to `legal creep'—you might describe it in that sense. People talk about `mission creep' in peacekeeping efforts abroad. On first glance it might seem a reasonable chain of logic in that a government signs a treaty and there is this obligation under the Vienna convention and, therefore, the agencies of government should act in a way that is not contrary to the terms of the treaty. This is, in effect, sneaking around the legislature and ignoring the role of this parliament, and that is what we are about stopping.There are two big questions in treaty making in Australia's case. The first is the question of state or local government inconsistency with a treaty that has been signed by the national government. This happens, of course, from time to time. The mandatory sentencing controversy was an example of that. I might also point out that one of the local governments in Sydney that proposes a code of practice to regulate the establishment of brothels—that is, South Sydney Council—may well be in violation of article 6 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Article 6 says that state parties—that is the Commonwealth government—shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women. So if a local government deliberately sets out to regulate or encourage the establishment of brothels for perfectly reasonable purposes—for instance, you do not want them next to schools, hospitals, churches or whatever—then that ordinance of the local government is in breach of this treaty. And the question arises: what will the Commonwealth gov-ernment do about that? That is not something that I am going to go into in any further detail today, but I do flag it as something that is going to happen from time to time in the future. Many of the environ-mental treaties—some of which I regard, frankly, as quite poisonous—could well cause the same sorts of inconsistencies with local governments in Australia. The other grand question that faces this country—and it is a very important one in terms of our trading interests—is how we go about maintaining the integrity of the WTO rules. World Trade Organisation rules establish a rules based structure for international trade. This is under threat from what you could describe as the global antiprivate enterprise movement—greens, neopagans or whatever you want to call them—and certain protectionist trading groups such as the European Union and, indeed, some governments in our part of the world, in Asia, who seek to protect their domestic agricultural interests from imports from Australia. They use an interesting phrase called the precautionary principle. The adoption of this principle in treaties and its creep in scope has the potential to do enormous damage to Australian trading interests. It is something that we must always be aware of and do what we can to stop it.It is interesting that the people who are complaining the loudest about the MAI, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment—which was a draft text—complain that it really took away Australia's sovereignty, that it was too vaguely drafted and that it could affect state and local governments. These are often the same people who push so hard for this precautionary principle. The WTO rules have two essential elements that we must do our best to protect. The first is that the use of trade sanctions to impose domestic policies extraterritorially—whether they are some sort of economic policy such as trying to protect the producers of a certain good or even some kind of social policy—is illegal. Secondly, any import ban must be justified on internationally recognised scientific grounds. That is to say, if you want to ban the importation of something and you are challenged under WTO rules, you have to prove, using internationally recognised scientific standards, that the importation of those things would be dangerous on health grounds, or that sort of thing.There are a number of international agreements that already allow the use of trade sanctions against non-consenting third parties. This is also a particularly dangerous thing because it sets up two incompatible systems of international law—that is, you have the WTO rules, the burden of proof being on the person who seeks to ban something to prove that the ban is justified; yet there is another developing set of international laws whereby the burden of proof is placed on the potential exporter of something. This appears in various forms. At the WTO talks in Seattle, where there was so much violence on the streets, behind all the smoke and loud noise, the United States and Europe were arguing for linkage between environmental and labour standards and the trade rules—that is, they were trying to incorporate into the WTO system the ability for themselves as governments to use spurious environmental complaints or complaints about labour standards in other countries, particularly the People's Republic of China, in order to be able to stop the importation of goods to protect their own domestic interests. Happily, this was opposed by most of the other parties there, including Australia of course, and the meeting collapsed in disagreement.One more recent international agreement in which this dangerous notion of the precautionary principle is being pushed so hard is what is known as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, under the UN Convention on Biodiversity, to which Australia is a party. This also seeks to legitimise trade sanctions against non-consenting third parties. It is interesting that, under this protocol, any disputes about the importation of an LMO, a living modified organism—because it deals with gene technology—go not to the WTO but to the ICJ, or even to an arbitrator appointed by the United Nations Secretary-General. So you can see that it clearly seeks to supplant the WTO process. I should say a little more about the precautionary principle. The best way of illuminating how dangerous it can be, I suppose, is to quote from the gene technology section on the web site of Greenpeace International. There is an article published there about the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. It says:The battle was won for the precautionary principle to be the basis for decision-making on transboundary movements of all living modified organisms, including for commodities.And that goes directly to Australia's national interest. They also quote from articles 10(6) and 11(6) as follows:Lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific information and knowledge regarding the extent of the potential adverse effects of a living modified organism on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in the Party of import, taking also into account risks to human health, shall not prevent that Party from taking a decision, as appropriate, with regard to the import of the living modified organism in question as referred to in paragraph 3 above, in order to avoid or minimize such potential adverse effects.In essence that means that, if somebody denounces a certain product that has somewhere in it some modified gene technology, whether it is food or crop seed, that will give the party of import, as they are called—for that, you can read the European Union and maybe Japan, Korea and other countries that, from time to time, seek to protect agriculture in their nation—the grounds on which they can ban the import of that LMO, and then the burden of proof shifts to the exporter to prove that it is not dangerous. In a sense, in this kind of case Australia would be required to prove that what we were trying to do is not dangerous—to prove a negative. In the case of these LMOs, they will say, `You'll need time to prove that it is not dangerous.' That might be 10 or 20 years. So in effect you have handed carte blanche over to a protectionist government in another country to inflict damage on Australia via something like the Cartagena Protocol, which is being negotiated ostensibly on environmental grounds but which will be manipulated by protectionist governments to use it for their own domestic political purposes.The European Union is probably the chief offender when it comes to governments trying to push this precautionary principle as far as possible. On 2 February this year the European Union, I suppose via the commission, issued a communication giving guidance to its members on how to act on the precautionary principle:The appropriate response in a given situation is thus the result of a political decision, a function of the risk that is "acceptable" to the society on which it is imposed.There it is in plain language: it is the result of a political decision. The agenda of these people—whether it be Greenpeace, the EU or whoever else among this group of organised political folk trying to push this—is to try to introduce a political decision that gives grounds to ban imports of agriculture. That is what this is all about. By denouncing something as dangerous, and by mounting an effective publicity campaign and placing the burden of proof on the accused—that is, the exporter—these people effectively hand power over to any organised political group, and they emasculate elected legislatures such as ours. They inflict terrible damage on the rule of law—whether it be domestic or international, in the case of the WTO—and the judicial institutions that buttress a truly civilised society.For people who are interested in pursuing this a little further, I recommend they go to the trade negotiations part of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's web site and read some of the descriptions about how the negotiations of the Cartagena Protocol have been going for the last few years. People will see that, time and time again, there have been attempts by the EU or other protectionist governments or groups of governments to include in the text of this agreement this precautionary principle, and that they have tried to get it established by agreement—I think surreptitiously—that multinational environment agreements, MEAs, should not be subordinate to the WTO rules. There is a terrific argument about the relationship between environmental agreements like the Cartagena Protocol and the WTO rules. One of the four consensus elements that all people agreed to at the beginning of this negotiation, I think quite mistakenly, was that the protocol and other international agreements—for that, you can read the WTO rules—are of equal status and that trade and environment agreements and policies should be mutually supportive. `Mutually supportive' is very vague language. Interestingly, it is on the Greenpeace web site. They say exactly that. The language in one paragraph reads: ... recognises that trade and environmental agreements should be mutually supportive with a view to achieving sustainable development.From Greenpeace's point of view, `mutually supportive' means that the reversal of the burden of proof—this precautionary principle—is not of equal status with the rules under the WTO but in fact becomes paramount to it. They will use this in the future to make it all the more difficult for Australia and other agricultural countries to try to get that level playing field in trade. It is a very dangerous thing. They are also trying to introduce the precautionary principle directly into the codex alimentarius, which is a body of rules under the GATT-WTO system. They seek to subvert the whole structure of it. It is something that I do not think enough people in Australia are awake to. I know that all of the government—from the backbench to the cabinet ministers—are busy, but we ought to take things a little slower from time to time and examine some of these things in more detail. What can appear quite innocent in one area of policy—environmental protection, which is a perfectly reasonable sort of thing—will be used as a precedent to inflict terrible damage on Australia in another area of policy, and that is trade. Had the precautionary principle been on foot in the first two decades of this century, they would have banned the development and sale of the internal combustion engine. They would not have allowed us to drive and sell cars because, `We do not know what damage emissions from cars can do to the environment, so let's not produce them, drive them, sell them or whatever.' They are against science and they should be denounced.11:58:0016278Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I rise to speak on the Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1999. As a member representing an electorate in Sydney's south-west comprising large numbers of newly arrived residents, I have something of a vested interest in the procedures followed by officers of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Members dealing with a large volume of immigration matters know that the programs providing for permanent settlement in this country are limited and that, for every shonky case that gets through the net, a genuine and useful migrant misses out. Members would also be aware that the circumstances surrounding every application for residence is different and that many tears are shed at the reception counters of electorate offices and in the confines of a member's office when dealing with individuals who have witnessed or experienced evil in the shape of war or inhumanity in its various forms. This excess of demand over the available places we have in our immigration programs is more acutely felt by DIMA officers. They are the selection panel, and we are asking them to give us the best on the one hand and the most deserving on the other. Illegals seeking a change in status, in my experience, get a reasonably fair deal under the current assessment methods. It is not a scientifically precise area. Many people tell the most appalling lies to stay here and avail themselves of every level of their appeal rights. I am not convinced that they use those rights to genuinely test the merits of their case. Many consider the exploitation of those rights as simply a strategy to prolong their stay. Because of bridging visas and the time taken in the appeal processes, many of those who win the right of residence have already formed the view that Australian society and its institutions are there to be got around and that straightforward, open and honest dealings with the government get you nowhere. It is a pity that the system itself is promoting the values we find among the tax avoiders and evaders who view the benefits of society like health, education and defence as things only mugs put anything towards. The reason we are going to have a GST is that tax cheating is so entrenched that the only way the Howard government can deal with it is by penalising everyone, but especially the mugs who always pay their fair share of tax. The operators have been working over the immigration laws of this country so that what you might expect to be a carefully considered decision depends on whether you got it from the highest court in the land. Our audience here, we should remember, are not citizens. We should therefore make the rules as clear and simple as possible. It is anything but helpful to intending illegal migrants to show them a bag full of shades of opinion. The Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1999 provides as much a clear signal as anything else. This bill removes unintended consequences resulting from the Teoh decision, especially with regard to immigration but generally across the whole board. It has been a long time in the making, and the Labor Party has given it a great deal of thought. It is, with regret, the easiest and clearest route to take. While this might stir debate about human rights, about our commitment to international conventions, about how fair dinkum we might seem to the international community and about the more creative decisions of the High Court, the fact is that Teoh—and we have to remember this—was not an Australian citizen. He had been convicted of an extremely serious offence and was not welcome in Australia. Any decision maker in immigration would have had no doubt that deportation was consequential. Indeed, most reasonable Australians would have a legitimate expectation that nothing less than prison and subsequent deportation would result if a non-national were convicted of running hard drugs into our country. I think decision makers, dispassionate as they might try to be, ask themselves all the time: Is this fair? Is this right? And often find themselves saying no and no, time and again but still approve an application because they are bound to implementing the legislation, not its spirit. If it is poorly constructed legislation it comes back to the parliament for repair. We need to keep migration decisions straight up and down. The practicality of having decision makers taking into account more than the legislation provides logically extends to consulting the full range of holy texts in making a determination. Clearly, the process should, and currently does, provide for sufficient review rights for an adverse outcome to be overturned. Mr Teoh, a Malaysian national, exercised those rights and he won. The issues as to whether or not he had a genuine expectation on the rights of his children, whether executive ratification of conventions has the same force as laws passed by the parliament, whether ratification really takes effect when enabling legislation is passed, whether ratification adds to the body of common law, whether procedural fairness is involved or whether the High Court has been too adventurous did not have much to do with the outcome that an undesirable got through the net; it was unintended. Our amendments are aimed at greater clarity to ensure there is no conflict between ratifying an international convention and making a domestic decision about how we manage our affairs in the interests of all residents, all citizens. Clarity is also owed to the international community, and that is an important part of the opposition's amendments. As it stands, the Teoh doctrine could see more undesirables taking the place of potentially good law-abiding citizens of tomorrow. We do not want that, the international community does not expect that and it is simply not fair, as anyone in my electorate of Fowler will tell you regardless of their country of birth.I can remember when Australia was moving to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Many would recall there was a major outcry along the lines that parents would no longer have control of their children. Those fears have not been realised, but the Teoh case provides grounds for nervousness, especially among those of us who accused the opponents of ratification of taking too narrow a legal view of a document, the intent of which was pure and the provisions of which would need to be incorporated into Australian law before they actually meant anything. There was also considerable debate about whether Australian laws, particularly state welfare laws, complied with the convention. When we ratified the convention in 1990 it was with a reservation about children with parents in jail. Nobody saw Teoh coming. Most of the arguments distinguished between international law and Australian or domestic law and whether Australian laws fully complied with the obligations attached to the convention. Most of those in the debate had common agreement with the general objectives in the convention which are directed against the exploitation of children and their adequate representation in legal proceedings. Elements in the legal industry are alarmed at what they see as a curtailment of judicial review of decision making. I can appreciate that, but the situation is fluid. It is not like having the chief magistrate in your pocket, on a secret contract or bound to impose mandatory sentences. The Teoh case has not caused major upheavals in administrative law, although we have different estimates of just how many cases have been affected. The parliament has an obligation to clarify the issue for decision makers as well as for likely appellants. This bill does that. It does not signal a war with the High Court, as some in the legal industry would have people believe. The fact is that the High Court can make decisions which are not aligned to the intentions of the parliament or the people it represents. A bill of rights might better state this. We might also look at the courts imposing fines on government agencies where wrong administrative decisions have been made. But we are dealing with the world as it is today and the parliament has to call the shots. We are the ones to answer to our citizens, whereas the courts do not enter into any discussion yet they change laws by their decisions. It is a proper role for parliament to consider those changes and make corrections to fit a world full of angles and opportunities. Look at the Mabo decision: it generated debate, it brought the issue into the parliament and the ownership of the issue was rightly given to the people. As far as tensions between the courts and the parliament are concerned, the whole process has been orderly. As far as the Teoh case goes, decision makers in the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs now have guidelines emphasising the interests of any children who might be affected in considering the deportation of non-citizens. So, effectively, the High Court has reached out and touched the DIMA decision makers. But the fact remains that, with something close to a thousand treaties, decision makers cannot be expected to consider everything. The courts too are wide open for a range of appeals based on completely outrageous technical arguments drawn from treaties.What is also critical is that the executive, in ratifying a convention, might be effectively making laws. That is not what democracy is about. It is a dangerous path and hardly what citizens have been led to expect. If that were the case, those people fearful of world government or concerned that treaties were part of an international conspiracy would be justified. The Teoh decision has great potential to help in fuelling the notion, if not the reality, that we are no longer a sovereign state. We want to say to those people that adopting a convention, far from undermining our status as an independent nation, actually assures the rest of the world that we are a fully mature participant in the affairs of the world. We have many such treaties. They do not reduce us; they enhance our world citizenship. These treaties have served us well in the shaping of our domestic law. That is important and should be expressly stated in this legislation. Courts can and do look at conventions and treaties when guidance is required, and the common law provides a means of ensuring the intentions of international instruments take their place in judgments. I have dealt with more immigration cases than you can poke a stick at. I have never come across a legitimate expectation that our ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child has any bearing on a decision. Frankly, given the pressure facing the department in Australia's migrant intake, the only legitimate expectation any intending migrant can have is that the answer is likely to be no. I always tell their families how reasonable their expectations should be and that I will get them an answer within the legislative framework, not an international convention. And what of Mr Teoh? I understand he is now a resident of Western Australia, a state which does not deserve him. 12:12:0016281Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—It gives me pleasure to speak in this debate today and I note the contributions which have been made by previous speakers. The Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1999, as others have said, seeks to overrule the principle established by the High Court in the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v. Teoh—the Teoh case—that when the executive enters into an international agreement a legitimate expectation arises that the executive will act in accordance with the provisions of that agreement. Others have made the substance of this legislation very clear, but for a moment I want to go to some of the issues. In particular I want to talk about expectations the community might have of governments in relation to international obligations which they may freely enter into. This particular piece of legislation has been under scrutiny by this parliament for a great period of time. It was the subject of a Senate inquiry and from that there was a minority report under the authorship of Senators Nick Bolkus and Jim McKiernan. In their contribution they made the following observation: ... experience demonstrates that Teoh is only likely to have limited application. For example, in many circumstances where an international obligation could be pleaded as giving rise to a legitimate expectation, it could also be pleaded that the consideration referred to would be a relevant consideration such that a failure to consider it would render the decision defective. Accordingly, aggrieved parties are much more likely to rely upon, and succeed with, this more substantive and recognised basis to challenge a decision.They then go through and make an assessment of the limited impact of Teoh. They say:Given the limited practical impact of Teoh, and the issues of principle involved, Labor believes that it is not now necessary, in the interests of effective administrative decision making, to expressly set aside the possibility of such legitimate expectations being created, but that it is necessary to reaffirm that an international treaty cannot have legal effect in Australian domestic law unless it is expressly incorporated by legislation, or its substance is incorporated, in whole or in part by the operation of the common law.They foreshadow that Labor would amend the 1997 bill to this effect and that the amendments would prove a means of ensuring that administrative decision makers are aware of their legal obligations. The nature of these amendments is thus here. They said:Accordingly, Labor will be amending the Bill to ensure that it affirms the principle that:... an international instrument (even though binding in international law on Australia) affects administrative decisions and procedures under domestic law only to the extent either that the instrument has the force of domestic law under an enactment or its substance in whole or in part has effect by the operation of the common law.That is the content of the opposition amendment, and it is something which I am pleased to support. In the course of the discussion this morning, I noted in particular the reference which was made to the obligation that we have as a community to acknowledge our responsibilities under international law and to acknowledge our responsibilities under United Nations conventions. I want to refer to one of those conventions today, and that is the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This convention prohibits racial discrimination and provides for equality before the law, regardless of race, colour or national or ethnic origin. Australia enacted the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975 to give effect to the convention domestically—a convention which was signed, I might say, by the then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, in that same year.Australia has obligations under the convention and is required to report every two years to the CERD committee on additional measures it has adopted to implement the convention. The CERD committee may make recommendations on the basis of these reports. You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in August 1988 the CERD committee made an early-warning, urgent action decision in respect of the Australian government. The committee requested information on changes to the Native Title Act 1993, changes in other aspects of the land rights policy and in the functions of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. It wanted to examine whether any such changes were compatible with the government's obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Australia is the first stable Western democracy to have been issued with a `Please explain'. The government responded to the early warning with a report released in late January 1999, and the government was present during the deliberations of the CERD committee. Madam Deputy Speaker, you may recall that a number of public statements were made by prominent Australians in relation to the CERD findings, and you may also recall that the Prime Minister hosted a luncheon in honour of Mr Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General. During that luncheon on 21 February 2000, the Prime Minister made the following observations which refer in part to Australia's commitment in East Timor:But it was an operation under ultimately your leadership Mr Secretary General and it was an operation under the auspices of the United Nations; a body with whom we have had a very long association, a body with which Australia continues to make a major contribution. Not only in terms of political support but also in terms of resources and the contribution to East Timor for example by the year 2003, will represent about three billion dollars by the people of Australia.He goes on to say:I have valued very much my association with you and the great body over which you preside.You can imagine, then, how I amazed I was when I noted the press release from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, dated 30 March 2000, in which the foreign affairs minister says:The Federal Government will undertake a whole-of-government review of the operation of the United Nations treaty committee system as it affects Australia.He then referred to the CERD committee. He said:In this context, the Government was appalled at the blatantly political and partisan approach taken by the UN's Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination ... when it examined Australia's periodic reports in Geneva last week.He is referring to the ones I spoke about earlier. He goes on:The Committee's observations are little more than a polemical attack on the Government' indigenous policies.What happened in this instance was that the Australian government used all its resources to try to persuade a United Nations properly constituted committee to have a different view than that which it had ascribed to in its formal hearings and to which it had asked the Australian government to respond. So, following the statement by the Prime Minister that he respected very much Australia's association with the United Nations, the Minister for Foreign Affairs then chose to attack one of its committees because of what it said about Australia, because the Australian government was offended by its words.Nothing was done, however, when another international treaty was a matter of grave discussion. You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that related to salmon and the World Trade Organisation. It is very interesting that here we have got a proposition about trade and, because of the way in which the World Trade Organisation is structured, the Australian government felt it necessary, against the wishes of the people of Tasmania and the Tasmanian government, to abide by a determination of that organisation, even though the community of Tasmania, and the salmon industry in particular, have made it abundantly clear to the government what they thought of its position. Yet we had the Australian government accepting the will of the World Trade Organisation and, in a sense, overriding the wishes of the people of Tasmania. On the other hand, we have a committee properly constituted under the United Nations which makes very serious observations about the way in which Australia has treated its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and, because it does not like the findings, the Australian government pillories the committee members, the structure of the committee and the way in which the committee has made its deliberations. It is worth while contemplating just for a moment what Australia's obligations are under this convention. CERD outlines internationally agreed minimum standards of behaviour which states undertake to observe by ratifying the convention. Article 2 of the convention places positive obligations on the states not to discriminate and to prevent others within their jurisdictions from discriminating. Article 5 requires that, in accordance with this principle, states guarantee the right of everyone to equality before the law, including in relation to political rights, the right to own property individually or communally, the right to inherit and the right to equal participation in cultural activities. The CERD committee has recognised that racially discriminatory practices are often systemic and long term in effect. Consequently, states have obligations to ensure that the effects of past discrimination are not continued into the future and to address the continued inequality of marginalised groups. Of course, that has particular resonance here in Australia. CERD places obligations on states to take all appropriate means to combat and eliminate discrimination against indigenous peoples and has called on states to: (a) recognise and respect indigenous distinct culture, history, language and way of life as an enrichment of the state's cultural identity and to promote its preservation; (b) ensure that members of indigenous peoples are free and equal in dignity and rights and free from any discrimination, and in particular that based on indigenous identity; (c) provide indigenous peoples with conditions allowing sustainable economic and social development compatible with their cultural characteristics; (d) ensure that members of indigenous peoples have equal rights in respect of effective participation in public life and that no decisions directly relating to their rights and interests are taken without their informed consent; and (e) ensure that indigenous communities can exercise their rights to practise and revitalise their cultural traditions and customs and preserve and practise their languages. What this committee did was to actually look at a piece of Australian law and assess whether or not that law met Australia's obligations under these conventions. This matter has been the subject of an inquiry by the Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, which is looking at this issue and will come down with a report within the next month. With the Teoh case we have ensured that decisions are properly taken by governments and that our sovereignty is not eroded. We have accepted our obligations in one case in the World Trade Organisation. We have abided by the rules involved.In the case of the Racial Discrimination Act, we have passed a piece of legislation which specifically accords with the requirements of this United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. So we have actually enacted laws in this country to ensure that we abide as far as we possibly can by this convention. We are put under the spotlight of the CERD committee's scrutiny and, because the government is offended by the findings of this committee and the submissions which have been made to that committee by organisations such as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, the government takes the extraordinary step of deciding that it is going to review the operations of the United Nations treaty committee system and its effects on Australia. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will note, as I am sure you did, that there was a great deal of media commentary about this. I have here an article which was published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 31 March as an analysis piece by Michelle Grattan. It reads:The trouble for the Government with its decision to review its level of cooperation with United Nations committees is that it has the bad taste of sour grapes after an adverse judgment.It goes on to say:Last weekend Attorney-General Daryl Williams—I note that the Attorney is in the chamber—said the CERD committee's `international credibility will be in question unless it takes a more balanced perspective in the future'.Then Michelle Grattan observes, rather wryly:Unfortunately, Australia's international credibility is also on the line, and the government isn't helping it.It is also worth pondering the observations made by a former top ranking United Nations official who accused Australia of behaving like South Africa in other times. In the Sydney Morning Herald of 1 April, Mr John Pace is reported to have said that: ... the Federal Government's decision to review the way it deals with UN treaty bodies was `drastic'.The article also states:A former Australian diplomat who now heads the UN treaty section, Mr Palitha Kohona, also said he had never seen a statement like Mr Downer's ... the one to which I referred. It continues:`It is important to remember that criticism is not levelled for the sole purpose of criticising a country,' he told ABC radio.`The criticism is levelled for the purpose of improving ... the human rights framework that is applicable to all countries in the world.'`The ultimate loser will be the international human rights framework if a country were not to take such criticism seriously.'Amnesty International said, `By criticising UN committees unfairly, the Howard Government is discrediting 55 years of hard work by Australian diplomats to build up a credible and effective UN treaty system.That is absolutely correct. Australia, historically, can be very proud of the role it has played, particularly in relation to this convention, particularly on this committee. We have done that because of our need and in the context of where we are in our history. I think a very important element of this is a recognition of our need to address the rights of indigenous Australians. Yet the government passes legislation which is arguably racially discriminatory and, because the United Nations makes observations about the possible discriminatory nature of that legislation, attacks the United Nations through one of its committees. It is all very well for the government to be parading on the international stage, saying how important we believe it is to recognise and acknowledge the needs of indigenous Australians and, in our domestically political environment, to talk about the need to acknowledge the importance of reconciliation. Why do they do this? Why can they not accept that there is a fair umpire elsewhere who may be able to make judgments which may in fact be truthful? The legislation before us is very important, but so is our international reputation. That international reputation has been quite severely sullied by the way the Australian government has dealt with the CERD committee. 12:32:0016284Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—I thank the members who have contributed to the debate on the Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1999, specifically the members for Barton, Curtin, Lowe, Wentworth, Fowler and Northern Territory. Before summing up on the bill, I would like to briefly address the remarks made by the member for Northern Territory. He has made reference to Australia's obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the actions of the CERD committee in relation to a number of issues of indigenous policy in Australia. On three occasions, I think it is now, the CERD committee has effectively brought down a judgment about Australia, and its indigenous policies in particular respects, which the government regards as unbalanced and in fact an intrusion, unreasonably, into Australia's domestic affairs. The Commonwealth does take the deliberations of the committee and its obligations under the convention very seriously. This has been demonstrated on more than one occasion by the fact that the government has sent high-level delegations to attend hearings by the committee of Australia's periodic reports and to provide assistance to the committee in understanding those reports, but the government is seriously disappointed at the apparent failure of the committee to grapple with the unique and complex history of race relations in Australia. The committee has paid scant regard to the extensive material provided to it and has relied almost exclusively on material provided by non-government organisations.The review of the United Nations treaty committee system which the Minister for Foreign Affairs announced and to which the member for Northern Territory referred is an appropriate response to the actions of the CERD committee, but it is not only a response to that. For a considerable time, the government has expressed concern about the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation of the so-called United Nations treaty bodies, the committees established under treaties to which Australia adheres. Australia is not alone in expressing those concerns. Together with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I have been working since 1996 to foster constructive reforms to the operations of the treaty bodies and I have made representations in that regard to the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights and to the president of that organisation, Ms Mary Robinson. Other like-minded countries have similarly been working, including Canada, New Zealand and Norway. The United Nations itself recognises that the treaty body system is in need of reform. It commissioned Professor Philip Alston to undertake a study. He has made at least three reports on the subject. Our review is a completely appropriate way of addressing our concerns, including the concerns of the way the government was treated by the CERD committee. The Australian people expect nothing less than a fair say in the international arena and the efficient functioning of the system. I reject the assertion by the member for Northern Territory, quoting Michelle Grattan, that Australia's international credibility is at risk in this respect.As to the bill, it represents an appropriate and measured response to the decision of the High Court in Teoh's case. The High Court's decision gave treaties an effect in Australian law which they did not previously have. The government remains firmly of the view that this development is not consistent with the proper role of parliament in implementing treaties in Australian law. Under the Australian Constitution, the executive government has the power to make Australia a party to a treaty, but it is for Australian parliaments to change Australian law to implement treaty obligations. The bill will restore the situation which existed before the Teoh case—that is, if there are to be changes to procedural or substantive rights in Australian law resulting from adherence to a treaty, they will result from parliamentary and not executive action. The bill is a clear application of the statement of the majority of the High Court in Teoh's case that a legitimate expectation, which it found to arise out of entry into a treaty by Australia, can be displaced by legislative action. Clause 5 provides that no legitimate expectation providing a basis at law for challenging an administrative decision can arise out of the fact that Australia is bound by an international instrument or the fact that an enactment reproduces or refers to the instrument.As I noted in the second reading speech, it is unclear from the decision of the High Court whether state and territory administrative decisions may be the subject of legitimate expectations arising out of treaties. Clause 6 of the bill is intended to address that uncertainty. The bill will apply to state and territory decisions in those states and territories which have not taken their own legislative action to set aside legitimate expectations arising from treaties. Clause 6 of the bill does contain a roll-back provision which excludes the operation of the bill in relation to a state or territory administrative decision where the relevant state or territory legislature passes or has passed legislation having the same or similar effect as this bill. There should be no concern that the bill will affect the way in which treaties may otherwise have relevance in Australian law. It will not have such an effect. It will not, for example, impinge upon the operation of treaty provisions which have been incorporated into Australian law. This position is put beyond doubt by clause 7 of the bill. The government has acted appropriately and responsibly in bringing forward this bill. It is confined to addressing the decision in Teoh's case. It also complements the treaty reforms this government initiated on coming into office in response to criticisms that the Australian public did not have enough input into binding international treaties which touched upon an increasing array of national issues. One of the principal aims of those reforms was to enhance the role of parliament in scrutinising treaty action by the executive government.Let me take the opportunity to remind you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in July 1998 the government commenced its review of the landmark 1996 reforms of Australia's treaty making process in line with the commitment it made in 1996 to review the procedures after they had been in operation for two years. The report on the government's review of the treaty making process states that submissions to the review were overwhelmingly positive. The review marked the final stage of the reforms. These were a requirement to table treaties in parliament prior to binding action; the preparation of national interest analyses open to scrutiny by the public; the establishment of the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Treaties; the establishment of the Treaties Council comprising the Prime Minister, state premiers and chief ministers; and the establishment of the Australian treaties library on the Internet. The reforms have placed the Australian government in an excellent position to ensure that our national interests are met. The reforms also ensure that Australian interest groups can examine treaties and their likely effects and that interest groups are able to voice any concerns. The result is a more transparent process which gives Australians unparalleled input and an opportunity to understand the work of governments in making new international laws. In contrast to the government's treaty reforms and its considered attempts to resolve the problem created by the decision in Teoh, the opposition has shifted and changed its position by supporting, then opposing and then proposing to amend the bill. The opposition has failed to support the bill despite the fact that it is largely the same as the bill it introduced when it was in government. Indeed, the member for Barton supported the bill in this place in 1997, noting that it was:... appropriate to clarify the issue which arose in Teoh's case because having that issue floating around is itself something which is relied upon by those who oppose the legitimacy of the treaty making process.The then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the former member for Holt, stated soon after the Teoh decision was handed down by the court in 1995:I cannot help but regard this as anything other than a plainly bad decision. Teoh creates a decision making environment that is unworkable in practice.In fact, I think the former member for Holt was in the Senate at that time. The government agrees and is doing something to rectify that issue in the interests of the decision making.The opposition has proposed an amendment to the bill. However, it appears to be the same as or similar to the statement that Senators Bolkus and McKiernan proposed in the amendment to the bill in their minority report in 1997. I reiterate the comments I made at that time, which are still relevant. The proposed amendment will create only more uncertainty and not remove it, as is claimed. To the extent that it actively encourages the courts to develop the common law on the basis of treaties, it will serve only to undermine the role of this parliament in legislating to give effect to treaties even further. In this respect, it should be noted that the amendment contemplates that the whole of the substance of a treaty could have effect by operation of the common law. This would have obvious consequences for the balance between the proper roles of the parliament, the executive and the judiciary. The amendment also fails to recognise that there are degrees of incorporation of international law in Australian law by statute. Giving international instruments the force of domestic law is but one of them. In addition, the wording of the principle as proposed by the opposition is totally unsuited for inclusion as an operative clause in the statute. Finally, it may have the effect of entrenching the operation of the Teoh doctrine—that is, it could give the exact opposite effect to the bill as introduced by the government.In summary, the amendment proposed by the opposition would create uncertainty rather than resolve it. It would entrench the Teoh doctrine rather than set it aside. It would serve to further undermine the proper role of the parliament rather than reinforce it. This bill is of great importance in stemming the tide of illegal immigration to Australia, a subject addressed by the member for Fowler. Many cases involving the application of the decision in Teoh—indeed the Teoh decision itself—involve attempts by persons whose presence in Australia is unlawful to delay their removal from Australia. The opposition's inconsistency on this bill smacks of hypocrisy of the highest order. The opposition supports the government's efforts to control the latest wave of unlawful entrants into Australia, yet by opposing the swift passage of this bill as introduced, as the opposition has done, the opposition ensures that those who do arrive and remain in Australia illegally will continue to be able to frustrate the government's efforts to remove them. I take some heart from the fact that the opposition has clearly understood the need for this bill in the past. I hope that it will abandon its latest hypocritical and politically opportunistic position on the bill and support its passage in its current form. I look forward to the passage of the bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. 16287Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 12:45:0016287McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos (1), (4) and (5):(1) Clause 5, page 3 (line 24) to page 4 (line 3), omit the clause, substitute:(5) Legal effect of International instrumentsIt is hereby declared to be the intention of the Parliament that an international instrument (even though binding in international law on Australia) affects administrative decisions and procedures under domestic law only to the extent either that the instrument has the force of domestic law under an enactment or its substance has been incorporated into domestic law, in whole or in part, by the operation of the common law.(4) Preamble, page 2, (lines 14-22), omit all the words from and including "On 10 May" to and including "any such legislative expectations".