2000-06-223916REPS1802702000-06-22—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills18027R105118027Bill presented by Dr Stone, and read a first time.1802709:32:0018027Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Product Stewardship (Oil) Bill 2000, together with three consequential amendment bills, represents a commitment made by the government in the course of negotiations for A New Tax System—Measures for a Better Environment. As one of the outcomes of those negotiations, the Prime Minister announced, on 28 May last year, that the Commonwealth would fund the development of a product stewardship arrangement and provide transitional assistance to ensure the environmentally sustainable management and re-refining of waste oil and its reuse. Each year more than 500 million litres of oil is sold onto the domestic market and only about 150 million litres of this finds its way to recycling or acceptable disposal routes. While some of the oil is consumed in use, two-stroke oil being an obvious example, a considerable volume of waste, currently in the order of 35 to 50 million litres each year, is unaccounted for. It is sitting around in rusting drums, dumped in landfills, or inappropriately used, for example as a dust suppressant or as a weed killer.The most effective long-term solution to environmentally damaging disposal of waste oil is a product stewardship partnership which links oil companies, recyclers, the states and the Commonwealth; and by which the oil companies assume a progressively greater share of the costs. This package of bills offers all these elements. The primary piece of legislation, the Product Stewardship (Oil) Bill 2000, has the object of developing product stewardship arrangements for waste oil that will ensure the environmentally sustainable management, refining and reuse of this oil. The bill also has the object of supporting economic recycling options for waste oil. Product stewardship is an innovative and exciting tool to address environmental problems of waste disposal and to encourage recycling of finite resources. It is a simple concept—that responsibility lasts for the entire life of the product, through research and development, production, distribution, utilisation, and finally to recycling and appropriate waste management. One approach is for the responsibility to be borne solely by the manufacturers of the product, as is a growing practice in segments of the chemicals industry. Alternatively, the responsibility can be shared between the producers and users of a product, as is the case here.Under these product stewardship arrangements, the waste oil is given a monetary value. Benefits for recycling waste oil will be paid through the mechanisms established in the primary legislation. This provides a financial incentive for the oil to be collected, recycled and reused. The added value for the oil is largely funded by the oil producers and consumers through a levy administered by the Commonwealth government, which ensures the costs of providing for proper recycling and reuse are internal to the market. In economic terms, it `internalises the externalities'.The amount of stewardship benefit received will be based on the volume, intended use or quality of goods produced from waste oil and subsequently sold. A system of differentiation will mean some uses and products of waste oil will attract a different level of benefit to other uses and products. The government recognises that there are a variety of end uses for waste oil. As the focus of this legislation is environmental, product stewardship benefits will reflect the environmental merits of the products and processes. In making a decision to differentiate, the Minister for the Environment must consider any relevant environmental matters related to the recycling. The information needed to differentiate benefits will be based in part on a comparison of the `environmental footprint' for the production of each product. In the initial stages of the product stewardship scheme, a simple differentiation system, based largely on sustainability criteria, is proposed. Lower levels of benefit will be paid for uses where the waste oil is consumed as a fuel, where essentially only the thermal energy of the oil is recovered. Where the waste oil molecules are not consumed, such as when they are turned into lubricant rather than fuel, a substantially higher benefit should apply. With oil being a limited natural resource, this approach is both highly desirable and consistent with the objects of this bill.A key to the successful use of recycled lubricant is the market acceptance and demand for such lubricant, and motor manufacturers are clearly leaders in this market. In the United States, recycled lubricant that meets American Petroleum Institute standards is accepted by General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. In Europe, some 12 motor manufacturers including companies such as Saab-Scania, Rover and Porsche positively accept the use of high quality re-refined oil, and two German manufacturers, Daimler-Benz and the Volkswagen Audi Group have gone further. They promote the use of re-refined oils by employing them as factory-fill in a number of new models.When the Minister for the Environment and Heritage recently sought the views of manufacturers in Australia on the use of re-refined lubricant of an appropriate standard in Australian built vehicles, senior executives of Holden, Toyota, Mitsubishi and Ford responded most positively and supported the minister's initiative in this matter.An Oil Stewardship Advisory Council is established which will advise the minister on the operations of the product stewardship arrangements under the act, and on the setting of appropriate benefit rates.The council is appointed by the minister and will reflect both industry and broader community interests. The membership includes representatives from the waste oil industry, and from oil producers, as well as from a non-government body with a substantial interest in sustainable industry. Local government and the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, ANZECC, are similarly represented, as is a national consumer organisation. The Commonwealth is represented though the Environment portfolio and the Commissioner of Taxation.Finally, this bill addresses a number of procedural matters such as delegation provisions and the tabling of an annual report.The bill also requires the minister to commission an independent review of the operations of the act within four years of its commencement, and to table that review. The minister must commission such independent reviews on an ongoing basis at intervals of not longer than four years.These are the salient points of this package of legislation that is necessary to give effect to the government's commitment to reduce the amount of waste oil finding its way into the environment. This goal is accomplished, not through a heavy-handed `command and control' mechanism, but through a product stewardship arrangement involving consultation, and which values the waste oil and gives economic incentives for its recovery and reuse. In the main, this economic incentive is provided by those who use and derive benefit from the original product.I commend the bill, and I now present the explanatory memorandum to this bill, the Customs Tariff Amendment) Product Stewardship for Waste Oil) Bill 2000, the Excise Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Waste Oil) Bill 2000 and the Product Stewardship (Oil) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2000.Debate (on motion by Mr Lee) adjourned.Bills18028R103918028Bill presented by Dr Stone, and read a first time.1802809:40:0018028Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time. I will now discuss the first of three pieces of amending legislation that are closely related to the Product Stewardship (Oil) Bill 2000the Customs Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Waste Oil) Bill 2000.This bill contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995by introducing a levy of 0.5c per litre on imported petroleum based oils and their synthetic equivalents and a levy of 5c per kilogram on petroleum based greases and their synthetic equivalents. Imported recycled oils and greases will also be captured by the levy. The levy will be subject to future consumer price index adjustments. I commend the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Lee) adjourned.Bills18029R104218029Bill presented by Dr Stone, and read a first time.1802909:42:0018029Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.I will now discuss the second of three pieces of amending legislation that are closely related to the Product Stewardship (Oil) Bill 2000the Excise Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Waste Oil) Bill 2000.The amendments proposed in this bill contain alterations to the Excise Tariff Act 1921.The bill introduces an excise levy of 0.5c per litre on domestically produced oils on 1 January 2001, again subject to CPI adjustments. The excise will be levied on petroleum based oils and greases and their synthetic equivalents. Most of these products will be levied, because they also have the potential to be a danger to the environment if disposed of inappropriately. I commend the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Lee) adjourned.Bills18029R105218029Bill presented by Dr Stone, and read a first time.1802909:44:0018029Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Product Stewardship (Oil) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2000 is the third and last piece of amending legislation making up the government's legislative package on product stewardship for waste oil.The legislative mechanism which sets out the terms and conditions of the benefit payments prescribed under provisions of the Product Stewardship (Oil) Act 2000 will be the Products Grants and Benefits Act 2000. Minor amendments to this act, the Excise Act 1901 and the Taxation Administration Act 1953, are necessary to bring the oil product stewardship benefit payments and levy collection into line with other excise programs.The Australian Taxation Office will pay benefits to eligible recyclers. The rate of product stewardship benefit that is payable for a particular use of waste oil will be set by regulations, issued under the authority of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, under a provision of the Product Stewardship (Oil) Bill 2000. A claimant for product stewardship benefits will need to satisfy a number of requirements. The Commissioner of Taxation must be satisfied that a recycler holds both a licence as a manufacturer of excisable goods under section 34 of the Excise Act 1901 and an Australian business number. The claimant must also demonstrate that all necessary licences, permits and approvals to operate the business are held as required by relevant state and territory environmental protection agencies.The Product Grants and Benefits Act 2000 contains provisions against contrived schemes. This will safeguard appropriate use of benefits and is consistent with other taxation legislation designed to prevent rorting and cheating of benefit systems. This act provides adequate penalties and safeguards to protect public funds and prevent abuse of the product stewardship arrangements. I commend the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Lee) adjourned.Bills18030R108518030Bill presented by Dr Stone, and read a first time.1803009:46:0018030Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000 is the primary legislation to implement the government's mandatory renewable energy target. This legislation brings into force one of Australia's most strategic greenhouse response measures—a legal requirement for large buyers of electricity to source more of their electricity needs from environmentally friendly, renewable fuel sources. The renewable energy target was originally announced by the Prime Minister on 20 November 1997, in the statement Safeguarding the future: Australia's response to climate change. On the eve of the third conference of the parties, COP3, under the framework convention on climate change, the Prime Minister announced that `targets will be set for the inclusion of renewable energy in electricity generation by the year 2010. Electricity retailers and other large electricity buyers will be legally required to source an additional two per cent of their electricity from renewable or specified waste-product energy sources by 2010.'This commitment was a cornerstone of the approach we took in Kyoto, an approach which was widely acknowledged as delivering recognition for Australia's special circumstances and, in particular, our relatively high dependence on fossil fuels.This legislation brings into effect that commitment.The strategic importance of this legislation is not only that it delivers on a key aspect of our commitment in Kyoto. It is not only that it achieves significant greenhouse gas reductions, of up to seven million tonnes per year. It is also that it represents a big step along the road of `greening' our electricity generation sector—a sector which represents the single largest contributor to Australia's total greenhouse emissions.Given Australia's projections for growth under a business as usual scenario to 128 per cent above 1990 levels, achieving our Kyoto target will require the implementation of some beyond no regret measures. The government has been clear that this measure is one of those beyond no regret policies. The fact that this government is prepared to introduce this mandatory measure demonstrates the depth of our commitment to reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, we do not take this step lightly. We have allowed a full two years of detailed consultation with industry, community interests and state and territory governments.When it comes into force, this measure will see an additional 9,500 gigawatt hours of renewable energy being generated and consumed in Australia over the 2010-20 period. This is equivalent to more than twice the annual renewable electricity generation output of the Snowy Mountains hydro electric scheme—a scheme which took some quarter of a century to build and which represents, by general regard, one of Australia's true nation-building achievements.The fact that this target will call forward twice the amount of renewable energy that is generated by the Snowy hydro scheme, and do so in just 10 years, underscores the magnitude of the commitment we are making.Now, I note that this measure is the result of a long process of consultation and technical investigation. The progress with this measure has been closely followed, from its initial announcement in 1997, through the many phases which led to the decisions taken by the government in November 1999 on the implementation approach for the measure. This measure has received a great deal of international attention. It is strongly supported by the renewable energy industry and has progressed more rapidly towards implementation than many other international commitments to support renewable energy which stemmed from Kyoto. Extensive economic modelling has been conducted to demonstrate that this measure is able to be met in a cost effective manner and offers real benefits to our economy. These are benefits which go beyond simply the achievement of greenhouse gas reductions. An unprecedented amount of effort has been made to involve stakeholders and the public in the development process.There is no denying that this measure has itself been a challenge to bring to this stage. Developing answers to the questions of what does the target mean, how will the liable parties be identified, and what is the best way to implement the measure itself took a technical working group close to 15 months. Working with the states and finalising the measure within the federal government took a further five months. Of this two-year time frame, many months have been dedicated to seeking community and industry feedback. Many refinements were made to the implementation options to make the measure more achievable, more cost effective and more industry friendly—and the government thanks the community for the time and effort involved in providing input to the development of this measure.Despite this, some industry groups continue to oppose its introduction. However, the support expressed for this target from other areas of the community, not just the renewable energy industry, demonstrates that the people of Australia value efforts made to increase the environmental friendliness of our electricity supply. While this measure imposes new obligations on purchasers of large amounts of electricity, industry will not be alone in meeting the obligations of this target. The government has committed almost $1 billion towards greenhouse gas abatement measures, up to $362 million of which is directly aimed at supporting the renewable energy industry. This funding is predominantly directed towards competitive grants programs and rebate schemes, giving renewable energies the extra push that they need to become commercially competitive, both on a large and small—that is, domestic—scale. These programs will result in many new installations of leading edge technologies and the advancement of a range of pre-commercial technologies, bringing renewable energy generation to the people through direct rebates for installations of renewable energy systems.This supply side push, combined with the demand side pull of this measure, provides a comprehensive package to support the development of Australia's renewable energy industry and the achievement of the measure's multiple objectives of: accelerating the uptake of renewable energy in grid based applications so as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; providing an ongoing base for the development of commercially competitive renewable energy as part of the broader strategic package to stimulate the use of renewables; and contributing to the development of internationally competitive industries which could participate effectively in overseas energy markets.This measure has already had an impact. Ever since the announcement of the final design parameters for the measure in November 1999, there has been an unprecedented amount of activity in renewable energy project development—so much so that there is even talk of manufacturing wind turbines domestically, a previously unthought of possibility. There has been, and will continue to be, excitement in the industry. More and more projects are making it to the drawing board. Of the estimated 3,000-megawatt capacity required to meet the target, hundreds of megawatts are already in the proposal stage—all before the first year of the target. This is what demonstrates that Australia is ready for this challenge. Not only will industry be able to meet the target; it is confident it can meet it.And what else does this mean for Australia? It means jobs, particularly in regional areas. In quantifying the likely impact of the measure as part of designing the most appropriate implementation mechanism, the government has dedicated considerable resources towards projecting the likely mix of renewable energy technologies which will meet the target. The resource with the most potential appears to be biomass, from sources such as sugarcane waste—that is, bagasse—sawmill waste, woody weeds, plantation forestry and specifically grown energy crops. It is these fuel sources that are found in our regional areas rather than in our cities. It is the farming of these crops that supports our country towns and the people in them. This measure adds additional value to these products, above that which was previously there, and flows life back into rural Australia—and all while helping the country meet its environmental targets.The target will not be met by biomass alone, however. While this will make a low-cost contribution towards meeting the target, the other, high-tech and more costly technologies will not miss out. Particularly in areas which are not connected to the major grids, solar technologies offer electricity generation capabilities with low maintenance requirements and long working lives. In comparison to extending the grid to regional areas or constantly trucking in diesel or oil for fuel, solar technologies can offer the most logical solution to the energy needs of our remote areas. In combination with the rebates of up to $8,250 offered by this government for the installation of photovoltaic electricity generation systems on domestic and community use buildings, the PV industry has a lot to be excited about. The opportunities are there for the taking.The government would like to see not only biomass and PV respond to this target, though; a very broad spectrum of fuel sources has been included as eligible under this measure. This legislation, with its accompanying regulations, will also provide support for wind, ocean, hydro, geothermal and biogas technologies, biomass by-products from a range of industries, solar water heaters and fuel cells using renewable fuels. These can be used on or off grid, in small or large applications.This measure also provides an incentive for the better use of our existing resources. This measure can provide maximum benefit to the economy if we take the necessary steps to use the fuels more efficiently. This may mean upgrades to existing equipment, introduction of new technologies, better storage techniques or faster movement towards co-firing renewables with fossil fuels. Industry studies have shown that all of these offer significant potential. This potential will be harnessed if it is cost effective to do so.The market based mechanism adopted to meet the target should send strong signals regarding the most cost-effective renewable energy options, and it has proven to be widely supported in industry. This legislation sets the broad rules for meeting the target, but allows the market to make the selection of the projects which will be supported and the terms under which they will be supported. The government has set some boundaries on the cost that it is prepared to see the economy bear in meeting this measure, with the understanding that if the market works effectively this cost cap need not be reached. The flexibility provided through a market based mechanism has shown time and time again that it will find innovative and cost-effective solutions to the problem. This legislation will work by placing the legal responsibility to meet the target on the wholesale purchasers of electricity, the very large electricity purchasers in the country. At the moment this is, and is likely to continue to be, a small group of companies—mostly our electricity retailers and large industrial customers. It is by virtue of the size of their purchases that these parties can send signals to the market that renewable energy generation projects must be supported. This target sends a message to the large end of town that we want to see industry lead the way in greenhouse gas reduction. Industry can make a difference, and that difference trickles down to the community. This legislation supports a good and necessary policy outcome. This legislation provides one of the largest boosts to the renewable energy industry that Australia has ever seen. This legislation will help us chip away at the climate change problem. In considering this legislation, I ask you to consider the merits of a policy designed to inject more greenhouse friendly fuel sources into our electricity supply mix. I ask you to consider the community's desire to see this target implemented. I also ask you to consider the great amount of consultation which has been undertaken in developing this legislation and the fact that this legislation meets many of industry's needs while still supporting Australia's overall greenhouse gas abatement goals of achieving maximum abatement with modest impact on our rate of economic growth and international competitiveness. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill, and I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Lee) adjourned.Bills18033R108618033Bill presented by Dr Stone, and read a first time.1803310:01:0018033Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Bill 2000 implements the penalty for non-compliance with the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000. The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000 establishes a requirement for wholesale purchasers of electricity to purchase increasing amounts of renewable energy. Parties who are not able to meet their obligation to secure sufficient renewable energy certificates will be able to elect to pay a shortfall payment to the government. This penalty will be redeemable if the shortfall is made up within three years from the shortfall being incurred. The government believes that a penalty is essential if businesses are to be encouraged to comply with the legislation. The penalty has been set at a level to support compliance and at the same time impose reasonable limits on the costs faced by businesses.I commend this bill and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Lee) adjourned.Miscellaneous180331803310:02:0018033McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I present the following paper: Australia's Health 2000, the seventh biennial health report of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.Bills18033R107318033Debate resumed from 21 June, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Stephen Smith moved by way of amendment:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House, recognising the fundamental importance of high quality and reliable telecommunications services to all Australians now and in the future:(1) condemns the Government for its continuing push towards the full privatisation of Telstra which will inevitably lead to a decline in services to rural and regional Australia;(2) recognises the importance of the Universal Service Obligation to the delivery of minimum communications services to rural and regional Australia;(3) notes that while the Government is holding up competitive tendering as the solution to rural and regional service delivery difficulties and as a justification of the full privatisation of Telstra; (a) its plan is limited to two pilot projects in undefined areas the results of which will not be known for a number of years; and (b) its decision to require Telstra to remain as a safety net provider of last resort in the areas to be covered by the pilot projects acknowledges the unique role of Telstra in the delivery of services to rural and regional Australia and the folly of pursuing full privatisation; (4) recognises that the Universal Service Obligation will need to encompass minimum digital data services in future; and(5) notes the wide Ministerial discretion given with respect of the calculation of the cost of the Universal Service Obligation, and the need for this to be on the basis of Australian Communication Authority advice”.10:03:0018034Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 is another piece of legislation which shows that Australia has a Commonwealth government which promises something before an election and delivers it immediately after. This legislation is a fulfilment of the obligation to assist particularly those in rural and regional Australia with regard to proceeds from the sale of the second tranche of Telstra for the provision of untimed local calls to consumers in extended zones who currently do not enjoy such a service. In fact, in the 1998 election campaign $150 million was promised, and of course it is being delivered for just that purpose.This particular bill amends part 2 of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999, and that is all to do with the universal service obligation regime. What we are trying to do here is, firstly, to enhance some industry certainty about just how the costs associated with this universal service obligation will in fact be returned upon over the next financial year. We want to ensure that the minister is able to determine exactly what the USO costs are in advance of each of the years. Also, we are supporting through this legislation the proposed tender of $150 million for the provision of untimed local calls, and we are therefore meeting our election obligation.There certainly is a lot of paranoia associated with this USO and suggesting that perhaps it is linked directly to ownership. But with so many telcos now operating in Australia there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why it needs to be Telstra and Telstra alone that delivers upon this universal service obligation. So this government is all about ensuring that consumers are feeling very much at ease with the idea that others may in fact be able to deliver more for the same amount, or perhaps even less over time than Telstra has been able to do. There are some on the government side and certainly those on the other side who constantly bay that if it is not Telstra it is not telecommunications, that the Telstra badge has to be seen on anything to do with the delivery of telephone services, particularly in rural and regional Australia. I say to those people very clearly that by constantly trying to prop up the need to have a Telstra badge on anything to do with telecommunications they are in fact doing themselves out of the wide range of possibilities that legitimately could be delivered as a result of the level of competition, backed up by the certainty contained within this Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Amendment Bill. There is no reason whatsoever for people to fear that not having Telstra in their town, or Telstra not being the provider of the universal service obligation, should deliver a poorer standard. If one has a look at some of the things being proposed by a couple of different companies currently on the agenda, we can see, even for people in the most remote parts of Australia, the prospect of full Internet services such as those provided in the inner-city parts of our major cities, and the very best of telephone services, at untimed local call rates, within extended zones as a result of this legislation. We can see vastly improved television services, even down to pay television services, although I suspect that those of us who subscribe would think they have now got 36 channels where they cannot find anything worth while to watch instead of just four or five. As well, importantly, there is streaming audio, that is, radio services that they are not currently enjoying. I think that is of particular consequence to a lot of people, particularly in the very remote parts of Australia, those very isolated 40,000 subscribers out in the far extended zones. This government, through this legislation, is fulfilling an election obligation. This government, through this legislation, is also providing some certainty for today and into the future as far as telecommunication service standards are concerned. The government is also responding to those who would like to try to create mischief, day in day out, about whether or not some of the proceeds from the sale of the second tranche of Telstra are in fact being delivered in the bush. I am very confident that, as a result of this legislation, amongst other measures which this government has put in place, people in the remotest part of rural and regional Australia are going to enjoy a greater sense of understanding and certainty as far as their telecommunication services are concerned.Therefore, this bill is a very important piece of legislation. It is undoing what was a failure of those opposite for 13 years—it is addressing the plight of customers in extended zones of Australia. The Labor Party did nothing during those 13 years to provide any of the certainty that we are providing in this legislation. The Labor Party turned its back on rural and regional Australia who, in turn, rightly responded in elections in 1996 and 1998 by turning their backs on the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party is the organisation which opposed the T2 sale. Therefore, at the heart of the legislation, it opposes the measures that are contained within it. So anybody listening to the parliament today or reading the Hansard, for whatever reason, and those in the galleries need to understand very clearly that the Australian Labor Party is not in favour of extending the sort of customer protection and certainty, improved services and so forth, that are being offered as a result of this legislation. That is a statement of absolute fact.When you look at what is happening in the cities of Australia, you see the need for some action there as well. Standards need to be upheld. The government's measures in regard to telecommunications and the provision of mobile phone telephony and the roll-out procedures that are following need to be enhanced by action, particularly from the Australian Labor Party in the city of Brisbane. It is astonishing to me to find that, 3½ years after legislation to do with mobile telephony and the roll-out of infrastructure was introduced into this place and passed, we are still finding planning provisions not being fully followed through by the Brisbane City Council. As an agent of the state government of Queensland, the Brisbane City Council was given powers under the Telecommunications Act 1997 to look at the planning criterion attached to the roll-out of infrastructure. We did not hear any complaints from Lord Mayor Soorley in Brisbane prior to the formation of the Howard government in 1996 about how this infrastructure was impacting upon the amenity of people in the city of Brisbane—no comment at all about impact—but, of course, we do these days. When the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts conducted a review of the operations of the 1997 telecommunications determination governing low-impact facilities—the review was intended to report on any difficulties that may have been encountered in its practical application and identify ways in which these problems might be addressed—it is astonishing to note that the Brisbane City Council did not even present a written submission, while a number of other local authorities around Australia did. The reason I raise this is that the Brisbane City Council is now adopting a `We didn't have an opinion then but now we do' approach to this whole argument. The Brisbane City Council is basically saying to the people of Brisbane, `We actually don't want the responsibility to plan for telecommunications infrastructure. We don't want to protect the citizens of Brisbane by providing them with the proper processes and insisting that telecommunications companies themselves keep in mind the consumer and general citizenry feeling about infrastructure.' I suspect the time may come when, if the Brisbane City Council cannot live up to what has been their obligation for 3½ years under legislation passed by this place, we would always be prepared to review that legislation to give greater instruction to the Brisbane City Council.Just as various telcos gain the possibility of tendering for universal service obligation under this act, various telcos are currently rolling out infrastructure through my electorate of Moreton, through the southern suburbs of Brisbane. I have to say in this place that organisations such as One.Tel need to hang their heads in shame because the great irony is that in rural and regional Australia they are screaming out for infrastructure, while in the cities of Australia organisations like One.Tel are approaching this thing like a bunch of cowboys. They are rolling out infrastructure with very little regard for the feelings of those who actually have to accommodate it—the neighbours of that infrastructure. Organisations like One.Tel should take very much to heart my warning to them; that is, if they do not pick up their act; if they do not start to consider the neighbours of their infrastructure and the placement of their infrastructure; if they do not adopt an approach of proper consultation and of dealing through channels; and if they keep trying to hide behind the Telecommunications Act—saying that a telecommunications mobile phone tower is low impact and therefore a council should not intervene, and the councils themselves accepting that sort of explanation without any challenge—then organisations like One.Tel without any great commonsense are going to find themselves being come down upon very heavily, I believe, by laws in this place. I make the point that, if you want to talk about consumer protection and service standards, matters contained in a positive way within this bill, I will be quite willing to revisit legislation previously passed in this place to ensure that consumers and residents who are next door to particular infrastructure, or who may be threatened in their own minds by the fact that they are going to be placed next door to infrastructure, are themselves also protected from the telecommunications roll-out regime. So One.Tel and others, Optus included, can consider themselves on notice. Their conduct has been very obvious to many of us who have city based electorates. They need to pick up their act in a big way. What is at the heart of the particular aspect I have raised is the credibility of the entire telecommunications industry. There are those who wish to see—understandably so—greater access to telecommunications possibilities, particular those in rural and regional Australia who are screaming out for it. This bill provides for that. There are those of us who live in cities who also want to see greater possibilities and ready access to the various advances that come our way through telecommunications. For those who live next door to infrastructure or for those who are not being well served by their councils properly zoning the infrastructure placement, such as is the case in the city of Brisbane, we cannot allow them to become victims or not-thought-about commodities in the urgent roll-out which is occurring, particularly in organisations such as One.Tel. Corporate citizens should be good in this country. If they are not, legislators have a role to play. I do not for a moment hesitate in representing vigorously the views of my constituents in this or any other forum about these sorts of matters.The bill before us is, I believe, of great benefit to a great number of Australians who have been crying out for such benefits. The bill before us provides the sort of certainty, promised before an election and delivered upon after an election, that a lot of people in rural and remote Australia demand. I still say that people in city Australia also demand a certain amount of certainty, consumer protection, service standards and corporate standards which do not seem to be coming from too many of the telcos in their current roll-out hysteria. I commend the bill to the House.10:15:0018036Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate and to perhaps get the previous speaker to understand that his view about what regional and remote Australia might need in relation to telecommunications and what are the standards they currently enjoy is nowhere near the fact. He really has no appreciation of what is happening in terms of telecommunications in isolated areas of Australia. There are probably only two or three other people in this place who have any first-hand experience of the current failure of the telecommunications infrastructure that Telstra supplies in regional and remote areas. As the member for the Northern Territory, I am particularly concerned about the lack of service that is currently provided in remote areas of northern Australia. The Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 has two principal objectives: to enable the minister to determine a universal service provider's net universal service costs for up to three yeas in advance and to give carriers tendering for the $150 million allocation to extend access to untimed local calls in remote Australia some certainty about the universal service regime that will apply if they win the tender. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be aware that there has been a Senate inquiry into this issue and that the Labor members of the Senate committee have dissented in the report. In their dissension they have acknowledged the fundamental importance of the universal service obligation in ensuring the delivery of minimum telecommunications services to rural and regional Australia. They have condemned the government for its continuing push for the full privatision of Telstra, a policy which would inevitably lead to a decline in services to rural and regional Australia.I will come back to the remainder of the issues they raised shortly, but I want to pick up on this issue of the decline in services. I have in front of me a letter from a constituent to the member for Arnhem in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, John Ah Kit. This letter relates to a lady who lives in an Aboriginal community on the northern coast of the Northern Territory and Arnhem Land called Milingimbi. The previous speaker, the member for Moreton, knows a bit about Brisbane, but he knows bugger all about the bush. He certainly knows nothing about Milingimbi and he certainly knows nothing about the standard of services that prevails there. I wonder if the minister at the table, Mr McGauran, knows where Milingimbi is or if he is aware of the concerns that have been expressed by Milingimbi residents about the failure of Telstra to provide telecommunications infrastructure. In this correspondence to John Ah Kit, this person outlines in some detail the sorry story that she has experienced in relation to the provision of a telephone. This goes back to November 1999, when a cable had been laid by Telstra in a trench from the fence to her house. But there was no trench extending from the property to the Telstra box. Telstra advised that they did not dig such trenches, that it was up to someone else to do that and that she should go to see the local CDEP team. She did and, unfortunately, they were not able to do it at that time. She then spoke to Telstra and advised them that the CDEP team would be unable to dig the trench over the Christmas break. Telstra said they would not do it.In February 2000, she phoned Telstra about supplying a minisat phone, as she was unable to communicate with her family via telecommunications, apart from when she was at work at the local clinic. When she wrote this letter, she expressed her exasperation at the failure of Telstra to deliver a service. Telstra were initially contacted on 7 October 1999. It is now 22 June 2000 and she still has no telephone. This sorry story is repeated time and time again across remote Australia. It is not the fault of the Telstra personnel, who do their utmost out of Darwin and other areas of the Northern Territory to provide services. The fact is that it is an absolute failure at the management level of Telstra to provide appropriate resources so that these people can do their jobs properly. When she wrote this letter to John Ah Kit in March—and I am advised this morning that there is still no telephone—she said:I have worked at Milingimbi for almost three years now, but my family live in Tasmania. Without a telephone I am feeling isolated. ... My mother is a frail elderly lady, who has poor health. I have had to give other people's telephone numbers to family members in case they need to contact me urgently after hours. These friends have said they will relay messages to me at night if needed. If I want to talk with family and friends I have to go to the Health Centre of a night to ring. It is extremely frustrating being unable to access the phone when and how I wish.She makes the point:There are two nurses at Gapuwiyak Health Centre—Gapuwiyak is away from Milingimbi, also in north-east Arnhem Land—who are also waiting for phones.She makes the point that they have been given satellite phones. What is interesting about this statement is her observation about the paucity of government policy. She makes this comment: Final comment! John Howard says that services in the bush will not be diminished. My answer is that these services cannot be diminished where there are no services.I think that is a fairly succinct appreciation of what is happening in many parts of remote Australia. Telstra is failing to do the job that it is supposed to do, currently failing to carry out its obligations under the USO. Here we have a proposal from this government that, if we go down the road of tendering out the USO on privatised Telstra, somehow or another these people will get services. I remind the House where these people live. They live in small pockets of 200, 500 or 800 people scattered right across Northern Australia in very isolated communities. They are not the cream. It is a high cost exercise to provide these services. Unfortunately, as a result of government policy and as a result of the inadequacy in Telstra senior management and their unwillingness to provide the appropriate resources, these services are not being provided.You would be aware, I hope, Minister, of where Groote Eylandt is. Groote Eylandt is not by any means a poor community. There is a large mine on Groote Eylandt. The Angurugu community government council, which is away from the mining settlement, was promised a fibre-optic cable at August of last year. In the early 1980s Telstra did something which was unprecedented and outlayed tens of millions of dollars to put in microwave transmissions systems across Northern Australia. But, whilst it was very important and very useful at the time it was introduced, because hitherto people had no access to a telephone at all, unfortunately that technology is so outdated that it cannot carry the load. It certainly cannot carry the data passing across telephone lines to get basic services like the Internet or even faxes. At the Angurugu council, the service to the community has been extremely poor for some time and, despite the fact that they were promised by Telstra that they would have a fibre-optic link by August of last year, there is no fibre-optic link. The council were advised yesterday that the cable would not be provided until next financial year because there was a budget overrun. Do you think that would happen if it were in the honourable member for Bennelong's electorate or the minister at the table's electorate? The fact is that the government, through Telstra, is failing in its responsibilities to these Australian citizens who are not being given appropriate recognition in terms of the services they require and should expect to get from Telstra. Who is responsible for this? The government.No-one I have spoken to in my electorate believes that they will get any benefits out of the full privatisation of Telstra. They say, as my constituent has said, that really what we need is services. They will only be provided by dint of direction, not some vague undertaking that somehow or another a privatised Telstra with all its commercial imperatives will provide these loss making services to communities. We know they will not, yet we have ministers prepared to stand up at this table here and in other places in this building and outside and baldly try and explain to the Australian population the benefits that will be achieved by the full privatisation of Telstra. We know that is far from the truth.It does not stop there. I have had cause recently in this place to talk about the way in which Telstra sold off a portion of its business by stealth. Telstra used to provide Commander phones. Telstra sold off that business to a joint venture company, of which Telstra owns 30 to 35 per cent, with another company called Plessey Communications. They formed a new organisation called PlesTel. They did not tell their clients—certainly they did not tell their clients in Northern Australia—that the responsibility for providing Commander phone systems had been commercialised and deprivatised and sold off to another organisation. People who had been the clients of Telstra had the expectation that Telstra would carry out its responsibilities, fix, repair and replace their Commander phone systems. In a number of communities in Northern Australia this is not taking place. I have recounted here before an instance where a community organisation rang Telstra and asked them if they could come and put in—this happened only recently—a new Commander phone system. This community is about an hour's flying time out of Nhulunbuy in north-east Arnhem Land and about 1½ hours flying time by light plane out of Darwin. It is a place which is inaccessible for much of the year because of rain. The only way you can get there is by barge or by aeroplane. Telstra has technicians who work in these remote communities. Indeed, they have a helicopter which is based out of Nhulunbuy to provide services to these remote areas. Where they provide the services they are provided well by the technicians fixing problems and putting in phones. But the point is that they do not have sufficient resources to do the job that is required, as has been demonstrated by this situation at Millingimbi. I go back to this Commander phone system. The organisation rings Telstra in Darwin. Telstra says, `We will get back to you the next day.' They do not get a call from Telstra; they get a call from another company, the company that is a PlesTel agent in the Northern Territory. The company provides them with a quote for the provision of a new Commander phone system. The Commander phone system will cost them $2,500 to purchase—agreed, not a problem. That is what it would cost any person in Australia to purchase this system. They are told it will cost $300 for labour to put the system in place. They are then told that it will cost them $2,500 for transport for the technician to come from the company in Darwin to Nhulunbuy and then on-fly to the community to provide the service. Again, if you are the member for Bennelong, you do not have to worry about that, of course, because the PlesTel agent in Bennelong will not charge you travel time and certainly will not charge you the fuel costs. But, if you live in remote Australia and you want a new Commander phone system, as a result of the experiences identified in this community you can expect to pay the full tote odds for the travel of this technician from a company contracted by PlesTel—35 per cent owned by Telstra—to provide you with a service that Telstra used to provide. Up until February of this year Telstra technicians were able to do the work. Then they were told they were no longer to do the work. So, if you live in remote Australia and you want a new Commander phone system, instead of ringing Telstra and getting them to supply and fit it, you have to go to some other organisation and Telstra will not absorb the labour costs or the travel time in the pricing of the work. Is that fair? Is that reasonable? Yet this is what is happening under this government's telecommunications policy and under the current policies of Telstra management. It is both unfair and unreasonable for people who live in remote Australia to be expected to pay these costs. Yet this government is parading around the country saying `Somehow or another you will get nirvana out of the fact that we will privatise Telstra; you will get these huge benefits out of the way in which we are going to deal with the universal service obligation.' The fact is that they are not currently carrying out their obligations as they ought to be doing. Who was responsible for this? The government. I say to the government, and I say particularly to National Party members, such as the ministers across the table, that if they believe in their wildest dreams that people in the Northern Territory who live in remote communities or people who live in the remote north-west of Western Australia or northern Queensland or northern South Australia or far western New South Wales are fooled for one minute by the rhetoric about the sale of Telstra and what is in this bill then they are sadly mistaken and they will wear the cost when people come to cast their ballot at the next federal election. 10:35:0018039Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—There is another side to the argument that the member for the Northern Territory has been putting today. The member seems to think that there should be a fibre-optic cable up to every gum tree and every signpost in remote and regional Australia. IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—You are a dope. 10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member for the Northern Territory will withdraw that remark. IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—I beg your pardon. I withdraw. You are not a dope. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for the Northern Territory will be very careful in future in the way he behaves. HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—Just as it is unreasonable to expect that there should be a service station or a supermarket at the doorstep of every outback property, perhaps it is unreasonable to expect that there should be a fibre-optic cable at the doorstep of every outback property, but I guess that is for another time. I would like to concentrate on the good things that Telstra does. Certainly in their science and technology labs, which I have had the privilege of being able to see, they are doing leading science in the world—and this is Telstra. Their call centres—and I particularly acquaint the House with their call centres in River Keys in Townsville—are being internationally accredited as world's best practice in customer service. I can tell you that the `force from the north', as they call themselves in River Keys Call Centre, certainly have had their hands untied. They are doing extraordinarily well in providing first-class customer service, and good on them.The coalition believes that the most effective way to encourage price reductions, improvements in service and innovative products is to unleash the forces of competition in the telecommunications sector. I well remember that before March 1996 telecommunications in Australia were dominated by the existence of a government owned, overstaffed, non-customer-focused telecommunications giant with enormous market power—that is Telstra. Look at what has happened since the opening up of the telecommunications market to competition: a number of carriers have been established, prices have been driven down and there have been improvements in service. When you talk to the majority of consumers out there, they are very happy indeed—and prices are continuing to fall because the market has been opened up to true competition.As history has unfolded, the government have given the Australian community the opportunity to invest in this telecommunications giant. However, regional Australia will be best served as a result of the initiatives in this bill before the parliament. The Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 is an initiative to implement untimed local calls within Australia, particularly regional Australia. I can assure you that the people in North Queensland where I come from will very much welcome this particular move. In Townsville and Thuringowa, which I represent, this is not an issue. But it is certainly an issue not too many kilometres from the boundary of my electorate, and of course it is an issue for the entire top end of Queensland.The recent sale of the 16.6 per cent of Telstra in T2 has provided the government with the opportunity to use up to $150 million over three years to provide untimed local calls in extended zones in remote Australia. That will mean that telephone calls within an extended zone will be untimed local calls, which is something that just a short time ago could not have been believed. Also, $36 million has been available to provide untimed local call access through the Internet for all Australians. More than 99 per cent of Australian telephone users already have access to untimed local calls guaranteed by legislation. However, untimed local calls are unavailable or have been severely restricted for subscribers living in Telstra's so-called extended zones in remote Australia. There are 111 extended zones covering approximately 80 per cent of the Australian landmass and containing about 39,000 subscribers in total. Despite what the member for the Northern Territory has told this parliament, things are moving on for the better because Telstra, or whoever, is going to be able to provide a better service to those people living in the remotest parts of Australia.The restriction on untimed local calls reflects the limited capacity of Telstra's remote infrastructure, particularly the digital radio concentrator systems—the DRCSs—which have been installed for perhaps 10 years. They are currently used by around 12,000 subscribers. There is a limited capacity on this system because it is a radio system. It forces subscriber usage to be constrained to prevent severe congestion, and pricing is used as a rationing mechanism. To extend the benefits of untimed local calls to all Australians, the government have allocated $150 million from the second tranche sale of Telstra. This will upgrade remote telecommunications infrastructure to support the provision of untimed local calls within the extended zone. At the same time, calls from an extended zone to its community service town will be charged at a new `preferential rate' of 25c per 12 minutes. Subscribers in extended zones will be guaranteed untimed call access to the Internet, but that will not include ISP charges. What a terrific move forward for people in remote areas of Australia to have discounted access to their local community service town and to have untimed local calls. The decision to allocate the $150 million untimed local call access account by means of a competitive tender will optimise the benefits to remote Australia. It is going to be fascinating because it will provide a means of testing the claims of different carriers regarding their capability to serve these areas and their costs in doing so. Tenderers will be encouraged to optimise their tenders by nominating the terms on which they are willing to supply untimed local calls, preferential rate calls and untimed call access to the Internet. They will also be asked to nominate additional services and features that they are willing to offer. That is just a sentence, but there is an awful lot in that sentence because they are going to be asked to nominate additional services and features that they are willing to offer—perhaps things that not in the wildest dreams of people in remote Australia would they have ever thought they might now be able to have access to. It will be a fascinating process to see what the carriers actually tender to the government. This, I guess you could say, is competition at its best.In competing for the $150 million, it is proposed that tenderers be required to indicate the following: the ability to fulfil the government's basic service requirements in relation to untimed local calls, preferential rate calls and Internet access; a timetable for rollout, with tenderers being encouraged to show that they can provide early delivery of improved services to remote Australia—certainly early delivery is a point that the member for the Northern Territory commented on, and the government will be looking at that very closely—the ability to at least maintain other existing services and levels of service and their willingness to offer higher data rates—something that is very important these days—enhanced call handling facilities, revised call charging arrangements and any other additional services and features that a particular carrier may consider it appropriate to offer; the ability to meet specified pricing requirements, safeguards and guarantees against non-performance and so on; benefits for regional economic development and employment; and a long-term commitment to servicing remote Australia, including as a universal service provider. The servicing aspect is also critical. We have heard many stories. We heard some in the chamber this morning, though I think they are probably not particularly typical, and I hear them too, that it can take time. The government will be looking at this in the tender process. The request for tender containing full details of the scheme is currently being prepared.There has been much criticism directed at the coalition's efforts to privatise Telstra. That criticism is coming from the other side of this House and it has been strident. I understand that many of my colleagues on the other side, whom I talk to privately, perhaps share a different view from what they say publicly. It is very interesting that some of those who think logically and clearly, and who understand the arguments for and against in relation to the proposed full sale of Telstra, understand the benefits that the government has been enunciating. Of course, in the proposal for the full sale of Telstra the government has not done what the Labor Party did when it sold other Commonwealth enterprises. I think many of us were disappointed when Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank were sold and we saw the proceeds of those sales applied to recurrent expenditure rather than being invested for the long-term benefit of the Australian community. Certainly the government's intention in relation to the full sale of Telstra, if it proceeds, is to invest those proceeds and to make sure that all Australians have the benefit of the sale. I hear a lot of nonsense being talked about what might happen. I hear the emotional arguments about selling the family silver, but they do not stack up in the cold, hard light of day. They do not stack up on how Australians might benefit by the government divesting itself of a telecommunications carrier. My personal view—and I stress that it is a personal view—is that if Telstra is not sold quickly, its value will actually fall, because the other competition will come on, the other competition will do well and Telstra will lose its current market advantage. If the government were ever going to dispose of a telecommunications carrier, the optimum time is now. If the many shareholders—in fact, millions of Australians who are shareholders—in Telstra see the value of their shares fall because, for cynically political reasons, the opposition opposes the sale, that would be sad for them.Another point I would like to make is that Labor allowed Telstra and Optus to string cables across the suburbs of Australia without requiring planning permission. It presided over a cosy Telstra-Optus duopoly, which failed to deliver substantial price reductions and which left most of the cost savings from technological improvements in the pockets of the carriers, not the Australian consumers. Labor forced the abolition of the AMPS mobile phone system and took no steps whatsoever to secure a replacement for this vital communications service in the bush. Hundreds of thousands of rural and regional mobile phone users would have lost their mobile phone service in the year 2000 except for the very effective action taken by the coalition government.Labor failed to ensure that carriers provided a timely and efficient service to their customers and ignored the special needs of phone users in regional and rural areas of Australia. Of course, Labor bitterly opposed the coalition's plans to spend $250 million on improving telecommunications in regional Australia, and it promised in the 1998 election to take this money away from regional Australia if elected. I wonder how the member for the Northern Territory would respond to that. Labor has no policies in place in relation to telecommunications in rural and regional Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker, I put to you and to the parliament that this amendment bill will greatly benefit the communications system in remote Australia. It is an initiative to genuinely commit the government to servicing the people in rural and remote Australia.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I call the honourable Minister for Trade, minister for solving World Trade Organisation disputes involving Howe Leather, representing the minister for communications.10:52:0018042Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you, along with many other Australians, are very appreciative of the outcome for your workers at Thomastown. In summing up the debate on the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000, I thank all members for their contribution to the debate. It has been a constructive debate. The bill makes amendments to the universal service obligation regime to support important reforms in the delivery of the USO. The detail of these amendments has been spelt out in the second reading speech.One of the most significant aspects of this legislation is the amendments aimed at supporting the $150 million tender for the provision of untimed local calls in extended zones. Approximately 40,000 Australians currently do not have access to untimed local calls, something taken for granted by the majority of Australians. The coalition committed to address this inequity at the last election. This legislation supports this commitment. During its time in government the ALP did nothing to address this inequity. The $150 million tender is funded by the sale of the second tranche of Telstra. It forms part of the Telstra social bonus, which is nearly $1 billion, aimed at expanding employment, business, research and development, educational and social opportunities for all Australians. Along with the proceeds of the first sale of Telstra, more than $1 billion has been made available for important environmental works.The social bonus will expand access to regional, rural and remote Australia to improved telecommunications infrastructure. The amount of $150 million for untimed local calls is just one element of the social bonus. Other elements include $158 million for building IT strengths; $70 million for the Building Additional Rural Networks program; $45 million for the local government fund; $3 million to expand mobile phone coverage in South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania; $3 million to fund Net Alert; $10 million for the Trials in Innovative Government Electronic Regional Services project; $15 million for connecting Tasmanian schools; and, $120 million to establish the Television Fund. There will also be $70 million for rural transaction centres, $36 million to provide local call Internet access to all Australians and $25 million for continuous mobile phone coverage along 11 major highways. There will also be $20 million for telecommunications improvements on remote and isolated islands and $15 million for the Launceston broadband project. These programs build on the highly successful Networking the Nation program, a $250 million program funded from the sale of the first tranche of Telstra. It should be noted that the ALP voted against the social bonus at the last election. They also threatened to do away with Networking the Nation. Labor opposed our programs at the time. We have brought them before the parliament, but when they see these programs in action delivering real benefits, what do they do?5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—We are going to do away with the National Party at the next election.SU5Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILE—No, you will not be, not with programs like this that are seeing services rolled out in rural and regional Australia that the ALP could never dream of delivering and have never offered to the Australian public living outside the metropolitan areas. This bill, as I said at the outset, makes amendments to the universal service obligation regime to support important reforms. The provision of untimed local calls in extended zones in rural and regional Australia is one of those very important changes that we have fought for and is the subject of this legislation. We are not prepared to accept the opposition's proposed amendment, which adds nothing to the value of this bill. I commend the bill to the House.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Stephen Smith's amendment) stand part of the question.11:01:00The House divided.(Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) 73Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.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.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.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.61Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.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.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.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Zahra, C.J.Thomson, K.J. Zajra. A.C.Howard, J.W..Beazley, K.C..Elson, K.S.Macklin, J.L.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.18044Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.11:06:0018044Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I wish to raise an issue with respect to schedule 1, part 1, item 6 on page 3 of the bill. In the course of the second reading debate I raised the question as to what was the rationale behind the government making a qualitative difference between the winner of the $150 million tender automatically becoming the universal service provider for that area and competitive tendering generally, when in its pilot programs Telstra remains the provider of last resort. So there is a qualitative difference in the structure and framework of the government's policy that is affected in part by this piece of legislation which has the effect that the winner of the $150 million tender for the provision of extension of local call zones to remote areas becomes the USP—the universal service provider—for that area. That is a quantum leap and a qualitative leap from the way in which the government has structured its policy on the pilot programs for competitive tendering of universal service obligations generally.I raised this question in the second reading stage but it was not dealt with by the minister at the table. I was frankly surprised that the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, who formally represents the minister for communications, did not make a second reading response. He was in the chamber for the division but has fled again. I wonder whether the Minister for Trade, who is now at the table, might be able to illuminate for the House that qualitatively different policy distinction. (Extension of time granted) I know that the National Party generally is shaking in its grave, and I know generally that the National Party these days does not represent the National Party or the Country Party of old. I know that people in rural and regional Australia do feel somewhat let down by that, and I am sure they will send that very strong message to the minister at the table, to the minister who formally represents the minister for communications and to the Leader of the National Party in due course. But I would have thought, with great respect, that given that this was an issue I raised in the second reading debate, given that this was an issue that was raised by the Senate committee when the Senate dealt with this matter, and given that it is a serious, non-pejorative, non-political point, the government might have actually had the courtesy of apprising the Minister for Trade, the Deputy Leader of the National Party and the minister who came into this place to respond to the second reading debate of what is a serious public policy point. Under the government's own model, they have a qualitative distinction between the competitive tendering pilot program which they propose and a $150 million tender winner for extension of call zones to remote areas automatically becoming the universal service provider. There is a qualitative difference in the framework of the government's approach, and I would have thought the House was at least entitled to the courtesy of a modest reply.11:09:0018044Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—The member for Perth is expressing his indignation on this particular issue. Obviously the winner of the tender will be best placed to provide the important USO services, and the automatic declaration will ensure it has access to USO funds to assist in the provision of these services. Potential tenderers want to have certainty on this issue in order to frame their bids. It is fairly apparent.11:09:0018045Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The minister said that the winner of the $150 million tender would be best placed. But as I understand the legislation it does not put the winner of the tender in the position of being best placed; it confirms the winner of the tender as the USP. It may well be that the winner of the tender to provide the additional infrastructure may well be placed to be an alternative USO provider, but the fact that that company may be best placed because it has won the tender to extend the infrastructure does not give the answer to the qualitatively different question, which is—under the government's general framework policy, under their introduction of competitive tendering on a pilot program basis under the government's own policy—that in the pilot program for USO competitive tendering Telstra is required and compelled to remain in the marketplace as the USP provider safety net of last resort. Yet, in advance of the legislation which formally establishes the pilot projects, which formally requires that to reflect the government's stated policy announced on 23 March by the minister, the legislation does not say that the winner of the $150 million tender will be best placed; it says the winner of the $150 million tender will be the USP provider. There is a qualitative distinction and the minister has not given the answer.Bill agreed to.18045Bill (on motion by Mr Vaile)—by leave—read a third time.Bills18045R110118045Debate resumed from 21 June, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.11:11:0018045Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Excise Amendment (Compliance Improvement) Bill 2000:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:(1) this fresh demonstration of the Government's administrative style of drift followed by mad panic; and(2)F its failure to tackle tobacco excise compliance, and now contemptuously giving the House of Representatives and the public a mere 24 hours to consider this Bill before debating it”.For the opposition and the general public to be put in this situation is a travesty of parliamentary process. This represents a grossly inadequate time for consultation and is yet another example of the government treating this parliament and this community with utter contempt. Unfortunately, it is far from an isolated example. Yesterday we saw question time being cut short—just half the expected number of questions—in another example of lowering of parliamentary standards. Like a lot of other members I was disappointed with what occurred yesterday. I am disappointed that the government cut short question time and I am disappointed that they see fit to bring on a bill for debate today which was only released to the parliament and to the community yesterday. It is simply not possible for the opposition to come to a considered position. We will not have opportunities for meetings of the relevant caucus committee; we will not have opportunities for the shadow ministry to meet and determine a position; we will not have opportunities for the caucus to meet and determine a position on this bill, so we are simply put in the position of flying blind. The government might not care about the opposition's circumstances concerning this, but it is also a contempt on their own members. They introduce a bill but there is no opportunity for their own backbench committees and members of parliament to consider the implications of such a piece of legislation. There is no opportunity in the broader community for those who are affected by this piece of legislation to think about and consider its consequences. The Excise Amendment (Compliance Improvement) Bill 2000 enacts a number of measures designed to address tobacco excise avoidance and evasion. That principle is something which I strongly support and I am sure most of us would strongly support. Indeed, I will come to the fact that I have raised this issue in the parliament previously as a matter of concern. It is one thing to say that we all want to address tobacco excise avoidance and another thing altogether to say that we can or will approve of anything that the government dishes up. I have no doubt that there are people, particularly tobacco growers, who will be interested in this legislation and may well be affected in some fashion by it and that they would like the opportunity to consider this legislation and be consulted on it. I am aware, for example, that there are tobacco growers in the electorate of Indi, some of them particularly being in the Victorian state electorate of Benalla. Given Labor's recent excellent outcome in the state electorate of Benalla, the electorate of Indi is an electorate we might have our eyes on in the future. The present member, Mr Lieberman, has announced his intention to retire. The member is a gentleman and a scholar, but I think his departure from the parliament might give Labor added interest in the electorate of Indi. I think he would like the opportunity to go and consult with his tobacco growers about the impact of these measures on them. We would certainly like the opportunity to consult with people in the Myrtleford area and other areas about the impact of this legislation on them. Similarly, in the electorate of Leichhardt, up behind Cairns, there are issues in this legislation which will be of concern to people. There are suggestions, in the 24 hours that I have had to have a look at this legislation, that people can go to jail for possessing tobacco seeds. I suspect that there will be things that people will want to comment on in terms of the detail of this legislation. Instead, we have the government treating the electorates of Indi and Leichhardt and the people in those electorates with absolute contempt—introducing this bill yesterday, bringing it on for debate and rushing it through the House of Representatives today.You have to compare this with proper parliamentary practice elsewhere. In the Victorian parliament, to which I used to belong, while there was a period during the Kennett government when it was open slather and bills were simply rushed through without opportunity for debate or scrutiny, the general practice in that parliament, which it has since resumed, is that no bills are brought on for debate for a period less than two weeks. So, once you have introduced a bill, there are opportunities for people out in the community to comment; there are opportunities for political parties, even Independent members of parliament, to form a judgment about the content of the legislation and to come into that parliament to make their contribution concerning it. That is the situation which applies in Victoria. It is the situation which applies in the Senate and, no doubt, in many other chambers. To bring on a bill 24 hours after it has been introduced simply is not good enough.It is part of this government's characteristic of introducing legislation on the run. The government knows perfectly well that this is not an appropriate way to do business. Only yesterday I moved some amendments to legislation concerning financial sector reform which the government accepted and the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation said, in accepting the amendments, that the reason he was able to accept those amendments was that we had given him notice. He said:... one of the reasons why we have not traditionally accepted the Labor Party's amendments is that we find out about them when we get in here. On this occasion ... the Labor Party actually sent us the amendments before we came into the House. That gave us an opportunity to consider the impact of the amendments, to put them through the appropriate processes within the government, to consider them in detail and then, where possible, to accept them.So, through those comments, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation understands only too well the significance of providing notice, yet his government is prepared to come in here and introduce a bill yesterday and expect us to debate it today. This is part of a government which is in legislative panic mode. We have wave after wave of taxation legislation coming through the parliament. I find it astonishing that those opposite, who profess to believe in small government and talk about deregulation, are giving us legislation by the kilogram, measured in kilograms rather than in pages or numbers of amendments. Indeed, there is so much legislation going through the parliament that the parliament cannot be given adequate time to consider it. Apparently, according to the government, there just is not time. It reminds me of the White Rabbit in Alice in Wonderland—`Goodness me, goodness me! Look at the time, look at the time!' We have legislation coming through this place by the truckload. It is legislation which has to be amended on the run because the government has not considered it adequately before it has introduced it into the parliament. So, during this week in bills that I have had carriage of, we have been hit with, in one case, 77 amendments on the run to legislation which dealt with potential capital gains tax liabilities for self-managed superannuation funds and, in another piece of legislation changing the government's new tax system—GST based legislation—34 amendments. Last night they introduced amendments of their own to the financial sector reform legislation. If the government introduces its legislation in haste, it will find that the legislation will have drafting defects and it will simply have to come back to the chamber to amend that legislation. In this case, we are not even being given or afforded the opportunity to determine those legislative defects, because this bill will be rushed through the parliament without proper opportunity for scrutiny. I cannot register too strongly my concern at the way this government is doing business and is treating this parliament with contempt.The legislation endeavours to crack down on the issue of tobacco excise avoidance. This is an issue which people have been drawing to the attention of the government for some time. I would like to ask the government how long they have known about this problem, what representations they have received and what action they have taken concerning it. For example, Philip Morris wrote to me at the end of May, providing a copy of a report which they had provided to the government. It was titled `Chop Chop: A report on the manufacture and sale of illegal tobacco in Australia'. They made these representations because they described government tobacco policy as being in crisis, with existing government policy driving the creation of a booming black market in tobacco that operates outside of revenue raising and health policy initiatives. They estimated the value of the illegal tobacco market, the chop chop market, as being in excess of $380 million per annum, and they said that it was costing governments more than $300 million per annum in lost revenue, of which some $280 million was lost excise. Philip Morris said:Illegal tobacco is available in many tobacconists and independently owned retail outlets. ... Those involved in the illegal tobacco trade do not consider themselves subject to the same regulatory controls as legitimate operators. As a result, the unchecked growth of the illegal tobacco market and the unchecked distribution channels it creates threaten Federal, State and Territory policies and initiatives enshrined in the National Tobacco Strategy, such as juvenile smoking prevention campaigns, government mandated controls on “tar”, nicotine and carbon monoxide levels, and the application of health warnings and other mandatory packaging requirements.They describe this issue as one of `significant concern to the Australian tobacco manufacturers'. The report said that despite the large sums involved—the estimated $280 million in excise evasion:... no new or dedicated resources have been applied to address this growing problem and, if left unchecked, Chop Chop has the potential to dramatically escalate and become an entrenched problem for government revenue, retailers and the tobacco industry.They also suggested that as the illegal tobacco market becomes increasingly organised, it would include the involvement of crime syndicates and other criminal organisations. Their submission centred primarily on the illegal tobacco, or chop chop, trade, but they said:... the focus on the crime impacting on the tobacco industry should in no way be lessened. Today, manufacturers, retailers and suppliers of legitimate tobacco products are facing substantial costs associated with security and protection for their product and their staff. They traced this problem back to late 1997. They said:The sudden growth of the illegal tobacco market can be traced back to the abolition of State Licence Fees (SLF) ... Under the SLF, illegal traders took advantage of the loop-holes in the laws for the exporting and subsequent re-importing of tobacco products to exploit the different tax levels. A successful High Court challenge to the SLF in August 1997 effectively ended this trade.The report goes on to say that at the same time: ... the Australian tobacco manufacturers were reducing their demand for domestic leaf, resulting in an over-supply of tobacco leaf, translating to readily available tobacco leaf to non-legitimate buyers. The wholesale price for Chop Chop ranges from between $45 to $80 per kilogram, with certain retailers selling the product in resealable plastic bags containing 50 grams for approximately $8. This compares to the retail price for legitimate roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco of $16. Continuous product improvements of Chop Chop have led to a much improved final product, increased variety and a marked increase in average retail prices making the business more lucrative to new and existing players ... ... ... ...... the steady demand for illegal leaf has allowed Chop Chop dealers to purchase quality leaf at a premium price above the market rate paid by the legitimate tobacco manufacturers.The report went on to say:Market intelligence suggests that Chop Chop is now available in a majority of tobacconists and independently owned retail outlets. The manufacturing and distribution operations have become quite sophisticated through the acquisition of state of the art cutting and processing equipment. In addition, cigarette-manufacturing equipment is being imported to make tailor-made cigarettes to complement the burgeoning trade in loose leaf tobacco.Their industry calculations were that chop chop accounted for a volume of anywhere between 1,000 to 1,200 tonnes per annum. To give that some perspective, the legitimate roll-your-own tobacco market was 1,400 tonnes per annum. So the illegal market was nearly 70 to 80 per cent of the legitimate roll-your-own market. Those retailers who do not stock chop chop have suggested that the product is impacting on their turnover of branded tobacco products by as much as 25 per cent. That tends to encourage legitimate retailers to participate in the distribution of chop chop to try to protect their livelihood. Clearly, from the point of view of the Commonwealth, the key issue here is that about $280 million in tobacco excise is being avoided annually through the illicit sale of tobacco. This report went on to say:The manufacturers, with the support of tobacco grower organisations, have made repeated representations to Government at all levels, including meetings with Federal and State Ministers, Ministerial Advisers and representatives from the Australian Taxation Office and Australian Customs Service.They made all those representations to government, and they said in their report:Regrettably, at this stage there has been a general reluctance to adopt any serious measures to address illegal tobacco despite the large level of forgone excise. They noted that the Customs Service had been involved in a couple of raids on illegal tobacco operations, but they said that those raids `have not made any significant in-roads into curbing the illegal tobacco trade'. They made a number of recommendations for government action, and concluded that:Despite these recommendations and some recent raids and seizures, the resources being applied to this serious problem do not in any way reflect the level of forgone revenue to the Government, retailers and the tobacco industry.That to me was all too familiar, because I had been advised earlier in the year that the Australian Taxation Office had dropped the ball concerning fuel excise avoidance, petrol excise avoidance and the rackets concerning fuel substitution. When I drew those concerns to public attention, the first reaction of the Taxation Office and the Assistant Treasurer was that everything was under control. But, when the New South Wales Minister for Consumer Affairs, Liberty Oil and other organisations produced incontrovertible evidence that fuel substitution was a major scandal, the government was forced to act, and we have debated previously a couple of bills that the government has introduced to try to address the problem of fuel substitution. In reading that report, I have become concerned that we have been witnessing another fuel excise avoidance scandal, that is to say, a government which has not been cracking down on tobacco excise avoidance and not making sure that that revenue is obtained. Indeed, people in a position to know some of those things have described to me a tobacco excise scam which goes along the following lines. A person who purchases Australian produced cigarettes for export is not required to pay the tobacco excise providing certain conditions are met. They have to complete export documentation, so they represent to the Taxation Office and to the Customs office that these cigarettes are for export. They complete the export documentation, which is called an ECN, an export control number. That is done on computer. That lists the details of the item being exported, its destination and the vessel that it is being exported on. They can, however, get a release of the cigarettes into their controlled storage, whereupon it has to be exported on the vessel listed within 30 days. If they miss the vessel, they are obliged to supply an amended entry with the new vessel details. The cigarettes are supposed to be stored at premises declared to the Australian Customs Service. This does not have to be a bond warehouse, as they are released on the condition that they will be exported. Verification is the responsibility of the Customs Service where it is a duty matter, but for Australian manufactured cigarettes it is a tax office matter, as excise may be applicable. What has been suggested to me is that there has been very little checking of the cigarettes. The tax office has had insufficient staff and resources to do this. I have described to the House on many occasions my concern that the tax office has been so focused on the GST that many other areas of its responsibility have been left to go to rack and ruin. It has been alleged that this issue of checking of cigarettes is another of them. The usual scam is to substitute the cigarettes with some other material, usually some grocery item for the export destination. The cigarettes are then sold into home consumption while the container goes onto the ship. You have to ask yourself, thinking about this, why the cigarettes are allowed to be released at all. They should go to a certain area and be packed into a container under supervision. That container should be sealed and the seal verified on loading into the vessel. Even more seriously than that, the tax office took over excise responsibilities from Customs two years ago. It seems to me that, particularly in relation to fuel but probably also here, they have not been up to the task given them. You have to wonder whether they are the right people to be handling this task, given that they are simply too overloaded and too focused on the GST to do this issue justice. I express the concern that what we have been witnessing with tobacco excise avoidance is exactly the same thing we saw in relation to the fuel substitution scandal. The government comes in here with legislation and no doubt it will say, `But we are acting to address these problems, we are acting to crack down on tobacco excise avoidance. Here is our legislation.' But this simply takes us back to 1997 and 1998, when the government announced, with considerable fanfare, that it was going to act to crack down on fuel substitution. I remind the House, seeing that my colleague the member for Cunningham is here, that when the government announced a crackdown on fuel substitution the member for Cunningham, a very generous person, said in debate, `Minister, I was just singing your praises for the budget initiative last night with respect to the crackdown on dangerous fuel substitution. Now that you are here, let me congratulate you face to face.' What then happened was that, having said they were going to crack down on fuel substitution, responsibility was passed across from Customs to the tax office, and the tax office dropped the ball. Customs had found with their own checking that about one in every 10 samples of fuel was the subject of fuel substitution, that it disclosed the marker that indicated fuel substitution was going on. You would think that if you were catching people out on one in every 10 occasions you would ramp up that activity. Instead of ramping it up, the tax office abandoned it. They said, `This isn't really working.' In fact, they stopped the testing involving a fleet of trucks, sold off a couple of the trucks and put the rest into mothballs, even though the testing had been very successful. As I said before, they carried out 551 tests and in 52 cases they found that the marker was present in the fuel. When I complained about their inaction concerning this matter, Tax Commissioner Carmody described the idea of testing for fuel substitution as Boys' Own Annual stuff and ridiculed this idea. The point here is that the government is giving itself the power to test to ascertain whether the chop chop racket is going on, but it depends on the tax office actually going out and doing it. So, if Tax Commissioner Carmody regards this as Boys' Own Annual stuff, we have to be concerned about whether we will not have another fuel substitution racket on our hands. We will certainly be scrutinising the government to see that it does carry out the activities that it says it will carry out in moving this legislation. This is quite complex legislation and significant changes are being made. I will indicate a few of them briefly. Under the current law there is registration of producers of tobacco leaf without qualification, but under the new law we will have licensing of producers of tobacco seed, plant and leaf only if qualifying criteria are satisfied. Under the current law we have registration of dealers in tobacco leaf without qualification; under the new law we have that licensing only if qualifying criteria are satisfied. Under the current law the licensing of manufacturers is subject to any limitation being specified; under the new law there will be licensing of manufacturers of excisable goods only if qualifying criteria are satisfied and subject to any limitation specified. Indeed, under the current law we have revocation of licence only in limited circumstances; under the new law we have an ability to suspend or cancel licences if certain conditions are not satisfied. These changes are clearly substantial. We think it is scandalous that this legislation is going through without the opportunity for those who are affected by these issues to comment on them.I mentioned earlier that the government had received representations from Philip Morris and others expressing concern about this issue. In a speech to the parliament about a month ago, I pointed out the concerns of Philip Morris and others regarding the chop chop issue and we now find the government moving to introduce legislation. To the extent that my raising it in the parliament has contributed to the government taking action, that is welcome, but we and everybody else are entitled to proper scrutiny of the detail of this legislation.I also indicate to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration that I think the government should provide to the House indications of how much revenue the illegal tobacco market, the chop chop market, has been costing the government each year. We also need information about when the government's attention was first drawn to this issue and what action the government took on being advised of this problem. In relation to each of those questions, we think there ought to be a response from the government. We think this matter should be the subject of more detailed consideration and clearly in the Senate that is what we will be moving to. We will not be opposing the legislation now before the House. We think that action to attack tobacco excise avoidance is appropriate and we have called for it, but we think that we need to be able to consider this legislation in more detail than we are able to as a result of the government introducing it yesterday and bringing it on for debate today. That is a contempt of the parliament and we have condemned it with the second reading amendment that we moved.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—You don't believe that.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Mr Deputy Speaker, I regard it as a matter of profound regret that the government displays so little respect for parliament as an institution and so little respect for the electorate at large that it thinks it is all right to bring in legislation yesterday and demand that we debate it today. It shows contempt for the opposition; it shows contempt for the government's own party room, which has had no opportunity to consider it; and it shows contempt for the broader community, including those in the electorates of Indi and Leichhardt, and tobacco growing areas where there will be quite a lot of interest in the detail of this legislation and just how it will impact on their operations which by and large are legitimate. I urge the House to support my second reading amendment. I hope that the parliamentary secretary may be able to provide us with some information on the revenue involved when this matter was first brought to the government's attention and what its response was. (Time expired)10000Mossfield, Frank (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Is the amendment seconded?WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—I second the amendment.11:42:0018051Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—The Excise Amendment (Compliance Improvement) Bill 2000 is essentially about excise evasion, but I cannot let this opportunity pass without reminding the House that tobacco consumption in Australia today reflects a personal, social and economic tragedy, affecting us all as individuals, families and taxpayers. The debate about smoking brings the right to personal freedom into collision with the cost of public health. Wherever you stand in this debate, there is no denying that the use and abuse of licit let alone illicit substances comes at a very high personal and public cost. There are some successes in the attempts by government to prevent the tragic consequences of tobacco use from occurring. The Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer has estimated that the first six months of the national tobacco campaign resulted in a $24 million saving for the health budget; in other words, Australians avoided $24 million worth of illness and disease by modifying their behaviour in accordance with that campaign. Only last week, the Minister for Health and Aged Care unveiled a new advertising campaign intended to make smokers aware of the health hazards of tobacco smoke to eyes, a topic not previously well known to smokers, or perhaps not understood. As an illustration of the damage done by tobacco in this regard alone, an estimated 20,000 Australians have macular degeneration attributed to smoking and 8,000 of them are likely to be blinded in both eyes, most likely, according to the evidence, because of their smoking habits. This is a pretty devastating statistic. Yet, despite the best intentions on the part of our minister and our health authorities, a significant proportion of the Australian population, especially young women, continue to jeopardise their health by smoking.The costs of smoking are well known and, because they have a direct impact on the state through additional cost to public health budgets, it has long been a principle of government that tobacco ought to be subject to taxation by excise in the same manner as alcohol or petrol. Excise applied to tobacco increases the cost of its use, thereby driving down demand, particularly amongst the young, simultaneously compensating the community for the external cost associated with tobacco consumption—that is the theory.In recent years the Commonwealth has made many improvements to its excise regime for tobacco. Perhaps the most significant development in this regard has been the shift to a per stick duty from 1 November last year. Previously, excise and duties calculated according to weight and value had led to the production of large quantities of large pack, light cigarette products. This development in marketing and sales had drawn more and more young people into tobacco consumption, and there were detrimental effects on health across the spectrum of users. The introduction of per stick duty rates for products containing 0.8 grams of tobacco or less—cigarettes or very small cigars and bidis, I think they are called—has since stymied what I see as a very unfortunate development.Nonetheless, the heavy excise applied to tobacco products in recognition of their real cost has given impetus to the growth in the illicit trading of tobacco products—that is, the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products without the appropriate rate of excise. Contributing to the expansion of this illegal activity has been the decline in demand by licensed manufacturers for domestically grown tobacco leaf and the increased excise duty applied by the Commonwealth as a replacement for state licensing and related fees struck down by the High Court in August 1997. That was when the states' business franchise fees on tobacco products were held to be unconstitutional. I was fascinated to hear the member for Wills quote so extensively from a report commissioned by a massive tobacco manufacturer in this country in support of his criticism that this government is not doing enough to protect the tobacco manufacturers from the impact of the illicit tobacco business. I am sure he has received quite a number of lobbying documents from tobacco companies, and it is interesting that he relies so heavily on this one.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—It is the big end of town.83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—They have quite a record in that regard. Why don't we put that report and the stirring but oh so hypocritical defence of the tobacco manufacturers by the member for Wills in a proper perspective? While the Excise Act does currently provide for sanctions against activities that foster this illicit trade or that exploit permissions which have the effect of either deferring duty or increasing the risk of duty evasions, those sanctions are seen to be inadequate to deal with the problem at hand. For this reason, the bill before the House makes a number of amendments to the Excise Act so as to strengthen the hand of the Commonwealth in ensuring the integrity of Commonwealth revenue and, on the other hand, safeguarding public health.Whereas existing controls are limited to the regulation of tobacco leaf after it has been stripped from the plant, the new measures regulate the growing of tobacco as an activity in its entirety. As an example, only a licensed producer will now be permitted to produce tobacco seed, plants and leaf. As part of this reform, a comprehensive licensing scheme will be introduced that allows for the granting, suspension and cancellation of licences in certain circumstances. The new system will also require that the movement of tobacco leaf, which is currently unregulated, be authorised only by permit, with identification labels attached to tobacco bails prior to transfer from a producer's premises unless express permission is otherwise granted. Penalties will be introduced for unauthorised transfers and for the counterfeiting of labels. Commonwealth officers will, under the amended law, be able to stop and search for excisable goods or tobacco leaf at any place where there is reasonable suspicion of an offence being committed.The law as it presently stands applies penalties to those found guilty of evading excise that absolutely pale in comparison to the potential gains from the trade. In response, this bill creates a two-tier structure with some offence provisions that allow for increased maximum penalties, including two-year maximum prison terms where the requisite mental element is established. A fixed infringement notice for 20 penalty units will also be introduced for selling or possessing tobacco on which appropriate duty has not been paid. The maximum penalty for the movement of excisable goods without authority or permission will be raised from the present $500 to 500 penalty points.Smoking represents an extraordinary cost, not simply to the coffers of the Treasury but to every family without a father or a mother and every person without a lung or a limb. It is incumbent upon governments to discourage its use and to ensure that the full and total costs of tobacco use are recognised and accounted for by producers and users. It is incumbent upon governments in discouraging the use of tobacco to ensure that others involved in the education and promotion of a healthy lifestyle for Australians are encouraged. Only this morning the Treasurer announced that the government will legislate that organisations whose main activity is promoting the prevention or control of disease or illness in people can continue to access important tax benefits. These are organisations that are integral to promoting good health and that make a significant contribution to educating Australians on matters such as diet, disease and lifestyle. We as a government will ensure that these organisations retain their FBT exemption, continue to be able to accept tax deductible donations and retain their status as charitable institutions. With such legislation in hand and with this package of measures before the House today to strengthen the statutory framework within which the ATO can combat the erosion of the excise revenue base from illicit tobacco, we have in place a responsible and balanced approach to tobacco use in this country. We have a long way to go in terms of the abuse and the use of tobacco, but these measures will help achieve that end. I commend this bill to the House. 11:51:0018053Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I would like to thank the honourable members for Wills and Curtin for their contributions to this debate. The measures contained in this bill will strengthen the ability of the Australian Taxation Office to combat the evasion of excise on tobacco and protect the revenue base against the illegal product chop chop.The honourable member for Wills moved a second reading amendment which claimed that the government should be condemned for what was referred to as a `demonstration of the government's administrative style of drift followed by mad panic' and also our `failure to tackle tobacco excise compliance'. The government does not accept the veracity of that second reading amendment. Quite frankly, the honourable member for Wills has been here long enough to know that he cannot have it both ways. The government is tackling excise compliance. The Australian Taxation Office has had a number of successful prosecutions already, and now the government is bringing in this Excise Amendment (Compliance Improvement) Bill 2000. The member for Wills claims the bill is being brought in too quickly. Well, that is because the government is tackling excise compliance quickly. This is an illegal activity and the government is not going to apologise for not delaying measures which will help combat it.It ought to be appreciated that the Australian Taxation Office has an established compliance program which includes registration of growers and dealers, audits of growers and manufacturers, and working with the industry to develop new approaches such as those in this bill. The Australian Taxation Office also coordinates its approaches with Customs to prevent importation of tobacco leaf except by registered dealers. Obviously, the Australian Taxation Office has ongoing investigations and prosecutions and this bill strengthens the capacity to control the illegal trade.The member for Wills suggested that the government had not followed its policy processes and that our backbench had not been considered, and I think he even claimed that we had treated the government backbench with contempt. Well, this bill has passed through all stages of the government policy processes including consideration by the backbench committee and by the party room. We have certainly been consulting in that area.This is an important matter. The member for Wills ought to congratulate the government rather than condemn us for bringing a law that is important as far as making sure that this illegal activity does not continue. The member for Wills claimed that the government was warned in 1997. Well, this problem has been increasing since the High Court decision in 1997 which struck out the state business franchise fees. As a result of that decision the Commonwealth undertook to collect those fees as an excise. The Australian Taxation Office and Customs have been acting against evasions and there have been a number of successful prosecutions. The measures in this bill will improve the ability of the Australian Taxation Office to combat these illegal activities.The government is sending very clear messages to criminals that every action is being taken to protect excise revenue. It is pretty clear that the illicit tobacco trade is threatening to undermine the revenue base for tobacco excise. We certainly would not deny that the amount of revenue at risk is significant. Various figures have been suggested. We appreciate that it is a substantial amount of money and that is why the government has moved so quickly to bring this bill in to make sure that in future the law of Australia is observed. The member for Wills claimed that there was inadequate time for consultation. He claimed that the opposition has not had time to come to a considered position. He even suggested that the government was flying blind. It is interesting that, despite the fact that the honourable member for Wills has claimed that the opposition has not had time to come to a considered position, he was able to rush into the media with a media release. Is he telling us that his media release was in fact worded from a `not considered' position? Is he saying that his own media release is a half-baked document based on a lack of understanding of the issues in hand? CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—That is what everyone else is saying.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The member for Moreton is undoubtedly correct. This is the problem with the honourable member for Wills. He seems to rush into the media all the time without first considering what is in fact the situation.The member for Wills also attacked the Australian Taxation Office. I think this is pretty sad because the Australian Taxation Office is a department of hard-working individuals who are focused on improving taxation compliance in the best way. The Australian Taxation Office does not deserve to be attacked by the member for Wills as he has done on this occasion. The member for Wills also claimed that there was a lack of opportunity to consult with tobacco growers. Nothing could be further from the truth. There has been widespread consultation with the tobacco industry on the improved compliance strategy. The basic elements of this bill derive from a joint government-industry illicit tobacco strategy, and all three tobacco growers cooperatives support the approach in this bill as do the cigarette manufacturers. It is pretty clear that a lot of what the honourable member for Wills has said is in no way, shape or form even remotely accurate. The member for Wills would do well to listen to the contribution by the honourable member for Curtin, which by comparison was a very erudite, well-worded and well-thought-out contribution to the parliament.The measures contained in this bill include improving the regulation of tobacco product and increasing penalties on those involved in illicit activities. Under the measures contained in this bill, tobacco producers will be required to be licensed. The movement of tobacco leaf will be regulated. This will involve a system of labelling bales of tobacco leaf. The power of excise officers to stop and search conveyances will be extended and the maximum pecuniary penalties will be set at 500 penalty points, currently $55,000, or five times the duty payable had the tobacco leaf been manufactured into tobacco and entered into home consumption. Offenders can also face jail terms of up to two years for the more serious offences. Despite the rhetoric of the honourable member for Wills, this bill demonstrates the absolute commitment of the government to countering the illicit trade in chop chop. I commend the bill to the House.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.18054Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Bills18054R102518054Bill returned from the Senate with a request for an amendment.Ordered that the requested amendment be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's requested amendment—(1) Schedule 1, page 37 (after line 6), at the end of the Schedule, add:Part 6—Certain income tests for veterans166 At the end of paragraph 8(8)(y)Add: or (x) a pension under Part II or Part IV of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986; or (xi) a temporary incapacity allowance under Part VI of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986; or (xii) a pension payable because of subsection 4(6) or (8B) of the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Act 1986; or (xiii) a payment (other than a pension referred to in subparagraph (x) or (xii)) that is a payment in respect of incapacity or death resulting from employment in connection with a war or war-like operations in which the Crown has been engaged; lines 3 to 9), omit clause 129.12:01:0018055Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move: That the requested amendment be not made. The government is not supporting the amendment put forward by the Australian Democrats to the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2000 in the Senate. The amendment seeks to exempt from the Social Security Act the means test for all benefits paid to veterans and war widows under part 2 and part 4 of the Veterans Entitlements Acts as well as compensation payments paid to Commonwealth and allied veterans living in Australia by their former governments. The government opposes this amendment as presented by the Australian Democrats because it introduces more anomalies than it claims to address. This is a crude and simplistic approach to deal with a complex issue. This amendment does not address the technical differences between the veterans and social security systems. For instance, veterans with service pensions under the Veterans' Entitlements Act administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs and who rent would be disadvantaged because, although their disability pension is not counted in the calculation of their service pension, it is counted for calculating the amount of rent assistance. By exempting disability pension entirely from the Social Security Act means test, veterans at Centrelink without qualifying service who rent will get a distinct advantage over veterans with qualifying service under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Furthermore, this amendment provides for Commonwealth or allied veterans who receive a disability pension from their governments and Commonwealth or allied war widows to be advantaged over those who receive an income support payment from Veterans' Affairs. As well as producing these anomalies, the amendment also confuses the treatment of benefits such as disability pension for veterans and war widows pensions. These are quite different benefits with different policy origins and purposes. This amendment is a poor attempt to address an anomaly which the government has always acknowledged. The amendment entails significant costs, in excess of $50 million per year, while the government has already assigned a high priority to other initiatives in the veterans portfolio such as extending the eligibility of repatriation benefits to include service in South East Asia between 1955 and 1975 and simplifying access to health care. 12:04:0018055Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—Labor supports the Democrats' amendment regarding the portability of veterans pensions. We understand from the government that there may be some technical problems with the amendment as drafted by the Democrats. We foreshadow that we may be in a position to make further changes in the Senate. However, as to the principle of the Democrats' position, we are supporting the objective they are trying to achieve. Once again, with the government's intransigent position we are seeing the placing of an unfair burden on those people in our community who can least afford to bear it and who are least likely to be able to make a big noise about it. There are a number of amendments. Perhaps I will make all my comments now to the bill and the amendments that the House will be considering, for the sake of brevity. I want to look first at the amendments that standardise the overseas portability of social security and related payments. The government's changes will reduce the capacity of the system to support Australian residents with special needs. We will have the most unfair situation where, if a disability support pensioner were to go overseas for treatment, they would lose their pension after six months. This would mean in a lot of cases that the treatment could never be sought because the person would have no way of supporting himself or herself if the treatment took longer than six months. Once again, the meanness of this government comes to the fore. This government makes Scrooge look like a philanthropist. It is always looking for opportunities to keep hold of its revenue, no matter who is disadvantaged in the process—all in the name of a standardised and simplified system. This is always code for the government cutting costs. Changes to international portability will lead to savings of up to $10.7 million per year. That is what this bill is really all about. This bill flies in the face of the report of the Welfare Reform Reference Committee, which has stressed the importance of developing a more responsive, flexible welfare system that can tailor programs and payments to individual circumstances and need. Instead, the government wants to push through changes that will do the opposite. This so-called streamlining achieves two things: savings for the government and an extra burden for some of the most vulnerable in our community. Labor's amendments, which we moved in the Senate, dealt with the issue of basic portability arrangements. The second set of amendments we moved dealt with the issue of short residence. In my electorate of Grayndler, I have many constituents who have lived and worked hard in Australia for 30 or 40 years. Upon retirement, they have chosen to return to the country of their birth for extended periods of time. This is particularly common amongst the older Greek Australians in my electorate. Why should they be required to remain in Australia for two years at a time if they want to retain their pension? They have worked hard for decades and do not deserve this treatment. Furthermore, when you are elderly, two years is a very long time. Labor's next set of amendments seeks to preserve the proportionality provisions for many pensioners. The government maintains that most will not be affected by this change in portability from one year to 26 weeks. The fact remains, however, that some will. The pensioners whom I referred to earlier will be adversely affected by this to the extent that they may not be able to afford to go home to their countries of birth and revisit family, friends and places. Once again, Uncle Scrooge is knocking at the door. The second area of change to the legislation is in data matching, using tax file numbers. While we are supportive of measures that address welfare fraud, we are concerned about the possibility that the savings in this area will be used to brand all welfare recipients, particularly those on unemployment benefits, as cheats—and, given the reactionary minister in charge of employment and his ability to denigrate the unemployed rather than help them, that would not be surprising. But then again, after his performance in this House yesterday, nothing would surprise. This is an area where the government has had some experience. It is very quick to lay blame and to use negative language when describing long-term unemployed. This government is creating an environment where the genuinely needy, the honest and those who make honest mistakes are all under suspicion. So I believe we have good cause to be wary of such improved data matching. Misuse of people's personal details is something we have seen recently with the Prime Minister's `pulp fiction' letter. I wish to conclude my remarks there, but I know that the member for Cowan intends to very adequately outline what this government should be doing in relation to this matter. (Time expired)12:09:0018056Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—The member for Grayndler has set out the opposition's position quite clearly on this matter. The opposition does have some sympathy for the government in this situation—not much, however. They could have fixed the problem last night had they agreed to defer the debate in the Senate and sorted out these technical difficulties, but for some reason or other they chose not to. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration handling the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2000 said that this is a crude and simplistic approach in an endeavour to fix an anomaly. He said it is a poor attempt. That may well be the case, but it is an honest attempt to fix an anomaly about which the government have been on notice for some time. Wayne Swan raised this issue in this House last year. Senator Chris Schacht, the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, who is always out there consulting and listening to veterans and responding to their needs, also put the government on notice about this issue last year.The anomaly is simply that many veterans, in an endeavour to serve their country, joined the armed forces during the Second World War. Many of them tried everything they could to get overseas and serve on the front line. Of course, that was not possible, and a lot of those veterans were not able to get overseas. Those people who have a pension for some problems that they incurred in their time of service had that pension counted as income against social security benefits. That is opposed to those veterans who did go overseas and who have similar sorts of pensions but who do not have that pension treated as income against social security benefits. That anomaly has been around for a long time. It is an anomaly which the veteran community have put before the government and, unfortunately, it is something that the government has chosen to ignore. The ALP very strongly supports those veterans who are caught up in this situation, and we certainly took the opportunity to give them that support last night. As I said, the opposition has some sympathy. There are some technical difficulties, and those difficulties should be sorted out. But the government also talk about money—they relate everything to money. I think they are being a little niggardly, and I agree with the member for Grayndler when he says that the government are Scrooge-like. This government have just spent some $431 million advertising a new tax system which is going to have dire consequences for many veterans on fixed and low incomes. It is also a government in which one of their leading ministers the other day indicated that they were about to get a benefit of some $7 billion through what they claim are going to be benefits from the GST. If they are getting that money on the one hand and spending $431 million on the other hand trying to advertise their GST, surely they should not and could not begrudge a section of the veteran community getting some benefit. I think the cost of this particular benefit and the anomaly that we are trying to fix is in the vicinity of $21 million. The government should not have been surprised by this amendment. They have known for a long time that it was coming. The government are fully aware of the fact that many veterans have raised concerns about this anomaly going back over a period of time, and they simply should be prepared to fix this matter up themselves. The fact that they have not has led to some technical difficulties, and I believe that those technical difficulties can now be resolved.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees18057180571805710000Mossfield, Frank (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Mr Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip that he has nominated Mr Macfarlane to be a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources in place of Mr Lawler.Motion (by Mr Slipper)—by leave—agreed to:That Mr Lawler be discharged from the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources and that, in his place, Mr Macfarlane be appointed a member of the committee.Bills18057R102718057Debate resumed from 7 June, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.12:14:0018057Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am pleased to rise to speak on the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 for a number of reasons. It gives me an opportunity to reflect upon the fine work of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which, of course, is one of the processes that was undertaken before this particular piece of legislation came to this place. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has, rightly, reviewed the aspects of the double taxation agreements that are contained within the legislation, the double taxation agreements with Finland and Romania—two countries that we do trade with. For the record, it is important to know that, in the case of Romania, exports totalling $75 million and imports of $8.5 million are the current trade scenario. In the case of Finland, our exports totalled $600 million and our imports total $300 million. So there is a bit over a billion dollars worth of trade between the two countries and Australia that is also covered as a result of this legislation. Double taxation agreements are one of those things that, on first brush and perhaps on about the second or third brush as well, are rather remarkably less exciting than watching paint dry for those who are not into getting into the technical matters behind them. What is important to note is that, by negotiating various tax treaties on a bilateral basis, Australia and the nations with which we have negotiated these treaties come to agreement about sharing the taxing rights over various kinds of income. What is very important, and the fundamental principle, is that we are not taxing twice the economic activity that occurs in both our country and the nation with which we have signed these particular agreements. So the question of the way in which the taxation systems operate in each of the countries comes into the negotiating principles behind the double taxation agreements. It is important that there is an appropriate balance between the source and resident countries involved and the taxing rights exercised by that, so that each nation does actually get its fair share of tax as well as the benefits that come from the economic activities of the companies involved.Of course, the various taxation treaties that we have embarked upon set out certain types of taxing rights applying to each of the countries and they assist international business operations to increase the certainty for those companies involved that taxation issues that affect cross-border transactions are not going to unnecessarily penalise both inbound and outbound investment. These measures are job creating measures because they assist Australian exporters, particularly the exporters of services, not just goods, and also assist in the movement of personnel from country to country as our expertise is made a more viable commodity as international boundaries become less defined when it comes to international economic activity. We have now developed a network of taxation treaties that facilitate information exchanges and promote cooperation between taxation authorities and, of course, this, naturally enough, ensures that international fiscal evasion and tax avoidance are minimised, and one would hope all but wiped out.Given that the increasing internationalisation of business activity is a statement of fact, it is of course important to reflect upon Australia's own taxation system and the way in which it marries into and matches up to the expectations of nations we are trading with. So it is extraordinary to reflect upon the comments of the Treasurer yesterday when he made the point that the OECD, the organisation of the richest countries in the world, is meeting next week in Paris—the Treasurer, of course, will be chairing that meeting as the world's longest serving finance minister—and to note that there is going to be only one nation appearing at that meeting next week that has a wholesale sales tax in place.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Tell them which one.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—That particular country, for the benefit of both the parliamentary secretary at the table, my friend the member for Fisher, and for the parliament, is, of course, Australia. With only a handful of days to go, the Treasurer of this nation will have to go and face his contemporaries when he chairs the OECD meeting next week and say, `We do still have a wholesale sales tax.' But, of course, with days to go, that is going to disappear. That meeting will involve economies such as Japan, America, the United Kingdom, France and Germany—nations that long ago discarded this wholesale sales tax system that, happily enough, in a little over a week's time Australia will also be dumping. It is worth knowing that it was only a couple of years ago that we first discovered how many nations were left with a wholesale sales tax system, and that trend of its dissolution has continued. A few years ago, at the height of the introduction of this new tax system for consideration by the people of Australia, they talked about Botswana, Ghana, Swaziland and the Solomon Islands being the only nations, other than Australia, with a wholesale sales tax. That list has now decreased to the point where it is only the nation state of Swaziland, contained within southern Africa, that maintains a wholesale sales tax. One suspects that even Swaziland itself will adopt the principle of destroying the wholesale sales tax regime. It is a tax on goods, it is a tax on the export potential of goods produced by a nation and it is therefore a tax on the jobs of those who work in the export producing commodity sector of Australia, as it would also be in Swaziland. So that leaves only one land that is promoting the wholesale sales tax system as a worthwhile system, and that is Fantasyland—Fantasyland, the happiest little kingdom of them all, inhabited by the members of the Australian Labor Party in this place. It is worth knowing that members of the Australian Labor Party in every other parliament in Australia have signed off on the abolition of the wholesale sales tax and signed off on the notion of the new goods and services tax that covers the various goods and services produced in this country and also, importantly, that brings us into line with every other nation around the world, with the exception, momentarily, of Swaziland. What is before us is an ongoing sign of not only the good management by this government of our nation's economy but also, importantly, the job prospects of all Australians.Romania and Finland, as a result of this legislation, will join the Australian Tax Treaty Network, which includes Austria, Belgium, Canada, the People's Republic of China, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Poland, Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, the Republic of China on Taiwan, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States of America, Vietnam and Fiji. They are the nations with which Australia is trading on a constant basis. They are the nations which Australia's new taxation system will be able to marry into and match up to. They are the nations with which we have a consistent set of understandings about the treatment of taxation of economic activity in both the import and export sectors. The job creating sectors of Australia can have some certainty as a result of the extension of those agreements to Finland and to Romania.It is important to emphasise again that the avoidance of double tax and the understanding of the entire fiscal responsibilities of each of those nations are made more certain as a result of this legislation. It is also important to know that the new tax system, which starts on 1 July, will be more readily and easily understood and identified by our trading partners. Our trading partners, those nations I just listed, will not have to scratch their heads and wonder why it took so long for the Australian nation—the Commonwealth of Australia—to realise that it too should have a tax system that is understood by all of these other countries; one that does not simply tax through the wholesale sales tax regime the goods we produce but, rather, shares the burden of taxation across the range of activities in our economy—the goods and the services that we produce.I always find it amusing to reflect upon the media's pumped up hysteria about these matters. When the Prime Minister was visiting France a few months ago, after his successful journey to Turkey and to the Anzac Day service there on 25 April, somebody on Channel 9 remarked that French business officials were in crisis talks with the Prime Minister to discuss their concerns about the impact of the GST on trade with Australia. That would have been extraordinary, given that France is probably running a VAT of some description of about 20 per cent. They would understand very clearly how a 10 per cent goods and services tax operates, and they would understand the consistency that Australia will be offering to its international linkages because of the new taxation system that we are bringing in on 1 July. No longer will Australia be on the list of those nations virtually alone in the world, operating with a wholesale sales tax system. No longer will Australia's exported goods and services have to bear the burden of wholesale sales taxes that have cascaded through the production and distribution chains and added a whole pile of additional cost burdens. No longer will Australia's export industries have to face the prospect of more than $4 billion worth of wholesale sales taxes tacked onto their competitive possibilities, and no longer will Australia be so alone in the world.This bill before us, at first brush, is perhaps a bill that deals with quite tedious technical matters, but it is yet another bit of good news because two more countries are joining our Tax Treaty Network—Romania and Finland. There is more than $1 billion worth of trade with Australia between those two countries, and that, to my mind, extends one billion good reasons for us to pass this legislation today. I commend the bill to the House. 12:26:0018060Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—In relation to the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 I would like to thank the participants in this debate for their contributions. I also thank the honourable member for Wills for his support for this bill and for the initiatives that the government has taken in relation to international tax agreements.This bill amends the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to give the force of law to the agreement between Australia and Romania for the avoidance of double tax and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income. The bill will also give the force of law to a second protocol to the agreement between Australia and Finland for the avoidance of double tax and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income. The Romanian agreement will assist in the development of Australia's trade and investment links with Romania, which is already a substantial export market for Australia in the central European region. The new agreement prevents double taxation by allocating taxing rights between Australia and Romania in respect of all forms of income flows between the two countries. The basis of allocating these rights is essentially the same as that adopted in Australia's other modern taxation agreements.The Finnish protocol will exempt from dividend withholding tax dividends that are paid out of fully taxed profits flowing between Australia and Finland. The protocol updates and clarifies certain aspects of the existing agreement with Finland. The Romanian agreement will enter into force after diplomatic notes are exchanged advising that the processes in each country to give the agreement the force of law have been completed. The Finnish protocol will enter into force 30 days after both countries have exchanged notifications.Before I resume my seat, I would like to refer in passing to a repetitious remark made by the honourable member for Wills in his speech in relation to the government's advertising campaign for Australia's new tax system, which will come into force on 1 July with tremendous benefits to all parts of the Australian community. He said that the money being spent by the government was a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money and that Labor opposes it. As I said in debate yesterday, the government does not apologise for making sure that the people of Australia are fully aware of all of the benefits, all of the facts and all of the circumstances of Australia's new tax system. It would be highly irresponsible of us as a government to bring about real substantial tax reform—the most substantial tax reform every brought about in this country, with the support of the Australian people—unless we told the community about the benefits of our new tax system.The opposition constantly harps on a huge figure which it claims is being spent with respect to advertising. But I just want to reiterate what I said yesterday: a substantial proportion of expenditure—a full $200 million—is attributable to the start-up office. This money is being used, largely, by the start-up office in public education, including business skills education, adviser training and funding peak bodies to deliver sector-specific education and information. So the government is being responsible. We are a reputable government. We went to the Australian people seeking their support prior to the 1998 election. We gained the support of the Australian people. We brought the legislation into the parliament. We have attracted the support of Australia's elected representatives, despite the recalcitrance of the Australian Labor Party. On 1 July we will deliver a new tax system that will see Labor's wholesale sales tax scrapped, a new tax system that will see $12 billion of tax cuts, a new tax system that will see 80 per cent of Australians paying no more than 30 cents in the dollar taxation, a new tax system that will see a four per cent boost in pensions and benefits and compensation for retirees and, as we have entered this new century, a new tax system supported by the Australian people and for which the government has a mandate. One looks at the ALP with absolute contempt, because the Australian Labor Party refuse to accept the democratic verdict of the last election. They have sought to frustrate. They have sought to destroy. They have sought to undermine. They have sought to prevent this government from delivering on its mandate. We do not apologise, because on 1 July Australia will have a new tax system and there will be benefits for all parts of the Australian community.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.18061Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Committees18061180611806112:32:0018061Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the committee's fifth report for 2000, relating to the Defence Science and Technology Organisation rationalisation project.Ordered that the report be printed.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—by leave—The report I have just tabled concerns the proposed provision of facilities for the Defence Science and Technology Organisation rationalisation, Melbourne. The Defence Science and Technology Organisation is the second largest government funded research organisation in Australia after the CSIRO and has a work force of approximately 2,000 employees. The Defence Science and Technology Organisation provides advice on the application of science and technology that is best suited to Australia's defence and security needs. The Defence Science and Technology Organisation has two laboratories: the Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory in Melbourne and the Electronics and Surveillance Research Laboratory in Salisbury, South Australia. The principal sites from which the AMRL operates are located at Maribyrnong and Fishermens Bend, Melbourne. Defence has occupied the Maribyrnong and Fishermens Bend sites since the 1920s. The Fishermens Bend site is the birthplace of aeronautical research activity in Australia. The development of the Fishermens Bend site has spanned more than half a century and involved a number of large scale projects. The Public Works Committee has been involved in this development. The AMRL currently conducts activities in four key areas: operational analysis, acquisition advice, war fighter support and through life support of Australian Defence Force assets.The project encompasses relocating AMRL Maribyrnong activities to refurbished and new facilities at Fishermens Bend and enhancing AMRL capabilities. The project includes new and refurbished facilities to relocate and consolidate the following existing research activities: maritime platforms, combatant protection and nutrition, and science corporate management. The project also includes initiatives which will result in integrated common technologies across the areas of mechanical testing and advance composites manufacture. I think I can say on behalf of the committee that we were all enormously impressed by the work that is being carried out by this organisation which is certainly very important to Australia. The following enhanced capabilities are also proposed: a new airframes and engines division, a large scale maritime and aircraft structures testing facility, a thermal testing facility and a structural component bank. The project will overcome a number of identified constraints in relation to the existing facilities at Maribyrnong and Fishermens Bend, including that no opportunity exists to develop fully integrated research facilities or to develop multifunctional shared facilities, that research activities which are currently split over two sites impose operational and cost inefficiencies on AMRL and that there is little or no ability to increase research outputs or achieve productivity gains as a result of the inefficient siting of facilities. When referred to the committee, the estimated out-turn cost of the proposed works was $56.71 million. The committee has recommended that the project should proceed. The relocation, refurbishment and consolidation of existing capabilities will provide operational efficiencies, result in recurrent cost savings and allow for a multidisciplinary team approach to be implemented. Proposed new facilities meet an identified need and will allow for improved operational efficiencies and will significantly enhance AMRL's capabilities. The committee was apprised of concerns relating to the rationalisation and the future sale of the Maribyrnong facilities and the heritage values of both the Maribyrnong and Fishermens Bend sites. In respect of the future sale of the Maribyrnong site, Defence advised and provided the committee with an undertaking that studies that will be conducted by Defence to look at all issues relating to the sale of the Maribyrnong site will be done through extensive consultation with affected parties. 