(5) Preamble, page 2, (after line 22), at the end of the Preamble, add:"Having considered the practical impact of the Teoh case, and the issues of principle involved, the Parliament of Australia believes that it is now necessary to reaffirm that an international instrument can have legal effect in Australian domestic law only to the extent that it is expressly incorporated by legislation, or its substance is incorporated into domestic law, in whole or in part, by the operation of the common law."I have moved these amendments in the context of the opposition being on record in this debate as supporting the thrust of this bill. Indeed, our voting has just occurred in favour of the second reading of the bill. It is wrong to suggest that in any way, shape or form the progress of this legislation—I might add that it is up to the government when it introduces it into the House and the Senate—could influence the outcome of deportation orders or otherwise. In particular, in my speech on the second reading, I referred to the deportation guidelines, which specifically require the administrators to have regard, as a priority, to the rights of children involved. The Attorney might like to read my comments in that respect. It was worse than hypocrisy; it was opportunistic of him to even suggest that the position of the opposition in any way, shape or form restricts the deportation of criminals or illegal immigrants or otherwise. The facts of the matter are that the government's own guidelines specifically require their administrators to have regard in these circumstances—as a primary issue—to the rights of the children, as was the outcome of the Teoh case.Our amendments are, firstly, a specific statement of intention of the parliament consistent with the decision in Teoh's case and that stated intention is that international instruments do not have effect unless they have been incorporated into Australia's domestic law by enactment or unless they have been incorporated in whole or in part by the operation of the common law. That statement of intention ensures that parliament has the responsibility for enacting when international instruments apply—except in the third category, where the substance of an international instrument has specifically been incorporated into Australia's domestic law by virtue of a decision of a court in the development of the common law. With respect to the Attorney, he himself is quite ambiguous in the wording he uses, and we note his discussion of the operation of clause 7 of the bill, which the opposition accepts. Clause 7 says:To avoid doubt, section 5 does not affect any other operation, or use that may be made, of an international instrument in Australian law.According to the notes I made of the Attorney's speech, he acknowledged specifically that treaties can be incorporated into Australian law. If the Attorney is saying that treaties can be incorporated into Australian law only through an enactment of this parliament, he is wrong. The Attorney will be aware of the comments of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Chief Justice Brennan, in Mabo and Others v. Queensland (No. 2) in which His Honour said: The opening up of international remedies to individuals pursuant to Australia's accession to the optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ... brings to bear on the common law the powerful influence of the covenant and the international standards it imports.There have been other instances where specific provisions of international instruments have been held to have been so significant that they have formed part of Australia's common law, and it is that situation that we are addressing. The specific failure of the government to address what they consider to apply in those circumstances itself leads to the uncertainty which the Attorney criticised. Far from creating uncertainty, we think our covering the situation of legislative enactment and also covering the incorporation of the substance of an international instrument into domestic law by virtue of a court decision as part of the development of the common law clarifies both situations, whereas the government will leave it quite ambiguous, which in itself is dangerous. (Extension of time granted)To make our position clear, we are supporting the intention of the bill. The intention of the bill is to say that it is the responsibility of parliament to advise and instruct administrators on which international instruments they are required to have regard to in performing their administrative duties while at the same time recognising that in this country we have a system of developing common law. We sit on top of a living common law that has developed over 800 years, and the common law is as much a part of our legal system as any enactment from parliament. We heard, in the passage I have just read, of one instance where the High Court acknowledged that the provisions of international instruments can be incorporated into Australia's common law.The common law, of course, develops by virtue of decisions of members of the judiciary by judges hearing cases. It is quite separate from and it does not apply to the Teoh decision, because in the Teoh decision the High Court held that as a matter of procedure—as opposed to substance of any particular treaty—administrators were required to have regard to international instruments where the administrator determined that those international instruments gave rise to a legitimate expectation. We agree with the government that that outcome is quite inappropriate. Some 900 treaties have been ratified by Australia. It is quite unfair of and, indeed, poor administration on the part of any government to expect all administrators to be aware of the contents of all treaties. Indeed, those treaties themselves will in many areas have conflicting intentions or conflicting operations. Further, it is quite unfair and unrealistic to require administrators to then take another step—to make their own determination as to whether a particular treaty gives rise to a legitimate expectation. Again, we are at one with the government in saying that it is the role of parliament to instruct administrators what treaties are to apply to their decision making process and in what way they are to apply to their decision making process.The difference between what we are proposing and the outcome in Teoh is that point. The Teoh judgment said that, as a matter of procedure, administrators are required to have regard to all treaties for the purpose of going through that reasoning process which I have just described. We are saying emphatically that we regard that as inappropriate. In fact, it would be an abrogation of the responsibility of the parliament to allow that to continue to occur. However, in circumstances where a court has specifically stated that the substance of a treaty—that is the terms of the treaty—has been incorporated into Australia's common law, we say that administrators may be in a circumstance where, in applying the law, they will also be required to apply common law. Instances where the substance of a treaty has been incorporated in Australia's common law will be rare but, nonetheless, easily ascertainable by administrators having regard to decisions of judges of relevant Australian courts, which at a federal level would be the Federal Court and the High Court of Australia.In summary, it is quite inappropriate for the government to suggest that the opposition is in any way attempting to fetter or restrain efficient administration. To the contrary, we want to clarify how administrators perform their role. We believe our amendments more precisely achieve that and for that reason we move those amendments 1, 4 and 5 as circulated in my name. 12:56:0016289Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—What the member for Barton said suggests that these amendments have been moved in good faith but, with respect, I think they are misconceived. The notion of incorporation into domestic law in the way that it is being used by the member for Barton is ambiguous, to say the least. To say that in moving these amendments the opposition supports the bill is really misleading. Opposition amendment 1 completely replaces the heart of the bill, that is, clause 5, with an amendment in the form of a statement of intention. This is highly uncertain in both its drafting and operation and it would be likely to entrench and compound the effects of the Teoh doctrine rather than overturn it. If the opposition were serious about resolving the longstanding problem created by the Teoh decision, they would have undertaken long ago to work with the government to find a workable solution, rather than shifting and changing positions at the last minute and introducing amendments without consultation.Opposition amendment 1 is substantially the same as the statement that Senators Bolkus and McKiernan proposed in their minority report of 1997. As I said earlier, the same concerns which arose in relation to that statement arise in relation to the opposition's amendment. The proposed amendment will only create more uncertainty, not remove it as is claimed. Secondly, to the extent that it actively encourages the courts to develop the common law on the basis of treaties, it will only serve to undermine even further the role of this parliament in legislating to give effect to treaties. In this respect it should be noted that the amendment contemplates that the whole of the substance of a treaty could have effect by operation of the common law. This would have obvious consequences for the balance between the proper roles of the parliament, the executive and the judiciary. I would add: it is not the present law. Thirdly, the amendment fails to recognise that there are degrees of incorporation of international law and Australian law by statute. Giving international instruments the force of domestic law, as the amendment proposes, is but one of them. The wording of the principle as proposed by the opposition is really unsuited for inclusion as an operative clause in a statute. It may have the effect of entrenching the operation of the Teoh doctrine. It could therefore have the exact opposite effect of the bill as introduced by the government.The bill will not affect the use made by judges of international law, including treaties, as an influence on the development of the common law. This is made clear in clause 7 of the explanatory memorandum to the second reading speech. The bill, in fact, is intended to have a very narrow sphere of operation. Clause 5, the operative clause, is squarely directed towards displacing the legitimate expectation which the High Court found arose out of a treaty. It does not say that treaties can no longer be used in the development of the common law. In summary, amendment 1 proposed by the opposition would create uncertainty rather than resolve it. It would entrench the Teoh doctrine rather than set it aside and it would serve further to undermine the proper role of the parliament rather than reinforce it.As to opposition amendment 4, which would omit reference in the preamble to the executive statements which have been made, the government believes that it is entirely appropriate to refer to these statements in the preamble. The government will not accept the omission of the relevant references. In the light of the comments I have made on opposition amendment 1, it will come as little surprise that the government will not support opposition amendment 5, as it simply foreshadows the opposition amendment to clause 5 in the same terms.Amendments negatived.13:00:0016289McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments (2) and (3):(2) Preamble, page 2, (line 8), after 'Australian', insert 'domestic'. (3) Preamble, page 2, (line 10), after 'Australian', insert 'domestic'.These amendments are simple amendments which apply in the preamble where there is a reference to Australian law. We feel that it would be, for the sake of clarity again, more appropriate to refer to Australian domestic law because the situation, as the wording currently exists, is `an international instrument by which Australia is bound or to which Australia is a party do not form a part of Australian law unless those instruments have been validly incorporated into Australian law by legislation'. We think it is appropriate to refer to domestic law to avoid a situation where the phrase could be construed as also implying international law. It is a fact that Australia is bound by virtue of international law to its international instruments and we believe the insertion of the word `domestic' to distinguish that situation is appropriate and hence the reason for our amendments.13:02:0016290Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government does not support these amendments. The references to Australian law in the preamble are clearly intended to refer to Australia's domestic law.Amendments negatived.Bill agreed to.16290Bill (on motion by Mr Williams)—by leave—read a third time.Bills16290R99216290Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills16290S209Consideration resumed from 9 March.1629013:04:0016290Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Fundamentally, the purpose of the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 is: to amend the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 to implement the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 (the London Convention); and to amend the Sea Installations Act 1987 to remove the prohibitions on issuing, and varying, a permit that would authorise a sea installation to be located partly within and partly outside an adjacent area (which, generally speaking, is an area of Commonwealth waters adjacent to state coastal waters).Indicative of the Commonwealth's commitment to the preservation of Australia's marine environment, the bill will also include a number of additional amendments to the sea dumping act that are intended to simplify, encourage compliance with, and the enforcement of, the sea dumping act.The sea dumping actUnder the sea dumping act, Australia fulfils its obligations as one of 77 contracting parties to the London convention. The London convention is aimed at promoting the effective control of pollution of the marine environment, by regulating the dumping of waste that is liable to: create hazards to human health; to harm living resources and marine life; to damage amenities; or to interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea.It embodies a framework for regulating: dumping into the sea—based on a list of substances for which dumping is prohibited, and a list of substances requiring special care; and incineration at sea—based on incineration guidelines. The London convention generally does not, however, apply in respect of: vessels and aircraft entitled to sovereign immunity under international law; the disposal of wastes or other matter derived from, or incidental to, the normal operations of a vessel, aircraft or platform; or the disposal of wastes or other matter directly arising from, or related to, the exploration, exploitation and associated offshore processing of seabed mineral resources.In summary, therefore, the sea dumping act currently regulates activities involving: dumping into the sea; incineration at sea; and loading for dumping into the sea or incineration at sea; where those activities occur either: from, or on, a vessel, aircraft or platform, in, or above, Australian waters; or from, or on, an Australian vessel anywhere at sea, or an Australian aircraft anywhere above the sea.The proposed construction of artificial reefs is also assessed, and permitted, under the sea dumping act. On 25 March 1998, Australia signed the 1996 protocol to the London convention, which entirely supersedes the London convention. Under the protocol, contracting parties are obliged to take effective measures, according to their scientific, technical and economic capabilities, to reduce and where practicable eliminate pollution caused by the dumping into the sea, or the incineration at sea, of wastes or other matter. The protocol embodies a more modern and comprehensive, and yet simplified, regulatory framework which aims to provide greater protection to the marine environment.The protocol prohibits incineration at sea, except in an emergency situation, and outright prohibits the export of wastes or other matter for dumping into the sea or incineration at sea. With respect to dumping, Annex 1 of the protocol provides a list of seven categories of wastes or other matter that may be considered for dumping at sea. These are: dredged material; sewage sludge; fish waste, or material resulting from industrial fish processing operations; vessels and platforms or other man-made structures at sea; inert, inorganic geological material; organic material of natural origin; and bulky items, primarily comprising iron, steel, concrete and similarly unharmful materials, for which the concern is physical impact, limited to those circumstances where such wastes are generated at locations having no practicable access to disposal options other than dumping (for example, small islands with isolated communities). Except for in an emergency situation, no other substances may be considered for dumping.The general exemptions provided by the London convention, as I have outlined, are also incorporated in the protocol. As of 6 March 2000, there were eight contracting parties to the protocol. These were Denmark, the Republic of South Africa, the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Vanuatu, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. Passage of this bill will implement the protocol nationally and satisfy Australia's domestic requirements for ratification. This action will reinforce the Commonwealth's commitment to the preservation of Australia's marine environment and reinforce Australia's standing as an international leader in responsible environmental management.Additionally, the bill will revise the offence provisions in the sea dumping act in relation to: dumping into the sea; incineration at sea; and loading for dumping into the sea or incineration at sea; and will include new offences in respect of: the export for dumping into the sea or incineration at sea; and the unauthorised construction of artificial reefs.A person engaging in activities constituting an offence against any of these revised or new offence provisions will be liable to a penalty of up to: 10 years imprisonment, a fine of 2,000 penalty units, which is approximately $210,000, or both, where the material involved in the commission of the offence includes seriously harmful material—and note that seriously harmful material will include radioactive material and any other material prescribed by the regulation to be seriously harmful material; two years imprisonment, a fine of 500 penalty units, approximately $55,000, or both, where the material involved includes non-Annex 1 material, and note that Annex 1 of the protocol, as I have outlined, lists the category of substances that may be considered for dumping under the protocol; and one year imprisonment, a fine of 250 penalty units, approximately $27,500, or both, in any other case. Corporations convicted of offences against these revised provisions will be liable, in accordance with the Crimes Act 1914, to up to five times these penalties. To ensure consistency between offence provisions in Commonwealth legislation, the bill will also apply chapter 2 of the Criminal Code to the offences under the sea dumping act.Significantly, the bill will also put beyond doubt that the Commonwealth has the responsibility for regulating the construction of artificial reefs. In the past the legislative authority to do so has not always been certain. This bill will apply the sea dumping act to Australia's exclusive economic zone rather than, as is currently provided, the Australian fishing zone. As well, this bill will limit the current Defence Force exemption so that the Australian Defence Force will be required to comply with the act, except in an emergency situation or situation of armed conflict. The bill will also revise the exemption in relation to the naval, military or air forces of a foreign country in accordance with international law.The bill will simplify the rollback provision, section 9, which authorises the minister administering the sea dumping act to make a declaration to limit the application of that act in respect of a state or the Northern Territory where that jurisdiction has enacted legislation to implement the protocol. Recognising that officers of the Australian Customs Service have the expertise and are generally well placed to assist in the enforcement of the provisions of the sea dumping act, this bill will also amend the act to include those officers as ex officio inspectors for the purposes of the sea dumping act. Finally, the bill will also include a number of amendments of a machinery nature designed to simplify the sea dumping act.The Sea Installations ActThe Sea Installations Act was enacted to ensure that sea installations installed in adjacent areas are operated with regard to the safety of the people using them and of the people, ships and aircraft near them; to apply appropriate laws in relation to such installations; and to ensure that such installations are operated in a manner that is consistent with the protection of the environment.A `sea installation' refers to any manmade structure that when in, or brought into, physical contact with the seabed, or when floating, can be used for an environment related activity. An environment related activity is defined to include any activity relating to: tourism or recreation; the carrying on of a business; or the exploration and exploitation of the living resources of the sea, the seabed or the subsoil of the seabed. The Sea Installations Act does not, however, generally include fishing installations; some exploration installations, such as installations and pipelines used by the petroleum industry; defence installations; or some cable installations. The act applies in respect of sea installations installed in an adjacent area of a state or affected territory which in general terms are the Commonwealth waters from three nautical miles out from the territorial sea baseline out to the outermost limits of Australian waters. The act does not apply in respect of sea installations located wholly within state coastal waters. Under the Sea Installations Act, the lawful installation and operation of a sea installation will require either: a permit to be issued; an exemption certificate to be issued; or a regulation to be made to exclude it from the application of the act. At present the Sea Installations Act prohibits the issuing or varying of a permit that would authorise a sea installation to be located partly within and partly outside an adjacent area. There is also some doubt about the validity of issuing an exemption certificate to authorise such a sea installation. The bill will amend the Sea Installations Act to remove these permitting prohibitions. This will remedy the unworkable situation of, on the one hand, proposals falling within the scope of the Sea Installations Act and, on the other hand, that act not conferring sufficient powers upon the administering minister to regulate these same proposals.In conclusion, passage of the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 will reaffirm Australia's commitment to the protection of the marine environment by implementing the 1996 protocol to the London convention. Passage of the bill will also strengthen the Commonwealth's power to ensure that all sea installations installed in an adjacent area are operated with regard to safety and in a manner consistent with the protection of the environment. It will do this by enabling permit conditions to also be imposed in respect of installations located both within and outside an adjacent area. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.13:16:0016293Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The opposition supports and commends the aims of the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. The bill implements the 1996 protocol to the London convention and increases penalties for contraventions of the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act through amendments to the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 and the Sea Installations Act. These are positive and important developments in the environmental protection of our oceans.The purpose of the bill is to amend the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 in order to, first, implement the 1996 protocol to the 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, which is generally referred to as the London convention; second, to clarify the Commonwealth's responsibility for regulating the construction of artificial reefs; third, to apply the act to the exclusive economic zone; fourth, to revise the offence, penalty and exemption provisions; fifth, to simplify the rollback provision for application to the states and the Northern Territory. It is good to see the government engaging in rollback, which there will be more of in the fullness of time. Sixth, it will include the Australian Customs Service as inspectors for the purposes of the act; and, finally, it will simplify provisions to make them consistent across the act.The bill also amends the Sea Installations Act 1987 in order to remove the prohibitions on issuing and varying a permit that would authorise a sea installation to be partly within and partly outside an adjacent area—that is, an area of Commonwealth waters adjacent to state coastal waters.However, the bill as it was originally introduced to the Senate included a number of weaknesses which the amendments that were passed in the Senate set out to address. These primarily relate to the application of the precautionary principle and the definition of artificial reefs. For thousands of years we have viewed oceans as vast dumps for domestic and industrial garbage. Since the sea dumping act has been in operation, over 100 million tonnes of sediments have been dredged from harbours and waterways, and three million tonnes of industrial waste, 20 vessels, and 1,500 tonnes of munitions have been dumped.A number of materials were licensed for dumping which are now considered unacceptable, including munitions, car tyres, concrete, asbestos and industrial waste. These materials may never become evenly diluted into a weakened mixture and, indeed, ocean processes may even concentrate some materials. Impacts of sea dumping include: stress on marine mammals by loss of seagrass from smothering, death and disease from the dumping of contaminated materials and the loss of mollusc reproduction from contaminated sediments. The costs of dumping materials at sea are not generally borne by those who dump; they are borne by the fishing industry and the community at large. Recent decades, however, have seen a remarkable shift for the better in international attitudes to the dumping of wastes at sea. This shift has been characterised by a move from an assimilative capacity approach, where the dilution effect of the oceans was thought to be adequate to mask the detrimental effect of the wastes, to the precautionary approach, where wastes should not be discarded where there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage. Concern for the health of the oceans has led to a number of international agreements which restrict the dumping of wastes and, indeed, the movement of hazardous wastes. The London convention was the first international convention to address ocean dumping and was ratified in Australia in 1985. The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act incorporates the convention into Australian law. The London convention aimed to prevent indiscriminate disposal at sea of wastes liable to create hazards to human health, to harm living resources and marine life, to damage amenities or to interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea. The fundamental principle of the convention is the prohibition of dumping of certain wastes, the requirement of a specific permit prior to dumping of others and the demand for a general permit for the rest. The first two categories are determined by annexes.Although an important development, the convention was limited in scope. It applied only to waste from ships and aircraft and did not cover material dumped from a land source or the operational discharges of ships. Similarly, the offshore processing of seabed resources is neither covered by the convention nor covered by domestic legislation. The waters surrounding Australia's coastline are increasingly threatened by pollution from waste dumped at sea which Commonwealth laws seek to control. Some materials, such as those produced for biological and chemical warfare and radioactive material, cannot be dumped in Australian waters under any circumstances. The 1996 protocol to the London convention has considerably strengthened the provisions of the convention. In addition to a more restrictive list of substances which can be dumped, the protocol requires contracting parties to explore alternatives to sea dumping. Labor welcomes the increasing rigour applied to the protection of the world's oceans.The 1996 protocol retains the objective of the convention and has captured essential measures propounded by the convention to prohibit dumping at sea. However, it does so while taking into account developments in technology for waste management that have occurred over the years, along with those anticipated for the future. The protocol discourages as far as possible any dumping at sea. Incineration at sea for the deliberate disposal of waste or other matter via thermal destruction is prohibited. Environmentally preferable land based alternatives are largely encouraged in order to avoid unwanted disposal of waste or other matter at sea. When I was a member of the Victorian parliament one of the issues I was involved in was the preparation of a management plan for the Gippsland Lakes. One of the critical issues being confronted at that time was the ocean outfall in the vicinity of the Gippsland Lakes and Lakes Entrance. People were very concerned about the impact of that particular ocean outfall. Indeed, in Victoria generally concerns have been raised about the impact of ocean outfalls and moves made, I am pleased to say, towards land based waste disposal systems to avoid the disposal of waste into the sea.The protocol recognises that current technology does not permit the disposal of certain categories of waste or other matter on land and that certain small island states lack the land mass for these land disposal facilities. In this respect, dumping may be allowed, but before such a decision is made candidate waste or other matter must first undergo a thorough assessment, including evaluation of a waste prevention audit, waste management options and identification of waste characteristics. The bill also extends the area to which the restrictions apply from the outer edge of the Australian fishing zone to Australia's exclusive economic zone, which includes also Australia's exclusive economic zone around Antarctica. The precautionary principle is critical in the area of oceans policy where scientific data is often incomplete. The bill needs to recognise the application of the precautionary principle as put in article 3 of the protocol. Senator Hill has stated that `the protocol incorporates the precautionary principle'—if there is any concern that the substance may harm the environment, it will not be dumped until testing has proved otherwise. However, this was not embodied in the original legislation and it is Labor's view this needs to be included in this legislation.The creation of artificial reefs is not considered dumping as recognised in the convention. It is essential that dumping is not proposed under the guise of reef creation. The definition of artificial reefs should limit artificial reef placement to the dumping of controlled materials as defined under the legislation.Labor supports the aims and objectives of this bill and the move towards a more protective marine regime. We have moved in the Senate a number of amendments and, of course, during this debate we will ascertain the government's position in relation to these amendments. So far there has not been any suggestion from the government that it does not support the amendments. I note in relation to these amendments, first, concerning the definition of `artificial reefs', that by not limiting the definition of artificial reef to a controlled substance a potential loophole exists to allow dumping of material other than that allowed under the protocol. Item 4 inserts a definition of artificial reefs into the sea dumping act. The concept of an artificial reef is not included in the London protocol but has been defined by the government under the bill. Secondly, there were Senate amendments relating to the negligence of an official. Clause 40A protects against legal action in relation to an act or omission of an official in relation to an artificial reef, even if the act or omission was negligent. The Senate amendment removed that omission in the case of negligence, I think for good reason. Finally, we come to the requirement to apply the precautionary principle. The bill as presented to the Senate by the government requires the minister to be satisfied that the material is capable of causing serious harm to the marine environment before making a regulation for it to be seriously harmful material. This would seem to be inconsistent with the precautionary principle as enunciated in article 3 of the protocol, which states:In implementing this Protocol, Contracting Parties shall apply a precautionary approach to environmental protection from dumping of wastes or other matter whereby appropriate preventative measures are taken when there is a reason to believe that wastes or other matter introduced into the marine environment are likely to cause harm even when there is no conclusive evidence to prove a causal relation between inputs and effects.Senator Hill has said that the protocol incorporates the precautionary principle. This was not in the bill as originally presented to the Senate and, therefore, was included in the legislation as amended by the Senate so that we have an amendment that requires the explicit application of the precautionary principle as required under the protocol.Before I conclude, I briefly note and register my concern that the government has slashed environmental funding for oceans across its portfolios by $150 million. This funding has gone from $294.7 million in 1999-2000 to $148.8 million in 2000-01 and will continue to fall to $81.3 million in 2002-03 and $72.5 million in 2003-04. This is a matter of concern to the opposition. We are concerned that environment program expenditure generally is dropping and that the government's commitment to environment funding is lacking. As we see the funding from the Natural Heritage Trust starting to dry up, the environment, including oceans, is not getting the commitment which it needs and deserves.Recently I spoke to a number of environmental groups in the Great Lakes area of New South Wales. That visit was organised by the member for Paterson, Mr Bob Horne, who is an energetic and environmentally aware member. They expressed to me considerable concern about issues of future funding based on the fact that the government's commitment to many of the environment programs and environmental repair programs had been based on its part sale of Telstra and that there was no ongoing commitment on the part of the government to provide the funding which these areas desperately need and deserve. I do want to register that concern. During the debate we will no doubt hear from the government concerning its intention regarding the Senate amendments and respond accordingly. As I indicated at the outset, we are supportive of this legislation and regard commitment to protecting our oceans from dumping as a matter of high priority. Therefore we welcome this legislation.13:31:0016296Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—It is my pleasure to rise today in support of the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. I think it is the fourth occasion I have spoken in the parliament about the importance of our marine ecology and our coastal environment. It is an issue very close to my heart, representing the coastal electorate of Dunkley where the good folks of Seaford, Frankston, Mount Eliza and Mornington adjoin Port Phillip Bay and are close to some of the ocean beaches further down on the magnificent Mornington Peninsula. So it is an issue close to the heart of the community I represent, myself and Australians more generally.We have in our management responsibility now 16 million square kilometres of ocean to care for under the exclusive economic zone arrangements. For people in the gallery and those listening at home, that is an area more than twice the size of our vast continent. We have an enormous responsibility for the proper care and management of a very large section of the earth's surface and what lies beneath it, and that is very much what we are here to talk about today.I want to also dwell on the point that as a nation we have an even greater responsibility for what is within that enormous area of the earth's surface. In Australian waters, within that 16 million square kilometres that we have responsibility for, as many as 18 per cent of the species found in the southern temperate waters are not found anywhere else in the world. We have the enormous responsibility of being custodian for 80 per cent of species in areas not far from your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams. Those more temperate waters to the south of our nation down to Antarctica have species that cannot be found in any other place on our planet. Even the rich diversity of fish life and marine ecology in the warm and northern waters brought by the currents from the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean into our territory are something to behold. But 10 per cent of those species are endemic to our waters; so one in 10 of the species in those warmer waters can be found only in our country. It gives us an understanding as to why Australia has been at the forefront of marine management and coastal management and recognised to be so around the world.I guess we need to not only understand the environmental and ecological significance of the water but talk about the exclusive economic zone and our marine environment as a source of opportunity and wealth for our country into the future. The marine industries account at the moment for about $30 billion of economic activity a year, or about eight per cent of our gross domestic product, and are a major employer and exporter. I mentioned earlier that the coastal and marine environment is close to home for the vast majority of Australians and is at the heart of the image and element of Australian society we celebrate abroad. We should look further into the future and think about biotechnology and what is within this area of our globe that I think is so poorly understood. We have talked about the 80 per cent of species found in our southern temperate waters that are not found anywhere else. We need to do more to understand those species. We do not know what mysteries they hold. We do not know in some areas what the mysteries of the depths of our oceans hold. It is our responsibility to understand and better manage those things.I am pleased to say that the Howard government is a world leader in this area through the development and implementation of an integrated oceans policy which takes account of planning, proper management and protection of our natural systems in our ocean environment. That is something that is also attracting considerable attention. We are the only country in the world that has an oceans policy and we have a right to be proud of that. Others are looking at how Australia does its work in this area to see how they can learn from our experience. We need to take a longer term view—and this is exactly what the government is doing through its oceans policy and then supporting it with a $50 million initial investment to commence the implementation of that policy. We can look abroad at what that ocean policy means on the ground. We have a national oceans ministerial board and enhanced planning, research and monitoring work. We also have improved assessment and management arrangements involving commercial and recreational activities as well as biodiversity protection. We are trying to involve the stakeholders—the scientific community, the private sector, the government and community—to make sure we have the best possible knowledge base for managing our marine environment.We can look at the government's work to implement the national representative system of marine protected areas to make sure that we have preserved forever, for future generations, areas of that marine environment that represent segments of that 16 million square kilometres that we have responsibility for managing. We are also trying to understand what the oceans do to themselves. The natural systems that occur in the oceans have an impact on our marine ecology and we are trying to better understand that through the terrific work of the CSIRO and other scientific bodies to make sure we know what the ocean actually does to itself and how it can bring about change over time.Closer to my electorate, the coasts and clean seas policy is further evidence of the government's commitment to marine protection and coastal management. Understandably, that is principally about state and territory responsibilities for coastal management that the Commonwealth government is supporting and in some cases leading through the development of pilot projects, assisting with proper coastal planning and tackling urban stormwater. In Port Phillip Bay, the biggest risk to the waterway on the doorstep of my electorate is stormwater. Most people think it is down the drain and it will not affect anything. That is not true. It has an enormous impact on the health of our coastal ecology, particularly in Port Phillip Bay. I have talked about efforts to tackle ballast water management and fight the introduction of exotic species before in this place. But today's instalment—and I use the term `instalment' in the context of this bill in the light of all those other initiatives I have spoken of—is about protecting our marine and coastal ecologies from pollution and the adverse impacts of marine structures and works.The bill, as has been explained by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and the opposition speaker, the member for Wills, comes in two parts. Firstly, it amends the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act to bring it up to date with the evolution in international thinking. We heard both speakers talk about the London convention and how that has been superseded by the London protocol. That has new provisions in it to make sure that we are properly protecting our marine environment from a whole range of substances that people may think should be appropriately disposed of in our seas. Under the old arrangement there was a fairly narrow band of substances that were identified as hazardous and therefore could not be dumped. But there were some mysteries, doubts and confusion and—I guess for some people less committed to the environment than us—an opportunity to do the wrong thing and impact on our environment. I will talk more about that briefly.The second area that this amending bill addresses is the Sea Installation Act. We have heard about adjacent waters where a project may cross from Commonwealth areas of responsibility into state areas of responsibilities. There was some indecision about how we could carry forward our obligations under the Sea Installations Act. An area probably close to your heart, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, is the Bass Link project, highlighting how we cannot have a tidy project that neatly sits within one jurisdiction. There is the excitement that that brings for all the parties involved and for people considering investing in that type of project not knowing where the jurisdictional responsibility lies. So this is a problem here and now that we are hoping to tidy up and make more clear so that all parties, whether investors, conservationists, governments or elected representatives such as ourselves know where responsibility stops and starts. It takes away the doubt about whether the Commonwealth can enforce its obligations under the Sea Installations Act. I would like to talk briefly about how the issues that were canvassed in the act relate to everyday life for our communities. The Bass Link project is one example we spoke of. You would be aware of the interest in installing a hydro phone array off the south-west of Western Australia as part of our responsibilities under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty—a listening device, so that if other countries are not doing the right thing under that treaty, we will get to hear about it, literally and figuratively, through that technology. That is another project that would have to wallow between the jurisdictional confusion that exists if the parliament does not pass this legislation. We want that proposal obviously to go ahead so we can monitor blast activity, but we do not want to run into a problem where the cable that returns that information back to our mainland crosses out of federal jurisdiction into state jurisdiction and the governments are looking at one another wondering how to move forward on that particular project.There are other areas in terms of the sea dumping act which are worthy of discussing. We know of our government's considerable efforts in border protection regarding migration and goods and contraband coming into the country. We are seeking to strengthen the enforcement effort by empowering Customs officers. They are out there doing things to protect the national interest at the moment and are appropriately skilled to monitor activities of this kind. If people are doing the wrong thing, they are there. They have an ex officio status to enforce the amendments we are seeking to have supported by the parliament and that will strengthen the enforcement effort.While staying on the enforcement effort, we should talk about the fines as well. There has been a significant escalation in the penalties for offences, supported by a clarification of those offences, so that they can be more readily understood and given effect to. So that is another bonus that is represented in this legislation before the House.My colleague spoke about the application of the legislation being extended into the exclusive economic zone. That is a major plus, moving out beyond Australia's fishing zone into that 14 million square kilometres that we have responsibility for, recognising that the marine ecologies do not neatly stop and start at jurisdictional borders. This is another benefit included in this legislation.The question of artificial reefs is something that is close to the hearts of people who are interested in things at Cottesloe surf beach in Western Australia. You do not want to have the community supporting a project to create an artificial reef, in this case to give more shape to the surf waves, as I understand it, not knowing where the jurisdiction properly lies. So the nation is fronting practical issues at this time and providing the necessary tools to make sure we can protect the marine environment, public safety and shipping as it moves through those areas.Another point I would like to briefly speak about is the question of defence activities around the country. We often host exercises where we have other countries coming into our territory to practise manoeuvres and the like. Here we have a tightening of the exemption that the defence department can rely upon. The blanket exemption that said Defence was important and therefore did not necessarily have to comply with these laws has been removed and replaced with a more restricted exemption that deals with emergency situations and episodes of armed conflict. So again the defence department, an arm of the federal government, is making sure it is being a good neighbour and good citizen in terms of environment management and protection of our marine ecology.But that is not the only example of how this bill supports good environmental citizenship. Our aircraft and our vessels travelling to other parts of the world will also have to comply with these new tightened standards. So we are making sure that not only is Australia leading the way within our own area of responsibilities, but also our citizens and our vessels and our aircraft moving around the world are not able to operate under less responsible provisions than those they are required to operate under at home. So that is another constructive and practical example of how things can be translated into Australia's leadership position. There are a number of other areas I would like briefly to talk about. The main ones I have already covered. But the point I would like to leave with the parliament today is that this is not the first time this nation and this government have been leading the way with environment management, particularly in the marine area. Honourable members would be aware of Minister Hill's work, particularly in protecting whales in the southern sanctuary areas. We have been leading the way internationally and this is further evidence of what can be done by a coalition government and certainly the support from the opposition is welcomed.There is the question of implementing the precautionary principle. We can talk about the precautionary principle, or we can actually operationalise it. The government's commitment is to making sure that we operationalise the precautionary principle. Other speakers will be able to talk about that further. That is something that the opposition has addressed. It is certainly in the government's mind. But simply putting a bland statement in about that as an intent certainly does not give us the tools that operationalising it gives us where the act has provisions that make sure that that sound thinking has the legislative tools to back it up.I might leave my comments at that for today and congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, who is at the table, and if she could pass on my congratulations to Minister Hill. He is doing a fabulous job caring for our natural systems in this country. Our oceans and our marine environment are extremely important, as I outlined at the beginning of my contribution today, and this is another instalment in making sure that the Howard government leaves the marine and ocean environment in the best possible condition for future generations.13:46:0016299Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I am pleased to be able to speak to the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 as it comes to us from the Senate. Indeed, I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity to speak on environmental issues at all in this place. This government has been extremely lax when it comes to introducing legislation which is aimed at further protecting our fragile planet. But I must say that I do support this bill, one of the rare occasions on which the government has initiated legislation for the protection of the environment which does not rely upon the sale of national icons.The purpose of this bill is to amend the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 in order to implement the 1996 protocol to the 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, known also as the London convention; to clarify the Commonwealth's responsibility for regulating the construction of artificial reefs; to apply the act to the exclusive economic zone; revise defence penalty and exemption provisions; simplify roll-back provisions for application to the states and the Northern Territory; include Australian Customs Service officers as inspectors for purposes under the act; and to simplify provisions to make them consistent across the act.It is also to amend the Sea Installations Act 1987 in order to remove the prohibitions on issuing and varying a permit that would authorise a sea installation to be located partly within and partly outside an adjacent area; that is, an area of Commonwealth waters adjacent to state coastal waters.This bill is a direct legislative response by the government to its oceans policy, which was launched in 1998 during the International Year of the Oceans. As outlined in the oceans policy, this bill moves towards ratification of the 1996 protocol to the London convention and implements a total ban on industrial waste dumping at sea. It also imposes tighter regulations on artificial reef construction to protect the marine environment from pollution and to prevent hazards in the sea for navigation, commercial fishing and divers. Before I speak at greater length on the dumping of waste at sea aspect of this bill, I think it is timely to draw members' attention to the lack of environment measures contained in Treasurer Costello's fifth budget brought down on Tuesday evening. The government has slashed environmental spending on oceans across all portfolios by almost $150 million. It has gone from $294.7 million in 1999-2000 to $148.8 million in 2000-01 and it will continue to fall until 2004 when the Natural Heritage Trust Fund runs out. On Tuesday night while delivering his budget speech, the Treasure did not mention the `e' word once. Not once did he mention the environment in his budget speech. The decrease in funding in this budget for the Natural Heritage Trust comes at a time when our nation is facing the most challenging problems affecting our water systems, problems that