12:38:0018062Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—by leave—I will try to be brief in speaking in support of the report that has just been tabled by the chair of the Public Works Committee before the House today. I want to do so because not very often do we as parliamentarians get an opportunity to commend and congratulate some of our people who work within our organisations around this country. As the Public Works Committee we could only look at the assessment and costing to make sure taxpayers' dollars are being spent wisely and well. In the 30 pages of this report we could not explain or cover the marvellous job that our scientists are doing. I was very impressed. As you probably realise, I have been involved in political life for many years, but having seen who I believe are our unsung heroes, our science personnel, working away, and some of the projects that they take on, I can stand up in this parliament and say they are second to none. As the chair of the Public Works Committee stated, the staff number some 2,000 people around Australia. We certainly did not have the opportunity of meeting every one of them but, through the course of this investigation and through looking at sites both at Maribyrnong and at Fishermens Bend, I can speak of what I saw and what we all experienced. I commend and congratulate and put on the public record the wonderful work that is being undertaken by our scientists. I particularly feel for the people in Maribyrnong because that site has been occupied since 1922. There has been a work force over the years of 600-plus but, over the last 10 years, that has been reduced to 200-odd. But the decision has been made within our science areas that you must move on and that, if you are going to get value for money—more importantly, if you are going to have scientists commune and talk with one another—then this is the best and wisest decision. I believe we found that during our investigation.Also when there we had the opportunity of going through Fishermens Bend to see what our scientists are doing to keep some of our aircraft in the air and to keep equipment going under very difficult circumstances. I said I would be brief, but I really want to say to each and every one of them that they are unsung heroes. Too often we hear criticism of some of the work of our public servants. More importantly, often we do not have the opportunity to commend and congratulate them. So, in speaking to this report, I want to put that on the record, and I know I speak on behalf of all the committee when I say that we were more than impressed and certainly very proud not only of their expertise but also of their capabilities and of how well they are looking after the taxpayers' dollars in this particular area. I wish them well in their future advancement. I know that Fishermens Bend was the birthplace of those research activities—in fact they have been operating there since 1938. Over the last 50 years they have built some excellent facilities. We hope they continue to build those facilities, but, more importantly, we hope they continue to do the work for which they are renowned.12:41:0018062Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—by leave—I wish to make a short statement. I am not a member of the Joint Committee on Public Works, but I am the local member whose area will be affected by the recommendations made by the committee. Obviously I respect the unanimous and considered view of the committee that this is best in the broader public interest. However, I was very pleased to hear the chair of the committee comment that the considerations that I raised with the committee with respect to the ongoing treatment of the Maribyrnong site have been taken into account. We obviously will be very concerned about the loss of jobs in our area. As importantly, we are concerned about the future sale of the site. I look forward to reading the committee's report and to being able to comment in a little more detail once I have done so. Bills18063R1092BillsR109318063Debate resumed from 7 June, on motion by Mr Ruddock:That the bills be now read a second time.12:42:0018063Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—I rise today to speak against these very unfair pieces of legislation, the Migration Legislation Amendment (Parents and Other Measures) Bill 2000 and, as part of the cognate debate, the Migration (Visa Application) Charge Amendment Bill 2000 which is an administrative extension of the main bill. I remain somewhat puzzled as to the reason why the government and the minister are introducing these measures into the House of Representatives by way of legislation. Just over a year ago, the Senate quite clearly ruled that a similar policy measure introduced at the time as a regulation was discriminatory, elitist and just plain unfair, and knocked it back. I also remain puzzled as to the reason why the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has decided to introduce this measure in the form of a bill this time around when, as I understand it, he could have attempted to introduce it again as a regulation, which would be the normal procedure in this case. I hope that the rationale for this course of action is to allow for substantial debate on these important bills in both chambers, a move that I welcome regardless of the government's motivation. I welcome the opportunity to address the House on these bills because so much needs to be said about the culture which has led to the introduction of such unfair and un-Australian pieces of legislation where the government is essentially legislating in favour of queue jumping. I mention queue jumping because it is a topic very close to the government's heart and it is a topic that in many respects has polarised the Australian people over the last couple of years. In the last couple of years we have seen an influx of illegal immigrants reach Australia from countries such as Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Palestine, China, the African continent and other places plagued by civil unrest and endless conflict.Our problem with illegal immigration and its despicable offshoot, namely people-smuggling, while nowhere near the level of some of our peer nations such as the UK, Canada and the United States—and indeed most developed European countries such as Italy, France and Germany, just to name a few—has nevertheless reached proportions previously unknown in this country. As illegal immigration has soared in comparison with previous years, so has the meritorious nature of many of these asylum seekers' claims, and the term `queue jumper' has emerged, bringing with it a sinister meaning instantly recognisable as an un-Australian act, an action that goes against the very nature of our sense of fair play. To his credit, the minister for immigration has devoted much energy to addressing this problem with the full cooperation of the opposition.Mr Deputy Speaker, just to give you an example of the government's and opposition's cooperation in this area, Labor has supported many reasonable measures to date such as information exchange and data matching between agencies to improve tracking of visa overstayers and illegal workers; taking away the right of illegal immigrants to have lawyers automatically present prior to and during their interviews with the immigration department; changes to refugee regulations to address unfounded claims for refugee status, designed to hit those seeking to abuse the system and jump the queue, while protecting genuine claimants; heavily increasing fines for people-smugglers and those associated with these operations; and supporting the now somewhat infamous temporary protection visa system, which gave the government the benefit of the doubt in attempting to stem the flow of illegal arrivals, albeit with genuine refugee claims, to our shores. These are some of the measures—some quite drastic—that the government has employed, in the main with Labor's blessing, to stop queue jumping by desperate people arriving in Australia by sea or air. That is why Labor cannot support a bill that flies in the face of such efforts, creates a double standard and legalises queue jumping for those people who are wealthy enough to be able afford some $65,000 per couple in fees, levies and bonds. While I am critical of the government for their overzealous application of user-pay principles, I want to make it very clear that the opposition is in favour of ensuring that aged parents who enter Australia make worthwhile financial contributions to the community that may have to cater for their needs in later years. Labor acknowledges that it would be unfair and very costly if Australian taxpayers had to fund medical expenses for thousands of newly arrived aged parents whose contributions did not adequately cover their treatment. Let us not forget that at present the cost for a couple of aged parents or aged dependent relatives migrating to this country is already in the vicinity of some $8,000—a cost structure introduced by Labor. The minister for immigration, in his second reading speech on 7 June, made the comment that allowing the 20,000 aged parents currently in the queue under the current financial arrangements could result in `billions' of dollars of taxpayers' money being spent on supporting them. For a start, no-one is suggesting that all the 20,000 aged parents that are in the queue should be allowed in all at once. No-one is suggesting that at all. Secondly, I take the minister's estimate of `billions' of dollars with the same grain of salt that I took with his earlier estimates of how many illegal immigrants were preparing to `invade' Australia. Back in November and December 1999, the minister was canvassing a figure of some 10,000 boat people about to descend on Australia, with whole Middle Eastern villages packing up for the trip. Of course, that figure never eventuated, because that number of people preparing to come to Australia I do not believe ever existed. Since the minister publicly made that alarmist comment some six months ago, I understand that some 1,000 illegal immigrants have reached our shores. At last count, over a period of some 18 months we received approximately 3,500 illegal immigrants—far, far short of the minister's dire estimates. Similarly, I believe that the figure of `billions' is spurious, as is the accounting that reached it. The claim itself is little more than a scare tactic by the minister to justify and shore up a weak argument.Another statement that highlights the mindset of this government is the minister's comment that research shows that people who migrate to Australia late in life make a minimal contribution to revenue but incur a very substantial cost in terms of social security and health. This very sad statement only confirms why the Australian public, especially our aged, have completely lost faith in the Howard government and its philosophy of how much a person can be milked throughout their working life, and how quickly they can be discarded when they are no longer deemed useful. I am sure the minister realises that in most cultures grandparents provide not only great stability and focus within their families but, based on the government's own thinking, also a free child-caring service so that younger members of the family can become more productive and ultimately pay more taxes. Perhaps the government's figures, in addition to analysing the billions of taxpayer dollars that aged migrants cost society, should also factor in the billions that are saved in child-care subsidies, increased productivity and additional taxes excised from the parents' higher earnings.These aged migrants that the government is so keen to punish for costing us so much are, in most cases, related to many thousands of Australian families who, following their migration to Australia, have worked very hard for many years to provide a better life for their children and close family members. Let us remember there are presently some 20,000 in the queue of people who have paid their $1,065 or whatever it is to come to this country. Taking that 20,000, there are residents of this country—in most cases probably Australian citizens; there would be probably anything from 50,000 to 100,000 people who are here, who are Australians—who are waiting for these people to go through the queue. As I will say later on in this speech, at the moment the minister has capped the number that can come in from that queue at 500. Calculate that at about 40 years before they will all be able to come in and, of course, most of them will be deceased by that time. I believe it is very unfair for the government to ask Australian families wishing to sponsor their aged parents to part with what would often amount to their whole life savings in order to pay fees and levies. This bill in its current format is very discriminatory towards wealthy migrants and against migrants from developing countries who cannot ever hope to afford the amounts of money required to fulfil the criteria. I do not believe that Australians would like to see their government favour wealthy people to the detriment of so many other worthy immigrants from countries not so well off. We must never forget the contribution made by migrants who helped build Australia and prospered over the past century having arrived with little more than a dream and the will to succeed. The headline of a major article by Jon Marsh in the Sydney Morning Herald on Thursday, 11 March 1999 reads `Immigrants' parents “will die waiting”, government warned'. On the same page, also under Jon Marsh's by-line, is another article with the headline `One list for the rich and one for the poor?' The first article is quite a large article, and it explains in detail that the list of parents who wanted to migrate to Australia to join their Australian children was so long that many would die waiting at the then current rate of 2,500 per year that the government was allowing to come into this country.Since that article—which, incidentally, showed a picture of a newly arrived aged parent caring for her grandson while the mother prepares to go to work—the quota has again been slashed, to 500 parents per year, in a fit of pique over the Senate's audacity to disallow the original `Rolls Royce' visa class. I am sorry that the minister is not here. He usually is; there must be a reason why he is not here. I would like to say all this to his face. Usually he is fairly calm, but sometimes he gets a little bit dirty. When the Senate knocked him back, in a fit of pique he said, `I was letting in 2,500; now it is only 500. So there! Cop that! Go and blame Labor.' This is the attitude that he has been taking of late. The Herald's article is very telling, as it confirms my previous remarks about the enormous contribution that aged parents make both socially and economically. These are the words of the daughter, a university lecturer in mathematical statistics and computer sciences, who arrived from Greece in 1994, explaining to the journalist how valuable her aged mother is to her family:`My mother came over to help me. It was my first baby so I was glad she was here,' she said. `She liked it here, so decided it would be a good idea if both my parents came over to join me.' Mrs Hussein said she had supported herself in Australia and having her parents here would help her to continue her job and remain a taxpayer rather than someone who claimed benefits.`I found a job three weeks after arriving in Australia so I have not cost the taxpayer anything. My husband and I are both Australian citizens. This country was built on the immigrants. Let's make it fair for everyone.'I wonder how many thousands of families there are in Australia with exactly the same story to tell. How much have their aged parents contributed to the bottom line of the government's budget? A major feature of these new visa classes—which the opposition took into consideration when it decided to oppose this bill—is the application of a nebulous health service charge of $25,000 per person, raised from the current health service charge of $940. I say `nebulous' because neither my colleague Jenny Macklin, the shadow minister for health, nor I have yet managed to figure out exactly how this figure was reached. What formula was used? What actuarial criteria applied? During the last round of Senate estimates that focused on consideration of the immigration department's budget measures, Senators McKiernan and Cooney questioned at length officers from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on this very issue. In addition, they also questioned the officers present on whether the alternative to the $25,000 fee, a mythical `private health insurance cover for migrant aged parents', was viable or indeed existed. On this particular issue, I will read some extracts of the conversation between my colleague Senator McKiernan and Mr Abdul Rizvi, along with a very perceptive and worthwhile comment made by my friend Senator Barney Cooney based on his interpretation of the department's justification of this fee. I quote: Senator McKIERNAN— ... The PBS states:... either take out a satisfactory level of private health insurance to cover the first ten years after arrival (if such a product is made available by the health insurance industry), or pay a health services charge of $25,000 per person.Is such a product available?Mr Rizvi—In our consultations with the department of health, and they have also on our behalf had some consultations with the industry, at this stage it would appear that such a product is not available. Whether the industry is in a position to develop such a product is another matter and that is something we will just have to wait and see. But at this stage, no, such a product is not available. ... Certainly the advice from the department of health is that no, such a product is not yet available.Senator McKIERNAN—How then was the figure of $25,000 arrived at?Mr Smith—The $25,000 health charge you are referring to? ... It is based on a mixture of average life expectancies, the average call on all health services by people in certain age groups and then a judgment about what would be a reasonable share of that to contribute. If we assume that someone who is, say, aged 65, comes in as an aged parent and if they were to live for 20 years then, based on the department of health surveys and advice, $6,000 a year is the total call for someone in that age group. So six times $20,000 is $120,000. We took about 20 per cent as being a reasonable contribution to make.Later on during the proceedings, Senator Cooney said:Senator COONEY—An actuary, in working out the sum that you should pay, would apply a percentage, like four per cent or five per cent, depending on what judgment he or she made about the future events. That is the way you go about it, as I understand it. ... what Senator McKiernan has been asking and what I am now asking is: how did you get to the $25,000? It seems that what you have done, to some extent, is to pluck it out of the air and say that $25,000 seems a reasonable sort of figure. An actuary would have gone about it by a particular process. That might be the question to ask, actually: did you ever seek the advice of an actuary in working out the figure?Mr Farmer—In answering your question and Senator McKiernan's question, would it be helpful if we undertook to provide on notice details about the way in which that figure was arrived at?In other words—and with all due respect to the head of the department, Mr Farmer, for whom I have a great deal of respect—Mr Farmer admitted that the department did not really have an answer and that they needed time to find one. Figures plucked out of the air—this seems to be a constant theme when this government talks about figures, be they budget surpluses, Australia bound boat people or revenue expectations for visa classes.The Howard government seems to be obsessed with lining the pockets of, subsidising and propping up already wealthy private health insurance funds to the detriment and neglect of the Medicare system. Let us not forget that Medicare is the health fund for all Australians, paid for by all Australians. I understand that the amount of money the government has spent to provide incentives for people to take out private health insurance would have been enough to build 17 teaching hospitals. If these figures are correct or even close to being correct, where are the priorities in this country when at the same time as Australia suffers an acute shortage of public hospital beds we are giving away money hand over fist to subsidise the health care of, in some cases, millionaires and people who are already well off?I put it to the government that this measure is ill-conceived, poorly planned and calculated, and its true motivation is not to reduce the financial burden on the Australian community; rather, this bill is an attempt to justify a very ordinary budget underpinned by a phantom surplus. Depending on whether or not one believes the budget papers or the bill's explanatory memorandum, this measure is supposed to bring in revenue to the tune of either $155 million or thereabouts or $127 million over a four-year period. To my mind a discrepancy of almost $30 million shows that, at best, this has been a cavalier attitude to taxpayers' money; at worst, negligence in policy planning. Above all, the measures in this bill lack support, I submit, from those very people who are supposed to subscribe to it. In his second reading speech on 7 June the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs stated that during his recent community consultations he received substantial support for this proposal.Mr Hardgrave interjecting—6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—Well, you would not have been there. So what are you talking about? You would not know what you are talking about when it comes to these issues.10000Hollis, Collin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Order! The member should make his remarks through the chair.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker: my colleague the member for Moreton would not know what he is talking about. I want to be nice to you today anyway.Government members interjecting—6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—We did not show too much yesterday, so we had better show some today.I really have to question such a statement that the minister has all this support, given that the minister's annual national talkfest is little more than an expensive public relations exercise full of special effects and pretty graphs, but precious little substance. These so-called consultations are just an opportunity for the minister to visit marginal Liberal seats, given the fact that, out of the 12 meetings held during the last 12 months, eight were held in coalition held electorates across the country. I have a list here. I thought at some stage I might be able to use it. These are the public consultations that the minister for immigration trumpets about how he gets around the country and talks to the real people out there in the community and how they tell him how many we should bring in next year and whether the immigration policies of the government are going well. Looking at the list, the only places where there was a Labor member was in places where he could not get away from them: for instance, Darwin, the capital of the Northern Territory—obviously there is a Labor member up there and there was not much he could do about that one; Hobart—thankfully all of Tasmania voted Labor and not one seat is held by the Liberal Party, so I suppose one can excuse that one. In Canberra, he has held them at Parliament House; I guess that is represented by a Labor member as well. In Newcastle, no person would want to vote anything but Labor, and they are Labor up there. But nearly all the minister's visits have been to Liberal held seats. In Melbourne the minister has visited the Knox Community Centre, which is represented by Mr Charles and Mr Nugent somewhere there; Jackie Kelly's seat; Chris Gallus's seat in Adelaide; Barry Wakelin's seat of Whyalla; and on and on it goes—even Wilson Tuckey's seat at Geraldton. I would like to know how many immigrants are up there and would be prepared to talk to him. He also went to the electorates of Margaret May and Teresa Gambaro. The reality is that these are nothing but simply political tricks to look after some of the marginal members. But I must put it to him—not that it matters—that because these areas that he is visiting are not exactly areas that migrants go to in their droves; why is he not going to the inner city suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne where the migrants are? No, he goes into these fringe areas where he knows there are not too many. I have to say this: every time he goes somewhere where there are a lot of migrants or people who help migrants they do not particularly like him. That is why. In any event I do not think Mr Ruddock is the sort of person who can win you too many votes at the moment in any event, so good luck to those marginal Liberal members who want him in their seat.If on our evidence we question these estimations as to the amount of revenue that this measure would raise, I can just hear the answer. The minister will say, `Labor's not going to allow us to bring this in; therefore it is a hole in our budget.' The fact is that his reasoning was always going to be ambitious. I say that because, between 1 November 1998 when the previous visa class was introduced by regulation and 31 March 1999 when it was finally disallowed in the Senate, some 2,531 people had applied to join that class at a cost of something like $17,000 per couple. This is the regulation which was disallowed in the Senate. So over a full five-month period, only some 2,500 people, something like 10 per cent of those that were in that queue—although not all of them came from the queue, but most of them did, I understand—applied for the visa class where they had to spend $17,000. The figure of 2,531 represented approximately 10 per cent of the then aged parent and aged dependent relative queue. If 10 per cent of the queue is all the minister was able to convince over a five-month period of the discounted price of $17,000, how does he expect to convince 4,000 people over the next two program years to part with $65,000 per couple? I believe the government is being very ambitious and optimistic in this regard. Further, another substantial piece of evidence that I can rely on is the recent survey that the Australian Democrats conducted to gauge support or otherwise for these new measures. I understand that Senator Bartlett sent out some 6,000 letters explaining the new measures and seeking feedback from ethnic community organisations, church and religious groups, migration agents and other stakeholders. The result of this comprehensive survey, I understand, as I read in an article in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald, is that 75 per cent of those that replied were against the new measure.I reiterate that the Labor opposition are not opposed to the principles of mutual obligation, nor are we opposed to ensuring that newly arrived aged parents and aged dependent relatives provide substantial contributions to their own health care, in particular. These contributions, however, must be fair and they must be achievable, especially by those people whose means are limited. If the government intends to raise millions of dollars by the sale of visas, let it say so, openly and transparently. Let the government place whatever criteria it wants on these visas. But the point is that, if it is just creating a new visa class to make some money, it should at least have the guts to say that that is what it wants to do. In his second reading speech the minister said he now wants to allow more parents to live in Australia in a way that ensures a fair deal for the Australian taxpayer. The Labor opposition agrees wholeheartedly with this statement. What the opposition does not want, however, is deception and unfairness in policy making. This bill has plenty of both.On this note, the speaker who will follow me from the opposition side will be the shadow health minister, who will make many telling observations as to how this particular bill has been ill-conceived. In fact, if it were passed, the drain on the public health system would be extraordinarily great, because all this minister is saying is that he wants this $25,000 per person health fee to be paid to a private health insurer. Never mind at the moment that they do not have a product. But, presuming they can have a product, they will pay that money into the private health insurer and the Medicare system will still pick up the health care of these people. It is just so stupid that it is beyond words. As I say to you, the member for Jagajaga will talk about that in more detail.I might say also, Mr Deputy Speaker, that Labor is not averse to coming up with a fair system whereby over a period of time and, say, on a yearly basis perhaps some contribution can be made, because a lot of people in this country who are now aged have contributed to the Medicare system by way of their levies and as a result they should not be disadvantaged and there should not be any undue pressures put on the Australian taxpaying public if these people come over here at a late stage. So we agree with that. My mind is always open. As I always say to the minister for immigration, if he wants to put something up that is fair, we will, as we do in 85 to 90 per cent of cases, agree to the bill.I want to finish by reiterating that the opposition will not support this bill at present. I therefore wish to move an amendment which has been circulated in my name. I move:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“the bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for an increase in the quota for parent visas based on:(1) a fair contribution by parents or their sponsors towards the costs to be met by Medicare for parents' general health care; (2) any health contributions to be used to offset the increased costs for Medicare and public hospital services; and(3) the size of any contribution not being such as to exclude access to visas by parents of Australian families with limited means”.Time is running out for me—CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—It always was.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to reply to that interjection.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—You only have two minutes.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—I have 30 seconds or something. The member for Moreton is here on tenterhooks. The chances are that the Australian public will give him the biggest boot he has ever had in his life at the next election and he is saying things like that about us. It is just so funny, it makes me laugh. He is not a bad fellow; it is a pity his electors will reject him shortly. They did it to me, mate, so don't feel bad.I simply say that the rationale behind my motion will be further referred to by the shadow health minister my colleague and friend Jenny Macklin. We support the amendment but certainly we do not support the bill.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is the amendment seconded?N36Evans, Martyn, MPMr Martyn Evans—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.13:11:0018069Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—At the heart of the argument is Graham Richardson's observation—this pathological, passionate distaste that the Australian Labor Party have for anything to do with private health. When we cut everything the honourable member for Bowman had to say in his 30-minute contribution to this particular debate, that is really what it was all about. We have heard a lot about the question of rights but we never hear much about the sense of responsibility. I really must begin on that point.In a lot of ways this amendment could almost be named after the honourable member for Bowman, the Sciacca amendment, because so much of what we are doing in this legislation addresses the chain of events that came about as a direct result of his advice to his Senate colleagues to block legislation which would create two new parent subclasses. It was first announced in November 1998. It is a statement of historical fact that the Senate disallowed those particular regulations which underpinned the subclasses on 31 March 1999. The effect of that was that everything to do with the whole area of parent visas basically went back to what it was prior to November 1998.The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs is somebody who shows the lead on consultation and keeps in touch with the community in the specific area that he addresses.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca—In Liberal seats.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The honourable member for Bowman interjects that it is a Liberal seat. If it were not for the fact that the government held so many seats across Australia, it would be more difficult for the minister to actually get to the fine cross-section of Australians that he manages to speak to at those particular consultation sessions.I know there are a lot of people from various ethnic community groups within my electorate of Moreton who travelled to Redcliffe, to the electorate of Petrie, the venue for those consultations in the area of Brisbane. I think a lot of them would be very offended. I will be making sure they have a copy of the words of the honourable member for Bowman. They would be very offended by the underlying logic in his argument to this place that they did not represent a valid view, that they were somehow or other cooked up or conspired by the minister to present something that suited his cause.Those people from my electorate have come from diverse backgrounds—from various parts of Asia, Africa, Europe, war-torn parts of our world—to live in this country. They go to consultation sessions with the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, express their view and give him a tick or a cross on matters he has raised with them. It is offensive in the extreme for the honourable member for Bowman to come in here and suggest that somehow or other they were cooked up and conspired by the minister to suit his cause. I find it especially offensive that the honourable member for Bowman has caused the circumstance where the regulations the minister originally attempted to amend were disallowed by the Senate. But 2,500 parents were going to come to Australia under this particular rights and responsibilities style of approach. It was 2,500 and now it is down to 500, all thanks to the Australian Labor Party in the other place on the advice of the honourable member for Bowman. The honourable member for Bowman is pretty rich in coming into this place.This particular piece of legislation is all about getting people out of a couple of queues. One is the migration queue that they are in. In the circumstances caused by the honourable member for Bowman, it will take 40 years for the 20,000 people currently waiting for visas under this particular category to get here. Naturally enough, a whole bunch of them will never arrive. It will take 40 years under this particular set of circumstances regarding existing parents.This government is trying to say, `If there are people in the queue who have the capacity to meet the responsibility of looking after their circumstances like all other Australians who have lived here their entire lives, if they have the capacity to meet their health care costs, then talk. Let's give them the chance to come here, be repatriated with family members who are sponsoring them and provide all of the social linkages that we know that ageing parents are able to provide to families and their particular needs.' This is all about getting them out of that queue. It is also about not creating yet another series of long queues in public hospitals around Australia. I understand the honourable member for Jagajaga follows me in this particular debate. I know that her passionate distaste for anything to do with private health will be displayed by her contribution.What members of the Australian Labor do every time they come into these debates is talk about whether or not people should be able to subscribe to private health insurance mechanisms. The companies cannot keep up with those who are doing so before 1 July; everyone wants to get cover. Members of the Labor Party complain that there is something fundamentally wrong, public hospitals should be propped up and we should create longer queues. That is at the heart of everything the Australian Labor Party ever says on these matters. They want longer queues in public health institutions around this country. They do not want encouraged in any way those people who have the capacity to relieve those queues from the burden of so many in them by meeting their own particular sense of responsibilities by contributing to private health insurance. They do not want people to take out private health insurance, which means they do not want people to leave the long public hospital queues around this country.This mechanism is consistent with a well established principle of this government to say to those who have the capacity to do something for those who do not have the capacity to go ahead and do so. We will allow some of those who do not have the means to put together bonds or pay charges to meet the costs of their health or social security benefits as newly arrived migrants in this country. We are giving those people the opportunity to come up the queue faster than would have been the case as a direct result of measures that were caused by the Australian Labor Party. This actually helps get people out of the queue. It is also part of the ongoing important measures that have been introduced by this government to ensure integrity in the immigration system in this country. It is not just those who migrate here who have a stake in the integrity of the immigration system. It is a matter of concern right across the breadth of public policy debate in this country, right across the different cohorts and constituencies that exist in this nation. We saw not too many years ago in this country someone prepared to try to split politics and divisions within our national social fabric by attempting to create in people's minds some resentment towards those who migrate to this country. So integrity of the immigration system is one of the most important things that Minister Ruddock has achieved during his stewardship.It is important we send a message to all Australians that people are not coming here on a free ride and that anyone who migrates to this country migrates for the right reasons. The `what's in it for Australia' criterion has been met in a positive way. Likewise, even those who migrate to this country as parents of longer established migrants have themselves an opportunity to be part of that integrity approach that we are adopting and have adopted since coming to government. We do not want people who migrate to this country to feel a sense of resentment from those who have lived here a long time—who were born here and whose family has been here for generations or those who perhaps arrived in the postwar migration boom. We do not want people to come to this country and find anything other than a complete welcome. The fact someone may come late in their working life to this nation is in itself a very big decision. It is not a decision that is taken lightly. It is not a decision that is taken against a background of having no assets in so many of the cases. It is not an unreasonable thing at all to ask those people who come here with some capacity to invest—having come here late in their working life—`What contribution can you make? What can you do to assist this country in looking after you in your later years?' It is important for anybody who wants to participate in this debate to understand that there are health care costs associated with people over the age of 65 of, on average, $6,000 a year. We have a statement from members opposite that that should be borne in part by the average Australian taxpayer, which means of course that the integrity of the system starts to come into disrepute. I am stunned to think that the Australian Labor Party would want to create a set of circumstances where it would be easy for those who want to practise splitter's politics to divide our nation into migrants and non-migrants, black and white and so forth, as we saw not too many years ago, all over again. I would hate to think that the Australian Labor Party are, by implication, suggesting that that would suit them fine, because that is actually the sort of thing that could occur as a result of not taking the kinds of measures contained in this bill. We are saying, `If you want to come to this country, we want you here if you have something positive to offer. Here are the terms; here are the conditions.' We are still saying to 500 people a year—it could have been 2,500 if the member for Bowman had not intervened—that they will still be able to come here under other circumstances. To those who have the capacity to contribute towards the cost of their health, wellbeing and maintenance, we are saying it is not fair just for the Australian taxpayer to meet that cost. We are saying that unless the private health insurance industry provides cover—and that product will come as a result of the obvious incentive that will be there for the private health industry to do so—then there will be a health service charge of $25,000 per person. Those are the rules; those are the conditions and that is the basis on which you come to Australia. I do not see that that in itself is a problem. I do not think it is a problem to any fair-minded Australian who looks not just at the specifics of this but rather at the broad issues—the importance of maintaining our social fabric and, of course, the integrity of this system.The charge that the member Bowman is upset about, this $25,000, may never be charged if the private health insurance industry comes forward with the sort of package of cover we are encouraging through this piece of legislation. What would happen is that there would be a statement of agreement struck by somebody who believes they can meet the cost of whatever the charge of the premium would be each year to cover their entire health care costs. Most Australians would applaud the fact that we are saying, `You have the right to live here in Australia. We will confer upon you citizenship. We value the fact that you have decided to move here for whatever reason, but like every other Australian there is a set of responsibilities you have to undertake and guarantee you will undertake.' I do not see that in itself as being a problem in the real world—the sort of world that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has never been afraid to enter into. I have visited these consultation processes that the minister has undertaken. He had one in my electorate a few years ago. There is no doubt in my mind that the minister has taken brickbats and bouquets along the way. That has ensured that the minister keeps on the right path to come up with the right balance of measures and, moreover, the people of Australia are coming with him. He is responding to people's views, concerns and needs, but at the same time he is explaining to those people—there are some in the community who do not even understand why we have any immigrants—the value of our migration program, the measures the government has undertaken to ensure its integrity is in place and that those who migrate here clearly understand before they come here their rights and responsibilities. This is one of a range of measures that is contained within our migration acts. This is just one means by which people are able to put forward their case to meet the `what's in it for Australia' criterion that is generally applied to anybody who aspires to migrate to this country. No-one would doubt for a moment that we should allow people to come here on their terms and conditions. Moreover, once they get here, no-one should ever doubt that this government would allow anybody to create a circumstance where anybody who has migrated to this country is looked down upon as being less Australian than someone who was born here or whose families have been here. It is one of a package of measures that is bringing families together.I know the minister's own hand was across the unification of a family in my electorate. His intervention and efforts made it possible, after eight years of living apart, for Kebreab Teweldemedhin, who came from Eritrea and fought his way to this country, last week to be reunited with his wife and children. He has seen his 10-year-old daughter become 18, his 11-year-old daughter become 19, his 14-year-old daughter become 22 and his son whom he had not seen for nine years, and they are now back together living here in Australia. That is what this migration program, at its heart, is all is about; that is, bringing people to Australia who will make a contribution to this nation with a clear understanding of their rights and responsibilities once they get here and bringing people here who will be, due to their having come here, encouraged to do good things for this nation. And I know that Kebreab's family will contribute greatly to this nation.I come back to where I began my contribution to this debate. I am offended in the extreme by the notion of the member for Bowman in questioning the bona fides of the minister and in questioning the minister's motivation to hold public consultations. I am offended in the extreme by the member for Bowman who himself has caused fewer parents to come through on the clear path that could have been in place for 2,500 a year and is now only 500 a year. I am offended by the member for Bowman's smoke and mirrors contribution to this debate to try to bring about some confusion in the ranks that all migrants will face some sort of impost on them. I am offended in the extreme by this ongoing pathological and philosophical hatred that the Australian Labor Party has for anything to do with private health. What it basically says to people is, `It's all one-sided and we will give you everything; don't bother doing anything for yourself.' I think great dignity comes from those who can subscribe to private health. Great dignity will also come from the measures contained within the bills for those who take up the option to get themselves out of the queue—a queue made longer by the member for Bowman and the Australian Labor Party—and come to Australia and contribute something to themselves, their family and our nation. I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Bills18072R107618072Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.18072Bill (on motion by Ms Worth)—by leave—read a third time.Bills18073R107518073Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.18073Bill (on motion by Ms Worth)—by leave—read a third time.Bills18073R107418073Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.18073Bill (on motion by Ms Worth)—by leave—read a third time.Bills18073R1092BillsR109318073Debate resumed.13:32:0018073Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The Migration Legislation Amendment (Parents and Other Measures) Bill 2000 proposes a new system for approval of visas for parents of Australian citizens to migrate to Australia. In future these people will be required to buy private health insurance for 10 years in advance or pay a $25,000 charge in order to qualify for consideration. This will result in a considerable cost for Australians who want to bring their retired parents to this country to spend their last years with their families. Including the social security bonds, it will be necessary for a family to raise $64,000 to bring both parents or $35,000 to bring out a sole remaining parent. The government argues that these arrangements will offset the cost to the Commonwealth from allowing a larger number of parents to enter, because they will be paying for their own health care. This scheme does nothing of the sort, because it does not attract a single extra dollar to pay for the additional Medicare services that will be provided. The important thing to note, of course, is that once these family members arrive in Australia they will be entitled to Medicare, whether they have private health insurance or not.The government seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Medicare works and what is provided by private health insurance. It is quite false to suggest that private health insurance is a replacement product, because it does not pay for the cost of basic health care met by Medicare and it really only pays for the additional costs of using a private hospital. For example, $6 billion a year is spent on medical services for GPs and specialists by the Commonwealth. None of this is covered by private health insurance. Medicare even funds 75 per cent of the medical bills of private patients for in-hospital private treatment. Private health insurance covers only the other 25 per cent or, in the case of no-gap coverage, the gap between the 75 per cent Medicare rebate and the total cost.Another $4 billion is funded through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which is a fundamental part of Medicare and available to all people entitled to a Medicare card. Again, private health insurance does not cover any of these costs. The only return a privately insured patient can get is against the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme co-payment for pharmaceuticals received as a private in-patient—a relatively small proportion of cases.The third major category is for the costs of hospital accommodation and treatment. Here the Commonwealth spends $6 billion on public hospitals, and the states spend a similar amount. Under this proposed scheme, the government will provide a Medicare card to each new parent migrant and that parent will then be entitled to free medical, pharmaceutical and hospital services under Medicare without getting a single dollar back. There is no contribution paid for the Medicare services under the government's proposal and no reduction in the costs met by the government for medical or pharmaceutical services. The government's argument hangs around whether a person with private health insurance saves the government anything if they go to a private hospital rather than a public one. So far, the government has completely failed to demonstrate that the recent increase in private health insurance membership has had the slightest impact on the demand for public hospitals. In fact, the evidence suggests that private hospitals are substantially underutilised while public hospitals continue to treat record numbers of patients. There is no sign that there has been a shift in the direction that the government has counted on. The cost to the government of medical services paid for by Medicare has not dropped by a dollar. Medicare continues to pay 75 per cent of the medical costs of private hospital patients and pays 85 per cent of the cost of all normal medical consultations.The government continues to pay the full cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and is now subsidising health insurance for those members who get a rebate from their fund for the co-payments that others pay out of pocket. The government's cost of contributing to public hospitals has not dropped. In fact, the cost of running our public hospitals continues to increase as the states try to keep up with demand. It is very unfortunate that this government has failed to properly index its payments to the states, and as a result the states have been short-changed as far as their public hospitals are concerned.This government should be condemned for reneging on the Australian health care agreements signed with the states in late 1998. Barely one year later the Minister for Health and Aged Care in the federal parliament has refused to accept the finding of an independent inquiry appointed in accordance with the dispute provisions in the agreement. The minister has effectively ripped up the agreement and short-changed the states. And, of course, as a result of the measure before the House, this situation will get worse as more pressure will come on the public hospitals with no extra contribution.The opposition does not object to the proposition that it would be reasonable for migrant parents to make a contribution to offset the likely health expenses to be incurred by the public purse. I am sure that, provided that that contribution was within their means, most parents and their children would be happy to pay such a contribution. The issue is whether the contribution is reasonable and structured to make it affordable. It is contrary to the equity principles on which Australia's migration program is based that requirements such as this should create a situation where wealthy people can get easy access to Australia while those less well off are kept out. Unfortunately, the government has refused to look at the issue in a reasonable way. The requirement to purchase private health insurance is unreasonable and will be shown to be unworkable and the alternative of a $25,000 up-front payment is beyond the means of most people.I have already explained why requiring migrant parents to take out private health insurance will not reduce the cost to the public purse. I have to say that the silliness of this policy gets even worse. As we know, the government pays 30 per cent of the cost of all private health insurance and it will actually incur extra costs as a result of this proposal—which I might say to the minister are not disclosed in the financial statement in the explanatory memorandum.If 4,000 parents took out private health insurance policies at the foreshadowed cost of $25,000 for 10 years coverage, it would produce income for the funds of around $100 million but the government would have to fund $30 million of that through the 30 per cent rebate. There would be absolutely no saving to the government as far as Medicare is concerned. The government proposes to give access to Medicare to these migrants without any payment. As most are retired or without any other income, they are probably all exempt from paying the Medicare levy.Likewise, the cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme would not reduce by $1 by virtue of the migrant parents having private health insurance. Public hospital costs would not drop either. For a start, migrant parents would be perfectly entitled to use public hospitals as any other Medicare card holder is entitled to do. Quite a few privately insured people use public hospitals because that is where they can access reliable emergency services and complex treatment. In a private hospital, people are often charged large gap fees. This is also an incentive for people to go public. Before I go on to talk about Labor's proposition, I want to mention another unresolved flaw in the government's scheme. At present there are no policies available to provide the coverage that this bill dictates. No health fund currently offers a 10-year policy and there is considerable doubt that the rules applying to health funds will permit a policy to be paid up front given the uncertainty that exists about future premium increases. There are many things about such policies which would have to be explained, not least the rules about whether or not they are partially refundable should the person die.The government must also explain how its commitment to maintain community rating for private health insurance is kept. These 10-year policies will be targeted at a specific age group who are known to have much higher costs than other people who are members of any fund. The government will be effectively forcing other fund members to contribute to the cross-subsidisation of migrant parents unless it abandons community rating for these older migrants, which will push up the cost of these premiums significantly. So we need to know which way the government intends to go. Is it intending to charge these migrant parents the full cost of covering these parents at an older age, which is of course outside the principles of community rating, or does it intend to stick with community rating and cross-subsidise through the health insurance funds? I would like either the minister for immigration or the health minister to explain why they think this private health insurance arrangement will do one scrap of good when dealing with this problem.As I indicated, the opposition does not object to the proposition that migrant parents should make a reasonable contribution to the provision of health services that they will be able to access in Australia. The basic principle of Medicare is that people contribute towards the cost of health services in proportion to their ability to pay. Most people contribute through their working life, paying the Medicare levy and other taxes to meet their share of the total health system, which is widely acknowledged as one of the world's best and funded by one of the world's fairest funding mechanisms. This means that everybody contributes. Those who retire with incomes below the Medicare levy threshold are not required to contribute further but those with incomes above that level do continue to contribute their share. The problem with migrant parents will be that most be will be retired and on very low incomes. Because older people have higher than average health needs, they would also be much more likely to draw more than average on the Medicare pool while not having contributed during their working lives in their home countries.The most sensible way to overcome this problem and for the government to minimise the additional budget expense is to introduce a system for direct contributions to Medicare by this particular group. The funds contributed by migrant parents or by their children on their behalf could be used to directly fund the additional health services in Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and public hospitals that would be required to provide for their needs. The opposition is therefore proposing that a new Medicare contribution be considered as an alternative to the Medicare levy for people who obtain visas to come to Australia as migrant parents. This should be set at a reasonable level that would be affordable for all groups in the community. The benefit must go to the health system instead of just into general revenue. We want to see a way in which our public system and Medicare can get the money that is needed to care for these people. This would be a vastly better scheme than what the government is proposing. The money paid by migrant parents for their health would go directly into the public health system.As with other Medicare services, there would still be a cross-subsidy from general taxation but this would be at a more acceptable level than has previously been proposed by the government. Under the government's proposal, the cost of the rebate blows away any savings from getting migrants treated in private hospitals instead of public hospitals. The government's scheme does not raise a single dollar towards the cost of providing Medicare and pharmaceuticals if all it is aiming to do is drive people into a private health insurance product that does not even exist. As I said, under the opposition's approach, there would be more money in the public system, which would make it possible to provide the necessary services to these migrant parents who do want to be with their families here in Australia. We think it is reasonable for people to make a contribution but we want to make sure that that is a contribution that most people are able to make. The sorts of charges that the government is proposing will mean that those with money can afford to bring their parents to Australia and those who do not have that sort of money will not be able to reunite their families. That is not an Australian way of doing things and it is certainly not the way in which Australia would like to see our migration policy being pursued. 13:47:0018076Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise today to support the Migration Legislation Amendment (Parents and Other Measures) Bill 2000 and congratulate the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and also thank him for being here in the chamber to listen to the debate today. I think it is important that we see ministers here understanding some of the issues that are raised, and I thank him for it. I think he is a minister who has done an outstanding job of listening to people and their concerns. I have listened to the speech of the honourable member for Jagajaga. I think it is very interesting. She says on the one hand that we need to have some kind of scheme to assist the parents of Australian residents to come to Australia. On the other hand, she says that the amount we want to charge is too much. But, rather interestingly and very politically, she does not say how much she thinks we should charge. She said, `Well, I'm afraid we're opposed to that because it's just far too hard.' I say to the honourable member for Jagajaga that, if she thinks it is too hard, she should tell us the amount that she thinks is appropriate. It is very easy to come in here and say that she agrees with the principle but the amount is just too high.I personally think this is an excellent initiative by the minister. In my own electorate office I have seen a number of people who are Australian residents and who have lived here for some time. In my own electorate I have a number of people who have settled from the UK, from Scotland and Ireland, and many other places. They wish to be reunited with their elderly parents or elderly parent. But, because the queue is so long, they feel this great frustration. For most of us, the relationship with our families is absolutely paramount. I can imagine the experience that they would have of being separated from their elderly parents without, in many cases, the prospect of having them come to live with them. Often they may be frail or incapacitated in some way. The trade-off which the minister has proposed is not easy. He has to balance the cost to the Australian taxpayer of having the elderly parent in Australia with the compassion.I personally think we need to recognise the considerable number of people who want to come to Australia in this category and the way in which they can be assisted. The theme I hear in my electorate office from people is, `We are prepared to guarantee the costs our parents would incur in Australia—their medical costs, et cetera. What we want more than anything is for them to come here. We recognise the costs that are there.' It is not as though under the proposals in this bill a profit will be made, because the figures have been worked out on the reality of what has been charged overall. It is particularly interesting that the charges proposed are a considerable amount less—the figures I have show that on average the total health cost for persons over 65 years is about $6,000 a year. For a person with a remaining life span of 20 years the total cost may be about $120,000. The total welfare cost—special benefit and age pension payments—could be as large as $160,000 per person over the same period. To charge a $25,000 bond is not excessive. It is still in terms of the actual cost. This is not a set-up; this is not providing a spin; this is the reality of what it is costing. We want the parents of Australian residents to have health care, but they should make some contribution towards it, because the average Australian taxpayer who is battling day in and day out would say, `It is fair enough to bring your parents out, but do not expect us to pick up all the costs. Let's look at what is a reasonable amount.' If we look at the reality, in terms of the government's program we have 500 people a year who are able to come to this country under the parents of Australian residents visa program. The minister is saying he will provide an additional 4,000 places. Currently we have 20,000 people on the list. It is a substantial boost in terms of the numbers that will be allowed in. The people who have seen me at my electorate office asking for assistance will be delighted if this goes through. Often the Labor Party claims it is a party of compassion. Let us see some of this compassion, because this is about family reunions. The Democrats make the same claim. Let us look at the reality of what we are trying to achieve and that is the balance that is required.The ALP attempted to make the changes in the past by recognising the significant costs of bringing parents to Australia. In 1988 they introduced the Assurance of Support Regime and Migration Act in recognition of the high cost on taxpayers. They want an assurance signed by the people bringing their parents to this country that those will not be a burden to the Australian taxpayers. Because there was no monetary cost involved, there was a lot of default. Some seven per cent of migrants subject to an assurance received special benefits costing about $9 million and about $7.2 million in unemployment benefits. In 1991 the Labor government decided to tighten it up. They restricted government liability to social security payments, applied stricter means tests on assurers, improved debt recovery liaison between the finance and social security departments and introduced a refundable bond to cover eligible social security payments. Then in addition to the enhanced AOS regime a migrant health services charge was introduced. In 1988 as part of wider reform the Commonwealth government proposed to tighten eligibility to Medicare entitlements to exclude a range of people, including visa overstayers, illegal immigrants and the like. In 1992 there was also a change in the definition of who is a resident, to deal with this particular problem. A joint standing committee looked at the issue in terms of how to address the problem of the abuse of the health system. It was a bipartisan committee that recognised that there were right across the board abuses of this system. People were taking from the Australian taxpayers all the subsidies and support. They came up with a number of recommendations and, in particular, recommended the definition of Australian residents be amended to prevent persons with temporary entry permits from gaining access to Medicare, subject to exceptions in specified cases such as temporary visas for asylum seekers. That is the background to this issue. What did the minister propose to introduce? This bill includes a requirement that the children of migrants who enter Australia under these new visas will, firstly, pay a $10,000 bond which would be refunded. It is not as though they will put it up and lose it. It will be refunded if the parents of the sponsors do not access the welfare system within the first 10 years of residency in this country. This bond replaces the $3,500 bond currently in place. They will accrue interest on that bond. If they do not access the system, they will get it back. Secondly, a $25,000 health services charge will be paid or private health insurance taken out to cover the parent for that 10-year period. The bill also removes the incentive for non-genuine applicants to lodge applications merely to gain access to the Medicare system for the period during which their applications are being processed. Basically, it makes parents responsible for the activities, welfare and health of their parents. Very often the Australian resident will say, `Yes, we are prepared to pay all the costs; we just want our parents here.' That is fine. But, when they actually arrive, they want their neighbours, people across the street and people in other suburbs to pay the costs. In other words we are saying, `That's fine. We will assist you by granting 4,000 visas but it is up to you to guarantee that you will provide the private medical health insurance and that you will also undertake this bond that will be refunded if it is not accessed.' I think it is eminently fair. The criticism that this is creating a visa system for the rich simply is not true because of the costs in reality that occur. The average health cost per year for persons over the age of 65 is $6,000. Over a span of 20 years that would multiply out to $120,000, which means that the parent who comes to Australia is still being subsidised by the Australian taxpayer; assisted by the government overall. So on the criterion of what is fair and equitable, this piece of legislation introduced by the minister for immigration establishes the balance between compassion and recognising that currently there are 20,000 parents of Australian residents on the list to come to Australia. On the other hand, it recognises the cost of $120,000 over the lifetime of the parents, a cost to the Australian taxpayer. This proposal provides the ability to establish a balance between the overall cost to the Australian community and the need to be able to reunite families. Of course members on this side of the House and I am sure all members of this parliament support the need for family reunions and the need for Australian residents to be able to bring out their elderly parents from wherever it may be in the world and to have the ability to care for them in the later years of their life. These changes are an attempt to recognise the long waiting lists that exist, the need to cover the costs for the Australian taxpayer and, overall, provide a balance which is a responsible way to go. These changes are in line with what the community would expect. It has been extensively discussed with various community groups, drawn from a range of countries, and the reaction is very positive. It is claimed by the Democrats that many people are opposed to it. That is not borne out by the research carried out by the department of immigration. This is what the community want; they want the ability to bring out their aged parents. They have asked for it in many ways. The department and the minister recognise that the length of the queues of those who are waiting to come to Australia is extensive, currently some 20,000 people. In making these changes it shows not only a government of compassion but also a government that is responsible in the economic management of this country. I commend the bill to the House.Ministerial Arrangements1807814:00:0018078Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Treasurer will be absent from question time today and Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week. He will be chairing the annual ministerial council and opening the Forum 2000 meeting in Paris.DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Question time has not even begun.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—I also inform the House that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business will be absent from question time today. He is attending the seventh APEC small and medium business enterprises meeting in Brunei. The Minister for Employment Services will act on his behalf, and the Minister for Arts and the Centenary of Federation will be Acting Leader of the House.Questions Without Notice180781807814:01:0018078Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, did anyone from your office contact the Electoral Commissioner, Mr Andy Becker, to discuss the concept of the nationwide mail-out of GST promotional material using personal information from the Commonwealth electoral roll? If they did, which staff member—or members—was involved, what were the nature, purpose and date of the communications and who authorised the contact?18078Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—When I was asked a question previously in the House about that matter I indicated that proper procedures had been followed and every step had been taken in accordance with the advice that we had available at the time the steps were taken as to the state of the law in relation to those steps. That remains the case, and I have nothing to add.1807914:02:0018079Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House of the substantial assistance that the government has provided to Australian businesses to help them prepare for the new tax system? What is the Australian Taxation Office doing to ensure that businesses have the information they need to be GST ready on 1 July this year?18079Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Wentworth for his question. It is appropriate, it now being a bare nine days before the commencement of the greatest tax reform of Australia's history, that I inform the House of the numerous steps that have been taken to assist the business community of Australia to get ready for this marvellous change to Australia's taxation system. The GST Start-up Office has been working with peak business organisations to provide around 12,500 seminars and workshops right across Australia. A help line has been funded to ensure that advice is available on business management skills. Direct assistance vouchers of $200 have been sent to eligible businesses to help with start-up costs. This is complemented by immediate tax deductibility for expenditure incurred in businesses getting GST ready. The start-up office, again in close consultation with industry, has produced a range of products to help business prepare, including the business skills guide, the voluntary sector guide, repricing guidelines to assist with pricing issues and much more. The Australian Taxation Office has also been highly active in making sure that businesses have the information they need to prepare for the GST. Some 2.7 million applications for ABNs have been lodged. The commissioner has guaranteed that anyone who lodged an application for an ABN before 31 May will have their ABN by 1 July, when the new system begins. Over 2.3 million calls have been made to the tax reform infolines and business has sought and received over 12 million publications, booklets and fact sheets. There have been over 90 million hits to the ATO's tax reform web site. There have been 150,000 requests for advisory visits by the ATO, and 86 per cent of those advisory visits have been completed as I speak. There have been over 56,000 pieces of correspondence, and over 200,000 people have attended key seminars at 120 locations around Australia, with 50,000 attending ATO Sky Channel seminars at 800 locations. The Morgan and Banks survey last month indicated that 94 per cent of businesses were GST ready. Dun and Bradstreet had a similar finding: 75 per cent said that the GST was no major disruption to their businesses. ATO research last month found that 86 per cent of businesses were close to being ready and over 95 per cent were aware of tax reform initiatives, et cetera.Those figures indicate a pattern of commitment, interest and compliance by the Australian business community, and I congratulate the Australian business community, I congratulate the Australian Taxation Office and I congratulate everybody associated with the positive effort to get this country ready for the greatest tax reform that it has ever seen. In the face of that, having congratulated all those groups, I condemn the Australian Labor Party for having done everything in its power to destroy an initiative that is designed to strengthen the Australian economy. I think what I have told the House represents the determination of ordinary Australians to triumph in the face of the destructive approach of the Australian Labor Party. At every turn the Liberal and National parties have sought to do the right thing for Australia. At every turn the Australian Labor Party has sought to sow confusion, doubt and fear in the Australian community. I believe that the Australian people will know that the Australian Labor Party has attempted to destroy an initiative which is designed to help the Australian community and the Australian people. I have never pretended that tax reform is easy, I have never pretended that it is not without complexity, but I have always argued that it is good for Australia. I believe that the great majority of the Australian people will share that judgment in the weeks and months that follow 1 July and, in sharing that judgment, they will remember with contempt the destructive contribution of the Labor Party.1808014:07:0018080Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—My question is to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, have you seen comments by your National Party colleague the member for Cowper regarding the discriminatory imposition of the GST on caravan park site fees in which he stated:What affects me personally is that my integrity and honour is impugned, as is John Anderson and Larry's and Mark Vaile and the rest of us.Minister, is it not the case that the only Australians who will be paying the GST on their rents are residents of caravan parks and boarding houses and that your deal today has done absolutely nothing to end this discrimination? Minister, are you prepared to do the honourable thing and make good on your undertaking to resign from the ministry if the government does not redress this inequity?18080Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The only person in this House who should resign is the member for Grayndler. Aided and abetted by the member for Lilley, the member for Grayndler has deliberately and in a calculated way gone around the eastern seaboard of Australia and put a lot of fear and scare into some of the most vulnerable people in this community, even to the stage where he is starting to masquerade as a tenant. It was quite obvious in a photograph in the Sydney Morning Herald recently, where I recognised many faces of locals. There are also many other faces in that photograph. There is an ALP member of the upper house. There are two ALP preselection candidates and one of the member for Grayndler's ex-staffers. And there in the middle of the photograph I see a face that looks remarkably like the member for Grayndler and also Wayne Swan—how extraordinary! We know you are totally hypocritical on this issue. The new measures which were brought in this week by the coalition—particularly concerning the ACCC and the New Tax Advisory Board—will ensure that there is no price discrimination. The fear that has been planted in these people's minds has come from you. The announcement today—a very good announcement—that the maximum rate of rent assistance would go up by 10 per cent means an additional $33 million will benefit people right around this country including people in boarding houses in your electorate.1808014:11:0018080Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration representing the Treasurer. Has the Acting Treasurer seen reports of policy proposals which would cause caravan and boarding house rents to increase unnecessarily? What would be the impact that such a measure would have on residents?18080Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—I thank the honourable member for Robertson for his question. It is particularly timely in view of the contribution just a short time ago by that well known Tweed Heads van dweller, the member for Grayndler. Firstly, let me indicate that the current law provides a choice for caravan parks and boarding houses to have rent input taxed or subject to GST on a reduced cost base. This allows accommodation proprietors to choose between the option which has the least impact on rent and provides tenants with the capability to put pressure on proprietors to achieve the lowest rent outcome. A number of propositions have been bandied about in the past week. The proposition has been put to the government that caravan park and boarding house residents deserve special attention. I commend my colleague the Minister for Community Services for consulting with a number of those genuine caravan park residents over recent days on this very question. We know that Labor proposes to remove the choice of tax treatment. Labor proposes to remove an option which would allow caravan park owners the opportunity to minimise their tax burden. By denying caravan park owners the option of claiming back the GST that they have paid on their inputs, park owners would have no choice but to pass on their costs in the form of higher rents. You wonder just where they come from at times.What we have seen in their discussions on this over the past week is the first concrete item of roll-back of the GST. What is the outcome of roll-back as proposed by the Labor Party? It amounts to roll-forward—dearer costs for residents of caravan parks and boarding houses. You want to make them worse off and that is what you mean by roll-back. If you want to get some insight into where this comes from, you only have to take note of what the Leader of the Opposition said in a doorstop interview this morning. He made this extraordinary claim: Compensation packages come and go. I've been a finance minister. I know what happens to compensation packages five or six years down the track. You can forget them.What an extraordinary comment. It is almost breathtaking in its honesty. Since 1993 we have been wondering what Labor meant about compensation. Do you remember 1993? There were l-a-w tax cuts. What did we get in Australia? We got wholesale sales tax that went up from 10 per cent to 12 per cent, with no compensation. It went up from 20 per cent to 22 per cent, from 30 per cent to 32 per cent and from 43 per cent to 45 per cent—with no compensation. It took about five days for that compensation of tax cuts to disappear. Do not worry about your five or six years; you have told the Australian people that if they ever put Labor in charge of the Treasury bench again, they should not take any notice of any promise they make when it comes to compensation.There is another policy that has been put forward on this question. The Democrats wanted to lower the cost base from the existing 50 per cent to 25 per cent. The government's view is that if you want to target assistance for a particular group in the community, you do not introduce complexities into the taxation system; you target assistance to the group in question. That is why today the government has announced an increase in the maximum rate of rent assistance from seven per cent to 10 per cent, taking effect from 1 July. This is $33 billion in additional rent assistance to a genuinely disadvantaged sector of the community. It is an indication that this government will listen, consult and respond to those who need assistance when it becomes appropriate.1808114:16:0018081Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Mr Speaker, my question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, is it the case that the deal with the Democrats on rent assistance announced before question time today will apply if and only if a person receives the maximum rate of rent assistance? Is it true that for a person receiving less than the maximum rate, as many social security recipients do, the deal will not give them one cent extra? Will you also confirm that if a person is eligible, the deal is worth just 16c a day extra for a single person with no children? Minister, how can this possibly compensate a boarding house resident in Sydney who faces a GST rent increase of $10 a week?18081Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—We all know in this House that you cannot rely on information supplied by the Australian Labor Party. What we are doing from 1 July is providing $100 million worth of rental assistance, of which an extra $33 million has been announced today. For those on the maximum rate that means it is going up from $5.40 to $7.70 for singles and from $5 to $7.25 for couples per fortnight. Let us not forget that these people on low incomes not only receive a four per cent increase in their pension, not only get a 2.5 per cent increase in their assets test and not only benefit, as do many families benefit, from the $2.4 billion in family assistance—huge tax reductions—VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr Griffin—They're so lucky.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—They are lucky they have a coalition government in power because we are helping them and we are delivering to them. These are large tax cuts we are providing, where 80 per cent of Australians will pay no more than 30 per cent income tax, not to mention the savings bonuses and supplementary bonuses. These are real things that we put into place. As the Minister for Finance and Administration just mentioned, you never had any compensation measures when interest rates in this country, under your stewardship, went to 18 per cent or 19 per cent—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—It was 23 per cent.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—They went to 23 per cent, and there was no compensation whatsoever. There was no compensation when there were increases in wholesale sales taxes. The fact is that people in those areas receiving rental assistance will be substantially better off, and that is because this is a responsive and caring government. 1808214:19:0018082Washer, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on the current situation in the Solomon Islands and on the action the Australian government is taking in response to developments in that country?18082Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the member for Moore for his question and for the interest that he shows in this important issue. Since my visit with a Commonwealth ministerial delegation to Honiara on 10 and 11 June there have been some positive developments, although the situation still remains very uncertain as the parties approach the scheduled sitting of the parliament on 28 June, next Wednesday. A truce was established for that visit by the Commonwealth ministers and that has held up. But, of course, the economy in the Solomon Islands is in crisis and the situation in Honiara is still tense. My special envoy, Mr Peter Baxter, and also our High Commissioner, Dr Martin Sharp, have been working intensively to promote negotiation amongst the key players. Our work has helped to bring together two important meetings over the past two days which have added momentum to the process of political settlement. The meetings have been between militant spokesmen Nori and Tabani on Wednesday and yesterday between the premiers and delegations of the two provinces directly concerned. These meetings have been chaired by local church figures and have taken place on Australian landing craft. A further meeting, including with the operational commanders of the militant groups, is now planned for Sunday on board HMAS Tobruk, which by then will have returned to Honiara.I am concerned to support those negotiations because we do need to achieve in the Solomons a lasting internal settlement to the ethnic conflict. As a result, I will be visiting Honiara on Saturday for further consultation with political and militant leaders. During my visit I will reinforce the need to consolidate the present de facto cease-fire and the need for an urgent return to constitutional and democratic rule, and renew our offer of substantial support, provided there is a clear commitment and active participation by the key internal parties in a renewed peace process. Australia's concern also remains for the people affected by this conflict. I remind the House that I announced earlier this week emergency humanitarian assistance to the value of $1 million to be delivered in Honiara in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross for medical supplies, shelter and food.1808214:22:0018082Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware that a constituent of mine, Mr Patterson of St Kilda, recently received a letter from his real estate agent advising him that due to the introduction of the GST his rent would be increasing on 15 September from $500 a month to $520 a month? Prime Minister, wasn't your promise at the last election that rents would rise by only 2.3 per cent and only in the long run? Prime Minister, isn't your `2.3 per cent' now 4 per cent and your `long run' now only 10 weeks?18082Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the first part of a question is no. The answer to the second, more general, part of the question has already been given in substance, as I think the member for Melbourne Ports would know, by the Treasurer during I thought a very good interview on the AM program yesterday in which he explained in some detail how—Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Let me go through it again. There has been some reference to the 4.7 that was contained in the Econtech report which was written by Mr Murphy, who is frequently described as a `modeller of choice'. He is obviously a choice of the Labor Party, because they refer to him very frequently.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—So do you.ZD4Mr HOWARD—We both refer to him frequently. Because he is a choice of the Labor Party, let us for the purposes of this discussion have a look at what he said. It bears very heavily on the central issue in this whole debate; that is, whether you are better or worse off being input taxed or paying a half GST. What Murphy says is that in the long run if you take the Labor Party option you are much worse off. 2V5Swan, Wayne, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—It is very interesting that just before question time the member for Lilley—and I will come back to the 2.3 in a minute—held forth at a news conference and he gave, as the acting Treasurer said, the first really clear-cut commitment to a roll-back from the Australian Labor Party. He did not say it was a `roll-back'. He said it was an `ironclad guarantee'. We on this side of the House would like to know whether an ironclad guarantee is as good as l-a-w law. We would like to know whether that is as good. The reality is the member for Lilley was promising in Labor Party language to the occupiers of caravan parks and boarding houses that he would give them an ironclad guarantee they would be worse off because he was going to take away the option of the imposition of a half GST.Returning to what the member for Melbourne Ports asked me, about the 2.3 per cent, you will recall the Treasurer pointing out during that interview that that projection was based upon the GST proposal taken to the people at the last election. You will also be aware that the GST has been made more complicated than we would have liked because of the refusal of the opposition parties including your own to pass the GST that the Australian people had supported at the election. As a result of that, that 2.3 figure was varied to something of the order of 3.5. When you take in the margins for land that the Treasurer spoke about you find effectively something of the order of an 80c difference in a $200 a week rental. While I do not know the detail of the gentleman's position, I would be very happy as I always am to have that analysed. As to the general question you have put to me—it has no substance at all.1808314:26:0018083Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, what has been the response to the government's Lifetime Health Cover initiative and are you aware of public comments describing the initiative as `very good policy'?18083Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her question and her interest in this matter. Lifetime Health Cover is exceeding all expectations. We really are having a rush for cover and we are having reports back from the health funds that more people than had been expected are taking advantage of the Friday-week cut-off. This is very good news. A big influx of younger, fitter people into private health cover will stabilise it, will keep premiums down and will give Australians real choice. I got some very good feedback this morning on radio station 2GB when the former Labor Party health minister Graham Richardson said:By the way, Lifetime Health Cover is a very good policy. I strongly support this move. It is a beauty and it is having its effect.That is always welcome from someone who actually understands health policy as a former health minister. He also went on to solve a riddle that has been plaguing me for some time. I could not quite understand why when it comes to heath care the Labor Party is locked in the 1950s with a Stalinist model of health care provision. But Graham Richardson on 2GB this morning also explained this. In his words:Jenny Macklin has an ideological position with which I don't agree, and that is that she doesn't like private health insurance.This explains the actions of the Labor Party over the last 18 months. But it poses a problem for federal Labor because 77 per cent of the Australian population actually want a mixed provision of public and private health cover. They do not want the system that happened under 13 years of Labor where private health care was allowed to slowly wither away, premiums escalated to an extraordinary extent and benefits continually shrank. The Labor Party in the end has to decide whether they are prepared to allow a mixed public-private provision, as we have in public broadcasting, as we have in education and as we have in health. It works well. It is the Australian way. It has the strong support of the Australian population.1808414:28:0018084Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Acting Treasurer. Given that petrol has consistently been well above 77c a litre, isn't your 7c a litre excise reduction insufficient to ensure petrol prices will not go up due to your GST? Given the Treasurer has gone to Paris until 29 June, has the decision been made on the level of excise reduction and why won't you tell the motoring public what it is?18084Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The government has been monitoring closely the question of petrol—the strike rate on the excise, et cetera. One of the factors that clearly cannot be ignored is the meeting overnight in Vienna of the OPEC oil ministers. That has been considered by the government and the government will be making an announcement on this issue—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—When? 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. HQ5Mr FAHEY—later this afternoon. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Tonight. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is defying the chair. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—As soon as Costello flew the country. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Deputy Leader of the Opposition! 1808414:30:0018084Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Given the backlog of some 1,200 mining exploration applications in Queensland because of the uncertainty over the native title process and the potential for this to cause damage to our biggest resource based industry, would the Attorney-General inform the House of the progress of the Queensland native title determinations? 18084Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the member for Groom for his question. The Queensland government first passed legislation to introduce alternative state provisions in 1998. This legislation was significantly flawed and had to be significantly rewritten. It passed workable legislation in July last year. Subsequently the Queensland government requested that I make some 13 different determinations under the Native Title Act in relation to those alternative state provisions. But after careful study, and in accordance with my statutory obligations, I determined that the Queensland provisions did comply with the Native Title Act requirements. The determinations were tabled in this House on 1 June and they were tabled in the Senate on 5 June. Those determinations are important because they enable the integration of some native title processes into the land management and mining regimes in Queensland. Those affected by native title, whether as claimants or resource developers or landowners, have the opportunity in that respect of more certain administration. However, on 8 June the Democrats moved a motion in the Senate to disallow my determinations and, therefore, in effect the Queensland legislation. In a news release of that day, Senator Woodley said: The Democrats call on the Opposition Leader, Kim Beazley, to vote consistently with Labor's opposition to the NT's native title regime which presented the same issues as the Queensland legislation. Labor must not side with the Howard government against indigenous people. I call on Kim Beazley to examine his conscience and do the right thing by the indigenous people of Queensland. Not surprisingly, Mr Beattie, the Queensland Labor Premier, has a different view. He has called for all senators to support Queensland's historic native title legislation. He said: This is a fair and balanced model which should be followed by other states. It should become the model for Australia. If the Senate rejects our model, everyone loses. Mining exploration will disappear offshore and indigenous communities will miss out. The Australian people, and Queenslanders in particular, want to know whether Labor intends to support Mr Beattie in the Senate. Or is Labor intending to reopen a divisive debate on native title? The Labor spokesman on Aboriginal affairs, the member for Banks, was quoted on this subject in the Courier Mail of 2 June. He said: Aboriginal affairs spokesman, Daryl Melham, last night would not commit the opposition to supporting the laws, saying Labor caucus was yet to decide. `We will be consulting with the relevant parties and the Caucus will form a view at an appropriate time.' What is an appropriate time? There have been caucus meetings since that statement was made and there will be another one next week. Are we going to hear soon what Queensland native title claimants and resource developers want to hear? It seems not. Labor, in disregard of the interests of those affected in Queensland, has made a deal with the Democrats not to deal with this issue until parliament resumes after the winter break. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—So sorry. You spent six months on it. 7V5Mr WILLIAMS—An appropriate time, Mr Speaker. It has nothing do with the interests of either indigenous claimants or the resource based interests. Queenslanders deserve better. Labor knocked back the native title regime in the Northern Territory but Labor allowed determinations relating to two areas in New South Wales in the Lightning Ridge region. They passed through parliament without being disallowed. If Labor truly believed that the provisions of the Native Title Act relating to alternative state and territory regimes were racially discriminatory they should have moved to disallow those determinations, but they did not. Perhaps there is one policy for coalition governments and another policy for Labor mates, but what is the policy for Queensland? There are some members from Queensland over there. There is the member for Brisbane, there is the member for Bowman, there is the member for Capricornia, there is the member for Oxley, there is the member for Griffith, and there is the member for Rankin. They should get behind the Leader of the Opposition, give him a push and make Labor decide now what Queenslanders want to know. 1808514:37:0018085Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—My question is directed to the Acting Treasurer. I ask: how are petrol station owners supposed to implement your fuel grants scheme when the Treasurer has gone to Paris before releasing the boundaries which determine which areas qualify for the grant? Will you give petrol station owners the courtesy of telling them when this vital information will be made available to them? 18085Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—Mr Speaker, I really wonder if Labor wants to waste a question in question time. It is a valuable time to inform the Australian people. I clearly indicated that the government will be informing everyone later this afternoon. All I would suggest to the honourable member is that he have patience for another hour or two and then all will be revealed.Distinguished Visitors1808510000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. David Simmons, former member for Calare and former minister for local government. On behalf of the House I extend to him our welcome.Honourable members—Hear, Hear!Questions Without Notice180851808514:37:0018085Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister outline to the House the social, health and productivity costs of alcohol abuse to Australian society. Are all Australian governments contributing to a reduction in these costs, and if not, why?18085Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question and his interest in this matter. In a very recent article in the prestigious journal The Annals of Internal Medicine the cost of just hangovers in Australia was put at over $6.3 billion a year from lost productivity and illness. That is a very significant amount. In the 1998 household expenditure survey, 18 per cent of people admitted to having driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The survey also showed that 30 per cent of people 14 years of age or older had been subject to verbal abuse by people who had been drunk; five per cent of people 14 years of age or older admitted to being subject to physical abuse from people who had been drunk. Beyond these immediate harms, there are much longer-term health costs of disease, premature death and substantial risk-taking behaviour.The Commonwealth has a number of strategies where we are trying to address the issue of alcohol related harm in the community. There is a national alcohol action plan under way. We hope to complete it later this year. It is providing direction on a number of issues, particularly health and hospitality work force education and training, workplace alcohol policies and education, the needs of high-risk communities and populations, and the need for interventions to reduce alcohol related harm. Further, earlier this year, we launched two very successful commercials aimed at binge drinking amongst younger people to raise the awareness of choices in safe drinking. The National Health and Medical Research Council is releasing safe drinking guidelines. They are being prepared, and in fact this weekend will be sent out for further public consultation. The second part of the honourable member's question was: are all governments acting to promote these initiatives? I am pleased to be able to inform the House that the Western Australian, South Australian, Victorian and Tasmanian governments have been particularly responsible in this area. One of the most significant things that has happened in recent years—and I am actually prepared to give the opposition credit for something when they were in government—is the introduction of a differential rate on the taxation of beer. This was introduced in the 1988 budget. I remember it well because it was in the first days in this new Parliament House. In the budget night speech in 1988, the Treasurer, Mr Keating, said very clearly that the reform was designed to favour the consumption of lower alcohol beverages. The health minister, Neal Blewett, the following day in answer to questions expanded on this. He said:... I regard it as a major advance in the taxation system of this country to establish for all time a taxation regime which distinguishes between low and high alcohol beer. I believe that now it is established and built into the system it will be maintained, and I believe that that has very positive health benefits.In answer to another question on this matter, he went on to say:... they will lead to a swing away from both the consumption and production of higher strength alcohol beers ....The research has in fact borne this out. The drug and alcohol review in 1995, looking at Australia's harm minimisation policies, stated:A reasonable assumption is that the observed downturn in the per capita consumption of alcohol in Australia has been contributed to by the introduction of differential strength beers and that to some degree the reduction in alcohol related morbidity and mortality in Australia can be similarly attributed.So it has been very successful. For that reason it is immensely disappointing that the New South Wales government have announced that from 1 July they are in fact no longer going to subsidise low alcohol beer. This initiative, in place for over 12 years, has had very positive health effects for Australia on what is the second biggest preventable cause of illness in Australia. So while the Commonwealth government are working hard in this area, we cannot do things alone. We need to work cooperatively with state and territory governments. Most states are meeting their needs and their obligations in this public health area. New South Wales are not.1808614:42:0018086Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—My question is to the Acting Treasurer. Acting Treasurer, why has the Treasurer jetted off to Paris before the government has determined which public health goods, including which sunscreens and folate supplements, are to be GST free?18086Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—May I reply to the honourable member for Blaxland. The Treasurer has gone to Paris to chair the ministerial committee of the OECD. I think that reflects well not only on the Treasurer but also on Australia. This rather juvenile attitude being taken by the Labor Party was not of course taken by the Labor Party in relation to such responsibilities when they occupied the treasury bench. There has been absolutely no interruption as a result of the Treasurer departing overseas today. There has been no interruption at all to the processes of administration in relation to the matters raised by the honourable member for Blaxland. The Acting Treasurer will be making a detailed announcement later today, and all of your interests will be met. The Australian motorist, I believe, will be well and happily pleased with the response. I think it was only right that the government take into account the deliberations of the OPEC countries— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I interrupt the Prime Minister only to point out to him that he may not have heard that the question was in fact about folate substances and health goods rather than fuel.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am sorry, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—That is why I have interrupted—to indicate that to you.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The same observation applies, Mr Speaker. You will hear further about that—whether that is immediately after question time, I am not quite sure.1808714:44:0018087Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Will the minister inform the House how the government's trade policy is advancing the interests of Australian exporters such as our wine industry and others? Is he aware of alternative policies that would adversely affect our efforts to open up international markets?18087Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the honourable member for his question and I recognise his involvement particularly in the agricultural sector in his electorate. Australia's agricultural exporters are urging the government on a daily basis to continue its policy of pursuing better market access for all our exports across the world, and our active involvement in the World Trade Organisation is at the centre of that policy setting. You would also be aware, Mr Speaker, that, because of that involvement and our use of the rules based system in the World Trade Organisation, we got that very good outcome that I announced yesterday with regard to the long-running dispute with the American government about Howe Leather which, as a side benefit, is also going to secure a stable future for exports for Australia's wine industry.Within the pursuit of those goals, the main game of pursuing better market access and fairer market access for Australia's exports is within the multilateral trading system within the WTO. That is the core focus of what we are trying to do. Getting a new round of trade investigations launched within the WTO provides the best opportunity to do just that: to get better market access broadly across all markets into which we export. Within that context we are also active in regional bodies such as APEC, for which I recently chaired a very successful meeting in Darwin. We are also pursuing discussions with our regional partners on free trade agreements that may provide better market access for Australia's exports into those markets, but it is all within the architecture of the multilateral system within the World Trade Organisation.Of course, we should have been well down the path to achieving this now. We should have had the launch of a new round of trade negotiations out of Seattle last year, but we did not. Seattle failed last year because the agenda was overloaded with issues like labour standards, which the US administration was very anxious to have on the agenda. We now have a debate taking place in Australia about the same thing. The ACTU and its leading luminaries, Sharan Burrow and Doug Cameron, want to kill off a new round before we can even get it started by overloading the agenda with issues such as labour standards. I would like to quote from an article in the Financial Review today that is headed `Trade policy would put Australia offside'. The leading paragraph says:The Labor Party's proposed approach to trade and labour standards, if implemented, would put Australia offside with the vast majority of World Trade Organisation members on the issue.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—You should read the one in the Age, too.SU5Mr VAILE—I am coming to him. The interesting thing on this issue is that there are two very strong points of view within the labour movement. There is the spokesman for trade issues within the Labor Party and there is the ACTU. We are going to have this interesting debate. Senator Cook is looking for a bit of support from some of the frontbenchers opposite. Further on in the same article it says:The head of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, Mr Cameron, has advocated the imposition of “social tariffs” on countries not meeting minimum labour standards.That is what he is advocating, that is what he and Sharan Burrow are pushing to the national conference of the ALP. In the same article, and it is to Senator Cook's credit, it said: At the weekend, Labor's trade spokesman Senator Peter Cook rejected the use of either sanctions or social tariffs.I know that Senator Cook has some supporters on the front bench over there, but the test is going to come as to whether the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to support him. I know that after our trade ministerial council meeting in Brisbane last Friday Sandra Norrie, from New South Wales, may support him as well. The question is: will the Leader of the Opposition? In his address to the New South Wales Labor conference the Leader of the Opposition said:Australia is a stronger country in part because of our greater integration into the world economy. Thirty years ago, Australia's exports stood at just over 10 per cent of GDP. Today, our annual exports of over $114 billion amount to about 20 per cent of national output. It's a much bigger cake, and exports have a much bigger share of it.All this shows us there's no sense in closing ourselves off from the world ...And he is right. That was lifted out of a speech that I made at the National Press Club, and I will quote from that speech:We are stronger now, in part, because we are more integrated into the world economy. In 1970, Australia's exports stood at just over 10 per cent of GDP. Today, our annual exports of over $114 billion amount to about 20 per cent of GDP.So the Leader of the Opposition is agreeing with what I said at the Press Club but he is not agreeing with the ACTU. So the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Cook, Mr McMullan and Sandra Norrie from New South Wales are going to have to stand up to Sharan Burrow and Doug Cameron in Hobart and tell them what proper trade policy is all about.1808814:50:0018088Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware that a Sydney provider of adult education courses has already charged second semester students an extra 10 per cent GST on English language courses and Asian and European language courses? Is it correct that the GST should be charged for these courses? Minister, isn't it the case that, with only nine days to go, you have not yet produced even a draft GST ruling, let alone a final GST ruling, on adult education courses?18088Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—As we know, the government's tax reform is of enormous benefit to education and training providers in Australia. It will see the removal of Labor's tax on education—the wholesale sales tax—which imposes costs of some $240 million a year on education and training. I would have thought that the Labor Party would be welcoming the tax reforms rather than trying to stir up confusion about these reforms in the minds of those who will be benefiting from them. I understand that the Australian Taxation Office will be releasing the ruling shortly. There has been a need for consultation with peak bodies, state and Commonwealth departments and the Australian National Training Authority. The ruling will complement my determination on ACE courses under the GST legislation. If any provider is acting improperly in relation to the imposition of the GST, the facts of the case should be presented to me. But the fact is that the information issued by the government is out there now which provides guidance to providers about the imposition of the GST and which courses are GST free. The great bulk of education and training courses in Australia are GST free. The provision of education becomes much cheaper under the tax reform, and it will be of great benefit to all those seeking education and training in this country.1808814:53:0018088Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would the minister inform the House about the government's initiatives to improve the literacy of indigenous students? What is the impact of these initiatives?18088Kemp, 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 Kalgoorlie for his question. The government's literacy and numeracy program, with its focus on bringing all young people up to national standard literacy outcomes at least, is the most important social justice policy in education at the present time. In fact, it addresses disadvantages which have remained unaddressed in this country for decades and which the Labor Party failed to address throughout its 13 years in office. As part of that strategy, the government has developed, in close consultation with indigenous communities, the National Indigenous Literacy and Numeracy Strategy, which was launched by the Prime Minister on 9 March this year. The strategy has 16 ambassadors, including Evelyn Scott, Jimmy Little and Nicky Winmar, who are spokespeople for the strategy throughout Australia. All are achievers and role models who want to inspire young indigenous students to continue with their education. Today I received feedback on the visit to the Moree Croc Eisteddfod of another ambassador the for the strategy, League legend Cliff Lyons. Cliff publicised the strategy and stressed to the community the importance of staying on at school and building solid literacy skills. Cliff Lyons told the students at the Croc Eisteddfod:I am an ambassador for indigenous literacy and numeracy. I chose sport as my career path, and it has been a very rewarding one for me. What ever your career path, it is vital these days to have the skills to be able to move through life and be able to do what you want to do, and that means getting a good education. Kids, I say it is cool to be at school.This sort of message to young indigenous people from somebody like Cliff Lyons is invaluable. I want to say how grateful I am to Cliff and the other ambassadors for their assistance in getting this message across.Last week, I had the pleasure of announcing the winners in the inaugural excellence in leadership in indigenous education awards. The awards recognise excellence in four key areas: literacy, numeracy, attendance and school and community partnerships. The winning schools were Salisbury North R-7 School, Kununurra District High School, Wilcannia Central School and Katherine High School. These schools and their teachers are making a difference. They are getting children to school, engaging them and achieving results. This is where reconciliation is truly taking place—not through a divisive political agenda but in communities, amongst the people who are determined to make a difference. The Howard government is working closely with indigenous leaders, the indigenous literacy ambassadors in particular, and indigenous communities to make sure that young indigenous students get the equal educational opportunities to which they are entitled and which they did not get under the 13 years of the previous government.1808914:57:0018089Byrne, Anthony, MPMr BYRNE008K0HoltALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you confirm that the housing industry has asked for a three-month moratorium on the introduction of the GST on the construction of new houses? Are you concerned that many Australians presently building their homes who have experienced building delays caused by the pre-GST rush will now have to pay thousands of dollars in unexpected GST on work that is unfinished on 1 July? Why has the Treasurer flown off to Paris without even giving a public response to these concerns shared by many thousands of Australians?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I call the Minister for Finance and Administration, in his capacity as Acting Treasurer.18089Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—I am pleased to respond to the honourable member for Holt. As I am sure all members know, there has been some speculation recently in respect of a moratorium on the GST for housing. All of us would recognise the frustration felt by home buyers whose homes have not been completed as expected by 1 July. But buyers and home builders have known about the GST since 2 December 1998, so there has been plenty of time to make a decision in the context of construction being completed by 1 July 2000. If one would argue, as many would, that inclement weather in different parts of Australia—or, for that matter, a difficulty in getting tradesmen—may be present at this time, that is hardly unprecedented. It has been a factor in that industry for a long time. The simple fact is that home buyers do not have to pay GST on the full value of their partially completed houses because the government has put in place a margin system for property whereby only the value of the work done after 1 July 2000 is subject to GST.1809014:59:0018090Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Will the minister inform the House of the actions the government is taking to open up export markets for Australian agriculture? How will this benefit industries like sugar in my electorate of Dawson?18090Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the member for Dawson for her question. I think all members of the House would be aware that, at the moment, the Australian sugar industry is suffering from low commodity prices and difficult circumstances with climatic conditions and the like. In fact, just recently, our government announced some assistance for one of the key processing plants in North Queensland to assist with the crushing of the sugar crop there this year. It is important, particularly for the sugar industry, that we continue to argue the case internationally for an improvement in market access for products such as sugar. Australia produces 5.5 million tonnes of sugar and exports about 4.1 million tonnes of that production. So fairer market access is very critical for Australia's sugar industry. Following the failure to launch a round of multilateral trade negotiations in Seattle last year, we have begun the mandated agriculture negotiations in the World Trade Organisation. Next week the second committee session of those negotiations will begin. The Cairns Group of agricultural free trading countries, led by Australia, will be making its submission on some significant proposals with regard to market access. The key elements of that submission will be the elimination of export subsidies, tougher rules with regard to the use of export subsidies and domestic support and a call for a 50 per cent cut in subsidies in the first year of implementation.I would also, whilst responding to the member's question, like to acknowledge the great work that has been done by the Australian sugar industry generally in the last couple of years and, particularly in Seattle, in being a key player in the establishment of the global sugar alliance. The global sugar alliance is a group of sugar producing countries that are free-traders who are knocking on the doors of countries like the EU and the USA to get better access for their product and have a renewed focus with our efforts to target US and EU policies on sugar. It is interesting that the case is being focused on and has become far more compelling as there have been some reports from within the European Union and the US focusing on the distortionary impacts of the policies that are run there. A recent US General Accounting Office report has found that the sugar program in the US leads to a $3 billion cost on consumers in the US and results in the fact that, in the US, there are not too many soft drinks, like Coca-Cola, that actually have sugar in them, because sugar in the US is too expensive because of their policies.There are similar findings from the European Union's Committee of Industrial Users of Sugar which has criticised the huge costs on European consumers of the EU's sugar program. Both reports, which come from within those markets, support the global sugar alliance and the push that the Australian government is leading in the Cairns Group to see better and fairer market access for this very important Australian commodity. We export the overwhelming majority of what is produced, particularly from the member for Dawson's electorate.1809015:03:0018090McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—My question is to the Attorney-General. I refer to Mr Reith's claim yesterday that his department sought legal advice from the Australian Government Solicitor in February about the payment for employee entitlements. Attorney, will you clarify whether this legal advice was sought specifically with respect to the special payment from the national projects stream of the Regional Assistance Program for the purpose of paying 100 per cent of employee entitlements owed in the case of National Textiles? Is it correct to assert that the advice specifically confirmed that this special payment for this purpose was lawful?18090Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The member for Barton will understand that, if legal advice is sought from the Australian Government Solicitor, there is a solicitor-client relationship established between the client and the Australian Government Solicitor. If any information is to be released about what advice has been sought and what advice has been given, it can only be done by the Australian Government Solicitor on the instructions of their client, in this case, I assume, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business or the department. The question should therefore be directed to the minister for workplace relations and not to me. 1809115:04:0018091Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, how does Commonwealth support for government schools compare with support from the state governments? Is the minister aware of comments about Commonwealth support for government schools? What is his response to these comments?18091Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for Curtin for her question. I know the very strong support that she is giving to the schools—government and non-government—in her electorate, as are other members on the government benches. I know the member for Macquarie has a deep interest in this issue as well. The Howard government is making a major investment in government schools. It is an unprecedented commitment to recognising the right of every child to a quality education. Given that this is one of the issues about which the Labor Party and the Australian Education Union are waging a campaign of distortion and untruth, I have had my department look closely at the support that the Commonwealth is providing for government schools in the states governed by the Labor Party compared to the investment in those schools by the state governments. This analysis is very revealing. It shows that the Commonwealth investment in government schools in the Labor states is generally in excess of the investment that the state Labor governments are making. In terms of the rate of increase of that investment, Commonwealth investment in government schools is increasing more rapidly than the investment by the Labor Party governments in those states. 3J4Sawford, Rod, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Port Adelaide, have you no sense of courtesy? The minister has the call.BT4Dr KEMP—In Tasmania, in its most recent budget, the Labor government increased investment in government schools by 2.9 per cent compared with a 4.3 per cent increase from the Commonwealth for Tasmanian government schools. In Queensland, under a Labor government, total school spending in the most recent budget rose by some 3.7 per cent compared with a Commonwealth increase of 7.5 per cent in that state. In Victoria the recent budget showed an increase of 4.5 per cent for schools while Commonwealth payments for that state increased by 6.6 per cent. The state which is at the bottom of the barrel is New South Wales. In the last budget New South Wales increased its spending on government schools by 1.9 per cent compared with an increase from the Commonwealth for government schools in New South Wales of 5.3 per cent. So this disgraceful campaign of untruth reveals that when the Labor Party gets into office its rhetoric is not matched by performance. In New South Wales we have a government which is simply not prepared to invest in public education. It is a government which is spending on a whole lot of other things, but it is not spending on government schools in New South Wales. The New South Wales government has failed public education in that state. The Commonwealth is the level of government which is making the effort to increase the quality of education, the resources of government schools, the literacy standards and the curriculum opportunities for students in those schools in New South Wales. The Howard government has an outstanding record of support for public education. It is the government which is driving improvements in public education at the moment. The Labor Party when it gets into office is not prepared to make the investments and the policies and to support the literacy test which students and parents have a right to expect.ZD4HowardMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Questions Without Notice180921809215:09:0018092Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Could I add to an answer, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister may proceed.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The honourable member for Blaxland asked me a question. I thought it was about petrol but it was about sunscreens and folate supplements. I apologise to the honourable member for not hearing him correctly. But I did undertake to see what I could find out about the situation regarding sunscreens and folate substances. I am very pleased to inform the honourable member that I have been able to find out. I can inform the House that the announcement of details of the GST status of sunscreens and folate supplements has been delayed due to a requirement of the Treasurer that the approval of all state and territory Treasurers be obtained. They were written to on 28 April, and we got the last response from the Queensland Treasurer on 19 June. The Commonwealth having received it on 19 June, I am pleased to inform the House that the determination has now been signed by the Minister for Health and Aged Care, and I am very happy to table the determination, thus answering the honourable member's question.Questions to the Speaker180921809215:10:0018092Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—Mr Speaker, you will be aware that there is a procedure which allows questions on notice to appear in the Hansard at the time when the answer is supplied. On the other hand, notices of motion which are not brought on for debate never appear in Hansard. As you know, the vast majority of these notices of motion are not brought on for debate even though they often deal with very worthy issues. Will you consider introducing a procedure whereby notices of motion are published in Hansard, as does happen in some parliaments around the world?18092SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will consider the matter raised by the member for Calwell. I will also discuss it with the members for Cowper and Scullin as Deputy Speakers. Given their particular interest in the debate on notices of motion raised by private members, I think it appropriate that they be involved in the discussion as well. I will then report to the member for Calwell.Personal Explanations1809215:11:0018092Mr HORNE,MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?UU5Mr HORNE,MPMr HORNE—Yes, grievously.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.UU5Mr HORNE,MPMr HORNE—In a letter to the MaitlandMercury on Monday, 19 June, coalition senator John Tierney wrote a letter under the heading `Dairy industry decision a state affair'. In response to a letter written by me, he claimed that I am misinforming the people and stated that this is a state issue. However, he then goes on to say, `People wanting further information should write to the federal Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.'Questions to the Speaker180921809215:13:0018092Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question to you, Mr Speaker, relates to the need that the Prime Minister had to add to his answer because he was not able to hear the question when it was asked of him by the honourable member. This week, Mr Speaker, you have disciplined some honourable members for disorderly behaviour. I respectfully ask you to consider that disruptive behaviour takes many forms. When the Minister for Health and Aged Care was attempting to give an outline of the human and social tragedy of alcohol abuse, and when the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs was attempting to explain what impoverished Aboriginal communities are doing to lift their education levels, supported by this government, I could not hear the answers because of the disinterested laughter and idle chatter coming from opposition members.18092SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Let me respond to the member for Bradfield by indicating that I thought that, by any standard in any parliament anywhere in this nation, today's question time was the sort of question time most parliamentarians would want to participate in and that I thought that the Prime Minister's difficulty in hearing the comment was more over confusion with the words `folate' and `fuel' and that sort of alliteration which would have been exacerbated by his hearing condition—which does not justify any laughter from the member for Charlton. For that reason, I would be surprised if people were having difficulty hearing any of the exchanges during question time. If that were the case on the back row of the government benches, I will check with the sound administration. 1809315:14:0018093Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Mr Speaker, just on the matter raised by the member for Calwell: in my seat I am told to know my Hansard and I have always been under the impression that notices actually are listed in the Hansard on the day on which they are given. I draw your attention to, for instance, the notice given by the member for Grayndler last Monday, which appears in Hansard, page 16413, concerning matters crucial to our democratic system, the GST and the like. These matters are listed on the Hansard the day on which the notice is given.18093SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the member for Werriwa. I am conscious of what he raises. I had thought the member for Calwell's concern was the fact that they do not continue to appear in the Hansard record. I will check again what the member for Calwell asked me and follow that up.1809315:15:0018093SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—On 7 June 2000 the Chief Opposition Whip asked me a question about the records of secret meetings of the House during the Second World War. There were three secret meetings of the House: on 13 December 1940 and on 29 May and 20 August 1941. In addition, there were four joint secret meetings with the Senate on 20 February, 3 and 4 of September and 8 October 1942. An examination of the original Votes and Proceedings for these days has not revealed any secret records relating to those meetings. Whilst the clerks and the Serjeant-at-Arms appear to have remained in the chamber for the meetings, no minutes were kept. Advice from the former Chief Hansard Reporter is that no shorthand notes nor any other form of record was kept of any of these secret meetings, from which Hansard reporters were excluded. On the basis of this information, I can only conclude that there are no secret records in possession of the House relating to those meetings and, consequently, no issue of public release arises.1809315:17:0018093SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—On 6 June 2000 the honourable member for Dunkley asked me a question concerning the verbatim quoting of material from Bills Digests. He specifically queried the method of attribution of such material. As members are aware, Bills Digests are produced by the Parliamentary Library. They include a standard form of copyright advice precluding aspects of their use without prior written consent other than by senators and members of the Australian parliament in the course of their official duties. Each edition includes the following advice:The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Information and Reference Services (IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for related parliamentary purposes.If members draw extensively on material from Bills Digests in preparing a speech, I would hope that common courtesy would oblige them to recognise the source. The extent to which appreciation is expressed is a matter for individual members. I am grateful to the member for Dunkley for the constructive way in which he has addressed this matter.1809315:18:0018093Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question to you in light of your answer to the member for Watson about those secret meetings of the parliament. There was an event that took place in this parliament in 1955 to do with journalists Fitzpatrick and Browne. I would ask you to consider whether the time is now right for the release of the records of those proceedings that were kept under lock and key and have never been released. I believe 45 years or so have now elapsed and I think that, in the public interest, you should consider releasing all those records so that what took place is available. My understanding from earlier inquiries is that they have not yet been released. Could you take that on notice? 4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: if the member for Banks had been listening some time ago, he would have noticed that the Privileges Committee is considering this matter and has made a report to you and to the Leader of the House. We are hopeful that you and the Leader of the House will agree to the release of the documents.18094SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—As the Chief Opposition Whip and all members would have observed, I consulted the Clerk during the member for Banks's question because I was conscious of the matter raised by the Chief Opposition Whip obviously. I simply wanted clarification from the Clerk, who has confirmed what the Chief Opposition Whip had to say.Documents1809415:15:0018094McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Matters of Public Importance180941809410000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Brand proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The responsibility of the government for the administrative chaos surrounding the GST.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:21:0018094Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I suppose I can anticipate, from the first dorothy dixer that the government obtained today for the Prime Minister, that there will be no prime ministerial participation in this debate, because the denial which he has been in and, I might say also, the denial of the Treasurer of their obligations—to ensure that people who are responsible for implementing their tax and paying it have absolute clarity before that tax is put in place—are to be answered by a simple reference to the number of queries they have received. As though a statement about the fact that millions have applied for an ABN, that 90,000 have attended meetings for explanations and that there have been 500 tax meetings around the country which have been attended by X, Y and Z numbers actually constitutes an answer to the fact that every single major business organisation, huge numbers of individual businesses and large numbers of consumers have been making sensible detailed requests of this government so they may know how they can operate risk free in the daunting new environment that confronts them, we get from the Prime Minister simply a set of slogans.Patriotism is supposed to be the last refuge of the scoundrel, as can be seen in the bogus patriotism of the Prime Minister over the course of the last few weeks. His total explanation for where he now stands in relation to the GST does not answer questions from the Housing Industry Association, the Taxpayers Association or small business; he simply states, `No matter how bad you feel about all of this, no matter how bad you feel about the impact of it on your family, as far as I am concerned it is good for the country.' No evidence is presented for that point of view. None. Take a look at the macro figures that the Treasury put forward and what they anticipate for the economy. When this government came into office, it inherited four years of four-plus per cent annual growth from the previous Labor government. It missed out on a year of that, but we have had four per cent annual growth since. That was under a tax system described as `decrepit' and `in need of massive change'. The only macro figure we now have from the Treasury is that if we are lucky we will keep getting four per cent annual growth for the next three or four years but that it might be a bit less than that. So we will not find a `good for the country' answer in any of the macro figures that the Treasury has pointed out. So how else might we find a `good for the country' explanation? We might find the system `good for the country' if the business community were standing up and saying, `We have absolute clarity on this matter. We have total confidence about the way in which we will implement this. We know exactly what we are supposed to do, and we think that it is going to be very good for us to be able to do it.' The government has made a thing of what it regards as its small business constituency, and I would be the first to admit that the Liberal Party has enjoyed a massive preponderance of the votes of people who are in small business. In fact, in the last set of figures I saw, at the last election the Labor Party could count on the support of some 20 per cent of the people who are in small businesses around this country. However, what have we seen from small business in making their judgment on the administrative chaos that we referred to in the proposition which is being discussed as a matter of public importance today? What have we heard from them? These are small business people who have been able to secure Australian business numbers, who have been able to contribute to those thousands of telephone calls and who have been able to turn up to all of the business seminars which are supposed to have been conducted over the last six months. After they have applied for their numbers, after they have made their queries to the Taxation Office, after they have attended all the seminars that have been made available to them, after a period of four years of unprecedented growth under the Labor Party and three more years of similar growth under this government—what have they done? Remember, we are not in the middle of a recession. We are not in the middle of a major economic downturn. We are not confronting an economic collapse in Asia. We are not confronting a situation where the American economy or the European economy has gone to the bad. We find that the small business community records their lowest confidence position on record.And what do they identify as the cause of this situation? The administration of the goods and services tax and the impact of it upon them. Let me go through this small business survey, which has become the authoritative paper on small business attitudes in this country, and its indicators. The goods and services tax continues to be the prime concern of small businesses across Australia. Almost one-third of small business proprietors nominated the GST as a problem for their business. On balance, small business proprietors continue to believe that the federal government's policies work against them. More than four out of 10 now believe that the policies work against them, compared with only 15 per cent who believe that government policies are supportive. The net negative 26 per cent is the worst assessment of federal policies since the government was elected. The survey also says that less than one quarter of small business proprietors believe the government is doing a good job in implementing the GST. More than one half believe it is doing a bad job, with most of those believing it is doing a very bad job in implementing the goods and services tax. This is from the people who employ 70 per cent of Australians. This is from the people who have become the government's new tax collectors. This is from the people who expected that their lives would be spent doing things that interested them, that made them money and that enabled them to employ people. Contrary to a promise that they would have 50 per cent of their red tape removed, they find themselves government tax collectors. But worse than being government tax collectors, they are government tax collectors in ignorance. Call after call is being made by small business. Plea after plea is being put forward by people in business, who are saying, `Will you give us answers to the specifics? When we ring the various hotlines, we get people telling us the general theory of the GST.' When you ask for private rulings, eventually you get some, but the rulings raise more questions. When you ask those questions, you get a different ruling. And when you ask your neighbouring business what ruling they have, it is a different ruling again. Over all of this is the understanding in small business that, if they get the answer wrong on all of this, hovering out there is somebody who might fine them $10 million and there is a Taxation Office that will prosecute them. In talking to small business, the Commissioner of Taxation is reduced to saying, `I know the law is potentially highly punitive, I know you can be in serious trouble on all of this, we know all these things, but don't worry—we'll go easy in the first few months.' That is the certainty with which they are expected to live: that they may find themselves in breach of the law, and all they have to rely on, after years and years of reports and struggles with the Taxation Office, is a promise to go easy for a few months as the system goes into place. The two people missing in action, in being out there giving an explanation of detail, have been the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, and they are now in a tag team of avoidance of their own. The Treasurer is out of the country in the last week before it comes into place, when you would expect some final answers on a fair few things related to this, and then the Prime Minister is out of the country in the week it comes into operation. It is a tag team of avoidance of responsibility. The Treasurer in particular has been missing in action over the course of the last few weeks. Since he is in Paris, let us find the correct analogies. I think there are two. One is that of the Scarlet Pimpernel: `They seek him here, they seek him there, they seek the scoundrel everywhere. Be he in Heaven or be he in hell, that damned elusive Pimpernel.' What the Pimpernel was doing, of course, was saving a few aristocrats from the guillotine. And there is a direct relevance to our experience here. The only people in this community who are guaranteed that they are better off under the new taxation arrangements are high income earners. We have demonstrated in question time after question time that the Prime Minister's promise that Australia would be better off has simply misled them, and they understand it. There has been a massive shift in the obligation related to taxation on middle Australian families, and more and more Australian families are asking the question, `If this tax is supposed to be so good for us, if the economy is supposed to be so good, why don't I and my family feel that the pressures have been taken from us?' They will get no answers to that, in the same way as the new tax collectors get no answers from the Scarlet Pimpernel in Paris.I suppose the second analogy is, since we are going to engage in matters French, Pepe Le Pew. In this case Pepe Le Pew could be seen as the GST itself—the skunk in the middle of the road that no-one wants to know. But there is always being pursued by Pepe Le Pew a Cheshire cat, and all that is left of the Treasurer in the final few days before the implementation of the GST is the Cheshire cat's smile. `Wish me luck as you wave me goodbye,' said the Treasurer as he went off to Paris. Remember that he evaded question time today when we wanted to know from him what he is doing on petrol; what he is doing for people who are going to get a huge, unexpected housing bill; and what is going to happen in a whole key set of areas of adult education. He is up and off—out, escaped. He had his myrmidons up there in the gallery yesterday saying, `Thank God the Prime Minister shut question time down yesterday. They can't get me before it all comes into place.' Straight out the door went the Treasurer, to leave the hapless Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, who is at the table, no doubt to flounder unmanfully, as he floundered unmanfully at the beginning of this year, with the questions that will have no answers until the court cases start to roll.What we have got here is a Treasurer avoiding his responsibilities. Let us get this absolutely clear: that OECD meeting, at which Mr Fahey could well and truly have substituted for him if they chose to do it, begins on Monday, and there is another meeting on the Sunday prior to that. Inexperienced as I am in overseas travel, I do know that it does not take three days to get to Paris from here. But he got out of this question time and he got himself out of a couple of days worth of unhelpful questions from the Housing Industry Association, from the small business community, from the National Taxpayers Association, from those of our educators and trainers who still do not know which of their courses are going to be attracting the GST, from those with concerns in the health area about what precisely is being covered there and, of course, from those who want to know what exactly the position on fuel is going to be. Let me just say this: when something is to be announced after question time on Thursday afternoon, it is not good news. Good news travels with a large bevy of supporters at least an hour before question time; bad news arrives with the perpetrator out of the country an hour or two after question time. You can rely on that, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl. Mr Deputy Speaker has stood up, I might say, as the last ditch of integrity in the National Party on another issue on which we want a few answers too and have got no answers as far as this government is concerned. There is a symbol there on the Treasurer's departure, and that is the decision which has been taken—a decision by the National Party, a decision by the Democrats, a decision by the government—to finally abandon the most battling elements of the Australian community: those who live in boarding houses and those who live in mobile homes. These are in many cases the last bastion, if you like, of underprivilege in this country. They have been abandoned by all who said they would support them, but particularly abandoned by a government which will not face questions, abandoned by a government which will not answer questions. You see, we are no longer in policy debate, we are in administration, and it is a botched administration. No matter what claims may be made by the Prime Minister, it is a botched administration by everyone who has to deal with it. (Time expired)15:36:0018097Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—That speech says more about the Leader of the Opposition than it does about the government. Opposition members interjecting—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I cannot identify any sense of humour there. If we want to deal with complexity, let us talk about complexity. I urge the members of the Labor Party to hang around and listen to this, because they should be aware of the sort of complex system they are seeking to defend. They are defending 11 payment systems that are currently in place under the wholesale sales tax system that the Labor Party wants to protect. That is a payment system covering provisional tax, company instalments, farm management deposits, pay as you earn, prescribed payments system, reportable payments system, TFN withholding, non-resident interest, dividend and royalties, mining withholding, natural resources withholding and withdrawals from Australian film industry trust fund accounts. Eleven payment systems under the Labor Party; one payment system under the new tax system from 1 July, known as pay as you go. Eleven payment systems for the Labor Party; one payment system under the coalition.Under the Labor Party's system, there are 32 different payment periods for small and medium sized businesses. What does that mean for a small business? It means that a small manufacturing business needs to make at least 12 payments of tax instalments on behalf of employees, four income tax payments, 12 sales tax payments and perhaps four fringe benefits payments. Under the Labor Party there are 32 different payment periods and there are four under pay as you go with the coalition.Let us talk about the multiple business numbers that a small or a medium sized business needs to have under the Labor Party's system. Under the Labor Party, you may need a PAYE registration number, an ACM which is an Australian company number, an ASFN which is an Australian super fund number, an ARBN which is an Australian registered bodies number, a wholesale sales tax number, a PPS which is a prescribed payments system number, an RPS which is a registered payments system number, and a company tax number. You need all those different numbers under the Labor Party. Under the coalition you need one—an ABN. That is not even taking into account payroll tax numbers, customs numbers and excise numbers.The Labor Party talk about complexity but they are the mothers and fathers of a complex taxation system. They are the people who have built one of the most complicated taxation systems in the world. Despite what the Labor Party are saying at this moment to the people of Australia, the system that starts on 1 July will give the most significant respite from red tape that small business has ever had under a taxation system. The reason for that is that the coalition on this side of the House understands small business. If you cast around the ranks of the coalition, you will find vast experience of people being involved in business—business men and women who have rolled up their shirt sleeves and gone the hard yards trying to make a buck, without a guaranteed income, in order to feed their families. The Labor Party—which are seriously missing business experience, not just on the front bench but all across the back bench—come here and lecture us about the complexity of a taxation system. We have talked about complexity—32 different types of payment periods which are being rolled into four, 11 different payment systems being rolled into one and multiple business numbers being rolled into one. The coalition stands for a simpler taxation system. The Labor Party know all about complexity. If they come into this House, as they do, and seek to defend the current system, they should explain to small business how a single rate of GST is more complicated than seven different rates of wholesale sales tax. Tell me how that is more complicated for small businesses, particularly for importers and exporters? The Labor Party have zero per cent, 12 per cent, 22 per cent, 32 per cent, 37 per cent, 41 per cent and 45 per cent wholesale sales tax. That is the system which the Labor Party say is simple! The coalition is replacing it with a 10 per cent GST. Even if you are at a zero rate under the Labor Party, institutions wishing to apply to be wholesale sales tax exempt must fill in forms for assessment of eligibility. Even if you want a zero rate you have to fill in forms. Yet the Labor Party come into this House and claim that the new taxation system is more complex than the current taxation system.The Leader of the Opposition did not use many facts in his speech. He simply gave us the traditional rhetoric about the coalition and what it was like under the Labor Party, claiming credit for all that great growth that Australia has had over the last few years. It is amazing how the Leader of the Opposition, who managed to oppose every significant measure of this government to try to put in place a stronger Australian economy, can come into this place and claim credit for 12 consecutive quarters of annualised four per cent growth or better—it defies logic. Did we hear him claim credit for the low unemployment rate in Australia at the moment? No. Did we hear him claim credit for the creation of 711,000 jobs over the last four years? No. He will try, but he did not. Did we hear him claim in this House that lower interest rates are a creation of the Labor Party? No. We did not hear him do that, just as we did not hear him claim that the Labor Party—and he would have been truthful about this, but he did not say it—were responsible for nine per cent inflation during the 1980s, and that the Labor Party were responsible for interest rates of 23 per cent in the 1980s and early 1990s. What does that do for small business—23 per cent? I see the member for Fremantle scoffing. The member for Fremantle would be familiar with small business. The Labor Party, who have no experience running businesses, come into this House in an unctuous manner and lecture the coalition about what is good for small business. They lecture us about the complexity of our taxation system and forget what legacy they left Australian small business—a legacy of high interest rates, high unemployment and a complex taxation system, and a legacy which left workers worse off in their wages and salaries. The Labor Party boasted about it as if it were some grand achievement that they managed to push down real salaries for the average Australian worker. During all of those years that the Labor Party were there, they lectured the coalition and they lectured the Australian people about how well they were doing for small business. The Labor Party were the greatest disadvantage to small business in Australia and the greatest burden that small businesses had to carry for more than a decade. If you look at the level of liquidations of small businesses in the late 1980s and early 1990s, any person who understands the challenge of thrift, the challenge of trying to make money and the challenge of starting up a business would cry with sympathy for small business and all the pain it had to endure under a Labor government. There is no remorse and there is no regret. The Labor Party come into this place question time after question time, MPI after MPI and bill after bill, pleading the case of small business, yet when they had the opportunity to sit on the treasury bench they ignored the plight of small business—in fact, they did small business in the eye. Do you know what scares us and scares Australian small business? There is one word: roll-back. Roll-back is the most intimidating term for small business. Let me tell you why. The words of the shadow Treasurer, the member for Hotham, Mr Crean, ring around this place in relation to roll-back. The member for Hotham on 2GB on 20 January 2000—and he has forgotten these words, but let me tell you that I have not forgotten his words—said to Stan Zamanek:. . . and there will be anomalies in any system where you allow exemptions.He goes on:The wholesale sales tax was a graded scale. There were four, well there were seven, rates, but essentially there as a zero rate, there was 10 and there was 22 . . .He forgot about the extra two per cent he jacked on back in 1993. He forgot about the 32 per cent rate, the 37 per cent rate, the 41 per cent rate and the 45 per cent rate. He goes on to say:So basically—Opposition member interjecting—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—It is very interesting that the honourable member raises food. Listen to the words of the member for Hotham:So basically the wholesale sales tax applied to the necessities of life. I am sorry, the wholesale sales tax was off the necessities of life. It did not apply to food.Zamanek: I am sorry, it did. It applied to biscuits, it applied to fruit juice, it applied to confectionery and those things. You would classify that as food, wouldn't you?Crean: Yes, yes, you do, and there are anomalies in the system. Okay, I agree with that.That was from the mouth of the member for Hotham—an acceptance that roll-back is going to crucify a simple system. Those words from the member for Hotham are obviously stating that the more roll-back you have, the more complex a taxation system becomes. Now we have the Leader of the Opposition, who is the chief proponent of roll-back, coming into this place and lecturing us about a complex taxation system when in fact the only policy that the Labor Party have at the moment is to make our current taxation system even more complicated.Who bears the price of a complicated taxation system? It will start at small business and it will end up at consumers. Consumers, hardworking Australians, families, pensioners and disadvantaged Australians are ultimately those who will bear the cost of a complex taxation system. Yet the Labor Party come into this place and lecture us about complexity. They lecture us about the difficulties facing small business with a complex taxation system. I say to the Leader of the Opposition and to the members of the Labor Party: if you are serious when you talk about the complexity of a taxation system, why don't you start telling us what roll-back really means?We had the absurd situation where the member for Melbourne Ports stood in his place and asked a question of the Prime Minister about a rental property that had gone up, as I understand it, from $500 a week to $520. Unless I am missing something, it does not strike me that that property would be a caravan park residence, would it, for $520 a week? It would not be a boarding house, would it, at $520 a week? Therefore it would be input taxed. Rent is input taxed. If rent is input taxed, why have the Labor Party been arguing for the last three days for input taxation on caravan parks and boarding houses? The member for Melbourne Ports stood in his place and argued for input taxation on rents—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—No, he did not.