must be solved in order for us to be assured that our children and grandchildren will be able to drink the water which flows through our inland river systems. Early this year the Murray Darling Basin Commission released its salinity audit and warned of undrinkable water in most inland rivers by 2020. In this budget that has followed the salinity audit most Australians were at least entitled to expect early measures to try to address dry land salinity. Australians had a right to expect that, but what they received is a huge $60 million cut in the National Heritage Trust funding. This lack of commitment to the environment by this government has been exposed by its slashing the Murray Darling 2001 program by $6.4 million, slashing Bushcare by $12.5 million, slashing National Rivercare by $1.1 million and slashing Landcare, which is the real grassroots community based program delivered by mostly volunteers in our communities who have a commitment to the environment, by $3.9 million. As well as the cuts I have mentioned, the government has also cut funding to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian Heritage Commission. Another good indication of the government's failure to deliver on the environment is reflected in the greenhouse policy. In March this year it was revealed by Gwen Andrews, who is the Executive Director of the Australian Greenhouse Office, that Australia has failed to significantly reduce the projected levels of greenhouse gas emissions and thereby will be unable to reach greenhouse emission targets set at the Kyoto conference. I hope that when this bill has passed through both houses of the parliament its implementation will be monitored to ensure that some of the oceans policy commitments are fulfilled.Like many other areas of government, such as information technology, communications, industry, industrial relations and human rights, environmental issues must be placed in an international or global framework. The fragility of our international and national water system and the marine life within it needs to be respected, protected, maintained and nurtured. By ratifying the 1996 protocol to the London convention, Australia will take a positive step to fulfil its international obligations by implementing a total ban on industrial waste dumping at sea. The convention came into force in 1975 and was the first international convention to address ocean dumping. It aimed to prevent the indiscriminate disposal of wastes at sea and reflected the growing concern over the detrimental effects of such practices on marine life. However, the convention was limited in that it did not cover the material dumped from a land source or operational discharges from ships.Moreover, neither the convention nor the domestic legislation introduced to incorporate it covered the disposal of waste related to the exploitation from offshore processing of mineral resources. Australia incorporated the convention into Australian law by introducing the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act in 1981 and ratified the convention in 1985. In effect, the protocol discourages any form of dumping at sea and obliges contracting parties to take effective measures to prevent, reduce and, where practical, eliminate pollution caused by dumping. For example, the deliberate disposal of waste by incineration at sea is prohibited. Environmentally sound land based alternatives are encouraged in an attempt to avoid disposing of wastes in a marine environment. Australia was one of the 42 contracting parties that adopted the protocol in 1996 and signed it in 1998. If this bill is passed, presumably Australia will confirm its intention to be bound by the protocol by moving to ratify it. The pollution caused by waste dumped at sea increasingly threatens our waters. We on this side of the House welcome the introduction of any measure that will strengthen the protection afforded the world's oceans. Every day I and my constituents in the electorate of Charlton live with the effects of indiscriminate disposal of contaminated wastes which have ended up in Lake Macquarie. Lake Macquarie, just south of Newcastle, is the largest coastal lake in the Southern Hemisphere. Covering some 110 square kilometres with a total catchment of approximately 605 square kilometres, Lake Macquarie is characterised by fringing mangroves, wetlands and seagrass beds and has an abundance of aquatic life, including fish and water birds. Over the past 100 years Lake Macquarie has been subjected to the environmentally degrading commercial operations of forestry, mining, minerals processing and power generation located in its catchment and close to its shores. The lake also has supported local tourism and fishing industries. Some of these industries, combined with a huge increase in urban growth over many years, have placed the ecosystem of Lake Macquarie under increasing stress. We live with the effects of unnatural sedimentation and unnatural contaminants being discharged into the lake. These effects include the ecological impacts of sedimentation and nutrients from urban growth and industrial areas, existing urban and rural development and infrastructure around the lake. These impacts have included the reduced ventilation of shallow areas, the smothering of new shore habitats, elevated nutrient and algae levels in the water and the subsequent and progressive loss of vegetation around the lake and its tributaries.The historical impacts over the last 100 years have resulted in the accumulation and discharge of industrial waste. Some results of these impacts include a reduced ability to navigate the lake and its tributaries because of its accelerated sedimentation. We also have damage to seagrass beds caused by this sedimentation. Unfortunately, some of the recreational users enjoying boating and fishing activities continue to dump bait bags and drink and food containers which further contaminate the lake. Such a delicately balanced ecosystem cannot tolerate such impacts any longer. We must be able to remediate and preserve Lake Macquarie for many future generations.All residents of Lake Macquarie were pleased that the New South Wales state Labor government has made real commitments to help in the remediation process. In 1999 the Premier, Bob Carr, set up the Lake Macquarie task force to provide an integrated estuary and catchment management framework for Lake Macquarie to provide a healthy, sustainable lake for a quality lifestyle. Although the task force provided us with a three-year action plan it has been emphasised that federal and state governments must provide ongoing funding past that three-year period. It has been estimated that the total cost of the remediation to fix the lake after 100 years of waste dumping and waste contamination is $40 million. The task force stated in its report that any lesser amount was inadequate. All sectors must take ownership of the past degradation and contribute to fixing it up. Out of all those sectors, the federal government is the largest and most able to contribute. What has the coalition government contributed so far? The answer is $500,000—half a million dollars. The lake needs $40 million to fix it—and the federal government provides half a million. To the minister for the environment, the people of the Charlton electorate thank you—but please, sir, can we have some more?Lake Macquarie City council has applied for funding to address the most pressing problem for the lake; that is, stormwater run-off. The council has applied for nearly half a million dollars from the government. I understand the application is currently with the minister. I make a personal plea to the minister in this debate to provide favourable and positive consideration of the council's current application and any further applications for funding to clean up Lake Macquarie. I take this opportunity to congratulate Jeff Janssen, who is employed by the New South Wales state government as Lake Macquarie catchment coordinator. Jeff has a good strong background in environment matters as well as a personal commitment to the protection of our natural environs. Jeff is a long-time resident of Lake Macquarie. I know he wants the lake protected for his children and all future generations. Well done so far, Jeff, and you know you will continue to have my full support in your efforts to clean up our lake.In conclusion, while supporting the bill and everything it represents in relation to our international obligations towards the protection of our planet, I call on this government to start addressing some of the domestic problems that exist here and now and must be fixed. Our local waterways must also be protected.Debate interrupted.Distinguished Visitors1630210000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—As it is not quite 2 p.m., the chair would like to take the opportunity to recognise that, not surprisingly in this week, we do have a number of former members in the gallery. I would like particularly to recognise a former cabinet minister, the Hon. Ralph Hunt, who is in the distinguished visitors gallery.Questions Without Notice163021630214:00:0016302Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Treasurer, I refer to your comments on Tuesday during which you said Telstra had delivered, `bad news, very bad news', on future dividend payments. Are you aware of comments today by Telstra's Director of Finance, Mr John Stanhope, who says, `We didn't give Costello bad news at all'? Treasurer, did Telstra deliver very bad news or not? 16302Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—First of all, the questioner reads out a false quote. What I said was that the non-taxation revenue as reported in the budget—which included all GBEs, one of which is Telstra, but as I said specifically another is the Reserve Bank dividend—had delivered bad news. The bad news it had delivered, as was apparent from the budget paper, is that dividends from associated entities, which in 1999-2000 were $6½ billion, had fallen 66 per cent. I would have thought that in anybody's language when you take the combined associated entities a fall of 66 per cent was bad news and—5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—The market could read it. CT4Mr COSTELLO—I thought that would have been pretty obvious even to the shadow minister. 5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—The market didn't think it was supercilious. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Perth! CT4Mr COSTELLO—Although he yells because he says the market might be worried about share prices—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat. I have already drawn the member for Perth's attention to what ought to be common courtesy in the House and he has ignored the chair. CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, although he interjects, in defiance of your directions, in a loud voice, I point this out: the Labor Party apparently is now worried about the share price of Telstra, which I welcome. I thought the Labor Party policy was that there should be no shares in Telstra. I thought that the Labor Party actually believed that Telstra should be a nationalised phone company. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I go to a point of order on relevance. He was asked a question as to whether or not Telstra delivered very bad news. He has attempted to answer the question but he now diverts—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I call the Treasurer. I will listen closely to his answer. I confess that I was in reasonable conversation with the member for the Northern Territory. CT4Mr COSTELLO—I was going to finish by saying that if the Labor Party is interested in the price of Telstra, which I hope it is, presumably it will now support the full privatisation of Telstra—because nothing could be better for its share price! 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat.1630314:04:0016303McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House of the employment figures which were released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics this morning? What do these figures indicate about the success of the government's economic policies? 16303Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Corangamite for his question. In response let me say that I have undeniably very good news for this House. As a result of the figures released this morning, I can inform the House that since March of 1996 almost 700,000 new jobs have been created in Australia. That is a direct result of the economic policies that were opposed by the Australian Labor Party. Not only did the Australian Labor Party run up $80 billion of debt in five years, and not only have we had to remove that debt—at the end of this coming budget cycle we will have taken $50 billion out of that $80 billion of Labor debt—but on top of that at every turn the Labor Party has opposed our attempts to reform the Australian economy. That would have been bad enough if economic reform were some kind of ideological or academic debate between the political parties, but it is not. Economic reform delivers flesh and blood social outcomes. There are 700,000 beneficiaries of the economic policies of this government. There are 700,000 Australians of all ages who now have jobs as a result of the policies Mr Beazley opposed. It is quite a double to run up $80 billion of debt in five years and then try to stop your successors tidying up that mess. To add insult to injury, you opposed every single attempt to generate 700,000 jobs for the Australian people. I am proud of what this government has done in the area of job generation. I thank the Minister for Workplace Relations, Employment and Small Business for the contribution that he has made with his industrial relations reforms. It has not only been the economic policies led by the Treasurer, but also it has been the industrial relations reforms and all the other policies—the training policies of the Minister for Education, the employment services policies of the Minister for Employment Services. The good news is that 700,000 more Australians now have jobs as a result of the policies of this government. Those 700,000 people will remember the Leader of the Opposition for leaving us with an $80 billion debt in only five years and also for having opposed every measure of the government designed to generate those 700,000 new jobs.1630314:07:0016303Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. I again refer to his comments on Tuesday when he said, `Telstra had delivered bad news, very bad news on future dividend payments.' Treasurer, despite your earlier answer, are you aware of comments today by Telstra's Director of Finance, Mr John Stanhope, who said of those comments, `The Treasurer's words were not helpful, no.' Are you also aware that your comments wiped more than $1 billion off Telstra's share value yesterday, before Telstra made an official statement to the Stock Exchange mid-morning? Treasurer, why won't you apologise to those hundreds of thousands of Australians who bought Telstra shares and who have seen the value of their investment cut by your loose lips?16303Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The first point, of course, is that the Labor Party thinks that nobody should have a share in Telstra. The Labor Party voted against anybody having a share in Telstra.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—We already owned it!CT4Mr COSTELLO—The member for Corio interjects to say they already owned it. No, I am sorry, your policy has shifted. You are now worried about the share price of private owners, apparently, according to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Having voted against any right to ever take a share, having voted against any right to issue the balance of the equity, which is the biggest single constraint on Telstra as a corporation, the Labor Party would feign an interest in the Telstra share price when it believes in a nationalised phone company. No amount of repetition of false quotes from the Leader of the Opposition adds to the false quote which was given by the previous questioner. What I said on Tuesday is what was reported in the budget, that is, dividends from associated entities, that is, all government business entities— DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My question goes to relevance, not what was named in the budget but his loose lips, just like with Greenspan—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. It was a frivolous point of order. The Treasurer has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—As I said on Tuesday, and as is reported in the budget papers, dividends from associated entities—that is all government business entities, not just Telstra but principally Telstra and the Reserve Bank—fell from $6.5 billion to $2.2 billion: a fall of 66.6 per cent. A point that I also made was that that led non-taxation revenue overall—notwithstanding licence fees which were up, as I also explained in the budget—to fall by 13.6 per cent. Mr Speaker, if you were to read precisely what I said, it was dividends from Telstra and the Reserve Bank. In relation to Telstra, of course dividends came down from 1999-2000 to 2000-01, one of the reasons being special dividends, which were in 1999-2000. In relation to the Reserve Bank, of course, the dividend comes down, but I will not be going into the reasons as to why that is the case, other than to say that the government cumulates all of its dividends, as it always has; it does not isolate them. And, as we reported in the budget, a point that I made on Tuesday, they fall by 66 per cent—I think anybody who looked at that would say that they would rather it did not—and a 66 per cent fall in associated dividends was bad news.1630414:11:0016304Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of the budget's forecasts for growth? What role does good policy play in securing Australia's strong economic position?16304Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Blair for his question. Of course, the government's strong economic policy has set Australia up for a strong economic performance into the next century. The Prime Minister has just stated probably the most important change in fiscal policy that has occurred in this country. Five Labor budgets: a run-up of $80 billion worth of debt; and then five coalition budgets that not only pay for themselves but over and above that pay back $50 billion of Labor debt. In one of the most confused, convoluted, rambling, illogical doorsteps ever, this morning the Leader of the Opposition in his prolix way was asked what he would do. He made this interesting piece of economic analysis. Listen to this. This is from the Leader of the Opposition. He said, `You have choices as to how you spend a surplus.' That is the first point at which I stop. Of course, if you spend it, it is not a surplus. `You have choices as to how you spend a surplus.' A surplus, if I may say so, is something you have not spent. But since, in two years as finance minister, he cumulated deficits of $23 billion, it is a point that might have escaped him. He said, `You have choices as to how to spend a surplus.' Now listen to this—this is an interesting Freudian slip—`The surplus created by those massive cuts three years ago.' Created by those massive cuts three years ago! I thought the budget was already in surplus before those cuts three years ago. I thought the budget was in surplus in 1995-96. `The surplus created by those massive cuts three years ago.' I also pause to make this point about those so-called massive cuts: every single one of them was opposed by the Labor Party. So the surplus was created by massive cuts, every single one of which you opposed. If you had had your way, there would never have been a surplus. Listen to the words out of his own mouth: `You have choices how to spend a surplus.' `The surplus created by those massive cuts three years ago.' A completed mission that, if Labor had had its way, there would never have been a surplus. And then he said, `You could have left a bit more in the surplus. You could have cut tax less. You could have put more resources into education, more into health, more into schools, more into innovation and more into business.'Tonight when the Leader of the Opposition stands up to give his budget reply, he is going to announce how he is going to roll back the GST and all of the revenue that that is going to cost. We will recall that, yesterday, he thought the income tax cuts were not great enough because they would be clawed back, so presumably he is also in favour of more long-lasting income tax cuts. He has been out today saying that he is in favour of education increases. He is in favour of health increases as well. He is in favour of infrastructure increases and he is in favour of more money for schools. He is in favour of more money for innovation. He is in favour of more money for business and, guess what? He also supports a larger surplus. So tonight he is going to cut tax, he is going to spend bigger and, at the end of it, he is going to produce another surplus—no doubt a surplus like his last two budgets, which just happened to accumulate a $23 billion deficit. Today we had the news, as the Prime Minister said, that unemployment has fallen again. There are now 700,000 more Australians in work as a result of this government's efforts over the last four years, since it was elected. That is a strong economy and that is a real fiscal policy. They are the benefits of running good economic policy. We were fought every step of the way by the Labor Party. The best thing about their efforts is that they were not successful. 1630514:16:0016305Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Treasurer. I refer to his comments last night in relation to the letter he wrote to Telstra seeking information on future dividends and Telstra's reply to him, and in particular his comment that `it doesn't mean that I have any information on Telstra which is not available to the market'. If as you say Telstra's advice to you does not contain information that is unavailable to the market, will you now table that advice in order to clear up the confusion surrounding your claims and those of Telstra's finance director?16305Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I do not know what claims the member for Hotham is referring to, but the matters I have put on the record are the matters that are in the budget. I referred to them in the budget and I referred to them in the press conference, and they are these: dividends from associated entities, which are always included in the budget and never broken down, fell from $6.5 billion in 1999 to $2.2 billion in 2000-2001—a 66 per cent fall. That includes government business enterprises such as Telstra—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order that goes to relevance. The Treasurer was asked a question and he said, `It doesn't matter that I have information on Telstra which is not available to the market.' What was asked for by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was the information that he had from Telstra and, if it is not available to the market, why won't he table it?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will rule on the matter of relevance. In my assessment the Treasurer is being entirely relevant. I am not to know whether the comments in the budget papers are part of the correspondence between him and the Telstra chiefs or not.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, I am saying that the budget discloses dividends from associated entities, which includes government business entities, including Telstra and the Reserve Bank, and it pays dividends. In an accumulated way it states what the total outcome is. The budget has always done it in a total way. It has done it for all of the five budgets that this government has brought down. It did it through all of the Labor Party budgets. It never isolates them, nor does the government ever disclose individual dividends.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, further on the point of order: he is answering another question. The question he was asked specifically was whether the information that he had was available to the market as a whole. There has been an exchange of correspondence. He says it ought to be generally available. Where is it?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer was asked a question, part of which was whether or not he would table particular correspondence. So far as I am aware, he is still coming to that answer. For that reason, I have allowed him to continue.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I am explaining the budget papers, which always disclose total dividends from total organisations. As a former finance minister would have known, I would have thought, it is never broken down. It never has been. It never was by you when you were finance minister. It never has been under us and it never will be done because the government does not disclose or break down the individual dividends. We did not do it in this budget just as you never did it in 13 budgets—and we have done the same in the last five budgets. We put in a global amount, which obviously includes both Telstra and the Reserve Bank. As I have consistently pointed out, it has fallen from $6.5 billion to $2.2 billion. In respect of Telstra, a big part of that is obviously the special dividend that was paid in 1999-2000. There is also a fall, as I also said in my press conference, in relation to RBA dividends. We do not itemise them; we do not disclose them individually. It has never been done in Australian practice. It was never done under 13 years of Labor government and it is has not been done under five years of this government; it would not be sensible commercial practice. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order and it goes to relevance. Will he table the correspondence to clear up the confusion?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I understood the Treasurer to indicate that he is not tabling any correspondence.DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may care to refer to the Hansard.1630614:20:0016306Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, would you inform the House of support that exists for initiatives in the area of health care that were announced in Tuesday night's budget?16306Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Medicare has served people in city Australia very well but it does have some failings. It has failed country people in providing an adequate number of medical practitioners and access to medical services. This budget is not about giving country people anything special but simply redressing the imbalance so that country people can access what people in the city take for granted. Because of that there is a regional health strategy that has received wide acclamation and involves a number of areas with particular initiatives, such as our $102 million program to get half of all general practice training in rural Australia; greater support for rural doctors by providing support services through divisions; our bonded scholarship scheme, which is tied to Medicare provider restrictions; 100 new places each and every year in universities; and almost $70 million to top up our successful regional health services program. These are just some of the initiatives that were in the budget on Tuesday night.The budget has had a very good response from a wide range of people around Australia. The Council on the Ageing, in a media release, have welcomed the initiatives to revitalise nursing in small regional hospitals. Older people want facilities near their homes, likewise increased allied health services attached to general practice are welcome. The Australian Medical Association, not always one of the greatest supporters of the government, put out a press release and said:It is certainly good for health. It will get extra doctors and specialists out there, and it is the sort of thing we've been suggesting.Barry Hailstone, in the Adelaide Advertiser, has called it `the biggest boost to people living in rural and remote areas since the introduction of the Flying Doctor Service'. In government you never expect to receive support from your political opponents, but I can report to the House that that is exactly what has happened. The Premier of Queensland, Peter Beattie, a former health minister, said on ABC radio yesterday:I do have to give some accolades though, John. I think that the efforts to increase medical services and doctors in the bush is good. I fully supported that. As a former health minister I think that's very significant.I welcome Mr Beattie's comments, as do all my colleagues. We have worked hard on this budget. I look forward to the opposition joining with us and with the Premier of Queensland in supporting these initiatives.1630714:23:0016307Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question again is to the Treasurer. I refer to his speech last night, in which he claimed that the tax cuts were not compensation for the GST and that they would have happened anyway without the GST. Treasurer, do you recall telling Glenn Milne on 13 August 1998—the day you released your tax package:Look, the tax package is an integrated whole. You can't have bits of it. You reform the indirect tax system, which gives you the chance to drop income tax rates. Treasurer, why didn't you tell the Australian people during the election what you are telling them now: that they could have had tax cuts without the GST?16307Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As usual, it is a farrago of confusion and misrepresentation from the member for Hotham. What I said last night, and I will repeat it, is that Australians deserved income tax cuts. One of the main reasons why they deserved them was that the last time they were promised them they were not paid for one day and one dollar.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—That's rubbish.CT4Mr COSTELLO—`That's rubbish,' he says. They were not paid for one day and one dollar—the famous l-a-w. Once the Keating government was elected, they were not paid for one day and one dollar. What the public got instead was an increase in wholesale sales tax. I will go back—it is the first time I have heard it: apparently, according to the member for Hotham, the l-a-w tax cuts were paid. Apparently they were paid after the 1993 election. That is a most extraordinary proposition. We have been labouring here since 1993 under the assumption that the Labor Party never paid its income tax cuts after the 1993 election. We have all been wrong, and the only person who knew it was the member for Hotham. What an astounding proposition!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order which goes to relevance. Were there tax cuts paid in 1993 or not by a Labor government?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has now raised two frivolous points of order.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—He's lying.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition must know that that sort of behaviour has always been unacceptable. I have no choice but to warn him.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: we clearly heard the member for Hotham accuse the Treasurer of lying, and we ask that it be withdrawn.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—As I heard the shadow Treasurer, he used the words, `He is lying.' If that is the case, I ask him to withdraw those words.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, the Treasurer asserts there were no tax cuts paid in 1993. There were.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I withdraw the word `lying' and say that he has misled the Australian public—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has already been warned. He is now defying the chair. He has made a withdrawal, but he knows that, as is the practice of the chair under successive governments, the withdrawal must be unconditional. I ask him to withdraw unconditionally.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I have done what the Prime Minister has done and substituted other words.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition must withdraw unconditionally or I will be forced to deal with him.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, in deference to this position, and because I want to stay in this chamber, I withdraw unequivocally. But this is inconsistent.MG4Lee, Michael, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell!MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—You let him do it all the time.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell is warned! Never in this parliament, no matter who the occupier of the chair has been, have we been in a situation in which it is tolerable for members to answer back the occupier of the chair. I have exercised a great deal of tolerance in the cases of a number of members on both frontbenches, I must say. The member for Dobell is warned. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has in fact been asked to withdraw unconditionally. That is not a requirement that has been invented in the last 18 months; it is a requirement already recorded in House of Representatives Practice. I have asked the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to do just that. If I were to exercise the authority vested in me, he knows that he ought not still be in the chamber. I ask him therefore, for the last time, to rise and withdraw unconditionally. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I distinctly heard him say—and everybody else in any close proximity to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would have distinctly heard him say—`I withdraw unconditionally'. He then said what we all heard and agree with that all he had done previously was exactly what you have allowed the Prime Minister to do. That is a fact which I think he is entitled to state. But he did, in deference to you, Mr Speaker, withdraw unconditionally. What we should do is just get on with question time.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—For as long as I have been in this chamber, an unconditional withdrawal has required people to say just that: `I withdraw unconditionally'. In the case of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, they were the words he used. He then added an addendum. By any standard, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has gone further than any occupier of the chair would tolerate. But I have not taken action; I have required him to stand and withdraw unconditionally. If he does that, the matter is behind us.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I do and I have.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I call the Treasurer.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, as I was saying, the Australian public deserved income tax cuts because the last time they were promised them was prior to the 1993 election. I say `promised'—but, of course, the then Labor Party boasted that they were l-a-w. After the 1993 election the tax cuts were taken away and not paid for a day or a dollar. I think that has been totally agreed in Australian politics, apart from the new novel proposition that has been put here for the first time by the member for Hotham this afternoon. The government's income tax cuts, which will come into place—CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'Keefe—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order under standing order 85 which relates to the use of tedious repetition and the fact that the Speaker, when having his attention drawn to claims that are not only tedious and repetitious but also false—and this has been done month after month—can in fact direct a member to discontinue his or her speech. I would ask you to do that in relation to the Treasurer.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer was asked a question about tax cuts and whether or not the tax cuts were of themselves compensation for the GST. Any question about tax cuts means that, clearly, there are other areas of the budget that are affected. The Treasurer is relevant and I call him.CT4Mr COSTELLO—That is why Australians deserve income tax cuts. The great news is that in 51 days time the largest income tax cuts in Australian history are going to become reality. On 1 July every Australian taxpayer gets an income tax cut. If you happen to be a middle income earner you can currently be on 43c in the dollar and your rate will be cut to 30c. Australians deserved income tax cuts anyway because of that shameful episode by Labor in 1993, and we took the opportunity to reform the indirect tax system as well and the business tax system. As a consequence of reforming the indirect tax system by broadening the base with a lower rate, with a goods and services tax, we were able to give far greater income tax relief than would otherwise have been the case. That is because the goods and services tax is broad based and not a declining share of the budget. The goods and services tax is the revenue that goes to the state governments which will enable them to build their hospitals, their schools and their roads in the future. It will grow in accord with the economy. It will make sure that those basic services are rendered. As a result, the taxpayers of Australia will get sensible spending. They will get great income tax cuts. They will have a new Australian taxation system. The good news is: although it was fought every step of the way, although the Labor Party voted against every step that was necessary to get there, the Labor Party campaign was defeated. We now know that the Labor Party, after fighting every step of the way, intends to try to slip into office and take advantage of it. But this was the side of politics that took the decisions, that made the hard yards, that had the vision, and this is the side of politics that has delivered income tax cuts. 1630914:34:0016309Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—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 people living in remote areas who face unique challenges because of their isolation will benefit from the initiatives announced in the budget?16309Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Kalgoorlie for his question. When it comes to Australia's fascinating outback, he of course understands it as well or better than anyone else in the country. His is a huge area with perhaps less than 200,000 people. It is quite unique. The largest city is probably Kalgoorlie, but it spreads across much of mainland Australia and sees people living in the most extraordinary, sometimes very difficult and certainly often very unique circumstances. At the same time it has to be said that it is a region of great economic and social importance to the nation. There is no doubt that the budget initiatives that were announced in this place a couple of nights ago by the Treasurer are of very real value to the outback and the people in the outback of this country. The package of $1.8 billion does actually contain a couple of specifics that I would like to draw people's attention to. For example, helping people in isolated regions access education for their children on a reasonably equitable basis, keeping in mind that most of us take for granted that, one way or another, we can get our children to the school gate pretty much for free. That is simply not the case for people who live in some of the most isolated regions on earth. The extra assistance through the isolated children's allowance scheme has been very widely welcomed indeed. So, too, has the better access to Youth Allowance, with the further discounting of business assets. Mr Speaker, another important aspect of the budget is that we are doubling funding for the remoter Service Subsidy Scheme. That is a very, very important aspect of life in remote parts of the country. I see that another member from the far north of Queensland, Warren Entsch, well understands how important this is. Indeed, as the ICPA has said, often the scheme is a vital link and the only sustainable communication link at all for many people in the far flung and remote parts of this country. Mr Speaker, $260 million over 13 years under the regional equalisation plan will ensure that remote Australia shares in the benefits offered by the world of digital television and datacasting services. Five million will be provided to subsidise the transmission costs of community based self-help broadcast groups in remote areas and that will ensure that remote communities have the best possible access to broadcasting services. The Year of the Outback in the year 2002 will be supported by all states and territories, by tourism—Jackie Kelly, the minister for tourism, has been a very enthusiastic backer of this planned year of activities—the private sector is involved, as is the tourism industry itself. We will be contributing financially to this great effort to raise people's awareness of the outback in terms of investment opportunities and in terms of tourism potential. The Community Development Employment Program, the CDEP scheme, will be expanded by 1,500 places. That is of enormous value to many, many people in rural and regional areas but particularly in remote parts of the country. These budget measures add to very important initiatives under way.We know that the ALP want to abandon commitments on tax reform. One of the things that has not been drawn out properly is the enormous importance of abolishing the impact of embedded taxes on exports. Outback Australia is an export based economy and we are crippling ourselves, one hand tied behind our back, with a tax system that they continue to insist is modern and up to date. Mr Speaker, $4½ billion of that embedded taxation in our exports sector will be washed out by tax reform. They have also of course continually opposed our reforms on transport fuel. One of the great killers of economic growth and development in far flung regions of Australia is the high cost of transport, and they have opposed, every inch of the way, our attempts to reduce transport costs, which will now come into place from 1 July. Mr Speaker, they have also sought of course to stand in the way of such vitally important measures as those that have resulted from the T2 sale of Telstra—$150 million for untimed local call access to remote areas; that is a very valuable reform coming up indeed. Let me return briefly to the importance of health flights. If you live in a far flung part of this country, health is of critical importance, and everywhere today I have noticed the commentators saying we have got the priority right. The attention to health in rural and regional and remote areas is important, is needed and should head the list. I note the laudatory remarks that are being made about my colleague the minister for health are very widespread indeed. The National Rural Health Alliance have warmly welcomed the range of new initiatives. They are going to write to you, Minister, to congratulate you—as indeed they might. We see Dr David Mildenhall, National President of the Rural Doctors Association—I think in fact a constituent of the member for Kalgoorlie—has said that the Howard-Anderson government has built on `the Wooldridge ministry's previous good work' in the bush. Then we have Dr Ken Mackay, New South Wales President of the Rural Doctors Association, saying today: The reason that this has come together is that health minister Michael Wooldridge listened when he was out in regional areas.So I can tell you one thing: if there is one group in the Australian community that absolutely supports and stands rock solid behind the minister for health, it is rural and regional and remote Australia. 1631014:41:0016310Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to his $1.6 billion Commonwealth loan to the states for GST compensation, which does not show in his budget as an outlay. I ask the Treasurer if he is aware that state governments are showing it on their books as revenue, based on formal audit advice such as advice from the New South Wales Auditor-General:... the full amount received in the first GST year (including any "loan" component) should be recognised as revenue.This is because I see the substance of the "loan" as being akin to a non-reciprocal contribution in accordance with Australian Accounting Standard AAS 15 "Revenue" SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Come on, Mr Speaker, he is infringing standing orders.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.DT4Mr CREAN—Treasurer, if the states have to show the $1.6 billion coming in as revenue, why don't you have to show it going out as an expense? Isn't it just another budget fiddle?16310Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Part of the reform of the taxation system, a reform which has been opposed every step of the way by Labor, was to reform Commonwealth-state relations. That was put forward in the New Tax System document. We said in the New Tax System document that we would make up to the states the guaranteed minimum payment, which was subsequently agreed to and was signed into an agreement. The guaranteed minimum payment is to be made up by those loans and also by the revenue from the GST so the Commonwealth can ensure that the states are no worse off over the five-year period. The Prime Minister and I well remember being at the meeting to sign this agreement with every Labor state.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Unforgettable.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I think the first person to rush up with his pen to sign it was Premier Bob Carr. I felt this rustle behind me, and it was actually the Treasurer of Tasmania pushing his way down past me to get his signature on the documents.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I raise a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. The answer could have no more remote relationship to the question that was asked.CT4Costello, Peter, MPPE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I think it is going just fine, thanks. One more piece of smirking from you is just about the limit. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—He has been asked a very specific question on budget matters that goes to the very heart of the integrity of his budget and the way in which this is recorded in his books and the states' books, and it is totally different in both cases—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has made his point of order and will resume his seat. It is in fact valid to say that it was difficult to draw the line between the Premier of Tasmania pushing into the queue and the question asked about—CT4Mr COSTELLO—It was the Treasurer.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer of Tasmania—and I invite the Treasurer to come back to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—As each one of them signed, they signed an agreement asking the Commonwealth to provide them with loans. This is an agreement between the Commonwealth and the states.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. He is treating your ruling with contempt. You specifically said that it was a very long bow, and it is getting longer.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—If the Treasurer had treated my ruling with contempt, I would have dealt with him in precisely the same way I dealt with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. In fact, had the Treasurer continued in the vein in which he was speaking, he would have been dealing with the matter with contempt. He went on to point out that the matter concerned loans, and that was entirely relevant to the question asked. CT4Mr COSTELLO—I was asked a question about the loans to the states, and the point that I make is that not only was it our policy but also it is now a unanimous agreement between the Commonwealth and the six states which we are obliged to pay—an agreement which was signed by representatives of all of the Labor states with that treatment, including the Labor Treasurer of Tasmania. That is why it is done.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It goes to relevance. We are not questioning—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware, though, that the Treasurer has concluded his answer—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—It goes to relevance.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition must be aware that the Treasurer has concluded his answer, therefore any point of order on relevance is no longer valid.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, under indulgence, can I suggest that we do not question the agreement; we question its presentation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.1631114:47:0016311Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Would the minister advise the House whether threats exist to Australia's system of enterprise bargaining? Has enterprise bargaining provided employers and employees with mutual benefits? Minister, how does government policy propose to address these threats, and are there any alternative policies in existence dealing with enterprise and workplace bargaining?16311Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Deakin for his question. There is no question whatsoever that there are some people within the trade union movement and within the Australian Labor Party who are anxious to destroy the system of enterprise bargaining which was introduced in Australia by our predecessors in the early 1990s and which has been very effective. The Prime Minister today spoke of 699,000-plus jobs being created—nearly 700,000 jobs. One of the reasons for that is that we have been reforming the workplace relations system, and the introduction of enterprise bargaining was an important element of that. Whilst we had our many criticisms of the reform legislation introduced by the member for Kingsford-Smith, we were, however, always consistent in saying that, to the extent that enterprise bargaining was introduced, it was the right policy for this country. In 1996 not only did we endorse the concept of enterprise bargaining but also this parliament went further and saw the entrenchment of enterprise bargaining in both the unionised and non-unionised sector. In Victoria—and one should hardly be surprised that this would be coming out of Victoria, given that they now have Steve Bracks as Premier and a Labor government—in the manufacturing sector, there is a campaign called Campaign 2000, which is aimed at undermining enterprise bargaining. Such a threat is this campaign—so I am informed by the media—that it is referred to in Steve Bracks's office as `Apocalypse Now'. They ought to be concerned because many jobs will be lost unless these campaigns to knock off enterprise bargaining are in some way resisted. This government's policy is to introduce further measures to the Workplace Relations Act to achieve the retention of the system of enterprise bargaining. We intend to give new powers to the Industrial Relations Commission to prevent the industrial action associated with pattern bargaining. New powers will be given to the commission to act in a timely way to require a return to work. We will also provide the commission with a new power to order a cooling-off period where it believes that to be appropriate—an idea which even Steve Bracks, the Labor Premier in Victoria, thought was sensible only a month or so ago. Lastly, as the fourth of four measures, we intend introducing by legislation today a measure which will ensure that the states' supreme courts continue to have jurisdiction to deal with common-law matters, which they have long held but which has been subject to anti-suit applications in recent times.To give you a sense of the threat which is now being mounted by the ACTU and some unions, Doug Cameron, for example, said recently:It is a simple fact that the ALP cannot survive or win government without the support of trade union members.Julius Roe from the AMWU said:I support militant action. You can't win things without militant struggle—an obvious reference to the widespread industrial action and chaos that some of these union leaders are intent on bringing upon the manufacturing sector. Craig Johnston, also from the AMWU, said:The employers make us out as mad. But if we were mad, we wouldn't have won all these disputes. We've been threatened with fines and jail, but we haven't paid and we aren't in jail.Even within the Labor Party, you must realise that there are some people who are intent on destroying a system which you yourselves supported.The member for Kingsford-Smith, for example, back in August 1993, at a lunch hosted by none other than the now shadow minister, said this about the move to enterprise bargaining:We are unquestionably moving towards a system in which the primary emphasis is on workplace bargaining underpinned by awards, a system where for the majority of employees wages and conditions of work are covered by workplace agreements: agreements between workplace participants, agreements that are tailored to the needs of individual enterprises and based on improving the productive performance of those enterprises. I am encouraged by the commitment of all parties to this objective.The test today is whether or not the Leader of the Opposition can stand up to the ACTU and remain committed to a policy which has demonstrably provided great benefits to the Australian people: 700,000 jobs and much improved productivity performance since we have been in.PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition!PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is defying the chair.WI4Mr REITH—The Leader of the Opposition is between a rock and a hard place. This is a real test for the Leader of the Opposition. When he stands tonight, not only is he going to tell us where the income tax cuts are going to come from, where all the expenditure is going to come from, how he is going to keep his surplus, how he is going to roll back and when he is going to roll over—what he has to do is to give us some sense of what his commitment is to genuine structural reform, particularly in the labour market. He has got to distance himself from the trade unions, who are trying to knock over the system the Labor Party once supported when it was in government. We hope to have this legislation through by 1 July. This is a real test for the Leader of the Opposition. 