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—This was a few days ago. He argued for input taxation on rents and today he asked about prices going up because of input taxation on rent. Is that not hypocrisy? The Labor Party are being hypocritical when it comes to these matters. The Labor Party are hypocritical when it comes to the complexity of taxation. The Labor Party are hypocritical when it comes to small business. On this side of the House we are doing the right thing. (Time expired)15:51:0018100Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—The Prime Minister in question time today described the GST changes as `the greatest tax reforms Australia has ever seen'. He went on to describe them as `a marvellous change' but he forgot to mention that we are actually going to have a $24 billion new tax imposed on this country and $12 billion worth of tax cuts. By any reckoning, that is certainly a momentous change. If it is so good, why has the Treasurer already flown the coop? He has gone off to Paris, and the Prime Minister is soon to follow. It strikes me that they do not want to be here to see the results of their handiwork. The Prime Minister also said today that this taxation system was designed to help the Australian community. Frankly, that is help we could do without. It has already had the opposite effect, as the Leader of the Opposition clearly illustrated. What we should do as a result of this tax system that was designed to help the Australian community is to sack the designer—one John Winston Howard.I think a lot of people are now wondering if the Treasurer's name should actually be `Peripatetic Pete'. He has run away at a critical time in the implementation of this tax. I am afraid that my mind works a bit like that of the Leader of the Opposition because we both thought of the Cheshire cat when preparing for today's MPI. All that is left of the Treasurer, too, is that smirk. He is escaping the country now, leaving Australians to navigate the blind maze that he and the Prime Minister have designed and inflicted on us. Despite having spent over $431 million to try and sell us a dodgy map of that maze, they have only succeeded in confusing everyone, themselves included, judging from the performances in question time over recent months. The GST jumble has rendered this Treasurer incoherent. You only had to listen to him on AM yesterday. The detail is really chaining him up. But it is not his heart that needs to be unchained; it is his brain. We have seen impossibly complex legislation before this House. We have seen a raft of rulings and amendments. There are a lot that are still incomplete. While everyone is waiting for these details—some of which will be emerging this afternoon, we are told—the Treasurer is winging his way to Paris.I acknowledge the member for Rankin—I am pleased to see he is sitting nearby—for some of the following statistics. We were supposed to get a fairer and simpler system. It was designed to sweep away the old-fashioned complex wholesale sales tax. We heard from the minister at the table a while ago of the sins of the old tax system. Of course the reverse is true. We on this side have always known that the GST is unfair. That is why we have opposed it. But it has been compounded by the income tax and benefit changes which further attack the least well off. It is now obvious even to the most blind adherents to the government's line that it is also devilishly complex. Far from being fairer and simpler, it is more unfair and more complex. We had an admission of that kind from the minister just a little while ago. We are told the tax bill and the amendments weigh nearly seven kilograms. That is pretty simple. There are 1,466 amendments so far—and still counting; there are more to come. The Business activity statement for business owners is a 148-page manual and I am sure most tax agents now have bookshelves full of instructions which change from week to week. I know we have a lot in our electorate offices, too. There is a similar complexity in the not-for-profit sector.Already there are around 20,000 requests for private binding rulings and there are dozens of public rulings outstanding. We had questions about those today and we got some limited commitments; I will return to that in a minute. Around this we have had misleading information and confusion, questions left unanswered and critical decisions delayed. Just this week we finally got information on which foods were in and which foods were out of the GST. They are inconsistent and irrational, and mystifying distinctions are made. There are six types of yoghurt to start with, some in and some out. A lot of information has been deliberately withheld and has had to be squeezed out of the Treasurer drop by drop. On issues like inflation, even the government's own estimates have doubled. We were told by the minister who took part in this debate earlier that no price would rise by more than 10 per cent. We now know that the ACCC was not even instructed and certainly has no power to keep price rises below 10 per cent. We were also told that many prices would be cheaper. We have now found that even in areas like motor vehicles that is not likely to be so. The real price rises are starting to emerge. Even the comparison between the ACCC's and the government's price lists is instructive. They are all higher, and the closer we get to 1 July the higher the prices get. We were told there would not be any taxes on taxes. Just have a look. There is GST plus stamp duty across the board. Promises on beer have been broken. Draft beer prices will rise dramatically. This has been described by one of my constituents in an email to me today as a `lowdown sneaky act'. I must say I agree with him. And we all know that permanent residents in caravan parks and boarding houses are going to be well off! We have had a little package introduced today. The pressure was obviously building, courtesy of the National Party. But it is not going to help self-funded retirees and it is not very much for the rest. We have had revelations about the real increases in rents—at least double what the Treasurer said, and maybe higher. It is no wonder that he has skipped the country. He probably thought that he could keep the results of that modelling under wraps until 1 July and then sic the ACCC onto the landlords, blaming them. Of course on petrol prices we were told it would be cheaper—and lower transport costs have indeed been assumed in the government's modelling of the GST impact. We still do not have a decision—although we might have one after question time today—on what the cuts to the fuel excise will be. The price is already over 100c a litre in some parts of the country. And we have no maps of where the rebates will apply. We might get them this afternoon. Pity the poor service station owners who have to work this all out with only a few working days to go between now and the introduction.I want to deal briefly with the treatment of health and education. Until today we have not had the critical determination on public health goods including folates, sunscreens and the like. Now we have actually got it. It has been weaseled out of the government today—again just a few working days from 1 July. But if you look at the determination that came out in question time today it is clear that they have to name every single brand and type of paracetamol that is on the market, one by one. That means that every time there is a new brand or a new type, that will require a separate determination. That is complexity for you. Things such as condoms, folates, sunscreens and personal lubricants all have to have an ARTG number—a therapeutic goods listing number—as at 1 July. In other words, if a new product comes onto the market on 2 July it is outside the determination. Apparently the government have conceded to the industry that this determination is flawed. But they still brought it into this House today. They know it is flawed, and they bring it into the parliament today.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—And only when we raise it.XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—Yes. And you can expect a new determination in the break. I think that is a fair bet.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—If you want any more, get it to us next week.XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—We will do our very best to work some of these things out between now and then. In addition to this failure to make a health determination until just now, a lot of health costs that are clearly legitimate are going to be hit by the GST. We were told there would be no GST on health. Tampons and sanitary pads, breast pumps and baby products, creams for serious skin diseases like psoriasis and eczema, which is suffered by over a million Australians, and of course complementary medicines in total were supposed to be GST free and are not. They were formerly sales tax exempt. Services of many therapists and counsellors will attract the GST and membership subscriptions to bodies like Diabetes Australia will be socked for the GST, while high rollers—gamblers—will be GST exempt. Many of the rulings that have been made to date have already created an administrative nightmare for doctors, hospitals and other health care providers. To give an example which is one of many, the February ruling means that hospitals will have to pay 10 per cent extra for visiting medical officers. They are contracted to the hospital. Then the hospitals will have to make monthly claims to be reimbursed for the GST paid and not recovered from public patients, so they will have to divide it up into public and private sector. The doctors will have to collect the GST and pay it to the tax office. And health was meant to be GST free! That is very amusing. In education there are some very similar problems. With nine days to go—again, this was confirmed at question time—and six working days to go there are still no rulings on adult, community and further education. Clearly, some providers are charging for them. They do not have a lot of choice. It is a nightmare for second semester TAFE enrolments, for example. What are they supposed to do? We asked questions about whether there was a 10 per cent tax on English language courses, Asian and European courses. The minister did not seem to know exactly. He thought they should be doing something but he was not sure what it was. There are whole lot of education costs that are being imposed by the GST, particularly in the area of compliance. There are going to be impacts across the board that no-one has even anticipated. So while the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are disporting themselves around Europe, taking in the sights of Paris and London—in the Treasurer's case he probably will not bother with the escargots because he can get them GST free when he comes back to Australia—the rest of Australia will not only have to pick up the tab for their travel but also have to try and negotiate their way through the mire that is the GST. And all for what, exactly? (Time expired)16:01:0018102Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—In nine days time the largest cuts in income tax ever will come into force in Australia. On 1 July every taxpayer will receive an income tax cut. Eighty per cent of Australians, some now on top rates of 43 per cent, will pay a top rate of income tax no higher than 30 per cent. The government is introducing $12 billion in tax cuts by providing assistance worth more than $2.4 billion per year to around two million families and by providing a wealth of assistance to people on social security, to self-funded retirees and to pensioners. As an integral part of the new system every taxpayer will receive personal income tax cuts from 1 July 2000, unlike the Keating l-a-w law promised tax cuts in 1993. Did they deliver those promised tax cuts? No, instead they put wholesale tax up and put it on products that had never had a wholesale sales tax. Fuel went up 7c a litre. In the 13 years of Labor, excise on fuel increased from 7c to 34c a litre. They also linked the excise to indexation. A very `simple' system indeed! I guess that did not create administrative chaos because no-one knew about it. It just created chaos. You could not ask questions because the opposition, who was in government at the time, dishonestly hid all of these obscene tax burdens on all of the people of Australia—no questions, no answers. We just had to pay. We are about lifting this hidden obscene burden of payments off all Australians. In doing so we are giving the assistance that is required, the assistance that was never given to businesses or consumers when Labor introduced their paper warfare when they were in government. This outdated, unfair and largely hidden paperwork war has been replaced by this: one page with two sides. Yes, one page. For the information of the opposition, this is called a `business activity statement'. You see this one page? And you speak of administrative chaos. What a joke! This one page replaces up to 32 different returns. This one page is submitted around four times per year instead of up to 32 times per year. But, then, I suppose we should excuse the members of the opposition for being confused and for not understanding how to administer something so simple as this double-sided piece of paper because they have never had administrative experience. So I guess we should not expect that they would have administrative experience now. The members of the Labor Party may show their ignorance. However, the one thing I do resent as a business woman for the last 24 years is that they have so terribly defamed and underestimated the capacity of the intelligent businessmen and women and consumers out there in the real world. Most members on the opposition benches do not run a business. Because they have not had that experience of filing the returns and fulfilling the requirements of business that they placed on us and consumers when they were in government, they sincerely do not understand the simplicity of this one business activity statement. Get a load of it, fellows—just one double-sided piece of paper. The benefits of the new tax system cannot be ignored, even by the partisan Labor Party. This MPI refers to the responsibility of the government for the `administrative chaos surrounding the GST'. What a joke. This shows the opposition's ignorance, the Labor Party's ignorance, of business and conducting business. There is no chaos within this government. Let us take one department just off the top of our heads. The Department of Family and Community Services are right on schedule for implementation. This means that the pensioners and the allowees will receive the four per cent increase to their payments from July, more older Australians will be entitled to a pension for the first time, families will receive the increased rates of families assistance from July and older Australians will benefit from the timely implementation of the savings bonuses. A number of older Australians have already returned their claim forms for the savings bonuses and they will start receiving their bonuses from early July. The 550 family assistance offices across Australia will be open from 3 July, giving Australian families improved services, higher rates of assistance and greater access to health. The conversion of Australian families from the existing Family Assistance Scheme to the new family tax benefit is on schedule and will deliver improved services and benefits to Australian families. By not supporting the new tax system, the Labor Party is against increases in family allowance, increased assistance for single income families, increased assistance for families with children, a changing Commonwealth-state tax treatment, a great tax for states, increases for pensions and income tax cuts. The list goes on.Families will have their benefits increased as part of the largest overhaul of family assistance ever—and the opposition stand for families! These changes will give families more disposable income to outweigh any price rises from the goods and services tax. The new tax system introduces one of the largest structural changes to the Australian economy—probably the largest since the Second World War. And guess what? This government, the businesses and the consumers out there in the real world have been able to handle it. However the opposition, because of their lack of real term experience, cannot. So they just assume that everyone else is in the same position. Well, sorry, guys. Sorry about that, but the business world and the consumer are ahead of you in paces. Well done business world and consumer! As at 15 June, 150,000 advisory visits have been requested of which over 120,000—that is over 85 per cent—have been finalised. What a great job these field officers do when they come to your business! I know, because my family business is one of those 120,000 businesses that have taken advantage of this great service offered by this great government. On the government's web site the average hits per day number 683,204. Our kit titled `Moving from PPS'—that is, prescribed payment system—`to PAYG' will be sent out to the 670,000 prescribed payment system payers and payees. The tax office is in town conducting tax reform business education and information sessions across the nation. These are extremely successful. I have conducted many of those across my electorate of Riverina in conjunction with the tax office, and I would highly recommend them to the opposition. Work in conjunction with the Taxation Office, fellas, and maybe that will finally help you to understand administration and what it is all about—something you have never been able to quite click with.Every dollar raised by the goods and services tax is paid to the state and territory governments. All of those additional taxes will put money into schools, hospitals, police and the roads of the future. As far as our state of readiness goes, we are ready with 2.7 million applications for ABNs, a large proportion for GST and over 2.3 million calls to the tax reform info lines; and businesses sought and received from the ATO nearly 12 million publication booklets and fact sheets. Man, they are ready! I wonder just how many of the opposition have sought all of this information to have themselves ready. They are not interested. With over 90 million hits to the ATO's tax reform web site and with millions of publications being downloaded, we have had an enormous response to our implementation of a new tax system. The result of recent surveys on business readiness have highlighted how the business community has been preparing for the GST. Last month a Morgan and Banks survey found that 94 per cent of businesses were ready for GST—they are ahead of the opposition—and Morgan and Banks also found that 75 per cent of businesses felt that the GST presented no major disruption to their business. A similar survey last month by Dun and Bradstreet also found that over 90 per cent of businesses were either moderately or very well prepared for the GST. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion is now concluded.Bills18104R106918104Bill presented by Dr Wooldridge, and read a first time.1810416:12:0018104Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Gene Technology Bill 2000 is the Commonwealth's component of a national regulatory system for genetically modified organisms. With the passage of the gene technology bill and mirror legislation in all states, Australia will, for the first time, have a comprehensive independent and accountable regulator of GMOs—a regulator with the sole purpose of protecting the health and safety of the community and protecting the Australian environment by identifying and managing risks posed by or as result of genetically modified organisms. To secure such a regulatory system, we must be mindful of the fact that the states and territories must pass legislation that is consistent with this bill.The bill in its current form represents the regulatory system preferred by all states and territories. It is not a coalition government bill, nor a Labor bill, but rather legislation supported on a bipartisan basis by all jurisdictions. I ask you to be conscious of the fact that major changes to the bill may not find favour with state and territory governments and this would have major ramifications for our chance to introduce uniform national regulatory measures. I take this opportunity to recognise the concerted effort that each state and territory has put into the development of the gene technology bill. It is an excellent example of Australian governments working collectively to the greater good of protecting the people of this country and its environment and promoting its research and development base as a burgeoning industry.Throughout the past 12 months, the Commonwealth has made a concerted effort to find out the needs and expectations of the Australian community in relation to the regulation of GMOs. I am glad to have the opportunity to acknowledge a range of sectors and organisations that have contributed to the development of this world-class regulatory system, including the research and development sector, primary producers, environmental and consumer groups and the biotechnology industry. We have, for example, responded to the overwhelming view of interested parties that the regulator must be independent. The bill therefore establishes the regulator as a statutory office holder with powers and independence akin to the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman or the Commissioner of Taxation. The regulator will be able to report directly to parliament on matters of concern and will be the absolute decision maker on all applications that come to the office. Another matter on which there is complete agreement from the industry and environmental and consumer groups is that the need for the protection of the health of the community and the protection of the Australian environment are to come before all other considerations.There is no doubt that biotechnology holds great potential for this country. In terms of health, agriculture, industry, primary production and environmental benefits we have seen only the prelude to the possibilities. Nevertheless, it is appropriate that this new regulatory system has the driving imperative of identifying and managing any risks associated with the technology before all other matters, only then can we be truly confident about reaping the broader benefits. The bill establishes the framework for the most comprehensive risk assessment and risk management system it has been possible to develop. All applications for GMOs to be released into the environment will be made available to anyone who wishes to see them. They will also be automatically forwarded to each state and territory government, existing regulators and the Commonwealth environment minister for advice. Once all comments from government and non-government parties have been considered by the regulator and a risk assessment prepared, each party will have the opportunity to consider and comment on the regulator's draft decision. This is a system Australia has every reason to have confidence in. It must be acknowledged that the Australian industry and our research and development sector have made every effort to comply with the voluntary administrative system of GMO controls that will be replaced by this legislation. I commend them for their efforts. This is legislation with teeth. The financial penalties for criminal offences are significant. In addition, the regulator will be able to appoint inspectors, undertake routine monitoring and conduct spot checks. I mentioned earlier the support this bill has in states and territories. I have, however, heard calls from Tasmania for the bill to include an explicit opt-out provision. I reiterate the advice repeatedly given to Tasmania, which has been acknowledged by all other governments: it is not possible for such a provision to be included. All governments must have regard to the constitutional impediments and risks resulting from our international obligations. This bill demonstrates that it is possible to effectively regulate risks associated with technology. For Australia to lose the benefits of this technology when we are able to manage those risks would be an irresponsible and insupportable step for government to take. We have adopted a cautious approach to regulation. We recognise the great diversity of application of gene technology and have tailored the bill so that for each application the level of regulation is commensurate with the risk. We have been careful to ensure that our hand is not so heavy that it will stymie our research and development sector or limit the opportunities that the technology holds. But, without question, it is appropriately firm and cautious for higher risk activities and is conscious of the need to protect our community and preserve the diversity of our environment. I commend the bill to the House and I present an explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Griffin) adjourned.Bills18105R107118105Bill presented by Dr Wooldridge, and read a first time.1810516:17:0018105Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Gene Technology (Licence Charges) Bill 2000 supports the Gene Technology Bill 2000 by providing a framework for recouping costs of the Gene Technology Regulator through the levying of licence charges. This bill is an important adjunct to the main bill, which I have already addressed in detail. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Griffin) adjourned.Bills18105R107018105Bill presented by Dr Wooldridge, and read a first time.1810516:19:0018105Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Gene Technology (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2000 is the third bill in the package of regulation of genetically modified organisms. The bill creates an interface between the new Gene Technology Regulator and existing regulatory agencies, including the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals and the Australia New Zealand Food Authority. For reasons outlined in my earlier statement, I also commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Griffin) adjourned.Bills18106R1092BillsR109318106Debate resumed.16:20:0018106Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I rise to speak on the Migration (Visa Application) Charge Amendment Bill 2000 and the Migration Legislation Amendment (Parents and Other Measures) Bill 2000. I want to start by saying that both of these bills are a great disappointment to me and that they will be a great disappointment to many migrant families living in Australia—people who are Australian citizens and people who are Australian residents. It will be a great disappointment because, at the heart of it, these bills are not about trying to resolve an issue or fix a problem or somehow trying to do something good or better for the community. At the heart of these bills are very mean, very nasty, very un-Australian and very punitive measures. I do not believe the intent of the bills is based on equity or on good policy; in fact, quite the opposite.The bill is highly discriminatory and based on discriminatory ideals. It makes immigration matters more complicated. It prevents and works against family reunion. It also prevents better access to medical services and Medicare. Worst of all, it is based on a very deep and personal failure by this government and this minister to fully understand what they should be doing for migrant families. There is a whole range of related matters. What disappoints me most is the government's failure to understand that parents are an essential part of a family. This is a totally draconian bill. I searched through the bill very closely for a positive outcome—for something that families could look forward to and say, `Here's something we could use. Here's something that will be better for us, for our family and for our parents—something that will do something for the country.' But it is quite the opposite. This bill makes it more difficult—it is about prevention. I am very disappointed in the bill.At the heart of the bill are the charges for visa applications. Currently there are charges for visa applications. We on this side of the House do not shirk our responsibilities. We say there is a mutual obligation—that people applying should pay a fee and contribute to our health system and to a whole range of systems—but I think most reasonable people would believe that that charge should be something that is affordable, equitable and in the ballpark of what families can afford. There is no use sticking a fee on to draw a line that says, `Nobody will get over that one; let's just see how high we can make that bar.' This bill takes the visa application fee and associated levies and bonds—wait for this; this is how much you will have to fork out or put on your credit card or see your loans manager about, if you have one—to $64,000. When people walk in, they will be told, `We'd like a fee with that application.' The response would be, `Sure, not a problem. How much is that—$25, $30, $100, $1000?' They will be told, `No, sorry. For your parents, it will be around $64,000,' to which the response may be, `Okay, well I might have to go and see my manager about a second mortgage on the home or I might have to sell the home,' if they are lucky enough to have one. Or, `We will just have to take out a loan for that sort of money.' I do not know how many people have a lazy $64,000 sitting under the bed. Obviously that fee is for a couple—it is not that expensive for a single person. If one of your parents has, unfortunately, passed away and you want to bring over the surviving parent to give them some quality of life and to spend some time with them before they also pass away, the fee that you would have to put forward would be $35,000. I am sure people listening to this are saying, `No, the member must be mistaken. This fee of $35,000 cannot be right.' But it is right. I am not mistaken. This is what this government and this minister want to charge people applying for visa applications to get their parents here. We are not talking about some exclusive class of people. I know that the minister, in a previous bill that was rejected by the Senate, had a `Rolls Royce' class of visa application which was substantially less, but that one was rejected by the Senate. It did not make it through. I think that one was about $17,000, but in quite a nasty fashion now, they are saying, `We'll just make it $35,000 or $64,000.' It is totally untenable. The government and the minister try to explain this by saying that it is to recover costs, that it is about making people pay for services they will use in the future if we let them into the country. They say that the deal is quite simple: if you want to pay this sort of money to get the visa, you can either put up-front $35,000 for a single to the government for medical services into the future, or you can take out a private health insurance scheme for a period of 10 years, for which you must pay up front. So all of this is about up-front fees.Everywhere we look, everywhere we turn, every time we see a policy of this government, it is about up-front fees. It is about making it more difficult. It is not about equity, it is not about trying to make the world a better place, which I thought was the job we were supposed to be doing here; it is about making it harder, it is about making it inequitable, it is about making it only available to those few in the world and in Australia who can afford those sorts of fees. How many people migrating to Australia will come from those sorts of wealthy backgrounds where it could be expected they would have that sort of money spare? I am sure there will be some people—I do not say there will not be any—who will take every avenue given to them because of what it means to have their parents with them. They will take absolutely every single avenue to raise that sort of money, at their cost. They will suffer, they will miss out. Their children will suffer; their children will miss out. Their families will go without so they can get their parents over here. I think that is a very admirable thing to do, but is it reasonable that we expect them to do that? I do not think it is. Maybe the minister should come in and explain how he sees that a family missing out on a whole range of things is somehow a fair thing, because that is what would happen to them with this sort of debt burden on their heads. Who can afford this?There was, a little time ago, a provision to `queue jump'. I know people get offended by that because there are a lot of bad connotations around queue jumping, but I will come back to that in a moment. If there are 20,000 parents sitting on a waiting list, and at the current intake rate is 500 a year, which is very generous on behalf of the government, it will take, at a guess, about 40 years for people to have their parents come to Australia under this government's legislation. Does it seem reasonable? It certainly does not seem reasonable to me. Imagine asking those families it affects, `Whereabouts on the list are you?' and their response is ` I'm 18,548.' So what is it going to take? Say, 30 years? How many people expect in 30 years their parents still to be with them?Where does this government and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs get off trying to purport to actually improve things in this bill by actually putting forward those sorts of policies and regulations? As I said earlier, it is about making things more difficult. It is about inequity. It is about discrimination. Everything that is contained in this bill is highly offensive. Worst of all, it is completely antifamily. It is antifamily at its very core. As I have said many times in this House, all of the government's policies are, at their core, antifamily. You can dress them up as tax and call it a GST. Have a close look at that system and ask: what is at its core? Who does it hurt the most? Who benefits and who does not benefit? At its core, it hurts families. In my view, that is an antifamily policy, an antifamily bill or antifamily legislation. And there is a whole range of others in education and in health. I will touch briefly on health because it is directly related to this bill in terms of the up-front fees that are charged. People will have to make that final decision before 1 July as to whether they opt into the private health insurance scheme. Of course, if they do not opt in, they effectively become locked out. They become locked out because of the punitive measures applied by the government to exclude them. It is not a bill that includes; it excludes. If you do not join a private health fund before 1 July, for every year you do not join you pay a two per cent penalty and you pay for whatever your age is—not at the 30-year rate that is currently available. Let us say that you are 30 and out of what is a sustenance budget—you are living week to week; you do not have a lot of spare cash—you simply cannot afford that extra $120, $140, $180 or $200 a month to get private health cover and you say, `We just can't afford it as a family; so we are just going to have to miss out.' That is what this government's scare campaign is telling everyone: `Run for cover because if you don't you're going to miss out on cover; you won't be covered.' That is what the ads tell people. But, of course, that is not the truth. In 10 years time you might be a little better off and you might think, `Now the timing is right; I might go out there and contribute to the private health system,' and join. But why would you? You are going to be slugged for your age and you are going to be slugged two per cent for every year you were not there: 10 times two—20 per cent. You will be slugged 20 per cent on top, not because you do not want to belong but because the government have prevented you from belonging—they have excluded you from the system. So the intent of that legislation is not to include people. There has been a rush of people—huge figures, as we are told by the minister. Unbelievable. Last week alone, 20,000 people joined MBF. That is fantastic, and I applaud them. But, at the end of the day, we still have 68 per cent—two-thirds of all Australians—who are not covered and, because of the government's legislation, will probably never be covered because they are prevented and excluded under the current system.The same principle applies to this bill. It is about excluding people; it is not about including people whatsoever. We would argue that offsetting costs to the government is a good thing; it is something that the government should look to. We are not saying that we oppose all of the principles. We recognise mutual obligation, and I think there should be a contribution, but people do contribute and they do pay. Currently, the figure for a couple is around $8,000. Personally I think that is a lot of money, but I think it is a reasonable figure. I think it is a figure that we can work with. While it will cost families dearly—if you are just going to chuck $8,000 on the Bankcard, then it is going to hurt—they will do it because they want their parents to come here. Of course, the opportunity to do it does not really exist anyway because we have 20,000 people sitting in a queue with a most generous—and I say that as sarcastically as I can—500 a year. That will take 40 years. And people are expected to have confidence and hope and sit at home and think, `We should be thankful that there is a program at all.' I do not think that is what they think. They are probably saying—and they have said it to me—that it is cruel and nasty and they cannot see the intent. But, as I explained earlier, I think we know the intent and the purpose, and it is nasty and it is very un-Australian. Australia was built on the backs of many immigrants. Many people came to this country to find a better place, and they did: they found a much better place, a fairer and more equitable society, a society that actually cares. But we are now seeing this slow pernicious creeping in of bills such as this that cut at the very core of our values and our culture without taking into consideration the culture of others. Some people might say, `Why does that matter? Why should we worry about the culture of others?' What about your own culture? How important are your parents to you? How important is it to have your parents with you? They can make life a bit easier for you. They can help you with child care. That would actually reduce the burden on the government—less in child-care subsidies; I am sure the government would be happy about that. They could perhaps give a family a bit more time, a better quality of life—a whole range of things. I think it would actually work in the national interest to encourage family reunions. I think it is a good thing to try to keep families together. I cannot see how preventative measures would be a better thing. But I know what the minister is going to say. He will say, `This is not about prevention; this is actually about getting people off that queue'—20,000 people at 500 a year, 40 years—`let's get them off that queue.' I said earlier on that I would talk about that word that I do not particularly like to use, and I use it very sparingly—that is, queuejumpers. The government has made a very big issue of attacking anybody who comes to this country, be they refugees, asylum seekers or others—some illegally—and saying, `Queuejumpers are not welcome; queue jumping is wrong.' I agree with the minister: people should not jump queues. You are right, Minister: people should not jump queues. You have said it many times, and it seems to be at the core of some of the policies that you are putting forward—and for that you should be applauded. But suddenly we see a backflip on queue jumping. Suddenly it is okay. The rules of the game are still the same except they have been changed in one bit—that is, it is okay to queue jump as long as you have $64,000. You cannot queue jump if you are poor; you can queue jump only if you are wealthy. That makes sense, doesn't it? Is that the intent here? `Queue jumping is a terrible, nasty evil thing, and Australia should do everything it can to prevent people queue jumping. Australia should do everything it can to protect its borders and shores. But we'll make it okay to queue jump—not a problem—as long as you've got plenty of money.' What else are we going to see come out of this? Are we going to see queue jumping of other varieties based on the fact that if you are wealthy you can forget about everything else that the government has said, you can queue jump?I want to touch on the so-called contribution that this money will make towards the health system. Minister, I am sure you understand the private health system and Medicare very well, so you understand that whether you are in the private health system or not in the private health system, Medicare—which is for all Australians, which is paid for by all Australians—still picks up the tab. So it is not as if by joining a private health scheme—whether it be under this legislation or otherwise—suddenly it is a replacement, something different, something exclusive. No, it is not. It is the same thing because the government—that is, the taxpayer—still picks up the tab. Plenty of people who have private health cover do not necessarily always use private hospitals. Sometimes they use the public system because, if it is an emergency, no-one will drive you down the road to the private hospital if you are lucky enough to have one near where you live, but they will take you to the public hospital because that is where emergencies are handled. Although I could, I will not dwell too long on these issues. At the heart of this, those issues are not addressed. I think it is false economy and I think it is based on the wrong principles.Also I want to touch briefly on the matter of where the fee may have come from. Why is it $25,000 straight up, up-front? In the Senate estimates this was pursued, but the best we could get was Mr Farmer admitting that the department did not have an answer and that they needed time to find one. That was the best we could get after a fair bit of questioning about how they got this figure. They just plucked it out of the air—you know, times this by that, divide by half, multiply by four, take 20 per cent. Why $25,000? Why didn't you just make it $55,000 or $65,000? Where do you draw the line? Obviously not at an affordable mark in the sand; just at a mark where you set the bar just so high that it excludes, because that is what this does. You will not have a huge rush or a huge take-up, but again I do not believe the government wants that. That is not what it is about. They are trying to pander to someone by saying, `Look, we are trying to do something but in the end we are not really trying at all.' Although I do not normally do this, while the minister is here I want to raise a particular case with him regarding a particular constituent of mine and about how efficient the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs is. I have a case involving a Miss Aida Laurio Del Fabbro from the Philippines who is married to an Australian. She made an application to come and join her husband here. It is now 12 months since the application was made but to this day they are still frustrated in getting the department to actually make a decision. It is not as simple as the department just not having done their job; there is a health issue involved. A government sponsored doctor in the Philippines made an error and did not diagnose properly and so has caused a bungle. I think the minister should pay pretty close attention to this issue and actually fix it because it has been 12 months. 16:41:0018110Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—These bills before us today, the Migration Legislation Amendment (Parents and Other Measures) Bill 2000 and the Migration (Visa Application) Charge Amendment Bill 2000, are an important part of the government's program to have an orderly and efficient migration program that does not put an undue burden on the Australian community. They follow a trend commenced under the Labor government to reign in the costs some migrants place on the Australian community. From 1982, migrants to Australia have had to provide assurance of support for periods varying between three, five and 10 years. By 1988, seven per cent of migrants subject to this assurance of support defaulted on their assurances and received special benefits of approximately $9 million and $7 million in unemployed benefits. Because of the mounting cost and financial burden of new arrivals, in 1991 the AOS period was reduced from five to two years. Government liability for social security payments was restricted with a stricter means tests on assurers and improved debt recovery liaison. As part of these measures, the then Labor government introduced a bond of $3,500 for the principal applicant and $1,500 for each adult dependant to cover possible social security payments. At the same time the Social Security Act was amended to impose a non-refundable charge of $822 to offset part of the costs associated with medical, hospital and pharmaceutical benefits. It was to be paid in addition to the Medicare levy. These actions by the then Labor government were supported by the coalition, both government and opposition acknowledging that some of the non-refugee arrivals were placing an unfair burden on the Australian community. However, the cost of new arrivals to Australia has continued to rise and negatively impact on the budget. Of particular cost to the Australian community are parents and grandparents who migrate to Australia from overseas. Older immigrants place high costs on the economy. Parents and other aged relatives are the only category of migrants for whom costs to the budget increase over time rather than decrease. They draw on social security and other health and welfare services without themselves having contributed to the tax system. This extra burden on Australia's welfare system is occurring at the same time as Australia's population is ageing and the pressure on the health and welfare budgets is increasing. The cost of immigration of aged parents is not just a problem in Australia, although Australia does have a much more generous welfare system than many other countries. A study based on comparable US data estimated that for every 1,000 parent entrants the cost to Australia's welfare system would exceed $1.5 billion. Similarly, a study by DIMA estimated that the cost of health care, residential care and social security payments for parent entrants was approximately $48,000 for males and $78,000 for females. In government, Labor recognised the economic problem posed by sponsored parents and, as a result of Labor policies, the number of sponsored parents declined from 11,600 in 1988-89, to 5,300 in 1992-93 and to 5,100 in 1994-95. It was the clear intention of the then government to reduce the number of sponsored aged parents. However, there was a blow-out in 1995 of 8,900 and this remained high in 1996-97 at 7,600. The costs to the Australian public were substantial. By January 1998 there were 52,970 migrants aged 55 years and over with less than 10 years residence receiving social security support at a cost of $400 million per annum. In response to burgeoning costs, in 1997-98 this government introduced a cap for parent visas, with the number of aged parents being able to enter Australia as migrants being capped at 1,000. As a result of the cap, a queue formed for aged persons wanting to come as permanent residents to Australia on a parent visa.The minister has indicated that there are currently over 20,000 in the application pipeline and I understand that this pipeline is growing at a rate of 400 persons per month. To reduce this queue, in October 1998, by regulation, the minister provided 4,000 more spaces for aged parents by increasing the one-off fee of $940 to $5,000 per adult applicant to cover health costs. Assurance of support bonds were increased from $3,500 to $4,000 for the main applicant and from $1,500 to $2,000 for each additional applicant. Assurers were required to demonstrate that they had the financial capacity to meet their obligations, the money to be refundable after two years, with interest, if social security benefits had not been accessed. By March 1999, 2,200 people had applied to enter Australia under the scheme. These regulations were disallowed in the Senate on 31 March 1999. On behalf of the Democrats, Senator Andrew Bartlett then said: Those people who can afford the increased amounts ... get into the fast lane.The Democrats feel the changes open Australia's immigration law up to the charge of being more directed toward the rich and discrimination against the poor and underprivileged.Senator Bartlett provided the other place with an analogy based on movie or sports queues where people with money were able to go to the front of the queue. `It does not happen in Australia,' the senator said. It was not, the senator concluded, desirable policy in Australia. I can only wonder where the Democrats—and by implication the Labor opposition—have been for the last few years. Not only can people with money get into the front of a queue for a cultural and sports events in Australia; they are the only ones in the queue today in Australia. The egalitarian Labor government in New South Wales has deemed $1,382 a fair price for ticket to the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games, laughingly entitled `the people's games'.I am not advocating that migration policy should be undertaken on the same basis as sports policy. I seek only to point out that Senator Bartlett's analogy was false and that indeed, contrary to his assertion, the poor are discriminated against in Australia in both sport and culture. And, I might say, in every other way. There has never been a society like this where people in the lower socioeconomic sections have equal access to the same benefits as those with a greater income. Indeed, our business migration policy reflects that—a policy supported by the Labor opposition. On behalf of the Labor opposition, in the disallowance debate, Senator Schacht said that Labor was disallowing the regulations because they discriminated against poorer applicants. The argument has been reiterated today with this bill, and I will address that argument later.The rejection of the October 1998 regulations made it impossible for the government to conduct migration policy that was both compassionate and financially responsible. Faced with increasing migration of elderly parents, and the financial reality that a person over 65 could be expected to cost the Commonwealth $120,000 in health costs over an estimated lifespan of 20 years and $160,000 for special benefits and pensions, the minister reduced the aged parent cap to 500. The minister has now provided an opportunity for debating the whole issue of migration of aged persons by introducing the present bill into the House. This bill proposes a contingency reserve of 4,000 non-working parents to enter under a new visa class that has an extended period of assurance of 10 years instead of the normal two and an AOS bond of $10,000 for the initial applicant and $4,000 for each additional applicant. The bond is refundable after 10 years, plus interest and minus any welfare benefits. Applicants also have the choice of taking out private health insurance or paying an up-front service charge of $25,000 per person. In his second reading speech, the minister pointed out that this represents one-fifth of the potential health cost of an individual. There are other initiatives in the bill, including removing access to Medicare from parent visa applicants who are in Australia temporarily while their permanent visas are being assessed. However, I do not intend to canvass these initiatives at this time. Instead, I will address the principle of the legislation and the actions of the Labor Party in opposing the bill.Firstly, the opposition claim they have no disagreement with the principle of the bill. They could hardly claim otherwise as it was the Labor Party who introduced the principle of AOS and the health guarantee into the migration program. It is indeed their principle. I am reminded of the old joke of the gentleman—I think this was a joke of Bernard Shaw's actually—who asks a woman if she will come to dinner with him if he gives her a million dollars. She replies, `Yes, of course,' and he says, `But will you come if I give you one dollar?' She says, `No, what do you take me for?' He says, `Madam, we know what you are. We are only haggling over the price.' I thank my colleague from Western Australia, the member for Moore, for acknowledging the joke with a laugh. My colleague the member for Cook asked the shadow minister what would be an appropriate charge for migrants who had never contributed to this country and who would never contribute but who would take from it welfare and health benefits paid for by others. Perhaps the Labor member who follows me would like to answer that question, for it is incumbent on the opposition to let us know. If they are genuine in supporting the principle of the bill, we need to know how they would change it to make it acceptable. The AOS and health charge is currently one-fifth of the potential cost of an elderly migrant. Would the ALP accept a sixth, an eighth or a tenth? Why is the AOS that the government has tried to introduce in 2000 so much more onerous than the AOS and health charge introduced by Labor in the 1980s, and what is the ALP's alternative? The bottom line is that someone has to pay. The question for the opposition today is: is it the Australian taxpayer, is it the migrant and the people who benefit from that migrant's presence, their children, or is it a combination of the two? If it is the Australian taxpayer, then the opposition is asking for an increase in taxes, a reduction in welfare benefits for other Australians or a budget deficit. Perhaps the member for Prospect would like to let us know. If it is the beneficiaries, then the cost to them would be much greater than the cost the government has proposed, and those taking up the visas would be an extremely wealthy and limited cohort indeed. If it is the third alternative, we are back with the government policy—shared responsibility—and back to the question of how to apportion the share. Four-fifths to the Australian taxpayer and one-fifth to the migrant and their beneficiaries seems more than fair in my view.The truth is that this is not really a matter of ALP policy versus coalition policy. In government, the ALP would pursue exactly the same policy. It is amazing that the ALP in government and the ALP in opposition can be such different creatures. In government, the ALP sold the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas. It sold the Moomba pipeline and it sold the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. In opposition, it opposes the sale of Telstra. In government, the ALP reduced car tariffs from 57 per cent to 15 per cent. In opposition, it opposes a continuation of its own policy of a 2½ per cent reduction each year. In contrast, the coalition sought to contribute to good government when it was in opposition. When we opposed something, it was on a matter of principle. I sat in those party rooms and I heard principle discussed. There was never a time when we opposed something simply to thwart the government and to stop the elected government from governing. The same cannot be said for the Labor Party. It is hypocritical and populist. It is base and dishonest. In opposition, it has no policies; in government, it adopts the policies of the coalition.16:56:0018112Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I rise today to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Parents and Other Measures) Bill 2000 and the Migration (Visa Application) Charge Amendment Bill 2000. I would like to begin by making the point that Australia's immigration policy must be one which will enhance the future of our country, one which will encourage a healthy mix of migrants. Migration policy should not and must not be—as the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs himself says—about just economic costs and benefits. However, at the heart of these bills is nothing more than an economic objective. The bills provide for the creation of a new visa class for aged parents with a dramatic increase in the cost of support, bonds and health charges. As speaker after speaker has told the House, there are now over 20,000 parents around the world who are waiting to be reunited with their families in Australia. Now that this government has cut the yearly intake of parents to 500 per year, their wait has been made so much longer. The minister—and I am glad he is in the parliament tonight—in his second reading speech referred to research that shows that people who migrate to Australia later in life make a minimal contribution to the revenue of the country but incur a reasonable cost to the taxpayer in terms of security and health. It is true that when Labor were in government we introduced a scheme whereby entrants would have to pay a bond and a health charge if they wished to enter the country, but it was a fair cost. The cost of keeping aged parents was offset by introducing an application charge, which is currently around $5,000 per couple. However, the increase in charges that these bills propose is far from fair. In fact, the consequences of introducing such a high cost for people to be reunited with their families in Australia could be severely damaging to the financial situations of those families. The increase in costs—from $3,500 for the main applicant and $1,500 for any adult to $10,000 and $4,000 respectively—is enormous, and then of course the applicants must also either obtain private health insurance for the first 10 years in Australia or pay an excess charge of $25,000 per person. If we take the $25,000 per person for the health bond—which, for a mother and father, will add up to $50,00—and we add $10,00 for the initial person's application and $4,000 for the additional person, we come up with a sum of $64,000 just for one aged couple, one mother and father, to be reunited with their family in Australia.In the minister's second reading speech, he said that during his community consultations on the 2000-01 immigration intake many participants who wished to bring their parents to Australia indicated that they would meet all the costs associated with the migration of their parents. I wonder if they knew that the cost would be $64,000 when they agreed to meet all of the costs associated with the migration. I also question whether the minister had any community consultation with the people in my electorate of Prospect. Fifty-two per cent of people in the local government area of Fairfield, which makes up the majority of my electorate and comprises nearly 200,000 people, were born overseas. In many cases they are separated from family members who are spread throughout the world.Many of my constituents have been waiting for years to be reunited with their families but are being held back by this government's dollar driven immigration policies. I would be extremely surprised to learn that an average migrant family in my electorate of Prospect could afford the $64,000 this government expects migrants to cough up before they can be reunited with their parents. Most of the immigrants in my electorate work extremely hard and they make a wonderful contribution to the local community, not only because of what they contribute with hard work but through their businesses and their cultural activities. They are not, as the government might want us to believe, people who offer nothing to the community but only cost the government money through medical and welfare expenses. I would like to relate a story of one of my constituents, a Mr Robert Foulis from Prospect, who has been trying since 1998 to get his parents from Belfast in Northern Ireland to join him and his children here in Australia. Mr Foulis is a truck driver on a salary of $40,000 a year. His original application was rejected by the department on the ground that in 1990 his father had a minor heart condition. Mr Foulis has supplied medical records to the department which now state there have been no further symptoms since the operation. The medical report furnished eight years after the heart condition says that Mr Foulis Sr, Robert's father, remains remarkably well. `He is symptom free and is in no way curtailed in any of his physical activities.' The report also stated that Robert's father has visited Australia on at least five occasions since 1990 without any problems at all. Robert is Mr and Mrs Foulis' only child of 50 years of age. That man has spent 21 years in Australia. Robert now has three children and two grandchildren. He has maintained that his parents would continue to receive a British pension and would be housed at Robert's new residence, which he recently bought, I might add, to accommodate his large family. His parents would be entirely financially independent through their British pension, and Robert has maintained that they would also seek, if they can find it, private medical insurance when they arrive. This government is now trying to make my constituent pay $64,000 to bring his parents out from Belfast if he wants early consideration, even though they will be financially independent from the Australian taxpayer, as they receive their British pension and they will have taken out that private health insurance. $64,000 is more than Mr Foulis would earn in a year and it would take years of saving, requiring him to take out a loan, probably with a finance company, where he will over the years have to pay back an exorbitant amount of interest. The financial counsellor of the Wesley Mission in Fairfield was concerned that people would be now encouraged to take out second mortgages on their homes, which they cannot afford, just to find the $64,000 required so they could have their families join them. Currently, as we know, bank interest rates range anywhere from 7.99 per cent and beyond. However, finance companies, which are more inclined to lend money in areas like this, can charge rates of interest up to 27 per cent, and sometimes even more. $64,000 is a very unreasonable and inflated cost, which in this case would cause a massive burden on Mr Foulis's finances. Mr Foulis has written to the Migration Review Tribunal and is still waiting for their decision. I believe this bill highlights this government's hypocritical nature in regard to migration policy. Just to give you an idea of this, there are the minister's own comments in his address in the National Press Club. Again I quote the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, who is at the table. He said:It is my job to ensure that the immigration program has integrity, that it delivers all manner of benefits, both human and economic, to Australia. He went on to say:Migration policy is not just about the economic cost and benefits and it is about the way we see ourselves as a nation.I fail to see how we can see ourselves as a nation which is free of discrimination, tolerant and humanitarian in its immigration policy when the government requires a straight-up payment of up to $64,000 for those who can afford it. For those who cannot afford it—constituents in my electorate—they must wait on the government's capped intake of 500 per year. Given the current waiting list of 20,000, at 500 per year the wait is up to 40 years. Or, as we say to the aged parents waiting, `Never, ever.'The minister goes on to talk about how his migration policy does not discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, ethnic origin or nationality. However, there is one significant exclusion there, and that is wealth. If a couple such as the Foulises have medical reports to say they have no signs of ill health, they have an only child here in Australia who has already bought a new house to accommodate them, they will not receive Australian pensions, they will be supported by their British pension, and they are prepared to take out private health insurance, what justification can this government have to require that their son Robert, who earns on average $40,000, pays $64,000 in fees and bonds to the government so that he and his children can experience the joy of being reunited with his parents? For those families where money is no object, $64,000 may be only a small sum to pay for the joy they will experience upon being reunited with their families. But I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that for those people in my electorate of Prospect $64,000 is a great deal of money.I know from the experience in my electorate how important family is to our migrant communities, and what worries me is that they will do whatever they have to do to try and get the money to bring out their remaining family members. If this means taking out a loan from a finance company at some exorbitant interest rate or trying to get a second mortgage on their business or their house, on top of their credit card, their living expenses, their car repayments or other liabilities they have, then they will try—but at what cost to the family and at what cost to the community?Another case from my electorate is that of Mrs Amira Jirjice, who has had her parents on the government's waiting list since 1998 and they have been stuck in the queue while the intake is now capped at 500 per year. I have made several representations on her behalf to the minister for immigration. However, this government's migration policy has only hampered her family's attempts at reunification. In May 1999 she wrote: I also want to express my sad feelings and disappointment of what 1 have heard about the Government's changes in next year's immigration intake, slashing the parent reunion category from 2,800 to 500 only. It is a payback by Mr Ruddock for the Senate's rejection of a Government regulation that will affect us more than anyone else ...Mrs Jirjice also wrote to the minister earlier in 1998 stating that her parents `had three children already living in Australia and her parents' application to migrate to Australia had been accepted in 1996'. She said that all the medical tests were finished and everything was provided in August 1998. She