1631314:54:0016313Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer's previous answer in relation to the state loan fiddle in his budget. Is he aware of official advice from the New South Wales Treasury to the New South Wales Auditor-General dated 17 January 2000 which refers to his agreement with the states? It says:It is understood that the use of a `loan' by the Commonwealth in 2000-01 has been driven solely by the Commonwealth's own budgetary issues. The `loan' in year one is therefore a loan in name only and is used only to address the Commonwealth's own timing/budgetary issues.Treasurer, haven't you been caught red-handed cooking the books?16313Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the member for Hotham for that recent speech. It began with the question about the New South Wales government document and whether I had seen it. No, of course I have not seen it. Would I be worried to see it? Of course I would not be worried to see it, because not only have we put down our tax package, which the states demanded, including the loans, not only have we had it in our budgets for the last two years, but also we have had at least two Special Premiers Conferences where the New South Wales Treasurer has never raised anything of such a dimension with me. The only issue he has ever raised with me is that I guarantee his loan. If federal Labor is against the loans, I would like to hear it. But I can assure them that state Labor has never raised it with me for one minute. They are demanding that we deliver on our agreement, which required it.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the advice from the New South Wales Treasury. If the Treasurer has got better advice, let him table his.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.Leave granted.1631314:57:0016313Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. What impact will the budget have on access to schooling for students in regional Australia, including students from my electorate of Wannon? What does the budget show about the government's commitment to quality education for all Australian children? Is the minister aware of other views relating to the budget?16313Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Wannon for his question. This budget continues the government's commitment to lifting standards and widening access to education for young Australians, particularly in regional and rural Australia. In this budget the government continues its massive investment in the nation's schools, with school expenditure rising by around one-third over the next four years. It is worth noting that Commonwealth expenditure on schooling, and on government schooling in particular, is rising considerably faster at the present time than state expenditures; in fact, by some 21 per cent over the four years, having increased by 25 per cent over the last four.The high priority that we are giving to making sure that all young Australians get the skills they need is indicated by the $2 billion that this government will be providing over the next four years for new apprenticeships. Once again, the government has delivered on its commitment to science and research with its continuing strong support for Strategic Partnerships for Industry of some $62.8 million over three years.Children in remote Australia have been of particular importance to this government. We have seen a significant increase in funding of $16.4 million for the Assistance for Isolated Children scheme and for Abstudy over the next four years. This will be supplemented by the decision we have taken in relation to the assets test for the youth allowance which, once again, will expand access to schooling for young Australians. As Megan McNicholl of the Isolated Children's Parents Association said:It certainly makes education more affordable and it will relieve an enormous amount of pressure on those families that are struggling financially for all sorts of reasons in rural and remote communities. I was asked whether I was aware of any other comments on the government's education budget. I am not aware of any comment reported in the press from the member for Dobell. I do not know whether or not he issued a press release, but presumably he has some views on the budget which we will be informed about at some time. I am aware of comments made by the authors of the Labor Party's policy, the Australian Education Union. ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Shazza!BT4Dr KEMP—Shazza has stepped aside for Dazza now. He is now heading up the union. The Australian Education Union has issued a press release which is full of misleading statements and untruths. Rather than going through them all, I will just pick out the biggest doozey of them all, which is that the Australian Education Union claimed that—listen to this—`education spending under the Howard government was $5 billion less than under the Fraser government'. It is hard to even imagine that that could be true. The fact is that total `education spending under the Fraser government in its last year was $3.8 billion. Total education spending in this budget is $11.6 billion. School funding has increased by about 125 per cent in real terms, in constant dollar terms, for schooling since the Fraser government. Yet those who write the Labor Party's education policy are saying that it is $5 billion less. There is a message in this for the Leader of the Opposition. He has to stop waiting by that letterbox for the brown paper package to arrive from the Australian Education Union with a policy in it—because it is not going to be there. If it does arrive, you can be quite sure that the sums in it will be absolutely wrong. We see why you bungled in the past. I would not take any notice of them in the future.1631415:03:0016314Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Treasurer and follows his evasion of the last one.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition knows that I have dealt with that in the past. I invite him to go straight to his question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—It follows on from the materials from the Auditor-General in New South Wales. Is he aware that the Victorian budget papers describe your GST loan as follows:In 2001-02, when repayments are required to be made, the state expects to receive an amount from the Commonwealth that it will then remit back to the Commonwealth on the same day.Sounds like a round robin to me. Doesn't this explain the complete shonkiness of your accounting for it in your budget? It is $1.6 billion that ought to be there and it is not.16314Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—This government has reformed Commonwealth-state relations pursuant to a unanimous agreement with six states and two territories, one of the conditions of which is that we make them loans.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the question is about how it is accounted for in this budget. He has had three questions on it and has evaded it each time. Why is that $1.6 billion not in the bottom line?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Treasurer had scarcely started to answer the question and all that he had uttered was relevant.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, he asked me about loans which the Commonwealth will make to the states in 2000-01, which it is making as a consequence of Commonwealth-state financial reform which was signed up to unanimously by six states and two territories and requires the Commonwealth to pay loans. Your view may be that instead of loaning the states money we should give it to them. Your view probably is that we should spend more money, but we have negotiated to make them loans. We are going to deliver on that. If you are about to take your leave from all of these fancy sorts of things, I will look tonight at your idea which would be not to loan money to the states, which of course means that they have to repay it, but to give it to them. I will be looking tonight for you to be announcing that you are not going to make loans; that you want higher grants to the states and higher spending on education, higher spending on health, higher spending on infrastructure and less spending on GST and a bigger surplus. I will wait for it. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, as to relevance: the question was about his accounting standards.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I believe the Treasurer has concluded his answer.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—He was the one who imposed the condition that—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat!ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane is warned.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: on two or three occasions today we have had ministers answering questions and being clearly relevant to the question put to them, and we have seen a campaign of disruption—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—What's the point of order?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business knows that the Leader of the House is as entitled to the call as he is. He will at least extend to him the courtesy of being heard.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, my point of order is that we have had a series of points of order which have clearly been disruptive. On that basis, I put it to you that some warning or advice to the opposition ought to be given. This is simply a campaign to break up a minister's answer and should not be tolerated.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House makes a valid point. He should also recognise that the chair has already taken action against the Deputy Leader of the Opposition because of frivolous points of order. The last point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition was, I agree, frivolous. Leaders of the Opposition and Prime Ministers are extended a little more latitude than other people in the House for obvious reasons and it has not been the practice of the Leader of the Opposition to be disruptive in the way the House goes about its business.1631515:07:0016315Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Would the minister advise the House as to how the government's new Preparing for Work Agreement will help the unemployed find jobs? How will the Preparing for Work Agreement operate? What benefits will be delivered to those looking for work?16315Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I would like to thank the member for Page for his question. I know he has a very keen interest in this agreement, as have a number of other members of the coalition. The Preparing for Work Agreement is about helping people focus on getting back into the labour market as quickly as possible. All Newstart recipients, as of 1 July, will be required to sign a Preparing for Work Agreement. It is about identifying those barriers to entry; it is about getting those people back into employment as quickly as possible. As part of that, we are saying that any job is better than no job, even if it is part-time work, and we are ensuring that these people go through a literacy or numeracy program, that they do their job applications over the fortnight and also that they fully understand their mutual obligation requirements. That is because we know that if people are out of work for a longer period of time it is much harder for them to get employment. This government is absolutely committed to getting people into employment, and that is why today unemployment rates are at 6.8 per cent. There have been 700,000 new jobs created by this government, which is 300,000 more jobs than were created by the Australian Labor Party when they were in office for their last six years.We also recognise that 30 per cent of job seekers spend less than five hours a fortnight looking for employment. We are dedicated to ensuring that they spend more time looking for employment. That is why we have this one-to-one service with Centrelink and that is why we have this expanded program, along with the Job Network and of course New Apprenticeships, creating more opportunities for and helping Newstart recipients. Compare this to the halcyon days of the Australian Labor Party, when unemployment rates were at 11 per cent. They wasted taxpayers' money through the Working Nation program and the creation of the accord with the ACTU, which did not create more jobs. They were populist programs which just recycled people into unemployment. That is why tonight the Australian public will be looking very closely at the Leader of the Opposition to find out what types of programs he will be offering to the Australian people—because they will be vacuous. There will be no programs. It will be just like your welfare reform—a waste of taxpayers' money. That is why we are on about stronger compliance and more targeted programs to help the unemployed, not populist policies based on borrowed money or increased taxes. That is what we will be watching for from Collins Class Kim tonight. 1631610000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I call the honourable member for Jagajaga.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—No speeches.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta is warned!R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—We want more from you.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler!15:11:0016316Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, do you recall telling this House on 11 February last year that, `The first thing I will say is that there is no evidence that all these machines were ordered in the weeks before the budget. You are quite wrong there. There is no evidence. They were ordered over the previous 12 months'? Doesn't the Auditor-General's report find that there was in fact a surge of orders for MRI machines prior to the budget, with 33 machines being ordered in the four working days between your meeting with the radiologists and budget night? Minister, don't these facts prove that your statement to this House on 11 February was false? Wasn't this just the start of your failed attempt to cover up your role in the MRI scan scam?16316Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her not totally unexpected question. It is true that the Auditor-General's report has shown that.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Just resign.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler is warned!8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—But 15 months ago, on 11 February, on the best evidence we had, there was no evidence that they had all been ordered. The Health Insurance Commission investigation is something that is separate from the minister and I was not given regular bulletins on it. So it was a correct statement at the time. Clearly, there were a large number of machines ordered and the Auditor-General gives a plausible explanation for that. The Auditor-General has spent six months doing a very thorough report. He has interviewed 135 people under oath or affirmation. He has had access to all departmental documents. He has had the full cooperation of me and my staff and he has found no impropriety on my behalf, he has found no evidence of negligence on my behalf and he has in fact found no evidence of a budget leak. Not a single person who gave evidence under oath has said there was a budget leak. This confirms what I have been saying all along. If you wish to go to the specific paragraphs in his report, as I am sure we will as we debate this further, the fact is that six months of investigation by the Auditor-General has come up with no leak whatsoever.1631615:14:0016316Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Would the minister confirm media reports of 28 April regarding further union interference in the delivery of Work for the Dole projects? In light of this union interference, how will the budget guarantee effective delivery of the program? Are there any alternative views and policies in this area?16316Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—I thank the member for Hughes for her question, for her strong support for the employment services programs of this government and also for her support for the Green Corps program, which is about to start in Audley, in her electorate. Regrettably, I can confirm that a Work for the Dole project for 140 participants in ACT schools will now not happen because of union sabotage. This brings to five the number of projects that have not proceeded thanks to a union veto and it brings to nearly 600 the number of young Australians who are denied this kind of valuable work experience thanks to union intransigence. This is a clear case of double standards on the part of the Australian Education Union and the ACTU. The union obviously supports—and should support—parents and citizens coming into schools to help with things like reading and playground supervision, but it opposes Work for the Dole participants going into schools. The union supported New Work Opportunities people going into schools—in fact, the union actually urged the then government to have such a scheme—but it opposes Work for the Dole, even though this program is actually getting a 50 per cent better outcome than the old New Work Opportunities program. Thankfully, the dinosaurs of the union movement are not damaging this program, which is going from strength to strength, as the Treasurer pointed out in his budget this week—which was a tour de force even by his own high standards. This government has announced 600 new Work for the Dole projects involving 11,000 extra participants so far this year. The unions, by contrast, are always dictating the policy of the federal opposition. The former shadow employment minister, the member for Batman, used to encourage community groups to participate and to make the most of the Work for the Dole program. One can only assume that the current shadow minister's deafening silence about Work for the Dole shows that Labor's policy is now clear: it is whatever the unions want. Labor's policy on Work for the Dole is whatever the unions want. There you have the member for Dickson and the President of the ACTU—the Shezza and Shazza show. Shezza rings Shazza and says, `What do you want? I'll give you whatever it takes.'5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—I raise two points of order, Mr Speaker. One is on the manner in which the minister referred to the member for Dickson, which is obviously improper and inappropriate. The second is on relevance, because the question was asked with regard to union objections—we consider that the question that has been asked has been answered already, but we will let that pass—and he has now gone well past that and is commenting on matters (a) that are not in his area of administrative responsibility and (b) that are not relevant to the question.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I deemed the minister's answer to be relevant, but I agree with the Manager of Opposition Business that the reference to the member for Dickson was inappropriate and—XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—It's just puerile.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—And I ask the member for Dickson to exercise precisely the same constraint as I am expecting of the minister. I ask him to withdraw the reference to the member for Dickson and continue his answer.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Mr Speaker, you are right, and I do withdraw. The point I am making is that the union movement is now dictating the federal opposition's attitude to an important policy designed to help the job seekers of Australia.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 10 April you ruled that we could not ask the Deputy Prime Minister a question about matters to do with his party. How can it be relevant for him to answer a question about ours, for which he has absolutely no administrative responsibility?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will listen to the answer. I was not conscious of a reference to the ALP that the minister has made since he rose following the last point of order. I will listen to his answer.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—That is right. I have been asked about alternative policies and views, as is the custom in this House.Opposition members interjecting—EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I certainly was asked about alternative policies and views. The fact is that the alternative policy is being dictated by the union movement. But what can we expect?5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. However he wrote this dorothy dixer, he cannot write into the standing orders the capacity for him to answer questions about our policy if you say that we cannot ask questions about his.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business is quite welcome to view the notes. As he knows, I write down questions as they are asked. The minister was asked for a comment on alternative policies. That is what I deemed he was doing and I call him. EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Thank you. If you actually look for alternative policies, about the only policy you can find opposite is the pledge, which members opposite take, to work for the nationalisation of the means of distribution, production and exchange. This is the modern Labor Party! These are the advocates of new economics—still pledged in the year 2000 to the democratic socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. If the Leader of the Opposition wanted to make a constructive contribution to public life, as well as providing us with his tax policies and his spending policies tonight he ought to stand up and pledge himself to two simple things. First of all, he will pledge to abolish the socialisation objective and, second, he will pledge to abolish the union bloc vote.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The minister's answer in the last 20 seconds has not borne any immediate relevance to the question he was asked.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Is the minister concluding his answer?EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I am simply inviting the Leader of the Opposition to change the things that he can influence and that he ought to change. These are the things that he does have responsibility for.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.1631815:22:0016318Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, I refer to your repeated attempts to deny responsibility for the MRI scan scam. Isn't it a fact that the Auditor-General made the following finding:On the balance of probabilities, when the views of all participants are considered, whatever was said or done at the meeting of 6 May 1998 seems to have had some influence on the following surge in orders for machines ... between then and the six days to Budget night.Minister, if it was not your actions at this meeting that caused this result, whose was it?16318Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I think the argument is in a couple of paragraphs earlier, in paragraph 2.34, where the Auditor-General says:... the meeting would have presented a strong indication to the wider community of the success of the negotiations and therefore the likely availability of MBS rebates, ...1631815:24:0016318Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister advise the House what further steps the government is taking to underpin our vital regional industries and rural communities, like so many of those in my electorate of McEwen, following Tuesday's budget.16318Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the member for McEwen for raising the importance of regional Australia and the initiatives in this week's budget to benefit regional Australia. On the very night when the Leader of the Opposition is to respond to the budget, when you would think that those opposite would be focusing on the content of the budget, they have already lost interest. They have no new proposals. We await tonight with great interest to hear the way in which the Leader of the Opposition will deliver on the proposed measures that they have been criticising in the budget.There can be no doubt that this week's budget is the most significant for rural and regional Australia in a generation. There is about $1.8 billion worth of new initiatives for regional Australia and they will provide real benefits for all people living outside the capital cities. During the presentation of the budget speech, I listened to the opposition scoff about these important initiatives for country Australia, and they are scoffing again now. They do not care about regional Australia. It is about time that they recognised that all Australians are entitled to a fair deal when it comes to health care, education, roads and other services. That is what is being delivered in this budget. There is $500 million plus for health care; significant new initiatives for education; more money to assist families, particularly low income families; money to extend digital television to country Australia; and more money for roads, particularly bridges in regional areas. All of those are very significant initiatives. Many on this side will be particularly welcoming the new initiatives in relation to agriculture, the new Agriculture—Advancing Australia package. This government introduced a comprehensive package of measures with Agriculture—Advancing Australia that have provided real assistance to thousands of farmers around Australia. Many of those measures were due to expire. This budget includes not only an extension of those measures but a substantial enhancement. There will be a merger of the old Property Management Planning program and FarmBis, and a doubling of funding to support farmers in these important planning areas. There is a new Farm Innovation Program to support the implementation of new initiatives in agriculture. There is the new farm help scheme to provide welfare and other assistance to farmers in need. There is the new $30.5 million biotechnology strategy. There is also more money available to assist with plant and animal health and to upgrade our quarantine measures—all very significant matters for Australian farmers.More money will be spent under the Natural Heritage Trust—$180 million for research and development. There will be more money for the Murray-Darling. I was surprised to read the shadow minister for agriculture suggesting, in a remarkable feat of mathematical illiteracy, that the $309 million extra that we are going to be spending on agriculture is actually less money. I heard him say that the $40 million extra being spent on environmental matters is actually less money. If that is the kind of logic that the Leader of the Opposition is going to use in his budget reply tonight, we might actually get to hear something more about how the finance minister who delivered the greatest deficits that our country has ever known is somehow or other going to return a larger surplus while spending more! That is the kind of logic that has been associated with their responses.People who live in rural Australia know the real substance of the content of this budget and the real benefits it will deliver to all Australians.1631915:28:0016319Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, do you recall telling this House on 16 February last year:From memory, it—the meeting—was around 5 May ... the college said to us they did not want to know what the supply measure was, and it was not discussed with them.Doesn't the Auditor-General's report make the following findings: that all four radiologists at the meeting gave sworn evidence that there was discussion about including machines on order as of budget night and that three of them said you personally raised it; that the very next day the incoming president of the college was briefed to this effect; that the very next day six MRI machines were ordered, and that 33, all up, were ordered in the four working days after your meeting; and that on the balance of probabilities whatever was said or done at this meeting had some influence on this surge in orders for MRIs? Minister, don't these facts prove that you did discuss the MRI measure with the radiologists and that it was this that caused them to deduce or become aware that the measure would be in the budget?16319Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—There are differing views of that meeting and there are signed statutory declarations and evidence under oath that say completely contradictory things. There is only one point of unanimity about that meeting and that is in paragraph 2.27: All College members who attended the meeting of 6 May agree the minister did not reveal the Budget measures. 1631915:30:0016319Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Would the minister advise the House of the communication benefits to rural and regional Australia flowing from this budget? What new services will be available to the constituents in my electorate of Barker? 16320McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I thank the honourable member for Barker for his question. He well knows the significance of the conversion in rural Australia to digital and datacaster broadcasting from analog. He also well knows what happened the last time there was such a technological revolution for people in country areas, from analog to digital. That was in the early 1990s when the Labor Party handed over to digital transmission broadcasting techniques and broadcasters without any transition arrangements, without any safety net for country people. It took this government with its CDMA initiatives to protect the interests of country people and ensure that they had access to the latest telephone technology and associated technologies. Now we are doing it again in regard to digital television and datacasting services. We are providing up to $260 million for the regional equalisation plan, with an allocation of $22 million this year, which represents 50 per cent of the estimated costs of digital conversion for regional broadcasters. It is a partnership between regional broadcasters and the government. We also have a partnership with rural communities. We will ensure that community based self-help retransmission groups are able to obtain access to transmission sites at less than commercial rates. This is a $5 million matching of the $5 million funds from NTL, the new owner of the national transmission network. That will help smaller communities to establish and operate equipment to retransmit commercial and national television and radio services that they otherwise would not have access to. At the same time we are injecting very significant funds into the public broadcasters ABC and SBS. ABC will receive an additional $36.5 million and SBS almost $30 million for digital equipment over and above previously announced funding. We have also given a commitment to fully fund the cost of digital television transmission and distribution. So it is a very substantial commitment to the ABC and SBS as they enter the digital era. You can see the contrast between the Labor Party when in government and the coalition parties when in government. We do not deprive country and regional viewers and users of the latest technology or of access to all the advantages it can bring. ZD4HowardMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Censure Motion163201632015:34:0016320Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I seek leave to move that this House censures the Minister for Health and Aged Care for the clear evidence—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—We will give leave—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House has indicated that he will accede to that request. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I thank the House. I move: That this House censures the Minister for Health and Aged Care for:(1) The clear evidence (both direct and corroborative) provided in the Auditor-General's report that he disclosed a Budget proposal at a meeting on 6 May 1998, when he had a duty as a Commonwealth office holder not to do so;(2) The misleading and false statements he has made to the House on this matter; and(3) The negligent and incompetent handling of the entire MRI negotiation process in 1998 for which he, as Minister, was ultimately responsible.If this were the British House of Commons, I would not be standing before this dispatch box on this side of the House with this report in my hand. The minister would be standing at that dispatch box on that side of the House with this report in his hands and one other document—his resignation statement. If this was a parliament that truly upheld Westminster standards, when the Auditor-General's report came down that would have been the end of it; it would have been all over and what has been effectively close to two years of lies, prevarication, obfuscation, dishonesty and deceit in this House would have come to an end. That is what would happen in the United Kingdom. Even under the abbreviated standards of the previous Howard government in the last parliament I feel confident that that same thing would have happened. There has never been in my 20 years in parliament an Auditor-General's report dealing with matters of administration in the portfolio of a particular minister with which the minister was directly and intimately concerned that has come down with such damning conclusions in relation to the minister's handling of that portfolio. It is absolutely extraordinary. One or two of our ministers went during our time and one or two of them went on the basis of Auditor-General's reports. But they were nowhere near as comprehensive in damning the administration of a minister as this report has been. Nor were they accompanied with the level of prevarication that has gone on in the preliminaries to this in parliament, where the member for Jagajaga has had to put up with lying mockery month after month in question time in this place. Because she is tough, diligent and dogged, we have come to this point where something approximating the truth is before us. I say `approximating the truth', and that is not a reflection on the Auditor-General, because I believe most firmly that someone lied to him—and it was not the four radiologists—about the content of that meeting. It was the minister, and every piece of circumstantial evidence points to this. For ministers to go in this place does not require a criminal standard of proof. That is an absurdity. You do not go on trial here for maladministration where, at the end of the day, there has to be absolutely no remaining element of doubt for a conviction to be secured. We operate on the basis of commonsense, experience, our understanding of the political process and our understanding of levels of ministerial responsibility. That is how we operate in this parliament. It is not a court and nor does the Auditor-General run a court. But he has found, on the balance of probabilities—and I can see that he could find no other way—that there is no other conclusion to be drawn but that the minister or one of his officials in the minister's presence—but most probably the minister—so informed that group of radiologists. This was a group who had been portrayed—I might say by the minister—as attending a `cheerio' meeting to thank them. Remember, that was an answer to one of the questions: `This was just a little session to thank them.' I might say that the Auditor-General does not treat it like that at all. This was a formal business meeting at which matters of business were discussed.The matter of business that was discussed on the initiative of the minister or one of his officials, and probably the minister in the case of one of them, on the majority view of the people attending that meeting was the date of closure on contracts related to whether or not you secured medical benefits for MRIs. You just have to go through this thing point by point to see that is true, and to see the minister's half-baked answers here today—he has continued the pattern. For example, look at paragraph 2.27, where it says: All College members who attended the meeting of 6 May 1998 agree that the Minister did not reveal Budget measures.It goes on:However, they are all of the view that, in the context of the College expressing concerns about site restrictions, there was discussion of the possibility of including machines on order as of Budget night, although this was discussed only as an option. All but one member considered that the issue was raised by the Minister (the other has stated that it was raised by the Commonwealth, but could not recall by whom). The evidence of the College representatives indicates that the College expressed concerns regarding enforceability if the Government included machines on order as a supply control and one representative recalls assurance being given in this regard.I will tell you what the other evidence is. You have the four radiologists attending stating it; and the minister and his myrmidons stating that no such thing was raised. However, I might say that in answer—before he remembered what he was saying—to a question from Fiona Reynolds on precisely this point this morning, he started out by saying, `Cabinet authorised me to negotiate the point of closure.' Then suddenly having remembered what he had actually confessed to in that sentence, he quickly backed away to the formula, leaving it just hanging out there, indicating that he knows the truth of this matter. But despite the 4-3 verdict of those attending the meeting in that regard, we have the further evidence the next day of the incoming President of the College of Radiologists who was taken aside and briefed by the people who had attended the meeting on what he had been advised of. So we have then what any police investigation of this process would suggest—because this was evidence not in memory now of times back then, but the immediate reaction of the person the day after the meeting took place—that is, that a reasonable inference could be drawn that information was provided to them at that meeting and then the cornucopia flowed.Radiologists who attended the meeting—and they have given evidence on oath—revealed that that minister discussed the sensitive measure. And that is evident from the paragraph I have just read here. The sensitive measure, it has to be remembered, had only been recommended to the minister the day before, on 5 May 1998, by the department. All those orders—and there were not that many of them; there were a few—in place before 5 May had not occurred against a background in which information that caused them to do that could conceivably have been tainted by this decision about which, on the day before the meeting, the minister had written to the Prime Minister asking for it to be incorporated as the option to be agreed on budget night.There is a degree of slipperiness here, I have to tell you, and it is the way in which the minister tries to defend himself on the budget issue. Because there was still not a finalised option on what actually was a budget measure, his sleight of hand is to say, `It wasn't strictly a budget measure on that night.' What he is saying is `not strictly a budget measure on that night'. There is in the budget a proposition which will extend, under certain conditions, a medical benefit to the owners of MRI machines for the utilisation of those machines. That is there in the budget. There is a question of who should qualify for that—an obvious incorporation within any budget decision. There is a piece of correspondence between the minister and the Prime Minister, which would be stamped, going to the Prime Minister: `Cabinet in confidence'. That is what would be on top of the letter sent between the minister and the Prime Minister, sent on the fifth and finally replied to by the Prime Minister on the 11th. But you had a decision already in the budget, acknowledged by the minister, that there would be a benefit applied, effectively, to the ownership of the machines. And you have a piece of correspondence associated with that budget decision not yet quite finalised, but totally within the framework of budget consideration.It was not a matter that was suddenly looped into the budget on 11 May. It was a matter already there in the budget and this is a final detail associated with it. On that strand, that thin reed, the minister rests his defence that he did not actually leak a budget matter. If it had been a public servant who took information from a minister's letter and went to another person in the community and divulged that information to that person in the community, who subsequently took a benefit from it, what would happen to that public servant? If that were to be proved in a court of law, he would go to jail. That is what would happen to that public servant. He would go to jail. He would be regarded as having divulged an official secret, divulged it in the worst possible circumstances, and divulged it in a way from which somebody could profit.I think there is in `interesting' feature about this date of 5 May and who was actually responsible for all this circulating in his mind. There is in fact a suggestion by one public servant that the issue of a cut-off date applying to machines ordered but not delivered before budget day was something circulated earlier in the department by the minister himself. The Auditor-General thought enough of this to incorporate it, although that suggestion was repudiated by other public servants in the evidence and, therefore, he dismissed it and left it standing that this particular final qualification was something that came forward from the Public Service to the minister, late in the piece, and things flowed from that. I have a very strong suspicion, reading between the lines, that the minister was working on this particular matter himself for some considerable period of time and that it was not so significant to folk in the department is of course the reason why it did not leak before 5 May. The Auditor-General found that it was a departmental suggestion passed to the minister; I reckon it was the minister in for his chop. Let us understand the situation of the Auditor-General here and the very tough findings that he has arrived at. The Auditor-General is not a lurid public official; he is not an extreme public official. He is a very cautious public official and he expresses himself in the quietest terms, even when he is revealing or dealing with the most heinous of scandals. That, of course, is the language of this report. But because there is no extremity in the language and because there is from the Auditor-General a very measured, clear-cut and deliberate arrival at the conclusions ought not blind us to the fact that he, as our principal parliamentary officer on audit of government activities, is advising this parliament of exactly the direction in which it should go.He understands why the minister is going to defend himself to the death on this. The Auditor-General understands that the discussion of this proposed budget measure at the meeting on 6 May 1998 was highly improper, given the minister's knowledge of the stake of this issue in correspondence between himself and the Prime Minister at that stage of the game. I just want to go through another aspect of the findings of the Auditor-General on the question of these 33 machines. The Auditor-General points to the possibility that folk could have come to a decision about these matters on a punt. He includes that as a possible reason. He arrives at a balance of probabilities conclusion that it must have been a leak from the meeting—a balance of probabilities suggests that there are other particular conclusions he could come to. But when he considers the incoming President of the College of Radiologists, when he considers the evidence of the four and, then, when he considers the surge in the number of machines, he can really come to no other conclusion on the balance of probabilities. The Auditor-General said, and I will read this part in full:There was a surge of orders for MRI machines immediately before the budget. Statutory declarations provided to the HIC indicated that there were 33 machines ordered in the four working days from 7 May to Budget night 12 May 1998.The minister will defend himself by saying that there was knowledge out there in the ether for some considerable time because the possibility of the application of medical benefits to the MRI machines was a matter of discussion and general knowledge out there in the community for some considerable time before 5 May. And so there was, apparently, from what has been said in the Auditor-General's report. This general ether discussion about the possibilities comes to this, and the report goes on:Prior to this, there had been six ordered in April, seven in March, none in February, and three in January. The surge in orders prior to the Budget compares with a total of some 60 public and private machines operating at that time.Go through that: there was a tiny number—not a tiny number, but a number considerably less than 33—in that ambience of generalised discussion. But why was it so relatively slow? The proposition circulating in the department at the time—or the option circulating in the department at the time—would have had you believe, in all probability, that on the night this was declared in the budget and benefits were extended to machines, they would be benefits extended to machines operating on the night of the budget. That is the point: benefits extending to the machines operating on the night of the budget. Though these machines can be readily obtained, they cannot be obtained that quickly. The point was: the minister was unhappy with this situation. He feared that there would be a conclusion drawn amongst those who had been putting machines on order that they were unfairly disadvantaged by the time line that saw them not brought in under the bar on the night of the budget. So this was the critical decision: to go beyond machines extant on the night of the budget to machines ordered.A machine involves a considerable investment—$3 million. Very few people around this place would punt $3 million, no matter how wealthy they are, on the basis of a chance. But anyone with half a brain running a radiology service and knowing how massively enhanced a radiology service is by an MRI machine would punt on a certainty. In fact, if he does not punt on a certainty he is dead. If he does not punt on a certainty his practice is an inferior practice from that point till hell freezes over. That is the position of a doctor in those circumstances. That is why this information was so incredibly sensitive. That is why it should have been held and not blabbered by an ignorant, worthless minister. What happened, of course, was precisely that. The only reason why this has been teased out is that there were quite a substantial number of radiologists who were not in on the joke. Widespread though the knowledge became after the minister's meeting, it was not that widespread. It was widespread enough to produce 33 machines, many of them in the hands of those involved in the negotiations, but not widespread enough to incorporate everybody else who saw their practices therefore rendered second rate at the end of it.No sensible person reading this report, nobody with any experience as a public official reading this report and no-one with any commonsense reading this report in the community could come to any other conclusion than the one the Auditor-General came to: that, on the balance of probabilities, the information leaked from that meeting; and that the only persons who identified anyone discussing it at the meeting were the four radiologists about the minister. They cannot have known of the minister's letter, intentions and options unless the minister told them. An intelligent guess would not be good enough, but an intelligent guess suggests that this minister should go. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 15:54:0016324Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The Auditor-General has had a thorough investigation over a period of six months into the processes around the government's decision to bring MRI machines into Medicare. This investigation has examined up to 135 people on oath or affirmation. It has had access to all departmental documents. It has had access to my diary. It has had access to any other records that have been required. I have given evidence on oath, and I have made many statements in this parliament.I have to say on reflection, and on looking at this measure, that it certainly shows up some areas of deficiency in administration in this area. I do not believe that is generally the approach in my department, and I do certainly take responsibility for fixing that. I can understand why Labor are upset, because for more than a year now they have been going around the corridors of this place and around the press gallery making allegations about a conspiracy, making allegations of a budget leak that advantaged certain individuals and making allegations of secret meetings. None of those things have come to pass. The Auditor has found that I observed the highest standard of probity, that there were no such secret meetings, that there was nothing outside the formal negotiation process and that all the allegations that have been made—and the overblown nature of the allegations—have proved to be completely false. So the ALP has some difficulty arguing that, on the one hand, all this should rest on the word of a number of radiologists and, on the other hand, that somehow these same honest and honourable radiologists must have then gone out and talked their heads off against what clearly they had said they would not do. Those two things are contradictory, and it brings down the entire argument of the opposition. This censure motion looks at three issues. All issues I think are worthy of comment. On the first issue, that there was clear evidence provided in the report that I disclosed a budget proposal: the report says very clearly that everyone at the meeting agrees that I did not disclose what was in the budget. The second matter of censure of me is that I have made misleading and false statements. I challenge the opposition on any occasion to show where, on the best available knowledge that anyone could have had at the time, anything I have said has been either misleading or false. They censure me on the negligent and incompetent handling of the entire negotiation process. It is reasonable for them to attempt to censure me on that, but in the end I would rather focus on the positives: we now have machines available right around Australia; 140,000 Australians have been able to get access to MRI scans for serious neurological conditions, and that they have been able to do that without paying $600 to $800, as was the case under Labor—it is now $40 to $50; rather than having to wait five months, which was the case prior to this measure, they now wait one to two weeks; and, there are 17 machines located in rural Australia. This is a significant achievement, and it is one for which many Australians are grateful. Looking at the process, I have to admit that it could have been better handled. We were trying to do something that had not been done before. In one sense, it was the cutting edge of policy because, rather than just putting something on the Medicare Benefits Schedule and letting it rip—as happened with CT scanning—we were attempting to bring clinical guidelines into the Medicare Benefits Schedule and have a process whereby we would pay for those scans that could be backed up on the basis of evidence. This is not something that we have done before. We also were attempting to introduce a major technology for which there was very great demand and to do it in such a way that would not lead to a very large blow-out. As a result of this, there is no doubt that the Commonwealth was exposed to some risk, and we acted very quickly when we had concrete evidence of that. The Auditor-General could not find that a single scan had been done unnecessarily. The Auditor-General could not find a single scan that had been done for a neurological condition that should not have been done. So the fact is that there has not been a single dollar wasted on this. Every scan that has happened has happened out of necessity.Labor makes several quite incorrect accusations. They say that the supply side was somehow my issue and that I was working on it. That is completely contradicted by the departmental secretary in a letter that I have previously tabled in the House and is repeated on page 146 of the Auditor-General's report. I asked the secretary specifically: was there any evidence of this at all? He replied:You asked whether the Department provided advice to you on restricting eligibility of MRI machines for MBS purposes which you had not accepted.I have not been able to find any evidence of your rejecting our advice in this area.The Officers most involved assure me they never advised that you should limit eligibility to machines then operating in the country.A detailed advice on this matter was provided to you on 5/5/1998.That is when I first became aware of it. I do have recollection of this, even though it was more than a couple of years ago, because my department was concerned at the time and I remember asking them what options we had. They were the ones who raised it with me.There is the continual allegation that there was a budget leak. I think there is a very clear explanation for what happened in this whole process. Again, in interviewing, under oath or affirmation, all the people who were involved in this, there is no evidence of a budget leak at all. Indeed, one company that apparently ordered six machines in the two days after that meeting on 7 and 8 May states in paragraph 2.19:The strength of the rumours in the first few days of May concerning the likely Budget measure was one of the main reasons given for one buyer for ordering a total of six machines on 7 and 8 May 1998.So there were rumours. We were operating in an environment that was fairly highly charged. We were doing it to try to get the agreement of a profession. Sadly, in our taking them on trust, some members of that profession have very seriously let us down.In the whole of chapter 2 of the Auditor's report, he sets the environment in which we were operating. There were many discussions about such a proposal. This proposal had been anticipated since the Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee released its report in late 1997. I had said quite openly to people that I wanted to fund MRI. I could not see logically why we would not fund it. We were just somewhat daunted by how you put a new technology like this into the budget. Going through the early paragraphs in chapter 2, in almost each paragraph there is evidence that, from late March, there was discussion about supply measures—not discussion that I was in any way involved with, not discussion that was in any way improper. This was a negotiation authorised by cabinet for us to try to reach agreement on a whole range of measures with the profession. Just take for example paragraph 2.2, which says: College members would have expected the MBS benefits to become available for MRI services ...Paragraph 2.4 says:... discussions of supply controls did take place within the Task Force and in its negotiations with the Commonwealth.Paragraph 2.5 says:By early April 1998, the Task Force and the Department were considering several control measures to prevent a blow-out of the diagnostic imaging expenditure.These measures included a `site freeze for a limited time'. Paragraph 2.6 says:The last measure, that is controlling supply through a site freeze, appears to have been discussed amongst the Task Force for the first time in late March/early April 1998.So six months before this meeting we were discussing site freezes. Paragraph 2.6 goes on to say:There are differing views on what College members considered to be a site freeze—but the essential aspect of it was a freeze on eligibility of machines beyond a certain point in time. In essence, the type of control which was implemented.And it goes on and on. There was much discussion. This was clearly causing a great deal of anxiety amongst the radiologists who were used to getting open slather on something like this and wanted not to have any limitation on what they could do. So, in this environment where there was open discussion, we were attempting to negotiate an agreement. That is picked up by the Auditor himself in paragraph 2.32, which I think is the key paragraph—and I will talk about that in a moment. This is a difficult area because, as I said, we have not in the past had a lot of these sorts of negotiations with professional bodies. Perhaps governments in the future might be a little more hesitant to do it. Although I would say, having just had a lengthy and difficult negotiation with the Pharmacy Guild over a new five-year agreement, the department has operated in a way that shows that these deficiencies are not systemic and also that other professional bodies can actually behave properly and with some dignity and ethics. Well, what happened? Why was there this great rush for machines? The Labor Party makes much of the big rush in orders. I think it is very well explained in paragraph 2.32 where it says:... when considered alongside the differing recollections of what happened at Task Force meetings—and there is a substantial difference in recollection—it is a reasonable judgement that negotiation and consultation with the College and open debate about supply controls—and here the Auditor is talking in the context of the whole chapter about what happened over a six-week period—probably created an environment where some participants may have deduced, or become aware, that the Commonwealth was giving consideration to inclusion of machines on order.I think that is probably what happened. I think that is a logical explanation. That is very different from a budget leak. That is a negotiation process with a professional body, sanctioned by cabinet, to try to come to an outcome. It is not some sort of secret meeting or something about which there is any impropriety at all. If you take into account the fact that we were discussing these things for six weeks, I think some people probably did work out what was likely to happen. The Leader of the Opposition asked, `Why would you have a $3 million punt if you were not sure of what was going to happen in the budget?' That is actually answered in paragraphs 2.61 and 2.62. I suspect he did not get that far. This is not any normal industry. You can buy a $3 million machine on no deposit and cancel an order at pretty much any time you like. So they were not taking a $3 million punt; they were doing something which had no risk whatsoever. On the other hand, there was a very substantial risk in doing nothing; so many people took the punt and bought machines, but did not have to pay a deposit and did not have to put down all the money. So this was the environment, and I think it explains the rush of orders more than adequately. The Leader of the Opposition made the point again that this information is so sensitive. Yes, I guess it was sensitive, but it had been openly discussed for over six weeks, as is chronicled in these meetings and in the Auditor-General's report, in meetings in which I was in no way involved. And it was obviously discussed at very great length long before it was put to me on 5 May as something that the government should do. In the end, ministers have to take responsibility. I am happy to take responsibility for providing better scans to the Australian public. I am happy to take responsibility for fixing the problem. But the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that I have a standard of responsibility put on me that certainly has not applied in the past and certainly directly contradicts quotes that he himself has made. The Leader of the Opposition, I note, has not taken responsibility for the fact that, when he was Minister for Defence, he negotiated and signed a contract for submarines that gave us six submarines without a propeller that was working, with engines that did not work, with periscopes that did not work and with a firing system that needs replacing and is $1 billion over budget. I have not yet heard the Leader of the Opposition take responsibility for $23 billion in deficit in the two budgets in which he was Minister for Finance. The one comparison to this, I guess, is in 1985 or 1986 when Neal Blewett was Minister for Health, when you had Public Accounts Committee report No. 236 into fraud and overservicing in pathology. In some ways that was quite analagous because the introduction of Medicare and the lack of controls around the process led to great fraud and overservicing. In that case the Commonwealth did actually lose money. There was open fraud, there was overservicing and that led to substantial Commonwealth moneys being expended. Here there is no evidence that a single scan has been provided unnecessarily and there is no evidence that the Commonwealth or the taxpayer has paid a dollar unnecessarily. Neal Blewett was not required to resign after Public Accounts Committee report No. 236. Bob Collins was not required to resign with the fiasco over the granting of the pay TV licences. The Leader of the Opposition is on the record here. Let me quote him:... when a Minister is obliged to resign, the Minister has to go for a reason, and the fact there have been difficulties with administration in the portfolio—albeit pointed out by the Auditor-General—is not, of itself, a reason and has never been.And he repeats it:Now, mistakes in administration have never been a basis for Ministers to go out.The fact is that this shows I have acted with the greatest probity. I have not been negligent. I have provided a great service to the Australian public. As for the mud that the Labor Party has attempted to throw, the allegations on my behaviour have in no way been proven.16:09:0016327Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The truth has now come out in this Auditor-General's report that we have been struggling for over the last 15 months. It has been like peeling off skins to get to the rotten core to find out the truth of this MRI scam scan, the biggest medical fraud that has ever been found in Australia's history. We now know that this Minister for Health and Aged Care, who has denied everything over the last 15 months—and of course continues to deny everything today—is actually the person who is the most responsible for this sorry saga. The minister is in total denial and is inventing quite a few things. We have just heard them at the end of his speech and we have heard them on radio and television over the last 24 hours. He suggests that the Auditor-General's report cleared him of impropriety. I cannot find any reference in the Auditor-General's report clearing him of anything. It does not clear him of impropriety, it does not clear him of negligence and it does not clear him of giving out the leak. In fact, what the Auditor-General says is that, whatever happened at the crucial meeting of 6 May, this resulted in the leak and the leak resulted in the scam. That is really what it all comes down to—a scam which has cost the health budget tens of millions of dollars and could have cost hundreds of millions of dollars if the whistle had not been blown. Of course, that is the critical thing: if the whistle had not been blown on this scam, this would have cost the country and the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars. There is no doubt whatsoever that the 6 May meeting is the critical one. The Auditor-General's report confirms this. Last September in the House the minister called the meeting `an informal gathering' to thank the college. So they were just getting together to have a little bit of a chat. Now it has been revealed to have been a fully fledged negotiating meeting with cabinet authorisation. This came out very clearly this morning—and the minister has gone from the chamber, so much for ministerial standards—when on ABC radio the minister was asked whether or not he had the authority to discuss issues about the budget night cut-off. He said:Well, I had the authority to do that. `I had the authority to go and negotiate on 6 May.' He said:I was authorised by Cabinet to negotiate. Then we look at the detail that we have not had before. That is why this Auditor-General's report is so important and why this minister should be censured. We look at the detailed information that is in this report and see that three radiologists say that the minister raised the budget measure—raised the option that in fact became the budget decision—on the night of 6 May. The fourth radiologist says, `Yes, it was raised.' So four of them are saying, `Yes, it was raised,' three saying by the minister and the fourth saying he cannot recall whether it was the minister or a Commonwealth officer. The Auditor-General goes on to say:This version—that is the one that has been relayed by the four radiologists present. The Auditor-General is not just relying on their version of events. This is very important because not only once again do we have the minister trying to shift the blame off himself on to what he calls these `deplorable radiologists' but he says everything that was done was done wrongly by them, nothing by him. He says:This version of events—this is at 2.28—is strongly supported by the then incoming President of the College, who was briefed the next day about the meeting by the then President.So the then president had been present at the meeting of 6 May. He had heard the minister tell him about this option, that the government intended to cut off MRI rebates for machines on order on budget night. So not only do we have the evidence on oath from the four radiologists who were present at the meeting but also at the very important subsequent meeting by the outgoing president to the incoming president of the college this information was delivered by the minister. So we are not just relying on people who were present at the meeting; we are of course looking at what happened as a result of that meeting. That is a very important piece of information. It goes on to say:... the Minister stated that he discussed the supply measures in general terms only ...Then there is a quote from the minister in the report: I can't say I didn't make a comment—so he cannot say that he did not make a comment—but I didn't disclose the mechanism of supply ...This is what he keeps coming back to: he did not actually disclose the budget decision because, as the Leader of the Opposition indicated earlier, that decision was not formally made until 11 May. This is how we weave and wind our way around the truth. `The formal decision was not made until 11 May, so how could I possibly have disclosed a budget measure? But the fact is that I went in there and said, "Hey, guys, what do you think about the idea of restricting supply after budget night to machines on order? What do you think about that?" I did not tell them that this was a budget measure but I put this option to them.' This is what the radiologists remember, and this is what they passed on to their new president.The minister, of course, continues to try to blame the radiologists. He is constantly calling them `deplorable'. That is his favourite adjective for the radiologists. They have acted deplorably. I would like to ask the minister: how can radiologists act deplorably in a vacuum? If they did not know, they could not have let the minister down. And they let him down badly—remember that? He came in here and he said, `They have let me down badly. They have destroyed my trust.' Of course, if he had not told them anything, they could not have let him down. It was only because he told them that they acted deplorably; the two things go together. There is no question that they had information and that they went out and ordered these 33 machines in the next six days. If he said nothing at all, if he had not given them any indication, why would there have been 33 orders in the next four working days. Come on! One hundred million dollars of these radiologists' own money was invested. It was not someone else's money—it was their own money. They did that because they had been given the good old `nudge-nudge, wink-wink' from this minister for health to let them know, `Well, this is what we're thinking of, guys. What do you think of that?' And off they went and spent $100 million ordering machines that they knew would then get Medicare rebates. In the short period of two years, as a result of getting those rebates, those machines would have been repaid. That is why this motion of censure is so important and why this minister should go, because this was a result of him letting it slip in that meeting or telling them on purpose—we will never know. Did he tell them on purpose, did he let it slip or was it just a bit of a nudge? Whichever way we go, all the evidence suggests that the issue was discussed at the meeting on 6 May. Having made such a botch of the negotiations, what did the minister do to protect the public interest? We know that he did nothing at the time, despite the department being aware that a buying spree had occurred. He was on the 7.30 Report last night with Kerry O'Brien, and he said:I was authorised by Cabinet to go and negotiate with the radiologists to explain what was happening. Now, some radiologists may have behaved in a quite improper manner out of that—only if they had found something out—and the Budget might have been exposed to some risk, but the fact is once we found that risk, we managed it ...I have never heard a greater load of rubbish. The Auditor-General says that the department and the Health Insurance Commission did not effectively focus on the risks that emerged after the budget in terms of the unexpectedly large number of machines that were suddenly being ordered. So not only did the minister let slip what the budget decision was going to be but he exposed the budget to extraordinary risk and then did nothing about it. It is not just the Labor Party saying that anymore. This is the Auditor-General saying that the department and the Health Insurance Commission did not effectively focus on the risks that emerged after the budget.You will all remember this: it took an anonymous complaint, according to the Auditor-General's report—and we all know this as well—to force the investigation. It was not something that the minister initiated immediately—nothing could be further from the truth. He did nothing even though we also now know that his office received emails. We have seen an email to `Dear Mike and Ken'—that was from some mate—telling him that the shonk was on, but he did not take any notice of that. He did nothing when the department told him that there was a problem except to require purchasers to sign a statutory declaration—and we can tell that that did not stop the ordering. He did nothing to check on the department's performance when this was continually raised in Senate estimates. Instead, we have had 50 questions in the parliament to which he has denied that there was any problem. That is up until October 1999, when finally we got him to organise this Auditor-General's report. Thirty-three orders were placed in six days, compared to 15 in the previous two months. He continues to deny that there was a rush of orders in the week leading up to the budget. Remember that? We quoted that in question time today. `Oh, there had been a trickle of orders.' What we now know is that 33 orders were placed in the four days after his critical meeting with the radiologists up until budget night. Of course, he has accused the opposition of being sucked into a dispute between rival radiologists. Too right, there are rival radiologists: the ones that were in the know and the ones that were not. And the ones that were not have been a bit annoyed—there is no doubt about that. They did not think that it was fair for them to find out after the budget that a few people had been in on the fix. Those people had been able to go and order their machines and get ahead of the game with this new technology. Now we see him entirely blaming the radiologists for their `deplorable' behaviour, blaming the department, blaming the Health Insurance Commission—blaming anybody but himself. I suppose it is really a bit ridiculous to even bother raising this issue, but we do have this guide on key elements of ministerial conduct—8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr Martin—Junk that.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—Do you think we might as well junk that?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—It is a historical document. PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—That is exactly right. There are some wonderful quotes in here which I suppose really do belong in history, but we would hope that this government would recognise that this minister must go because of the extraordinary breach of this ministerial code of conduct. It says:Ministers must not undermine public confidence in themselves or the government.He has certainly done that. It continues:Ministers must be honest in their dealings with the public. They must not intentionally mislead the parliament.And under `Accountability' it says that ministers would be properly held to account for matters for which they were personally responsible. He was at the meeting. He can be, I think, held personally responsible for being at the meeting and for letting them in on the deal. I think that is something that he should be held personally responsible for. He should be held personally responsible because it was his meeting on 6 May that let out the fact that this government was fixing on a deal. He must resign. (Time expired)16:24:0016330Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care will not be resigning; in fact, he will continue to be one of the best health ministers Australia has had. I know that is a matter of great disappointment to the members of the opposition. The bottom line of this whole question of MRI is that we have delivered a better service to Australians. About 140,000 Australians have had the benefit of access to this new technology at a greatly reduced price, from about $700 to $50 or $60, so it has become an affordable technology to assist Australians grapple with their health problems. Furthermore, the waiting time for access to this new technology has been cut from about five months to about one week. No wonder the Labor Party are excited about this issue. The last thing they would want to talk about is the benefits of this new program to Australians, delivered by one of the great Australian health ministers in Michael Wooldridge.We flatly reject all these allegations. As I am duty bound, I have listened carefully to the claims made by the opposition. I do not mind saying that I have gone away and read the Auditor-General's report and attempted to understand the argument put by the opposition and to see the evidence that they have produced or otherwise. If we look very briefly for a summary of the allegations that they make, we need to do no more than turn to the censure motion. The censure motion is in fact very vaguely drafted, which is always a telltale sign. When you do not have any substance to throw, keep the thing as vague and general as you possibly can to give it a bit of cover. There are three dot points to the censure motion. The first is:the clear evidence—note the word `clear'—(both direct and corroborative)— I think by corroborative they mean to include the evidence of the Leader of the Opposition just standing up and saying, `You are a liar,' which he did within the first eight or nine minutes of his speech today. That is their idea of evidence. The dot point reads:the clear evidence (both direct and corroborative) provided in the Auditor-General's report that he disclosed a budget proposal at a meeting on 6 May 1998, when he had a duty as a Commonwealth office holder not to do so;That is the main claim they make to back the censure motion and to back their claim that he should resign. I treat that allegation seriously, but there seems to be no explanation from the opposition for the fact that, when you read the Auditor-General's report, rather than there being evidence to support that claim— CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—It is not there. It is the opposite.WI4Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITH—I thank the honourable member for saying that it is not there. The fact of the matter is that there is a clear statement of this issue and it is completely to the opposite. Why should you resign if the evidence is in fact completely contradicted by the very source of evidence which the opposition claims to rely upon? If you go to page 84, paragraph 2.27, it reads:All College members who attended the meeting of 6 May 1998 agree that the Minister did not reveal Budget measures.You could not get a clearer statement. I know what it is like to be in opposition. I was in opposition for 11 years. When the other side are having a great week and you are having a dreadful week and you are trying to draft your speech for tonight's budget reply and you cannot think of anything to say, you are like a drowning man. If there is an Auditor-General's report for you to reach out for, you will try and give yourself a bit of political cover for what otherwise is an absolute disaster. You can imagine everyone sitting in the Leader of the Opposition's office with a computer each and they are all saying, `We will add up all the expenditures. There is the housing, the social security, the education and the employment services. Now we had better roll up the roll-back, so there are all those bits. Make sure the states get all the money, so we will have to find the money for that. Then, on top of that, we're going to have a bigger surplus, so we're not going to spend, we are actually going to save—4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Leader of the House was not in here when the debate started. He may not be aware that this is a censure motion against the minister for health. It is nothing about the GST or the budget.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—There is no point of order. Resume your seat. The Leader of the House has the call.WI4Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITH—We could move to a censure motion of the Leader of the Opposition, but I think we should at least allow him to give his vacuous speech first. But thank you for your advice on tactics, Leo. This is a serious point. These guys mount an attack on one of the best ministers in the government who has produced a great policy for the Australian people. They have produced what they say is evidence, and when you look to the document that is supposed to be a source of the evidence it says the absolute opposite.I have read paragraph 2.27. The answer to the question, `Was there a leak?' is answered in more than just 2.27. I have referred to that paragraph. Also, the Auditor-General found that all participants agreed that the minister did not discuss what measures would be in the budget. Furthermore, if you go to paragraph 2.32, there is an explanation in the Auditor-General's view. Obviously the opposition want us to accept their view of the matter. They were the ones who were calling for an Auditor-General's report. The minister initiated the Auditor-General's report. He could not have been more open and transparent. He sent the matter off to the Auditor-General. He gave evidence himself on oath. He has fronted up. After the question was raised, he made sure that there was no question that the Auditor-General had all the powers necessary to properly investigate the matter—we have not heard any of that argument again from the opposition—and when he does investigate the matter, it may be unfortunate for the opposition, but the Auditor-General formed an opinion, a most unhelpful opinion, for the opposition. The opposition say, `It must have been this, it must have been that.' They have been whingeing and whining about this for 12 months. After interviewing 135 witnesses, the Auditor-General says in paragraph 2.32:... it is a reasonable judgement that negotiation in consultation with the College and open debate about supply controls probably create an environment where some participants have deduced, or become aware, that the Commonwealth was giving consideration to inclusion of machines on order.The fact is that for some time this was a matter of general public discussion. You could hardly be surprised about that. MRIs are new technology and people want to know whether or not the government was going to back it and make it available. Without being involved in it, you hardly have to be Einstein to work out that, when it comes to providing services to regional Australia, there is no government more keen or more interested in ensuring that Australians have access, wherever they live, to the best technology, particularly in the area of health. Whilst we are talking about MRIs, let me, amongst many others, compliment the minister on consistently pursuing this policy through to this year's budget in one of the greatest packages ever delivered for rural health in Australia. Government members—Hear, hear!WI4Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITH—This was a matter of public discussion well before this matter was brought to a head in the way that it was. The other thing which is important to remember about the minister's conduct is that the minister acted pursuant to the authority of a cabinet decision. This was not a minister acting on a frolic of his own. This was a minister who had raised the matter properly in the processes of government and the cabinet backed him.The second point to make—and it is very clear if you read the documentation—is that the minister, as sensible ministers generally do, has looked to the expert advice in his department for the way in which to proceed. In fact, the minister attended the meeting on 6 May not at his own initiative but on the advice of the department, as a concluding meeting to a series of negotiations and discussions which had been managed by the department. When a minister acts in accordance with cabinet authority, when he acts in every reasonable way, as is clear from the Auditor-General's report, and when he acts in such a way which clearly provides a benefit, then it is very hard to understand why he ought to be the subject of a censure. Unlike the opposition, who have made these claims but when you look at them you cannot find anything to substantiate them, I make these claims based not on my own knowledge of it but on the knowledge on which the Auditor-General's report is based. For honourable members who would like more information, the Audit Office put out a very useful little brochure to give you a summary of some of the facts and circumstances surrounding this. They refer to the fact that there was an agreement with the profession. In this brochure they say:The Department's negotiations with the College were successful in achieving this Agreement. ... Nevertheless, the Department believes that, given the underlying trends, the savings to Government have been significant; the Minister has supported the view that this is a substantial achievement.I am glad they have made that point because we have delivered a service and provided a saving to the taxpayer. That is a pretty good result. There are a lot of ministers who would dip their lid to the minister for achieving that result. It is true—I do not think we can avoid the fact—that there have been difficulties with the process. No-one walks away from that fact. The brochure summarises some of the views of the Auditor-General. It states:The ANAO concluded that the Department's management of the probity arrangements surrounding the negotiations for the MRI measure was not adequate for the circumstances. ...Similarly, there were no agreed procedures or arrangements for declarations of any conflict of interest. ... This was primarily the responsibility of the Department.However, it also went on to say, just to ensure there is balance in this:It is important to observe that the Department met the formal requirements of the Budget processes and acted with proper authority to progress development of the measure. . . . .The Department's processes for developing the proposal to include machines on order before Budget night in the Budget measure, and in providing advice to the Minister on this matter, could have usefully involved greater consideration and attention to all relevant options.There have been inadequacies identified in the process. The minister has, however, acted within cabinet authority. He has sensibly relied on the department's advice. It is interesting that in this debate no-one in the opposition has actually referred to the benefits to the Australian public. 8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson—That is no justification.WI4Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITH—I hear the interjection, but in the end you have to look at the minister's conduct. The conduct of the minister was directed at achieving an objective, which was to improve health services for Australians and particularly to ensure accessibility of services to regional Australians. He was doing so within the context of a cabinet authority. He relied on departmental advice and he not only achieved an improvement in services but did so, following those negotiations, in a way which was beneficial to the taxpayer. As I said, there is no walking away from it: there were inadequacies in the process. But the opposition needs to specifically pin that on the minister. When you look at the conduct of the minister, it seems impossible to do so. In fact, as I read the Auditor-General's report, there are basically no criticisms of the minister. There is no suggestion that the minister has acted without propriety. There is no suggestion that the minister has done anything other than act with the highest standards of probity. We would expect that of this minister because he is a person greatly respected on our side of politics, not only because he is an expert in health but also because he is a person of stature who has gained that respect by the quality of the work that he has done as a minister.What an embarrassment it was for the Leader of the Opposition when the minister, in his concluding remarks, referred to this central and remaining point—a quote from none other than the Leader of the Opposition, who said:But when a minister is obliged to resign, the minister has to go for a reason. The fact that there have been difficulties with administration in the portfolio, albeit pointed out by the Auditor-General—you could not get a more exact parallel than that reference there to the Auditor-General—is not of itself a reason and never has been.Thank you, Leader of the Opposition. Knowing the speech you are going to give tonight, it is probably the only thing you are going to get right today—and it was a while ago since you got it right. This minister is highly respected. We think he has done a great job for Australia in the area of health. I believe that this censure motion should be the end of this matter. The opposition have been whingeing and whining, making up claims, misleading people and setting out to attack this minister without the evidence. They called for the evidence, the evidence has been produced and there is no evidence to back up all the whingeing, whining claims we have had for 12 months. We reject this censure motion, we support this minister and goodbye to the opposition. (Time expired) Question put:That the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to.16:43:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 63Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Wilton, G.S.Zahra, C.J.74Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andren, P.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.Crosio, J.A.Schultz, A.Sciacca, C.A.Fahey, J.J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Questions to the Speaker163341633416:48:0016334Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I have a question to you, Mr Speaker. Is it a fact that $4 million has been found for the landscaping of Parliament House courtyards? Is it also a fact that rooms are available for the families of senators and members of the House of Representatives when they visit Parliament House? Given that funds can be found for landscaping and space found for use by the children of senators and members, will you and the President approach the government for funds to provide a child-care centre for the 3,500 staff of Parliament House?16334SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Sydney asks a question about the completion of the landscaping of Parliament House, which had previously been budgeted for. The question has been extensively answered as a question on notice; she may care to refer to that. The matter of facilities for child-care in general has, in fact, been considered by the Senate and the House of Representatives, and changes have been made. The House of Representatives already has a minimal facility for the care of children, and a similar facility has been developed for the Senate side of the House. The whole question of what I think the member for Sydney refers to as child care, meaning supervised child care, is a matter that has from time to time been raised with the Presiding Officers and with the Joint House Department and is under review.Personal Explanations1633416:50:0016334Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?83UCox, David, MPMr COX—I do, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—On Friday, 4 April at 12.48 p.m. the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Ian Campbell, made an appearance on Leon Byner's afternoon program on Radio 5AA to discuss a possible loophole in planning legislation in relation to a proposed mobile phone tower in my electorate, at Huntfield Heights. During the interview Senator Campbell misrepresented me in the following three sets of remarks. First, he said:I got a briefing of what the local Labor member for Kingston was saying. He said he was going to sort of take the issue up with the minister, and so forth. I have had a bit of a check through the correspondence we have had from this bloke over the past 18 months, and we have not had a single letter on any of these issues from him. The only issue he seems to write to our department about is trying to get more money for arts funding. I guess, it is sort of demonstrable of what the modern Labor party is interested in.This is me. Second, he said:Second, I have also had a look into the detail of this issue. The phone company involved is One.tel. I am not quite sure what David Cox was talking about the privatisation of Telstra for in his interview. That has got nothing to do with One.tel, but One.tel are apparently putting up this tower or proposing to put it up. Third, he said: it is not a low impact one. This is where Mr Cox, or whatever his name is, is very confused.In relation to the first misrepresentation, that I have never written to the minister for communications about anything other than to seek more funding for the arts, I have searched my correspondence file and located the following letters that I have sent to Senator Campbell's minister. There is a letter on 7 January 1999 relating to the concerns of the Hackham Trader about possible confusion between company names in Yellow Pages listings—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Without wanting to curtail the member for Kingston's rights, I think simple letter dates will serve the purpose. Thank you. The details of the letters are not necessary in order to indicate the way in which the member has been misrepresented. The member may proceed.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—There is a letter on 27 April 1999 relating to complaints by a businessman from Trott Park about time wasted by unsolicited non-business calls; a letter on 6 July 1999 requesting technical assistance for a family in Hallett Cove who were attempting to stop their personal computers contributing to their neighbours' poor television reception; a letter on 30 July 1999 referring to a complaint from a constituent from Morphett Vale about language he found offensive on radio station Triple J; a letter on 13 December 1999 on behalf of the Wireless Institute of Australia referring to its complaint about a new Australia Post pricing schedule for overseas mail—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I did ask the member simply to refer to the dates on which he had written letters rather than a lengthy explanation, because the letters do not give any indication that he has been misrepresented in any way.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—They do not relate to the arts. There is only one more. For the sake of completeness, could I have your indulgence?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Go on, Mr Speaker. Be generous.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—A letter on 29 February 1999 regarding a complaint from a McLaren Vale wine company about the poor performance of the CDMA mobile network. I did not find any correspondence from me to the minister requesting an increase in funding for the arts. If the minister has received such a letter from me, I would be grateful if he would provide me with a copy. I have also subsequently written to Senator Alston regarding the phone tower at the top of Hilltop Drive at Huntfield Heights.In relation to the second misrepresentation, the supposed lack of relevance of my remarks about the privatisation of Telstra in the context of a dispute about a One.Tel telephone tower, I had simply said that the part privatisation of Telstra made it more difficult for the government to insist that Telstra allow the co-location of mobile phone antennae.In relation to the third misrepresentation, that I was confused about whether the proposed phone tower should be defined as `low impact' for the purposes of the Telecommunications Act, I had in fact said the same thing as Senator Campbell. I said that it was not a low impact facility and that I believed that it should therefore be subject to planning control by the City of Onkaparinga. Thank you, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingston might thank the Leader of the House as well as the Speaker in this particular instance.Questions to the Speaker1633516335NaN:55:004SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—On 10 April, the member for Charlton asked me a question about the timing of the replacement of the in-house paging system used by members and senators. I am advised by the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff that planning has begun for the replacement of the paging system. I am also advised that there will be extensive consultation with members', senators' and whips' offices before final designs and functional specifications are decided. As all honourable members would be aware, the paging system is an essential aspect of the parliament's communications arrangements, and a replacement system will need to be chosen carefully.Auditor-General's Reports163351633510000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 43 of 1999-2000 entitled Performance audit: Planning and monitoring for cost effective service delivery, staffing and funding arrangements: Centrelink. Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That:(1) This House authorises the publication of the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 43 of 1999-2000 and(2) The report be printed.Documents1633616:56:0016336Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following paper:Science and Technology Budget Statement 2000-2001Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.16:56:0016336Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—I present a paper on the following subject, being a petition which is not in accordance with the standing and sessional orders of the House:Calls on the Federal Government to use its jurisdiction to reject mandatory sentencing laws currently in place in Western Australia and the Northern Territory and restore the discretion of sentencing to Magistrates—from the member for Flinders—54 Petitioners.Adjournment16336Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Monday, 29 May 2000, at 12.30 p.m., unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting.Committees16336163361633616336Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I present the 15th report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber.Report—by leave—adopted.Matters of Public Importance163361633610000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Jagajaga proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the government to adequately safeguard the interests of Australian taxpayers in negotiating the introduction of Medicare rebates for MRI machines as part of the 1998 budget.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—Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That the business of the day be brought on.Miscellaneous16336The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000Medicare Levy Amendment (CPI Indexation) Bill 1999Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999Bills16336R1008Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the bill as amended by the House at the request of the Senate.Committees163361633616336A message has been received from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator Boswell has been discharged from attendance on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and that Senator Sandy Macdonald has been appointed a member of the committee.Bills16337R107916337Bill presented by Mr Reith, and read a first time.1633717:01:0016337Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.An enduring characteristic of the Howard coalition government has been our commitment to policy-making in the national interest. Our workplace relations policies are designed to benefit both the national interest and our workplaces as a whole, not narrow sectional interests. We are transforming what was for decades a centrally controlled industrial relations system into one where outcomes are put above process, where co-operation substitutes for backroom deals, and where agreements between employers and employees at the workplace level have primacy over the intervention of third parties.Two broad goals underpin these reforms. The first is to ensure that Australia has a workplace relations system that sustains and enhances our living standards, our jobs, our productivity and our international competitiveness. The second is to promote a more inclusive and cooperative workplace system, one that accepts the realities of a diverse, mobile and skilled labour force—where most employers and employees are capable of making agreements on wages, conditions and work and family responsibilities subject to a safety net of minimum standards. Achieving these goals has required structural reform to the system.As this week's budget papers noted, international authorities have recently concluded that `structural reforms have raised Australia's sustainable productivity growth, thereby enhancing the growth potential of the economy'. The result has been lower unemployment and jobs growth, with 699,600 new jobs created in workplaces since March 1996 and an unemployment rate today of 6.8 per cent—and the flow-on benefits to families from those new jobs.One of the structural reforms that has underpinned these outcomes is the system of genuine workplace or enterprise bargaining. The overwhelming majority of Australian employees in the workplace relations system are now employed under enterprise or workplace agreements—whether collective or individual, whether under federal or state laws. This system of enterprise bargaining has produced mutual benefits for workers, employers and the national interest on almost every criterion—better wages, relevant conditions, higher productivity, more jobs, increased competitiveness, greater workplace participation and lower dispute levels. It has been consistent with the economic and social goals already mentioned. Significantly, its outcomes have been far superior to those of the centrally controlled system that preceded it.Evidence that enterprise bargaining is central to the national interest lies in the fact that it has, since the early 1990s and until recently, been a policy attracting bipartisan political and industrial support at federal and state levels in every Australian jurisdiction. In fact it was the Keating Labor government and the ACTU that both adopted it as policy in their Accord Mark VI in 1990, and pursued it vigorously in industrial tribunals, legislatively and publicly. For all of the deficiencies of the Keating Labor government, for all of the inadequacies of the bargaining model implemented at that time, Labor knew what we all know—that the enterprise bargaining system was a structural reform in the national interest.Its importance is underscored in this week's budget papers which state the position clearly: `The strongest productivity growth in the private sector has also been in those industries dominated by enterprise bargaining—mining, finance and insurance and manufacturing' (Budget Strategy and Outlook 2000-01 Budget Paper No. 1). Yet the enterprise bargaining system is today under serious threat, politically and industrially. The ACTU leadership and certain unions have opportunistically turned their faces against it by supporting a return to industry-wide pattern bargaining.Enterprise bargaining is the system where wages and conditions are determined by genuine negotiation at each enterprise through workplace participation by management, the workforce and their representatives, with outcomes based on local circumstances and mutual interests. Pattern bargaining on the other hand is the practice whereby unions demand common outcomes in respect of terms and conditions of employment across a swathe of employers or an industry in lieu of genuine enterprise bargaining, and then use the statutory protected action provisions to legitimise industrial action in pursuit of such claims. Pattern bargaining is designed to undermine Australia's successful enterprise bargaining system and return workplace relations outcomes to a centrally controlled one-size-fits-all approach. This is currently the case in one of Australia's major industry sectors—the manufacturing industry—an industry where business welfare and an employee's job security is closely allied to international competitiveness and productivity growth. Pattern bargaining is a manipulation of the legislative right to enterprise bargaining provided for by the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the act), and by the previous Labor government's industrial legislation. Under pattern bargaining, union officials making backroom deals assume control over multiple outcomes, not by participative workplace negotiation involving local circumstances and those who have most at stake—employers and employees.This bill is essential to maintain the integrity of the enterprise bargaining system in Australia and its mutually beneficial outcomes. The coalition indicated in our 1998 workplace relations policy that we would improve the legislative framework to distinguish between protected action in pursuit of genuine bargaining, and illegitimate bargaining and related industrial action. We are now acting on that undertaking.Employers and employees have clearly embraced enterprise bargaining in the past decade. More than 17,000 collective agreements have been formalised under the federal system alone, with thousands more under state bargaining systems, as well as individual workplace agreements under federal and some state laws. More than 80 per cent of all federal award employees are covered by enterprise bargaining agreements. Agreements made directly between employers and their employees, with limited third party involvement, are becoming increasingly used as a vehicle for better wages and flexible and innovative employment conditions and work practices.Threats to enterprise agreements are not confined to the manufacturing industry. Manipulation of the legislative bargaining regime, if not contained, is capable of flowing on to other industry sectors where like-minded union officials seek to dictate wage and condition outcomes. The manufacturing industry campaign, which is already under way and will be escalating in Victoria from 1 July, presents a serious threat to the workplace relations system. Such an outcome would compromise many of the gains made in that and other sectors since the introduction of enterprise bargaining nearly a decade ago. It would not be in the national interest. This is a matter that calls for immediate remedial legislation.The provisions contained in this bill will: qualify access to the right to take protected industrial action so that where, on application by a negotiating party, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission finds that a party is engaging in pattern bargaining (as defined) it must terminate the bargaining period, rendering industrial action unprotected at law; enhance the effectiveness of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission's power to issue orders that unlawful industrial action cease or not occur; give the Australian Industrial Relations Commission a power to order cooling-off periods in respect of protected industrial action where this will assist the resolution of matters in dispute; protect existing rights to pursue common law remedies in response to unlawful industrial action in supreme courts without additional litigation in the form of anti-suit injunctions being sought from or issued by the Federal Court; and make other minor or technical amendments necessary for the effective operation of the industrial action and compliance provisions of the act. It is important to note that these substantive amendments in the bill relating to pattern bargaining, cooling-off periods and unprotected industrial action provide an important determinative role for the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, as the independent arbiter on disputed matters. In this way, the bill recognises a proper and enhanced jurisdiction for the commission, in addition to its existing functions.Orders relating to unprotected industrial actionThe present section 127 of the act was introduced to provide a timely remedy for parties affected by unprotected industrial action. This section empowers the commission to issue orders to stop or prevent industrial action. Whilst section 127 has generally proved to be an effective mechanism, delays in the making or enforcement of section 127 orders have in some cases had the negative consequence of extending the period during which businesses are exposed to unprotected industrial action. The proposed amendments are designed to overcome these problems by amending the processes by which such orders are made. The new provisions will require the commission to deal with section 127 applications within 48 hours of their lodgment, including the determination of whether the industrial action is or is not protected action. If the application is unable to be determined within the 48 hours, the commission is required to issue an interim order to stop or prevent the industrial action, unless to do so would be contrary to the public interest.Industrial action and pattern bargainingThe definition of pattern bargaining in the bill means that pattern bargaining is a course of conduct, bargaining or the making of claims in a campaign or part of a campaign that involves seeking common outcomes in respect of wages or other employment conditions. The commission must be satisfied that two elements exist: the conduct, bargaining or making of claims is part of a campaign that extends beyond a single business; and the conduct, bargaining or making of claims is contrary to the objective of encouraging genuine enterprise or workplace agreement making.A course of conduct or bargaining by an association of employees that extends beyond a single business is taken to be contrary to the objective of genuine enterprise bargaining unless the commission is satisfied that all of the common elements sought are of such a nature that they are not capable of being pursued at the single business level. An organisation of employees would not be considered to be engaged in pattern bargaining merely because it is seeking terms and conditions of employment which would give effect to a full bench decision establishing national standards. This approach will ensure that bargaining, and in particular protected industrial action taken in support of bargaining, is focussed on mutually beneficial outcomes at the enterprise level.Limiting protected industrial action to persons directly involvedArising from the operation of the existing act, the government's attention has been drawn to circumstances where unions have sought to involve all their members who are employed by an employer negotiating an agreement in taking protected action irrespective of whether the employee would be subject to the proposed agreement. This is not the intention of the 1996 act. The bill proposes amendments that would ensure that protected action during negotiations for a certified agreement are only available to those to whom the proposed agreement will apply. In practice, the effect of these proposed changes will be that industrial action will not have immunity if it is taken in concert with any person or organisation of employees that is not protected in respect of industrial action being taken. Court to determine if action is protected actionThe proposed provisions would expressly confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court to determine whether industrial action is protected, and, if so, whether the industrial action is covered by the immunity provided by the act. Although the Federal Court already has such jurisdiction, questions have arisen in the operation of the act as to whether its jurisdiction is exclusive of the jurisdiction of state or territory courts. The proposed amendments will clarify that the Federal Court's jurisdiction in respect of these matters is not exclusive. In addition, proposed provisions will protect existing rights to pursue common law remedies in response to unlawful industrial action in supreme courts without additional litigation in the form of anti-suit injunctions being sought from or issued by the Federal Court.Power to order cooling-off periodsUnder the existing statutory scheme, the commission has used existing provisions to order a form of cooling-off period to provide a circuit breaker during particularly difficult bargaining disputes. Such decisions have been made in the best interests of the parties and should be given specific statutory recognition. The bill does that. Under the proposed amendments, the commission would suspend a bargaining period for a specified period on request of one of the negotiating parties, if it were satisfied that the suspension would assist parties to resolve their differences, provided that the suspension would not be contrary to the public interest. Industrial action taken in relation to a proposed agreement while the bargaining period is suspended would not be protected action.This bill is necessary to ensure that the legislative framework relating to enterprise bargaining and industrial action is properly meeting its intended objectives. Without this remedial legislation, the checks and balances in the system which regulate the rights and responsibilities of employers, employees, unions and employer associations will be undermined by illegitimate bargaining and immunity for illegitimate industrial action. That cannot and should not be allowed to occur. The national interest, as well as the mutually beneficial outcomes that the enterprise bargaining system is providing to Australian workplaces, must remain paramount.In introducing this bill, it is appropriate to note the persuasive evidence and submissions made by the Australian Industry Group and its members to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee last September. In conjunction with other business organisations, the AI Group has clearly identified the need for this remedial legislative action in order to maintain the proper conduct of workplace relations in the manufacturing sector. I am therefore hopeful that this legislation will be in place by 1 July 2000.Before concluding, I should also acknowledge the constructive discussions the government has had with the Australian Democrats on this issue. In their minority Senate report last November, the Democrats indicated that government proposals at that time were deficient, but that the matter justified further consideration. This bill reflects a range of revised government proposals. Those revisions, while still addressing the problem of pattern bargaining and associated industrial action, take into account more fully both evidence given to the 1999 Senate committee, as well as the policy thrust of the Australian Democrats, particularly their concern for a proper role for the commission in these matters. I also wish to put on the record my appreciation of those within my own office and within the department who have worked assiduously to bring this bill to its presentation in the parliament today. I commend the bill to the House, and table the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Griffin) adjourned.Bills16340R107716340Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.1634117:16:0016341Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.In just over 50 days, Australia will see the implementation of the most significant tax reform since World War II, including the largest tax cuts in Australia's history. The reform package also includes large increases to family assistance, increases to pensions and all other government benefits, the abolition of wholesale sales tax and the introduction of the GST.As part of the implementation phase of the GST, the government has embarked upon an extensive information and community education program. Both the Australian Taxation Office and GST Start-Up Assistance Office have played key roles with comprehensive seminar programs, the provision of booklets and fact sheets on the operation of the GST, and several infolines addressing both tax issues and the business skills needed to prepare for tax reform.The Australian Taxation Office has also issued a large number of rulings on detailed operation of the law in relation to the GST.As a result of the detailed examination of the law through the rulings process, feedback received from taxpayers on the GST legislation, as well as comments from the New Tax System Advisory Board, several issues have been raised by interested parties including the need for amendments. The government has looked at the issues raised and considers that a number of amendments need to be made to ensure that the legislation remains consistent with the government's original intentions.The amendments in this bill will apply to the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999, the GST act, and related legislation. They give effect to the measures announced in the Treasurer's press release No. 37, of 3 May 2000, as well as some other issues not previously announced.The measures in this bill cover approximately 30 minor policy issues and nine technical issues. The majority of the amendments are concessional in nature and will be welcomed by business. In addition, there are a small number of amendments which are regarded as anti-avoidance measures to ensure that aspects of the law operate as intended. The other amendments are technical in nature but are essential to ensure that the legislation operates effectively.Some of the more important amendments contained in this bill are as follows.This bill will amend the GST act to give the Commissioner of Taxation the power to issue guidelines to specify that certain fundraising events undertaken by charities can be treated as input taxed. These fundraising events could include a fete, ball, or other similar event that is separate from, nor forming part of, a series of similar events. Events involving the sale of small fundraising items such as badges, flowers and confectionery will be included provided the charitable entity is not in the business of selling such items.Where the fundraising event does not meet this description, the amendments provide that a charitable entity may make a request to the commissioner to apply his discretion to treat an activity as input taxed. In applying his discretion, the commissioner would need to have broad regard to whether the charitable entity is in the business of making such supplies. In addition, the commissioner must be satisfied that the fundraising is genuine and the proceeds are for the direct benefit of the charity.This bill amends the GST act to make the delivery of livestock to a processor a taxable supply. This confirms the government's policy in respect of food to ensure that, as far as practicable, farmers should be in a position to sell their produce subject to GST.This bill also amends the GST act to ensure the lease or hire of goods by preschools, primary schools and secondary schools to students are GST free provided the school retains property of those goods. These supplies will be GST free as long as there is not any transfer, or agreement to transfer ownership of the goods to any student or anyone else at any stage, and the supply must be directly and principally for use by that student in a GST-free education course supplied by the school.Other measures in this bill relate to: streamlined processes to let businesses inform insurance companies of their input tax credit status; allowing more flexible arrangements for accounting for GST for transactions between agents and principals; clarifying the GST treatment of supplies involving nonresidents; rules for calculating GST; taking borrowing out of the financial supplies de minimus threshold except for those borrowings that are related to making financial supplies; applying consistent principles to GST turnover tests to assist pubs and clubs; and two revenue protection measures to prevent stockpiling of alcoholic beverages.The amendments in this bill demonstrate that the government is responding to consultations and is prepared to make changes necessary to ensure an effective tax system.Full details of the amendments in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Griffin) adjourned.Bills16342R103616342Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.1634217:23:0016342Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill will establish a new uniform penalties regime for all taxation laws administered by the commissioner. Under the current framework, penalty provisions are either duplicated or differ between different taxation laws and some tax shortfalls currently do not attract penalties. The existing framework needs to be modernised to cope with the requirements of the new tax system.The amendments in the bill will remove inconsistencies and will rectify deficiencies that exist in the current penalties framework. As a result, the new framework will be simpler, uniform and equitable.The bill will also make amendments to allow people other than registered tax agents to prepare or lodge a business activity statement on behalf of taxpayers and to give advice about the new tax system. Under the current law, mainly registered tax agents are only able to undertake this work.Those who will be able to assist businesses with their obligations under the new tax system will include: members of recognised professional associations that represent accountants and tax practitioners; bookkeepers working under the direction of registered tax agents; and persons who provide payroll bureau services to employers.The bill makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to the provisions covering the pay-as-you-go arrangements, the business activity statement and general interest charge provisions to ensure a smooth transition to the new tax system on 1 July 2000.The bill also makes amendments to the Corporations Law consequential to the introduction of the pay-as-you-go withholding arrangements. The government has consulted the Ministerial Council for Corporations about these consequential amendments and the council has approved the amendments for introduction into parliament.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Griffin) adjourned.Bills16342R107816342Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.1634317:26:0016343Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill amends the income tax law to allow a beneficiary rebate in respect of the payment of the Community Development Employment Projects Scheme participant supplement. The supplement will also be covered to the pay-as-you-earn and pay-as-you-go withholding systems. The amendments will apply to payments made on or after 11 November 1999 and to assessments for the 1999-2000 year of income and all later years of income. These measures will allow the CDEP supplement to receive the same tax treatment as New Start and Youth Allowance supplements for recipients involved in labour market programs.To assist with the implementation of the goods and services tax, the government is providing direct assistance certificates to small and medium enterprises and to community sector bodies when they register for the GST. This bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to exempt from income tax any income attributable to GST direct assistance certificates.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Griffin) adjourned.Bills16343S20916343Debate resumed.17:28:0016343Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I rise to speak on the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. This bill amends the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 and the Sea Installations Act 1987. I have a particular interest in the ramifications of the changes to these acts because my electorate of Herbert is in the middle of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, as are the cities of Townsville and Thuringowa.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—And are well represented by the member for Herbert.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—Thank you, Parliamentary Secretary. In speaking to this bill, I would like to explore how the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is managed, and how that management will interact with the proposed new act. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is one of the world's largest marine protected areas, encompassing a complex array of diverse ecosystems as well as social, economic and cultural activities. The social, economic and cultural activities are covered in the two acts that we are discussing this afternoon. I note that another parliamentary secretary, the member for Leichhardt, has joined us. He certainly has a very great interest in the operations of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.The marine park covers approximately 350,000 square kilometres, stretching more than 2,000 miles along the Queensland coast. Because of its large size, diversity and uniqueness, the marine park is an internationally significant resource of world recognised ecological and conservation values. I am pleased to support this particular bill this afternoon because it enhances and reinforces the protection available to this world-class, world heritage listed area. Together with 2,957 square kilometres of adjacent Queensland state marine park and the 918 islands within its boundaries, it was inscribed on the world heritage list in 1981.The marine park is not a national park, but was established as a multiple use park. I note—and this is particularly relevant to the bill that we are discussing this afternoon—that the park is closed to petroleum exploration and development and spearfishing with scuba equipment, but supports a range of commercial activities which contribute significantly to local, regional and national economies. The most significant, of course, is tourism, which generates an estimated $1 billion annually in revenue and employs thousands of people. There are many people employed all along the Queensland coast.It is very interesting to see what we find in the marine park. I will just provide some facts for the interest of the parliament and those who might be listening to this broadcast this afternoon. There is an absolutely amazing diversity which needs to be protected, and the Sea Installations Act and the sea dumping act go a long way towards enhancing that protection. The marine park has six of the world's seven species of marine turtle; the largest green turtle breeding area in the world; one of the world's most important dugong populations; a breeding area for humpback and other whale species; about 2,900 coral reefs built from 359 different species of hard coral; over one-third of the world's soft coral and sea pen species; over 3,000 square kilometres of seagrass meadows; 2,000 square kilometres of mangroves, including 54 per cent of the world's total mangrove diversity; more than 1,500 species of fish—indeed, I might just divert and observe that when you go fishing in the marine park each fish you catch is usually different; 1,500 species of sponges, equalling 30 per cent of Australia's diversity; 800 species of echinoderms; over 5,000 species of molluscs; 2,200 species of native plants; and spectacular landscapes—for example, the Hinchinbrook Channel, Whitsunday Islands and Magnetic Islands. I understand there are probably one or two islands off Cairns as well. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park headquarters is located in Townsville in my electorate of Herbert. It is a magnificent organisation and does tremendous work in protecting the marine park and also in terms of its attention to detail in many of the issues that come up in protecting this magnificent resource. I am very pleased to say that the staff at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park are thoroughly professional, and I think Australia can be proud of their input. The Sea Installations Act ensures the safe operation of installations that are within the economic exclusion zone and it looks after the safety of people operating within that zone and also the operations of ships and aircraft in the particular area. It also ensures that such installations are operated in a manner that is consistent with the protection of the environment. That is a key point in the marine park and adjacent to the marine park, which is where this particular act is going to have most effect. There is a lot of tourism, recreation, and environmentally related activity, a lot of carrying on of businesses and certainly a lot of fishing operations, tourism businesses, et cetera. They have installations that are required and this act covers those sorts of things. The act applies in respect of sea installations installed in an adjacent area of a state or affected territory. While that does not affect the marine park, it certainly affects areas where there are cross-border boundary issues. The clarification of that is very helpful and is something that is long overdue.I have a very significant interest in the sea dumping act. This particular act reinforces the protection of the existing Great Barrier Reef in no uncertain terms, and that is certainly very popular in my electorate in Townsville and Thuringowa. It extends the area currently protected to the entire economic exclusion zone, and that particular zone is very important to Australia. I might observe at this point that, as the member for Dunkley quite rightly observed earlier in this debate, we are the only country in the world that has an oceans policy. The sea dumping act, I am pleased to say, is part of the strengthening and underpinning of that and, of course, it strengthens and underpins the provisions of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Act. It covers commercial operations, and one that I am particularly interested in and one where we have seen some problems in the past is in relation to oil dumping at sea. That is a particularly sensitive matter. If a ship dumps oil adjacent to the marine park it can cause enormous damage in this world heritage listed area. I would also like to indicate an issue that is, and has been in the past, very sensitive in my electorate—the operation of foreign and Australian defence vessels within Australia's economic exclusion zone. From time to time the ADF holds very important and significant exercises principally in the Shoalwater Bay training area off Rockhampton, but the exercises can be right along the Queensland coast. They involve ships of our Navy and also ships of foreign navies. Up until now Defence was not required to comply with the current act. That caused some significant concern over things like the dumping of grey water or black water from the ships within Australia's economic exclusion zone. Fortunately, our ADF is a very good corporate citizen and has voluntarily complied with what everybody would expect it to comply with, but with the new sea dumping act it must now comply absolutely. The act will cover Australian ships at sea and also foreign ships of other navies. I think we can now say clearly to our communities in Queensland that defence related activities within the economic exclusion zone will operate as we would expect them to and we will not dump material that should not be dumped. I also note that there are tougher provisions in the sea dumping act. I welcome them. They will be enforced or applied when Australia detects any breach of the particular matters covered by this act. I am pleased to see that the enforcement will be widened. As I understand it, Environment Australia has a very small number of inspectors, if not only one. There will now be other government agencies that will be able to take part in the enforcement of this particular act. They include people from the Customs Service, the Federal Police and Coastwatch. We have seen in this week's budget a significant amount of extra money being given to Coastwatch and Customs to look at our border protection. Of course, when these groups are out there doing their sea patrols, they will be watching for breaches of this act; they will all be empowered to do that. We will have a lot more eyes and ears out there watching and hearing in order to protect our economic exclusion zone and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. That is a very good result of the bill that is before this parliament. Under the sea dumping act—and I think this has been pointed out previously but it is worth while underlining it—Australia fulfils its obligations as one of the 77 contracting parties to the London convention. We are abiding by our obligations internationally and the government is certainly very pleased to be able to do that.On a note of caution, I would raise a matter in relation to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park that concerns me and my electorate in Townsville and Thuringowa. It is not covered by this particular act and I put it on the record today as a matter of concern. It is again a defence related activity: the use of high explosives in this area. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has written to the Department of Defence requesting that it phase out the use of high explosives in defence practice areas—and I stress within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park area. That is not an area covered by your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker Gash, by the Jervis Bay sea range; it is within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The matter, as I understand it, is being negotiated at a senior interdepartmental level, and it will be interesting to see what the outcome is.I would also add for the parliament's information that, while conservation of the marine park is the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's primary role, statutory zoning plans do allow defence activities to occur within designated defence areas. We would know them as training areas. I certainly have one within about 12 to 15 kilometres of the city of Townsville in Halifax Bay within the marine park: the Rattlesnake Island-Cordelia Rock bombing area, which the RAAF uses. There have been some community concerns about that. To the RAAF's credit, it has been negotiating with the marine park authority to try to resolve community concerns. I conclude by indicating to the parliament that I believe the passage of the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 will reaffirm Australia's commitment to the protection of the marine environment by implementing the 1996 protocol to the London convention. I therefore strongly support the bill before the parliament this afternoon.16:43:0016345Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—I rise to support the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. This bill puts in place the requirements upon us set out in the 1996 protocol to the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. It is also a result of announcements that were made by the government in 1998 in Australia's oceans policy. The government indicated that it would complete action to ratify the 1996 protocol to the London convention and implement the total ban on industrial waste dumping at sea and amend legislation to place beyond doubt the regulation of artificial reef construction to protect the marine environment from pollution and to prevent hazards in the sea for navigation, commercial fishing and divers through conditions attached to permits under the Commonwealth Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981. Without wishing to sound too churlish, I note that it has taken quite some time since the announcement of that policy to get the legislation into this place, although I note that there was a thorough investigation by a Senate committee as part of the process. The bill amends the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 in order—amongst other things, as I have said—to implement the 1996 protocol, to stipulate the Commonwealth's responsibilities for the regulation and construction of artificial reefs, to expand the application of this act to Australia's exclusive economic zone and to fulfil a number of other measures, including the appointment of the Australian Customs Service as inspector for the sake of this act. This amendment bill also amends the Sea Installations Act 1987 to remove prohibitions on the issuing and bearing of a permit which would authorise sea installations to be located partly within and partly outside adjacent areas. That, of course, is a quirk of the overlap between Commonwealth waters and state coastal waters—one of those quirks of our federation and our Constitution.The London convention is amongst a number of important international agreements that are required to ensure that Australia plays its part in the protection of the globe's environment. The fact that there were a number of amendments and variations to the original convention in the 1996 protocol indicates that, in our fight to protect the environment and our continuing actions to promote sustainable activities, we are very much on a learning curve. One of the things that the 1996 protocol did was to come up with a list of materials for which a permit for dumping could be given. It was a much shorter list than the original list, and it deleted a number of items that were on the original list. For instance, under the original 1972 convention there were a number of materials that could be licensed for dumping that we now consider to be unacceptable. Amongst those items were: munitions, car tyres, concrete, asbestos and industrial waste.The problem we have is that back in the 1970s there was still a belief that, where it was done in a controlled way, dumping waste at sea utilised the ability of the ocean, as a large sink and through its dilution effects, to mask what might have been detrimental effects of the wastes that were being dumped. Modern belief has made us move on to what is now described as the `precautionary approach', in which we look at the wastes and we consider that they should not be discarded if the risk is either serious or the risk is irreversible. That is a reflection on the way in which scientific study arms us better to be able to know what we are doing and what effect it might have upon the environment. One of the difficulties is that people did not understand the biodynamics of the way in which the ocean, as a habitat, was able to deal with a number of the materials that were dumped at sea. There is the phenomenon of bioaccumulation, where a material that goes through the food chain can become more and more concentrated in organisms. I think that there is now a greater understanding of the effect of that. Whilst the great environmental awareness that burgeoned in the 1970s has brought a greater awareness of the way in which we treat our environment, the increased body of scientific knowledge has ensured that we are able to improve our stewardship of a number of elements of the environment.Some eight or nine years ago, I was involved in the House of Representatives environment committee's inquiry into coastal management. One of the intriguing things about that inquiry was that there was a great degree of frustration that, whilst we had in place the 1972 London Dumping Convention, as it was then known—it is better known now as the London convention, in one of those quirks of jargonese or as an attempt to be more correct about what we are allowing—it only applies to those things that are dumped at sea, either off the side of a ship or off some sort of platform at sea. There was a great degree of frustration amongst a number of people that came to us during the inquiry on coastal management that, if similar materials were dumped at sea at the end of an outfall pipe, they were not controlled by this type of convention—and there is a continuing degree of concern about that. In some very interesting papers that have been put out about the history of the dumping of materials at sea, the production of titanium dioxide is highlighted. Titanium dioxide is principally used in paints and materials like that. It was believed that the by-products involved in its use could easily be handled by dumping them into the ocean, because of the dilution factor. I remember that during the committee inquiry into coastal management we actually visited a titanium dioxide plant in Burnie in Tasmania. By way of parenthesis, this plant has now been closed, amongst a whole host of job generating activities in the Burnie region. When I recently saw the site, I was quite surprised that all the buildings had been demolished. When visiting the titanium dioxide plant and looking out to sea, one sees a great sweep of dark brown water—much like the type of colour you might see in a stream in the mountains where there is the sort of tannin effect to be seen in pristine water.In the history of 20 years protection of the ocean from waste dumping which was prepared by Remy Parmentier for Greenpeace International, the writer shows that one of the first issues that was taken up by Greenpeace was the dumping at sea of waste from the production of titanium dioxide in Germany, where it was taken offshore by vessel and dumped into the North Sea. The activities of Greenpeace led to the establishment of ways that land based recycling alternatives could be used to better deal with these waste materials. It is quite interesting to see, as part of the history of the way the London convention was put in place, that this process in Germany was highlighted by Greenpeace. Land based activities that use a pipe outfall into the ocean—and in the Burnie case into the Bass Strait—are not, as I understand it, covered by international treaties and conventions to which Australia is a signatory. I think that is the type of measure that we really have to look at, because it seems incongruous that if we go offshore to dump such materials from a vessel it is not allowed but, as I understand it, some of these same materials can continue to be released at the end of a pipe. Another example is the sewerage system in Greater Sydney at the end of the Bondi outfall. I would hazard a guess—I am not definitely sure—that if similar material was being dumped directly at sea it would probably be outside the protocols that are attached to this convention.Another example which Australia has had close dealings with is jarosite. The famous case is the Pasminco EZ plant, again in Tasmania, on the Derwent River in Hobart, where for many years that waste product of the smelter, the jarosite, was taken offshore and the vessels went off relatively in the direction of Antarctica. We thought it was suitable to just be thrown overboard. Fortunately, the last permit for that type of dumping was given towards the end of 1997, as there was a growing awareness that the ocean as a dumping sink was not able to cope through simple dilution with a number of these effects.There are a number of other things that others have raised in this debate. There is the notion that we must ensure that we do not see things listed as a result of the 1996 protocol being dumped in the guise of artificial reefs. That is very important. There is, as I stated, the measure that would allow that, where some of these things straddle the jurisdictions of the Commonwealth and the state and territory governments, and in particular the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth will have jurisdiction until the state or territory, whichever the case is, puts in place appropriate state laws.As has been indicated earlier in the debate, the opposition has no problem in supporting the amendments contained in this piece of legislation. As I said, it is an indication that we require international effort for a number of the environmental challenges that we confront. I also think that it is an indication of a growing awareness that there are things that we need to learn about the way in which we cope with some of those challenges and that we have to be vigilant about what is taking place. This piece of legislation—in concert with a number of other pieces of legislation that arise from other international agreements and with domestic legislation we have in place, for instance, about operational discharges from vessels such as bilge water and the like—is very important in protecting the globe's oceans, which are a vital part of the environment. They are a great source of many of those things which are part of the earth's biodiversity that are very much worthy of our protection. I have expressed those concerns, and I say, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the parliamentary secretary that I think I have my facts straight about the outfalls. When this bill resurfaces for finalisation, I would seek some assurance, based on the department's advice, about what the actual position is on what happens at the end of pipe outfalls from land. I would appreciate that. I do think now, as I did when the committee did its inquiry, that it is just ludicrous that there are certain things that it is illegal to dump over the side of a ship, whereas we are getting away with dumping those materials from the end of outfalls.Debate (on motion by Mr Entsch) adjourned.Sitting suspended from 6.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Bills16348R107616348Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.19:30:0016348Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Speaker, as I have travelled around this country over the last 12 months, wherever I go I hear the same questions. People are asking me, `If the economy is supposed to be going so well, why are things so tough for me and my family?' They are asking me why, when the government says the economic good times are rolling, their local public hospital is overcrowded and cannot cope with more than the most urgent cases. They ask me why the local public school is run down, the computers broken and the classrooms overcrowded. They ask me why they are now getting hit almost every month with another rate rise on their mortgage. And they are asking why, when things are supposed to be going so well, the society they live in is getting harsher, less caring and more divisive.Those people who have asked me these questions over the last 12 months would have found no answers on Tuesday night from this budget. Indeed, all that Australian families would have found in this budget would behigher taxes, higher prices and more pressure on interest rates. Even more importantly, they would have seen this budget on Tuesday night for what it is, a budget of lost opportunities—lost opportunities, as the government squanders its bottom line, gleaned from cutting sound programs in education, health and regional services: to spend on what? Nothing but the GST. For all the big talk in the budget about doing the hard yards and all the talk about historic reforms and strong prospects, it is all invested in just one thing—the GST.At the core of this budget, after nine successive years of growth, we find nothing to comfort Australians, to reassure them that the government believes in a future for this country. After the billions of dollars in cuts made to government services in its first term, this government has been forced, beyond all the limits of prudence in a growth economy, to spend all the proceeds, and then some. The Treasurer knows he is stuck with this budget to bring in the GST, but he knows it is the wrong budget to ensure a sound economy at this stage of the economic cycle. When he should have been assisting the Reserve Bank to keep interest rates low, the Treasurer instead has been forced to accept a tax he once described as `snake oil'—John Howard's GST—and he has been forced to accept the huge spending bill to try to compensate people for its effects.The amazing thing is that, with all of that spending—$6 billion in this budget alone—they have still managed to leave substantial numbers of Australians without any form of compensation. Remember, this is the government which has cut $5 billion from social services since coming to power, much of it directed at families. Now it is imposing a $30 billion GST which will principally be borne by families, a tax which means that every time you have a child, you effectively go up into a new tax bracket. The fact is, as most Australians know, mortgage rises are already chewing up the so-called GST compensation for families with children on an average income and with an average mortgage. Their tax cuts are already gone before they arrive; and the full GST is only 51 days away. Even more vulnerable is a family like John and Wendy, from the government's own GST TV ads. If John and Wendy are expecting a child in December this year and John has an annual income of $30,000 and Wendy $28,000—a pretty normal Australian family, I would have thought—under the new tax system, when Wendy stops work they will lose $67 a fortnight in the existing parenting payment. Even the government admits that this leaves John and Wendy only $12 a fortnight to pay the GST. The latest analysis shows that they will be $16 a fortnight worse off after the GST.On Tuesday night, we had a look in the budget—given the Prime Minister's promises—and actually found $15 million to set up an office to look at cases like John and Wendy's. But there was no money in the budget to pay them any compensation. So we have the farcical situation where the government will spend $15 million to discover that John and Wendy are worse off, but will not spend a cent to help them. This is compassionate conservatism. A chap will come round to your door and say, `We've discovered you, John and Wendy. Sorry to whack the $67 bucks off you. Sorry about that, but there's absolutely nothing we can do.' Compassionate conservatism. To further confound and confuse Australian families, we had the spectacle last night of the Treasurer, in a fit of pique over the budget's poor reception, saying that the promised tax cuts were not meant as compensation to people for the GST. `Income taxes had to be cut anyway,' he said. This is exactly what Labor has always argued—that you can have tax reform without a GST. What the Treasurer is telling families is that the inadequate compensation package for the GST is actually no compensation at all. It was owed to people for the effects of inflation since the Howard government came to office. But that is this government all over. It is like someone who comes along and pinches $1,000 out of your back pocket and returns four years later with a $50 note expecting you to fall on your knees in gratitude.The one piece of news in this budget was the $2.8 billion surplus. Yet almost immediately that was shown to be a giant con trick. Nine years into economic recovery, we find in reality there is no surplus at all. The $2.8 billion was conjured up literally out of thin air—out of the sale of communications spectrum for an estimated $2.6 billion. The Treasurer himself has told us asset sales should not be included in the budget bottom line. A business could not get away with that, but the Treasurer thinks he can. Take away this fiddle, and the budget would be in surplus by a paltry $200 million. Today, the situation became dramatically more serious. The parliament learned that, because of the false classification of a major payment to the states, the budget is actually in deficit. Combined with other fiddles, the outcome of this budget is really a $2.1 billion deficit. It has taken all of three years for this Treasurer to turn a $10.7 billion projected surplus into an effective $2.1 billion deficit. And this is at a time of strong economic growth and huge growth in revenue. According to the measure used by a prominent economics forecaster, Access Economics, the true structural deficit is actually more than $5 billion. Is it any wonder then, that this has been, of all their budgets, the most critically received by economic commentators? You know, in the past four budgets we have seen Peter Costello smirking his way through his budget speech, as he went around trying to convince the markets and the commentators the pain would be good for us, the gains would soon be there. But on Tuesday night the smirk had gone, and all that remained were the thin lips and a hushed backbench. What this week has done—make no mistake—is finally expose what we in this parliament have known all along: this Treasurer has a glass jaw. He has had it easy in his short political career, but as soon as the heat is turned up he starts to go to pieces. I was trying to recall when I had last seen him look so uncomfortable. Was it when he verballed Alan Greenspan and single-handedly moved the US bond market? It was a bit like the way he moved Telstra the other day. Was it when he did the Macarena with Kerri-Anne Kennerley? No, it was when he suffered the ultimate humiliation of being made Alexander Downer's deputy. I have said this is a budget of lost opportunities. This is because of what is not in it—no plan for the future, no vision for Australia, no ideas. It is a tragedy for this country that at such a time of change, with new communications transforming the workplace and innovations coming thick and fast, we have a government that is so backward looking. Like most other Australians, members of the Labor Party have been debating how our education, training and communications networks will measure up to the challenges of the future, and how we can and must invest in new ideas. Do we see any evidence of this debate in the government? People look to their government at times like these to provide leadership. The tragedy is that, at the very time we need it most, we face a government without inspiration, ideas or vision. This budget reveals that, in spite of the enormous challenges we face in this country to become a knowledge nation, this government, under Prime Minister John Howard, can only focus on a 1960s European socialist tax idea—the GST. Australians are already paying the GST. They know that prices are already going up: in the supermarket, in the department store, on their car and home insurance, and in so many other ways. Let us briefly examine some of the things we know this tax will do. We know it will take $30 billion out of the pockets of ordinary Australians each year—a figure, by the way, you will labour in vain to find in this government's budget speech, although they do finally admit to it in the fine print. I think he must be the first Treasurer to introduce a $30 billion tax, but somehow that little $30 billion did not quite slide its way into half an hour worth of remarks on Tuesday night. This tax, we now learn, will lead to immediate price rises of a staggering6¾ per cent—a figure you never heard mentioned by the Howard government in any of their GST propaganda. Before the election, we were told prices would only go up by 1.9 per cent. So we will have this big increase in prices which, as we all know, will hurt the most vulnerable in our community—the elderly, new parents, students, self-funded retirees, pensioners and others. Economists are predicting more interest rate rises for homebuyers as a result of this budget. Already we have seen four rate rises since last November. And if you think the surplus is disappearing, just wait until you see the tax cuts disappear.We now know the government does not think the tax cuts compensate people for the GST. We were informed of that by the Treasurer last night. But even if somehow families did see them as some form of compensation, their effect, according to the government's own budget papers, is snatched back after just one year. The total tax take from individual taxpayers bounces right back to their levels of this year after only 12 months. And a year later taxpayers are, on average, $600 a year worse off. So these tax cuts are a mirage. The other great neglected story of this tax is the huge burden of paperwork it will add to owners of small and medium businesses around this country. We know the struggle they are going through right now trying to install new software and wrestling with complex regulations—trying to gear up to become government tax collectors all around this country. These businesses are, in fact, spending $4 billion on that process.Let me state clearly that a future Labor government will be committed to rolling back the Howard government's GST to make it fairer and simpler. While we will roll it back, we know the Howard government's agenda: to roll the GST forward. Everyone knows the government wants a GST on all food; it wishes it was on all food now. Likewise, everyone knows that under the Howard government the GST rate will rise. Are we going to see a `never ever' promise that it will not go on food? Are we going to see a `never ever' promise that he will refuse a state's request for the GST to rise? To roll it back, we will need to know how this tax operates over the next 12 to 18 months. We will need to know who it hits hardest and what surprises there are there, so incompetent has been the set-up administration. And we need to know how much money is available to roll it back responsibly while attending to our other priorities. Even the government, as is amply clear from its vanished budget surplus, does not know what the budget will look like next election. For my part, I will not make any promises I cannot afford, unlike the Prime Minister with his core and non-core promises in the 1996 poll. I would never want to so demean myself. I will tell the Australian people our plans before the next election, an election that should be at the end of next year after another Howard budget. For the moment I can assure them what our priorities will be: fairness to the weakest and most vulnerable in society, including charities; lifting the burden on small business, especially the administrative complexity; lifting the burden on education and health; and lessening the impact on jobs. At the next election the Australian people will know fully what we intend, and they will be able to decide between a Beazley Labor government which will roll the GST back and a Howard coalition government that they know will roll it forward and raise the rate.Perhaps the greatest cost of all of the GST is the way it robs the future to pay for the past; the way it takes more than $25 billion out of future budget surpluses to pay for a tax, instead of it going towards the knowledge nation, to position us to take advantage of the huge scientific and technological changes we are facing. There are far more important issues for this country to debate than issues of taxation—like how to develop a highly paid, highly skilled work force using the best technology to improve the production of goods and services. Yet this is an agenda this government publicly derides. It simply does not understand that these ideas are no longer optional extras for governments; they are a new economic reform agenda for modern nations all around the world. We all now largely agree on the old agenda: the need for fiscal discipline, an independent monetary policy, deregulation of financial markets, the floating of the dollar, low inflation and a more open economy. The agenda is moving on, but not the Howard government.There are many dimensions to the knowledge nation, and I want to spend a little time on a few of them. I begin with what was meant to be the focus of this budget: regional development. Regional policy is about investing in modern infrastructure; it is about making the regions part of a vibrant national economy; it is about making them part of a successful knowledge nation. Without this vision we face an ever-diminishing and ageing rural and regional population. Labor has higher aspirations for country Australia than this. We know what problems many of our regions are confronting: population decline, young people moving away, jobs drying up and country towns disappearing. Some of our regional communities have shown the way—that it does not need to be like this. They have got answers. They know what regional Australia needs: investment in information technology so that they can create new industries and new jobs; better funded regional universities—like the four that the government has identified as in crisis but did nothing about in this budget—and TAFE colleges to bring in new skills; and new measures to tackle the salinity crisis to protect the land and give agricultural industries a secure future. But they need the Commonwealth government to give them the resources so they can get on with the job. The Howard government has totally failed to invest in the future of our regional communities. There is no new infrastructure spending, no new money for country roads, no new money to improve access to communications bandwidth and no new money to help sort out mobile phone problems. Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson said his political mission was to `meet the reasonable expectations of country people'. Well, with this budget he has well and truly failed. And while I am on the subject of his failure, let me talk about his failure to stand up to his Liberal counterparts on perhaps the most important asset rural and regional Australia has to connect itself to the new economy. That is Telstra. No government I lead will sell Telstra. This is not ideology; it is commonsense. We need Telstra to make sure it meets our national priorities. I note from this morning's Financial Review that Telstra has finally found out who its true enemies are—not those of us in the Labor Party who want to see it prosper and thrive. Its enemies are those in the government who have been talking down its value for their own ideological reasons. The second knowledge nation area I want to tackle is the vital one of education. Our education system is a vital national asset. We must develop it or see our stocks as a nation fall. Yet the Treasurer's speech on Tuesday night contained just two paragraphs on education—two paragraphs on what is without doubt the most important responsibility the government has. Every leading competitor nation of ours is investing its wealth in human capital. In the United States, Al Gore has pledged to increase investment in education by 50 per cent by 2010 if he is elected President. Just a few months ago the Singapore government announced a 20 per cent increase in education spending. And on Tuesday night Peter Costello announced new education initiatives of $62 million over four years. That is 86c per Australian per year, the price of a cheap ballpoint pen. What is more, this $62 million is barely one-sixth of the $360 million this government is spending on its GST ad campaign: propaganda for a tax no-one wants versus investment in the skills everyone needs. Those are the priorities of the Howard government: $360 million of taxpayers' money on propaganda advertising their tax; $62 million of new money for education.The government took up one of our good ideas in the bonded scholarship for doctors to go to regional Australia. How about picking up one or two of our education ideas as well—like our teacher development contracts to assist teachers to go back to university to gain specialist knowledge, or our teacher excellence scholarships to attract to the profession high achieving school leavers in fields such as maths, science and IT? Every parent knows instinctively what the latest research confirms—that well trained and motivated teachers are the best chance their child has got to succeed at school and in life. And yet this country under this government is going the other way. We are unique among developed nations in reducing our public commitment to education. The only member of the OECD, the only industrialised country in the world, that is reducing its public commitment to education is Australia under the Howard government.GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss—Rubbish!PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I am using your figures here, sport. Five years ago, Commonwealth spending on education was at 2.2 per cent of GDP. This year it will be 1.8 per cent. In another four years, if this government is not thrown out, it will be at 1.7 per cent and Australia's chance of becoming the knowledge nation will be ruined. And just today at the very end of the week, not surprisingly coming out like a little thief in the night, was the science and technology budget statement, which revealed a further fall in Commonwealth support for science and innovation. We were improving under Labor; we were not where we should have been. But once again we are unique in the industrialised world. We are going backwards in government investment in science and innovation. This budget proves beyond doubt the Howard government has given up on the elements we need to become part of the new economy.While I welcome the government's move to assist some regional non-government hospitals, I believe the government still does not understand the No. 1 issue in health—the state of our public hospital system. Across Australia the main issues are the absence of public hospital beds, the waiting times for certain procedures and, sadly, the poor quality of care now available in some areas. If Australians cannot have confidence in their public hospitals, what sort of country have we become? We are all affected, yet the Howard government refuses to provide greater hospital funding. The government has a report from an independent expert—produced well in time for this budget—which says that over the next four years the system needs an extra $620 million just to provide the existing level of services to our growing and ageing population. A good government is willing to invest in community infrastructure such as quality hospitals. Just imagine, if the $360 million this government is spending on its GST ad campaign was invested in public hospitals, you could fund an extra 1,200 new hospital beds. Not only has the GST become the enemy of decent spending on education but the GST advertising campaign is the enemy of decent spending on health. What is really needed right now is a driving, active, nation building government—one that has the will to forge real change in this country. Governments must provide leadership to create the climate in which our best minds can work together to bring about new knowledge and translate ideas into economic growth. This is not politics. This is the future. It is not about the next election or who wins and loses. This is about what sort of country we really want for our kids, because we have a chance to shape this nation. The role for government is to provide an excellent education system, the best incentives for scientific and technological research, underpinned by a first-class communication network. And that is what the Labor Party promises.Finally, let me say the lack of vision in this budget is not surprising from a government in love with the past and at war with the future. We have seen it on the republic, backward looking; on Aboriginal reconciliation, backward looking; on foreign policy, backward looking; and now we are seeing it through our domestic economy. One thing that has amazed me is that in the selling of this budget so much of the government effort has been aimed at attacking us, the Labor Party. Since the poor reception for this budget has unfolded and as the government have become more sensitive to public fury over the GST, their need for a deceitful and personal political strategy has become evident.When you cannot defend your own budget, you demand the opposition produces its 2002 budget right now. When this does not work, you attack the opposition leader and if that does not work you demand the right for one more victory over Paul Keating. My advice to my fellow Australians is: when you hear any of this, reach for your wallet. You will find it minus your share of the $360 million GST ad campaign. Recognise this strategy for what it is—a lushly funded smokescreen over a judgment seat they hope you will never sit on.On Tuesday night, the Treasurer delivered this budget speech. And it is a very telling document. The first 11 pages are predictable, stodgy and uninspiring, but the last five pages tell the tale—they are all blank. These are the pages the government could have used and the pages that will be used under Labor to set us on the road to the knowledge nation. These pages should have told us how our kids would be better educated to face the great challenges of the new economy. These pages should have set down the way in which this country can establish a better health system. These pages should have been used to restore the welfare of families who are at the centre of our society. Labor will fill those pages. We will fill them in a way that answers those questions I am so often asked by Australians—questions about how to achieve economic growth with fairness. Fairness for Australian families, that is the Australian way.Debate (on motion by Mr McGauran) adjourned.NaN:00:008House adjourned at 8.00 p.m. Notices16353The following notices were given:9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs Gambaro to move:That this House:(1) recognises that the restaurant and café industry makes a significant contribution to the Australian economy, having an estimated gross profit of $3.3 billion and employing over 188 000 Australians;(2) acknowledges the contribution the restaurant and café industry makes to Australia's tourism income, with visitors spending an average $328 on food during their stay in Australia; and(3) recognises the importance placed on the apprenticeship scheme by the Government, increasing the positions available in traineeships, and noting its beneficial impact for training in the restaurant industry.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs Moylan to move:That this House:(1) condemns the Zimbabwe Government for allowing the current grave situation to continue in which;(a) serious economic difficulties are leading to considerable unrest; and(b) agricultural production has been jeopardised by the invasion of commercial farms by squatters and the squatters' actions have been ruled as illegal by the High Court of Zimbabwe; (2) supports the British Government's strongly expressed concerns about events in Zimbabwe; and(3) calls on the Government of Zimbabwe to restore the rule of law and hold free and fair elections at the earliest possible date.2000-05-11—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.52 a.m.Statements by Members163551635516355O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—The dairy industry is very important to Australia. Similarly, dairy farming and processing is an important industry in Tasmania and is one of our key rural industries. Indeed, dairying had in 1996-97 a farm gate value in Tasmania of $115 million. Exports from the dairy industry contribute hugely to our state and community economies, injecting around $110 million. This is an industry which contributes to rural communities on both sides of the farm gate—on farms and in farming communities. Approximately 2,000 people are directly employed in the industry in Tasmania and a further 1,600 are employed in manufacturing and distribution.In view of the imminent closure of the Bonlac milk processing plant at Legerwood, I am concerned that the government has not acted to ameliorate the impact of this closure as it did when an Eden based cannery closed last year. The $3.6 million that the government is providing to the Eden region to develop and implement employment generating projects is just the sort of assistance that could be provided to the communities of north-east Tasmania which will be affected by the closure of the Legerwood plant.The loss of employment opportunities in any rural community has a significant impact. I believe that it is reasonable for the government to assist communities, to assist and facilitate investment and employment opportunities in regions where opportunities are reducing. I am strongly of the view that it is essential to assist communities such as Legerwood, Scottsdale and Ringarooma, which will be affected directly by the job losses in Legerwood. I am unconcerned whether this assistance is provided as part of the Dairy Regional Assistance Program or is delivered in a manner which is similar to the assistance provided in Eden.For an industry which is so important to Tasmania as a whole, and even more important to communities which rely so heavily upon it, to face closures and job losses without the government even raising an eyebrow is very concerning indeed. But the solution is relatively simple: talk with the communities affected and assist in the attraction of new employment opportunities. Communities in north-east Tasmania feel forgotten by this government and it is easily explained. The government has a view that the federal government should play no role in regional development. This is a view that I reject. It is about time that the government acted in the interest of north-east Tasmania and assisted communities affected by the closure of the Legerwood milk processing factory.The Dorset council, the municipality in which Legerwood is located, has organised a public meeting on 29 May. It would be a significant show of good faith from the government were a senior cabinet minister to attend this meeting and I will be forwarding details to the Prime Minister's office.In the very short time left to me, I want to refer to an issue that I have raised many times in the House: funding and provision of service in the family law process. In Tasmania we are already short one judge and have a long waiting list. We have been promised a magistrate, which may have some impact, but we are now hearing about further cuts to family law. Resolutions for families are taking far too much time already and we should not act in any way which will exacerbate this problem. The government owes it to families to get this policy area right and to fund it appropriately.1635616356Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—On Friday, 28 April I had the pleasure of being the MC at a fundraising dinner at the St George Leagues Club for Steve Milliss. Steve is a 37-year-old man who has relatively recently been diagnosed with motor neurone disease, MND—a blow felt all the more keenly due to the young age of his family. This particular Friday night was not about negativity or feeling sorry, however; it was an incredibly positive and uplifting experience. The purpose of the evening, which was organised by Steve's three sisters, Kathy, Maree and Debbie, was to raise the funds necessary for Steve to travel to the United States and receive treatment he hopes will be helpful to him in his fight against the disease.Motor neurone disease is the name given to a group of related diseases which affect the nerve cells that allow us to perform day-to-day functions such as breathing, speaking and swallowing. Not only are the nerves affected but eventually many of the muscles that are vital to these basic functions begin to waste away. The combination of these two factors is what makes MND so devastating. In most cases, MND has no affect on the intellect or sensory neurones. This means that many cases of MND result in a fully active mind being trapped inside a body that is not able to properly perform its most basic functions.In a recent press release to promote Motor Neurone Disease National Awareness Week, the MND Association of Australia pointed out that MND is not a rare disease in Australia. In fact, on average, one person in this country is diagnosed with the disease every day. Almost twice as many people die from MND annually than do from AIDS.Despite the high incidence of cases, MND is very difficult to diagnose. In fact, in some cases it can be months before a diagnosis can be made with any certainty, and even then there can be an element of doubt, as is the case with Steve. Following a diagnosis there is no tangible cure to this disease, although there is a range of treatments that can be used to alleviate any pain or discomfort, depending on the stage of the disease's development. It is important for mobility of limbs to be maintained for as long as possible and physiotherapy can relieve the pain which results from cramping, wasting of muscles and tremors.Most people with MND will experience fatigue brought about by weaker chest muscles making it more difficult to breathe. They will be less mobile, which I know is particularly frustrating for Steve as he is a keen baseball player. Swallowing food and drink can be problematic, which means that in many cases the patient requires a great deal of care and attention—a situation that is demanding for carers and frustrating for the patient who, until recently, was able to perform these basic functions without thinking twice. To add to these difficulties, it has also proven difficult to pin down the causes of MND, which makes it hard to direct a specific public awareness campaign.That having been said, the recent MND National Awareness Week to which I have referred did a great deal to generate more recognition of this relatively little-known disease. The week was launched at New South Wales Government House by Governor Gordon Samuels and had the support of well-known Australians such as Melinda Gainsford-Taylor, Judith Durham, and Australian of the Year, Sir Gustav Nossal, who is the Australian patron of the MND Association. From all reports it was a fantastic success.1635616356Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I was pleased to see in the budget an attempt to tackle aspects of the problem of rural health, albeit belatedly and, I suspect, with the smell of an election in the air. I would like to make some complementary comments about that issue and to point out that my electorate of Braddon has farming as one of its most important industries.It was with interest that I noticed that a recent study from the Australian Centre for Agri-cultural Health and Safety showed that agriculture and farming is the most dangerous industry around, even more so than mining. Somewhere between 200 and 600 injuries per 1,000 farms require attention at rural hospitals each year. And we know that many farmers do not go and see doctors unless, of course, they are in excruciating pain. One of the important things about the comments in the budget is that it is all well and good to attract health professionals to rural areas, and it is very much needed. But the important thing that we need is the social infrastructure to keep them there. That is something that I think is important and that is missing in the budget. I believe we need an integrated, comprehensive, regional social and economic policy in order for these people to be retained, because I can assure you that it is one thing to get them there, it is another thing to keep them. It is very important that we keep that in mind.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded. Committees163571635716357Debate resumed from 13 April, on motion by Mr Prosser:That the House take note of the report.10:00:0016357Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—You will probably recall that, when I last spoke on the report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources Of material value? Inquiry into increasing the value added to Australian raw mate-rials, I was unfortunately interrupted, so I welcome the opportunity to continue my remarks today. When I last made remarks in relation to this issue, I was talking about the very passionate way we in the Labor Party view the importance of value adding. We are very serious about it and we see it as fundamental to Australia's economic future. I gave a wonderful example in my constituency of the Bracks Labor government committing $2 million to value adding infrastructure: the establishment of an energy park in the Latrobe Valley. Energy is our natural advantage in the Latrobe Valley. No other part of Victoria has the same size or scope of infrastructure. It is good to see the Bracks Labor government investing in this, making sure that we get a natural advantage from our energy resource.I have spoken about the commitments which the Bracks Labor government made in its recent budget. It is useful to make a comparison of the commitments made for the Gippsland region in the Bracks Labor government budget versus the commitments made for the Gippsland region in the Costello budget, which has just recently been brought down. The important items of infrastructure which the Bracks government has funded in my electorate are: of the order of $5 million to upgrade the West Gippsland Health Care Group Hospital in Warragul; around $3½ million to upgrade the Warragul Regional College—the public secondary college in Warragul; as I mentioned, $2 million towards the establishment of an energy park in the Latrobe Valley; around $11 million for the establishment of an education precinct in the Latrobe Valley; $5 million for the building of a new police station in Moe; and around $5 million for the establishment of a refurbished campus for the Central Gippsland Institute of Technology in Newborough. The commitments which the Bracks Labor government has made in my electorate are enormously significant and will have a huge impact on the lives of many people living in West Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley. By comparison, out of all the money announced there was not one cent for the Gippsland region in the federal budget. This needs to be viewed in the light of the Productivity Commission report into the impact of national competition policy on rural and regional areas which was brought down between the last federal budget and the federal budget brought down this week. Littered throughout this report are references to how Gippsland has been the most profoundly affected region in Australia as a result of national competition policy. The economic impact of national competition policy is four times as bad on the Gippsland region than it is on Newcastle. Other regions that have a high profile have been savagely impacted on as a result of NCP. Despite this report, there is not one cent in the federal budget for the Gippsland region to help us get on and make a future for ourselves, to attract new industries and the high skill, high wage jobs which go with these new industries and to make sure that our kids have a future in the Gippsland region. What I have been calling for for some time is the establishment of a Gippsland advantage fund. This is no more than we in the Gippsland region deserve. It really is not. When you look at the impact of the loss of, I think, 1,100 jobs in the Hunter Valley when the steel mill closed there, some $25 million was put in by the federal government, the state government and BHP towards the establishment of what was called the Hunter Advantage Fund. As my colleague the member for Bass mentioned a little earlier, when the cannery in Eden closed some $3.6 million was put into that community by way of an adjustment package. So all we are calling for is some consistency in federal government policy in relation—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! I am loath to disturb the flow of eloquence from the member for McMillan, but I would remind him that we are taking note of the paper which is dedicated to adding value to Australian raw materials. Perhaps building a new police station may be adding value, but I would be grateful if the member could perhaps get to the subject of the debate.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—I am very happy to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker. If I could just go on, I am sure it will become very apparent exactly how the commitment to—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The chair certainly hopes so.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—I can assure you that it will, Mr Deputy Speaker. What this is all about is an adjustment package attracting new industries to these regions. These new industries more often than not are value adding industries, and this is what we in the Labor Party believe so passionately about. When we talk about the need for adjustment packages, it is to attract those new value adding industries, and that is what we in the Gippsland region are being deprived of. Opportunities have flowed to the community in the Hunter Valley and to the people who live in the Eden district. They are being given opportunities to take advantage of new value adding industries which we in the Gippsland region have not been allowed to do. I think what everyone wants to see from the federal government is consistency in regard to the opportunities which they grant to regional areas. That is the point I am making.More recently, there has been a factory closure in my electorate, the closure of the Bonlac plant at Drouin. This has meant the loss of around 150 jobs in a community of around 5,000 people. Obviously this has had a savage impact on the Drouin community, and I know there are people in Canberra today from the Baw Baw Shire Council who will be meeting with various ministers and other departmental officials with a view to getting assistance from the federal government towards helping the Drouin community overcome the obvious economic disadvantage which it will suffer as a result of the closure of that plant.This is important in a value adding context. What we want to see for the Drouin community is some of that money which we fought hard for in the dairy regional community's package put back into the Drouin community, which is a dairy dependent community. Then Drouin can take advantage of value adding opportunities and replace those 150 jobs which have been lost at the butter factory and attract a new value adding industry, and the people there will not have to suffer as large an economic consequence as they would if no money was available to them from the federal government.It is important to note that, when it comes to involvement by government, the federal government would do well to have a look at the involvement of the state Labor government in working with the Drouin community to try to do something to overcome the economic devastation which the closure of that plant will cause to that community. The state Minister for Finance and Minister for State and Regional Development, John Brumby, has been very active in working with the community, Bonlac and the workers who stand to lose their jobs at the plant to try to attract new value adding industry. My state parliamentary colleague and good friend Ian Maxfield and I have been working closely with Minister Brumby on this issue to try to ensure that the economic downturn which would affect Drouin as a result of this closure can be lessened as a result of the attraction of new value adding industries. Just on the subject of value adding, I recently hosted a visit to my electorate by my colleague and friend Dick Adams, the member for Lyons in Tasmania, and also by another good friend of mine, the shadow minister for transport and regional development, Martin Ferguson. One of the important districts to which I took Dick and Martin was the West Gippsland region which is, I think it would be fair to say, a great example of where there is an opportunity for value adding. People there are taking advantage of the opportunities offered by value adding. The first port of call was Drouin West Timber, where they are exporting high quality finished timber products into the building market in Japan. After that we went to the Tarago River Cheese Company, which has gone from employing 20 people some seven or eight months ago to employing 43 people, nearly all of them in the export sector. I think it is a great success story and the manager there, Laurie Jensen, can take great pride in what he has been able to achieve for his business and for the district.It is interesting to note that the Tarago River Cheese Company is actually exporting cheese to New Zealand. For decades we have had to put up with New Zealanders telling us that they are cheese makers to the world and that they make the best cheese in the world, yet we have a cheese company in my electorate which is producing cheese for the New Zealand market. By their own admission, New Zealanders consider themselves connoisseurs of fine cheese. Obviously, their local produce is not good enough for them, but the cheese produced in my electorate is good enough for them. That says a great deal about the quality of cheese being produced at the Tarago River Cheese Company.There are opportunities for people who are prepared to work with their work force and work as partners with progressive governments to take advantage of value adding opportunities. Those two companies are just two small examples of some of the innovation which my region is famous for. I think it is important that we in this parliament recognise just how much these exporters in regional areas contribute to our nation and, importantly, to the rural communities in which their workers live. In the case of Drouin West Timber, it employs some 75 or 80 people. Once again, that is a company which has seen substantial expansion over the years. It employs a lot of people relative to the size of the Drouin community. When we consider the impact of the closure of the Drouin Bonlac plant on the community in Drouin, we must always remember the human impact of that closure. When people talk about the loss of 150 jobs, these are not just statistics on a piece of paper, these are 150 people who have families and responsibilities, mortgages and lives to live. These people deserve our attention in the federal parliament. That is why I am calling upon the federal government, to whom I have written on behalf of the community, to release some of the money in the dairy regional communities program, some of that $45 million over three years, to assist the Drouin community to take advantage of new opportunities in value adding.If you look at what happened at Eden, Eden was provided with $3.6 million when the cannery there closed. Eden has a population of 5,000 and 200 jobs were lost there when the cannery closed. That is almost exactly the same situation as what we are faced with in Drouin. I am calling for some truth and some honesty in regional development policy so that people in the community can have confidence that there is an open and transparent process. I urge the federal government to move swiftly to address the concerns of the Drouin community, who I think most people would agree are deserving of federal government support. That support should come quickly. 10:14:0016360Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—The presentation of the report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources gives me an opportunity to highlight issues that have been discussed within the bounds of the committee and to reiterate the importance of the issues to the community and, in particular, to my electorate. As a Western Australian, the concepts of industry, science and resource policy, with special consideration to value adding and downstream processing, are close to my heart as our state is the driver of exports for the whole of the country. My principal and overriding fear is that unless we embrace change we will be nothing but a farm and a quarry for the world. Therefore, I seek to revisit perhaps the most glaring display of ignorance and ineptitude by this government. I refer to the issues of industry and science policy.I am proud to indicate to members that the local industry in my electorate of Swan contributes $600 million to Australia's GDP and produces in excess of $200 million in exports. I would also like to remind members that the Curtin University of Technology is located in my electorate. It is one of the most prominent institutions in the country, with total capital accumulation reserves of about $350 million and total enrolments of over 25,000 for this year alone. The university also plays a prominent role in developing the Western Australian economy by working with Technology Park members in developing new ideas and initiatives. Much of the work of Technology Park is oriented to new technology based industries and support to the mining and exploration industry.I can also advise members of this House and members of the committee that I have made it a point to have regular meetings with the staff and management of Curtin to keep up to date with new initiatives. I combine this with regular contact with Murdoch University. Murdoch has a special project entitled the Institute of Industry, Science and Technology project. In particular, Dr John Phillimore has regular contact with my office and is known in the community for research excellence in public policy matters.It is not only the academic communities that express concern over the analysis and implementation of policy. Many in industry have attested that they are finding the going increasingly difficult due to the lack of support and interest by the ministers in the portfolios of industry, science and education. In fact, Mr Colin Cochran, an exporter and manufacturer, recently stated this in a meeting in my office:The government has seemed to abrogate its responsibilities to industry. There is no policy other than the market and we are constantly battling to maintain onshore production. What we want is a strategic vision working in partnership. We need consultation and, at times, assistance. With this I could envisage expanding my business and exporting more.Why has this situation developed? Put simply, there is no industry or science policy. These ministers have only one perspective: that of neoclassical economics, which asserts that optimal efficiency and consumer welfare is achieved by markets approximating theoretically perfect competition. But this has failed. This stands in direct contrast to the policies that are needed by our industry and educationalists. These policies are best summed up in three ways. Firstly, we need a more interventionist range of policies designed to assist business in establishing import replacement and export growth through planning. As we are aware, elaborately transformed manufactures, ETMs, have been for some time the largest and fastest growth areas in world trade and have exceeded services. They have significant employment and technology effects and integrate well with the knowledge nation concept. This policy relies on unimpeded skills and an educated society. It is the only alternative to a low wage and low skill base economy. As economists such as Rostow and Galbraith have indicated, it is the pursuit of competitive advantage rather than orthodoxy which has underpinned the development of postwar German and Asian economies. It bears mention that whilst the qualitative improvements in our manufacturing sector were noted, especially in the late eighties and early nineties, not enough has been done to capitalise on and improve trade in high value adding, knowledge intensive ETMs. Secondly, policies to create and develop new markets and products through innovation are at a dreadful level. Investment levels have collapsed in industry and government under this minister. Federal funding for universities has fallen from 0.94 per cent of GDP in 1996 to just 0.82 per cent in 1998. Federal spending on science and innovation has fallen to 0.64 per cent and, lamentably, business research and development has fallen to 0.7 per cent—undoing all the work that Labor undertook in the eighties to nurture research and development. In contrast, Laurie Oakes said in the March edition of the Bulletin that the OECD average is 1.4 per cent. I note also a submission made by the Metal Trades Association to your last inquiry, which reflected:In relation to R&D, the statement discussed what had been a disturbing downward trend in support for industrial R&D. The reductions to which we refer are not trivial. In the two years since 1995-96, government expenditure on industry R&D has dropped a massive 48 per cent, from $935.5 million spent in 1995-96 to a projected expenditure of $486.9 million in 1997-98.Thirdly, a change is needed in our macro-economic position to consideration of investment and demand. With industry policy a dismal failure, pressure has obviously been placed on our overseas debt, current account deficit and, therefore, monetary policy. It is no small wonder that interest rates are coming under pressure.The poor state of these figures also reflects on the coordination failures, where demand for investment is low and returns demanded from capital markets too high to sustain greater long-term investment. This in turn perpetuates the demand management dilemmas of running at less than full employment. This has only been exacerbated by the reductions in employment related programs from 0.4 per cent to less than 0.3 per cent of GDP. The issue that the government has failed to realise is that the favoured neoclassical prescription of reducing wages and balancing budgets at all costs has been shown to have the consequences of reduced demand for goods and services. It also stifles technological change through capital-labour substitution. Nor does reducing the Public Service automatically create private investment, as the level of aggregate demand in the economy is reduced.I note that the James Cook University submission on the R&D issue illustrated this, saying:One weakness in this argument—referring to the neoclassical case—is that many industries in Australia have a less than optimal research base as indicated by the low level of expenditure on research and development. Manufacturing industries in Australia that are knowledge-intensive and value add to our natural resources operate trade deficits and have low employment growth. Whereas the more traditional resource-based industries have large and growing trade surpluses and high employment growth rates, albeit in lower skilled occupations.Clearly this is not what is needed for Australia's future.There have been many reports that highlight this value added and skill path, among them the Make or break report of the Metal Trades Industry Association, MTIA; the Rebuilding Australia report of the Amalgamated Metalworkers Union, AMWU; and the Pappas Carter report of the Australian Manufacturing Council. I urge members to revisit their reading of these documents. The basic premise behind these reports is a rejection of the market as god. The Make or break report suggested that the aim of policy in industry and science was to secure investment in high value added industries in leading technology, world cost competitiveness and integration of policies between industry, education and science departments. This has not occurred. The Rebuilding Australia study called for a national development strategy. The report also recognised the need to strengthen the tradable sector, particularly manufacturing, so that exports could make a stronger contribution to the competitiveness of the nation. Needless to say, this government dismissed that out of hand. Even traditional supporters of the government have argued for a change in strategy. According to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, ACCI, industry and science policy should encompass the full range of activities of government which affect the competitiveness and the operating environment of business. This was backed up by the Business Council of Australia, BCA, which has argued for an integrated action program to raise our international competitiveness.In conclusion, I would like to leave members with the thought that we are faced with a choice. That choice is stark. Do we have a future, as Dr Ohmae of McKinsey suggests, as the `brains trust of Asia, with new ideas, technology and sustainable industry', or do we take the path of a low wage, less advantaged society, with inherent job insecurity? This is the path on which reductions in education and training, and abrogating industry policies, leaving them to the vagaries of the market, will take us. The choice will, to a large degree, come down to industry, science and resource policy. If we are to take the dogmatic option of unfettered market control and accept the notion of comparative advantage, then we will become nothing but a farm and a quarry for the world. The choice is to work to develop ETMs and high value added industries, along with a strong technology, service and tertiary sector. Above all, we must remember that these things do not happen in a vacuum.Many of the submissions made to the committee have reflected on this perspective. They have conclusively endorsed the need to give these portfolios a nudge in the right direction. I suspect that a change in the ministers for education, science and industry, would help immeasurably. For a start, I would be happy with the acceptance of a more hands-on approach to the policies in their respective portfolios, together with the cessation of acquiescing in all policy to the notions of comparative advantage, small government, small budgets and other such nonsense.10:25:0016362Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—The report titled Of material value? from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources is another contribution to what should be `the' national debate, because this issue underpins the very future of the country. We hear a lot of talk about where the world is going and how things are happening, but behind all of that is the adding of value to activities within a country, whether that be via services or mining or manufacturing processes.This report is the first of what will perhaps be two or three reports altogether looking at this aspect. It attempts to lay out a set of benchmarks and some parameters that we may examine further. It also hopes to elicit from the community, and from industry, science and other aspects of the Australian population, some reactions and responses. Perhaps the most important of those is this whole question about how we actually measure value adding. The report does refer to a couple of measurements that are used and, looking at those, it seems to me that they are essentially flawed. Chapter 2 in particular focuses on this and I particularly want to draw the House's attention to the conundrum that comes forward.If one looks at the way in which the economists and the Bureau of Statistics and various other bodies measure value adding, one finds that areas like forestry, fishing and mining seem to score remarkably highly when compared to manufacturing or other areas. That seems a bit puzzling at first until one realises that in fact, in the way things are measured, the resource in those three cases—the forestry resource, the fishing resource and the mining resource—are input into the equations at zero value. In other words, they have no cost and, therefore, any value adding that is a result of their activities is relatively higher. On the other hand, if one takes manufacturing, where manufacturers have to buy their raw material in some form or other, whatever it may be, before they add value to it, the cost equations are therefore quite different. This has led in some ways to a distorted view of our economy and perhaps a complacency that we are doing well enough. If one looks at the submissions from the mining industry and those associated, one gets a sense that they use these calculations as an indication or a justification for greater support for their industries. The fact is that the fishing resource, the forestry resource and the mining resource do have a value to this country; if they were not there, there would not be value adding. So the idea somehow that we should ignore their input values in the equation seems to me to be totally faulty, but that is what we do at the moment. And at the moment there is not, in my view, an adequate way in which we can compare different industries' capacity to value add in a like sense. That lack is a major weakness in our national statistics and national calculation and evaluation.The other aspect to do with this whole area is how these things affect our community. What is happening with technology developments has two aspects: we get cleverer and cleverer technology and we get higher and higher capital investment. So the industries that are perhaps growing the strongest in many cases are also the ones that are doing it with fewer people. If one looks at the mining industry over the years one will see that their work force is actually declining whilst their output is going up dramatically. It is the same in manufacturing and the same in a number of other areas. The idea that we expand our production does not necessarily mean that more people are engaged in that activity. That needs to be understood and thought about in its own right because that old assumption about activity being good for all because it employs more people is not necessarily true. How we accommodate that and what we do with it is important.In recent weeks another couple of issues have come forward which, whilst they were not in the report, impinge very closely on it. I refer particularly to the announcement by BHP last week that their hot briquetted iron plant at Port Hedland is in difficulty and of their decision to write off the residual value of that plant. This has come as a major shock to a lot of people, me included. We have seen a $2½ billion investment, in perhaps Australia's biggest value adding exercise as a single project, which now appears to be based on faulty technology, faulty science or faulty workmanship. At the same time, a similar plant that BHP has in Venezuela appears to have passed its evaluations. If the BHP technology for adding value to iron ore and exporting it as metal for input into arc furnaces and so on is unsuccessful, it will set back a long way our export attempts and our confidence in our capacity to improve our raw materials.This plant has been in great difficulty since its early days, and that has been a very negative factor in investment in adding value to iron ore. It has held back, I am sure, many organisations from investing until they saw how BHP went. So BHP's decision is not simply important for their own plant; it is important for the whole country. If BHP cannot add value to iron ore, then the conclusion drawn by many will be that no-one can. So from a national perspective this is a major issue. It is disappointing that since the announcement there has been no comment from government and, apparently, no interest. This report, if nothing else, highlights the fact that the current government either does not understand or does not care about this issue, which I think is a seminal one for the country.The inquiry that we are conducting will in fact continue much beyond this report, which is basically a starting point. We are now in the process of taking evidence and submissions from the community on a series of case studies. The hope here is that we can go into detail on some of these areas and perhaps uncover pluses or minuses—issues that make or unmake value adding. We have chosen to focus on magnesium and aluminium in the metals area, wine—one that we are looking forward to with great interest in terms of its enormous successes—and the grain and dairy industries in the agricultural area. We hope to be able to get some insights into why industries have done well or badly that may help us as a country to better understand and to better focus. But, of course, all this is for nothing if the government is not interested. I really want to urge all members of this House to pay attention to this area. All the other things that we do will come to naught if we are incapable of adding to our own natural benefits. This country has a wealth of capacity. The most important of course is its people, their ingenuity and skills. But we also have wonderful resources—raw materials, primary industries and a range of others— that we are capable of improving upon and exporting and trading in at increasingly higher levels. The fact is that that will not happen by itself. I think that in recent years the reduction in the R&D tax write-off has been a major blow to value adding. I think the reduction in steel making has cost a billion dollars in exports. If HBI closes, we are talking about billions of dollars a year of lost exports. The effect of that of course is very simple: the dollar goes down, interest rates go up and we will have a higher national debt and national trading deficit. So this is not some small issue at the edge of the national debate; it should be on centre stage—at the forefront—of national debate. I think that a country that neglects its resources and its capacity in such a way for such a sustained period is a country that will not face its own future.I draw the attention of the House to the report. I would encourage members to ensure that their electorates and their constituents are interested in these areas—so many Australians are aware of the report and of the follow-up studies that are currently underway. I would encourage all members to help us as much as they can to ensure that the next stage of the inquiry is as valuable and as substantial as it can be. 10:35:0016364Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—The report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources is obviously attempting to tackle a fairly major difficulty for this country—the question of our lack of development of raw materials. There is a variety of ideas as to why we have had this problem over decades: at previous stages, domination by overseas interests whose focus perhaps was not centred on Australia's interests; our geographic location at the end of trade routes; internal transportation problems; savings levels in this