continued:I hope that you will consider a decision to end their suffering as a relief and a Christmas gift to all of us (their children) who as Australians have contributed and will continue to contribute to this country.Since then her family have been waiting to bring her elderly parents to Australia and they have faced set-back after set-back. Their wait will undoubtedly be made far more difficult if the family in Australia now has to come up with the $64,000 required to be reunited with their parents. What sort of integrity does this country's migration policy have when it paves the way for families to be become debt ridden? The enjoyment, satisfaction and quality of life that is experienced when these families are united with their parents should not be granted only to those who can afford it. What message does this send to people abroad? Does it say, `If you have enough money, then you can come to Australia'? This is not the white Australia policy; this is the rich Australia policy.The minister would be well aware of the thousands of people who arrive on our shores after having paid people smugglers thousands of dollars to get here. This is a despicable form of queue jumping which cannot and must not be tolerated by the government or opposition. Many of these queue jumpers have family already settled in Australia. Those arriving are told that they can seek out their families and be reunited within a couple of days and can look forward to a new life in Australia with their families. Of course, we know that this is not the case, but this is how those `snake heads', as I would like to refer to them, try to get people to pay enormous sums of money. This bill advocates a government sponsored form of queue jumping—and, when you look at it, that is what they are talking about. They now have the option of taking a risk and paying a smuggler to enter our country illegally or paying the government $64,000 to enter the country. It is hardly fair of this government to condemn one form of queue jumping and allow another. People smuggling is the biggest threat to the sovereignty of our migration policy. People smuggling is a thriving, illegal, worldwide trade. It competes with drug trafficking and arms trading as major international crime syndicates. Recently Australia has been receiving more than its fair share of illegal immigrants. Between 1 December 1999 and 19 March 2000—and I took out figures for only those few months—22 boats were intercepted off the north and north-west of Australia carrying 1,505 people, and a lot more have come since then. That is staggering—more than the combined total of illegal boat arrivals in the previous three years. It cannot be denied that we now have a serious crisis on our hands. This trade needs to be tackled head on. The government has spent millions on its Tough on Drugs stance and there are severe penalties for drug trafficking in and out of this country—and they should be even more severe. But the evidence suggested by those 1,505 people who have arrived up to March this year shows that the people smuggling trade seems to be thriving, despite any government attempts to stop it.This bill will do absolutely nothing to stamp out the people smuggling trade, which should be one of the main focuses of our immigration policy. If anything, I believe it may now offer people smugglers the incentive to undercut the government's cost of $64,000 per couple for settlement in Australia, because what we have provided in this bill is for those people smugglers to use that price as a benchmark when they set their fees and charges—`Don't worry about us, mate. The government will charge you $64,000 a couple. We'll do it for $50,000 and get you in quicker.' Our migration policy should combat people smuggling and should not compete with it. The government's newly announced measures to combat people smuggling include the international information campaign `Pay a people smuggler and you'll pay the price' and the recent announcement overseas of shock television images of crocodiles and sharks warning people not to pay a people smuggler to come to Australia. It is yet to be seen whether these initiatives will do anything to curb the people smuggling epidemic. Some might argue, if you want to scare people away from coming to Australia, that we should forget about images of man-eating crocodiles and sharks and show them images of small business owners trying to get ready for the GST.The Labor opposition has repeatedly called for the establishment of a national coast guard which would alleviate the responsibility of detecting illegal arrivals from being shared between Coastwatch, the Navy and Australian Customs. This would more effectively help deal with the people smuggling problem because it would be a central and unified agency which could concentrate a large proportion of its resources on catching the individuals who profit out of this scurrilous trade. This way, if we can stamp out and go after the people smuggling racketeers, the cost of detaining and keeping illegal immigrants is significantly reduced as fewer would be arriving. Eventually, a reduction in illegal arrivals would allow those people who have been patiently waiting in line to be reunited with their families a quicker and smoother wait for their applications to proceed. Illegal migration has a direct effect on the number of migration visas that are approved. In February this year, the minister ordered a freeze in processing of offshore refugee visas because there were so many onshore applications pending. I am not questioning that, but trying to explain that to the people I represent is very difficult indeed. The minister said in the Australian on 15 February 2000 that this freeze was a natural consequence of the wave of illegal immigrants. I pose the question: if this bill becomes law, will these people who have paid anywhere up to $64,000 to enter the country have their visa applications put on hold as soon as we get another sudden increase in illegal arrivals? $64,000 is a massive and unfair increase in the processing of parent immigration visas. However, what is most concerning is the minister's comments to the effect that $25,000 is really only one-fifth of the potential health costs, which are estimated at around $120,000.In the cases I have already mentioned, a cost of up to $125,000 will be totally and completely unreasonable and unnecessary as the sponsors have assured us that the parents will be self-sufficient, financially independent and in good health. I ask the minister to think about what sort of migration policy we want here in Australia. As the minister says, migration policy is about the way we want to see ourselves as a nation. But it is also about how we want other nations to see us. I do not know about the minister, but I do know that I want Australia to be seen as a friendly and welcoming nation which has a migration policy that encompasses integrity and humanity and offers all manner of benefits in Australia, not just purely economic benefits.I repeat that the $64,000 set by the government is excessive and unreasonable. It sends a message out to the people smugglers that Australia's immigration policy can be compromised by the forces of the dollar. I cannot support a bill which says quite clearly that if you have money, with no questions asked about how it was obtained, you are welcome to join the rest of your family in Australia. I cannot support a bill which will have the consequences of families incurring large debts at interest rates at times in excess of 25 per cent or higher. I cannot support a bill proposed by a government which talks so much about cracking down on queue jumping yet in one fell swoop advocates a form of queue jumping for the haves but not for the have nots.The member for Hindmarsh asked what we would do. I can inform her, the minister and every member of the government, as has been stated time and time again, that we would certainly look at working with the government in this area but not while they propose the exorbitant fees that have now been plucked at random out of a hat. We have to give consideration to the majority of people who wish to be reunited with their families, but it has to be done in a fair and reasonable way. It has to be done in such a way that people who are now coming here illegally will know that they are not welcome in this country; but those who are making the proper contribution to this country as legal migrants should at least reach a point in their lives some time in the future when, if it is permissible, they can go through the proper channels and have their parents or loved ones with them to provide support. This is what we should be doing in an immigration policy. It should not be driven by the almighty dollar. There is more to humanity and more to the human being than what the dollar can buy. I believe that most of the government members would join me if they talked to their constituents and listened to some of the heartfelt agony that people are going through because of this legislation. (Time expired)17:16:0018117Washer, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—I am particularly pleased to rise in support of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Parents and Other Measures) Bill 2000. In this House last year I spoke of my extremely strong disappointment with the voting down in the Senate of the Migration Amendment Regulation 1998,which would have allowed the children of elderly parents living overseas to sponsor them to migrate to Australia under a new visa subclass. This disallowance caused considerable distress to many constituents in my electorate of Moore who were willing to pay an additional assurance of support in order to expedite the visa process and, at the same time, ensure their relatives were not an undue burden on the Australian taxpayer. Further distress was caused as many parents were being processed under this new subclass when the decision was made in the Senate to deny these people the opportunity to be reunited with their families in Australia. It was not an easy task to explain to the families in my electorate why their parents should have to go back into the queue for the old visa, where there is a cap each year of 500 applicants, especially given the reasons of the non--government parties in the Senate for the disallowance. Despite the high level of interest of families in Australia in taking advantage of the new visa, the Labor Party denied them the opportunity because they said it was a visa for the rich. This was even harder to explain to my constituents, who were by no means wealthy—just prepared, along with their parents, to contribute towards the cost of being reunited with their family. Fortunately, the designated parent visa category was made available in November last year to assist the parents who were victimised by the Senate's decision. This incorporated the previous arrangements of the Migration Amendment Regulation, and nearly all of the applicants from the previous visa class moved over to this new category of visa.This bill will allow for an intake of up to 4,000 parents over the next two years under the federal government's immigration program, in addition to existing visas that are available to parents. Those in the designated parent visa class will continue to be processed under that visa. The new entry arrangements under this bill ask for an assurance of support for a period of 10 years instead of the current two. This is in line with the current 10-year waiting period before elderly migrants are able to access the age pension. The bond for the assurance of support will rise from $3,500 to $10,000 for the main applicant and from $1,500 to $4,000 for other adult dependants. This will be repaid to the applicants after the 10 years if they have not accessed any welfare benefits during that time. The interest on that bond will also be repaid to the applicants. The applicants will then have a choice of taking out suitable private health insurance for the first 10 years or paying a health bond of $25,000 to contribute to the cost of their health needs in that time.Another welcome aspect of this bill makes for more flexible arrangements for parents who are currently waiting for approval for a visa but who wish to visit their families in the meantime. In terms of health care during that time, many of these parents will be able to access reciprocal arrangements within Medicare. Otherwise, they will not have access to Medicare whilst on a visitors visa. This visa and the previously disallowed visa were introduced by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs after his extensive consultations when travelling around the country to discuss Australia's immigration program. One of these public meetings was held in my electorate, and I commend the minister on his willingness to listen to my constituents. For an immigration program to be successful, it is important to give members of the public, who often feel alienated by the political decision making process, a chance to put their views to the minister—and I know he is a good listener. Parent visas, under which more elderly parents have the opportunity to come to Australia if they are prepared to contribute towards the cost of their care, have been welcomed by both the general public and the major peak bodies involved in immigration issues. It is a commonsense measure that allows new Australians the means of bringing their parents to Australia while not being an unfair burden on the taxpayer. Those who have worked and paid taxes all their lives in another country should not move to this country and receive the benefits that people here pay taxes for. They should not expect to be fully supported. The many families that I have had contact with who wish to see their parents join them in Australia accept this as a fair means of entering the country. As I said earlier, all the peak bodies involved in immigration believe this is a fair measure. It is now up to the Senate to listen to the wishes of their constituents.Another reason why many of the families have absolutely no problem with supporting their parents, or helping the parents support themselves, is that this is not an unusual request in the immigration laws of other countries. Australia is not asking for something out of the ordinary when it asks newly arrived migrants to be self-supporting. For example, elderly parents wanting to emigrate to the United Kingdom to join their children who migrated from Australia would only be granted a visa if they were wholly or mainly financially dependent on the sponsor. They are unable to access any public funds—that is, state benefits such as income support, housing assistance, thejob seekers allowance and disability payments. This new parent visa will help to free up the existing parent visa category which has a cap of 500 applicants per year, so those people unable or unwilling to pay an increased assurance of support will have their visas approved in a shorter time frame as many applicants ahead of them in the queue move over to the new visa. This surely must keep the member for Prospect happy. A recent survey completed by the National Institute of Labour Studies at Flinders University showed that three-quarters of migrants surveyed in Australia had a parent living overseas. After three years of settlement, 15 per cent of the sample surveyed had sponsored or applied to sponsor a close relative to migrate to Australia. A further 18 per cent indicated they were planning to sponsor a relative in the near future. At present there are about 20,000 parents waiting to obtain a visa to migrate to Australia. The sponsoring of elderly parents will always be a major component of any immigration program in this country, so it is important that we get this right. As this House has already heard, the average cost of looking after the health of someone over the age of 65 is estimated at $6,000 a year. As a community, we have to balance the wishes of new Australians to be reunited with their parents and the effect this will have on the public purse. This is not to say we should ignore the many positive benefits of bringing parents out to Australia, particularly in terms of family support. I call on the non-government parties in this House to stop the ideological nonsense about visas for the rich and support this practical, widely popular and fair measure. I commend this Bill to the House. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills18118R71818118Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist on its requests for amendments Nos 1 and 2 to which the House has disagreed and agrees to the amendment made by the House in place of the Senate's request No. 1 and has made a further request for amendments. Ordered that the further requested amendments be considered at the next sitting.Bills18119The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Financial Management and Accountability Amendment Bill 2000Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2000Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2000National Health Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000Adjournment18119Motion (by Mr Ruddock) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.1811917:27:0018119Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—I am very concerned about the debate that is currently raging about the effect on rent of the GST. On the one hand, we have a commitment that the GST will not apply to normal private household rent and, on the other, we have an acknowledgment that landlords will probably pass on costs associated with the property although GST as a direct charge on rent would not occur. I believe the government's estimate on the potential increase on these rents as I have described was around 2.3 per cent. Now we have a report, seemingly kept under wraps at first by the government, by the government's preferred economic modeller, Econtech, which predicts that increase is now to be around 4.7 per cent. Earlier this week, the Treasurer translated that with some pretty smart figuring into an increase of about $8 to $10 a week, which he then went on to describe as `affordable for the average family'. As we have pointed out, if that average family is on a dual income of $45,000, has two children—what I would consider a pretty average family—and receives $25 a week tax cuts as part of the GST package, this means $8 to $10 a week going immediately into rent really cuts quite a swathe into that tax cut which is the compensation method for the cost of the GST coming on stream. This is long before that average family even begins to cover other increased costs of living associated with the GST. It seems to me that the Treasurer and the government really do not see the reality of these imposts on our families and on our communities. In my electorate of Canberra I understand there are over 11,000 households, or 22.5 per cent of the community, in private rental which stand to be affected by this new projected outcome. Rent makes a very large hole in a family's income. I do not believe that our families can simply just keep absorbing all of these rising costs.We also have the debate about rent on long-stay caravan park residents and people who live in boarding houses. The government has never denied that GST will be charged directly on their rent. Some of these people have chosen this lifestyle as their only economic means of owning their own dwelling. In bringing this issue to the fore from this side of the parliament we have been vilified as scaremongering or as troublemaking. Despite that, the pressure on the government has been sufficient that another series of Democrat-government meetings has been held to devise a way out of this electoral mess—that is how they see this, not as an unfair treatment of people but as a threat in electoral terms.What is the solution they have come up with? The Democrats' deal with the government to compensate the GST rent hikes is shameful. For a single social security recipient with no children the deal is worth just 16c extra per day. Only social security recipients receiving the maximum rate of rent assistance will receive the increase. For most social security recipients who do not receive the maximum rate the deal does not deliver any money at all—not one cent. We intend to move amendments to this legislation to ensure the removal of the GST charge from these people completely. That is how this issue should be solved, not by dabbling around the edges in a shameful way, by pretending that some compensation package has been devised overnight purely because of the electoral pressure being now felt by sectors of the government. The only real way of dealing with this issue is to remove the possibility of charging the GST to those people in the first place. We keep hearing about 1 July, the day it all begins. That is true—it is the day it is supposed to all begin—but for many of these families it has already, directly or indirectly, well and truly begun, long before any so-called `compensation' packages have even remotely become available. I am saddened by the apparent ignorance and absolute inability of this government to see what is really happening out there. When I stand up in this place and talk about my community, my families, my constituents, who are coming to me of their own free will to tell me how this whole scenario is affecting them—they are telling me, I am not telling them—my job is to come in here and make sure that the government hears that message. (Time expired)1812017:32:0018120Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I was not planning to talk on the rental in caravan parks issue, but I think I should make a couple of comments following the previous member's comments. This is a complex issue. It is one that I have been very concerned about. If the Labor Party were to introduce their amendment it would simply increase the cost of running a caravan park or a mobile home park. Those increased costs would be passed on to tenants and residents. The Labor Party amendment would simply mean that those tenants would end up paying increased rents. At least this government has increased their compensation. Most of the residents, certainly in my electorate, would receive the maximum amount of rental assistance. I think they will find after 1 July that the compensation package will more than cover any increases that they will suffer. Tonight I want to congratulate the Gosford Under 17 Netball Team on their fantastic win at the state championships at the recent long weekend at Baulkam Hills. The results meant that the Gosford under 17 team took out the minor division. The team played strongly in difficult weather conditions. They played 19 games, and conceded only one draw to Eastwood Ryde over the whole three days—a fantastic effort. The team consisted of the shooters Vicki Ward, Michelle Tarring and Rebecca Birch, who averaged 90 per cent in the goal scoring. They had the defence of Jade Kestle and Rani Blakeney. They were assisted by the mid-court players Jessica Jackson, Camille Mason, Stephanie Rofe and Lauren Van Munster. The coach is Annette Podryhula and the manageress is Mariana Jackson. It was a great effort by that team. I want to congratulate them tonight and put it on the record. I also wanted to speak of something that is not a local issue but something that I would like to highlight. It is the AESOP Business Volunteers Ltd, a not-for-profit service organisation that a lot of people do not know about. It is important to highlight what a valuable service this group provides all around the world. They were formed in 1981. They are basically volunteers, often retired professional people who provide management and technical training assistance to businesses and institutions in developing countries in the Asia Pacific region and also to indigenous organisations and businesses within Australia. Often developing countries do not have the skills needed to run small or large businesses. They are able to have the facilities and expertise of people from Australia who volunteer their time to go into those countries to give them those skills. AESOP is contracted by the Australian government through AusAID. I made a speech in parliament recently on the valuable work of AusAID, particularly in the Pacific island nations. I thought tonight was a good opportunity to highlight one of the arms of AusAID, AESOP. There are over 2,000 people registered on their database, with expertise across a wide range of private and public sector businesses. These volunteers have a proven track record in their respective fields and they have many years of practical experience behind them. They are normally highly motivated people who are interested in helping, and donate their time free of charge. Often they have to pay their own transport costs to go to those countries. The companies will in many cases provide them with meals and accommodation in these countries. In return they provide the assistance and professional advice that is needed to help developing countries. Some of the countries that AESOP volunteers are involved in are: the Cook Islands, Fiji, Micronesia, Indonesia, Kiribati, Nauru, Laos, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Tonga, Vietnam, Thailand, Tuvalu and Samoa. It shows that there is so much that Australian volunteers do overseas. Most of these people never get the publicity of what Australia is doing, particularly in the Pacific island regions. With the unrest that is happening in the Solomons and Fiji at the moment, it is a difficult time for them. I just wanted the Australian community to realise what a valuable role so many great Australians play through AusAID and through AESOP in what they are doing throughout those areas.1812117:37:0018121Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—Tonight, I want to speak about the GST and some of its impacts. With the debate raging and the number of phone calls to my office increasing from small business people concerned about how the GST is going to affect them and how it is costing them to implement it, I thought I would take the Prime Minister's advice—which we were told regularly in question time—not to take it on trust but to check it out for myself. So today I decided that I would ring the ACCC help line, and I would like to share with the House how you are greeted. It says: `Welcome to the ACCC GST price-line. Please choose one of the two following options: if you understand English, please press 1; if you do not understand English, please press 2.' It is impossible not to bring to mind John Profumo who, when questioned in the House of Commons about what instructions had been given to the troops in case they got lost during the Suez campaign, replied, `The troops were told that they should immediately rejoin their units.' With this quality of advice, it is no surprise that there is such a level of confusion amongst Australians about how the GST is going to affect them. And they have not been helped by the `Unchain' advertisements, which are really nothing more than a self-promotion exercise, and a very costly one, by this government. Of course amongst the people who should choose option 2 is the Treasurer, as he struggles to explain the impossible. I am sure that a number of members would have heard the Treasurer on AM the other day taking 10 minutes to explain how the GST will impact on rents. Neither I nor any other English speaking listener thought he made any sense at all. The Treasurer is now speaking a new language called `GST-speak'. He has created a whole raft of new and unique expressions, all of which translate into: `We are going to pay more.' The government cannot be surprised when the people in the streets are confused, when his own frontbench is struggling to explain the GST and they themselves are confused. The Minister for Community Services agrees that the GST on permanent caravan park residents is unfair. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business let the cat out of the bag the other day when he said that the GST is going to collect twice the amount that the government has admitted it will. Mr Howard quickly said that the minister does not know what he is talking about—of course, we have been saying that for some time on this side of the House—but this time I think what he said does have a ring of credibility, and in a year's time I bet I know who will be proven right about the amount of GST that will have been collected.The list of promises broken by the government has grown longer and longer since last election. We all remember these promises: beer will not increase by more than 1.9 per cent; residential rents will not increase; no-one will be worse off; permanent caravan park residents and park home owners will not be affected; education will be GST free; health will be GST free. So far beer is going to increase by significantly more than 1.9 per cent. There will be an impact on residential rents. Many people are worse off, mainly those at the lower end of the economic spectrum. Permanent caravan park residents and park home owners are being affected. The GST will have an impact on many of the costs associated with education, and the same for health. Australians have been trapped by the government, because they did not pick the option which translated the government's promises. When told today that there will be an increased rent allowance for those living permanently in caravan parks or park homes, they were not told that this will help only those who are already receiving a government benefit; it will not offer any relief to self-funded retirees or those living in park homes who do not receive a government allowance. They will become part of that select group who pay GST on their residential rent. The great pity of it is that the GST is an unfair tax. We do know that it is unfair and that it is going to have the hardest impact on those who can least afford it. What makes it even worse is the confused, ham-fisted and inept way the government has introduced this tax. It has cost small business much more than they can afford and it has caused huge amounts of stress and confusion that will go on for quite some time.1812217:42:0018122Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—On Monday during the condolence motion for the late Mr Greg Wilton, the member for Grayndler said in his excellent contribution that every member of the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration of the previous parliament had spoken to the condolence motion. Well, I had not. I was a member of that committee up until September 1997. I did not speak to the condolence motion not because I did not care about Mr Wilton but because I did not know him well. I must say from my experience of him in the committee he seemed to be an intelligent, diligent and well-informed advocate for his party and certainly for his electorate.The other reason I did not speak was that these kinds of tragedies—things that we find so difficult to understand and come to terms with—are played out every day in the lives of the people whom we represent. I think it is not until it actually affects one of us—in this case someone in our workplace and for many of my colleagues on the Labor side of the House someone who was their dear friend—that we realise just what a toll is being taken by self-harm and, in particular, suicide in our society. It is an indictment of all of us and our society that over the last 15 to 20 years we have reduced the toll taken by disease and accident, yet we have failed to have any impact on the toll exacted by despair, particularly for men—of which Greg spoke after the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs had published our report on aspects of suicide. In fact, for men, it has been getting worse. Whilst I did not know Greg at all well during his life, my observation is that in his death he has given us two gifts. The first gift he gave to us in this parliament and to the people whom we represent, and that is that he forced us to pause for four or five or six hours and reflect on who we are, why we are here, how we relate to one another and perhaps what our roles might be in trying to change a society that yields so slowly to measures which might reduce the toll taken by suicide.The second gift I think he has left for his children is in such a compelling and clear way to demonstrate to them, and certainly to me, that, in the end, any of us will be remembered not for how much wealth we have, what position we acquire in life or what spectrum of influential friends we might have, but for who we are. The things I found so moving that were said by many of my colleagues on Monday related not to the fact that he was the member for Isaacs but because he was considered to be a good person, a person who had committed his life through a sense of idealism to making his country a better place.The question was asked repeatedly, as we still do, I suppose: why should this sort of thing occur? I do not think anybody can seriously answer why depression, and in particular why suicide, is so prevalent. But one of the observations I would make—and I think one person made reference to the issue of euthanasia, which we had debated so earnestly—is that during the euthanasia debate so many of my colleagues who are well intentioned seemed to almost trivialise the decision that might be taken in terms of intentionally ending another person's life. But I do not think there was a person in this parliament on Monday who could not be persuaded to the view that life is precious and that for despair, whatever its origin—whatever the despair that led Greg Wilton to take his life, the despair of those who face what they believe are insurmountable problems—death is not really a legitimate solution to the things that overwhelm us. I do not think anybody in the parliament would have accepted that on Monday. It just seems that, in a world of vast economic change and unprecedented technological uncertainty, it is so clear—and I think the message that Greg left to his children—that the thing we need most is one another, as imperfect as we may be. 1812317:47:0018123Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—As honourable members realise from working in their electorates, there are lots of calls on our time by a whole series of organisations. Due to the time constraints, one is forced to prioritise and pick those we really want to get involved in and others that we tend to flit in and out of. Tonight I would like to speak about one I am involved with, I guess peripherally, and that I am trying to dedicate as much time to assisting when I am home—that is, the scouting and guiding associations in Tasmania. As a young child growing up in Ballarat I was involved in the cubs, and when we moved to South Australia I had a passing interest in scouts. My father's movement around Australia because of his job meant that I did not get involved, but now I have the opportunity. The thing that amazes me in this day and age when there are so many calls on people's time is the fantastic job the dedicated group of individuals who are scout leaders, guide leaders and cub leaders do. All of them have their own full-time jobs and on various nights and at weekends not only do they undertake various training courses for themselves to ensure that the young people in their care are challenged constantly but also they dedicate countless hours to meetings and conducting the weekly courses for the various organisations they are responsible for.In this day and age when young people are constantly being challenged to put their money where their mouth is I find it rather strange that not only do these leaders but also the parents who support them—in many cases having their own boys and girls involved in the various organisations—are forced to work tirelessly to raise what, to my mind, are very small amounts of money in order to purchase tents, camping equipment, and boats in some cases, and in order to try to maintain the many buildings they have. It really worries me that here is a fantastic group of people involved in the scouting and guiding associations who are working tirelessly to provide kids with fantastic role models and challenging them every night when they operate the various venues, and yet they are expected to work virtually on a shoestring budget.I think we as politicians need to look seriously at what we can do. I know we have enormous calls on our financial abilities to support and sponsor these groups, but towards the end of the year I know there is a jamboree to be held in Sydney as a part of the Olympic year. Scouts will be coming from all parts of the world to attend this international jamboree. I urge all members to inquire of the various scouting associations what we as individual members of this place can do to try to ensure that each and every one of those kids—irrespective of whether their parents are in the upper echelons of earning potential or whether they are kids with the backsides out of their trousers and whose parents see scouting as the only positive reinforcement of values they are having trouble imparting to their children—can attend. From the brief seven or eight years since I have been in this place and my involvement with these people, they absolutely amaze me. I think it is incumbent upon us to do whatever we can to ensure that these people, in my case in the Kingborough, Huon and eastern shore areas of the scouting associations, are supported in their endeavours. I am highlighting their wonderful role tonight. I challenge everybody in this place to get involved to ensure that the jamboree to be held in Sydney is a fantastic success and that as many kids as possible can attend. (Time expired)1812317:52:0018123McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I draw to the attention of the House the exciting new globulus blue gum industry that is now emerging in western Victoria. This amazing resurgence of agriculture is something that many wool growers are delighted about because they have seen a change in their capital structure. There has been a lot of controversy about the export of woodchips, but we now see the emergence of a new home grown industry, with the planting of globulus blue gum in the higher rainfall zones. This is based on the very simple fact that in China three kilograms per head of paper products is consumed, and in the USA it is nearer to about 80 kilograms per head. So it would seem that, as the Asian nations improve their standard of living, the demand for paper products will improve dramatically. The demand for quality paper, which the globulus blue gum fibre is eminently suitable to provide, is in high demand throughout the Western world. The change in technology in the production of these blue gums has ensured their growth rates are phenomenal. Speaking as a farmer who has tried to grow a number of trees over a lifetime, it is amazing to see that, with the introduction of new techniques of deep ripping—that is, ripping the soil up to two and three feet to ensure the roots grow more easily—and moulding, which is building up soil around the tree and spraying to keep weeds away, the growth of these trees in the first year can often reach five, six or 10 feet. Not only has there been a dramatic change in the production cycle but we now have the unusual situation in forestry whereby we can get two production cycles out of the one tree, so much so that in 12 years these globulus blue gums are in a position to be harvested.In 26-inch rainfall areas, a number of these plantations are now being grown. That is about the lowest level, in my view, at which these trees can be grown, provided the soil is of the proper type and it will provide the fertility and the depth. In south-west Victoria, landowners have changed their capital values. In some cases, wool growers who had land worth $600 or $700 an acre, or even $500 an acre, are now selling out at between $1,200 and $1,400 an acre—a remarkable change in their productive performance.This is a new industry, reflecting an influence of the tax system, where the costs of initially setting up a globulus plantation is written off from a tax point of view. There was some debate about the 13-month rule; however, a number of companies have been set up to take advantage of the tax situation for high income earners. It would be my hope, however, that this was productivity driven and that these plantations did result in an economic return on the funds invested. Compared with pine plantations, which were all the go some 25 years ago, it is my hope that they did not fall over in their return because the pine trees have not fulfilled their expectations. It is important to ensure that the road network is adequate to cover the woodchip plants that will be set up to support the globulus blue gum plantations that are springing up in south-west Victoria and South Australia and that the markets will be around in 12 and 20 years time.I finally raise the very important right of the growers to harvest those trees. I am sure that the shadow minister, sitting opposite, will support me and will allow that to take place over the next 12 years and will not allow environmentalists to prevent the harvesting of these trees because they might develop different attitudes when they see the trees at full maturity. I put clearly on the record that this parliament should ensure that those investors who have invested in good faith will be able to harvest their product after 12 years, and hopefully after 24 years, on the basis that it is a crop and it is harvestable, and that those environmentalists who see these very good quality trees will not interfere. (Time expired)1812417:57:0018124Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—I want to take the few minutes that are available to me to express my pleasure that the long, protracted dispute at the WTO involving Howe Leather has been resolved. It would be churlish of me to go over some of the critical comments that I have made along the way with respect to the way in which this has been handled. I think that we are all relieved that what had developed into a fairly nasty type of trade incident has been resolved. The retaliatory action that had been threatened by the US administration, which would have involved industries such as wine, citrus and auto components, was something that we had to fight hard to avoid. I am very pleased that the honourable member for Farrer is in the chamber. I hope I am correct when I say that I acknowledged his efforts very early in this case. While I may have made some comments about a judgment that he made about not appealing at a certain point in time—I had a different view from him; that view is on the record and I do not back away from that—I hope that collectively we have learnt a good lesson from this case, and that we understand that countries like the United States of America will fight these things very hard and that they will resource their efforts in the WTO to a great degree. I hope that, out of what has confronted us as a country with respect to this dispute, we will have learnt lessons which will ensure that, when similar circumstances arise, we might be able to go through the minefield that is the WTO with greater success. I note that the NFF have made some comments about our confronting something like $28 billion worth of subsidy to American agricultural industries, as against this package of about $30 million in automotive leather, and the United States wants to play the game in a different way.DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim Fischer—Might is not always right.HH4Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINS—I have to agree with the honourable member for Farrer. My problem, of course, is that I come from perhaps a minority view throughout the parliament about notions of fair trade. I am worried that incidents like Howe have given fair trade a bad name. The United States would perhaps say that they entered into this dispute in the name of fair trade. I believe that free trade has to be fair trade. I am very pleased that this has been resolved. It gives Howe and the people who work for them some hope. We know that companies like Howe can compete if given the opportunity.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 6.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted.18:00:0018125House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.Notices18125The following notices were given:EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott to present a bill for an act to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 in relation to secret ballots for protected action, and for related purposes.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson to move:That this House: (1) congratulates Iran regarding the completion of acknowledged democratic elections and the work of the new Majlis; (2) nevertheless regrets that Iran's reputation continues to be marred by questions of human rights and denial of religious freedom, most particularly the persecution of Baha'is and the renewal of the death sentences of Mr Hedayat Kashefi Najafabadi and Mr Sirus Zabihi-Moghaddam, and the inception of another against Mr Manuchehr Khulusi; (3) furthermore notes the persistent gaoling of numerous Baha'is for their religious beliefs and widespread discrimination in property, education, employment, civil and political rights; (4) acknowledges grave concern for the fate of 13 members of the Jewish community presently in custody in Iranian prisons and facing charges of espionage; and (5) urges Australia's continued vigilance and activity regarding human rights issues in Iran.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr Charles to move:That this House encourages the Australian research and development community, both public and private, and the motor vehicle manufacturing industry to move as rapidly as possible to embrace the emerging hydrogen economy and to place Australia at the forefront of the development of hydrogen as an energy carrier to replace carbon and commends General Motors for its “HydroGen 1” hydrogen fuel electric car. 2000-06-22—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members181261812609:40:0018126Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I wish to raise an issue in response to a press release from Senator Nick Minchin calling on the Senate to support state native title. You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that Senator Minchin has been described as a liar by some of his colleagues as a result of some party room negotiations. In this instance, he is knowingly misleading the public in claiming that native title matters in three states are holding up exploration applications. There can be no doubt that we are experiencing a serious decline in outlays of mineral exploration in this country. For the past couple of generations, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the only correlation with exploration activity was and remains base metal prices. The decline in greenfields exploration in this country predates the Mabo decision, as do early trends in the decline of brownfields exploration.In the past few years, there has been a well-documented exodus of risk capital from minerals exploration to dot com ventures. This shift has nothing to do with native title and everything to do with the trend to speculation inherent in stock markets. Serious players in the states are threatened not by the native title system, but rather by governments committed to thwarting the proper operation of the Native Title Act for political purposes. For example, despite all registered claims in place at the time of the 1998 amended act having to be reassessed by the standards of John Howard's new act, the Western Australian government has appealed against the registration of every claim that has successfully passed the John Howard test. As recently as last Friday, we had notice that Premier Court intends to issue licences over land subject to native title claims in advance of determinations by the High Court on critical legal issues. We know where this has led us in the past. The validation regime in the Native Title Act amendments is all due to the fact that state governments would not heed the implications of the original Mabo decision. The problems of mineral exploration in this country are real and immediate. They deserve serious debate uncluttered by political motives. Spurious identification of the cause of a problem must inevitably delay or thwart lasting solutions.Mr Deputy Speaker, you should also be aware, to highlight the absurdity of the statements by Senator Minchin, that, in the case of the Northern Territory, exploration was frozen for a number of years by a fiat of the Northern Territory government who refused to deal with the current Native Title Act and the right to negotiate regime. They have since come to their senses, but in effect, exploration was frozen by them, a conservative government. Senator Minchin needs to tell the truth.1812609:40:0018126May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—There can be no doubt that the combination of young people and drugs is a deadly one. It is possibly one of the most pressing problems we face as a society and one for which there are no easy answers or quick fix solutions. Drugs do not discriminate. They infect the lives of people with all levels of education, income and opportunity. But there are organisations which can make inroads. In McPherson, the Life Education Centre in Broadbeach, under the direction of a dedicated man named Peter Fox, was helping to fight the dangerous consequences of drugs and addiction by providing positive health and anti-drug abuse prevention programs to thousands of Gold Coast students. Life Education Centres across the country work in partnership with schools to provide effective and essential drug education. In Queensland, Life Education has been running programs for 13 years. The program was reaching more than 150,000 Queensland students and over one million Australian students each year. Life Education sessions have proven to be an integral part of each school's drug education program and the methods it adopts are highly successful. In fact, according to Education Queensland evaluations, the program met 97 per cent to 99 per cent of the criteria. Why then did the Beattie Labor government completely cut funding to Life Education and leave impressionable young students without adequate anti-drug education? With expert after expert now advising that education is the key to winning the war against drugs, these funding cuts defy logic. To make matters worse, the Beattie government also dismantled Education Queensland's own internal drug education resource. In fact, the Premier singled-handedly dismantled drug education in Queensland full stop.The Queensland government has always had an appalling record on drugs. A report released in June last year entitled Drug education in schools revealed that only 50c per student was being spent on antidrug education, compared to $10 in Victoria, for example. Until June 1999, Queensland had the lowest expenditure on drug education of any state in the country. After the latest round of cuts, our expenditure is now zero. In that same report, the Queensland government says its official position is that `Education Queensland will not accept responsibility for changing students' health behaviours, including drug use'.Surely, the children of Queensland deserve better than this. Surely, these children deserve to grow up in a drug-free community. They deserve to be warned about the deadly effects of drugs. Is Premier Beattie prepared to face the next parent whose child has died from a drug addiction and tell them that antidrug education just was not one of his priorities? It is a disgrace which the next generation of young Australians will pay for. I call on the Queensland Premier to immediately reinstate funding to allow Life Education to deliver its essential antidrug message.1812709:45:0018127Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—In 1996, the Australian Bureau of Statistics said that there were 161,000 Australians who were living as permanent residents of caravan parks. The difficulty, of course, is to work out how many others are living as residents of boarding houses, because there are no official figures for residents of boarding houses. The best estimate, according to Kate Wait, from the National Association of Tenants Organisation, is that about 300,000 people in total are living in both caravan parks and boarding houses. There are many boarding houses in my electorate and a large number of people who live in them are amongst the poorest and most vulnerable people that I represent.Many of the residents are elderly, frail or suffering from some physical or intellectual disability. The vast majority of residents are in receipt of unemployment benefits or age or disability pensions. Most of them spend more than half of their weekly income on paying for their boarding house rent. In fact, many residents are paying up to or even more than $110 per week for a small room in a boarding house, which often leaves them with $50 or less a week for all of their other expenses, including food and clothing.Many of these residents are paying an amount for rent that is equal to the rent that they would be paying in share accommodation or for a house in many other parts of the country. The reasons that they are choosing to live in boarding houses are that they often cannot afford a bond, they do not have very good independent living skills and are unable to organise share accommodation, or quite often they are just unable to find anywhere at short notice. You will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that vacancy rates in Sydney are very low and have been for some years. There is no doubt that the government's position of making these most vulnerable residents pay a GST on their rents will increase the level of homelessness in this country. In fact, the government's own report into homelessness, the highly publicised National Homelessness Strategy, cites caravan park and boarding house residents as those most likely to slip into homelessness. Under this government's current proposal, these most vulnerable people, the ones identified by the government as the most vulnerable, are the only ones to be paying a GST on their rent.This is in contrast, of course, with residential rents, which will be input taxed, and rents in aged or disability housing, which will be GST exempt. This inconsistent approach to residents in supported accommodation compared with those in caravan parks and boarding houses is ironic, because often the people who are living in caravan parks and boarding houses are there because they cannot find room in supported accommodation—which, of course, also should not be paying GST. The recently released Econtech report which the government has been sitting on since January shows that boarding house residents will definitely be worse off after 1 July. Rents will clearly go up by about 4.4 per cent compared with about 2.3 per cent in other types of housing. (Time expired)1812818128Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—On 18 June, at the National Party's federal conference, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr John Anderson, announced the Regional Solutions Program. This program, which will provide $90 million over four years to regional and rural communities, is a well-targeted and innovative program. It recognises that rural communities do have the will, the drive and the initiative to achieve. But, of course, without the resources that are often evident in the major cities and major regional centres, they lack the necessary funds to seed self-help development opportunities. This is a commendable program and will act, I believe, as a potential circuit-breaker for many projects delayed by a lack of funding.Very significantly, the non-partisan Local Government Association of Queensland has issued a statement praising the initiative, stating that it `particularly commends the flexibility of the program'. The Executive Director of the LGA, Mr Greg Hallam, said:This is a timely initiative of the Federal Government which will be keenly supported across Queensland.The announcement of the program again underlines the continuing importance of the Regional Australia Summit last year and the recommendations that flowed from it. This is the summit which was derided by the Labor opposition in a rather foolish attempt to deny the fact that the National Party is the party of regional and rural Australians and is prepared to listen and act on their considered advice.Under the program, grants will be available, for example, for community planning, local project implementation, community adjustment initiatives, regionally based enterprise or infrastructure projects and to employ community based development officers. A number of projects in my electorate that simply have not been able to find a home in any other grants scheme I believe would be applicable under this particular program. Some regrettably relate to training in some of the centres where there is a much higher level of unemployment.This program is also going to complement the work of the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal, the establishment of which was announced at the summit. It also blends and integrates with other government initiatives such as the Rural Communities Program and the Rural Plan Initiative. Grants in the program can range up to $500,000—a not insignificant amount which underlines the practical nature of the program. As I said, I am looking forward to going through the program and the application forms with all of the shire councils in my electorate. I firmly believe that it is going to be a flexible program that lends itself to rural communities. (Time expired)1812918129Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—I find myself in the position of having a few minutes somewhat unexpectedly, one of my colleagues apparently being otherwise occupied.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—I am sure you will do it very well.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBE—Thank you very much. On the fringe of my electorate in the suburb of Maribyrnong, which is, in fact, in the electorate of the member for Gellibrand, there is a very large parcel of land. For many years now—in fact, since the early part of the 20th century—it has been used by defence industry. The Maribyrnong complex is an area that was developed, as I understand it, prior to the First World War for Australia's defence industries. Over a number of years, those industries have tended to move off that site so that, in the foreseeable future, the whole of the site will become available for alternative uses. Many generations of people in my electorate have worked in that area. It is an area that not only attracts a lot of heritage interest but also has great historic significance to Australia—not just for general defence industry purposes but because, during the First World War, it was the staging depot for the Light Horse. In fact, thousands of Australian horses that went overseas, particularly to the Middle East, came from that depot on the banks of the Maribyrnong River.As the defence department develops its plans over the next year or so for the utilisation of this area, presumably primarily for residential purposes, it needs to very carefully take account of the heritage values of the area and ensure that they are respected. As I have said, it is a very important area from the point of view of Australian history, particularly Australian military history. In fact, on the site is the grave of what I understand to be the only Australian horse—a horse called Sandy—to return from the Middle East at the end of the First World War. The others were apparently not repatriated to Australia.This is a subject that is immensely important to the Department of Defence in developing its plans for the utilisation of this site. It must ensure that fitting memorials and heritage symbols are located in the context of any development of the site. My colleague the member for Gellibrand and I will be keeping a very close eye on the development of the Department of Defence's plans for this site to ensure that the historical significance and importance of this area is adequately reflected in the final utilisation of the area.1812918129Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I would like to acquaint the Main Committee with the concept for an international tropical marine science centre in Townsville. The United Nations and other international agencies are charged with assisting communities of developing countries in the Indo-Pacific with sustainable development and conservation of marine and coastal resources, especially coral reefs, mangrove forests and seagrass beds. However, many of these agencies operate in isolation from each other, remote from sources of the latest scientific and management advice and remote from the communities they are assisting.The objective of this proposal is to establish a base for international agencies from which they can implement their project activities and develop new collaborative projects to arrest the decline in the world's marine resources and subsequent negative impacts on tropical coastal communities. The advantages of an international tropical marine centre in Townsville would be that it would be a hub of activity in the tropical Indo-Pacific region and bring many agencies involved in marine and coastal resource management in the Indo-Pacific tropics under one roof to create a greater mass of expertise and experience. It would also assist international agencies to fulfil their mandates in capacity building, integrated coastal management, research, policy formulation, sustainable development and outreach to small island developing states and to other tropical developing countries of the Indo-Pacific region. It will provide an environment whereby cooperation and collaboration are fostered to achieve maximum benefit from financial, logistic and personal resources. The advantages of Townsville as a location for the centre would certainly be counted among these. Townsville is at the centre of the Indo-Pacific region, with an unrivalled concentration of expertise in tropical coastal areas, including coral reef research, management, teaching and administration capacity. It is adjacent to extensive areas of coral reefs, mangrove forests, seagrass beds and both soft bottomed and semi-hard bottomed benthic habitats. Townsville is a regional centre for North Queensland—in fact, the `capital city' of Northern Australia—with offices of local, state and national government as well as most resources required for such an international centre. It is serviced by efficient airline, rail and bus networks, with easy access to international travel either through Cairns or Brisbane. Townsville is serviced by efficient communications systems and has excellent conference facilities for small or large meetings.I am strongly supportive of the concept of establishing an international tropical marine centre in Townsville to build on the great mass that is there already, with James Cook University, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (Time expired)10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills18130R107618130Consideration resumed from 21 June.18130Proposed expenditure $508,145,000.09:58:0018130Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I would like once again to raise the plight of residents of the inner west suffering from aircraft noise from Sydney airport. I am pleased the minister is here this morning, because he would be aware of the numerous speeches I have made on this topic since I was elected to parliament and the numerous questions I have been asking him. I thank the minister for the most recent answers he has given to my questions in relation to the long-term operating plan, the PRM system and also the TAAATS.I am very concerned about the reports that I have been reading in the media in relation to the fact that the government seems to be not making any firm decisions about Badgerys Creek. The speculation is along the lines of, `We don't need Badgerys Creek in the short term; we will probably be able to run with the very fast train.' That is what has been reported in the media. I would like to give the minister the opportunity this morning, seeing that he is here, to respond to that because it is of great concern to the residents of my electorate of Lowe, and particularly to the residents of the inner west of Sydney.When the Howard government came to power in 1996 they promised to make aircraft noise fairer and so the long-term operating plan was introduced. There has since been some fairness in some areas of Sydney in terms of a diminution in aircraft noise. However, in other areas, and particularly in my electorate to the north-west, they have been bombarded by aircraft noise. The reality is that we were promised we would have about 17 per cent of air traffic movements to the north, but the average is currently running at about 28 per cent, and that is clearly unacceptable. This is directly relevant to taking the pressure off Sydney airport and making a decision on Badgerys Creek, because if the government does not make a decision on Badgerys Creek, my fear for my constituents in Lowe and for all the residents of the inner west is that we are going to get a further expansion of Sydney airport if, and God forbid, the government contemplates a fourth runway. Quite plainly, the people do not want it. The time has come for a statement to be made. The minister could help in this debate if he were able to indicate to us in the chamber today whether a decision will definitely be made to go ahead with Badgerys Creek. Some of the speculation that I am getting fed, Minister, is that in the run-up to the election an announcement will be made to abandon Badgerys Creek for the moment and just run with the very fast train and the appropriate infrastructure that supports the very fast train. The speculation is that that, for the time being, will take the pressure off Kingsford Smith Airport, but if the government is re-elected then they will revisit Badgerys Creek. One does not want to be too cynical, but when I look around that area of Sydney and the federal seats of Macarthur, Parramatta, Lindsay and Macquarie, I can understand the politics of that decision.It is a very, very serious issue. People are complaining to me. I have got a very large database in my electorate. About five per cent of the people in all the surveys that I have done think aircraft noise is the biggest issue, in some cases bigger than the GST. That might not come as a surprise to the minister because people just hear these big 747s flying over the roofs of their homes, particularly late at night, and that is very unacceptable. And whilst I know the introduction of the PRM system is designed to maximise flights in and out of Sydney airport in poor weather, there is a great fear that this system is going to be used at some future time to expand Sydney airport. That is in the forefront of people's minds, particularly in the lead-up to the election.I would like to ask the minister, on behalf of my constituents and certainly the constituents of the inner west of Sydney, to allay those fears and give some guarantee that a decision will be made on Badgerys Creek before the next election. I have a question on the notice paper, as you know, Minister, asking whether a decision will be made before 1 September. From the intelligence I am hearing, a decision might be made by the government that will effectively mean that Badgerys Creek will be put back further. (Time expired)10:04:0018131Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—To facilitate proceedings I would like to raise a few issues relating to the matters raised by the member for Lowe so as to then give the minister the opportunity to deal with these issues all at once. Can I firstly say that I want to make it clear from the Labor Party's point of view that Kingsford Smith is here to stay. It is a major infrastructure development in Australia, and the real question is whether or not it is underutilised in this day and age.The real issues are how we more efficiently use Kingsford Smith and the status of the PRM inquiry. At what stage do we expect the trial to be completed? What will be the nature of the assessment and then the process for determining its potential implications for the more efficient use of Kingsford Smith? That is the crux of the PRM proposal. It comes back to not closing Kingsford Smith, and to how we as a nation more efficiently use the airport gateway to Australia. Having made very clear the Labor Party's point of view as to the future of Kingsford Smith, the objective is to more efficiently use Kingsford Smith. This goes to the potential outcome of the inquiry. I would also like advice from the minister as to any current proposals to require regional airlines to move from Kingsford Smith to Bankstown. If that is the case, what potential infrastructure proposals will be in place with respect to changes in road and rail transport? Building on that, it is obvious that there is now very strong consideration being given to a speed rail proposal, which is related to the potential better utilisation of Kingsford Smith. If a speed rail was actually put in place from Sydney to Canberra, and potentially to Melbourne, what implications does such a proposal have for freeing up slots for the purposes of the more efficient use of Kingsford Smith? 