country; and lack of investment. They are amongst a wide variety of possibilities as to the reasons for a very fundamental problem of our economy.I know this is a preliminary report, but if I had been involved from the start I might have given a somewhat more negative analysis of our situation. The report is essentially very positive about our circumstances. However, at pages 25 and 26 of the report, there is an admission that, with respect to the contribution to gross value added by the manufacturing sector in Australia, it constitutes only 14 per cent, compared with 31 per cent in Germany, 29 per cent in Japan and 26 per cent in France. It is stated at page xvii that, despite this supposedly strong performance, the total contribution of elaborately transformed manufactures to Australia's overall export performance lags considerably behind many other countries. I think that is more the reality than the overall tenor of the report, which essentially is that we are not going too badly and that we have improved over recent years. We have perhaps improved over recent years because of the extremely low base from which we moved. I think it is a fundamental crisis for the country, quite frankly, that we have failed in this sector to develop these areas and that our manufacturing and metals industries are under so much challenge.I associate myself very strongly with the comments made by the member for Swan. He held the view, to which I subscribe very strongly, that doctrinaire, almost zealot-like adherence to free market economics, that supposedly the market will solve all difficulties, is very questionable. I reiterate that this is a preliminary report, but on page xx it says that an open and efficient regulatory framework and transparent and consistent ground rules are about all that we require. There are also a few sentences about resource security and land access. The degree to which there must be government assistance to industry in order to develop this country has been left out of the report at this stage. I now focus on an area that interests me, just as it interests you, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl. The report contains two pages which cover the area of forestry. On page 46 the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is quoted as saying:Australia's lack of manufacturing capacity has seen us exporting relatively low value unprocessed wood while importing high value processed paper products. It is expected Australia's trade deficit will continue to increase unless there is substantial new investment in pulp and paper manufacturing capacity. Over recent years, uncertainty about access to forest resources and the high environmental standards expected in pulp mills have discouraged investment in value-adding operations such as pulp mills.Indisputably, they are two of the reasons why we have the problem. Indisputably, it is a very major national problem. In a press release in the last few days, the minister for forestry noted the obvious—that Australia uses 20 million cubic metres of timber each year and we import 7.3 million cubic metres of that timber. The reality is that we do have a $2 billion deficit in the paper and wood area. The other reality which is fundamental to this report is the fact that we essentially send out pulp and we bring back processed and value added materials. I note the comments made recently—and I think they are right on the ball—by Bridson Cribb at the Pulp and Paper Manufacturers Federation of Australia conference. At page 7 of his speech he said:As I have noted earlier, nearly 4 million tonnes of domestic pulpwood is exported every year as wood chips. As a result, with the possible exception of Tasmania, it is surprisingly difficult to identify sufficient concentrations of competitively priced wood resource to support a world-scale pulp and paper mill.So essentially it is all tied up in pulpwood, except in Tasmania, and, as a person in the pulp and paper industry, he cannot see a real likelihood in the short term of much happening. He went on to say:However, there is a serious public policy issue here. If the government wants value-adding of Australia's wood resource to occur in Australia, then there needs to be a clear recognition that the export wood chip trade is directly inimical to this objective. It has the effect of making domestic pulpwood uncompetitive, while at the same time it fragments the remaining wood resource that is available.At the conclusion of that speech—as I said, representing the pulp and paper manufacturers—he said:I certainly hope that the Government's strong and often repeated desire—I stress the word `desire', not `action', which is my word—to reduce the trade deficit in pulp and paper, by adding value to Australia's fibre resources, is reflected in the decisions it will take.He had a hope then, and quite frankly it is very unfortunate that this budget has not answered his hope. That hope of 4 April has been sadly repudiated in the current budget by the actions of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Since the minister went to the portfolio he has made so many speeches and done so much sloganising around this country about how dreadful our trade deficit is in wood and paper products. We know that—the industry knows it, the Australian people know it and the newspapers know it—and he is just repeating a reality which is out there without doing anything about it. The deficit has deteriorated further during his control of the portfolio and during all these speeches, and it would have deteriorated further if the pulp prices had not been forced down because of the recession in Asia. This budget, as I said, is a very sad answer to what this report is on about: trying to develop manufacturing and value adding in this country. The budget gives not one dollar to the development of the forestry industry. The minister talks about FISAP funding in the area of $80 million, but the reality is that the $80 million is money that was allocated by previous governments. It is not new money; it has been there for the last four to five years. The reason he is now talking about spending it is that he suspended it during the last four to five years. He suspended money in New South Wales, he suspended money in Queensland, he had delays in Victoria and he is refusing to negotiate an RFA in Queensland. The reason this $80 million is still around for him to talk about and to try to present to the Australian people as budgetary allocation is that he has not spent it previously.The other worrying aspect of the minister's management of his portfolio is the action agenda. That is the other thing he talks about every second day: his action agenda. We know there is a trade deficit. He keeps telling us that and that he is going to do something about it—although he has not done anything about it—but the other big news every day of the week is his action agenda. That was promised in late 1998; that was promised for July last year. The only big announcement he has made in this budget is that he is going to delay it until June this year. So the Australian industry has been waiting for 1½ years for this action agenda. The reality is that there has been no action in this portfolio, except for a belligerent attack on a variety of state governments regardless of their political affiliations.We know the mess that has been created in Western Australia, the fact that the Western Australian government had to walk away from the RFA process over there. Quite frankly, I do not recall in my political experience in this country anyone on either side of this House making such ridiculously partisan comments as the minister for forestry did recently when he said that if the Queensland people threw out the state government then he would negotiate an RFA. The industry—the sawmillers, the workers—and the small towns that depend on this industry are basically being told that the minister will not negotiate an RFA with the government until Mr Borbidge is elected.If anyone has any doubts about this minister's preoccupation with petty partisan politics, one has only to look at the situation in New South Wales. We heard a variety of tirades from him in the House about the four agreements in New South Wales. Quite frankly, when there is a controversial agreement such as the one currently under review, people do not take any notice of him, because he has put on the same tantrums and made the same tirades about the other three agreements. Eventually, months later, after saying how dreadful they were and that he was going to stop this and he was going to do that to put the Carr government in its place, he came along and meekly signed those agreements and then put out documents in his budget statement boasting about how many national parks he had supported in New South Wales.He spent the time of this House, and the time of the parliament in question time, telling us how dreadful all these New South Wales agreements were. He then put out a press release this week saying, `Aren't I fantastic? I have created all these new national parks in New South Wales. It is all my work.' These are the same national parks that he said had been locked up by the timber industry and which he rejected in past months.If you have any doubts about how much this is against the interests of the industry you only have to look at two other aspects of it. There is not only the fact that he says he will only negotiate with the new government in Queensland if the people change their minds but also the fact that people in northern New South Wales have been waiting for many months to get FISAP funding. There are sawmills that are dependent on that money for their survival, investment and future. They were delayed while he played politics and said he would never sign this agreement because it was horrible, dreadful and the end of the world. He then came along and signed it after keeping those people waiting for many months.He has said in the last week that he is going to move their money—the money that they were committed to and owed by the government—from one part of New South Wales to another to try to help the member for Eden Monaro. We have a situation where northern sawmillers are being deprived of money that is genuinely theirs as part of the RFA outcome and he is going to move it to another part of the state. There are certain standards in regard to how we play industry development in this country that should be quite separate from this kind of partisan attitude. Finally, in Queensland he was so desperate that he had to write to the sawmillers. Letters went out to the small sawmillers in Queensland under his signature saying, `Please give me some reasons to oppose the Queensland agreement. Please write to me and tell me why it is bad.' Yet, some time later, we have six or so coalition members signing letters against the Queensland Timber Board, which represents the industry, the equivalent of Col Dorber's organisation in New South Wales and the equivalent of NAFI at an international level. That timber board is standing by the agreement. We have this minister trying to go round the place to whip up a bit of political partisan disputation and make that the main game in town rather than do what this report is seeking to tackle: value add in this industry.We know that the 1992 national forest statement was a step in the right direction. The current government had a lot of slogans and platitudes about how worth while it was and how they were going to adhere to it, but the reality in this budget is that not one cent is going to help value add in the forestry timber industry.Debate (on motion by Mr Wakelin) adjourned.Adjournment16367Motion (by Mr Wakelin) proposed:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.1636710:49:0016367Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—I will mention briefly that I came here to talk about far more positive things. However, the previous speaker, the member for Reid, astounds me in his lack of understanding of the situation in Queensland. The Clayton's RFA that was put forward by the Queensland state government is that in every word: it is the RFA you have when you do not have an RFA.I am not sure how long it is since the member for Reid has been involved in the forestry industry, but I can assure him that I grew up in close proximity to one of the biggest hardwood forests in the world. I certainly understand the need for timber regeneration and how much you can harvest on a sustainable basis. I can say absolutely that the RFA put forward by the state government was a sell-out to the Greens and a pay-out to the members of the Queensland Timber Board. If you look at the membership of the Queensland Timber Board and which mills they are associated with you will find that they received an extraordinarily generous compensation package—they are pieces of silver, in fact—from the state government for their support of the state government in an RFA. But it was not an RFA on the simple basis that, firstly, it will cost jobs and, secondly, it is unsustainable in an environmental sense.On more positive things, it is with great pleasure that I come to this chamber today to again talk about one of the most successful initiatives of the Howard government, the introduction of the Work for the Dole program. I am proud to say that one of the most successful programs to come from this initiative has been the refurbishment of the Harlaxton Hall in Toowoomba, which recently was awarded a Highly Commended in the Work for the Dole Achievement Awards of 1999. This Work for the Dole project saw the refurbishment and improvement of the building and surrounds, making it safer, more accessible and more attractive to the community. This hall is surrounded by a community of real battlers, real Australians. When I first went to this hall I saw that it had deteriorated completely—the paint was peeling, the windows were smashed, it was unsafe to be in, and the community no longer saw it as their focal centre. Without the Work for the Dole program, this restoration project would never have received the level of funding and support that it did. That support has made the hall an absolute credit to the community. In fact, the community takes such great pride in this hall now that they have, by word of mouth, almost completely obliterated any graffiti in the area. I am not sure what sorts of threats they are using, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I would love to know because they have been exceptionally successful. The restoration of the hall stands as a proud monument not only to the Work for the Dole program, but also to the pride within the community. And when it is taken into account that this Work for the Dole program was predominantly carried out by unemployed Aboriginal youths, it can be seen that this has given that community a real sense of purpose.The Work for the Dole program enables us to use the philosophy of mutual obligation and see it translated into action. It acknowledges the wide range of work experiences being created in the Australian community. Some 57,000 unemployed young and older people have participated in the Work for the Dole program since it was established by the coalition in 1997, and of those people some 40 per cent have got jobs. But, as is the norm for Toowoomba, and for my electorate of Groom, my constituents in this particular project exceeded that average. In fact, they almost doubled it with 70 per cent of the youth employed under the Work for the Dole program on the Harlaxton Hall gaining full-time work, or going on to further training. Such was the enthusiasm of the participants that they actually contributed to the reconstruction of the Harlaxton Hall in their off-time. That is, even when they were not rostered in their normal Work for the Dole duties they actually went back to the hall and contributed their time and effort gratis.The winners of the Work for the Dole Achievement Awards are featured in a Work for the Dole booklet, and I can assure all members, and senators as well, that it is an exceptionally good read. I commend it to you.1636810:50:0016368Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Melbourne Ports is one of the more diverse electorates in Victoria. It has residents living on age pensions, single parent pensions and low incomes as well as high income earners of all types. The gentrification of the population in our area has seen the private rental market skyrocket. Private rents can absorb between 40 and 105 per cent of income of a range of low to average income households. Blocks of rental flats and apartments, comprising 15 per cent of Melbourne's flats, are projected to be subdivided and strata titled by 2008. The area's rooming houses, which comprise approximately 20 per cent of Victoria's rooming houses, are being redeveloped at a rate of 10 per cent a year. These trends will only increase in our electorate in a booming, competitive inner urban and bayside housing market where, apart from Homebush, we have the biggest housing development—Beacon Cove. This will lock out low income earners who have lived in the area all of their lives.St Kilda is famous for having had in the 1950s some 600 rooming houses. Today there are just 63, but this number still involves approximately 1,400 people in my electorate. The St Kilda Housing Association is a very impressive local organisation, which, out of its own rental income, is building new accommodation that houses some 370 residents. I recently visited with association members all of their properties in the St Kilda area. They are doing a fantastic job in housing people on low incomes. But, even with their judicious reinvestment of rentals, they are financially unable to cover some 900 people who register, sometimes indefinitely, for a place with them. For some of these 900 people and for 105,000 people across the country, their only option may be living on the streets because they cannot even find crisis accommodation. Despite these figures, the federal government's budget delivers no new initiatives to tackle the growing housing shortage around the country and in my electorate. Instead, we just heap another flat tax on these low income earners. Residents of rooming houses and caravan parks, who are often in the lowest income bracket, are the only people who are required to pay the GST up-front on their rent. Similarly, pensioners, who also make up a huge percentage of those seeking low rental housing, will be affected by this new flat tax, since the government's own budget papers reveal that prices will increase around 6.75 per cent—yet pensioners will only receive a four per cent increase in the pension.The government's compensation to first home buyers may be worth while but, in my view, it does seem a little out of kilter. This non-means tested scheme will mean that a person buying a $1 million house will receive $7,000 in assistance, whereas those in rooming houses and caravan parks will have to pay the GST on their rents. The member for Grayndler has very ably pointed out the effect that the GST will have on people all around Australia who are living in caravan parks. I am sure there are many members opposite who are paying attention to his remarks because of the effect that will have on residents in their own electorates. In my electorate, the same effect is being felt by the poorest elements of the population who are living in rooming houses. The iniquitous effect of this budget and the GST will be felt hardest by them.1636910:55:0016369Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—Gerry Hewson is a bloke who is a couple of years younger than I am and lives in my electorate. You might say that as a 19-year-old he was a fairly typical Australian. He loved sport—loved watching it, loved playing it and loved participating generally. He had a particular love for speed and used to race his motor bike, both officially and unofficially. On one occasion, when he was 19 years old, his mate just touched the back wheel of his bike which was travelling at fairly high speed. Gerry was thrown off the bike and became a paraplegic. In one moment, his whole world radically changed.To speak with Gerry about that today, there is not a flicker of bitterness about him. He is a highly motivated and focused young man. In fact, he would say that in many respects the accident marked a very significant, positive turning point in his life, when he began to think much more seriously about his capacity and his ability to give to others. He found he had this gift for motivating people. Today his real vocation is motivating other young Australians to transcend whatever problems they encounter in life. Gerry was recently given an award in the Order of Australia for his services to, in particular, the disabled as an inspirational leader of the Australian Paralympic basketball team. We expect Gerry to be playing a leading role in the fortunes of our Paralympic basketball team later this year when the Paralympics are staged at Homebush Bay.That, by introduction, is just to draw attention to the fact that a group of us will be heading off on the annual Pollie Pedal, a group of politicians riding bikes from Canberra to Sydney to raise money for and awareness of the Paralympics. We are delighted that Tim Fischer, as mayor of the Paralympic village, will be there to receive us at the other end and that the event is going to be launched here in Canberra by Kate Carnell. It is especially pleasing this year to see its bipartisan character with support from a number of ALP federal members and particularly local government mayors and officials.For the interest of anyone who may want to join us at some point along the route, we are going by a fairly circuitous route that will take us through a number of regional centres. It has always been part of the logic of the Pollie Pedal that it would give us politicians down here in Canberra an opportunity to stay in touch with what is happening in regional Australia. So we go from Canberra on 13 May to Goulburn on the 14th, Moss Vale on the 15th, Shellharbour on the 16th, Camden on the 17th, Richmond on the 18th, and then from Parramatta, Dee Why and Manly to the city on 19 May. It is about 600 kilometres and each stop along the way will have the Minister for Sport and Tourism, Jackie Kelly, and the Minister for Employment Services, Tony Abbott, with us. We will be having a look at how effectively government programs in their portfolio areas are being implemented and adopted, and we will be well received by the local communities. But the principal point, as I say, is to raise awareness in the community about the inspirational story behind each paralympian. This is a story about ability, about Australians transcending whatever difficult cards there are in the hand that life deals each one of us either from congenital disabilities or from accidents. It is an expensive business to run a Paralympics—in many respects more expensive than the other Olympics. Just getting competitors there with their wheelchairs in many instances, and getting them there from other parts of Australia, is a very substantial economic challenge. So we hope to make our small contribution, and I particularly want to thank members of the ALP who have joined us in this bipartisan initiative.1637011:03:0016370Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—I want to use this opportunity today to place on record my disgust at what has happened in Greece at the start of the Olympic torch journey. I am embarrassed as an Australian to see Kevan Gosper besmirch what was once a fine movement. I am old enough to remember listening on the radio to the exploits of John Landy, Herb Elliott, Ron Clarke, Betty Cuthbert and Raelene Boyle. These are athletes whose sole desire was to run as fast as possible for the glory of the sport and for their country. The opportunity to represent one's country was the highest goal possible. If perchance they won a medal, this was an added bonus. Kevan Gosper was around at this time and, like many Australians, I admired his efforts as he competed against the world's best. However the Olympic movement has changed radically from the time of the 1956 Games held in Melbourne. We now are seeing the worst excesses of the corporatisation of this once fine sporting event. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the Olympic movement and its gravy train of officialdom is now exactly like the worst excesses of the Roman orgies.I despise Juan Antonio Samaranch and his fellow members of the IOC. I do so because they fail to clean up and clean out their corporate sloth. By not doing so they denigrate the fine Olympic ideals of the thousands of athletes striving to be chosen for the Sydney Games.Yesterday we saw yet another example of the stench associated with this once fine organisation. Kevan Gosper is mooted to become the next President of the IOC. Athens has been chosen as the venue for the 2004 Olympic Games. The Greek organising committee is having a real struggle to meet the various guidelines and there was a threat to move the games somewhere else. I can just imagine the Greek Olympic Committee thinking, why not suck up to Kevan Gosper and his family; it worked over the Salt Lake City winter games. The Gosper family really do enjoy wandering around the world in first-class comfort and being feted as Olympic royalty. I believe Kevan Gosper's son even carried the Olympic flame as part of the Atlanta Olympics. Don't worry that a wonderful young Greek Australian girl, Yianna Souleles, had already been chosen to be the first Australian to carry the torch as it starts its long journey to Australia. We all know the IOC officials are easily seduced by offers of yet another media clip on television, radio or in the newspaper. Gosper Olympic nepotism flourished yet again. One wonders if a member of the Gosper family has been chosen to carry the torch into the Olympic venue to start the games.The Sydney Olympics have been tarnished not only by Kevan Gosper's supreme egotism but by the failure of those associated with it here in Australia to condemn Sophie's choice. Sandy Hollway's comments that it was a storm in a teacup show just how far removed he is from real life. Still, what can you expect from someone who is riding the same gravy train as the Gosper family? The many articles in today's Australian newspapers reflect Australia's national disgust on this decision to slight Greek Australians: `Gosper torched over Sophie's choice' in the Australian; `A storm in a teacup? They can't be serious', in the Sydney Morning Herald; `Gosper feels heat of torch nepotism', in the Australian; `Gosper's nepotism spoils the movement', in the Australian; `Sophie's choice leaves a sour taste', in the Sydney Morning Herald; and the last, `Put higher ideals above special privilege', in the Australian.1637111:07:0016371Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—It was a busy weekend last weekend in the vibrant centre of Broken Hill in the west of my electorate. Members may know that Pasminco, which is the last significant mine in the Broken Hill area, announced some months ago that it was intending to close down its operations in the year 2006. While this announcement caused shock waves down the mineshafts of Broken Hill, the announcement has not dampened the spirit of these people whose ancestors were pioneers of the outback in the true sense of the word.Over the years residents of Broken Hill have been developing a self-sufficient approach. This may not seem remarkable to those in other towns in the west who also pioneered the outback, but the contributions and leadership of the unions and the mines in Broken Hill over the years did have, to some degree, an effect in lessening the need of the community itself to find solutions to their problems. There is no better example of the resilience of the community of Broken Hill than the biennial celebration of Agfair. These are the field days of the far west and, despite the problems faced by the pastoralists and townspeople of the western division, Agfair brings them together to look at new types of machinery, different land management techniques and water resource management as well as giving the locals the opportunity to get together and discuss the challenges of the future.To get Agfair off the ground requires an enormous amount of cooperation from almost every charity and community group, and the level of cooperation displayed between industry, townspeople and pastoralists is an example that many towns with more secure futures could emulate. The West Darling Pastoralists Association and the South Broken Hill Rotary Club are the prime movers in getting this event off the ground, and Bruce Church was honoured by the organisers for his role in being the instigator of the first expo that I understand has run for the fifth time over 10 years. I know there are too many groups and too many other names to mention—and you always run the risk of neglecting someone who should be named—but I understand that Kevin Taylor, Erica Mallock and Sandy Bright were the real prime movers in this event in the year 2000. Though, I think, perhaps taken a little for granted by the community, they deserve a great round of thanks for their vision and hard work in keeping alive this important event in Broken Hill's calendar—so, too, do the companies and individuals who support the event. The individuals, the combined services clubs and volunteer organisations in Broken Hill all contributed to make this a magnificent weekend.There is no doubt that governments, too, at all levels need to support communities in the western division to discover their own future, a future which is not based on one industry but which expands into tourism, value added industries, horticulture and even bush tucker. So far, the federal government has done exactly this, with around $15 million in grants of different sorts over the last 18 months or so—from the $4.6 million for the line of lode being managed through many necessary and unnecessary obstacles by Ron Hellyer and his team, including the Work for the Dole participants who have done a magnificent job in tidying up the site and restoring train carriages, to paying for an executive officer of Transition 2010, which is a community group gathered together with representatives of the council, the mining industry, the pastoralists and the community to chart the way forward with the post-Pasminco era in mind. The federal government has also provided money for a skills audit and has paid for the position of a convention organiser to increase tourism potential in Broken Hill. It contributed $70,000 recently to the Royal Flying Doctor Service Museum, installed a department of rural health in Broken Hill and recently announced $2 million to establish local call Internet access and telecentres in places like Tibooburra, White Cliffs, Wilcannia, Ivanhoe and Menindee. Recently, $200,000 was allocated to Menindee to formulate a strategic plan. It is one of the areas that potentially can take up some of the enormous employment slack that will fall when the last mine closes. Recently, the Minister for Trade, Mark Vaile, visited Tandau. There was a most impressive set-up that we were able to tour to have a look at their cotton and horticulture. I understand that if they can look successfully at the possibilities of a cotton mill and winery, this secondary industry will also bring employment opportunities to the area.I congratulate the members of the Employment National team at Broken Hill who embarked on a program called `a lode of jobs' in which they expected to generate about $500,000 worth of work. In fact, they generated a million dollars worth of work—and that was purely because of the drive of those people in Employment National. In the future, areas like ours need to be self-motivated and self-directing, and Broken Hill is a fine example of this. (Time expired) 1637211:12:0016372Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—Today I would like to make mention of three different groups of people in my electorate who, in their own way, have struggled against adversity and some are still struggling. The first, I am proud to say, is Roy Longmore who is a resident at the Elizabeth Gardens Hostel in Burwood and has reached the terrific age of 106. Roy is one of only two surviving Australian soldiers from the Gallipoli campaign. Roy volunteered along with thousands of other Australian men and landed in Gallipoli during 1915. During his service he was badly injured and was sent to England for medical care. In fact, a British surgeon recommended that his leg be amputated until a French surgeon weighed in with contrary advice. I am pleased to say that the French surgeon won out and Roy still very much has his leg today.In 1920, after a significant time in hospital, Roy returned to Australia, where he met his wife. They had one child, Eric, who I have also had the pleasure of meeting. Roy established a private taxi company with his brother in Melbourne. It was probably one of the first of its kind considering the time that we are talking about. Roy resides at the Elizabeth Gardens Hostel, rather than the nursing home, as he is still quite mobile and alert. On behalf of all Chisholm residents and fellow Australians, I thank him and again congratulate him on reaching the magnificent age of 106.With each passing year the commemorations surrounding the tragic Anzac campaign grow in size, as witnessed by the thousands of Australians making the pilgrimage to Turkey on Anzac Day this year. Gallipoli must stand as one of Australia's most unique historical events. Here was a campaign where none of the military objectives were met. In fact, in military and human terms, it was an unmitigated disaster, with 7,600 Australians losing their lives and 19,000 Australians being wounded in addition to the horrific losses of other allied and Turkish troops. Gallipoli stands as testimony to the Australian values we all hold dear: honour, friendship and courage. Our troops held their own and did not run away, despite the ill-conceived mission that they had been doomed to prosecute by our imperial masters. Importantly, this was the first major campaign in which Australian and New Zealand troops fought under their own commanders, and in the end they executed a tactical withdrawal with great success. Again, I say to Roy: congratulations on your 106th birthday. Many people have made the point that to remember Gallipoli is not to glorify war but rather to honour those who served our country so bravely, respectfully acknowledge their sacrifices and remind ourselves that wherever possible we must avoid the horrendous cost of war.The second group of people I would like to turn to are another brave lot of men: the AMWU members at the ACI plant in Lexton Road, Box Hill. These workers at the ACI plant were in the middle of negotiating an enterprise bargaining agreement when the company locked them out before Christmas. These 84 men have been locked out for 18 weeks. I am pleased to say now that sense has prevailed and the dispute has found a resolution. After 18 weeks without pay, these men have been able to return to work. I would like to congratulate all the people at the ACI plant but particularly the shop steward, Alex, the sacrificial lamb in this dispute, who has accepted a redundancy to end part of this horrendous dispute. After 18 weeks a resolution to this dispute has been found, and I would like to congratulate all the people at ACI for their efforts to resolve this dispute. I am pleased that they are all now back at work.Finally, I would like to talk about not just our fictional `John' and `Wendy' who are victims of the GST, but the real Grant and Karen Griffin. Grant and Karen are true GST victims. They are some of the 800 families caught up in the middle of the collapse of Avonwood Homes. Tragically, Grant's and Karen's home was almost completed when the company went into liquidation. Why do I say it is part of the GST? Even the liquidators have said that the collapse has been brought on by the GST. The Prime Minister has been on the radio saying that the Premier of Victoria, Steve Bracks, can actually help with this dispute. I do not think so, because the states have been given no compensation to alleviate this problem. Grant and Karen, who are currently renting, are looking at moving into a caravan. They can no longer afford to pay their rent and a mortgage on a house they cannot enter. They are also going to be up for the GST by virtue of the fact that their home will not be completed until after the event, even though they sought to have it started beforehand. (Time expired)1637311:17:0016373Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—In the last month I have attended two events in my electorate that were particularly bright and pleasant and in some ways very sobering. The first event was the opening of the transaction centre at Port Broughton, the first one in South Australia. There was a wonderful roll-up, and the support from the local government people was simply magnificent. The 200 or 300 people celebrating the opening of this new facility at Port Broughton showed the great support that is there.Other events at that time of the year, of course, are the Anzac services. I attended the dawn service at Riverton, where the officiating pastor made the point in very moving words that this is a commemoration of a commitment to peace. I think this reminds us that the commitment to war and to the preparation for war has to be more about a commitment to peace and to the efforts that go in to foreign affairs and all of those things. We need to make sure that we do as much as we can on the international scene. I then went on to a service at Robertstown, where community spirit was very much alive. I want to acknowledge those people for the wonderful hospitality they showed my wife and I on that day.1637411:18:0016374Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—Just following on in the theme of the member for Grey, I would like to report to the Main Committee the successful repair of the memorial to diver Tom Derrick, one of South Australia's greatest heroes of World War II. He won a Victoria Cross at Sattleburg in New Guinea in 1943, and undoubtedly he is Port Adelaide's greatest hero. The memorial was in fact vandalised several months ago, and it was very pleasing to note that it has now been repaired, thanks to the Port Adelaide Enfield Council and to Peter Davidson, President of the Semaphore and Port Adelaide RSL. That memorial is now back, strong and hopefully vandal-proof in the future. It was very unfortunate that diver Tom Derrick lost his life in one of the great last actions of Australian troops in Borneo in 1945. 10000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—Order! The time allocated for the debate has expired. Main Committee adjourned at 11.19 a.m.Answers to Questions in Writing16375The following answers to questions were circulated:16375(Question No. 1201)120116375McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 6 March 2000:(1) What is the price of the drug known as Methyl Sal, which is contained in the pharmaceutical listing used by doctors.(2) Are there alternatives to that drug: if so what are the pharmaceutical price listings of those drugs.(3) Are there cheaper price alternatives to that drug: if not, will he remove the premium pricing which has been attached to it.(4) In what circumstances does the Government issue a reference authority approval for Methyl Sal.(5) What is the average length of time it takes a patient to receive approval for a reference authority in respect of Methyl Sal.16375Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Preparations containing methyl salicylate generally used as topical analgesics for the relief of pain in arthritic conditions, were deleted from the Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits in November 1997 as a 1997-98 Federal Budget measure. As medications not listed as pharmaceutical benefits are subject to normal market forces, the price of preparations containing methyl salicylate is likely to vary. Prices for a number of these products range from $2.45 to $20.00, depending on the strength, quantity, brand and the retail mark-up applied by pharmacists.(2) Yes, not applicable as they are not on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.(3 - 5) Not applicable.16375(Question No. 1202)120216375McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 6 March 2000:(1) What is the price of the drug known as Brondecon which is contained in the pharmaceutical listing used by doctors.(2) Are there alternatives to that drug: if so, what are the pharmaceutical price listings of those drugs.(3) Are there cheaper price alternatives to that drug: if not, will he remove the premium pricing which has been attached to it.(4) In what circumstances does the Government issue a reference authority approval for Brondecon.(5) What is the average length of time it takes a patient to receive approval for a reference authority in respect of Brondecon.16375Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) It is assumed that you are referring to Brondecon Elixir which was deleted from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in 1998. (Brondecon tablets containing choline theophyllinate which were deleted from the Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits by the ALP in 1994).As medications not listed as pharmaceutical benefits are subject to normal market forces, the price of Brondecon Elixir is likely to vary depending on the particular pharmacy at which it is purchased.(2)Choline theophyllinate is related to plain theophylline with 50 mg of choline theophyllinate being equivalent to 32 mg theophylline. A number of formulations of theophylline are available as pharmaceutical benefits as an alternative to Brondecon Elixir when used for the treatment of asthma. The closest formulation to Brondecon Elixir is theophylline syrup 133.2 mg per 25ml. The PBS subsidised price of theophylline preparations (including the syrup) is the patient co-payment of $3.30 for concessional patients and ranges from $9.13 to $6.94 for non-concessional patients.(3) As Brondecon Elixir itself is not a pharmaceutical benefit, no pharmaceutical benefit premium pricing applies to it. The alternatives are as in answer (2). (4) Not applicable.(5) Not applicable.16376(Question No. 1203)120316376McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 6 March 2000:(1) What is the price of the drug known as Pepcidine which is contained in the pharmaceutical listing used by doctors.(2) Are there alternatives to that drug: if so, what are the pharmaceutical price listings of those drugs.(3) Are there cheaper price alternatives to that drug: if not, will he remove the premium pricing which has been attached to it.(4) In what circumstances does the Government issue a reference authority approval for Pepcidine.(5) What is the average length of time it takes a patient to receive approval for a reference authority in respect of Pepcidine.16376Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The current PBS subsidised price of both strengths of the Pepcidine brand of famotidine tablets is the patient co-payment of $3.30 for concessional patients and $20.60 for non-concessional patients. In addition, patients are required to pay the therapeutic group premium (TGP) set by the manufacturer, of $4.83, bringing the total cost to patients to $8.13 and $25.43 respectively.Patients may be exempted from paying the TGP on medical grounds. This is the situation which applies to all products covered by the TGP policy.(2 and 3) Yes, there are many alternatives - see Attachment A.The Commonwealth Government subsidises drugs within a defined therapeutic group of drugs to the level of the lowest priced drug in the group. Suppliers of the other drugs within the therapeutic group are able to match the base price or set prices above the price charged by the supplier or suppliers of the lowest priced drug.The circumstances in which an authority approval for Pepcidine tablets is granted by the Health Insurance Commission (HIC) are where: adverse effects and / or drug interactions occur or are expected to occur, with all of the lowest priced drugs; ortransfer to one of the lowest price drugs would cause patient confusion resulting in problems with compliance.In addition, should the prescribing doctor deem it necessary, an authority may be granted for a quantity of Pepcidine and number of times the prescription may be repeated greater than the maximum quantity and number of repeats shown in the Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits.(5) When required, authority prescriptions for Pepcidine may be approved by the HIC by telephone during the patient's consultation, in which case there is no delay in a patient's receiving the prescription. Alternatively, written approval may be obtained. In this case authority prescriptions are generally returned within 5 working days to the prescriber's place of practice for collection by the patient.Attachment A: Alternatives to Pepcidine - Prices to Patient DrugPBS Subsidised Price to PatientTherapeutic Group PremiumBrand PremiumTotal Price to PatientConcessionalNon-Concess.ConcessionalNon-Concess.Cimetidine Tablets 200 mg and 400 mgBrands = Cimehexal®, Magicul®, SBPA Cimetidine®Sigmetadine ® (400 mg only)$3.30$20.60NilNil$3.30$20.60Cimetidine Tablets 200 mg and 400 mgBrand = Tagamet®$3.30$20.60Nil$2.26$5.56$22.86Cimetidine Tablets 800 mg Brand = Cimehexal®, Magicul®$3.30$20.60NilNil$3.30$20.60Cimetidine Tablets 800 mg Brand = Tagamet®$3.30$20.60Nil$4.73$8.03$25.33Cimetidine Effervescent Tablets 800 mg Brand = Tagamet Express®$3.30$20.60$6.78Nil$10.08$27.38Nizatidine Capsules 150 mg and 300 mgBrand = Tazac®$3.30$20.60$2.50Nil$5.80$23.10Ranitidine Hydrochloride Tabs150 mg and 300 mgBrands = Ausran®, Rani 2®,DBL Ranitidine®, Ranoxyl®,Ranihexal®, SBPA Ranitidine®$3.30$20.60NilNil$3.30$20.60Ranitidine Hydrochloride Tabs150 mg and 300 mgBrand = Zantac®$3.30$20.60Nil79 cents$4.09$21.39Ranitidine Hydrochloride Effervescent Tablets150 mgBrand = Zantac®$3.30$20.6079 cents Nil$4.09$21.39Ranitidine Hydrochloride Syrup150 mg/10 mLBrand = Zantac®$3.30$20.6080 centsNil$4.10$21.4016378(Question No. 1250)125016378Hall, Jill, MPMs Hall83NShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice on 13 March 2000.(1) How many staff are employed in the Aged Care Complaints Resolution Unit in each State and Territory(2) How many complaints is each unit investigating.(3) How many complaint is each complaint officer investigating in each unit.16378Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) As at 1 March 2000 the Scheme employed 26 departmental officers located in the various State and Territory offices: NSW - 5, VIC - 6, QLD - 5, SA - 4, WA - 3, TAS- 1, ACT- 1, NT- 1.There is addtional recruitment activity occurring particularly in New South Wales and Victoria.(2) The Aged Care Complaints Resolution Scheme attempts to resolve complaints either through negotiation, mediation or determination. It does not conduct investigations of the type that may be undertaken by police or other appropriate agency.As at 16 March 2Q00 the number of complaints being handled in each State/Territory was as follows - NSW - 150, VIC - 187, QLD - 90, SA - 26, WA - 25, TAS - 9, ACT - 8, NT - 0, Total - 495.(3) The average number of complaints being handled by complaints officers in each State and Territory office is: NSW - 30, VIC - 3 1, QLD - 18, SA - 7, WA - 8, TAS 9, ACT - 8, NT -0.In addition to these Departmental staff, the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency has established rapid response teams in each State which have the capacity to respond to urgent issues and conduct spot checks.16378(Question No. 1270)127016378Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 15 March 2000:(1) Further to the speech by Dr Hawke to the National Press Club on 17 February 2000, when did he become aware the Department of Defence's financial position against the forward estimates was parlous and that Department's financial statements were in danger of being qualified by the Auditor-General.(2) What action did he take to ensure that the integrity of the Commonwealth's finances were protected and what action is being taken to ensure they continue to be protected.(3) Has he made, or will he make, any changes in the way his Department scrutinises the financial performance of the Department of Defence; if so, what are the details.16378Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am advised that the Department of Defence's 1998-1999 audited financial statements were not qualified and that Defence is working with ANAO to address any issues raised in the audit.(2) As my colleague the Minister for Defence has stated on a number of occasions, improving the management of Defence is a priority for Government. The Government will continue to seek improvements in the efficiency and accountability of the Department of Defence.A team from the Department of Finance and Administration has been working full time with Defence to identify areas of improvement in financial management processes. (3) The work of the joint team is ongoing. Any changes the Government makes will build upon our record of management improvements so that the taxpayer can be confident their money is well spent and that the Australian Defence Force is fully capable of meeting is mission.16378(Question No. 1295)129516378Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Treasurer upon notice, on 4 April 2000:(1) Is he aware that the New Children's Hospital at Westmead raises approximately 11% of its annual running costs from community fund raising activities such as selling clip-on bears on Bandaged Bear Day.(2) Is he aware of the hospital's concerns that the GST will either have to be added to the $3 donation usually given in exchange for a bear, or be absorbed into the $3 donation, thus losing 30 cents per donation. (3) Will the Government collect GST through these types of fund raising activities; if not, how will such activities be exempted from the tax.16379Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) I am aware that the Hospital has sought clarification on the GST treatment of donations given in exchange for a clip-on bear.(3) The President of the New Children's Hospital has advised that the bears cost $0.54 each, and that persons purchasing the bears for $3.00 do not intend to purchase an item worth $3.00 but rather are making a donation to the work of the hospital. Other examples of items of insubstantial value that have the nature of a receipt are things like red noses and daffodil pins.In these circumstances, the supply of the bears will be in the nature of a receipt and will not be subject to GST.16379(Question No. 1447)144716379McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan5I4FraserALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 13 April 2000:(1) How many requests for act of grace payments under section 33 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act have been considered by his delegate since the Act came into force.(2) How many requests have (a) been approved and (b) not been approved.(3) How many of the requests which have not been approved have chosen to provide additional information for him to review the decision, and of these, how many have been approved subsequently.16379Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Delegates have considered 248 requests for act of grace payments under section 33 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997(the FMA Act)since it came into force on 1 January 1998 to the date the honourable Member asked his question on 13 April 2000.(2) (a) Of the 248 requests received:. 110 were approved;. 2 had a proportion of the amount requested approved; and . 46 requests were referred to other Departments (as the matters came within the parameters of compensatory mechanisms other than the act of grace provisions of the FMA Act).(b) 90 were not approved.(3) In 19 cases of claims not approved, claimants sought a review of the initial decision on the basis of additional information or changes in circumstances. There were no subsequent approvals as a result of these reconsiderations.16379(Question No. 1462)146216379O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, 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.16380Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions: (1) No(2) Not applicable(3) Not applicable(4) Not applicable