10:05:0018132Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I would like to talk today about a major transport project in Dawson, the Burdekin bypass. This was announced in 1996. Since then the Department of Main Roads in Queensland have been undertaking consultation. I would like to bring to the House's attention, firstly, the reasons given by the consultants, Beard and Holland, for undertaking a bypass in that area. They looked at the amenity in the towns of Home Hill, Ayr and Brandon. Their final recommendation was that within 10 to 15 years time, particularly in Home Hill and Brandon, the safety and amenity in those towns would be severely compromised by the existing highway route. The other factor is that without a new alignment and new bridge there can be no reduction in accidents and, more seriously, fatalities. I do not believe that that report is one that any responsible member of parliament could ignore. I want to make a number of points plain. The consultation and planning is being undertaken by the state Department of Main Roads, obviously working closely with the federal Department of Transport and Regional Services. I find the statements to people in the community by the Premier that this is all federal are very unhelpful and somewhat dishonest. If I could talk about the process of public consultation, certainly initially there was a great deal of confusion about it. To be fair to the Department of Main Roads, they are now working very closely with the community. The public consultation and plans will be available throughout July and into August. That will give the local community an opportunity to look at the nine or prospectively 10 alignments being offered, to be able to see the pros and cons of each and to offer Department of Main Roads perhaps some alternatives. To the credit of the Department of Main Roads they have committed that any commonsense alternative or modification to an existing proposed alignment will be given consideration. The community there has certainly welcomed that.There is, however, a dishonest campaign being run, partly by the state member there and others, that this could be cancelled and that we could simply put a line through the bypass. Indeed, that can be done. The reality, however, is that that would leave all of the farms and homes up there that are presently on one or other of the proposed alignments in an invidious position. They would never know whether they should build a house, put in an irrigation pump or be able to sell their farm. The value of their properties would be depressed because the bypass would always be an unknown factor in that area. Those calling for the bypass to be cancelled do not realise the difficulty that the community will incur if that is done. I would like to talk about the priorities that I certainly have and which I know the federal minister shares in looking at the preferred option for the bypass. Obviously, the first one is to minimise impact on valuable farmland. The Burdekin is some of the richest agricultural land in Australia. Plainly, the towns depend on the farms for their livelihood. The bypass should also hug the towns to enable tourist traffic to go into the three towns there. It should relieve congestion, much of which is local congestion. Of the 9,000 vehicles a day, only 1,500 are through-traffic. Plainly, it should address the amenity in the towns, and safety.One of the options that I believe fulfils those criteria is one that has yet to be examined fully by the Department of Main Roads—that is, the railway option, which follows the existing railway. There is a great deal of buffer land adjoining the railway. It is my belief, and that of many others in the community, including the chambers of commerce and some in the council, that following the railway line would minimise impact on agricultural land, generally keep to the towns, as the chambers of commerce wish, certainly reduce congestion, and obviously fulfil those requirements for amenity and safety. I emphasise that in the end this is a decision for the community. It is not one to be imposed upon the community. The broad consensus view of the Burdekin community after the public consultation will obviously be one that I will support. I have no doubt that the federal minister, when the state minister for transport makes a recommendation, will support that. (Time expired)10:11:0018133Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I have just spoken to my opposition colleagues. Before the Minister for Transport and Regional Services responds with respect to Sydney airport and the Bruce Highway, I would like to add a contribution on the Bruce Highway, which is of great concern to the member for Dawson and, dare I say, to the member for Capricornia and me, because it is the principal industry and tourism artery right up the east coast of Queensland. It carries a lot of traffic at all times and its safety needs to be paramount.Recently, the minister visited my area. He attended the opening of Rockhampton airport, which is in the electorate of the honourable member for Capricornia. It was a great day for Central Queensland. Afterwards, we flew to Gladstone and then drove down the Bruce Highway so that the minister could inspect various sections that have been finished. We inspected the Three Mile Creek Bridge in the Miriam Vale Shire, which was one of the low causeways that flooded many times. The minister and I then turned sods of soil at Colosseum Creek, where a new section of the highway will be straightened. A lot of up-hill and down-dale sections that were quite dangerous will be taken out. We then moved on to inspect the Tim Fischer Bridge, which was opened recently. It is a $24 million bridge which was necessitated by the Walla Weir. It was to be called the Wallaville Bridge, but to Tim Fischer's utter surprise, the state and federal ministers decided to name it in his honour.We then went on to Childers, where another problem has arisen. The minister did not actually inspect them, but he was told about two areas there. One is the junction of the Bruce Highway and the Isis Highway at the town of Apple Tree Creek. This is a matter of great concern to the Isis Shire Council and, in particular, to its mayor, Bill Trevor, because at that junction the Bruce Highway, which carries the greater volume of traffic, has a very awkward junction with the Isis Highway which goes into Bundaberg. Three semitrailers have turned over there in the last month. It is a disaster waiting to happen. If it does not kill a truck driver, then certainly some other problem will happen, because this junction is at the bottom of a huge downhill grade. It only needs a miscalculation from someone coming off the Bruce Highway into the stream of the Isis Highway and we will have a real disaster. I note the minister has listed that for attention in subsequent budgets. I very much welcome that and thank him for it, but I would like to appeal to him today to give this the highest possible priority.While he was at Childers the minister talked with Councillor Trevor about some passing lanes south of Childers. That was able to be funded out of the maintenance budget. That was where, again at the top of a hill, there should have been passing lanes rather than converging lanes, and that has also been attended to only in the last few weeks. Again, I thank the minister for that. It demonstrates that that area of the Bruce Highway between the Sunshine A little further south, in the electorate of the member for Wide Bay, the Gunalda Range is a winding Coast and Rockhampton that is of great concern to all people in Central Queensland is receiving a great deal of attention.range where there have been lots of accidents. I have been there in a flood with water cascading over the road. It was one of the most frightening experiences I have had, with rocks coming down in the water. You have to drive along the highway with a virtual waterfall coming over the top of you. I have been there when a car has gone over that range and I have been there when a semitrailer has gone over it, so it must be very prone to accidents. I and all the members of Central Queensland welcome the upgrade of that highway. In thanking the minister, I would particularly like to ask him if he would give the highest possible priority to that junction of the Bruce Highway and the Isis Highway and, a little further down the track when that is fixed, to give more attention to the two entries to Gladstone—the one at Benaraby and the one at Calliope.10:16:0018134Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—I would like to take this opportunity to seek details of the minister's present thinking in relation to the longer-term future of the Essendon airport in Melbourne. Essendon airport is an airport that has over many years provided service to Melbourne but, with the development of the Tullamarine Airport, local residents—my constituents and those of the member for Wills in particular—who are close to that airport have increasing concerns about the safety of the airport's operation, given its juxtaposition to residential areas.There have been a number of tragedies over the years involving the airport. For example, in the late 1970s a light aircraft crashed into a house in my electorate and killed a number of occupants. In fact, it virtually wiped out a family. In the 1980s an air ambulance crashed north of the airport, killing the occupants of that plane. Early in the 1990s a plane came down in my electorate. Miraculously, no-one was killed, but it took the roofs off a number of houses. Against this backdrop, the operational aspects of the airport and the safety for surrounding residents continue to be very much a matter of great concern to my constituents and those of the member for Wills who are in close proximity to the airport. It would seem to me that it is not a sustainable proposition into the longer term and it would be very useful in this context to get the minister's present thinking about it.10:18:0018134Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—In fairness to my colleague and opposite number, the member for Batman, he and I agreed that I would deal with airport issues and then he would seek to expand on other areas. That has become a little unravelled, but let me make some comments anyway and I am aware that the shadow minister will want to then raise certain further issues.Firstly, to come to the member for Lowe, let me say at the outset that I do appreciate very much that the question of lifestyle and the impact of aircraft noise on that lifestyle for very many Sydney residents is a live and real issue. We are committed to doing what we can to spreading, if you like, in an equitable way the impact of that real problem of aircraft noise in a way that ensures that people have as much respite as possible within a framework of reasonable sharing.We attempt to do that under the LTOP—or the long-term operating plan—and under that the very contentious issue has been the proportion of take-offs and landings that are conducted to the north. It is worth noting, with all due respect to the member for Lowe, that we have reduced the average number of landings over the north of the airport from around 8,000 a month prior to us winning government in 1996 to an average of 4,200 a month over the past year, which is a 45 per cent reduction. With regard to more recent figures, the LTOP target is 17 per cent to the north. In 1999 the average was 27.2 per cent. In January of this year, it rose to 28.7 per cent. It is now trending down again on the figures that I have here. A new noise sharing mode, mode 8, was introduced in late December of 1999, but weather conditions have not permitted its extended use to date.There is no doubt that we do face problems at Sydney airport with weather interrupting the effective operation of LTOP to a degree that I am somewhat concerned about. You will appreciate that, in terms of the safety of the airport, there are a lot of factors that have to be taken into account, not least of all switching modes on a frequent basis, particularly if the weather circumstances are uncertain. That can involve procedures that put quite a bit of stress on operators. I do not think any of us would ever want to suggest that they be compromised in their capacity to handle things efficiently and safely. I repeat that it is a matter of ongoing interest for me and a source of some frustration that the targets are not more easily achieved. In fairness to Airservices—and I talk to them quite regularly about it—I am convinced, as a general rule of thumb, that they consistently seek to ensure proper safety and they aim for those targets to the best of their ability.You asked about the decision on the airport. In the words of one of your own former greats, John Kerin, `Never believe what you read in the newspapers, old chap.' That is what he said to me in the House once when I attributed to him an intended course of action that had been outlined in the newspapers. We will be making decisions and they will not be far away. I cannot give a final deadline on those. I am the minister responsible, but these will be cabinet decisions. Cabinets always have an enormous agenda before them. I will be returning to cabinet as soon as we have finalised some details in relation to some of the difficult options that are before us. (Extension of time granted)One of those options is this. We have spent quite a bit of time coming to the member for Batman's question. We do want to have a look at the impact of a high speed train were it to happen. I cannot give you a hard and fast answer. We have got all sorts of complicated formulas demonstrating what sort of difference it would make. If you believe some of the wilder claims, it buys three or four years. The realistic figure is probably 18 months to two years. But it does depend very heavily on factors such as the take-up or the usage of the high speed train, substitution for air traffic and the types of planes that are used out of places like Canberra. For that matter, the efficiency levels at Sydney airport are also quite closely related to the number of 767s versus 737s and the frequency of flights between places like Sydney and Melbourne. So there are an incredible number of factors there.I would remind people that, in the interests of pursuing those questions of amenity and lifestyle problems in Sydney's inner suburbs—you have got some 900,000 people within the immediate radius of the airport who are affected by noise—we do have in place a cap on aircraft movements of 80 movements an hour. That is legislated. We are seeking to ensure that people have—and I think this is the best way of looking at it, to be honest—reasonable periods of respite from noise.In terms of regional access to Sydney airport, I simply reiterate my position on this. Of course, I understand the concerns that rural and regional Australians have; I understand them well. I have ensured that those views are brought forward for proper consideration by cabinet. Indeed, I think it is true to say that people in regional New South Wales have an understandable view of Sydney that, after Sydneysiders, it is their city. They have a prior claim on it ahead of those from interstate or overseas—for education, health, business and tourism reasons. I think that is a fairly passionately held view out there.I was asked about PRM. The situation is that, between July and August this year, there will be a trial. A consultative committee will be set up to assist in the development, running and analysis of the trial that has been announced by Senator Hill. He will then report back to me with advice on whether or not PRM should be available for regular use. In terms of aircraft efficiency, in general terms, this is a debate about using the airport efficiently in bad weather. Anyone who has flown into Sydney knows that the delays can be quite significant in bad weather. PRM—precision radar monitoring—allows for the relief of congestion in bad weather in particular, by bringing the planes in on a more sophisticated landing basis, using technology that is currently not used at Sydney airport. The concern is that, in order to lock in, so to speak, on the signals that PRM is basically using, aircraft approaching from the north would come in earlier and lower, with certain implications for noise than would otherwise be the case. There are residents to the north who are concerned about that. Again, in terms of efficiency, there is a cap of a maximum of 80 movements an hour. This would mean that you would be able to keep it flowing more freely in bad weather. That leads me to make another general comment. There is a lot of speculation about how we will or will not handle aircraft movements over the period of the Olympics. We believe that we are well placed to handle it. Certainly, I do not anticipate any problems at all in the build-up to the Olympics, when people will come in over a staggered period of time. The only circumstances in which I think we may face some difficulties is if we have very bad weather when the Olympics end and huge numbers of people want to leave in a very short time frame. I noted what the members for Dawson and Hinkler had to say. In both cases, I am sure we can continue to work cooperatively with the resources we have. I noted some concerns about the Main Roads authority in Queensland. I can assure you that, compared to some of the problems we have had with the RTA and its costings in New South Wales, they are an absolute model of good performance. (Extension of time granted)In relation to Essendon, the Minister for Finance and Administration has a real interest in this matter, as do I. We are approaching the matter again for re-examination, so the question is timely. There are some competing interests here which would produce different outcomes. We are trying to take into account the views that are put to us. There are the views of members here; there are also the views of country Victorians who are adamant that they need it for health services and other charter operations. I have nothing to add except that we will take those into account properly when we consider whether or not it is best sold as real estate or as a going concern.10:30:0018136Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I have a couple of aviation related issues. Firstly, I seek clarification from the Minister for Transport and Regional Services with respect to the potential sale of Essendon; whether the department, in association with the Minister for Finance and Administration, has actively given consideration to changing the conditions of sale on this occasion, whereas on the previous occasion the conditions of sale related to the airport being sold only on the basis that it would continue to operate as an airport.Secondly, I go to the proposal concerning the operation of the ACCC and its funding and the budget's suggestion that the aviation industry should make a contribution through a levy for the purposes of funding the ACCC. I notice in the budget announcements that, for telecommunications and postal services, the government announced a levy on Telstra and Australia Post—that is, the suppliers of the services the subject of the ACCC prices monitoring. As the airports are, in essence, the suppliers of the services which are subject to the ACCC monitoring, I would like an explanation as to why the airports, the suppliers of the services and the organisations that in the past have demonstrated, I might say, a capacity to engage in arguably monopolistic pricing and got off scot-free, do not have a levy placed on them, as against potentially on the airlines? I think the Australian public is entitled to an explanation concerning these issues.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson—Can I ask you to repeat that question?LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—What I am referring to is the question of the imposition of the levy for the purposes of funding the ACCC. Why has it been imposed on the airlines and not on the operators at the airports? As part and parcel of that, is it also fair to suggest that this levy, if it goes through, because of higher than expected airline activity and increased fuel usage, will simply result in increased levy collections and provide a windfall to the government?On the question of aeronautical charges, I go to the issue of the Sydney Airport Corporation. From what I understand, SACL has now withdrawn its proposed increase in aeronautical charges, which amounted to about 130 per cent; that, if anything, those proposed increases in charges may potentially be in disarray; and that SACL has advised the ACCC of that. I understand from the feedback I have received that one of the questions being pursued in association with the potential determination of SACL charges is the value of existing land at Sydney airport for the purposes of setting aeronautical charges and the view of the airline operators that the value of the land, as such, should be zero. As I think it is accepted on both sides of the House that Sydney airport is here to stay forever and a day for the purposes of aviation operation, is it the minister's view that, for the purposes of considering potential price increases, the value of existing land at Sydney airport for the purposes of Sydney aeronautical charges should be zero? I now go to problems concerning the issue of the noise levy. Firstly, with respect to its implementation in areas in and around the Sydney airport, is it true that there are difficulties relating to the administration of this scheme? For example, is it true that there are allegations of landlords of properties that have been insulated and airconditioned under the scheme ripping out the airconditioning system for use in their own homes? If that is the case, has the government initiated an inquiry into these potential rorts; and, if so, what has been the outcome of such an inquiry? If not, what is the government going to do about it?That also takes me to the extension of the noise levy to the operation of Adelaide airport. On what basis did the government simply extend the same levy that operates at Sydney airport for the purposes of overcoming the noise difficulties at Adelaide airport? Is it true, for example, that, potentially, proper consideration was not given to whether or not the $3.40 collected from passengers falls well short of the actual levy payment to the government, because the amount payable by airlines is determined by a complex formula that accounts for aircraft size, weight, passenger configuration and engine type? Is it also therefore appropriate that the amount of the Sydney levy needs revisiting rather than just dumping it on Adelaide? (Time expired)10:35:0018137Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I am heartened that the minister is committed to sharing and spreading the noise from Kingsford Smith airport. I will acknowledge the point he made that there was a reduction in aircraft noise with the opening of the east-west runway. There was a concentration with the operation of the parallel runways before the Howard government came in in 1996.My concern is with the long-term operating plan, which the government promised the people of Sydney in 1996 would give fair and equitable relief from aircraft noise. The long-term operating plan, as the minister knows, was introduced in August 1997. Whilst it has done a lot to spread aircraft noise, the reality for the people in the inner west and particularly in my electorate of Lowe is that we were given an expectation that there would be 17 per cent of air traffic movements to the north, and effectively it has remained almost double since August 1997. Even now, although the minister says it is trending down, it is only trending down by a little over one percentage point. Sure, the weather is a factor, and no-one will ever question safety. I seriously want to question the minister as to whether the long-term operating plan can ever be fully implemented, particularly as it relates to my constituents in Lowe.The minister mentioned that he talks to Airservices Australia regularly. I am blue in the face with passing resolutions unanimously at the Sydney Airport Community Forum. I will give a plug to Dr Brendan Nelson, the member for Bradfield, who chairs that, for his resolve to have Airservices Australia fully implement that plan. But the feeling of the Sydney Airport Community Forum is almost one of impotence that Airservices Australia—and you are responsible for them, Minister—are not working hard enough. They might not be working hard enough if safety is such a factor that the long-term operating plan can never be introduced. Can I remind you of your own words in a reply to a question that I put to you on notice on 6 April and to which you replied on 14 June. The question that I put to you was: when will the long-term operating plan be fully implemented? The reply that I received from you was:LTOP is being progressively implemented ...That is true, it is. It went on:Almost all elements of the Plan have now been put in place. I am advised that Airservices Australia informed the 24th meeting of the Sydney Airport Community Forum that the outstanding elements of the Plan involve technically difficult operations which will require extensive training and will add to the complexity of human management aspects of airport operations. The Forum was also informed by Airservices Australia that while these outstanding elements will not assist in achieving the LTOP runway and movement targets they will alleviate the concentration of overflights over certain areas.My reading of that is not inconsistent with what you have said today. But against the background that, when the government came in in 1996 and gave an expectation to the residents of Sydney—particularly those in the inner west who have suffered the most—that we would get a fairer distribution of aircraft noise, I hold the view, and I would like you to demolish it, that we are not going to see the long-term operating plan implemented as envisaged—that is, 17 per cent of movements to the north over my electorate in the inner west—in the foreseeable future.If it is not the technically difficult operations that you refer to, and the requirement for extensive training and the complexity of the human management aspects of airport operations, then I suspect that when that is superimposed on the safety issue there is not going to be any dramatic change to that target level. It is certainly not going to happen in the next few months with the introduction of PRM and the Olympics and the amount of traffic that is coming in and out of Sydney. Against the background that you do speak of Airservices Australia very regularly, what can you do to make them fully implement that plan as soon as possible? (Time expired)10:40:0018138Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the member for Lowe for his concerns. I do not think I can add anything to what I have already said, except to say in good faith that I will talk to Airservices again—I do it frequently. Bill Pollard is overseas at the moment but I will talk to them again in the context of having your very pointed question in front of me at the time. I recognise people's interest in this and, again, I point to the fact that there has been a real improvement in the situation. Perhaps people ought to think most usefully of it in terms of respite time. Let me acknowledge the obvious, too: finding durable long-term solutions to the needs of the Sydney basin airport is a critical part of a long-term solution to these issues.Let me come very briefly to the issues raised by the shadow minister. As you know, Sydney airport is still owned by the government. Its operational aspects and financial matters are oversighted by the Minister for Finance and Administration. You have alluded to the fact that they are in the process at the moment of reviewing their pricing arrangements. They are mounting a spirited case that, firstly, SACL and its shareholders have not been receiving a fair return on investment and, secondly, they are left in a position where they cannot adequately upgrade their infrastructure. This is a draft proposal. I concede that I have some concerns about it but I do not think it is fair for me to canvass those concerns here. In part they go to the question of evaluation of land and whether it is appropriate for SACL to be asking for a return on that land in the current circumstances. But beyond confirming that I have worked the issue through to some extent with the minister for finance and that I receive regular representations on the matter—which will not surprise you—I again stress that this is a draft. It will have to be worked through and produce a fair outcome for SACL and its shareholders—and that means the government too. We all need to be able to see that there is an appropriate return and the capacity to invest in the future. As you said, on the other hand it is an incredibly important gateway to Australia. Roughly as many people fly into Sydney airport as fly into Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth combined. Its usage is extraordinary, and it keeps rising. In physical terms it is not a terribly big airport. It is only a bit over 900 hectares and there are all sorts of constraints on its use, not least that legislated cap on aircraft movements. I point out that under the proposed new access charges there would not be an increase in aeronautical charges for regional aircraft that weigh less than 10 tonnes. Those that are over that may cop a very small increase on a one-way fare of less than $1. Again it is worth pointing out that people should keep a sense of calm and perspective about this. The impact of the proposed changes on a one-way fare from Sydney to London is not as high as some would have you believe. Nonetheless, it is a sensitive issue and it will have to be worked through. If you want me to pursue a more detailed response from the minister for finance I am happy to do so but, given the demands on my time, I will do that only if you ask for it.Again, I confirm there have been administrative problems with insulation from time to time but I am not aware of anything going on currently. I will have a look, but I have not been advised that we have got a particular problem at this point in time. So far we have managed to work through such problems as we have had over the years pretty constructively. The program is very much appreciated—there is no doubt about that—by those who have benefited from it. I can confirm that we are even adjusting allowances to cover the cost of the increased insulation from 1 July for affected houses. We have even been detailed enough to get down to the level of the increased cost of insulation for weatherboard houses that require insulation of the walls. It is quite a comprehensive program. (Extension of time granted) The way the levy basically works is that we determine what is going to be needed and the airlines are responsible for raising that money. In the case, for example, of Sydney, the airlines have chosen not to impose a levy on the Sydney-Canberra link for a number of reasons, and that is their right. We simply require that they go about raising the funds and we leave it to them to determine a fair and reasonable way to do it.I will come to a couple of the other issues that have been raised. I am getting a bit of a backlog here. I probably ought to say something about the Burdekin bypass. This has been a very long and ongoing issue. The member for Dawson has been very concerned, indeed, that the right outcome for the community is struck here. I know from personal experience how hard these issues can be. You have communities where the traffic snarl just becomes unmanageable and the community needs a bypass of some sort but, when you actually start to look at the options, it is almost impossible to find one that does not have an adverse impact and, legitimately, people complain.I understand that the recommendation by the state minister on the preferred alignment is likely to be made in September or October of this year. I will look at that very carefully indeed to ensure that it has the broadest possible community support; that it has a minimal impact on the very valuable farmland, which is the particular issue here—a beautiful belt of country; that it utilises existing corridors such as minor roads as far as possible; that it relieves congestion; and that it works well for the local community. It is, of course, largely a matter for the DMR and for the state minister because they are responsible. This is the way we do it in every state on the national highway grid. They are responsible for the consultation phases and the design phases, reaching community agreement and then moving through such matters as the EISs. So it is very much the responsibility of the state member for Burdekin to raise matters regarding consultation and planning with the state minister, Mr Bredhauer. He can pursue that through the parliament or whatever. But we will fund the work. We will make certain that the final recommendation is appropriate before we fund that, of course, so it will have to be quality work and worked through the community properly. The member, De-Anne Kelly, keeps me very well informed. As always, we will try and make certain we get the right outcome. While I am on the subject of roads, I should confirm that the biggest infrastructure project governments have been engaged in since the Snowy Mountains scheme is the upgrading of the Pacific Highway, which is being done as a RONI—roads of national importance—project between the Commonwealth and the state, a $3 billion project. I can confirm not only continued funding for that but also John Sharp's and Mark Vaile's commitment that the Kempsey and Macksville bypasses will have priority in the second five-year stage of the new Pacific Highway. I think that about wraps it up. You rapid fire on these things and you cover them as best you can, but you will raise them again, I am sure, if I have missed something.10:49:0018140Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—I am taking the debate back to the airports area. I sympathise with the member for Lowe and the comments that he has raised this morning about having too many aircraft going over his electorate, but in my town of Rockhampton we want more aeroplanes, not fewer.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—You need a few firefighters there.83ALivermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE—Yes, funny you should mention that. On that issue, I want to take this opportunity to advise the minister that the issue of our firefighting services at Rockhampton airport is still very much alive. In recent weeks I have had discussions with people from a number of interested groups. Specifically, one of our local tourism bodies have spoken to me about their concerns with the possible reduction in firefighting services and what that means for our ability to take international tourist flights. Also, I was at the Rockhampton Show for much of last week and a number of airport firefighters and their families came to see me about this. On an interesting note, one of our local firefighters was on centre stage at the Olympic torch relay—Kenrick Tucker, a former Olympian. He lit the community cauldron at that event a few nights ago. So our firefighters are certainly in the news.The issue that I am following as the local member is the effect of CASA's draft regulatory standards for aviation firefighting services. In particular, the problem that our local firefighting officers see is the proposal to base the level of firefighting services on annual passenger movements of 350,000 passengers. This is a change to the current criterion and one which would see a reduction to the level of services at Rockhampton airport and a consequent loss of firefighting jobs in our town.I understand that the time for the feedback to CASA's draft regulations has now closed and, given that we are now at the stage of considering those draft regulations, I would like to ask the minister: what was the nature of the feedback on those draft regulations? Will there be a change to the draft standards as a result of the feedback from the aviation industry? Specifically, what is the likely future of the firefighting services at the Rockhampton airport, given the final outcome that is likely in terms of the passenger numbers required under the draft regulations to maintain our current level of firefighting services? In previous speeches I have already been through the reasons why our local community sees the classification and capacity of our airport as important issues, and why the firefighting service is an integral part of the future that we want for our airport and our local community. I will not go into those issues now; I will leave those questions with the minister and I look forward to his reply. 10:53:0018141Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—Minister, I would like to raise two issues in the short time that I have, the first one dealing with CASA, and I have raised it publicly on a number of occasions. It is the lack of CASA personnel in the Darwin office to service the northern Australian region. This has a bearing, as you would be aware, Minister, on the operations of a number of very small charter operators around northern Australia, and on the operations of those involved in running scheduled services.What has come to my notice is that the failure of CASA to have enough resources in the Darwin office has meant a great cost to some of these operators where they have been unable to get aircraft added to their operator's certificate because of the inability of CASA to come and do the inspections. They have had great difficulty. In one instance, a chief pilot was to be tested by CASA. Had CASA not arrived on this particular Wednesday the operators would have been off the air; they would not have been able to fly. They had been making requests for some months. CASA's staff in Darwin were aware of it, but they are so under-resourced that they are unable to carry out their functions in a way which deals appropriately with the demands placed upon them by those flying aircraft around northern Australia.Minister, this is a sincere request that we do something about ensuring that CASA has sufficient resources so that people are not penalised because of where they live. Unfortunately, the fact is that these people are being penalised, and some of the people who are being penalised live in isolated Aboriginal communities. Two particular instances that I am aware of in north-east Arnhem Land involved Aboriginal-owned aircraft operators. One nearly had their licence cancelled because of the inability of CASA to do the work. That happened only three weeks ago. As I say, this is a sincere request, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the minister to try to inform us as to how CASA intends to ensure that sufficient staff resources and other resources that may be required are made available to the Darwin office.The other issue I want to raise, Mr Deputy Speaker, through you to the minister, is fuel prices. There are great political diatribes—from both sides of the parliament, I might say—about the issue of fuel prices, but the reality is, Minister, that people in my electorate are burdened with unreasonably high fuel prices. I have here a list of the fuel prices for a number of places up and down the Stuart Highway. These prices were effective on Friday, 16 June. I will go through them very quickly to give you an indication of what people are paying for fuel along the Stuart Highway: Dunmarra, 112c; Elliott, 111.9c; Renner Springs, 114.9c; and Barrow Creek, 117.9c. These are unreasonable prices. I rang the ACCC and asked them if they could undertake an inquiry into fuel prices in the Northern Territory. They said that they needed a reference from the Minister for Finance and Administration. I wrote to the minister for finance; he responded by saying that he would not be prepared to provide the reference to the ACCC.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 10.57 a.m. to 11.08 a.m.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—As I was saying, I have written to the minister for finance and asked him if he would refer the matter to the ACCC. He has refused. The point I want to make to the minister, who has not yet returned from the House after the division, is that it is unreasonable for people in the Northern Territory to be expected to pay these prices for fuel. Indeed, in some places, fuel prices are as high as $1.60 per litre. What I want to know is whether, as a result of the Fuel Sales Grants Bill, these fuel prices will go down or whether they will increase. What we know of the government's proposal so far, in the formula they have provided, is that each one of those prices would increase substantially. That is an unfair and an unreasonable burden. I ask the minister to ensure that this does not take place and I also ask him to approach the minister for finance and ensure that there is a reference to the ACCC for an inquiry into fuel prices in the Northern Territory. 11:09:0018142Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I will make a few comments whilst we wait for the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, who is burdened with the problems of the National Party at the moment and finding it hard to find his way back to the Main Committee. I have already specifically raised the issue of coastal shipping. I note that, even yesterday, there have been increased penalties for airlines carrying illegal immigrants. For example, from 1 July infringement penalties increase from $3,000 to $5,000. This is of great importance to the airline industry because of the difficulties we have with illegal immigrants. In that context I also note, as I raised in the House of Representatives recently, the fact that between March 1996 and April 1999, 263 foreign seafarers jumped ship in Australia, of which only 148 were located.As each airline pays a levy of $5,000 per illegal entry, from my knowledge of the portfolio it has been suggested that shipowners and operators do not pay anything as a result of these people jumping ship. I think—and I will end on this point for the purposes of facilitating other portfolios—the Australian public needs to know why the government is not holding foreign shipowners and operators more accountable for the financial implications of ship jumpers. What is the government going to do to recoup from owners and operators of ships the costs of actually pursuing some of these people who jump ship in the same way in which airlines are pursued on a regular basis, with fines for airlines being increased from 1 July this year?11:11:0018142Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—Let me very briefly come to this issue raised by the member for Batman a moment ago in relation to coastal shipping and claims by him that the number of illegal immigrants has jumped with the increased number of single voyage permits. The figures are actually, as a proportion of the problem we have with illegal immigration in this country, not very high. It is actually stretching the case to make out that there is a significant leap as a result of the increase of single voyage permits, and this smacks of an MUA perspective on life.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—They are department of immigration figures.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—The figures maybe, but you are linking them to the increased number of single voyage permits and trying to make out that there is some exploding crisis here. The MUA's position on this does not really stack up. But I can say to you—and I am not going to go beyond this; you have raised it in the House—that I am exploring the matter of the government's strengthened approach to the problem of illegal immigration.In returning to fuel prices in the Northern Territory, yes, fuel prices are a very real problem in far-flung parts of this country. I know that city consumers do not like paying the sorts of prices they are seeing at the moment. But compared with the volume of fuel used by rural and regional Australians in remote areas, it is a relatively insignificant problem. In a city like Sydney or Melbourne, the price is still cheap by, say, European standards and the mileage is not so vastly different.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—I said `by comparison'. But when you look at what happens in rural and regional and remote areas of the sort that your colleague from the Northern Territory raised, it becomes a real issue. Many people in far-flung parts of the country, for a start, have to travel vast distances. Secondly, you cannot do it in a Hyundai. There a lot of people in this country—in practical terms, I am one of them—who have to drive a heavy four-wheel drive. Even in my own home village, just filling up a Toyota Landcruiser station wagon the other day cost me $121.50. It is a real issue. What will not make good copy for the ALP at the next election is Mr Beattie's antics, where he sought recently to engage in a little political opportunism which would have seen a massive discrimination against far-flung— LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—What about the ACCC's interest in the Northern Territory? Answer the question.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—Mr Deputy Speaker, you always know when the ALP wants to get you off something that is a bit hot. You see it in the main chamber; you see it up here. The minute we start to make a point that embarrasses them a bit they are up there with one point of order followed by another point of order and then another point of order, and we end up seeing who can shout the loudest. There is no doubt about you.The point that needs to be clearly established here is that what Mr Beattie tried to do was to engage in a little endeavour which would have cost rural and regional Queenslanders—the more remote they were, the greater the discrimination—a lot of money. A $150 refund is all right if you are only doing 15,000 kilometres a year in a four-cylinder car. It is one tank of fuel for somebody in remote Queensland.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFran Bailey—If you use more than 40 litres, you're finished.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—That is right. As Mr Beattie acknowledged only a few years ago, it was going to cost the average Queensland family up to $400. But guess who it was going to cost even more? Those in remote areas. On this rare occasion I find myself in a fair degree of sympathy with the member for the Northern Territory. It is a problem. None of us like to see rises in crude oil prices and none of us like to see people in far-flung regions disadvantaged. Unfortunately, because prices for crude were too low for too long globally, exploration started to dry up, development and refining capacity were not expanded, and the inevitable result was that the solution to low prices was low prices—as we say in the bush, Wilson. And this time, unfortunately, we are the ones who pay the price as fuel consumers. Wherever there is exploitation and evidence of exploitation, the government is prepared to seek to right the situation. I am absolutely confident that if the relevant minister is determined that there is no basis for an ACCC inquiry, that is appropriate.(Extension of time granted). I do not know that I have much more to add there, except to say that it ought to be remembered that in just a few days time, one of the great problems faced in rural and regional Australia, that of excessive government taxation on transport, will be massively addressed. It has never been addressed before by a government in this place—certainly not addressed to the extent that we have put in place.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr Adams—It is a hoax.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—A hoax? So the complete abolition of fuel excise on rail is a hoax? So the reduction in the effective cost of excise on heavy haulage diesel from 44c to 20c a litre is a hoax. I think that really displays the intelligentsia of the ALP at their very finest.I was asked about CASA's capacity to meet demands in northern Australia. I can only say that we are doing our best to ensure that CASA is devoting sufficient resources, particularly in the area of surveillance, to those areas that will secure the best possible safety outcomes. We are all, I know, very sensitive to this issue of safety. I note that I am often lobbied by communities, and usually in very sensible terms by members as well on their behalf, about air services in remote parts of the country. We all need to be mindful, however, that there can be no compromising on issues of safety. LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Why don't you release Barry Wakelin's letters?4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—I could release a couple of letters from the member for the Northern Territory, I suppose. This may be of some interest to members: I can indicate that a while before the Whyalla crash, as a matter of fact, I had one of my regular meetings with the chairman of CASA and the director of civil aviation. I made a couple of points that I think are very important and which I have now revealed publicly; that is, that CASA are in a financial position—thanks to certain actions that I took which were promptly criticised by one or two experts around the country but which I think were needed—and have been for some time, to ensure that they have the capacity to devote the resources they need to critical areas of surveillance. I have said that CASA must ensure that they have quality people and reward them appropriately. They ought to be very firm indeed on people who are not performing, but they ought to properly reward those who are, and they must ensure, with the new entrants into the aviation market in this country—Impulse and Virgin—that the extra aeroplanes that have to be monitored are not allowed in any way to diminish their surveillance. They are getting their surveillance levels in some critical areas up to much more satisfactory levels in the last 12 months, reflecting effective driving from the top at CASA. Having said that, I am not going to run away from the fact that we have got a long way still to go with CASA. I think we are making reasonable progress. In terms of having the people we need on the ground in these far-flung regions, reflecting a concern about the minister, I will have a look at how we are getting on with our attempts to ensure that we are addressing some of these needs in far-flung regions. It has been raised with me quite a few times. We have taken certain actions—for example, we have substantially increased the remote air service subsidy scheme, which is very important to people in remote areas because often those small services are of such critical importance to them. It is hard for us in a city like Canberra to have any consciousness at all of just how their lifestyles and economic opportunities are compromised if they do not have those services operating. We are doing what we can. We will not compromise on safety. I have set up an advisory board for CASA made up of people outside and put a prominent Northern Territorian on it. He has that unique capacity of Territorians to express himself in very robust terms. I have not heard him use the term spade yet. I think he will make a very worthwhile contribution. We will keep doing what we can to get it right. In relation to Capricornia, you will have the services you need as you need them. I hope it is an international airport that functions fully one day too. We put the money in to make sure it was possible. (Time expired)Proposed expenditure agreed to.18144Proposed expenditure $407,565,000.11:22:0018144O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—This particular budget expenditure relates to one of the most significant sectors in the Australian economy, one which is very important to the economic and social survival of rural and regional areas. There are going to be significant penalties imposed as a result of this budget in rural and regional areas. The Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister is leaving the chamber. He will be well aware of the angst in rural and regional Australia at the National Party and its failure to stand up to city based lawyers and stockbrokers in the Liberal Party in the formulation of budgets that are going to wreak significant pain and havoc in rural and regional Australia. I note from the recent ABARE Australian Farm Surveys Report 2000 that the gross value of agricultural production in Australia has been relatively stable over the past five years. That is due in no small part, as the report notes, to the increased diversity in agricultural production in rural and regional Australia. This is an area of the sector that governments need to address with greater effort. I was in Beechworth last weekend at the ALP's country conference; the National Party were holding theirs with the white shoe brigade up on the Sunshine Coast. The ALP was out in rural Victoria, as it always is when it holds its country conferences. We hold them in rural and regional Australia. We are not afraid to put `country' back into our terminology, but I do notice that the National Party over time have taken `Country' out of the name of their political party. As the National Party is in its final political death rattle out there in the electorate, we are quite amazed at the interjections that are coming to us here over this budget that is going to impose quite intolerable burdens on Australian farmers and their families. I note from this report that the terms of trade have moved against farmers during the 1990s, perhaps not to the extent that they did in the 1980s, but, with the ramping up of farm costs that will flow directly from this particular budget, we are going to see a further decline in the terms of trade of Australian farmers.I want to home in on one aspect that lies behind this budget and this particular budget allocation in the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry area. It is the impact of this budget on farm costs. What we know is that the Liberal Party members from rural areas and those National Party members left in rural areas—there are not many of them, but of course—Mr Zahra interjecting—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—That is all right, my good friend the honourable member for McMillan; I quite enjoy the spirited interjections from those who will not be with us for too long in this parliament. I think we ought to let them indulge themselves for one last time because it is likely that this will be the last budget of the coalition as the penny drops in rural and regional Australia. The Prime Minister will go to the polls to cut his losses and, thankfully, when Australia's rural community faces its next budget, it will be in good hands. It will be in Labor hands and we will ensure that the sorts of things that are taking place in this budget do not take place. Implicit in this budget and the allocations that are made to agriculture, fisheries and forestry is a deliberate ramping up of the inflation rate as a result of the GST. (Time expired)11:26:0018145Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Forestry and Conservation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I found that a rather amazing contribution from the lead spokesman of the Labor Party. I would have thought that by now I would be subject to a list of financial items appearing in the budget that the shadow minister chose to criticise. Instead of that, we just got five minutes of rhetoric. Therefore, I think it appropriate for me to respond to the rhetoric immediately.The gravest fright that Australian rural people are getting now, particularly from my experience with forestry, is when a Labor member of parliament visits their area, because every time they turn up they lose something. We have had to go down to Eden in the last 48 hours to give people money to re-establish the businesses and the business activity that Bob Carr has taken away. I see the member for McMillan here and I have not heard a word from him. The union and various Liberal members have been in contact to tell me that the state government of Victoria has already welched on the deal it made to guarantee two years of wood resource to the sawmillers of the latest two Victorian RFAs in western Gippsland for the purpose of ensuring a reasonable transition. We have got NRE people going around Victoria, saying, `All that wood we promised you're not going to get. Our minister has told us we've got to put the screws on you now.'That is black and white. I have been obliged to write to the minister in Victoria drawing her attention to the agreements we made to protect those workers' jobs so that the expenditure of this government—$20 million, as arranged in this program—and the expenditure of the state government can be used to ensure that jobs are not lost in a very difficult area. But what is the message they are getting from the Victorian Labor government? `Mate, jump ship now. We are going to be very tough on you in the future.' So everywhere a Labor MP turns up, the locals lose something. They do not gain anything; something is taken away. Carr does it daily throughout the regions of New South Wales. His own cabinet subcommittee made some recommendations on the southern region and then he sat down with a few of his greenie mates and drew some circles on a map and knocked people flat. We have to go back and repair the damage. That is the first thing. Then isn't it nice to stand up in the federal parliament and say something about the impact of this budget on farm costs? Can the member for Corio ever tell us when a farmer got 10 per cent off his petrol bill? Can the member for Corio ever tell us when someone who has got substantial freight costs in grain was able to see a national average $2 a tonne reduction in grain freights? If you grow 5,000 tonnes of wheat, let me tell you that is $10,000. I have to tell you $10,000 because I think you and your leader are maths deficient. The fact of life is that your leader gets into all sorts of amazing arithmetical exercises, even telling us that all the profits of Telstra come to the Australian parliament when in fact all we get is half the dividends. Apparently your leader does not know the difference. Is the member for Corio going to tell us that farmers have always got sales tax off their farm truck or their petrol vehicles that they drive 70 per cent for business? Is the member for Corio going to stand up here and say this budget does not make those grants to people? It is just unbelievable. As I said, they are clearly maths deficient. I welcome the minister along to take over from me. He, of course, will be much more competent in rebutting these areas.The whole situation is that everywhere Country Labor turn up, the local people lose something. We have had to go down to Eden as a first step. We have a wider policy, with $90 million now identified for this program where we get the local people to start to invest money for the purpose of creating real jobs that will last. We are not putting money into the jobs; we are putting money into the capital so the jobs will remain. Your programs would always pay the wages till the money ran out and the jobs ran out. (Time expired)11:32:0018146O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The government has curtailed debate on this committee process and that is a disgrace in itself. I will conclude my remarks on this reluctantly so that I can give some time to my comrades to make some points. Let me just make a few umbrella points about this particular aspect of the government's budget. We have seen over the time of the coalition the progressive cuts to AFFA personnel and to the AFFA budget. We see it again in this budget that has been presented to the parliament. One of the great failures of this budget is that it does not adequately address the infrastructure needs of rural and regional Australia and, of course, the long-term future of the sector is going to be underpinned by that infrastructure which has been progressively run down by the coalition.The great jewel in the coalition's crown, as far as the AFFA budget is concerned, is the AAA package. We all know where it came from—it was basically an amalgam of Labor programs and then marketed as AAA. Let me put on the public record that in the first four years I understand the package was worth $525 million. The government in extending the program have tried to portray this as new money, at $309 million over the next four years. They are claiming that there was a carryover element of some $100 million unspent from the previous allocation. But even when we add that in we see that the centrepiece of the government's program allocation to rural and regional Australia has actually declined.The government also makes great play of the fact that it has allocated $22.3 million of funding for the national approach to animal and plant health. If you go behind the figures, some $700,000 of that belongs to the government, the other is administered funds. That means it comes from other sources and industry. The really interesting one in this is the claim by the government that it is allocating $45 million for dairy regional assistance which is funded by a consumer levy. This has been the great deceit out there in rural Australia with regard to the dairy industry. The minister parades himself and says that the government is providing $1.7 billion. The dairy farmers know where that money is coming from. It is coming from consumers. It is a consumer transfer. They know out in rural and regional Australia that the $45 million comes from that source, and it is to be administered within the bowels of government. They know that there is not a lot of your money in the $1.7 billion package. So as you strut around the country telling state governments to put money into the dairy industry, how about putting some in yourself? Do not go lecturing Labor state governments about what they ought to do in Queensland and New South Wales; put your own money in and then you will have some credible basis for bringing that sort of criticism to bear on the Labor Party.I do not have time to go into the fuel hoax. When rural and regional Australia wakes up to the fact that neither fuel prices nor the prices they pay in their supermarkets and local stores are going to come cascading down, most of you will be finished. I welcome the honourable member who has just come into the chamber, Mr Anthony, because this will probably be his last presentation to the Main Committee as a member of the government. I will leave it to my colleagues here to outline some further aspects of this particular budget as it relates to rural and regional Australia.11:37:0018147Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I have to take up the challenge issued to me by the Minister for Forestry and Conservation and demonstrate why it is not the case that, when a Labor MP turns up in a regional area, something closes. I have to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that is not the case in my electorate. When you look at the Victorian state budget as it relates to my electoral district, you will understand the contrast between a government that is committed to a regional area and the federal government which is prepared to do absolutely nothing to help the lot of people who live in rural and regional Australia. Some of the things that have been committed to by the state Labor government include: $2 million to the Latrobe Valley for the development of an energy park—fantastic news; $11 million to the Latrobe Valley for the development of an education precinct; $4.9 million for the Newborough campus of the Central Gippsland Institute of TAFE; $1½ million for the development of the Grey Street primary school; $3½ million for the Warragul Regional College; and $5 million for the building of a new police station in Moe. The Minister for Forestry and Conservation says that whenever a Labor MP turns up, something closes. The complete opposite is the case in my electorate. When Labor MPs and Labor ministers arrive, something gets funding, something gets support from the government, and money is invested in critical areas of infrastructure which we, as a community, depend upon.I note that the Minister for Forestry and Conservation made some comments about the $3½ million which the federal government has provided to the Eden community in New South Wales as a result of the closure of the cannery there. The situation in Eden demonstrates the absolutely debauched stage that the funding for regional development has got to under this government. They give $3½ million to the Eden community for the loss of 150 jobs, but in Drouin, a community of just 4,000 people, where the Bonlac butter factory has closed with the loss of 170 jobs, we have seen nothing at all from the federal government to help that community get over that enormous shock, despite the enormous amount of activity which has come from the Victorian state Labor government to try to get Drouin back on its feet, to try to get it doing something to compensate for the loss of jobs. So when the minister starts parading this fantastic achievement of $3½ million for Eden, what he is not saying is that they are playing favourites. They are picking where the money can go, not by any sort of fair process but by picking out where they want the money to go, based on where they need to prop up members in marginal seats. The Drouin community deserve better than that. They deserve a fair process. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who is at the table, should explain that no federal government money has come to the people of Drouin, despite the fact that there is $45 million in the dairy regional communities package to go towards assisting people in this situation.11:41:0018148Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I would like to discuss a couple of the matters that the member for Corio raised. The Labor Party had a conference in rural Australia; I am surprised they got there without a map. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me give you one example today of how the Labor Party is actually taking away from rural and regional Australia. We had Mr Beattie—fortunately, he has seen the error of his ways—removing the fuel subsidy. That is to be restored—and a good thing, too. I want to talk today about the Premier's trawl working group in Queensland. This is supposed to fix the difficulties for the trawl fishermen. Senator Robert Hill has been looking at a viable option for the trawl fishermen. When I was in Bowen last week, the Premier's trawl working group plan was presented to the fishers there. I was fortunate enough to be able to sit in on it. There is no doubt that there needs to be a rethinking of the east coast trawl fishery, and I think the fishers realise that as well. But there has to be a recognition that, in the small fishing towns up and down the Queensland coast, those family trawling operations have got to survive. In towns like Bowen, Ayr and Mackay, there are not the big ships with a hull rating of 65 or 70; there are just the small family fishers.The Premier's trawl working group plan, which was presented over a four-hour period to the fishers there, asks for a $30 million buy-out. I have to say that nobody is actually opposed to a buy-out for those who want to leave the industry, but the Premier wants $10 million from the state, $10 million from the federal government and $10 million from the fishermen. It would cost each trawl operator about $42,000, on average. That is predicted to reduce effort by 15 per cent. Then there is a further $10 million from the fishers who are left to buy out a further 10 per cent effort. The days and nights allocations are going to be absolutely destructive on family trawler fishermen. This was given a lot of consideration in Bowen. There was a great deal of discussion and the concerns there were very real. I want the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to hear this: the outcome of the meeting—and these were trawler fishermen from Cairns right down to Hervey Bay—was a unanimous rejection of the day/night proposal in the Premier's trawl working plan. So the Labor Party represents rural and regional Australia? There was unanimous rejection from the meeting of the financial contribution to the buy-out by fishermen. The point that they made was that at least the federal government is trying to put in place an allocation of nights which will allow the family trawl operators to continue working and to relieve some of the burden of the reduction in effort from their shoulders.It is imperative in our area that the Premier's trawl plan is not the one that gets up because that will get the fishermen out of the industry—not the ones who want to leave—even if this buy-out could be achieved. It is reprehensible that the state government is now going to ask the fishers, who obviously cannot afford it—37 per cent of them are not making a positive income this year—for that sort of money. It is imperative that the federal arrangement of providing a fair allocation that takes account of the family trawl fishermen is implemented.11:45:0018149Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I own a farm and I live on it. When it comes to talking about rural affairs, I feel that I know what I am talking about. If you want to know how well this budget has been received by people in rural Australia, you just have to look at what happened at the weekend at Tweed Heads. The Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the National Party, announced an extra $90 million for infrastructure for regional Australia, with a maximum of $500,000 for any one applicant. If they think that is a bandaid, I can tell you it is not going to fix anything. In particular, the towns in my electorate that are going to lose tens of millions of dollars every year because of the loss of income for dairy farmers as the Truss plan wipes out the dairy industry in New South Wales. XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPUU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—I find it interesting that the honourable member for Richmond comes in here and interjects. He interjects because he knows that the dairy industry in his electorate will be wiped out. We saw the hypocrisy of the black-suited National Party members on Saturday when they stood up and called on the New South Wales state government to provide more for the dairy industry. To make it quite clear, the dairy industry in New South Wales already know the taxpayers of New South Wales are contributing $180 million more than the dairy farmers in New South Wales will receive. Anyone from Queensland should be aware that the taxpayers in your state will be contributing more than your dairy farmers will receive as this plan wipes out the dairy industry in your state, because that is what it is going to do.The point is that another vote has been taken in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia. The people who have responded—in the order of 80 per cent of dairy farmers—are saying, `We do not want this plan. It was never explained to us. We did not understand. We did not understand the prices we were going to get for our milk. And now we know, we do not want it because we know we will not survive.' But the tragedy of the plan is that it is not only the dairy producers that are involved; it is whole communities. Whole communities are going to be wiped out. Dairy has been the mainstay of their economy for 1½ centuries, but it will be so no more. After 1 July, this will be no more. The dairy farmers will go immediately. They have started selling up already. The fire sales have begun. They have a herd they cannot sell, they have equipment they cannot sell and they have a property they cannot make a living out of. They will be wiped out in rural Australia where they have always been a feature.But let us go on. One of the great things this government was going to do was fund transport. They boasted about the massive amount of funding for transport infrastructure. In New South Wales, we got $8.3 million to upgrade bridges in the next year for the whole of New South Wales. But $8.3 million could be used in one year by any one of the local government authorities that I represent; yet that is the amount of money for one year for the whole of the state of New South Wales. That amount would not build a decent two-lane concrete bridge over many of the rivers in the electorate that I represent, and it would not do much for any local government area in outback New South Wales either. But that is what you gave us.The other hoax that has been perpetrated on the people of New South Wales is the supposed reduction in transport costs. Members opposite know that the government is in negotiations at present with the transport industry, because the transport industry has issued an ultimatum. That ultimatum is that the cost of transport is actually going to go up as a result of the GST. It is going to go up because 80 per cent of truck owner-operators out there know that they are going broke with the rates that they are receiving now. As a result of the letters they have received from the big transport companies demanding that costs go down, they say, `We may as well be out of the industry, because we are broke.' If you believe that the 23c a litre rebate to the transport industry is going to produce your election promise, you know that is false. You know that in the next couple of months you are going to have to go to the people of Australia and say, `Sorry, we made a mistake. Transport costs will go up.' 11:51:0018150Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—It looks like the opposition has run out of steam on agricultural issues. As usual, there are very few contributors from that side on these sorts of issues. If you take away the empty rhetoric and are left with the substance, frankly, they should not have used any time at all, because there was no substance there whatsoever.We had this tired re-run from a number of speakers about the issue of dairy deregulation. The reality is that the government knows that dairy deregulation is going to cause considerable difficulty for dairy farmers, particularly in Queensland and New South Wales. Dairy incomes are expected to fall significantly as milk flows across the border from Victoria and is provided at the manufacturing price that farmers in Victoria have been receiving for many years. It is because we know that there is going to be pain and difficulty in the industry that the federal government responded to the industry's request and put in place the biggest restructuring package in the history of agriculture: $1.78 billion will be available to assist dairy farmers through these difficult times. Time and time again we also get this nonsense line that this is not really the government's money, that somehow or other this is not real money because it is not coming from the government.3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—We just want to know where it is coming from.GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSS—This is pretty typical of the Labor Party's attitude. In a sense, of course, it is true: this is not government money; no money is government money. Governments do not have money of their own. The Labor Party does not believe that. That is why, in office, they spent $96 billion that they did not have and why we now have to pay that money back in the only way that governments pay back money—that is, by getting it from the people through taxes.That is the case in relation to this dairy money as well. It is not money that we have run off on a printing press in the backyard; it is money that we take from people in the same way that all government money comes from the people through taxes. In this case, it is an 11c a litre tax on milk. But it is very real. It is being collected from the same people who pay income tax, fuel tax, stamp duties and all of the other taxes that help to run, provide and support government activities. It comes in exactly the same way that all other tax revenues are raised. This expenditure occurs in exactly the same way that other expenditure occurs. It is a complete nonsense to somehow or other suggest that this government money is any different from any other government money that is being put to an important program.The other point that I think is very real and very telling is that there are two states in which dairy deregulation is a significant problem, and they are Queensland and New South Wales. It is a problem in those states because the Labor state governments will do nothing to help the dairy farmers in their electorates. They will do absolutely nothing, and that is shameful. These are the states that created the dairy quotas. In some instances they have been collecting stamp duty on the sale of these quotas.2K6Brough, Mal, MPGT4Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSS—Yes, they treated them as property. But now that property right is becoming worthless the state governments are prepared to do absolutely nothing in those states. The reality is that only coalition governments in Australia are doing anything to help the dairy farmers. Nationally the coalition government is putting forward $1.78 billion through its restructuring program. The only other dairy assistance that is available is the program put in place by the coalition government in Western Australia. I congratulate the Western Australian state government on taking that initiative and it is so sad that the New South Wales and Queensland governments cannot see what another state is doing and are not prepared to provide any kind of financial support to the farmers in their states. At the same time as their parliaments are eliminating the regulation in the dairy industry they could be allocating funds to assist the producers in their states—they have it in their power. At the same time as they are wiping out the regulation they should be putting in place a mechanism to ensure the survival of the dairy industries in those states. The Commonwealth will be providing significant resources to Queensland and New South Wales but it is high time the state governments did more and produced real results and ensured the continuing viability of the industries in that state.I will turn to a couple of the other matters that were raised by the opposition speakers who have already departed the committee room and obviously are not too interested in hearing the facts. They are critical now of fuel pricing. I always find it the absolute height of hypocrisy to have Labor Party members coming to this parliament, or for that matter to any forum around the country, and criticising anyone on the question of fuel prices. Labor, when last in office, increased fuel excise by more than 500 per cent. They increased the taxes on fuel, the taxes on country people and the taxes on doing business in regional towns. Labor hiked up the taxes by 500 per cent and yet they have the audacity to come in here and complain that the mechanisms we are putting in place to lower transport costs are somehow inadequate. They actually voted against this reduction in the costs of transport. They actually voted down lower transport costs in the country. The honourable member for Dickson, who was the shadow minister for regional services at the time, in one of her rare comments on this issue actually accused the government of introducing a subsidy on pollution when we tried to reduce the cost of transport. That is Labor's approach to lower taxes on fuel—it is a subsidy on pollution. Queenslanders have seen, especially over recent days, where Labor really stands on issues like fuel tax with Peter Beattie whipping up a campaign against the fuel companies as a thin disguise to try and put an 8.3c a litre extra tax on fuel in Queensland. He did not quite get away with it in the end. He tried hard. He spent millions of dollars on advertising to persuade the people of Queensland that having an extra 8.3c tax on fuel was actually a good idea. But it did not work and finally he backed away. But no-one in Queensland really believes that the leopard has changed its spots. Everyone knows that Labor will look for the next available opportunity, perhaps just after the next state election if Queenslanders are unfortunate enough to have a Labor government again. Just after the next state election there will be some other new phoney campaign that Beattie will devise so he can put on his extra 8.3c a litre fuel tax to balance the budget so he can spend more money on stadiums in Brisbane. He will find some way of imposing the extra 8.3c a litre tax on country Queenslanders. I notice that the member for Capricornia has come into the chamber. I hope that, because she gets reasonably close to certain members who have some influence in these sorts of issues in the state parliament, she will be bold and aggressive in telling her state Labor colleagues that an 8.3c a litre tax on the people of Central Queensland and on the people of Capricornia was a disgraceful notion. Any premier who thought that he could pass this off on the people as a good idea worth television, radio and newspaper advertising is out of touch with regional Australia. They need a government in that state that will stand up against these sorts of issues. The people of Capricornia and, indeed, the people throughout regional Australia, should vote against Labor governments that want to impose these sorts of taxes.The other issue—I think it was about the only other issue—that was raised opposite has already been responded to effectively by the Minister for Forestry and Conservation and that is that, somehow or other, the numbers do not add up in these budgets—that somehow or other $309 million worth of extra money is less. That is the sort of Labor logic that delivers $96 billion deficits, I might say. Let me assure the committee that the reality very firmly is that this is $309 million worth of new money. To compare it with another program, a different program, that was $500 million clearly reflects the inability of the Labor Party to make appropriate comparisons. There are a number of programs out of the old AAA package which carry through into the AAA2. Those programs are on top of the $309 million worth of new money. In addition, things such as the new farm deposit scheme, which was reformed in the original AAA package and given a costing at that particular time of some $60 million—that excellent program which has provided tremendous benefit for farmers—will be continuing. So those sorts of things are in addition to the $309 million specifically allocated under AAA. This is a good budget for agriculture, it is a good budget for farmers, and it will provide real benefits to rural and regional Australia. (Time expired)Proposed expenditure agreed to.18152Proposed expenditure, $2,752,049,000.12:02:0018152Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—One of the great disappointments of this budget was the government's failure to address the issue of residents living in caravan and residential parks. Before the election I attended a number of meetings because, like the member for Richmond, I have a number of people in my electorate who live in parks. I listened to what they had to say, I heard their concerns and I said to them, `Look, I am sure that the government will not ignore your voice. I am sure that they will understand that it is very unfair to discriminate against one group of people in the community as they are discriminating against you.' But guess what? The government has not done anything at all to help them.I had a ray of hope when the National Party conference was on last weekend. And guess what? That came to no avail either. The National Party members of this House were full of fire and indignation when they were at their conference but, two days after they arrived here, they forgot about the people back in their electorates. A series of statements have been made by many members on the other side of this House, particularly National Party members—members such as Mark Vaile who, before the election, said, `No way. There'll be no GST on rental for people living in parks.' The minister, in many cases, has said it was unfair, yet he still ignores the voice of the residents in his area. On 12 October 1999 he said:As you well know, prior to the last election we were very open and transparent about the GST, particularly the relationship it had to rent and particularly the relationship it had to mobile home parks.If that was open and transparent, I would hate to see what it was like when they were covering something up. Last Tuesday a motion was brought before the NSW parliament by the member for Wyong, Paul Crittenden. In that debate the member for Coffs Harbour—who, it seems, has not gone soft on the issue now that he has left the National Party conference—said:I believe that the Federal Government gave an assurance prior to the last election that no-one would be disadvantaged by increased rents.So the friend in the New South Wales parliament of the members on the other side acknowledges that. Mr Howard has increased the rent of people living in caravan parks and I cannot support that. The member for Coffs Harbour, a state electorate very close to the electorate of the member for Richmond, the Minister for Community Services, has stood up in that house and criticised the Prime Minister and said it is not good enough. He went on to say:I stated clearly and loudly at the National Party conference last weekend that I did not support it.The conference stated unanimously that we do not support a GST on caravan parks.What I cannot understand is what has happened to the National Party members now they are back in this House. I cannot understand how they can let the words of Senator Lightfoot go unchallenged where he said: It might be an incentive for them to get houses.We all know that these people own their own houses. I have a little submission here from some people that live in the Park at Redhead. They are most upset about it because not only are they going to have a GST but they are also getting a rental increase. To say that putting the GST on their rental will get around a rental increase is another furphy because these people are getting a double slug as at 1 July. The points that they make very clearly in their submission to the tax office is that they own their own home; that these homes have got solid foundations and that to move them is a major activity. This is a very unfair tax. There is still time for the minister to act because this is really disadvantaging residents that live in parks, particularly the ones in Richmond who had counted on the minister. He has let them down badly. (Time expired)12:07:0018153Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—I am probably going a bit easier on the minister than the member for Shortland, who preceded me. My comment is a bit of a backhanded compliment in some ways because it is about a program that has been a very good one from this government, but it is disappointing that there has been no additional funding in this year's budget. I am talking about the contact centres that were announced in last year's budget. It is very disappointing that my electorate of Capricornia missed out on contact centres in the last round that was announced for Queensland and that there is no new funding for an expansion of that program in this year's budget.The funding last year was no doubt in recognition of the great need for contact centres that exists in the community and the benefits that they provide to families who are coming to practical terms with the effects of family breakdown. People in my local town of Rockhampton have been raising the need for a contact centre in our city for six months to a year now, since the announcement of last year's funding. The support for this comes from all quarters of the community. It comes, of course, from families who have experienced family breakdown and the difficulty of coming to arrangements for their children and sharing the access to those children. Also, the comments are coming from lawyers who practise in the area of family law and from community workers. I have also been given support from one of the minister's National Party colleagues, the state member for Keppel, Vince Lester, and it is very useful to have that support.I come to this issue also from my own experience at the community legal centre in Rockhampton where I worked for 18 months helping families reach agreements about the care of their children. I did actually have many instances where negotiations were going along quite well and agreement was just about reached, but the issue of where the children would actually be picked up from and dropped off did cause some great concern and often threatened the rest of the negotiations. I have had a number of letters to my office, as the member of parliament for Capricornia, echoing those sorts of experiences that families in my town had gone through, where children were being dropped off at the local McDonald's or the local park, and it was causing great distress. Even if arrangements are reached where the children are to be picked up from home, often one or both of the partners do not really want to be confronted with the new living arrangements of their ex-spouse or ex-partner. The need is definitely great in my community. I am sure that where the program has been set up in other communities in Queensland it is going along very successfully and is making a big difference to the lives of those families who are trying to work out arrangements for shared care of children.In Rockhampton in Central Queensland the need is exacerbated in that we are the major centre for a large mining area and also for people working in rural industries. It is quite common for families to have mum and the kids living on the coast or in Rockhampton and dad living out in the mining towns during the week or on a property working in those areas. The need for a neutral, easily accessible place for the children to be left while that transfer of access to the children is happening is quite acute in my town. It would actually be very helpful and take a lot of pressure off families by making those arrangements. There are organisations in my town that have expressed interest in putting in applications to provide that service. I am sure that they would do a very fine job if they were given that opportunity. From what they have explained to me, the setting up of a contact centre would not actually be terribly expensive. As I said, it is a bit of a backhanded compliment because I am pleased that this program is running. I am pleased that there are already 25 centres, as I understand, operating around Australia. I guess the success of those centres only serves to underline the need for a further expansion of this program. I would appreciate it if the minister could assure me and the people in my electorate that it is a program that will be expanded in the future so that we will have the opportunity to apply for funding to provide a centre of that kind in Rockhampton.12:12:0018154Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I would like to certainly mention some of the comments made by the member for Capricornia. It is nice to see that she is using this parliament as an appropriate venue to argue some of her legitimate concerns rather than doing as the previous member, although perhaps well meaning, did in playing more politics.The contact centre is a good initiative. It was an initiative by the Attorney-General in cooperation with the Department of Family and Community Services. There have been 25 contact centres that are going out now. I am aware that the previous member for Capricornia was also a very strong advocate of trying to ensure that there were better family relationships in that part of Queensland. I am happy that in the budget that came through, which is what we are talking about today, there were certainly quite a few changes made regarding child support measures which are very appropriate even for that electorate because that was one of the main areas of concern when family relationships were breaking down.I would just like to quickly mention that the appropriations of this budget are expected to rise to $55.1 billion, which is one-third of the Commonwealth budget, by the end of next financial year. That is an increase from $49.3 billion. The bulk of that expenditure—27 per cent of that approximately $50 billion—goes to the delivery of programs, that is, to family allowance, youth allowance and child care. The other approximately 70 per cent is for service delivery of Newstart, age pension, disability support pension and so on. Of course, this is an enormous amount that is going from the Commonwealth government back to the community to ensure that we have an appropriate social security system. In many ways, why we are having tax reform is to ensure that we have an adequate and fair revenue base to provide a growing social security obligation, particularly with an ageing population.There has been quite a deal of discussion regarding mobile home parks. It is certainly an issue that I am very familiar with. Many hundreds of people live in mobile home parks, certainly in the electorate of Richmond and, indeed, in many other electorates across Australia. I was very pleased that, late on Monday, cabinet considered some new measures to help those people who live in mobile home parks; principally to help to ensure that there would not be price exploitation by park owners, depending on whether they want to charge under division 40 or division 87. Those measures that were put in place involved a much closer monitoring arrangement by the ACCC. You could not have a better authority than Allan Fels to ensure that there is no price discrimination. A new advisory board was established, headed by Chris Jordan, which is to work in a cooperative relationship with tenants, representatives of tenants associations and the park owners association, along with a renewed focus from the ATO. I am pleased to announce that the government has responded to assist those people who live in mobile home parks or boarding houses. As of a few moments ago, the government has decided to increase rental assistance from seven per cent to 10 per cent. Of course, this goes right across the board to help low income families, whether you are living in a Labor seat, the Deputy Speaker's seat, in Dawson, Longman or Parkes. This will cost the Commonwealth government around $33 million in additional rental assistance. It will ensure that there is adequate compensation, because we know that Australians, whether they are age pensioners, whether they are relying on some type of social security, whether they have got a family, will be better off after 1 July because of the huge tax cuts that are coming through, because of the huge amounts of family assistance—$2.4 billion—going out, because of the changes that are happening to taper rates, particularly when it comes to pensions, and now because of a 10 per cent increase in rental assistance.It is very good that the government has made these decisions over the last few days. I will be particularly pleased to report these measures back to many of those low income families that I represent in the electorate of Richmond. Indeed, many are represented by my National Party and Liberal Party colleagues. This is a government that listens and acts. That is why this is an appropriate budget with respect to the Department of Family and Community Services.Proposed expenditure agreed to.18155Proposed expenditure, $2,422,762,000.12:18:0018155Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—I wish to raise a specific matter of some detail in relation to the GST implementation in the area of NHMRC grants and other grants which are received by medical researchers from overseas sources. Obviously, the GST will have an impact in the area of medical research. But the area on which I would like to seek some specific information from the government today is the impact that this will have on funding which is received from overseas grants. The Minister for Aged Care, who is at the table, may be aware that many of our fine medical researchers receive grants from organisations like the National Institutes of Health, the massive American grant funded medical research program; many receive grants from the UK, from the Wellcome Trust, a very substantial private and public combination in the United Kingdom. These grants go to fund medical research work which is undertaken pursuant to an agreement between the researcher and the overseas based funding organisation in Australia. This has gone on for many years and runs admirably and successfully. The GST, of course, when it starts on 1 July, will have a specific impact on this, and it may well be an unintended consequence on the part of the government, or, indeed, the GST may not apply to these grants. However, they are overseas organisations, they are not registered for the GST, and it is unlikely, if not impossible, that they would ever be so registered. The researchers here are performing a service, they are undertaking research work, and they are being paid for it. Many in the research community are concerned that they will effectively lose 10 per cent from their overseas based research grant.There are many arguments which we can also take up about the impact of the GST on domestic research grants and the way in which that will reduce the effective amount of those grants, but that is not the specific issue which I would like to address this morning; I think that is probably best left to another time. The uncertainty which is currently facing the research community about the impact of this from overseas based grants is much more pressing because many of the institutions are in doubt about the way in which the GST will impact on these grants from organisations like the NIH in America or Wellcome Trust in the UK. I think it is very important that the government put on the record a specific clarification of whether this will or will not impact on those grants so that the research institutions and the researchers can have the comfort of a specific ruling on this very matter of great concern to them because, obviously, to lose 10 per cent from these grants would have a disastrous impact on their ability to undertake the research they have agreed to undertake.12:21:0018156Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—Basically, I am advised that the answer to the question you have raised is that if it is a gift which is free of obligation from overseas, just a straight gift, then there is no GST payable. But if there is an obligation attached to the gift then they can use an accountant or a solicitor and actually claim an inputs tax refund. That is the way in which it can be used.12:21:0018156Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00— I want to raise two issues, and the first one concerns aged care. I was very concerned about the lack of information and also the way in which, in general, the whole question of ethnic aged care has been handled. At the time the Labor Party went out of government in 1996, there was a formal ethnic aged care policy which had been put in place and which was directed towards the idea that there would be an increasing attempt to take account of what was happening in the ageing of the ethnic population. You may be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the situation is that the non-English speaking proportion of the population, in terms of ageing, is increasing at a rate at least 50 per cent higher than for the rest of the population. That means that amongst those who are going into the ageing category there is a much higher proportion who are from ethnic, non-English speaking backgrounds than there are who are not.In this situation, one would have expected to see in the last few years many more aged care facilities which are such that they deliver services in languages other than English. There was a program, as I said, right up until 1996, started by the Labor Party. What has happened with this program is that the expansion that was promised in the policy of the Labor Party did not occur. In fact, there are circumstances now where we are going backwards in relation to ethnic aged care, or at least we are certainly not moving forward to the extent that is necessary given the huge increase in the ethnic aged population. I ask the Minister, `What is going on here? Why aren't we having many more nursing homes and hostels with services provided in languages other than English?' In some cases, with some of the newer communities, there is not even a single one in big cities like Sydney and Melbourne. I ask the minister: what does she intend to do about ethnic aged care? Why aren't we spreading and creating more licences for private dealers and public government funded nursing homes and hostels that deal with the diversity of Australia in terms of ethnic aged care?The other issue that I wanted to raise concerns Aboriginal health. An issue that I raised with the minister—I was involved with it when I was parliamentary secretary—was Aboriginal hearing services. One of the biggest scandals in this country—this has not been publicised in the mainstream media—is the fact that in some parts of our Aboriginal communities, especially outlying areas, up to 50 per cent of the children are deaf or partly deaf. This came about as a result of health policies not taking into account what happens in early infancy: children were not immunised, they were not looked after, and they lost their hearing. In fact, this was only discovered late in the piece when their teachers were wondering what the hell was going on. They thought the children were dumb and could not understand; the problem was that they could not hear.The hearing services were supposed to put into place a massive program to deal with this issue. The minister has replied that we have experimental programs, that there have been attempts to work up a program, but this problem has been known for years and needs to be dealt with. I want to know what is happening in relation to this matter. (Time expired)12:27:0018157Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. It is somewhat coincidental that I wish to speak on two health related issues. As we speak, there is a meeting going on in Dubbo in the electorate of Parkes between Sydney University representatives and some of the local community, which is pushing for the idea of this clinical school. The government announced, as you well know in the last budget, that they are going to fund several clinical schools in regional areas. Several people from my electorate have been working towards this for some time; it has reached a crescendo in the last few months.Last night, Sydney University held some meetings with some of the GPs and other members of the medical fraternity and there is a wider meeting going on today. I would like to draw the attention of the minister to the passionate feeling, experienced right throughout the west of New South Wales, that Dubbo is the ideal place for setting up such a clinical school. The City of Dubbo has about 40,000 people. It services a wide area in the west of New South Wales to Narromine, Cobar, Bourke, Brewarrina and outside my electorate to Coonamble, Coonabarabran and Lightening Ridge. All the people in that catchment area, which probably takes about a third of New South Wales, use Dubbo as the service centre not only for medical purposes but for a whole range of shopping and other service facilities.I understand that there is a lobby to put one of these clinical schools in Orange. I have nothing against the people of Orange, but I need to point out to those present, and to the minister, that the strength of the argument is to have such a facility in Dubbo. Unfortunately, the member for Calare is not here; he would accuse me of parochialism. The people who live in the Bathurst-Orange area already have access—they have a couple of hours drive across the mountains to Penrith—to a whole range of services that are not available to people in the far west of New South Wales. As well as that, they already have a very strong core of medical specialists and GPs established in the Orange-Bathurst area.Dubbo itself is reasonably well serviced with specialists and GPs, but there is very much an ageing populating of GPs. I understand that in the order of 10 to 15 per cent of the GPs are aged 59 or more and that several of the physicians are at an age where they are considering retiring. One reason why the physicians are considering retiring is that there is not a critical mass to share their workload with. Implementing a clinical school in Dubbo would certainly recognise the enormous contribution to teaching that these people already play in the base hospital. They have played this role for many years and go virtually unrewarded and unrecognised. I think it would boost the morale of the existing doctors.Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.834Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER—As I said, implementing the clinical school would certainly recognise the enormous work that has been done in the area of teaching by many of our specialists in the area. I believe it would go towards creating a centre of medical excellence which would break down the perception—and it is only a perception—of many of the city based members of the medical fraternity that if they do come out into the western areas, they will be cut off from their academic peers as well as perhaps from the cultural centre of Sydney. Having this medical centre in Dubbo would certainly go a long way towards breaking down that perception. It would act as a honey pot. We would have more students spending time in the country and see that it is quite a worthwhile place to live. Further to that, it would actually enhance the educational experience of medical students, with their ability to interact through the Royal Flying Doctor Service with large areas of Aboriginal health. There are many significant areas where Aboriginal communities have particular problems in the health field. In conclusion, can I also draw to the attention of the minister the need for a funded MRI in Dubbo when the numbers are on the table again. The same arguments can be put forward for not addressing the need in Bathurst or Orange in that the people in that area already have ready access to that facility. The people in the entire west of New South Wales do not have that access and certainly need it. (Time expired)12:32:0018158Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—I was pleased to hear my colleague make his appeal, but there were a couple of points raised by the member opposite regarding planning for aged care facility places for ethnic communities and also some questions relating to Aboriginal hearing.Firstly, I would like to say that with regard to provision of aged care places for people of ethnic background, this government recognises very well that when people from an ethnic background who have come here from another place, in particular, age, they start to lose English as a second language quite early in the piece. It is also important to realise their tastes. Whereas they may have acquired a liking for what we might call mainstream fare, they like again to have the food that is of their ethnic origin. We are very sensitive to those things. Accordingly, we deal with it in two ways. Firstly, under the legislation there are categories known as `special needs', of which ethnic communities are a special need. We have some ethno-specific facilities, but we also have clusters of ethnic groups which are housed together in the same facility where there are people who speak the language of that group and who are sensitive to their very important cultural needs.I would remind the honourable member that when we took over in 1996 the Auditor-General found that the Labor Party had really let the industry and older Australians down very badly and had left us 10,000 places short. They never reached the benchmark of having 100 places for each population of 1,000 people aged 70 and over. In fact, it had come down and down every year. I am very pleased to tell you that under our planning and our commitment—the Labor Party's last total expenditure on aged care was $2.5 billion—our expenditure on aged care will be $3.8 billion for the year 2000-01.That is an enormous increase in expenditure. When the allocation of 14,777 places, which I announced earlier this year—the largest ever round—is combined with the places that were issued in the 1999 round, that comes to 22,000 new places to make up for deficit that the Labor Party left, and to make up the growth. When an allocation of places was made under the Labor Party, they had to forever bring them on stream, but under our provisions they only have two years and, if they do not make them operational within those two years, they will lose them. That means that we will be meeting that benchmark with operational places by the year 2002. Our policy is to have special needs recognition—QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—You haven't answered the question yet.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—I am just explaining to you—QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—How many are there for ethnic communities?SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—We have a provision under the legislation for ethnic communities whereby their special needs and requirements are met and places are allocated to meet those needs. With regard to Aboriginal hearing, we have a program of community service obligations, of which Aboriginal hearing forms a part. The delivery of health services is through Australian Hearing Services. We have an important accent on delivering hearing services to Aboriginal communities. The program that we have put in place is designed, with the additional money that we have put into it, to meet those community service obligations and to ensure that the problems that Aboriginal communities are experiencing are dealt with. 12:37:0018159Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—Neither of the questions that I raised have been answered by the Minister for Aged Care. I will have to put some questions on notice. I really need to know the answers. The minister says that, in general terms, the number of places has increased, but the point I was making was that not enough has been done to keep the promises made to the various ethnic communities to provide ethnic aged care, especially the ethnic-specific services provided in hostels and nursing homes. That is the issue that I raised and it has not been dealt with. On the matter of Aboriginal hearing, we know it is the responsibility of the Australian Hearing Services, but the point is that more than four years have passed since we set down a program when we were in government to do something about Aboriginal hearing services in terms of immunising every Aboriginal child to ensure they do not become deaf. Not enough is happening. There is a trial program, but for how long are we going to have a trial program? We need to get to the point where every Aboriginal child is immunised to prevent them going deaf. That important national issue ought to be taken up. The government needs to take it up.Proposed expenditure agreed to.18159Proposed expenditure $899,171,000. 12:38:0018159Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I specifically want to go to a couple of issues concerning illegal migrants. The first issue goes to the recent break-outs of illegal migrants from a number of detention centres. I seek information from the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs as to whether there was any firm evidence of a coordinated process of breaking out across those detention centres. Secondly, is there any evidence that those who may be suspected of being involved in arranging some of these illegal arrivals to Australia, and/or alternatively any of the legal firms representing these people, may have in any way been involved in coordinating or have had prior knowledge of the break-outs?I also go to questions of illegal entry into Australia through coastal shipping and the contrast between the regulations and penalties that apply with respect to coastal shipping as against airline arrivals. Going to the revenue to the department from airlines, I understand the department collected well over $9 million from the airlines in the last financial year and that this money assists in recouping costs associated with illegal entries through airports.Immigration approvals in the form of temporary visas are granted to a ship's captain on a bulk basis—that is, when a ship is to be on the Australian coast, immigration approvals are given over the telephone for the number of crew advised by the captain. Is it true that there is no method of verifying the suggested number advised by the captain? I therefore believe that, if that is the case, the shipowner, operator or captain holds a significant amount of responsibility for the accuracy of this information in the same way that airlines have responsibility for this entry control through their operations. I also believe that there is no doubt that flaws occur in this process, whether by design or by error. We do have some statistics showing the number of people slipping the net of the official immigration processes by jumping ship.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—I think I gave them to you.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Yes, and unfortunately I had to operate as your post office box to make sure that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, who has responsibility for maritime in Australia, actually had the information before him. So, one way or another, we are educating the other side of the House—another joint effort.The figures show that 148 were located, as against 263 jumping ship between March 1996 and April 1999. Each airline pays $5,000 per illegal entry. I understand that shipowners and operators pay next to nothing, which is a great contrast with the airline operators in Australia and, I dare suggest, an injustice and an inequity in the Australian system. I believe for that reason the Australian public needs to know why the government is not holding foreign shipowners and operators more accountable for the financial implications of ship jumpers. I believe if it is okay to recoup the cost from airlines, then we should be doing more to recoup the cost from the foreign shipping owners and operators. It is clearly an issue about accountability and responsibility which has been delegated to the industry, but it is now an issue about revenue and the implications for the public purse. I suggest that we need to know what the government is going to do because it is about a rigorous immigration policy and its operation and it is about the integrity of the system and making sure that current weaknesses with respect to the shipping industry are cleaned up once and for all.My second issue goes to the problem I have identified which is escalating because the number of foreign ships and foreign crew operating on our coastline is increasing at the expense of Australian jobs. I simply point out that the number of single voyage permits issued to foreign ships in Australia has increased from 421 to 704 since 1996. At the same time, continuing voyage permits have increased from zero to 41. I raise these in passing for the information to the minister for immigration because they clearly identify the fact that we need to act on this front now. It is clearly the government's policy to use the single voyage permit and associated permits in the maritime industry to undermine Australian jobs in that industry, whilst at the same time having the ordinary taxpayer carry the financial burden of a lack of rigour with respect to the policing of people jumping ship and the lack of accountability about the number nominated by the captain or person responsible for the ship. (Extension of time granted) These are very serious matters that I raise. I seek information both on the Iraqi front and on the issue of coastal shipping and accountability of shipping owners.12:44:0018160Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—Firstly, can I thank the honourable member for his constructive comments. When the break-outs occurred at the detention centre at Woomera it was of concern to me that we may see similar activities at one or other of the other centres. I coined the word `copycat' in relation to the break-outs that later occurred at Port Hedland and Curtin. I certainly have suspicions that may be similar to those entertained by the honourable member, but I can only say they are suspicions. If the honourable member has any information that might assist me, I would obviously welcome it. I do not wish to say anything other than that there are inquiries being undertaken. These matters are still live issues. If we obtain evidence that these were manipulated in any way from outside, we will pursue it vigorously. On the matter of coastal shipping, I had been following the matter. I was away at the time when you asked my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, a question on this matter. It has excited my attention.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—And mine.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—It has excited my attention because, while there are provisions of the Migration Act that apply generally to dealing with unlawful entry, the disclosure of information and other matters, I suspect that the regime, now that I look at it, is not as comprehensive as that which applies in relation to airlines, and I intend to pursue that matter. I thank the honourable member for his constructive suggestion. He will no doubt find that as we are now both aware of it—it had not been addressed when his colleagues were formerly in government— LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—We did not seek to destroy coastal shipping. That is the issue.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—There were stowaways and others who landed at times like that. LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—It is more than stowaways.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—Let me just say if the issue is one of integrity of our borders, which it is for me, I intend to address it. I am simply making the point that this is the first time it has been raised with me. I was not aware of that apparent shortcoming. If it is a shortcoming I will address it. I would just urge the honourable member to keep in mind the need for integrity. There are other areas of integrity that the government would like addressed in which we would invite your cooperation, particularly in relation to the way in which the courts are involved in undermining the integrity of dealing with particularly the protection system. The government at the moment is beset with requests from the opposition to speed up the processing of people who are in detention. One of the points I would make is that one of the reasons for delay is that the courts have intruded into the way in which protection issues are addressed to a point where the complexity, the undue legalism and the requirement that we make lawful decisions have imposed very significant obligations upon officers and the Refugee Review Tribunal. One way in which we could effectively speed up the system would be to implement the privative clause. Another way in which we might be able to get out some of the other rorting that is going on is to pass some legislation dealing with class actions. I will continue to work constructively with the honourable member and his colleagues, but I would invite the honourable member and his colleagues to look at ways and means in which they could work constructively with the government.12:49:0018161Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I have many issues to raise with the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. I will begin, first of all, with the mandatory detention policy. You may be aware of the mandatory detention policy that we have here in Australia. We are the only Western country that has such a policy. This policy has been condemned by Amnesty International, the Refugee Council of Australia, the Ethnic Communities Council, the International Commission of Jurists and many other bodies. Nevertheless, the minister seems to take a perverse pleasure at the moment in offending all these organisations and making more and more provisions which are clearly against our commitments in terms of international human rights.I have asked the minister questions on notice about this issue. The minister's response in relation to the mandatory detention issue, for example—he has made this comment on many occasions—has been to refer to a report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Migration of 1994. The committee at that time was asked to report on the mandatory detention issues. There were some disagreements but the committee as a whole approved it at that time. We are talking about six years further on in which the circumstances have dramatically changed, but the minister keeps referring to this report.In one of my questions on notice to him, I asked, `Have you considered the suggestion of the Refugee Council of Australia, which gave you a very detailed submission that was supported by many other organisations?' What did he say? He said, `The committee in 1994 did not see any reason to adopt such a model.' That model was not around in 1994.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—It was.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—That model was not around in 1994, Minister.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The member for Calwell will direct his remarks through the chair and the minister will be silent. QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—The minister, as I said, has some kind of bravado when he is being criticised throughout the media and the ethnic media for the inhumane way in which refugee claimants are being treated and the fact that we have a non-discriminatory policy in which everyone is detained. When the minister was answering the member for Batman, he said, `If you give us some further rights through the courts, then we will be able to speed up the process.' The minister could speed up the process in the following way: he could adopt a two-stage process; he could adopt a process where people were initially assessed quickly. Those who were assessed as having a good claim for refugee status initially could then be released into the care of a large number of community organisations that are wanting to look after them.We have many humanitarian organisations in Australia that do want to look after refugee claimants. The minister knows that. They make submissions to him all the time. One place where the mandatory detention policy hit very hard, to the detriment of our international reputation, was on the Kosovar issue. We accepted 4,000 people here as our guests. Most of them returned. There were about 300 who said, `For various reasons we just do not feel like returning.' The minister intimidated them in all sorts of ways in order for them to return. When only a very small number were left, he shifted them, I think, to Woomera, into detention centres. The Albanian community here pleaded with him to allow these people to live in the community until their things were checked. On this whole issue on mandatory detention, the minister is mistaken. (Time expired)12:54:0018162Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I will try not to deal with these matters provocatively, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—And briefly, Minister.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I will endeavour to do that as well. In relation to mandatory detention, it is a matter of law that, if people arrive in Australia without documentation, they are unlawful and, until they can be lawfully admitted into the community, they have to be detained, unless they leave Australia. That law has been examined by a parliamentary committee, as the member said. I have been a minister for 4½ years, so I guess it probably is six years since the committee looked at it. The point I made then—and the point I make now—is that I would be very happy to look at arrangements with voluntary organisations that are prepared to work cooperatively with us. But while I find they are very happy to work to get people released into the community, when I ask them, `Are you prepared to work with us in relation to people who are found not to be refugees to ensure that they are available for removal?' they say, `That's not our function. We're not going to help in relation to any policing role in relation to law. That is your job.'The reason that people are held in detention when claims are being made is to test their veracity. It is to see whether they have substantial claims and to have people available for removal if they have no claims. Canada has recently moved to introduce a system similar to our own for the very reason that it has found that, when people are released into the community, something like 60 per cent of them do not pursue their claims. They just disappear. Vanish. That is the reason why Canada has now implemented a policy of mandatory detention for people who have been smuggled into Canada. Canada is always being held out as being the country that is the example that releases people. Well it, now, has changed its mind because the policy is flawed. Not all people who are unlawful in Australia are detained. The people who are detained are those who arrive unlawfully.Let me further deal with the issue. If people were prepared to have a trial in which there was ready cooperation to facilitate removal of non bona fide applicants, I would be prepared to look at it. But when they come to me and say, `All we want to do is get them released into the community,' then I am not prepared to look at it. QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—When did you say this publicly, Minister?0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I said it at the time that I was on the committee with you when I was working with people like Marion Le and the Refugee Council, who are the same people, the same personalities—QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—This is the first time you have ever said that.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Calwell will try and control himself.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—The second point I want to make is that, if the honourable member had been listening carefully to the statements I have made in relation to the processing of people who have arrived in Australia unlawfully and are being held in detention at the present time, he would know that I have said that something like 1,700 people have been found to be refugees but they remain in detention. Why do they remain in detention? Because the issues that have not been able to be addressed in the same time frame are the issues of security, public safety—particularly as to whether or not they are criminals—and public health. I have 1,700 people where those issues are outstanding. They are the issues that the honourable member and the advocacy group say have to be addressed as threshold questions before anybody can be released. The only point I am making is that in our processing we have moved to a point where all of those activities are front-end loaded and undertaken right from the beginning, from the time that people arrive. It is not the question of determining whether or not they are refugees that is delaying release; it is the substantial issues that you say ought to be dealt with before anybody is released. It is important that you know that.In relation to the Kosovars, there were certain procedures outlined in the law which I have followed precisely. Sure, there are people who would like to get immigration outcomes. All I say in relation to those is that there are established procedures which they can work through in the same way as anybody else. I have told them about how that can be done. I will continue to deal with those who are here lawfully, as well as those who are here unlawfully, in the way which the law requires me to.12:59:0018163Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been told by the whip that I have got only two minutes. I do want to make the point that I think it is unsatisfactory that these hearings are going to finish at one o'clock, when so many other things could have been dealt with. Perhaps better arrangements can be made in the future. I say to the minister that when he talks about releasing these new refugees of course we are talking about the new category. Most of those are in the new three-year category. I want to raise a number of questions about this three-year category and to say that the minister himself knows that he has been very criticised by the premiers of Queensland and South Australia for the conditions of this new category. The conditions of this new category are outrageous in terms of the provisions made for people. It means that they are released into the community with hardly any provisions at all. They do not have the same conditions which other Australian residents have. The most important and serious point is that they are not allowed to bring to Australia their wife or husband—their spouse—or their children. That means a forced separation of these people for three—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—Yes.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Oh, he says yes—as if there is no problem with that. What sort of a humanitarian policy is this? For three to five years, Minister, these people are being forced not to be able to join with their own children and spouse; and you think this is a policy that is worth supporting. 0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—That is right.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The minister will be silent.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—What has happened to Philip Ruddock, the humanitarian? This policy is an outrage, and you know it is an outrage. For a government that claims that it believes in the family, et cetera, what is going on here? I can tell you, the whole community is disgusted with these conditions. Once these people are considered to be genuine refugees, even if you are going to give them only three years, you could at least allow them to bring their own children and spouses into Australia. This condition ought to be changed as soon as possible.Proposed expenditure agreed to.Remainder of bill—by leave—taken as a whole, and agreed to.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills18164R107518164Consideration resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills18164R107418164Consideration resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Adjournment18164Motion (by Mr McArthur) proposed:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.1816413:00:0018164Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—This Sunday, 25 June, it will be my privilege and pleasure to attend the 25th anniversary celebrations of the Mount Gravatt Meals on Wheels. Since its inception in July 1975, Mount Gravatt Meals on Wheels has delivered a total of 331,854 meals. In the 1999-2000 financial year it delivered 28,339 meals—that is, 130 per day over six runs. In fact, this contrasts with its first financial year of operations in 1975-76 when it delivered 2,384 meals, around eight per day. In the 1992-2000 financial year there were 288 clients in all relying upon this valuable service. The service also relies upon the active contribution of 196 volunteers.I would like to honour the volunteers and committee members who have served continuously since 1975. I refer to Dorothy Begbie, Val Little and Buntie Hughes. Also, Ruth Barlow has been involved with Mount Gravatt Meals on Wheels for the past 22 years, and prior to commencing her volunteer duties with Mount Gravatt Meals on Wheels she did meal deliveries with St Andrews Meals on Wheels in the city of Brisbane. I also honour Rose O'Brien, who turns 90 this August, who started with Mount Gravatt Meals on Wheels back in 1982. She has been with the group for 18 years and was president for 11 years until July 1999 and still does active meal deliveries. I also honour the original committee: its president, Mrs Gladys Peel, now deceased; vice president, Eva Parer, now deceased; secretary, Buntie Hughes; treasurer, Keith Begbie; roster secretary, Marge Wilson; and committee member, S. Rowland. I also honour the current committee. The president, Mary Low, has a particularly distinguished service with Meals on Wheels, having started her career with Meals on Wheels at Mount Gravatt Meals on Wheels originally, and subsequently rising to become state president of Meals on Wheels in Queensland and serving in that position for 12 years. Following her time as state president, she returned to Mount Gravatt Meals on Wheels in July 1999 and was appointed president. From the current committee, I also honour Jack Sexton, who recently turned 90. He has been with Mount Gravatt Meals on Wheels for 17½ years. He started doing deliveries for Meals on Wheels a long time ago. He was appointed treasurer in 1982 and has been active in Meals on Wheels at Mount Gravatt ever since. I also honour Ken Wilson, who has been secretary for 10 years, and the meals coordinator, Ian McDonald. I honour all of those who have volunteered for this valuable service which has been provided to residents of the Mount Gravatt district for the last 25 years.I would also like to honour today the contribution of the Holland Park Meals on Wheels service which, next Thursday, 29 June, will be celebrating its 30th anniversary. Regrettably, because of my presence in the parliament, I will be unable to attend that celebration. The history is an interesting one. A public meeting was held on 23 June 1970 in the Holland Park RSL hall. It was there that the first management committee was elected. On 13 July 1970, the first meals were cooked and delivered from the kitchen in the church hall. Since that time, the expansion of its operations has continued unabated. There was an expansion of the facilities in July 1985 and the first meals were prepared in that new facility on Monday, 5 August of that year.Holland Park Meals on Wheels served its one-millionth meal on 28 October 1996. During its 30 years in operation, it has prepared 1,331,481 meals and in the last financial year produced 91,247 meals, with the average number of meals prepared each day being 376. Holland Park Meals on Wheels employs a full-time manager; 11 part-time employees work alongside 270 sterling volunteers. I would also like to honour the committee: its president, Lynne Petie; vice president, Margaret Seto; secretary, Rita Hickey; treasurer, John Leighton; and committee members, Margaret and Bill Hamilton, Rob MacKnish and Roma and Bill Winders. Also, I honour the current manager, Janice Cochrane, who has held that position for the last 12 years. I honour the immediate past committee, including the president, Arthur Till. Elected for his 16th year as president, Arthur has been on the committee for 30 years and served two years as vice president before becoming president. Arthur's wife, June Till, has also been continuously involved in Meals on Wheels since its inception. I honour the vice president, Lynne Petie; secretary, Rita Hickey; treasurer, John Leighton; and committee members Denis Freeman, Margaret and Bill Hamilton, Rob MacKnish, Margaret Seto, June Till and Roma and Bill Winders. I also honour past presidents: Mrs Pat McAllister, Mrs Dorothy Foreman, Margaret Hamilton, May Boyd, and Arthur Till, to whom I have just referred. I honour all these volunteers who have contributed to this extraordinary service provided to the Holland Park district and I commend them on their 30th anniversary celebrations. (Time expired)1816601:09:0018166McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—This adjournment debate gives me the opportunity to raise the issue of the RFA in the western region of Victoria. These matters have been debated in the chamber, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, as you would be aware, quite vigorously. In my electorate the RFA has been signed. But I put on the public record the effect of that signing for those timber workers who will lose their jobs and for those people associated with the timber industry who will be disadvantaged. Initially, everyone in the industry thought that 44,000 cubic metres would be the harvested figure. In the final RFA, it was agreed to harvest approximately 27,000 cubic metres. Obviously, this will bring about a change in the regime and inevitably some timber workers will lose their jobs, along with those transport operators who participate in the timber industry.There has been considerable debate by the environmentalists about whether logging operations should continue in the Otways. I put it on the record that it has been agreed that the various coups should be harvested for timber up until the wet season, so to speak, in the Otways. Yet those environmentalists and greens have taken the matter into their own hands. Mr Deputy Speaker, even you may have seen some of the publicity for those people who, in an unlawful manner in my view, have obstructed the timber workers from going about their task to harvest timber in designated areas, in coups that have been agreed to by the Victorian government and by the department. Yet these people have camped there and stopped the machinery and prevented the timber workers from going about their lawful business.I put on the record that this is a travesty of the Australian tradition of a fair go and of obeying the law of the land. They are taking the law into their own hands. It is nothing more or less than that position no matter how strongly you feel about this debate. This debate is taking place in the federal and state parliaments and out in the field. Yet these people feel that they have the right to prevent harvesting taking place. I think it is regrettable. I know they do have strongly held views about these matters, but it ought to be debated in here. Following the RFA and the national forest policy statement and, also, taking into account environmental needs, both sides of the parliament have agreed that this difficult issue of allocating resources—that is, the timber resources—has been sorted out. As honourable members opposite would well recall, that was a major argument when they were in government.In fact, only one per cent of the forest area in the Otways is being harvested at any one time—one per cent in any one year is being harvested. Surely it is a reasonable proposition that the timber industry can harvest in a sustainable way timber products that will grow again. In 40 or 60 years those trees will regrow in quite a substantial way. There is evidence that, after the 1939 fires and the Ash Wednesday fires, these forests replaced themselves in a remarkable and regenerative way so that they have returned to their former glory.I remind members of the House and those people interested in the debate that inevitably there will be devastating bushfires through the Otways and vast tracts of good timber will be burnt as timber has been burnt for the last 2,000 years. It would be a terrible waste of resources. I advocate sustainable timber harvesting of this product so that the timber can be used for Australian industry and we can make a dent on that import bill of about $2 billion.I encourage the people in the environment movement to listen to the facts of the argument, to understand that in Australia we have the best timber harvesting code of practice probably anywhere in the world. We should adhere to that practice and bring about a reasonable solution to this argument which both sides of this parliament fundamentally agree on. The questionable activities of some people who have a very strong view should be outlawed and those people should not be allowed to move into the forest to prevent good, hardworking Australian timber workers going about their business in harvesting timber in a traditional manner.The argument about the lack of rainfall over the last three years being brought about by the timber industry is fallacious in every respect. (Time expired). 1816713:14:0018167Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—Today, I would like to speak on behalf of a young woman in my electorate. Her name is Sheree Mulholland. Sheree is a hairdressing apprentice who began her apprenticeship in November last year. She has got a job with one of our local hairdressing businesses and, from all reports, she is doing very well and her employer is very pleased with her. The problem is that she is going through what you could say are the best of times and the worst of times. She has got the chance at the moment to achieve something that she has longed to do for a long time, which is to get through her hairdressing apprenticeship and make a career for herself, but she is finding that very difficult because she is under the New Apprenticeships scheme and she has applied under the auspices of that scheme for a living away from home allowance to assist her with living costs while she undergoes that apprenticeship which, as most members would understand, has a very low rate of pay, in recognition of her recent entry into the industry.She has applied for living away from home allowance to Queensland Apprenticeship Services, which is the New Apprenticeships centre in our local town of Rockhampton. Her application for living away from home allowance has been rejected, and this is causing her enormous hardship. I would like to speak on her behalf today in the hope that the minister, David Kemp, will treat her case with due consideration and overturn that decision.She was rejected because her circumstances were said not to fit the criteria for living away from home allowance. The criteria are that you have actually left your home town or that you are in fact homeless. There is no interpretation of homelessness that I can think of to which you could point to say that Sheree Mulholland is not homeless. Sheree is homeless. Her mum died when she was only a young girl and her father is currently very ill. He is living in supported accommodation provided by the Rockhampton City Council, and that supported accommodation consists of single-bedroom units and it is for men only. I have received a letter from the president of the management committee that looks after and administers those units. I have also had discussions with the president of that committee, and she has confirmed that it is not possible for this young woman to live with her father. So she has no family home as such. Her father is living in this unit which has been provided to him because he is seriously ill at the moment and needs supported accommodation.I have written to the minister outlining the circumstances that Sheree finds herself in. I wrote on 19 May this year, setting out in some detail the difficulties that Sheree is experiencing. I spoke to the minister's office this morning and they have acknowledged the letter and it is being processed. I would call on the minister to look at the circumstances of this case very seriously. Here is a young woman who has all the opportunities of life ahead of her. She is an extremely well presented and very articulate young woman and I have no doubt that she has a bright future ahead of her. But, at the moment, she is in circumstances where she does not know where she is going to go at night. She is going from one friend's spare bedroom to the next one, and this is no way for her to succeed in her career.Her employer speaks very highly of her and, having met Sheree and spoken to her on many occasions, I can see why they want to give her all the support they can. I ask the minister not to hide behind semantics and definitions on this. Even if they want to apply the strictest definition of homelessness that you could possibly come up with, I just do not see how Sheree could fall outside that definition. She has no family home; she has no place to live. To me, that has got to be homeless. I ask the minister to look very carefully at the circumstances of this girl's case and to make the decision that she is entitled to a living away from home allowance to ensure that she has the best possible chance of proceeding with her apprenticeship and making a great contribution not only to that industry but to our community. 1816813:19:0018168Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I have probably told you on a number of occasions previously that in my patch, Townsville-Thuringowa, there is some tremendous science being done through places like the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, James Cook University, CSIRO and so on. It is just a component of the very diverse economy of my city. I have a very great interest in science. So it is that I am on the Public Works Committee of the parliament and I am very privileged to be able to see many of the science developments that are happening in this country today.Late last year I was able to be on the inquiry into the replacement of Australia's nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights. At the public inquiry the people giving evidence basically came in just two streams. There was the Australian Academy of Science and all of their ilk giving the most logical, reasoned argument as to why Australia needed and should have a replacement to the HIFAR reactor at Lucas Heights. On the other side were the Friends of the Earth and all of their ilk and they were giving the most emotional `not a fact among them' type of argument. In fact, some of the evidence given by them was plainly wrong, and I challenged them and was able to point out where the evidence was wrong. All members and senators would have received an email from the Friends of the Earth indicating that the new research reactor replacement was going to cost $580 million when the Public Works Committee had only approved $286.4 million. I did investigate that because I was concerned that perhaps there was something I did not know, but it came as no surprise to me that the information put out by the Friends of the Earth was again just totally incorrect; it was irresponsible.When I was investigating this particular claim I found that the origin of the allegation was that the Sutherland Shire Council had obtained, through the freedom of information process, documents from DOFA which were done back in 1997—they were just totally out of date. They were only estimates and they also included operating costs; they were not the capital cost of a proposed new reactor. Moreover, the $580 million figure quoted by the Friends of the Earth was also incorrect out of the documentation, which actually showed the figure to be $527 million. Their media release and this email that was sent to all members and senators made no reference to the source of their figure, that the figure was a DOFA estimate only, that the figure included operating costs and that the figure dated back to 1997.ANSTO's response was just quite plain: that the document that they sourced the information from was an early working draft, that ANSTO had already held months and months of public inquiries and reviews, that ANSTO was only authorised to enter into a final contract that did not exceed the budgeted figure approved by the Public Works Committee, and that the facts had not changed.At the bottom of the email that was sent to all of us it says that a new inquiry needed to be held now into what was becoming the `Lucas Heights reactor scandal'. Mr Deputy Speaker, I say to you and to the parliament and to the Friends of the Earth: nobody's credibility is improved by using information and distributing information that they know is incorrect. It is a shame. We do need environmental defenders in this country. We need people like the North Queensland Conservation Council, for example. But in discharging their role they have to be factual in what they say and they have to lead a proper debate in the country. To go off on the emotional side of things, as I have seen in this email, and to use incorrect information is unfortunate and unwarranted. I call on the Friends of the Earth and their like to maintain a proper debate in this country and to understand that Australia does need a new nuclear research reactor. 1816913:23:0018169Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Newcastle University is a wonderful institution in the Hunter. The university has a social work department that I have been working with over a number of years. I have had placements of social work students in my office, both when I was a state member and as a federal member. When I was a state member we had a youth needs study completed in both Swansea and the North Lakes or San Remo area and linking into the high schools and youth programs in those areas.More recently, we had a look at the needs of older people throughout the electorate. Shortland is one of those electorates that has an ageing population—a lot of people over the age of 65 live within it. We then developed what we called an active quality lifestyle forum. We held our first one in November last year. It was extremely successful. Speakers came along and talked about a number of issues. It was not a forum where people talked about nursing homes and incontinence aids; rather, it was a forum where speakers talked about positive issues such as giving older people in our community choices about what they would like to do with the rest of their lives. It was recognising that people may be 65, they may be receiving pensions, but they still have options. Travel, legal aid and a number of other issues were discussed. At the same time, we invited a number of organisations to set up around the hall and present information about their organisations. Those present ranged from representatives of the University of the Third Age right through to representatives from nursing homes at the other end of the spectrum. It was such a success, with in the vicinity of 200 people attending, that we have decided to make it a biannual event. As I have said, Shortland is quite a spread-out electorate which covers two local government areas. It covers both Wyong and Lake Macquarie. The first forum was held in the Lake Macquarie area. Lake Macquarie Council was very supportive. Jill Bogarts from the council came along. She provided a lot of information to the residents of the area. This time we are holding it at Toukley, which is in the Wyong Shire Council area. We are doing it in conjunction with the Toukley senior citizens. It is shaping up as being a very successful event. In November this year we will be holding one at Belmont, which is again going back to the Lake Macquarie area. I recommend this sort of forum to members in the House. If they are interested in finding out some details of how we run it, I would be quite happy to give that information to them. We have a person in our office who coordinates the whole project.With the time I have remaining, I will move away from the seniors forum and tell you a little bit about the project that we are doing at the moment in the office in conjunction with the university. We have had a third-year social work student working on a community empowerment project. I have a number of morning teas within the electorate and at those morning teas people have said to me that they feel that government does things to them and they do not have the opportunity to have input into the process. Out of that I went away and talked to a few people. We picked out one section of the community—Belmont. A number of people are involved who are not usually active in Neighbourhood Watch or the progress association. They had their first meeting. They have decided that they are going to work together in an advisory capacity. About 20 people volunteered their services. They were going to work in a volunteer capacity as my advisory committee. The third-year social work student, Margo, finishes at the end of this month and the project is going to be completed by a fourth-year student. This, I think, is an exciting project, something that could be taken out into electorates throughout the country. Once again, I will provide more information on that to the parliament in the future. (Time expired)1817013:28:0018170Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I would like to take this short opportunity to put on the record my disgust at and great opposition to the government's intention to increase the price of beer. The government went to the election with a promise about no price increases for beer, and this is one of the biggest broken promises that we have seen. The community is totally outraged, as I am, at this attack on not only ordinary drinkers and ordinary Australians but also pubs and clubs, the people who work in them and, indeed, the very fibre and essence of who we are as a nation. I believe that the GST price increase on beer is totally unfair. It is totally unjust and it is totally unwarranted. The government can go on about different promises that it made, about core and non-core promises, but of all the broken promises this is one of the worst. It is not one of the worst because it has the highest cost. It is not one of the worst because it has the biggest effect. It is one of the worst because people actually believed this promise—they believed that this price increase would not occur. I personally am very disappointed with the actions of the government. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allowed for the debate has expired.Main Committee adjourned at 1.30 p.m.